very! eat Faviet er ah pervs Ἐκ τ αν ΚΝ

ἐξ ΟΝ ΓΗ stakes i pee i BY ᾿ ᾿ ρου φὴ yet non Ὁ ἢ

11:

μὰ

rat thd ene

om

Μ᾿ . +

i

Petits i fest an EW

xk ἘΞ -

aaa =

ob > 45)

DU

Poke MPLS, See

tat aka! Prien) ΡΝ wipe)

Ἵ Ht

UNIVERSITY OF TORON

Inn

ss <>

J Ἢ tetatese Mat

᾿-

Len Une

Hey

ΡΝ Aruba ie

ἜΜ

sas

Sitataetesy ἈΠΝΌΝΧΗ gtatata

᾿ ΠΝ τας ν Ὁ ΕΠ. }6]

tS,

pase) Thetetets

=

μι

τ = a * seas aie eee = Ets ere τ τς eee SRS SSS

Pty PGS

> ἍΜ Lene) yi y AT tae ΣΡ ᾿ ΡΟ ny ΕἸ ia . ype c

Paes rhe ΜΗ " <i a ΣΝ ὍΝ

ΕἾΝ ὌΡΉΡΝ

4 id as

Risa Rats δ χε τς ie δεῖς

—_

AAA A

aga’ bee Setahe]

ieee ᾿

ον αν AA,

ἣν ms) Lia

Sahat sa ui Sach eae

bree? raya ed 4

CS Moa Κι

Biopbyrs? Nasty

tard sheeted SAS hati

Pape αν ἐν

eer

SSS : SaaS: SS

ἐπ ὶ Coe Ws ἮΝ ἜΝ, it

THE

WORKS

OF THE

MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,

WEEE IAM LAUD, Dv

SOMETIME LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

ΘΙ:

CONFERENCE WITH FISHER.

OXFORD: JOHN HENRY PARKER.

M DCCC XLIX.

LONDON: Rk. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.

A

RELATION

OF

THE CONFERENCE

BETWEEN

WILLIAM LAUD,

LATE

LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,

AND

MR. FISHER THE JESUIT,

BY THE COMMAND OF KING JAMES,

OF EVER BLESSED MEMORY.

WITH

AN ANSWER

TO SUCH EXCEPTIONS AS A. C. TAKES AGAINST IT.

THE SIXTH EDITION.

OXFORD: JOHN HENRY PARKER.

MDCCC XLIX,

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/workswillaud02lauduoft |

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

PERSONAL and oral Conferences on the points disputed at the Reformation were not of rare occurrence. In form they were, perhaps, the legitimate successors of the disputations of the Schools; but gradually their technical and scientific shape merged into the more popular, but perhaps more in- teresting, written controversial discussion of modern times. Archbishop Laud’s Conference, while it is one of the tater instances of the ancient method, betrays by its subsequent adaptation to the shape of a regular treatise, that the influence and value of mere scholastic discussion was felt to have passed away. The Conferences, however, of which so many are on record during the first century of the Reforma- tion, must be distinguished. Some were strictly scholastic acts, as those connected with the deprivation of Archbishop Cranmer, and Ridley’s disputations at Oxford ; some were formal discussions upon fixed propositions, such as those debated in Westminster Abbey, between the leading divines of the reformed doctrines and their opponents, in 1559; and some were of a more private nature, either for eliciting the truth on the part of the disputants, or for the sake of gaining or retaining a more distinguished convert or adherent to

either side. A ὃ

[vi] EDITOR’S PREFACE.

Among these may be mentioned: the disputations conducted by Feckenham, the last Abbot of Westminster, at the Savoy— at Sir William Cecil’s—at Sir John Cheke’s; the Conference between Redmayne and Wilks at Westminster, in 1551; the Conference between Campian the Jesuit, in 1581, assisted by Sherwin, against Nowel, Fulke, and others, in the Tower ; the well-known discussion between Rainolds and Hart, in 1583, in the Tower; [Robert] Parsons’ “ Review of Ten public Disputations or Conferences, held within the com- pass of Four Years, under King Edward and Queen Mary, concerning some principal points in Religion ;”* Fitz- Simon’s dispute with Ussher, then only nineteen years of age, in Dublin Castle, in 1599. During the reign of King James, partly perhaps occasioned by that monarch’s personal taste for theological argument, which was espe- cially exhibited in one of the first transactions of his reign, the well-known Hampton Court Conference, many of these oral discussions were held. Walsingham disputed with Covel and other doctors of the Church of England, in 1604. Bagshaw and Stephens, on the Roman Catholic side, disputed before Lord Clifford, the English ambassador at Paris, against Fairclough, better known under the name of Featley, then Chaplain to the Embassy, in 1612. Smith, subsequently Bishop of Chalcedon, held a personal Confer- ence with Featley, who was much engaged in these disputes. Featley and Goad disputed against Musket (alias Fisher), and Percy, commonly called “ Fisher the Jesuit,’ in 1621. Featley also disputed against Everard, in 1626; and previously, at a Conference held at the house of Sir Humphrey Lynde, in 1623, assisted by Dr. White, he had been engaged in a

Ἀ Title-page of a work of Parsons, under the name of N{icholas] D[oleman. | St. Omer’s, 1604.

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [vii |

similar personal discussion with Fisher and another Jesuit named Sweet.

These public controversies were not confined to the cham- pions of the two Churches. During the Usurpation, the different sectaries often discussed their mutual differences in this way: Vavasor Powell and John Goodwin held a dispu- tation in Coleman-street, London, in 1649; John Reading disputed publicly in Folkestone Church with Samuel Fisher, an Anabaptist, in 1650; Tombes the Anabaptist, and Baxter “disputed face to face, and their followers were like two armies,” (Ant. Wood, in Life of Tombes;) Tombes also held a public dispute against Vaughan and Cragge, at Aber- gavenny, in 1658. This mode of controversy was recurred to by the Caroline divines, not only in the Civil War, but during the Usurpation, both at home and abroad. Gunning held two or three set disputations with a Roman Catholic priest, for the satisfaction of his patron, Sir Robert Shirley, according to Ant. Wood, who adds that “ there was no con- siderable sect, but he held with them, some time or other, a set public disputation, in defence of the Church of England.”? A public conference was held at Brussels, in 1649, between Morley, and D’Arcy, a Jesuit.

The occasion of one of the most celebrated of these Con-

Ὁ Accounts are extant of two of these conferences: 1. “ A Contention for Truth; in two several public disputations, before thousands of people, in the Church of 5. Clement Danes, without Temple Bar, on the 19 and 26 November, 1657, between Peter Gunning and Hen. Denn, on Infant Baptism, London, 1658.”—2. “Schism Unmasked: or a late Conference between Mr. Peter Gun- ning and Mr. John Pierson [subsequently Bishop of Chester, and author of the celebrated work on the Creed], Ministers, and two disputants of the Romish persuasion. Paris, 1658.” This publication came from the Roman Catholic side, and was edited by Spenser, a priest, (Dodd’s Ch. Hist. vol. ii. p. 313,) one of those engaged in the Conference, with whom was associated Dr. Lenthall, though other names have been given as those of the Roman Catholic disputants, viz. John White, and Johnson, alias Terret. (Cf. Wood’s Athen Oxon. ed. Bliss, vol. iy. col. 144.)

[viii | EDITOR’S PREFACE.

ferences, that between Laud and Fisher, is connected with political as well as theological considerations.

The rise and fortunes of George Villiers, Duke of Bucking- ham, were so remarkable, that they invested not only with interest, but importance, every thing connected with his family. And during the reign of the Stuarts, the religious professions of those about the Court were matters of earnest solicitude, because of great political consequence, to the King. The mother of the Duke of Buckingham, Lady Villiers, though she had contracted a second marriage with Sir Thomas Compton, a private gentleman, had been created Countess of Buckingham, soon after her son had _ first received his title. This lady was converted to the Roman Catholic communion, by Fisher the Jesuit. It does not appear exactly at what time she joined the Church of Rome. Laud, in his Diary, 1622, April 23, speaks of “ the Countess of Buckingham, who about that time was wavering in point of religion;” and in the “ History of the Troubles and Trial,” &c. p. 226, he says that he “ brought the Lady his [Buckingham’s| mother to the Church again; but she was not so happy as to continue with us.” At any rate, whether at this time the Countess of Buckingham had actually conformed to the Church of Rome, or whether she was then only in a doubtful state, her change in religion is to be attributed to the arguments of one “ Fisher the Jesuit.” Her influence with her son was so great, that it was a saying of the time, recounted by Count Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, with evident reference to her change in religion, that more intercession was made to the mother than to the son.!

Besides being subject to this influence on the side of his

© Clarendon. Book I. 4 Kehard’s History of England, vol. i. p. 953.

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [1x ]

mother, the Duke of Buckingham had other inducements to favour the Roman Catholics ; and it was at the time hoped, by a combination of domestic circumstances, to bring him over to that communion. His wife, Lady Katharine Manners, only daughter and heiress of Francis, sixth Earl of Rutland, was also “ bred’’* a Roman Catholic. Echard says that she was for awhile persuaded by Dr. White to forsake this com- munion: but was quickly reclaimed by her mother-in-law, “a fiery Romanist.” If this were the case, she had been previously brought to some partial, if not entire, commu- nion with the Church of England as early as the year 1619, before her marriage with the Duke, then Marquis, of Buck- ingham in 1620, by Lord Keeper Willams (Hacket’s Life of Williams). It seems, however, plain that in the year 1622, the Countess of Buckingham, the mother, was either openly or secretly a Roman Catholic; so was the Marchioness of Buckingham the wife ; and of the Marquis himself, Archbishop Laud stated on his trial, (“ Troubles and Trial,” Se. p. 226,) «The Right Honourable the Lord Duke of Buckingham was almost lost from the Church of England between the conti- nual unceasing labours of Fisher the Jesuit and the persua- sions of the Lady his mother.”

At this juncture it was, that Dr. White, as he intimates,! was invited by the Duke of Buckingham to undertake the settlng of his mother: from internal evidence, however, it seems more probable that even in the first instance King James, alarmed for the religious profession of his favourite, suggested a conference as the means really of confirming the Marquis himself, ostensibly for the purpose of settling the Countess. Dr. Francis White, Rector of

© Hacket’s Life of Williams, p. 42. f Preface to his “‘ Replie to Jesuit Fisher,” &e.

[x] EDITOR’S PREFACE.

St. Peter’s, Cornhill, and one of the Royal Chaplains,‘ was selected on the side of the Church of England, and between him and Fisher the Jesuit a personal conference was held in the presence of the Marquis of Buckingham, the Mar- chioness of Buckingham, the Countess of Buckingham, and Lord Keeper Williams, then Bishop of Lincoln, and subse- quently Archbishop of York." According to Fisher’s own account, (vide infra, App. Nos. 11. III. pp. xxiiiimxxvi.) a paper of his addressed to the Countess, came to some hands, unquestionably those of the Marquis, who gave it to Dr. White to answer and “ oppugn it in a Conference.”

Shortly afterwards a second Conference was held between the same parties, at which the King himself was present ; who “ having observed that our adversaries are cunning and subtle, in eluding our arguments brought against them, but of no strength, especially in particular questions, when they come to the κατασκευὴ and confirmation of their own tenet, was himself pleased to have nine questions of controversy propounded to the Jesuit, that he might in writing manifest the grounds and arguments whereupon the Popish faith in those points was builded.” (White’s Preface.)

Besides the King’s dissatisfaction with the result of these first two Conferences, it appears that the Countess of Buck- ingham required from the English Divines, according to Fisher, more distinct argument on the doctrine of “a con- tinual, infallible, visible Church.” (Vide infra, Conference, &e. p.2.) To meet this difficulty, the King himself imposed upon Dr. William Laud, then Bishop of 8. David’s, the duty of meeting Fisher in a Third Conference before the same

& Successively Dean of Carlisle in 1622; Bishop of Carlisie in 1626; of Norwich in 1628 ; and of Ely in 1631.

» Vide infra, p. xxvi. App. No. III. “ A few but very honourable persons . L, 1 Ge Me Bi Berend iiss.

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xi]

parties. The allusions to this Conference, contained in Laud’s Diary, are these :—

“1622. April23. Being the Tuesday in Easter week, the King sent for me and set me into a course about the Countess of Buckingham, who about that time was wavering in point of religion.

“ April 24. Dr. Francis White and I met about this.

“ May 10. I went to the court to Greenwich, and came back in coach with the lord marquess Buckingham. My promise then to give his lordship the discourse he spake to me for.

“ May 19. I delivered my lord marquess Buckingham the paper concerning

the difference between the Church of England and Rome, in point of salvation, &c.

“ May 23. My first speech with the Countess of Buckingham. “ May 24. The conference between Mr. Fisher, a Jesuit, and myself, before

the lord marquess Buckingham, and the Countess, his mother. I had much speech with her after.

“June 9. Being Whit-Sunday, my lord marquess Buckingham was pleased to enter upon a near respect to me. The particulars are not for paper. “ June 15. I became C. to my lord of Buckingham.”

Strict secrecy on the particulars of these several Confer- ences had been enjoined on the parties concerned in them ; but according to Dr.White, Fisher had “ dispersed hundreds of papers on the subject of the Third Conference to his own praise and our disgrace, for had we been school-boys of thirteen years old, he could not have made a reverend Bishop and myself seem more childish and unskilful than he did.” (Preface.) White, however, though he “at first proposed to have published im print a narration of his two disputa- tions,” (ibid.) yet thought it desirable to wait for Fisher’s written answer to the nine points proposed as the chief errors of the Church of Rome, by King James. These sub- jects were thus enumerated in “ His Majesty’s note delivered unto Mr. Fisher.” “ Some of the principal points which with- held my joming unto the Church of Rome, except she reform herself, or be able to give me satisfaction, are these: 1. The Worship of Images. 2. The Prayings and offering Oblations

to the B.V. M. 3. Worshipping and Invocation of Saints

[xu] EDITOR’S PREFACE.

and Angels. 4. The Liturgy and private Prayers in an unknown tongue. 5. Repetitions of Pater Nosters, Aves, and Creeds, especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them. 6. The doctrine of Transubstantiation. 7. Com- munion under one kind, and the abetting it by concomitancy. 8. Works of Supererogation, especially with reference unto the Treasure of the Church. 9. The opinion of Deposing Kings, giving away their kingdoms by papal power, whether directly or indirectly.’ (The Answer unto the Nine Points, &e. p. 2.) To eight of these questions Fisher returned an answer in manuscript, declining a reply to the last “ with a rhetorical declamation,’ (White, Preface,) stating that the rules of his order forbad his interference with state affairs. “ But before the nine questions he placeth a large dis- putation (provided no doubt aforehand, and expecting only a prosperous wind of occasion, to send it abroad,) touching the Rule of Faith, concerning Scripture and Tradition, the Notes of the Church, &c. Then, to counterpoise the King’s Nine Articles, he chargeth our Church with nine remark- able errors, as he accounteth them.” (White, Preface.)

In the meantime, Bishop Laud, as early as Michaelmas 1622, had prepared his Relation of the Third Conference, with especial reference to what he calls Fisher’s “ papers full of partiality to his cause, and more full of calumny against the Bishop.” (Preface to R. B.’s Answer to Mr. Fisher’s Relation, &c.) It does not appear at what time Fisher delivered his answer to the nine poimts to the King εἶ but it was not till April 10, 1624, that White was ready with his “ Replhie to Jesuit Fisher’s Answere to certain Questions propounded by his most gracious Majestie King James:

‘ Hen. More, (Hist. Province. Anglie. Soc. Jesu. p. 382,) says that Fisher

“finished his answer in a month, but that it was some time before it reached the King.” ‘

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xiii]

Hereunto is annexed a Conference of the right R. B. of St. David’s with the same Jesuit.” For the publication of Dr. White’s work Bishop Laud’s own account of the Confer- ence, already prepared, was delayed; which appeared at length only as an accompaniment to the larger work of Dr. White, and was published under the initials R[ichard] Bfaily] the Bishop’s chaplain, and with the title, “An Answere to Mr. Fisher’s Relation of a Third Conference betweene a certaine B. (as he stiles him) and himselfe. The Conference was very private, till Mr. Fisher spread certaine papers of it, which in many respects deserved an Answere. Which is here given by R. B. Chapleme to the B. that was im- ployed in the Conference. London, Printed by Adam Islip. 1624.”

It was, however, Bishop Laud’s own work, as he subse- quently acknowledged, and constitutes, in this shape, the first edition, or rather the original sketch, of the volume now placed in the reader’s hands. How the work came to be afterwards enlarged and published in an independent form, and in his own name, after the author’s translation. to Canterbury, Archbishop Laud himself fully explains in his Dedication of it to King Charles, pp. ii.—xviii. of the present Edition.

On the side of the Church of England, then, Dr. White’s share of the joimt Reply to Fisher may be considered as a complement to the argument which, according to the King’s judgment, the oral conferences had only partially worked out; while Bishop Laud’s Relation was designed rather to meet the antecedent question urged by Lady Buckingham, and embraced in Fisher’s preliminary “ Disputation touch- ing the Rule of Faith, Scripture, and Tradition, the Notes of the Church, &c.”’

[xiv | EDITOR’S PREFACE.

It appears to be beyond doubt, that Fisher’s “ Short Relation of the Conference,” and his “ Answer to the Nine Points,” were at present only in manuscript. Both Dr. White and Bishop Laud, in their respective Answers, in the joint publication of 1624, recite the whole of Fisher’s manu- script papers, section by section, replying to each argument and assertion. Fisher had now to reply, which he did under the pseud-initials A. C. to Land’s account of the Conference ; while at the same time appeared, either from him or an associate, a “ Rejoinder to White’s Reply,” under the initials J. F. But the chronological order of the works in which the controversy proceeded, may be best understood by the fol- lowing synopsis :—

I. Fisher’s Answer to the Nine Points, &c. presented to the King privately in MS. It was without notes.

II. Fisher’s own Short Relation of the Conference, circu- lated privately, but largely, in MS. This was also without notes.

III . White’s “Reply to Jesuit Fisher’s Answer, &c. together with Laud’s Account of the Third Conference ; under the initials R. B. London, 1624.” This jomt pro- duction incorporates Fisher’s two MS. works, (I. 11.) which are printed in their respective parts, in different type from the body of the work.

IV. The “ Answer unto the Nine Points, &c. and the Rejoinder unto the Reply of Dr. Francis White, Minister. 1625.” This incorporates No. I. and has many notes added by way of answer to White’s part of No. III. Prefixed to this volume is found “The true picture of the said Minister, or censure of his writings.” And the whole collection then has the title-page of 1626. This volume is rare: but copies are to be found of it. H. More (ubi sup.) intimates that

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xv]

the notes are not Fisher’s, “Quo factum est ut denuo revisa prodierint [viz. Fisher’s ‘Answer to the Nine Points’] in lucem docto cum commentario Joannis Floydi,”’ * and Dodd, (Ch. History, vol. 1. p. 106, cf. vol. iii. p- 394,) by merely translating Alegambe (Biblioth. Scriptor. Soc. Jesu), with- out transcribing the exact titles, seems to attribute the whole work-both to Fisher and Floyd in their respective lives ; though Alegambe himself, writing in Latin, had, with greater accuracy, given the “ Rejoinder to White’s Reply ” to Floyd. The truth seems to be, that the whole of the first part of the work, “The Picture of Dr. White,’ together with the Prefaces and the “ Rejoinder to White’s Reply,” are Floyd’s; the original MS. of Fisher, presented to the king, the “ Answer unto the Nine Points,” No. I. being for the second time reprinted, as it had already been in “ White’s Reply,” and being now fully annotated and enlarged by Floyd. As, therefore, White and Laud were associated in No. III., so Fisher and Floyd were associated in this volume. In catalogues it is usually attributed to Fisher; and the identity of the initials J. F[isher] and J. F[loyd], which are attached to the Epistle Dedicatory, will at once account for the mistake; but not only is H. More’s statement positive as to Floyd’s larger share in the work, a statement corroborated by Dodd’s less direct testimony, but the Dedication to King Charles constantly uses the term “we,” with a plain refer- ence to an associated authorship. It appears, then, that as regards No. 1Π1., the jomt work of White and Laud, Floyd was entrusted to “rejoin”? to White, while Fisher reserved himself for an encounter with Laud, which he engaged in by publishing —

« Floyd was the writer of the book “Contra Novatores” “Deus et Rex. St. Omer’s, 1620.” (Vide infra, p. 272, note d.)

[xvi] EDITOR’S PREFACE.

V. Fisher’s “True Relations of sundry Conferences, &c.” 1626, incorporating No. IT. with notes added by way of special answer to Laud’s part of No. III. This is a very rare work, which does not occur either in the Bodleian Library or in the British Museum; and for the loan of the only copy which the present Editor has heard of, he is indebted to the kind- ness of the Rev. Dr. Routh, the venerable President of S. Mary Magdalene College, Oxford. The whole of its intro- duction may be read consecutively from p. xix. to p. xl. of the present volume (Appendix, Nos. I. 11. III. TV.) Thence- forward the body of A. C.’s work is included in Laud’s own Relation, in which it is reprinted and answered paragraph by paragraph. It is not mentioned in the list of Fisher’s works in the Biblioth. Scriptor. Soc. Jesu, nor by Dodd, who follows that collection. Besides this, viz. A. C.’s account of the Conference between Dr. Francis White and Mr. John Fisher, A. C.’s collected volume of 1626 contains two other controversial pamphlets; one, “An Answer to a Pamphlet, intituled: The Fisher catched in his own Net, &c. 1623,” pp. 86, (this refers to the discussion held between Fisher and Sweet against Drs. White and Featley, at the house of Sir Humphrey Lynde, in 1623;) and the other, “ A Reply to Ὁ. White and D. Featley. The First Part, &c. The Second Part, &c. 1625,” pp. 181. The title-page of the whole volume is given below, p. xix. It does not appear to have been widely circulated, being printed at St. Omer’s (?), and Laud (vide infra, p. vil.) observes that he did not meet with it till “some years after” its publication.

VI. The present work, Laud’s “ Relation of the Conference, Χο. 1639.” To this appeared some specific answers ; viz. VII. “A Replie to a Relation of the Conference between

William Laude and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite. By a Witnesse of

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xvii]

Jesus Christ. Imprinted, anno 1640.” This is a puritan work of singular dulness and intense bitterness : it is very rare.

VIII. “ Questions propounded for Resolution of unlearned Pretenders in matters of Religion, to the doctors of the pre- latical pretended Reformed Church of England, ἕο. Paris, [London?] 1657.” In the additions to Wood’s Athen Oxon. (ed. Bliss,) vol. iv. p. 144, this work is styled, an “answer to Dr. Laud’s work.” Its author was John Spenser, a Jesuit. (Cf. Dodd’s Ch. History, vol. 11. p. 313, and νυ. supra, p. [vii], note °.)

IX. “ Labyrinthus Cantuariensis: or Dr. Laud’s Laby- rinth, &c. Paris [?]: Printed by John Billaine, 1658.” It purports to be by T. C. [arvell] a Jesuit, whose real name was Thorold. He was of a good Lincolnshire family, and died in London, 1664. Stillingfleet says that the date is fictitious, and that the book did not really appear till 1663, Thorold had two immediate answers: viz.

X. “Of the Necessity of Reformation, &c. occasioned by some late virulent books written by Papists: but especially by that intituled Labyrinthus Cantuariensis. By Meric Casaubon. London, 1664.”

XI. “A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion, &c, being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s Relation of a Conference from the pretended answer of T.C. By Edward Stillingfleet. 1664,” This forms the fourth volume of Stillingfleet’s works in the collected edition of 1709-10.

John Serjeant, now very aged, who had been the anta- gonist of Archbishop Bramhall, took part in the dispute at this time, (cf. p. 84, note 1) : and Stillingfleet replied to him. Abraham Woodhead also engaged in it. It appears therefore

that the direct discussion of the famous “ Conference

VOL, II.—LAUD. b

[xviil | EDITOR’S PREFACE.

between Laud and Fisher” ranged over a period of exactly forty years.

“ Fisher the Jesuit,’ of the Conferences—A. C., of the replies to White and Land—was only a name assumed by a person named Piersey, Piers, Percy, or Persy, for his name is spelled variously, of whom the following facts are recorded in the Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu, (ed. Alegambe et Sotwell, Rome, 1676)—in Dodd’s Ch. History—and in H. More, (Hist. Soc. Jesu.) He was born in the county of Durham, (Dodd and Wood say in Yorkshire)—and was con- verted at about the age of fourteen, by the influence of a Roman Catholic woman with whom he had been placed in lodgings by his family, in order to avail himself of the instruction of an elder brother,—educated at Rheims, and subsequently in the English College at Rome. He entered the Jesuit College at Tournay, and while meditating a journey to England in 1596, was seized at Flushing by some English soldiers, and sent prisoner to England, where he was almost immediately thrown into Bridewell. He was frequently imprisoned; but was at length released at the request of Queen Henrietta Maria. He died in London of a cancer, after two years’ illness, being then above seventy years of age; the date of his death is not exactly recorded; but he was alive in 1641. (Cf. Dodd’s Church History, vol. 11. p. 394.)

But little more is recorded than these leading events of his life. When summoned to the Three Conferences, he was a “ prisoner for the Catholique faith.” One of his great successes was the temporary conversion of Chillingworth, which is ascribed to him by Dodd,—or rather Hugh Tootle, writing under that name—(Church History, vol. 11. p. 101. Cf. Des Maizeaux’ Life of Chillingworth, p.6; and Ant.

Wood, sub nom.). Not only did he conduct the controversy

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [x1x |

between himself and Drs. White and Laud, and the nearly contemporaneous dispute at the house of Sir H. Lynde, but in 1623 we find him in a controversy with Henry Rogers, who wrote “ An Answer to Mr. Fisher the Jesuit his Five Propositions concerning Luther,’ &c. 1623. To this Fisher replied, and Rogers subsequently answered, in the “ Protest- ant Church existent,” &c. 1638. In 1625 (cf. Prynne’s Hidden Workes of Darkness, &c. p. 71) “ Piercy’s” name occurs first in the writ of pardon, dated 4 May, and issued in favour of twenty Priests and Jesuits, a few days after King Charles’s marriage with Henrietta Maria. It was made a subject of accusation against Archbishop Laud on his trial, that he had connived at Fisher’s release from imprisonment; and that on more than one occasion he had discountenanced his arrest.

A tedious and circumstantial account of this matter is inserted by Prynne, with his usual prolixity and malignity, in Canterburie’s Doome, pp. 451—453. It certainly does appear, and much to the Archbishop’s credit, that in March, 1634-5, he was instrumental in getting, at least, a commuta- tion of Fisher’s punishment. Under the existing laws against seminary priests, it was felony for one of the Jesuits to be found in England. Fisher had been arrested by Cook and Gray, the messengers, and “ after his examination before the Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Secretary Cooke went to the King, to know his pleasure what should be done with him; who returning to the Board, the Archbishop de- livered the King’s pleasure, to this effect :—‘ Master Fisher, kneel down upon your knees, every morning and every even- ing, and pray for the King for granting you your life; and, to be short, Master Fisher, his Majesty’s pleasure is, that you shall be forthwith banished this kingdom, and all other his

b2

[xx] EDITOR’S PREFACE.

Majesty’s dominions, and you shall remain prisoner in the Gate House, until you put in good security before the King’s attorney, Sir John Banks, never to return again.? Where- unto Fisher replied: If he had a hundred lives, he would come hither again, or elsewhere, if his superior so com- manded him ; and utterly refused to put in any security.” (Canterburie’s Doome, p.452.) Prynne goes on to say that in consequence he was committed to the Gate House, but was found at liberty in Holborn four months after. This must have been in consequence of Secretary Windebanke’s general policy of releasing all the Roman Catholic prisoners : a catalogue of the Priests discharged by him, to the number of seventy-seven, is produced by Prynne in the “ Hidden Workes of Darkness,” &c. p. 124, in which we find: “ 20,.—John Piers, alias Fisher, with two sureties in 500/. to appear upon twenty days’ warning: bond dat. 12 August, 1635.” Fisher is also alluded to in a letter from Phillips the Queen’s Confessor, addressed to M. Mountague in France: “You may expect some company with you ere long. Crofts, Suckling, Piercy, Jermaine are gone.” (Hidden Workes, &c. p- 215.) His works, as catalogued in the Bibliotheca Script. Soc. Jesu, and in Dodd’s Church History, are— 1. A Treatise of Faith. London, 1600. With Notes, St. Omer’s, 1614. 2. A Defence of his Treatise of Faith, against Wotton and White. St. Omer’s, 1612. 3. A Challenge to Protestants, &c. St. Omer’s, 1612. 4, An Answer to Nine Points of Controversy, &c., with the Censure of Mr. White’s Reply. 4to. 1625. It has already been shown how little of this last work is Fisher’s.

' H. More (vy. supra) adds to this dialogue.

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xxi]

It remains to give some more particular account of Arch- bishop Laud’s work, now reprinted. Of the first edition, or rather original sketch, appended to Dr. White’s work, sufficient notice has been taken.

The second edition, or in point of fact the first edition of the complete work itself, was published in 1639, in small folio; its title-page has been fac-similed for the present volume; and follows the Editor’s preface. It was the only edition published during the author’s life,

The third edition is “A Relation of the Conference between William Laud, late Lord Arch-Bishop of Can- terbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite, By the Command of King James, of ever-blessed Memory. With an Answer to such Exceptions as A.C. takes against it. The Third Edition Revised : with a Table annexed. London: Printed by J.C. for Tho. Bassett, T. Dring, and J. Leigh, at the George, the White-Lion, and the Bell in Fleet-street. MDCLXXII.”’

The title-page of the fourth edition, printed in red and black, is “A Relation of the Conference between William Laud, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, by the Command of King James of ever Blessed Memory. With an Answer to such Exceptions as A.C. takes against it. The Fourth Edition revised: with a Table annexed. Imprimatur. C. Alston, R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. a Sacris Domesticis. Jan. 25. 168%. London, Printed by Ralph Holt for Thomas Bassett, Thomas Dring in Fleet Street, and John Leigh, MDCLXXXxvI.”

A reprint, making the fifth edition, was published “ Oxford, at the University Press. 1839.” The present edition, there- fore, is the sixth.

The text of the posthumous editions of 1673 and 1686

(the latter being a reprint, with very trifling variations of the

[xxi] EDITOR’S PREFACE.

former) differs in very many, and sometimes important, par- ticulars from that of 1639. In most, but notin all, cases the text of the later editions is an improvement on the original : but the present Editor did not feel himself at liberty to dis- card the text as left by the author in 1639: especially as the third edition claims to be, and is, “ Revised: with a Table annexed ;” and it is by no means clear how far all the addi- tions to, or variations from, the edition of 1639 received the author’s sanction. That some of the corrections,—for ex- ample, the passage at p.284,—contain Archbishop Laud’s own second, and matured, thoughts is tolerably plain: and the reason of such additions it is not difficult to trace, as they-correct errors in fact, of that sort which an author alone was likely to detect: but on the other hand, certain variations—such as corrections in style—seem rather to betray the editor than the author. While therefore it has been thought preferable on the whole to retain the author’s own text as the basis of the present edition, all the changes introduced in the subsequent editions will be found noted in the margin. In some instances, however, the text of 1673, &c. has been adopted, but in these cases the original reading is also retained in the margin or in notes.

It may be probably conjectured that the edition of 1673 was prepared for the press by the same Dr. Richard Baily, Archbishop Laud’s Chaplain, in whose name the first edition of the “ Relation of the Conference” appeared. Dr. Baily had married a niece of Laud’s, Elizabeth, daughter of Dr. William Robinson, the Archbishop’s half-brother ; and it appears by a clause in the Archbishop’s will, to which he was appointed executor, that he stood high in his confidence, and may be regarded as the person to whom all corrections of his works

were committed. It is:—

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xxiii |

“ Item.—I doe lay upon Dr. Baylye, above named, the care of all my papers and paper-bookes, if they can scape the violence of the time. .. . All which papers and paper-bookes I give unto him alsoe. But with this charge, that hee burne all which hee thinkes not fitt to use himself, that my weak- nes whatever it bee, bee not any man’s scorne; and my dilligence I am sure cannott bee. As for my Sermons, I leave them likewise to Dr. Baylye’s care; all that are faire written, and have this mark (7) before them, I have revised ; and yet I will not have any of them printed, unles they be perused either by Dr. Juxon, Lord Bishop of London, or Dr. Wrenn, Lord Bishop of Ely, or Dr. Steward, Dean of St. Paules, my reverend friends, nor yet then unles the times will beare them. ... And I do heartily pray my Executor to take care that my booke written against Mr. Fisher the Jesuite, may be translated into Lattin and sent abroad, that the Christian world may see and judge of my religion. And I give unto him that translates it, for his paines, 1001.’ ™

When it is said that Dr. Baily was the probable editor of the edition of 1673, it is meant that it was probably revised

for the press by him; for he died, Dean of Salisbury and

m A copy of Laud’s will is given in Wharton’s Remains, vol. i. p. 454, but it is neither complete nor accurate. The above extract, which is not given by Wharton, has been transcribed from the original will in Doctors’ Commons. The clause respecting the Sermons will enable us to account for what, when the previous volume (the Sermons) of this collected edition of Laud’s works was published, seemed difficult to understand, viz.: why only seven out of all those which he was known to have preached, were printed in the collected edition of 1651; and why the seventh Sermon, preached in 1631, was published in 1645, shortly after the Archbishop’s death. Doubtless both publications are due to Dr. Baily’s estimate of the responsibility laid on him by the Archbishop’s will; though it is not easy to understand the especial suitableness of the years 1645 (the date of publication of the Seventh Sermon) and 1651 (the date of the collected volume)—“ nor yet then unless the times will bear them ”—to such works as Laud’s Sermons.

[xxiv] EDITOR’S PREFACE.

President of 8. John’s College, in 1667. The only addition which this edition of 1673 professes to make to the Author’s own edition, is the “ Table annexed.” But it is certain that, though uncommon, copies of the edition of 1639 occur with “A Table of the principall Contents,” word for word the same as in the posthumous editions. One such copy is in the present Editor’s possession. The subject has a slight interest ; because a presentation copy" of the edition of 1639, from Laud to Lord Derby, and now in the possession of the Rey. W. Maskell, in the original binding, has no such Index; and it has been said that this Index, or Table, be- trays a bias somewhat inconsistent with the substance of the work. But from a comparison of the two “Tables,” it is plain that they are composed from different founts of type; and consequently that the Index to the edition of 1639, is not a mere adaptation to its own paging of that of the edition of 1673; though it seems doubtful whether it is contemporaneous with the authentic publication of the work in Laud’s life-time.

The present Editor must be considered responsible for the headings of the pages, in which he has tried to give accu- rately the sense of the author; though, from the great difficulty of compressing an argument or statement into a few words, he fears that if he has not sometimes missed the

sense, he has occasionally been led into forced and even

ο» ἽΚΜΕΥ͂ δα " Fac-simile of Laud’s autograph, on the title-page of this copy. W (unt

=<

ungrammatical expressions.

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xxv]

The other additions of the present Editor are marked with brackets ; and, as in the preceding volume, the citations from the Fathers have been verified and given in full.

Tt will be found that the present edition incorporates the whole of Fisher’s own Relation of the First Conference, as well as of the Third, to which Laud’s Relation is a reply; a work, as has already been observed, of exceeding rarity. The present edition reprints, for the first time from this source, the whole of the long notes which A.C. added to his printed Relation, as a controversial reply to Laud’s short and original account of the Conference published under Dr. Baily’s name. These notes are not, like Fisher’s original manuscript Relation, incorporated in the Archbishop’s account of the Conference, and they are never cited by Laud except in a fragmentary form, always sparingly, and sometimes with slight but unintentional inaccuracy. In the present edition, as in A.C.’s printed Relation, they follow upon his text, and, together with those other portions of that work which Laud omitted, are enclosed in [ ].

The initials used in this work are,

%. Bishop Laud.

¥. Fisher the Jesuit.

Ὁ. W. Dr. Francis White.

L. K. Lord Keeper Williams, Bishop of Lincoln.

A.C. The initials adopted by Fisher in his “True Relations of Sundry Conferences,’ &c. and especially in his answer to Bishop Laud’s first printed account of his

Conference.

Upon the value and importance of the present celebrated work, it were superfluous in this place to enlarge. But in

no edition of it should it remain unnoticed, that so high was

[xxvi] EDITOR’S PREFACE.

the value which King Charles set upon it, that he epitomized it with his own hand, (Life, prefixed to King Charles’ Works, Perrinchief, p. 115; Sir P. Warwick’s Memoirs, &c. p. 82 ;) and that he advised his daughter Elizabeth to read, and at the same time gave her with his own hands, Bishop An- drewes’ Sermons, Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, and Laud against Fisher. (Thom. Herbert’s Life, apud Ant. Wood; Dugdale’s Short View of the Late Troubles, ἕο. p. 382 ; Harris’s Lives, vol. ii. p. 74, note.) Of the spirit in which it was composed, it is a sufficient defence to remember, that it was actually made a charge against the Archbishop on his trial, (Canterburie’s Doome, p. 457,) that in his Epistle Dedi- catory to the King, (vide infra, p. x.) he averred that “he had not given him [Fisher] or his so much as coarse language.” And of its matter, it may be enough to cite the Author’s own account of his controversial principles. ‘“ Secondly, my book against Fisher hath been charged against me; where the argument must lie thus: I have endeavoured to advance Popery, because I have written against it. And with what strength I have written, I leave to posterity to judge, when the envy which now overloads me shall be buried with me. This I will say with S. Gregory Nazianzen, (whose success at Constantinople was not much unlike mine here, save that his life was not sought,) ‘I never laboured for peace to the wrong and detriment of Christian verity,’ (Orat. 32,) nor I hope ever shall. [And let the Church of England look to it; for in great humility I crave to write this (though there was no time to speak it): That the Church of England must leave the way it is now going, and come back to that way of defence which I have followed in my book, or she shall never be able to justify her separation from the Church of Rome.]” (Troubles and Trial, &c. p. 418.)

EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xxvu |

Finally, What Laud’s own dying judgment of his endea- vours in this Conference was, may be estimated by the clause in his will, quoted above: but it seems scarcely becoming to do other than to prefix, by way of motto to it, the admission of one of the Archbishop’s bitterest enemies,

Sir Edward Deering, who observed that “ his own book

against the Jesuit will be his lasting epitaph.”

Life of Land, p. 504.)

Hoxton, October 23, 1849.

(Heylyn’s

WILLIAM SCOTT.

The references have been made to the following editions.

When a reference occurs but once, the edition in such case

is specified with the quotation itself.

/Eneas Sylvius, apud Fascic. Rerum, WC., 4. Ve

Albertus Magnus, Ratisbon., Op., fol. Basil. 1506.

Alliaco, Pet. de, Card. Cameracens. inter Opera Jo. Gerson., q. v.

Almain, Jacob., in Sentent. fol. Lugd. 1527.

—— Opuscula, fol. 5. a. Par. [1517 ἢ

Alphonsus a Castro, Op., fol. Paris. ΠΟ ΙΣ

Aquinas, S. Thom., Op., fol. Paris. 1615.

————— Opuscula, ed. Mo-

relles, Antv. 1612.

Aristoteles, Op., ed. Bekker. 8vo. Oxon. 1837.

Assemanni, Cod. Liturgic. Eccl. Univ. 4to. Rome, 1749-67.

Athanasius, 8., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1698.

Augustinus, ὅ., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1679—1700.

Azorius, Lorcitan. Institut. Moral. fol. Paris. 1616. et Colon. 1613.

Bandinus, de Trinitate, &c. Lovan. 1551.

Baronius, Annales, fol. Rome, 1607.

Basilius, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1721-30.

Becanus, Mart., Op., fol. Paris. 1633.

———— Opuscula, fol. Mogunt. 1610.

Bellarminus, Card., Op., fol. Col. Agrip. 1619.

Bernardus, 8., Op., fol. Par. 1551.

Bibliotheca Patrum, Max. fol. Lugd. 1677.

Biel, Gabr., in Canon. Miss. fol. Cleyn, Lugdun. 1514.

-- in Sentent. Cleyn. Lugd.

1519.

—— Suppl. in IV. Sentent. fol. Par. 1521.

Boétius, de Consol. Philos. Basil. 1570.

Bonaventura, Card., Op., fol. Mogunt. 1609.

Bossuet, Guvres de, 8vo. Versailles, 1817.

Bullarium Magn. &e. fol. Luxemburg. 1727, &e.

Cajetan., Card., Op., fol. Lugd. 1662.

Calvinus, Op., fol. Amst. 1667.

Calvisius, Chron. fol. Francof. 1685.

Canus Melchior, de Locis Theolog. 8vo. Lovan. 1569.

Cappellus de Appell. Eecl. African. 8vo. Paris. 1622.

Caranza, Barthol., Summa Concili- orum, 12mo. Duaci, 1679.

Cassander, Op., fol. Paris. 1616.

Catharinus, Ambros. in Epist. D. Pauli, fol. Paris. 1566.

Cave, Historia Literaria, fol. Oxon. 1740—43.

Chemnitz, Examen Cone. Trident. fol. Genev. 1614.

Cicero, Op., Ernesti, Londin. 1819.

Codex Veteris Eccles., apud Justelli Biblioth. Canon. ed. fol. Paris. 1661.

[xxviii] EDITOR’S

Conciliorum Collectio, Binnii, fol. Paris. 1636.

Labbe et Cos- sart. fol. Paris. 1671-72.

, Summa a Barthol. Ca-

ranza, Duaci, 1679.

Corpus Juris Civilis, ed. Van Leeu- wen. fol. Amstel. 1663. ᾿

Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Pithei, fol. Paris. 1687.

Critici Sacri, &c. fol. Londin. 1660.

Cyprianus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1726.

ee Op, fol. Paris. J 616-

Cyrillus Alexandr. S., Op., ed. Aubert, fol. Paris. 1638. :

Cyrillus Hierosolym., 8.,Op., fol. Paris. 1640.

Damascenus, ὅ. Joan., Op., Lequien, fol. Paris. 1712.

De Dominis Ant. Archiep. Spalat. A Manifestation of the Motives, ὅσ. London, 1616.

id. (Latin) Paris.

1623.

De Marea, de Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, fol. Paris. 1669.

Decretalia (Greg. IX.) cum Gloss., fol. ed. Taurini, 1621.

Dionysius Carthusianus, (Dionys. a Rickel de Leewis,) Enarrationes in LV. Evang. fol. ed. Paris. 1542.

Durandus, Ep. Mimatens., in Senten- tias, fol. Paris. 1508.

Ecelesiast. Hist. Scriptores, ed. Read- ing., fol. Cantabrig. 1720.

Echard’s Hist. of England, fol. Lon- don, 1707.

Epiphanius, S., Op., ed. Petav. fol. Paris. 1622.

Erasmus, Adag. Chiliad. fol. Colon. 1612.

Espenceeus, Op., fol. Paris. 1619.

Eucher, (Emond,) Op., 4to, Col. 1701.

Euchologion Greecor. Goar. fol. Paris. 1647.

Eusebius Czesariensis, (Pamphili) Hist. Eccles. apud Hist. Eccles. Scrip- tores, q. V.

Fasciculus Rerum, &c. per Gratium, fol. Colon. 1535.

Ferus, Enarr. in Act. fol. Colon. 1567.

Field, Of the Church, fol. Oxford, 1635.

Gandavensis, Henr. (Goethals) Sum- ma, &e. fol. Ferrariz, 1646.

Gerhardus, Op., 4to. Tubinge, 1776.

Gerson., Joh., Op., ed. Dupin. Par. 1706.

Goldastus, Monarchia 8. Romani Im- perii, fol. Francof. 1614.

Gorranus in Evangel. Comment. fol. Antverp. 1617.

PREFACE.

Gregorius Magnus, S., Op., ed. Bene- dict. fol. Par. 1705.

______—— Nazianzenus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1778—1840.

ed. Billii, fol.

Paris. 1630. Thaumaturg., S., ed. Paris.

de Valentia, Comment. Theolog. in Summ. 8. Thom, Aquin. in Op., fol. Paris. 1609.

Hieronymus, 8., Op., ed. Benedict. Paris. fol. 1693—1706.

Hilarius Pictay., 5., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1693.

Holkot in Sentent. fol. Lugd. 1497.

Hooker, Richard, Works, ed. Keble, 8vo. Oxford, 1836.

Ignatius, S. apud Patres Apostol., q. v.

Irenseus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris, 1710.

ed. Grabe. fol. Oxon, 1702.

Isidor. Hispalens. S., Op., ed. Loren- zanee, 4to. Rome, 1802.

Isidor. Pelusiot., S., Op., fol. Paris. 1638.

Jansenius,Concord. Evang. fol. Lovan. 1571.

Junius, Op., fol. Genev. 1613.

Justin Martyr, 5., Op., ed. Thirlby, Londin. 1722.

Lactantius, Op., ed. Lebrun, Paris. 1748.

Leo Magnus, S., Op., ed. Ballerini, fol. Venet. 1753.

Llamas, Summ. Ecclesiast. Mogunt. 1605.

Lombard, P., Magist. Sentent., Op., 8yo. Paris. 1575.

Lucanus de Bell. Phars. Variorum, Londin. 1818.

Maldonatus, Comment. fol. Mussi- ponti, 1596.

Martyr, Pet., Loc. Comm. Genev. 1624.

Maurus, Rabanus, Op., fol. Colon. 1626.

Minutius Felix, Octavius, 8vo. Lugd. Bat. 1672.

Mirandula, Joann. Pic., Op., fol. Basil. 1496. Nauclerus, 1564. Novatianus de Trinitate, ad caleem

Op. Tertulliani, q. v.

Ockam, ef. Goldastus.

Optatus Milevitanus, 5., de Schism. Donatist. ed. Dupin. fol. Paris. 1700.

Origenes, Op., ed. Ben. fol. Par. " 1733-59.

Op., Erasm. Interpret. ed. Frobenii, Basil. 1545.

Chronicon, fol. Colon.

EDITOR’S PREFACE,

Patres Apostolici, ed. Cotelerius, fol. Amst. 1724. Paul Sarpi, Hist. Cone. Trident. (vers. Lat.) fol. Aug. Trinobant. 1620. Paulinus, Nolan, 8., Op., fol. Paris. 1685.

Pighius, Albert., Hierarch. Eccles. fol. Colon. 1538.

Platina de Vitis Pontificum, fol. Colon. 1568.

Plautus, Op., Ernesti, Lipsize, 1760.

Prosper, S., Aquitan. Op., ed. Antelmn. fol. Paris. 1711.

Ramus, Schol. Math. Basil. 1569.

Rogers on the Articles, &c. London, 1585 and 1639.

Ruffinus, Expositio Symboli, 8. Cyprianum, q. v.

Sa Emmanuel, Lusitan. Aphorism. Colon. 1615.

Salmeron, Comment. &c. fol. Colon. 1614.

Sanchez de Matrimonio, fol. Antwerp. 1626.

Scotus, Duns, Dector Subtil., Op., fol.

apud

Lugd. 1639. Seneca, Op., fol. Paris. 1607. Simaneas, de Cathol. Instit. fol.

Rome, 1575.

Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Sanct. fol. Paris. 1610.

Socrates, Hist. Eccles. apud Hist. Eccles. Scriptor., q. v.

Stapleton, Thom., Op., fol. 1620.

Stella, Enarr. in §. Lue. fol. Antyerp. 1622.

Paris.

[xxix | Suarez, Op., fol. Colon. 1614. fol. Venet. 1747.

Comment. ac Disput. in Summ. ὃ. Thom. Aquin. fol. Mogunt. 1619.

Synesius, Cyren. Op., ed. Petay. ad caleem §. Cyril. Hierosol. fol. Paris. 1640.

Tena, Comment. fol. Londin. 1661. Tertullianus, Op., cum Novatiano de Trin. ed, Rigalt. fol. Paris. 1673. Theodoretus, Op., Sirmondi, fol. Par.

1642.

Theodoretus, Eccl. Hist. apud Hist. Kecles. Scriptores, q. v.

Theophylactus, Comment. in Evang. fol. Par. 1635.

---------- — Comment. in Epist. ed. Lindsell. Londin. 1636.

Tollet, Cardinal. in S. Johann. fol. Lugd. 1615.

Tostatus, Op., fol. Col. Agrip. 1613.

Tractatus Juris Utriusque, &c. fol. Venet. 1584.

Turrecremata, Summ. de _ LEccles. Lugd. 1496. Vasquez, Comment. in Summ. ὃ.

Thom. Aquin. fol. Anty. 1621.

Vincentius Lirinensis, 12mo. Colon. 1585.

Waldensis, Thomas, Doctrinal. Fidei, fol. Paris. 1582.

Whitaker, Op., Aurel. Allobrog. et Geney. fol. 1610.

Wittembergenses Theologi, &e. fol. Witebergee, 1584.

Zanchius, Op., fol. ed. Crispini, 1619.

ERRATA.

In Fisher's Relation, &c. :— Page 27, line 1, for distinction of faith, read distinction of points of faith.

30, — 30, for cannot be to [so] firm, read cannot be firm.

132, — 19, for so rudely, read formerly.

— - 24, for the first thing known, read the first thing foreknown. 149, — 37, &c. for for contra id, read for if contra id.

— — 39, 40, for insolent madness. What then? Is it, &., read insolent madness; what then is it, &c.

— — 56, for to Rome, to, read to come to.

240, — 6, for dojustify, read do not like.

{The above faults occur with some others in Fisher’s own book: but they’are corrected in a Table of Errata which escaped the present Editor until far advanced in his own volume. }

In Laud :— Page 10, notes, col. 2, line 23, for Bonifacium, read ad Bonifacium.

12, in marg. line penult.

— notes, col. 2, line ἜΝ for 1663, read 1673.

16, do. do.

91, notes, col. 2, line 12, for Hipponem—regium, read Hipponem-Regium.

152, notes col. 1, line 9, for 1629, read 1529.

240, at the end of the head-line, for period, place comma, 288, notes, col. 2, line 13, for Stapletoni, read Hardingi. 300, notes, col. 2, line 8, for de Vit., read de Vio.

336, notes, col. 1, line 12, dele period after vi.

CONTENTS.

Laud’s Dedication of his Relation of the Conference to King ne Charles I. il APPENDIX. No. I. (Fisher) Preface of the Publisher, W. I. Χ Χα II. -- --- Occasion of the First Conference between Dr. White and Fisher Sc Ill. —— Relation of the First Conference between Dr. White and Fisher ΧΧΥῚ IV. —— Preface to Relation of the Third Confer- ence between Bp. Laud and Fisher . xx xix Laud’s Relation of the Conference between himself and Fisher, incorporating A.C. [Fisher’s] own Relation of the same Conference 1 Index 431

Index of Texts

ως. 7 rT “ ΡΥ Mr |

4 ΝΗ ἢ ᾿ i . ᾿ ant A ‘Api Crater SY,

ΠΩΣ i Ὁ ᾿ ον Oe κέ Ὁ ᾿

©

= ae ἂν " Γ᾿

ἣ ᾿ 7 : ao! rio ἜΝ. * »" 7 9 ed ad a of τς ae ee :

ry Die . a) ᾿" gs

A RELATION

The Conference BETWEENE WILLIAM LAWD, hen, = Bihop of S° Day ips; NOV,

Lord Arch-Bifhop of CANTERBVRY: And Mr. Fither the ‘fefuite, by the Command of

Kine JAM E'S of ever Bleffed Memorie.

With an Anf{wer to fuch Exceptions as A. C. takes againft it.

By the fayd Moft Reverend Father in Gop,

Vl ital Vie Lord Arch-Bifhop of CANTERBURY.

A the ἤξεας ER AA

“6 No “any PAV) 2 OR)

(GEN (ee LI BAS)

E ON- DY ON, Printed by Richard Badger, Printer to the PRINCE ΓΞ ΠΙ͵Ι ΟΠΠΙΝ ES: MDCXX XIX.

TO

HIS MOST SACRED MAJESTY,

CHARLES,

BY THE GRACE OF GOD,

KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c.

DREAD SOVEREIGN,

Tus tract will need patronage, as great as may be had, that is yours. Yet, when I first printed part of it, I pre- sumed not to ask any, but thrust it out at the end of another’s labours, that it might seem, at least, to have the same patron, your royal Father of blessed memory, as the other work, on which this attended, had.* But now I humbly beg for it your Majesty’s patronage; and leave withal, that I may declare to your most excellent Majesty, the cause why this tract was then written: why it stayed so long before it looked upon the light: why it was not then thought fit to go alone, but rather be led abroad by the former work: why it comes now forth both with alteration and addition: and why this addition made not more haste to the press than it hath done.

4 [Laud’s first account of his “Con- answere. Which is here given by

ference with Fisher the Jesuit,” pub- lished under the name of his Chaplain, Dr. Baylie, appeared under the title, “ An Answere to Mr. Fisher’s Relation of a Third Conference betweene a cer- tain 33. (as he stiles him) and himselfe. The Conference was very private, till Mr. Fisher spread certaine Papers of it,

which in many respects deserved an

R. B. Chapleine to the %. that was imployed in the Conference. London, printed by Adam Islip, 1624.” It is appended to Dr. Francis White’s “Replie to Jesuit Fisher’s answere,” &c. (Vide infra, p. 1. note >.) White’s book is dedicated to King James, to whom he was Chaplain. |

Gee

1V

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

The cause why this discourse was written, was this: I was, at the time of these Conferences with Master Fisher, Bishop of S. David’s ; and not only directed, but commanded, by my blessed master, King James, to this Conference with him. He, when we met,’ began with a great protestation of seeking the truth only, and that for itself. And certainly, truth, especially in religion, is so to be sought, or not to be found. He that seeks it with a Roman bias, or any other,* will run counter when he comes near it, and not find it, though he come within kenning of it. And therefore I did most heartily wish, I could have found the Jesuit upon that fair way he protested to go. After the Conference ended, I went, whither my duty called me, to my diocese; not suspecting any thing should be made public, that was both commanded and acted in private. For W. I., the publisher of the Relation of the First Conference with D. White, the late reverend and learned Bishop of Ely, confesses plainly : “That Master Fisher was straitly charged upon his allegiance, from his Majesty that then was, not to set out, or publish what passed in some of these Conferences, till he gave licence, and until M. Fisher and they might meet, and agree, and confirm under their hands, what was said on both sides.”¢ He says farther, “That M. Fisher went to Ὁ. White’s house, to know what he would say about the Relation, which he had set out.”® So then, belike M. Fisher had set out the Relation of that Conference before he went ta D. White to speak about it. And this notwithstanding the King’s restraint upon him, upon his allegiance. Yet to D. White it is said he went, but to what other end than to put a scorn upon him, I cannot see. For he went to his house to know “what he would say about that Relation of the Conference, which he had set out before.’ In my absence from London, M. Fisher used me as well. For with the same care of his allegiance, and no more, “ He spread

> May 24, 1622.

© One of these biases, is an aversion from all such truth as fits not our ends. And a luce veritatis aversus, [et] ob hoc luci veritatis adversus (fit), &e.— S. Augustin. cont. Adversarium Legis et Prophet. lib. ii. [eap. 7. Op., tom. viii col. 593. 1.1 And it is an easy transition, for a man that is averse

from, to become adverse to, the truth.

“Τὴ his! Epistle to the reader. [The Preface of W.I., the publisher of these Relations,” is added in the appendix to this Dedication, No. 1. v. infra, pp. XX1—xxiii. }

€ Tbid. ioe

1 [the epistle . . . . Editt. 1678, and 1686. }

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

abroad papers of this Conference, full enough of partiality to his cause, and more full of calumny against me.” Hereupon I was in a manner forced to give M. Fisher’s Relation of the Conference, an answer, and to publish it. Though for some reasons, and those then approved by authority, it was thought fit I should set it out im my chaplain’s name, R. B., and not in my own. To which I readily submitted.

There was a cause also, why at the first, the Discourse upon this Conference stayed so long, before it could endure to be pressed. For the Conference was in May, 1622.8 And M. Fisher’s paper was scattered and made common, so common, that a copy was brought to me, being none of his special friends, before Michaelmas. And yet this Discourse was not printed till April, 1624. Now that you may know how this happened, I shall say for myself, It was not my idleness, nor my unwillingness to right both myself and the cause, against the Jesuit, and the paper which he had spread, that occasioned this delay. For I had then most honourable witnesses, and have some yet living, that this Discourse,

f These words were in my former epistle, [7.e. in the short Epistle to the Reader, prefixed to Laud’s first account of the Conference, published under the name of R. B.] and A. C. checks at them, in defence of the Jesuit, and says: “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 the pre- judice of the Catholic cause. Nor then did he spread papers abroad, but only delivered a very few copies to special friends, and this not with intent to calumniate the Bishop, &c.” —A. C. in his preface before his “ Relation of this Conference[ between a certain 33. and M. Fisher, defended against the said 8.5 Chaplain.” A.C. p.37. This preface to the Rela- tion, is added in the appendix to this Dedication, No. 1V. v.infra, p. xxxix. ] Truly, I knew of no reports then given out to the prejudice of the Jesuit’s either person orcause. I was in a cor- ner of the kingdom, where [ heard little. But howsoever, here is a most plain

confession by A. C. of that which he struggles to deny. He says, “ He did not spread papers.” What then? What? why “ he did but deliver copies.” Why, but doth not he that delivers copies, for instance, of a libel, spread it? Yea, “but he de- livered but a very few copies.’—[ibid. Ρ. 38.] Be it so; Ido not say how many he spread. He confesses the Jesuit delivered some, though very few; and he that delivers any, spreads it abroad. For what can he tell, when the copies are once out of his power, how many may copy them out, and spread them farther? Yea, ‘but he delivered them to special friends.” —|ibid. p. 38.] Be it se too: the more special friends they were to him, the less indifferent would they be to me, perhaps my more special enemies. Yea, but all this was ‘ without an in- tent to calumniate me.”—[ibid. p. 38.] Well, be that so too. But if I be calumniated thereby, his intention will not help it. And whether the copies, which he delivered, have not in them calumny against me, I leave to the indifferent reader of this Dis- course to judge. & [Vide supra, note °.]

vl

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

such as it was when A. C. nibbled at it, was finished long before I could persuade myself to let it come into public view. And this was caused partly by my own backwardness to deal with these men, whom I have ever observed to be great pretenders for truth and unity, but yet such as will admit neither, unless they and their faction may prevail in all; as if no reformation had been necessary. And partly because there were about the same time, three Conferences held with Fisher. Of these this was the third; and could not therefore conveniently come abroad into the world, till the two former were ready to lead the way, which till that time they were not.

And this is in part the reason also, why this tract crept into the end of a larger work. For since that work con- tained in a manner the substance of all that passed in the two former Conferences, and that this third, in divers points, concurred with them and depended on them, I could not think it substantive enough to stand alone. But besides this affinity between the Conferences, I was willing to have it pass as silently as it might, at the end of another work, and so perhaps little to be looked after, because I could not hold it worthy, nor can I yet, of that great duty and service which I owe to my dear mother the Church of England.

There is a cause also, why it looks now abroad again with alteration and addition. And it is fit I should give your Majesty an account of that too. This tract was first printed in the year 1624. And in the year 1626, another Jesuit, or the same, under the name of A.C., printed a Relation of this Conference," and therein took exceptions to some par- ticulars, and endeavoured to confute some things delivered therein by me. Now being in years, and unwilling to die in the Jesuit’s debt, I have in this Second Edition done as much for him, and somewhat more. For he did but skip up and down, and labour to pick a hole here and there, where he thought he might fasten; and where it was too hard for

Ὁ [A. C's “ Relation of the Con- (ice. himself, A. C.) and Laud, and ference,” viz. the First Conference, be- which appeared in the same volume tween himself and White, is added in with his “ Relation of the First Con- the appendix tothisDedication,No.III. ference,” is incorporated in the body His “ Relation of the Conference,” viz. of the present edition. | the Third Conference, between Fisher

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

him, let it alone. But I have gone thorough with him; and I hope, given him a full confutation ; or at least such a bone to gnaw, as may shake his teeth, if he look not to it. And of my addition to this Discourse, this is the cause; but of my alteration of some things in it, this. A. C. his curiosity to winnow me, made me in a more curious manner fall to sifting of myself, and that which had formerly passed my pen. And though (I bless God for it,) I found no cause to alter any thing that belonged either to the substance or course of the Conference: yet somewhat I did find which needed better and clearer expression, and that I have altered, well knowing I must expect curious observers on all hands.

Now, why this additional answer to the Relation of A. C. came no sooner forth, hath a cause too, and I shall truly represent it. A.C.’s Relation of the Conference was set out, 1626. I knew not of it in some years after; for it was printed among divers other things of like nature, either by M. Fisher himself, or his friend A.C. When I saw it, I read it over carefully, and found myself not a little wronged in it; but the Church of England, and indeed the cause of religion, much more. I was before this time, by your Majesty’s great grace and undeserved favour, made Dean of your Majesty’s Chapel Royal, and a Councillor of State; and hereby, as the occasions of those times were, made too much a stranger to my books. Yet for all my busy employ- ments, it was still in my thoughts to give A. C. an answer. But then I fell into a most dangerous fever; and though it pleased God, beyond all hope, to restore me to health, yet long I was before I recovered such strength, as might enable me to undertake such a service.' And since that time, how I have been detained, and in a manner forced upon other many, various, and great occasions, your Majesty knows best. And how of late I have been used by the scandalous and scurrilous pens of some bitter men, (whom

' [Laud was sworn in Dean of the Chapel Royal, Octob. 16, 1626, and Privy Councillor, April 29, 1627. The illness to which Laud alludes, is mentioned in his Diary, 1629. “Aug. 14. I fell sick upon the way towards the Court, at Woodstock ; I took up my lodging at my ancient friend’s

house, Mr. Francis Windebank. There I lay in a most grievous burning fever, till Monday, Sept. 7, on which day I had my last fit. I was brought so low, that I was not able to return towards my own house at London, till Tuesday, Octob. 29.” ]

vil

vill

Ps.1. 19,20.

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

I heartily beseech God to forgive,) the world knows ; little leisure and less encouragement given me to answer a Jesuit, or set upon other services, while 1 am under the prophet’s affliction; between the “ mouth that speaks wickedness, and the tongue that sets forth deceit, and slander me as thick, as if I were not their own mother’s son.’”’* In the midst of these libellous outcries against me, some divines of great note and worth in the Church, came to me one by one, and no one knowing of the other’s coming, (as to me they pro- tested,) and persuaded with me to reprint this Conference in my own name. This they thought would vindicate my reputation, were it generally known to be mine. I confess, I looked round about these men and their motion; and at last, my thoughts working much upon themselves, I began to persuade myself that I had been too long diverted from this necessary work ; and that perhaps there might be in voce hominum, tuba Dei, “in the still voice of men, the loud trumpet of God,” which sounds many ways, sometimes to the ears, and sometimes to the hearts of men, and by means which they think not of. And as S. Augustine speaks, “ A word of God there is, quod nunquam tacet, sed non semper auditur, ‘ which though it be never silent, yet is not always heard.’”! That it is never silent, is His great mercy ; and that it is not always heard, is not the least of our misery. Upon this motion I took time to deliberate, and had scarce time for that, much less for the work; yet at last, to every of these men I gave this answer: That M. Fisher, or A. C. for him, had been busy with my former Discourse, and that I would never reprint that, unless I might gain time enough to answer that which A.C. had charged afresh both upon me and the cause. While my thoughts were thus at work, your Majesty fell upon the same thing, and was graciously pleased not to command, but

k (This passage refers to the libels of Bastwick, Burton, and Prynne, who were censured in the Star-Chamber, June 14, 1637.]

' (Sed quid mirum? Verbum Dei nunquam tacet ; sed nonsemper audi- tur.]—S. Augustin. Serm. {li. de con- cord. Matth. et Luc. olim Serm.] Lxiii. de diversis, cap. 10. [Op., tom. v. col. 291. C.] He speaks of Christ,

disputing in the temple with the elders of the Jews. And they heard Christ, the essential Word of the Father, with admiration to astonish- ment, yet believed Him not. S. Luke ii. 47. And the Word then spake to them, by a means they thought not of, namely, per Filium Dei in puero, “by the Son of God Himself, under the veil of our human nature.”

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

to wish, me to reprint this Conference, and in mine own name; and this openly, at the Council-table, in Michaelmas Term, 1637." I did not hold it fit to deny, having in all the course of my service obeyed your Majesty’s honourable and just motions as commands; but craved leave to show, what little leisure I had to do it, and what inconveniences might attend upon it. When this did not serve to excuse me, I humbly submitted to that, which I hope was God’s motion in your Majesty’s. And having thus laid all that concerns this Discourse, before your gracious and most sacred Majesty, I most humbly present you with the book itself ; which as I heartily pray you to protect, so do I wholly sub- mit it to the Church of England, with my prayers for her prosperity, and my wishes that I were able to do her better service.

I have thus acquainted your Majesty with all occasions which both formerly and now again have led this Tract into the light; in all which I am a faithful relater of all passages, but am not very well satisfied who is now my adversary. M. Fisher was at the Conference. Since that I find A.C. at the print: and whether these be two or but one Jesuit, I know not, since scarce one amongst them goes under one name. But for my own part, and the error is not great, if I mistake, I think they are one, and that one, M. Fisher. That which induces me to think so is, first, the great inwardness of A.C. with M. Fisher, which is so great as may well be thought to neighbour upon identity. Secondly, the style of A.C. is so like M. Fisher’s that I doubt it was

but one and the same hand that moved the pen. Thirdly, A.C. A.C. p. 67.

says expressly, “That the Jesuit himself made the Relation

of the first Conference with

m [It seems not improbable, that King Charles might have made this request on the occasion which is thus alluded to by Laud in his Diary: “1637. Octob. 22, Sunday.—A great noise about the perverting of the Lady Newport. Speech of it at the Council. My free speech there to the King, concerning the increase of the Roman party, the freedom at Durham House, the carriage of Mr. Walter Montague and Sir Toby Matthews. The Queen acquainted with all I said, that very

D. White :” and in the title-

night, and highly displeased with me, and so continues.” This Lady New- port (Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 337. was “ἃ kinswoman of the Duke of Buckingham ;” the Queen’s chapel was at Somerset (then called Durham) House; and Montague, a son of the Karl of Manchester, and Matthews, eldest son of the Archbishop of York, were two of the most distinguished persons who had conformed to the Church of Rome. |

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

page of the work that Relation as well as this is said to be made by A.C. and published by W. I. Therefore A.C. and the Jesuit are one and the same person, or else one of these places hath no truth in it.

Now, if it be M. Fisher himself, under the name of A. C., then what needs these words: “ The Jesuit could be content to let pass the Chaplain’s censure as one of his ordinary persecutions for the Catholic faith, but A.C. thought it necessary for the common cause to defend the sincerity and truth of his relation, and the truth of some of the chief heads contained in it?" In which speech, give me leave to observe to your sacred Majesty how grievously you suffer him and his fellows to be persecuted for the Catholic faith, when your poor subject and servant cannot set out a true copy of a Conference held with the Jesuit, jussu superiorum, but by and by the man is “persecuted.” God forbid I should ever offer to persuade a persecution in any kind, or practise it in the least: for, to my remembrance, I have not given him or his so much as coarse language. But, on the other side, God forbid, too, that your Majesty should let both laws and discipline sleep for fear of the name of perse- cution; and, in the meantime, let M. Fisher and his fellows angle in all parts of your dominions for your subjects. If in your grace and goodness you will spare their persons, yet I humbly beseech you see to it, that they be not suffered to lay either their wheels, or bait their hooks, or cast their nets in every stream, lest that tentation grow both too general and too strong. I know they have many devices to work their ends; but if they will needs be fishing, let them use none but lawful nets.° Let us have no dissolving

” Preface to the Relation of this Con- ference by A.C. [v. infra, p. xxxix. ]

° And §. Augustine is very full against the use of mala retia, “un- lawful nets ;’ and saith the fishermen themselves have greatest cause to take

scopi, vel inferioris ordinis ecclesiarum preepositi, intelligendi sunt: quia dic- tum est, Venite, et faciam vos pisca- tores hominum. Retibus enim bonis capi possunt pisces et boni et mali;

heed of them. [Ut si intra retia Do- mini bona piscis malus esset, non tamen pisces Dominisui malis retibus irretiret; hoe est, ut si haberet in Ecclesia vitam malam, non tamen illic institueret doctrinam malam... Hee sunt mala retia, qua cavere debent preecipue piscatores: si tamen illa eyangelica similitudine piseatores epi-

retibus autem malis capi non possunt pisces boni. Quoniam in doctrina bona et bonus potest esse qui audit et facit, et malus qui audit et non facit: in doctrina vero mala, et qui eam veram putat, quamvis ei non obtemperet, malus est ; et qui obtem- perat, pejor est.]—S. Augustin. lib. de Fide et Operibus, cap. xvii. [Op., tom. vi. col.183. F.]

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | ΧΙ

of oaths of allegiance ; no deposing, no killing of kings; no

blowing up of states to settle quod volumus, that which fain

they would have in the Church; with many other nets as dangerous as these; for if their profession of religion were

as good as they pretend it is, if they cannot compass it by

good means I am sure they ought not to attempt it by bad;

for, if they will “do evil that good may come thereof,” the Row. iii. 8. Apostle tells me “ their damnation is just.”

Now, as I would humbly beseech your Majesty to keep a serious watch upon these fishermen, which pretend S. Peter, but fish not with his net ; so would I not have you neglect another sort of anglers in a shallower water ; for they have some ill nets too; and if they may spread them when and where they will, God knows what may become of it. ‘These have not so strong a back abroad as the Romanists have, but that is no argument to suffer them to increase. They may grow to equal strength with number; and factious people at home, of what sect or fond opinion soever they be, are not to be neglected, partly because they are so near— and it is ever a dangerous fire that begins in the bed-straw— and partly because all those domestic evils which threaten a rent in Church or State, are with far more safety prevented by wisdom than punished by justice. And would men con- sider it right, they are far more beholding to that man that keeps them from falling than to him that takes them up, though it be to set the arm or the leg that is broken in the fall.

In this Discourse I have no aim to displease any, nor any hope to please all. If I can help on to truth in the Church, and the peace of the Church together, I shall be glad, be it in any measure. Nor shall I spare to speak necessary truth out of too much love of peace; nor thrust on unnecessary truth to the breach of that peace which once broken is not so easily soldered again. And if for necessary truth’s sake only, any man will be offended, nay take, nay snatch at that offence which is not given, I know no fence for that. It is truth, and I must tell it: it is the Gospel, and I must preach 1 Cor. ix. it. And far safer it is in this case to bear anger from men than a “woe” from God. And where the foundations of faith are shaken, be it by superstition or profaneness, he that puts

ΧΙ

Judg. v. 23.

Judg. xvii, 6.

Ps. cxviii. 12.

tev. XXL. 182}

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

not to his hand, as firmly as he can, to support them, is too wary, and hath more care of himself than of the cause of Christ ; and it is a wariness that brings more danger in the end than it shuns; for the Angel of the Lord issued out a curse against “the inhabitants of Meroz, because they came not to help the Lord, to help the Lord agaist the mighty.” I know it is a great ease to let every thing be as it will, and every man believe and do as he list ; but whether governors in State or Church do their duty therewhile, is easily seen, since this is an effect of “no king in Israel.”

The Church of Christ upon earth may be compared to a hive of bees, and that can be nowhere so steadily placed in this world but it will be in some danger; and men that care neither for the hive nor the bees have yet a great mind to the honey; and having once tasted the sweet of the Church’s maintenance, swallow that for honey which one day will be more bitter than gall in their bowels. Now, the King and the Priest, more than any other, are bound to look to the integrity of the Church in doctrine and manners, and that in the first place; for that is by far the best honey in the hive. But, im the second place, they must be careful of the Church’s maintenance too, else the bees shall make honey for others, and have none left for their own necessary sustenance, and then all is lost; for we see it im daily and common use, that the honey is not taken from the bees, but they are destroyed first. Now, in this great and busy work, the King and the Priest must not fear to put their hands to the hive, though they be sure to be stung; and stung by the bees whose hive and house they preserve. It was King David’s case, God grant it be never yours. “ They came about me,” saith the Psalm, “lke bees.”? This was hard usage enough, yet some profit, some honey, might thus be gotten in the end. And that is the King’s case. But when it comes to the Priest, the case is altered ; they come about him like wasps, or like hornets rather—all sting and no honey there ;—and all this many times for no offence, nay, sometimes for service done them, would they see it. But you know Who said, “ Behold I come shortly, and My reward

P Apum [vero] similitudine vesanum mira tamen [est] excandescentia.— ardorem notat: [quia etsi] in illis Calvin. in Psalm. exviii. [12. Op., fanimalibus] non tantum est roboris, tom. 111. p. 434. col. 2.]

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

is with Me, to give to every man according as his works shall 06. And He Himself is so “ exceeding great a reward,” as that the manifold stings which are in the world, howsoever they smart here, are nothing when they are pressed out with that “ exceeding weight of glory’ which shall be revealed. Now, one thing more let me be bold to observe to your Majesty in particular, concerning your great charge, the Church of England. It is ina hard condition. She professes the ancient Catholic faith, and yet the Romanist condemns her of novelty in her doctrine ; she practices Church govern- ment as it hath been in use in all ages and all places where the Church of Christ hath taken any rooting, both in and ever since the Apostles’ times, and yet the Separatist con- demns her for Antichristianism in her discipline. The plain truth is, she is between these two factions, as between two millstones, and unless your Majesty look to it, to whose trust she is committed, she will be ground to powder, to an irreparable both dishonour and loss to this kingdom. And it is very remarkable that while both these press hard upon the Church of England, both of them cry out upon “ perse- cution ;” like froward children, which scratch and kick and bite, and yet cry out all the while, as if themselves were killed. Now, to the Romanist I shall say this :—The errors of the Church of Rome are grown now, many of them, very old; and when errors are grown by age and continuance to strength, they which speak for the truth, though it be far older, are ordinarily challenged for the bringers in of “new opinions.” And there is no greater absurdity stirring this day in Christendom than that the reformation of an old corrupted Church, will we nill we, must be taken for the building of anew. And were not this so, we should never be troubled with that idle and impertinent question of theirs: “ Where was your Church before Luther?” for it was just there, where theirs is now. One and the same Church still, no doubt of that; one in substance, but not one in condition of state and purity: their part of the same Church remaining in corruption, and our part of the same Church under reformation. The same Naaman, and he

1 “There is no other difference be- Church miserably corrupted, and hap- tween us and Rome than betwixt a pily purged,’ &¢.—Joseph Hall, Bishop

Xill

Gen. xv. 1.

Rom. viii. 18.

ΧΙΝ

Matt. xv. 14.

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

a Syrian still; but leprous with them, and cleansed with us ;—the same man still. And for the Separatist, and him that lays his grounds for separation or change of discipline, though all he says, or can say, be in truth of divinity, and among learned men, little better than ridiculous, yet since these “fond opinions” have gained some ground among your people, to such among them as are wilfully set to “ follow their blind guides” through thick and thin, till “they fall into the ditch together,’ I shall say nothing. But for so many of them as mean well, and are only misled by artifice and cunning; concerning them I shall say thus much only :— They are bells of passing good metal, and tuneable enough of themselves and in their own disposition ; and a world of pity it is that they are rung so miserably out of tune as they are, by them which have gotten power in and over their consciences. And for this there is yet remedy enough; but how long there will be, I know not.

Much talking there is—bragging, your Majesty may call it—on both sides; and when they are in their ruff they both exceed all moderation and truth too,—so far till both lips

of Exeter, in his “ Apologetical Adver- tisement to the Reader,” [appended to “The Old Religion,” &c. the Third Edition,] p. 192. [194. ed. London, 1630.] approved by Thomas Morton, Bishop then of Coventry and Lich- field, now of Duresme, in the Letters printed by ([Hall,] the Bishop of Exeter, in his Treatise called, “‘ The Reconciler,” [1. 6. “An Epistle pacifi- catory of the seeming differences of opinion concerning the trueness and visibility of the Roman Church :”] p. 68. [ed. London, 1629. Bishop Morton’s words are: “ And now re- membering the accordance your Lord- ship hath with others touching the argument of your book, I must needs reflect upon myself; who have long since defended the same point, in the defence of many others.”]—And Dr. Field, Of the Church, Appendix to the Third Part, chap. ii. [p. 880], where he cites Calvin to the same purpose ; (Instit. lib. iv. cap. 2. § 11.)

. “I will first show that all our best and most renowned divines did ever acknowledge as much as I have written. 2. That the Roman Church

is not the same now as it was when Luther began. And, 3. That we have not departed from the Church where- in our fathers lived and died, but only from the faction that was in it. Touching the first, M. Luther con- fesseth (lib. contr. Anabapt. ubi infra, p- 314. note §) that much good, nay, that all good, and the very marrow and kernel of faith, piety, and Chris- tian belief was, by the happy provi- dence of God, preserved even in the midst of all the confusions of the papacy. M. Calvin in like sort showeth that the true Church re- mained under the papacy: Cum Dominus foedus suum, saith he, in Gallia, Italia, Germania, Hispania et Anglia deposuerit ; ubi illee provincize Antichristi tyrannide oppresse sunt, quo tamen fcedus suum inviolabile maneret, Baptismum primo illic con- servavit, foederis testimonium, qui ejus ore consecratus, invita humana impie- tate, vim suam retinet. Deinde sua providentia effecit, ut alia quoque reli- quize exstarent, ne Ecclesia prorsus interiret ; &e.—Calvin. Op., tom. viii. p. 281. col. 1.]

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

and pens open for all the world like a purse without money ; nothing comes out of this, and that which is worth nothing out of them. And yet this nothing is made so great, as if the salvation of souls—that great work of the Redeemer of the world, the Son of God—could not be effected without it. And while the one faction cries up the Church above the Scripture, and the other the Scripture to the neglect and contempt of the Church, which the Scripture itself teaches men both to honour and obey ; they have so far endangered the belief of the one, and the authority of the other, as that neither hath its due from a great part of men; whereas, according to Christ’s institution, the Scripture, where it is plain, should guide the Church; and the Church, where there is doubt or difficulty, should expound the Scripture ; yet so, as neither the Scripture should be forced, nor the Church so bound up, as that upon just and farther evidence she may not revise that which in any case hath slipped by her. What success this great distemper, caused by the collision of two such factions, may have, I know not, I cannot prophesy. This I know, that the use which wise men should make of other men’s falls, is not to fall with them ; and the use which pious and religious men should make of these great flaws in Christianity, is not to join with them that make them, nor to help to dislocate those main bones in the body which being once put out of joint will not easily be set again. And though I cannot prophesy, yet I fear that atheism and irreligion gather strength while the truth is thus weakened by an unworthy way of contending for it. And while they thus contend, neither part consider that they are in a way to induce upon themselves and others that contrary extreme which they seem most both to fear and oppose.

Besides, this I have ever observed, that many rigid pro- fessors have turned Roman Catholics, and in that turn have been more Jesuited than any other: and such Romanists as have changed from them have for the most part quite leaped over the mean, and been as rigid the other way as extremity itself. And this, if there be not both grace and wisdom to govern it, is a very natural motion: for a man is apt to think he can never run far enough from that which he once begins

KV

XVl1

[Matt. v. 16.]

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

to hate, and doth not consider therewhile, that where religion corrupted is the thing he hates, a fallacy may easily be put upon him; for he ought to hate the corruption which depraves religion, and to run from it; but from no part of religion itself, which he ought to love and reverence, ought he to depart. And this I have observed farther, that no one thing hath made conscientious men more wavering in their own minds, or more apt and easy to be drawn aside from the sincerity of religion professed in the Church of England, than the want of uniform and decent order in too many churches of the kingdom ; and the Romanists have been apt to say, The houses of God could not be suffered to he so nastily, as in some places they have done, were the true worship of God observed in them, or did the people think that such it were. It is true, the inward worship of the heart is the great service of God, and no service acceptable without it ; but the external worship of God in His Church is the great witness to the world, that our heart stands right in that service of God. Take this away, or bring it into contempt, and what light is there left “to shine before men, that they may see our devotion, and glorify our Father which is in heaven?” And to deal clearly with your Majesty, these thoughts are they, and no other, which have made me labour so much as 1 have done for decency and an orderly settle- ment of the external worship of God in the Church; for of that which is mward there can be no witness among men, nor no example for men. Now, no external action in the world can be uniform without some ceremonies ; and these in religion, the ancienter they be the better, so they may fit time and place. Too many overburden the service of God, and too few leave it naked. And scarce anything hath hurt religion more in these broken times than an opinion in too many men, that because Rome had thrust some unnecessary and many superstitious ceremonies upon the Church, there- fore the Reformation must have none at all; not considering therewhile, that ceremonies are the hedge that fence the substance of religion from all the indignities which profane- ness and sacrilege too commonly put upon it. And a great weakness it is, not to see the strength which ceremonies,— things weak enough in themselves, God knows,—add even

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

to religion itself; but a far greater to see it and yet to cry them down all and without choice, by which their most hated adversaries climbed up, and could not cry up them- selves and their cause as they do but by them. And divines, of all the rest, might learn and teach this wisdom if they would, since they see all other professions which help to bear down their ceremonies, keep up their own therewhile, and that to the highest.

I have been too bold to detain your Majesty so long; but my grief to see Christendom bleeding in dissension, and, which is worse, triumphing in her own blood, and most angry with them that would study her peace, hath thus transported me ; for truly it cannot but grieve any man that hath bowels to see “ all men seeking,” but as 5. Paul foretold, “their own things, and not the things which are Jesus Christ’s:” sua, “their own” surely ; for the Gospel of Christ hath nothing to do with them: and to see religion so much, so zealously pretended and called upon, made but the stalk- ing-horse to shoot at other fowl upon which their aim is set; in the meantime, as if all were truth and holiness itself, no salvation must be possible, did it le at their mercy, but in the communion of the one, and in the conventicles of the other ; as if either of these now were, as the Donatists of old reputed themselves, the only men in whom Christ at His coming to judgment should find faith. No, saith 5. Augus- tine, and 501 say with him, Da veniam, non credimus, “ Par- don us, I pray, we cannot believe it.”* The Catholic Church of Christ is neither Rome, nor a conventicle. Out of that there is no salvation, I easily confess it. But out of Rome there is, and out of a conventicle too; salvation is not shut up into such a narrow conclave. In this ensuing Discourse, therefore, I have endeavoured to lay open those wider gates of the Catholic Church confined to no age, time, or place; nor knowing any bounds but that “ faith which was once ”’—

τ (Sed nempe hoc est totum, quod solos, in quibus inveniat fidem, cum nobis persuadere conaris, solos reman- venerit, Filius hominis. Da veniam, sisse Rogatistas, qui catholici recte non credimus. |—S. Augustin. [ad Vin- appellandi sint, ex observatione pre- centium Rogatistam,] Epist. [xciii. ceptorum omnium divinorum atque olim)] xlviii. [cap.7. Op., tom. ii. col. omnium sacramentorum; et vos esse 240. F.]

VOL. II.—LAUD, d

XVil

Phils 21:

Jude 3.

xvi

1 Pet. iii. 15.

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. |

and but once for all—“ delivered to the saints.’ And in my pursuit of this way, I have searched after, and delivered with a single heart, that truth which I profess. In the pub- lishing whereof I have obeyed your Majesty, discharged my duty to. my power to the Church of England, “ given account of the hope that is in me,” and so testified to the world that faith in which I have lived, and by God’s blessing and favour purpose to die; but, till death, shall most unfeignedly remain

Your Majesty’s Most faithful Subject, And Most ale and obliged Servant,

Wo CANE

Re VB,

RELATIONS

GUE oy N_D oR. Y

Conferences had between certaine Proteftant Dodtours, and a IesviTe called M. Fifber (then Pri- foner in London for the Catholique Fayth:) togeather with Defences of the fame.

IN WHICH Is fhewed, that there hath alwayes beene, fince Chrift, a Vifible Church, and in it a Vifible Succeffion of Doétours & Paftours, teaching the unchanged Doétrine of Fayth, left by Chrift and his Apoftles, in all points neceffary to Saluation. PANG) lapel Uc

Not Proteftants, but only Roman Catholiques haue had, and can fhew fuch a Vi/fible Church; and in it fuch aSucceffion of Paftours and Doétours, of whome men may fe- curely learne what points of Fayth are

neceflary to Saluation. |

Βα ee

Dske ay

I befeech you, Brethren, marke them which caufe diuifions and offences, con trary to the Dodtrine you haue learned, 5 auoyd them. Rom. τό. v. 17.

Permiffu Superiorum. M. DeCrX XV I.

| nee ἢ ΠΝ a sa ry co ἜΗΝ ἘΝ .

a, ΕΝ

εὐ ἴ ᾿ ati Ὑ anitenieg ei “ea ἜΠΊΟ T 4 ἣν a ie ἢ ih 3 So Pa

A 4 ©

a eel νι νος Τὴ ent δὲ Ἢ ee eect

τὰ A. Bag DPW e,

a eae 3 Poe HM ΠΤ τ νυ ἄν

[APPENDIX. No. 1.]

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 heardest anything of these Con- ferences 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 con- tradicting such false rumours as thou mayest chance to understand to have been spread abroad, whether m speech or in print, about this matter.

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, “ Employ- 2 Pet. i.

XXll

ΡΟ il.

Ibid.

[Appendix. No. I.|

ing 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; “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 spi- ritual 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, sacri- fice, 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,” and not by only faith or apprehension that your sins be for- given, 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.”

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 extra- ordinary 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), that D. White and others were not to publish anything, 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 per- mit anything said by him to be published now after his death, which he

[Fisher's Relation of the Conferences.— Occasion of the First Confer.| 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, Wise. Us

[APPENDIX.. No. IT.]

The Occasion of a certain Conference had between 1). Francis WuITE and M. Joun ΕἼΒΗ ΕΝ.

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, infalli- Ephes. iv. ble faith, without which none can please God or attain salvation. Heb. xi. 2. This one true, divine, infallible faith, is wholly grounded upon the eA 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 conjec- tures, 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

conclusions, partly out of the foundations of supernatural faith, partly [p. 3. ] 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.

ΧΧΙΥ

ΓΡ. 4.1

Matt. XXVili. John xvi. Luke x.

[{p. 5.]

1 ΠΤ τη, 11

[Ρ. 6.1

[ Appendix. No. 11.)

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 revela- tion 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 and com- mission to teach, saying, “ Teach all nations ;” promising that Himself would be 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 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 appoint- ment 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 par- ticular 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 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

[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.— Occasion of the First Confer.| xxv

necessary to salvation; to the intent that they may not be little ones, wavering, nor carried about “ with every wind of new doctrine,” which Ephes. iv. 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 in- spired or outwardly preached, or written and 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 [p. 8.] 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, infal- lible faith which is necessary to salvation,

Thus I dispute :

If it be needful that there should be one or other continual suc- cession 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 [p. 9 ] 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 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 ont of the confession of Protestants. [p. 10.]

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

XXV1

[Ρ.11.}

[p. 12.]

[p. 13.]

[p. 14.]

(Appendix. No. 111.

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 J prove thus: If the Roman Church changed any substantial part of faith, then 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; and others may be named who, per- sisting 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. Zrgo, 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 circum- stances 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 six 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.

[APPENDIX.. No, TIE]

A brief Relation of what passed between 1). WuitE and M. Fisuer, about the foresaid written Paper.

Tuls 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 ina 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.”

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 1). White, ‘is true, if faith be understood explicit or implicit.” Which to be the true sense, M. Fisher assented.

[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. |

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 mea- sure, 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 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.”

Ι,. Κα. 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, το.

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

XXVil

ΠΡ 151.

XXVlil

[p. 16.]

[p- 17.]

[Appendix. No. ITI.]

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 after- wards all needful to be believed was written. This Ὁ. 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, ὅς. 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 sub- stance 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 1). 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 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 com- pany of visible pastors, doctors, and lawfully sent preachers, succes- sively in all ages,” ὅς. All which to be true being at last granted, or not denied by D. White, M. Fisher proposed the first of the two argu- ments set down in the aforesaid paper, viz.—

If there must be in all ages one or other continual succession of visi- ble 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 Boman 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.

[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. ]

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.

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 questionibus non diligenter digestis, nondum plena Ecclesie authoritate firmatis ; ibi ferendus est error : non tantum progredi debet, ut [etiam] ipsum fundamentum quatere moliatur.* In which 5. Augustine 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 1). White did understand this distinction of points funda- mental 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 hold- ing 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

XX1X

[p. 18.]

points, one must not content himself with implicit faith, but must [p. 19.]

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?

« [S. Augustin. Serm. cexciv. olim Serm. xiv. de verbis Apostoli, cap. 21. in fin. Op., tom. vy. col. 1194. A.]

XXX

{p- 20.]

John xiv. and xvi.

[p. 21.]

[ Appendix. No. III.|

But to return to the Relation. D. White, having rejected M. Fisher’s demand, requ‘ring 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, con- taining points needful (at least necessitate precepti) 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 Scrip- ture,) 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 funda- mental 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 sense? If only the words, then the Arians and other condemned heretics may be said to have held all the fundamental points sufficient to salva- tion; 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, (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 salva- tion; 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” (integram inviolatamque) “ entire 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 ἢ). White to be 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?

[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. |

D. White said, Yes.

Why then, said M. Fisher, did M. Rogers affirm, “ That the Church of England is not yet resolved 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 licensed 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 Doc- trine 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 Ὁ. 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 suc- cession should be showed of such visible pastors as did hold all points,

ΧΧΧῚ

which at least himself held to be fundamental, or necessary to salvation, [p. 22.]

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 funda- mental.

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 pro- fessed 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 succes- sion, 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,

» Rogers in his Doctrine of the Church of England, Art. 3. [vide infra, Sect. xii. No. 1. p- 51, &e.]

XXXil

[P- 23.]

[p. 24.]

Matt. XXxiii.

[ Appendix. No. III.)

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. Cyprian’s case. To these demands made by M. Fisher, D. White answered: We do not persecute you for reli- gion. About which answer I desire the gentle reader to observe, that Μ. 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 oneself from Church unity, is a most damnable sin, which cannot be made lawful for any cause, nor cannot without repentance and returning to unity be washed away, even with martyrdom itself, as the ancient Fathers confess. And on the other side it is evident (and 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 schismatics 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 man- ners 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, 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 ποῖ." For by this is showed, that the separation which in other places of Scripture is com- manded, is not meant so, as if it were to be made by neglecting or con- tradicting the doctrine of lawfully authorized pastors, or by corporaliy absenting oneself from communicating with them in necessary sacra- ments and Church rites, but only spiritually, to depart from the imitation of their ill manners. The second, to wit, corruption of doctrine, per- taining 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 shall be always with it to teach it all truth; and that hell- gates shall never so prevail against it as to overthrow in it the founda- tion 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

[Fisher's Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. |

Church, S. Augustine’s rule is to be observed, 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, pre- suming upon their own private reading and interpreting of Scripture, or their private spirit (which is or may be the common pretext of all here- tics), censure and condemn the doctrine or practice of the universal Catholic Church to be erroneous: which to do is, by S. Bernard’s sentence, “intolerable pride,” and in S, Augustine’s judgment, ‘ inso- lent madness.”

The beginning, therefore, and continuance of the schism and separa- tion of the Protestants from the Catholic Roman Church, (in which even, as Calvin confesseth,’ there was made a discession and 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 schism) 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 Protestants.

M. Fisher answered, That we Catholics hold all points in which Pro- testants 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 funda- mental, have no reason to persecute us for supposed errors in points mot 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.

Ὁ. 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 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 con- science, at one and the same instant; which is impossible.

M. B. marvelling at D. White’s answer, asked him again the same

* Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 14. [vide infra, Sect. x. No. 1. p. 31, ὅς. ἃ Calvin. 1. Ep. epist. 141. [vide infra, p. 358. note 4.] VOL, I1,—LAUD. e

XXXlll

[p. 25.]

[p. 26.]

XXX1V

[p- 27.]

Matt. xviii.

[p. 28.]

[ Appendix. No. 111.]

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.

M. Fisher having observed, that D. White had insinuated that one might be damned for holding error in points of faith not fundamental, 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, a fortiori, it is damnable to hold the like errors wilfully and obstinately against the known judgment and conscience of the Church. For, as 8. Bernard saith,¢ Que major superbia, quam ut unus homo judicium suum preferat toti congregationi? ‘What greater pride, than that one man should prefer his judgment (or conscience) before the judgment (and conscience) of the whole Church ?”

D. White said, He remembered that sentence of 5. 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 auswer, 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 incom- parably 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 con- science, and without distinguishing the matter in which he pretendeth to follow it into points fundamental and not fundamental, absolutely aflirmeth, “ He that will not hear’’ (that is, believe and obey) ‘the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen and publican.”

Hence Protestants, who prefer their private judgment and conscience before the judgment and conscience of the Catholic Church, in inter- preting Scriptures or otherwise, may learn in what state they remain, so long as they do thus, being by the censure of 8. Bernard extremely “proud,” and in the judgment of S. Augustine, 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 would reconcile, pertaineth to him to declare.

€ Bern. Serm. de Resurrect, [vide supra, Sect. xxi. No. 4. p. 153.]

[ Fisher's Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference.

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 in- vincible 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 actuai sin of positive infidelity, 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 infi- del, 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 pre- served 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 paper, in which was said, ‘That the Roman Church had still held un- changed 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.

XXXV

[p. 29. ]

[Ρ. 30. ]

XXXV1

[p. 31.]

[p. 32.]

[ Appendix. No. 111.

To this M. Fisher answered, That although he could not on the sud- den 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 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 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 1). 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 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 calum- niator 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 here- after humbly to hear, believe, obey, and follow her doctrine and direc- tion, 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 ont 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 [of] M. Fisher’s

[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.— The First Conference. |

first Relation, which he showed to D. White with an intent that he should put him in mind if anything were not remembered or misremem- bered: but the Doctor at that time did not, nor could truly say, that anything was falsely related; only he said,—1l. 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 some- thing 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 pre- mises, yet not in the conclusion; D. White objected, saying, That in all sciences the conclusion is no more certain than the premises, and there- fore if the premises ina 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 dis- course 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 argu- ments 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 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

XXXVU

[p. 33. ]

ΓΡ. 34.]

XXXVill

[p. 35.]

[ Appendix. No. 111.

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, 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 ques- tions of faith necessary to salvation: which paper not being substan- tially 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.

| Misher’s Relation of the Conferences —The Third Conference.| χχχὶχ

[APPENDIX. No. IV.]

A Relation of the Conference between a certain B. and M. Fisunr, [p. 37.] 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, and much less [p. 38.] 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 calumniously against the B. I say [p. 39.] “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 others at this day endure for the Catholic faith, and for that peculiar [p. 40.] order of life which he professeth, under the name of the Society of JESUS; comforting himself with the example of Christ’s Apostles, “who Acts v. 41. 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 un-

Just disgrace, I have thought it necessary to defend the sincerity and

{p. 41.]

[ Appendix. No. IV.]

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. Fisner’s Relation of the Conference between a certain B. and himself.

The occasion of this Conference was, &c.

RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE

BETWEEN

WILLIAM LAUD,

THEN LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S, NOW LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,

AND

MR. FISHER THE JESUIT,

BY THE COMMAND OF KING JAMES OF EVER BLESSED MEMORY:

WITH AN ANSWER TO SUCH EXCEPTIONS AS

Ike (Gh

TAKES AGAINST IT.

f. The occasion of this conference was,

%. The occasion of this third conference you should know sufficiently. You were an actor in it, as well as in two

other.

Whether you have related the two former truly,

appears by Doctor White, the late Reverend Lord Bishop of

Ely, his relation,’ or exposition of them.

I was present at

none, but this third; of which I here give the church an

a (The title of this work of Fisher (so called) is: Trun Retatrons oF Sunpry Conferences had between cer- tain Protestant Doctowrs, and a JesuitE called M. Fisher, (then Prisoner in London, for the Catho- lique Fayth:) togeather with De- fences of the same. In wuicu ts shewed, that there hath alwayes beene, since Christ, a Visible Church, and in it a Visible Succession of Doc- tours and Pastours, teaching the wn- changed Doctrine of Fayth, left by Christ and his Apostles, in all points necessary to Salvation. Anpd THAT, Not Protestants, but only Roman Ca- tholiques have had, and can show such a Visible Church ; and in it such a Succession of Pastoursand Doctours, of whome men may securely learne

what points of Fayth are necessary to Salvation. By A. C. 1 beseech you, Brethren, marke them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine you have learned, and avoyd them. Rom. xvi. 17. Permissu Su- periorum. ΜΡΟΧΧΥΙ]

> [The title of this work is: A Replie to Jesuit Fisumr’s answere to certain questions propounded by his most gratious Mate King Jamns. By Francis Wurtz, D. of Div. Deane of Carlile, Chaplaine to his Matic. Hereunto is annexed a Conference of the right R. B. of St. David’s with the same Jesuit. Ciprianus de Lapsis. Nee Ecclesive jungitur qui ab Evan- gelio separatur. Lonpon : Printed by Adam Islip. 1624.]

B

SEcTION L [A. C. p. 41.7]

CoNnFERENOE WITH Fisuer.

[A.C.p.41.] 1fa...A.C.]

? {nothing . 4.0.)

3 any, curet A.C.)

LP ©

ον πο ὃς

Legitimate Use of individual Judgment.

account.

But of this third, whether that were the cause which you allege, I cannot tell.

You say,

Ἐξ. [for that] it was observed, that im the’ second conference [with D. White,]| all the speech was about

particular matters; [and] little or none* 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 any? other unlearned

persons, to take upon them to judge* of particulars, without depending upon the judgment of the true

Church.

* (To wit, absolutely, and to rely upon their private judgment, so as to adventure salvation upon it alone, or chiefly—aA. C. marg. note to p. 41.]

%. The opinion of that honourable person in this, was

never opened to me.

And it is very fit the people should

look to the judgment of the Church, before they be too busy

with particulars.

But yet neither scripture, nor any good

authority, denies them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgment, especially in things familiar and evident; which even ordinary © capacities may as easily

© (Quis enim non intelligat, quod impassibilis sit divinitas, passibilis vero sit humana fragilitas ? Cum ergo tam ex eo quod Deus est, quam etiam ex illo quod homo est Christus, intel- ligatur esse permixtus et esse sociatus. Verbum enim caro factum est, et habi- tavit in nobis,] quis non sine ullo ma- gistro, aut interprete ex se [sese] facile cognoscat, [non illud in Christo mor- tuum esse quod Deus est, sed illud in illo mortuum esse quod homo est ?|— Novat. de Trin. c. 23.—[{c. xx. p. 719. C. ad caleem Op. Tertull.] (et loquitur {se. Novatianus] de mysterio Passionis Christi.) —Dijudicare est mensurare, ete. Unde et mens dicitur ἃ metiendo. [“ 4. Preeterea, Damascen. dicit quod ex imaginatione fit opinio, deinde mens dijudicans opinionem sive vera sit, sive falsa, dijudicat veritatem. Unde et mens dicitura metiendo. De quibus igitur judicatum est jam et de- terminatum, vere dicitur intellectus. ]

Tho. [Aquin. Summ.] pars 1. Q[ueest]. 79. A[rt]. 9. ad 4. [p. 145.]|—To what end, then, isa mind and an understand- ing given a man, if he may not apply it to measure truth? Et διάνοια [ dici- tur] ἀπὸ τοῦ διανοεῖν, i.e. ab eo quod consideret, ac discernat.—Damase. 1. ii. Fid. Orth. ο. 22. Quia [ait Damase. | dis- cernit inter verum et falsum. [ἐκ δὲ φαντασίας γίνεται dota’ εἶτα ἡ διάνοια ἀνακρίνασα τὴν δόξαν, εἴτε ἀληθής ἐστιν, εἴτε ψευδὴς, κρίνει τὸ ἀληθές" ὅθεν καὶ διάνοια λέγεται ἀπὸ τοῦ διανοεῖν, καὶ δια- xplvew.—S. Joann. Damascen. de Fid. Orthodox. lib. ii. cap. 22. Op., tom. i. p. 187. B. ed. Lequien. Paris. 1712.]

And A, C. himself, p. 41, [v. supra,] denies not all judgment to privatemen; but says, “they are not so to rely absolutely upon their private judg- ment, as to adventure salvation upon it alone, or chiefly ;’ which no man will deny.

Point at issue respecting the Infallibility of the Church. 3

understand, as read. And therefore some particulars a Sxcrioys Christian may judge without depending. Il. ΣΉΝ.

¥. This lady, therefore, having heard it granted in [A.C.p.42.] the first conference, That there must be a con- tinual, visible company ever since Christ, teaching

unchanged doctrine in all fundamental points,’ that '[points fundament-

is, [in all] pomts necessary to salvation, desired to al... A.C.] hear this confirmed, and proof brought [to show]

which was that continual, infallible,* visible Church,

in which one may, and out of which one cannot,

attain salvation. And, therefore, having appointed

a time of meeting between’ a [certain] %. and me,’ 2 (betwixt and thereupon having sent for the %, and me, before ear the %, came, the lady, and a friend of hers, Game

first to the room where I was, and 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,

sande le Klee. sive caret A.C.]

* (The Chaplain noting the word infallible to be sometimes put in, some- times left out, taxeth M. Fisher of speaking distractedly. But I note herein, that M. Fisher spake most advisedly, and with precise care of punctual truth : for when he speaketh of what was observed, or desired by the lady, he putteth in the word infallible, because he knew it was an infallible Church which she sought torely 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.—A. C. marg. note to p. 42.]

1.- -ῶδ, What Ὁ. White and L. K. granted, I heard not: §3. but I think, both granted a continual and a visible Church ; neither of them an infallible, at least in your sense. And yourself, in this relation, speak distractedly; for, in these few lines, from the begining hither, twice you add “ infal- lible” between “continual” and “ visible,” and twice you leave it out. But this concerns D. W., and he hath answered it. II.—Here A.C. steps in, and says, “ The Jesuit did not speak distractedly, but most advisedly. For,’ saith he, A C. p. 42. “ where he relates what Ὁ. White or L. K. granted, he [marg-not.] B2

4 Can the Church of Rome err in the Faith ὃ

Conrerencr leaves out the word ‘infallible,’ because they granted it not ; Fisnnr, Dut where he speaks of the lady, there he adds it, because τι the Jesuit knew it was an infallible Church which she sought to rely upon.” How far the Catholic Militant Church of Christ is infallible, is no dispute for this place, though you shall find it after. But sure the Jesuit did not speak most advisedly, nor A. C. neither, nor the lady herself, if she said she desired to rely upon an infallible Church. For an infal- lible Church denotes a particular Church, in that it is set in opposition to some other particular Church, that is not infalhble. Now I, for my part, do not know what that lady desired to rely upon. This I know: if she desired such a particular Church, neither this J esuit, nor any other, is able to show it her; no, not Bellarmine himself, though of very great ability to make good any truth, which he under- takes for the Church of Rome. But no strength cau uphold an error against truth,’ where truth hath an able defendant. Now, where Bellarmine sets himself purposely to make this ‘good, that “The particular Church of Rome cannot err in matter of faith,’* out of which it follows, that there may be found a particular infallible Church, you shall see what he

is able to perform.

Iifl.—1l. First, then, after he hath distinguished, to express his meaning, in what sense the particular Church of Rome cannot err in things which are de fide, of the faith ; he tells us, this firmitude is, because the See Apostolic is fixed there. “ And this,” he saith, “is most true.”! And for proof of it, he brings three Fathers to justify it.

Δ {Non enim bonum hominis est hominem vincere; sed bonum est homini ut eum veritas vineat volen- tem; quia malum est homini ut eum

vandum hoc loco, in alio sensu accipi deberefirmitatem Ecclesiae Romane in fide, et in alio firmitatem pontificis ; nam pontifex non potest errare errore

veritas yineat invitum. Nam ipsa] vincat necesse est, sive negantem, sive confitentem.—S, Augustin. Epist. 174. [238. ad Pascentium, sect. 29. Op., tom. ii. col. 863. A. ed. Benedict.]— Occultari potest ad tempus veritas, vinci non potest—S. Aug. [Enarr ] in Psal. Ixi. [sect. 16. Op., tom. iv. par. 1. col. 599. G. ed. Benedict.]

ὁ Lib. iy. De Rom. Pont. ὁ. 4. sect. 1. (Secunda Propositio: Non solum Pontifex Romanus] non potest errare in fide, sed neque Romana par- ticularis Ecclesia. [Est autem obser-

judiciali: id est, dum judicat et definit queestionem fidei. At Ecclesia Romana, id est, populus et clerus Romanus, non potest errare errore personali, ita ut omnes omnino errent, et nulli sint in Romana Ecclesia fideles, pontifici ad- heerentes. Tametsi enim unusquisque seorsim errare potest, tamen id fieri non potest, ut omnes errent simul, et tota Romana Ecclesia apostatica effi- ciatur. —Bellarmin. Op., tom. i. col. 811, 812. ed. Colon. 1620.]

‘ Tbid. sect. 2. [Observandum est preeterea, Ecclesiam Romanam non

S. Cyprian’s Testimony examined.

(1.) The first, 5. Cyprian, whose words are, “That the Skrcrrox

Romans are such, as to whom perfidia cannot have access.” Now, perfidia can hardly stand for error in faith, or for mis- belief; but it properly signifies malicious falsehood in matter of trust and action; not error in faith, but in fact, against the disciphne and government of the Church. And why may it not here have this meaning in 8. Cyprian ?

IV.—For the story there it is this. In the year 255, there was a council in Carthage, in the cause of two schis- matics, Felicissimus and Novatian, about restoring of them to the communion of the Church which had lapsed, in time of danger, from Cliristianity to idolatry. Felicissimus would admit all, even without penance; and Novatian would admit none, no, not after penance. The Fathers, forty-two in number, went, as the truth led them, between both extremes. To this council came Privatus, a known heretic, but was not admitted, because he was formerly excommunicated, and often condemned. Hereupon he gathers his accomplices together, and chooses one Fortunatus, (who was formerly condemned, as well as himself,) Bishop of Carthage, and set him up against 8. Cyprian. This done, Felicissimus and his fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party, and pretend that twenty-five bishops concurred with them; and their desire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church, and to have their new bishop acknowledged. Cornelius, then pope, though their haste had now prevented 8. Cyprian’s letters, having for- merly heard from him both of them and their schism in Africa, would neither hear them nor receive their letters. They grew insolent and furious, (the ordinary way that

posse errare modo explicato, adhuc dupliciter posse intelligi. Uno modo, ut non possit errare, persistente Rome apostolica sede : secus autem, si sedes auferretur. Altero modo, ut simpli- citer non possit errare, vel deficere, quia nec sedes Apostolica possit un- quam Koma alio transferri. Et qui- dem secundum priorem sensum pro- positio nostra est verissima. |

& [Post ista adhue insuper pseudo- episcopo sibi ab heereticis constituto, | navigare audent, [et] ad Petri Cathe- dram atque ad Heclesiam principalem, funde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. a

schismaticis et profanis literas ferre ;] nec cogitare eos esse Romanos [quorum fides apostolo preedicante (Rom. i.) lau- data est,] ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum.—S. Cypr.1. i. Ep. ὃ. | Hp. lv. ad Cornelium de Fortunato et Felicissimo, Op., p. 86. ed. Benedict. |

h Bin. Concil. tom. i. p. 152. edit. Paris. 1636. [Concil. Roman. ii— Concil. ed. Labb. et Cossart., tom. i. 600]. 715, A. B. C.] Baron. Annal. an. 253, [num. 109,] 254, [num. 32—107,] 255, (num. 1—30, tom. ii. ed. Rome, 1594. |

III.

σι

6

S. Cyprian, as alleged for the Infallibility of Rome,

Conrerencs Schismatics take). Upon this, Cornelius writes to 5S.

WITH FISHER.

Rom. i. 8.

Cyprian; and S. Cyprian, in this epistle, gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African fugitives, declares their schism and wickedness at large, and encourages him, and all bishops, to maintain the ecclesiastical discipline and cen- sures against any, the boldest, threatenings of wicked schis- matics. This is the story; and in this is the passage here urged by Bellarmine. Now I would fain know why perfidia, all circumstances considered, may not stand here in its proper sense, for cunning and perfidious dealing, which these men, having practised at Carthage, thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also, but that he was wary enough not to be overreached by busy schismatics ?

V.—(2.) Secondly, let it be granted that perfidia doth signify here, error in faith and doctrine. For I will not deny but that among the African writers, and especially S. Cyprian, it is sometimes so used; and therefore here, perhaps. But then this privilege, of not erring danger- ously in the faith, was not made over absolutely to the Romans, that are such by birth and dwelling only; but to the Romans, qua tales, as they were such as those first were, “whose faith was famous through the world,” and as long as they continued such; which, at that time, it seems they did. And so S. Cyprian’s words seem to import, eos esse Romanos, that the Romans then, under Pope Cornelius, were such as the apostle spake of, and therefore to whom, at that time, (or any time, they still remaining such,) per- fidious misbelief could not be welcome; or rather, indeed, perfidious misbelievers or schismatics could not be welcome. For this very phrase, perfidia non potest habere accessum, directs us to understand the word in a concrete sense : “perfidiousness could not get access ;” that is, such perfidious persons, excommunicated out of other Churches, were not likely to get access at Rome, or to find admittance into their communion. It is but a metonymy of speech, the adjunct for the subject ; a thing very usual even in elegant ‘authors,

ΡΟΝ ποτ οὐδ ι ei Ego tibiistam Catilin. Orat. ii. sect. 25. (al. 11.)]—

Scelestam,sce/ws,linguamabscindam. ....... latuit plebeio tectus amictu —Plaut. Amphit. [act. ii.sc.1.v.6.J— Omnis honos: nullos comitata est Ex πᾶς enim parte pudor pugnat, purpura fasces.

illine petulantia, &c.—Cic. [in L. —Lucan. [de Bell. Civil.] lib. ii. [18.]

examined, and explained.

and much more in later times, as in 8. Cyprian’s, when the Latin language was grown rougher. Now, if it be thus understood, I say, in the concrete, then it is plain, that S. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romans from possibility of error, but to brand his adversa- ries with a title due to their merit, calling them perfidious, that is, such as had betrayed or perverted the faith. Neither can we lose by this construction, as will appear at after. VI.—(8.) But thirdly, when all is done, what if it be no more than a rhetorical excess of speech; perfidia non potest, for non facile potest ; it “cannot,” that is, “it cannot easily ?” Or what if 5. Cyprian do but laudando precipere, by com- mending* them to be such, instruct them that such indeed they ought to be, to whom perfidiousness should not get access? Men are very bountiful of their compliments some- times. Synesius,! writing to Theophilus of Alexandria, begins thus: γὼ καὶ βούλομαι, καὶ ἀνάγκη μοι θεία, [νόμον ἡγεῖσθαι τοῦτο 6 τι ἂν ἐκεῖνος ὁ θρόνος θεσπίση"] “Ἱ both will, and a divine necessity lies upon me, to esteem it a law, whatsoever that throne,” (meaning his of Alexandria,) “shall determine.” Nay, the word is θεσπίζειν, and that sig- nifies to determine like an oracle, or as in God’s stead. Now, T hope you will say, this is not to be taken dogmatically ; it is but the epistler’s courtesy only. And why not the like here? For the haste which these schismatics made to Rome prevented 8. Cyprian’s letters; yet Cornelius, very careful of both the truth and peace of the Church, would neither hear them, nor receive their letters, till ™he had written to S. Cyprian. Now this epistle is 8. Cyprian’s answer to Cornelius, in which he informs him of the whole truth; and withal gives him thanks for refusing to hear these African fugitives. In which fair way of returning his thanks, if he make an honourable mention of the Romans and their

kK Nee cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo praedicante, ὅσο. [v. supra, p. 5, note 8.1

1 Hpist. 67. [ad Theophilum Alex- andr. Synesii Episcop. Cyrenens. Op., p. 208. A. (ad calcem Op., ὃ. Cyril. Hierosol.) ed. Dionys. Petay. Paris. 1640.]

m Forso Ὁ. Cyprian begins his epis- tle to Cornelius. Legi literas tuas,

frater [carissime, quas per Saturum fratrem nostrum acolythum misisti, et dilectionis fraterne et ecclesiastice discipline et sacerdotalis censure satis plenas.—S. Cyprian. Epist. lv. ad Cor- nelium, Op., p. 79. ed. Benedict.| And after: Sed enim lecta alia tua epistola, frater, &c.—S. Cypr. lib. i. Epist. 3. [Epist. lv. ad Cornelium, Op., p. 80. ]

SECTION 1.

7

8 S. Cyprian alleged against the Infallibility of Rome.

Coyrerence faith, with a little dash of rhetoric, even to a non potest for a Feurr, 20n facile potest, it is no great wonder.

a VII.—But, take which answer you will of the three, this is plain, that S. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome. For this is more than manifest by the contestation which after happened between 8. Cyprian and Pope Stephen, about the rebaptization of those that were baptized by heretics ; for he saith" expressly, that “Pope Stephen did then not only maintain an error, but the very cause of heretics, and that against Christians and the very Church of God.” And after this he chargeth him with obstinacy and presumption.® I hope this is plain enough to show, that S. Cyprian had no great opinion of the Roman infallibility: or if he had it when he writ to Cornelius, certainly he had changed it when he wrote against Stephen. But I think it was no change ; and that, when he wrote to Cornelius, it was rhetoric, and no more.

VIII.—Now, if any man shall say, that, in this point of rebaptization, 8. Cyprian himself was in the wrong opinion, and Pope Stephen in the right, I easily grant that; but yet that error of his takes not off his judgment, what he thought of the Papal or Roman infallibility im those times. For though afterwards ? S. Cyprian’s opinion was condemned in a council at Rome under Cornelius, and after that by Pope

" [Cyprianus Pompeio fratri salu- tem. Quanquam plene ea quee de heere- ticis baptizandis dicenda sunt com- plexi sumus in Epistolis, quarum ad te exempla transmisimus, frater caris- sime, tamen quia desiderasti in noti- tiam tuam perferri quid mihi ad li- teras nostras] Stephanus frater noster [rescripserit, misi tibi rescripti ejus exemplum: quo lecto, magis ac magis ejus errorem denotabis, qui] hzreti- corum causam contra Christianos et contra ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur. —S. Cypr. ad Pompeium contra Epist. Steph, edit. per Erasmum, Basil. p. 327. [Epist. lxxiv. p.138.Op., ed. Benedict, ]

® [Cum vero nulla omnino heeresis, sed neque aliquod schisma habere salutaris baptismi sanctificationem foris possit, cur in tantum] Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio dura [prorupit, ut etiam de Marcionis baptismo, item Valentini et Apclletis, et caterorum blasphemantium in Deum patrem, con-

tendat filios Deo nasci?—Ibid. p. 140.] And it would be marked by the Jesuit and his A.C., that still it is Stephani fratris nostri, and not capi- lis, or summi pastoris nostri.

P Caranza in Concil. Carthag. sub Cornel. fine. [Cyprianus Carthaginen- sis dixit: Censeo secundum Evangeli- cam et Apostolicam contestationem, adversarios Christi et Antichristos ap- pellatos, quandoad Eeclesiam venerint, unico Ecclesize baptismo baptizandos esse, ut possint fieri de adversariis amici, et de Antichristis Christiani.— Revocata sunt hee per Cornelium in sacerdotali concilio Rome, et per Ste- phanum Papam. — Caranzze Summ. Concil. p. 38. ed. Duaci, 1679. This Council, (the third of those held at Carthage and not received by the Church,) is of the date a.p. 258, (al. 256,) during the pontificate of Pope S. Stephen 1., not S. Cornelius.—Cf. Concil., tom. i. col. 796. C.]

S. Jerome’s Testimony examined.

Stephen, and after both in the first Council of Carthage,1 yet uo one word is there in that council which mentions this as an error, that he thought Pope Stephen might err in the faith, while he proclaimed he did so. In which, though the particular censure which he passed on Pope Stephen was erroneous, for Stephen erred not in that, yet the general which results from it, namely, that for all his bemg in the popedom, he might err, is most true.

IX.—2. The second Father which Bellarmine cites, is S. Jerome :* his words are: “The Roman faith commended by the apostle, admits not such prestigias, ‘ deceits and delusions,’ into it, though an angel should preach it otherwise than it was preached at first, (and) bemg armed and fenced by 5. Paul’s authority, cannot be changed.” Where, first, I will not doubt but that 8. Jerome speaks here of the faith ; for the presiigie here mentioned are afterwards more plainly expressed : for he tells us after,s “That the Bishop of Rome had sent letters into the East, and charged heresy upon Ruffinus.” And farther, “that Origen’s books περὶ ἀρχῶν were translated by him, and delivered to the simple people of the Church of Rome, that by his means they might lose the verity of the faith, which they had learned from the apostle.” Therefore the prestigie before mentioned, were the

4 Can. 1. [This council, held during the pontificate of Popes. Julius 1.—not S. Sylvester I., as Caranza incorrectly states—by Gratus, Archbishop of Car- thage, a.p. 348, was not strictly the first Council of Carthage, for several had been held there under S Cyprian; but it is styled the first Council of Carthage, “quia inter orthodoxa et ap- probata Concilia Carthagine habita, ea que etiamnum extant, primum sit et antiquissimum.” (Bin. not. Concil., tom. ii. col. 719.) Can. 1.—Ergo, si vobis placet, consideremus primum titulum rebaptizationis. Unde sancti- tatem vestram postulo, ut meutis vestre placita producatis ad descen- dentem in aquam, et interrogatum in Trinitate secundum evangelii fidem et apostolorum doctrinam, et confessum bonam conscientiam in Deum, de resur- rectione Jesu Christi, si liceat iterum interrogari in eadem fide, et in aqua iterum intingi. Universi Episcopi dixerunt: Absit, absit. Illicitas esse saucimus rebaptizationes, et satis esse

alienum a sincera fide et catholica disciplina.—Concil., tom. ii. col. 714. IN ABS

τ Attamen scito Romanam fidem, Apostolica voce laudatam, istiusmodi prestigias non recipere, etiam st Angelus aliter annunciet, quam semel preedicatum est, Pauli auctoritate munitam non posse mutari. — ὃ. Hieron, lib. iii. Apol. contra Ruffi- num, tom. ii. fol. 84. K.ed. Paris. 1534. fady. Rufin. lib. iii. Op., tom. iv. par. ii. col. 449. ed. Benedict.] Peradven- ture it is here to be read εἰ jam si, for so the place is more plain, and more strong; but the answer is the same.

5. Deinde, ut epistolas contra te ad Orientem mitteret, et cauterium tibi heereseos, [dum nescis,| inureret ; di- ceretque libros Origenis περὶ ἀρχῶν, a te translatos, et simplici Romanz Keclesize plebi traditos, ut fidei veri- tatem quam ab Apostolo didicerant, per te perderent.—S. Hieron. ibid. fol. 85. Κα. (Ibid. col. 457.]

9

SEction Te

10

S. Jerome as alleged for the Infallibility of Rome.

Conrrrence cunning illusions of Ruffinus, putting Origen’s book under

WITH FISHER.

the martyr Pamphilus’ name, that so he might bring in heresy the more cunningly under a name of credit, and the more easily pervert the people’s faith. So, of the faith he speaks. And secondly, I shall as easily confess that S. Jerome’s speech is most true, but I cannot admit the Cardinal’s sense of it: for he imposes upon the word fides. For by Romana fides, the Roman faith, he will understand the particular Church of Rome; which is as much as to say, Romanos fideles, the faithful of that Church; and that no wily delusions, or cozenage in matter of faith, can be imposed upon them. Now, hereupon I return to that of S. Cyprian: if fides Romana must signify fideles Romanos, why may not perfidia before signify perfidos ? especially since these two words are commonly used by these writers, as terms opposite ; and therefore, by the law of opposition, may interpret each other proportionably. So with these great masters—with whom it is almost grown to be, quod volumus, rectum est, what we please, shall be the author’s meaning—yperfidia must signify absolutely error in faith, or misbelief; but fides must relate to the persons, and signify

τ [ταν ον et dolenter motus sum, fratres carissimi, quod cognoverim Fortunatianum quondam apud vos episcopum post grayem lapsum ruin suz pro integro nune agere velle et episcopatum sibi vindicare ccepisse. Que res contristavit me, primo propter ipsum, qui miser, vel diaboli tenebris in totum exccecatus, vel quo- rundam sacrilega persuasione decep- tus, cum debeat satisfacere et ad Dominum exorandum diebus ac nocti- bus lacrymis et orationibus et precibus incumbere, audet sibi adhue sacerdo- tium, quod prodidit, vindicare, quasi post aras diaboli accedere ad altare Dei fas sit, aut non majorem in se iram et indignationem Domini in die judicii proyocet,] qui cum fidei [et virtutis] dux [fratribus] esse non potuerit, perfidie [et audacie et temeritatis magister] existat. — 8. Cyprian. lib. i. Epist. 7. [Epist. Lxiv. ad Epictetum, pp. 110,111.|—[ Unde et ipsam venisse perspicimus et credi- mus de Dei exploratione censuram, ne apud altare consistere et contrec- tare ulterius perseverarent pudorem incesti,| fidem perfidi, [religionem

profani, divina terreni, sancta sacri- legi.} — Ibid. [p. 111.]— [Quanquam etsi aliquis ex talibus fuerit appre- hensus, non est quod sibi quasi in confessione nominis blandiatur, cum constet, si occisi ejusmodi extra eccle- siam fuerint, fidei coronam non esse, sed poenam potius esse perfidize.—S. Cyprian. Epist. lvii. ad Cornelium, Op., p. 95.—Nulla societas fidei et perfidize potest esse.—S. Cyprian. Epist. ly. ad Cornelium, Op., p. 89.]—Ex ovibus subito facti sunt vulpes, ex fidelibus perfidi.—S. Optatus, lib. vii. [lib. vi. 6. 8. De Schism. Donatist. Op., p. 100. ed. Dupin. 1700.]|—[Queeris a me, Utrum parentes baptizatis parvulis suis no- ceant, cum eos dzemoniorum sacrificiis sanare conantur. Et si non nocent], quomodo eis prosit cum baptizantur parentum fides, quorum eis non po- test obesse perfidia?—S. Aug. Epist. xxiii. [xeviii. Bonifacium, Op., tom. ii. col. 263. F. ed. Benedict.) — Quanto [ergo] potius fides aliena po- test consulere parvulo, cui sua perfidia {non potest imputari?]—S. Aug. lib. in. de lib: Arb: Ὁ. 1995 [00 Ὁ tom. i. col. 637. F. ed. Benedict. ]

S. Jerome really supports the opposite view.

11

the faithful of the Roman Church. And now I conceive my Sxerion

answer will proceed with a great deal of reason. For Romana fides, “the Roman faith,” as it was commended by the apostle, of which 8. Jerome speaks, is one thing, and the particular Roman Church, of which the Cardinal speaks, is another. The faith indeed admits not prestigias, wily delusions, into it; if it did, it could not be “the whole and undefiled faith” of Christ, which they learned from the apostle ; and which is so fenced by apostolical authority as that it cannot be changed, though an angel should preach the contrary. But the particular Church of Rome hath admitted prestigias, divers crafty conveyances, into the faith, and is not fenced as the faith itself is: and therefore, though an angel cannot contrary that, yet the bad angel hath sowed tares in this. By which means Romana fides, though it be now the same it was for the words of the Creed, yet it is not the same for the sense of it, nor for the super and preter structures built upon it, or joined unto it. So the Roman faith, that is, the faith which S. Paul taught the Romans, and after commended in them, was all one with the Catholic faith of Christ. For 8. Paul taught no other than that one ; and this one can never be changed in or from itself by angel or devil. But in men’s hearts it may receive a change; and in particular churches it may receive a change; and in the particular Church of Rome it hath received a change. And ye see, S. Jerome himself confesses, that the Pope himself was afraid ne perderent, lest by this art of Ruffinus, “ the people might lose the verity of the faith.’ Now that which can be lost, can be changed; for usually habits begin to alter, before they be quite lost. And that which may be lost among the people, may be lost among the bishops, and the rest of the clergy too, if they look not to it; as it seems they after did not at Rome, though then they did. Nay, at this time the whole Roman Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen’s book, and all the errors in it, coming under the name of Pamphilus ; and so 8S. Jerome himself expressly, and close upon the place cited by Bellarmine. For he desires Ruffinus to “change the title of the book,” * that error

« Ne fidei veritatem quam ab Apos- x [Ergo frater, sive a te falsatus est

tolo didicerant, per te perderent.—[S. liber, ut multi putant; sive ab altero, Hieron.]| ut sup. [p. 9. note"). ut forsitan persuadere conaberis, et

ΠῚ.

12

~

CoNnFrERENCE WITH FisHEr.

(decet sem- per, it be- comes that great city

always to

Maver ues... Editt. 1663 and 1686.]

S. Greg. Nazianzen alleged against the Infallibility of Rome.

may not be spread under the specious name of Pamphilus, “and so to free from danger the Roman simplicity.” Where, by the way, Roman unerring power now challenged, and Roman simplicity then feared, agree not very well together. X.—3. The third Fathcr alleged by Bellarmine, is S. Gregory Nazianzen.’ And his words are, “That ancient Rome from of old hath the right faith, and always holds it, as becomes the city which is governess over the whole world, to have an entire faith in and concerning God.” Now certainly it became that city very well, to keep the faith sound and entire. And having the government of a great part of the world then im her power, it became her so much the more, as her example thereby was the greater. And in S. Gregory Nazianzen’s time, Rome did certainly hold both rectam et integram fidem, the right and the whole entire faith of Christ. But there is nor promise nor prophecy in S. Gregory, that Rome shall ever so do. For his words are plain; semper decet, “it always becomes” that great city to have, and to hold too, integram fidem, “the entire faith.” But at the other semper, it 15 retinet,’ that city from of old “holds” the right faith yet; but he saith not retinebit semper, that the

city of Rome “shall retain it ever,’ ever retain the empire of the world.

> no more than it shall Now it must be

assured that it shall ever hold the entire faith of Christ, before we can be assured that that particular Church can

never err, or be infallible.

XI.—Besides these, the Cardinal names* Cyrillus and

temere credidisti, heeretici hominis σύνταγμα esse martyris, | muta titulum, et Romanam simplicitatem tanto peri- culo libera —{S. Hieron. } [bid. fol. 84. K. [col. 449. ]

y Vetus Roma ab antiquis tempo- ribus habet rectam fidem, et semper eam retinet, sicut decet urbem, que toti orbi preesidet, semper de Deo integram fidem habere.—Greg. Naz. in Carmine de Vita Sua, ante medium, p. 9. ed. Paris. 1609.

[Δύω μὲν οὐ δέδωκεν ἡλίους φύσις, Δισσὰς δὲ Ῥώμας, τῆς ὕλης οἰκουμένης Λαμπτῆρας, ἀρχαῖόν τε καὶ νέον κράτος, Τόσον διαφέροντας ἀλλήλων, ὅσον

Τὴν μὲν προλάμπειν ἡλίου, τὴν δ᾽ ἑσπέρας" Κάλλει δὲ κάλλος ἀντανίσχειν συζύγως. Τούτων δὲ πίστις, ἡ μὲν ἣν ἐκ πλείονος, Καὶ νῦν ἔτ᾽ ἔστιν εὔδρομος, τὴν ἑσπέραν Πᾶσαν δέουσα τῷ σωτηρίῳ λόγῳ,

Καθὼς δίκαιον τὴν προέδμον τῶν ὅλων, “Ὅλην σέβουσαν τὴν Θεοῦ συμφωνίαν" ‘HS ἣν τοπρόσθεν ὀρθόπους, νῦν δ᾽ οὐκέτι. k.T.A. 562—573, Op., tom. ii. p. 704. ed. Paris. 1840.]

“The words in the Greek are, 7 μὲν ἦν ex πλείονος, καὶ νῦν ἔτ᾽ ἔστιν εὔδρομος. Heee quidem fuit diu, et nune adhue est rectigrada: ἔστιν, est ; so S. Gregory says, but of an ἔσται, or a retinebit, he says nothing.!

« [Nam auctores citati, ut Lucius et Felix papee et martyres ; Agatho et Ni- colaus papze et confessores ; item Cyril- lus et Ruffinus, non solum pontificem, sed etiam Ecclesiam Romanam, asserue- runt non posse errare.— Bellarmin. de

1[....nor is semper in the text of Nazianzen. — Editt. 1663 and 1686.]

S. Cyril of Alex. alleged against the Infallibility of Rome.

Ruffinus, but he neither tells us where, nor cites their words. Yet I think I have found the most pregnant place in ὅδ. Cyril,” and that makes clearly against him. For I find expressly these three things: First, that the Church is inexpugnable, and that “the gates of hell shall never prevail against it,” but thatit shall in perpetuwm manere, “remain for ever.” And this all Protestants grant. But this, that it shall not fall away, doth not secure it from all kinds of error. Secondly, Bellarmine quotes 8. Cyril for the particular Roman Church; and 8. Cyril speaks not of the Roman at all, but of the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholic Church. Thirdly, that the foundation and firmness, which the Church of Christ hath, is placed not in, or upon, the person,® much less the successor, of S. Peter; but upon the faith,° which by God’s Spirit in him, he so firmly possessed: which is the common received opinion both of the ancient Fathers and

the Protestants.

“Upon this rock,” that is, upon this faith, “ will I build my Church.”

So here is all the good he

hath gotten by S. Cyril, unless he can cite some other place of 58. Cyril, which I believe he cannot.

XII.—And for Ruffinus, the place which Bellarmine aims at, is in his Exposition upon the Creed; and is quoted in

Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. ¢. 4. Op., tom. i. col. 812. B.]

b Petram opinor per agnomina- tionem nihil aliud, quam inconcussam et firmissimam discipuli fidem vocavit. In qua, Ecclesia Christi ita fundata et firmata esset, ut non laberetur, et esset inexpugnabilis inferorum portis, in perpetuum manens.—S. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trin. lib. iv. p. 278. Paris. an. 1604. [Πέτραν οἶμαι παρωνύμως, ἕτερον οὐδὲν ἢ τὴν ἀκατάσειστον καὶ ἑδραιοτάτον τοῦ μαθητοῦ πίστιν ἀπο-

2

καλῶν, ἐφ᾽ 7 καὶ ἀδιαπτώτως ἐρήρεισταί τε καὶ διαπέπηγεν ἡ ἐκκλησία Χριστοῦ, καὶ αὐταῖς ἀνάλωτος ταῖς ᾷἄδου πύλαις εἰσαεὶ Stauévovoa.— De Sancta Trini- tate, Dialog. iv. Op., tom. v. pp. 507. E 508. A. ed. Paris. 1638.]

© Ht ego dico tibt) hoe est, tus con- fessioni, quai mihi dixisti, Tu es Christus, [Vicissitudinem et premium reddo, et dico, dicendoque facio, quo- niam meum dixisse fecisse est, Quia tu es Petrus, id est, principalis; et in fide firmus. Vel Petrus, id est, vere petre, qui es Christi dignus confessor. Sic ergo imponitur ei

novum nomen propter novam con- fessionem. Et dicitur Petrus, qui Symon vocabatur.] Ht super hanc petrand) hoe est, fidei hujus firmitatem et fundamentum. Vel, super hance petram quam confessus es, hoc est, super Meipsum ipsum lapidem angula- rem, [{montem altissimum de quo ait apostolus, Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere, preter id quod positum

est, quod est Christus Jesus...... In hac igitur fide, quod Jesus est Christus, filius Dei vivi, fundatur

atque salvatur ecclesia. ]— Dion[ysii] Carthus[iani in quatuor HEvangelia Enarrationes, art. xxix.] in ὃ. Matth. xvi, 18. [fol. lv. C. ed. Paris. 1542. —Dionysius a Rickel, cognomento de Leewis, natione Belga...... doctor ecstaticus dictus .... anno eetatis suze 21, Carthusianis nomen dedit.... cla- ruit anno 1450, Cardinalis Cusani ami- CUB clots vir in divinis scripturis, ait Trithemius, studiosissimus .... inge- nio subtilis, sermone scholasticus.— Henr. Wharton, sub voce. in append. ad Cavei Histor. Literar. Sec. Synod. tom. ii. (app.) p. 166.]

13

SECTION Ne

S. Matt. ΧΥΪ. 18,

14

Ruffinus alleged against the Infallibility of Rome.

Coxrzrence part the chapter before.t But when all his words shall be

WITH FisHeEr.

laid together, they will make no more for Bellarmine and his cause, than the former places have done. Ruffinus’ words then run thus:° “ Before I come to the words of the Creed, this I think fit to warn you of:—That in divers Churches some things are found added to the words (of the Creed). But in the Church of the city of Rome, this is not found done: and as I think, it is for that no heresy did take its rise or beginning there; and for that the old custom is there observed, namely, that they which are to receive the grace of baptism do publicly repeat the Creed in the hearing of the people, who would not admit such additions. But in other places, as far as I can understand, by reason of some heretics, some things were added, but such as were to ex- clude the sense of their novel doctrine.” Now these words make little for Bellarmine, who cites them, and much against Ruffinus that uttered them. They make little for Bellarmine. First, because, suppose Ruffinus’ speech to be true, yet this will never follow. In Ruffinus’ time, no heresy had taken its beginning at Rome; therefore no heresy hath had rooting there so many hundred years since. Secondly, Bellarmine takes upon him there to prove, that the particular Church of Rome cannot err. Now neither can this be con- cluded out of Ruffinus’ words: First, because, as I said before, to argue from non sumpsit to ergo sumere non potest, —no heresy hath yet begun there, therefore none can begin there, or spring thence,—is an argument drawn αὖ actu ad

ἃ Bellar. lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. cap. 111. sect. penult. {In primis constat, omnes patriarchales sedes defecisse a fide: ita ut heeretici, et heresim pro- fitentes ac docentes, in illis sederint, excepta Romana sede.... Nihil tale de Romana Ecclesia potest ostendi: ex quo apparet, revera pro ipsa Dominum orasse, ne deficeret fides ejus. Unde Ruffinus in expositione Symboli: In Ecclesia, inquit, urbis Rome, neque heeresis ulla sumpsit exordium, et mos ibi servatur anti- quus.—Op., tom. i. col. 811. C.]

ὁ Tilud non importune commonen- dum puto, quod in diversis ecclesiis aliqua in his verbis inveniuntur adjecta. In ecclesia tamen urbis Rome hoe non deprehenditur factum :

{quod ego] pro eo [esse] arbitror, quod neque heeresis ulla illic sumpsit exordium, et mos ibi servatur anti- quus, eos qui gratiam baptismi sus- cepturi sunt, publice, id est, fidelium populo audiente, symbolum reddere, et utique adjectionem unius saltem sermonis, eorum qui precesserunt in fide non admittit auditus. In ceteris autem locis, quantum intelligi datur, propter nonnullos heereticos addita quedam videntur, per que novelle doctrines sensus crederetur excludi, &c.—Ruffin. in Exposit. Symbol. (ut habetur inter Opera S. Cypriani,) Preefat. Expos. [Opusc. vulgo 5. Cypr. adseript. col. excix. ad caleem ed. Benedict. |

Some Heresies had their origin at Rome.

15

potentiam negative, from the act to the power of being, which — gxcrton

every novice in learning can tell proceeds not negatively. And common reason tells every man, it 1s no consequence to say, Such a thing is not, or hath not been, therefore it cannot be. Secondly, because though it were true, that no heresy at all did ever take its beginning at Rome, yet that can never prove that the particular Church of Rome can never err, (which is the thing in question.) For suppose that no heresy did ever begin there, yet if any, that began elsewhere, were admitted into that Church, it is as full a proof that that Church can err, as if the heresy had been hatched in that nest. For that Church errs which admits a heresy into it, as well as that which broaches it. Now, Ruffinus says no more of the Roman Church than non sumpsit exordium, “no heresy took its beginning there;” but that denies not, but that some heretical taint might get im there. And it is more than manifest, that the most famous heresies in their several times made their abode even at Rome. And it is observ- able too, that Bellarmine cites no more of Ruffinus’ words than these: In ecclesia urbis Rome neque heresis ulla sumpsit exordium, et mos δὲ servatur antiguus, as if this were an entire speech ; whereas it comes in but as a reason given of the speech precedent ; and as if Ruffinus made the Church of Rome the great observer of the customs of the Church ; whereas he speaks but of one particular custom of reciting the Creed before baptism. But after all this, I pray, Did no heresy ever begin at Rome ? Where did Novatianism begin? At Rome, sure. For Baronius,° Pamelius,4 and Petavius,® do all dispute the point, whether that sect was denominated from Novatianus the Roman priest, or Novatus

f Baron. tom. ii. an. 254. num. mane presbyter..... Hic autem pri-

62. [Sed de iis illud in primis com- monendum, similitudine nominum factum, ut nonnulli antiqui scrip- tores alterum pro altero interdum usurparint, et alii unum eundemque Novatum cum Novatiano conflave- TANG ΠΣ porro Novatianos a No- vatiano ut principaliori denominatos, constat ex his que Cyprianus (epist. xxiii.) seribitad Fabianum, ubieosdem quos dicimus Novatianos, a Novatiano derivans, Novatianenses appellat.|

gs Pamel. in Cyprian. Epist. xli. {Erat hie Novatianus Ecclesiz Ro-

mum in ecclesia schisma concitavit. .... Husebius et Nicephorus..... uterque, et sic etiam Socrates, vicini- tate nominum (se. Novatiani et No- vati) falsi, Novatum illum vocant non recte.—In Hpist. xli. ad Cornelium, p. 80. ed. Paris. 1616, et p. 55. ed. Benedict. ] et lxxiii. [Hine etiam patet a Novatiano dictos illos heereticos, non a Novato. —Id. in Epist. Ixxiii. ad Jubaianum, Op., p. 188, et p. 129. ed. Benedict. |

h Petavius in Epiphan. Heeres. lix. {sc. Noyatianorum. In quo plerosque

ΠΙ.

16

Corrmrence the African bishop; and they conclude for Novatian.

WITH

Fisuer.

Heresies of Novatian and Florinus originated at Rome.

He then that gave that name is in all right the founder, and Rome the nest, of that heresy: and there it continued with a succession’ of bishops from Cornelius to Celestine, which is near upon two hundred years. Nay, could Ruffinus himself be ignorant that some heresy began at Rome? No, sure. For in this I must challenge him either for his weak memory or his wilful error; for Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius’ history, but had been at the pains to translate him. Now, Eusebius? says plainly, that “some heretics spread their venom in Asia, some in Phrygia, and others grew at Rome, and Florinus was the ringleader of them.” And more clearly after, “TIrenzeus” saith he, “ directed divers epistles against this Florinus, and his fellow Blastus, and condemns them of such heresies as threw them and their followers into great impiety, &c.; those at Rome corrupting the sound

veterum patrum, ac potissimum Gree- corum, aberrasse constat: qui duos sectee hujus architectos in unum mis- cent similitudine nominum decepti, Novatum et Novatianum...... Sic igitur Novatianorum secta...... a posteriore preesertim, hoe est Nova- tiano, magnum incrementum accepit. —Petav. Animad. in Epiph. Heeres. tom. ii. p. 226. ed. Paris. 1622.]

i Onuph. in Notis ad Plat. in vita Cornelii. [Post 5. Fabiani obitum et Cornelii electionem, primum in Eccle- sia Romana schisma fuisse constat. No- vatianus enim quidam presbyterS.R.E. ambitionis spiritu inflatus.... ponti- ficatum contra Cornelium Rome assumpsit ....aquo heeresis Novatia- norum manavit.... Hujus Novatiani in episcopatu successores Rome us- que ad Cviestini Papz pontificatum permanserunt. — Onuphr. in Platin. Vit. Pontific. p. 33. ed. Colon. 1568.]

k Heeretici alii in morem venena- torum serpentum in Asiam et Phry- giam irrepserunt, of δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἤκ- μαζον, quorum Dux Florinus.—Euseb. lib. v. cap. 14. [et 15. ap. Hist. Eccl. Script. ed. Reading, tom. i. p. 227. Μισόκαλός ye μὲν ἐς τὰ μάλιστα καὶ φιλοπόνηρος ὧν ὁ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ πολέμιος, μηδένα τε μηδαμῶς THs κατὰ τῶν ἀν: ᾿νώπων ἐπιβουλῆς ἀπολιπὼν τρόπον, αἱρέσεις ξένας αὖθις ἐπιφύεσθαι κατὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐνήργει" ὧν οἱ μὲν ἰοβόλων δίκην ἑρπετῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Ασίας καὶ Φρυγίας εἷρπον τὸν μὲν παράκλητον

Μοντανὸν, τὰς δὲ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γυναῖκας, Πρίσκιλλαν καὶ Μαξιμίλλων, ὡς ἂν τοῦ Μοντανοῦ προφήτιδας γεγονυίας αὐχοῦντες. Οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἤκμαζον, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Φλωρῖνος, πρεσβυτερίου τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποπεσών. Βλάστος τε σὺν τούτῳ παραπλησίῳ πτώματι κατεσχημέ- vos’ ot καὶ πλείους τῆς ἐκκλησίας» περίελκοντες, ἐπὶ τὸ σφῶν ὑπῆγον βούλημα: θάτερος ἰδίως περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν νεωτερίζειν πειρώμενος.) And in Ruffinus’ translation, ¢. 15. [Sed in urbe Rome Florinus quidam gra- du presbyteri de ecclesia lapsus una cum Blasto socio criminis et furoris, plurimos de ecclesia in suum _ barath- rum deducebant nova adversum veri- tatem figmenta machinantes. — p. 115. B. Euseb. Ruffino interpret. apud Autor. Hist. LHcclesiast. ed. Frobenii, Basil. 1539. ] And then after- wards, ο. 19 and 20. ἐξ ἐναντίας δὲ trav ἐπὶ Ρώμης τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς ἐκκλησίας θεσμὸν παραχαραττόντων, [Εἰρηναῖος διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς συντάττει" τὴν μὲν ἐπιγράψας, πρὺς Βλάστον περὶ ἡ σχίσματος" τὴν δὲ πρὸς Φλωρῖνον περὶ μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν" ταύτης γάρ τοι τῆς “γνώμης οὗτος ἐδόκει προασπίζειν" δι ὃν αὖθις ὑποσυρόμενον τῇ κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον πλάνῃ, κ. τ. λ.--- Euseb. Jbid. p. 237. ed. Reading.] Now this Blastus taught! that God was the author of sin.

1 [Now these taught.... Editt. 1663

and 1686.]

Ruffinus on the Canon of Scripture against Rome.

doctrine of the Church. Therefore most manifest it is, that some heresy had its rise and beginning at Rome. But to leave this shp of Ruffinus, most evident it is, that Ruffinus neither did nor could account the particular Church of Rome infallible ; for if he had esteemed so of it, he would not have dissented from it in so main a point as is the canon of the Scripture, as he plainly doth; for, reckoning! up the canonical books, he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church. Therefore, either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was infallible, or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more books within the canon than heretofore she did. If she do, then she is changed in a main point of faith, the canon of Scripture, and is absolutely convinced not to be infallible ; for if she were right in her reckoning then, she is wrong now; and if she be right now, she was wrong then; and if she do not reckon more now than she did when Ruffinus lived, then he reckons fewer than she, and so dissents from her ; which doubtless he durst- not have done,

had he thought her judgment infallible.

Yea, and he sets

this mark upon his dissent besides," that he reckons up the

1 Ruff. in Exposit. Symbol. p. 188. [sect. 37, 38. col. eexxiv. ad cal- cem 8. Cyprian. ed. Benedict. Itaque veteris instrumenti primo omnium Moysi quingue libri sunt traditi, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Post hos Jesu Nave, et Judicum simul cum Ruth: quatuor post hee Regnorum libri, quos Hebrei duos numerant ; Paralipomenon, qui dierum dicitur liber; et Esdrze libri duo, qui apud illos singuli compu- tantur et Esther: Prophetarum vero Esaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel et Daniel : preeterea duodecim Prophetarum liber unus: Job quoque et Psalmi David singuli sunt libri: Salomonis vero tres Ecclesiis traditi, Proverbia, Eeccle- siastes, Cantica Canticorum. In his concluserunt librorum numerum veteris Testamenti. Novi vero, quatuor Evangelia, Matthei, Marci, Luce, Joannis : Actus Apostolorum, quos descripsit Lucas, Pauli Apostoli Epistolas quatuordecim, Petri Apos- toli Epistolas duas, Jacobi fratris Domini et Apostoli unam, Judz unam, Joannis tres, Apocalypsim Joannis. Hee sunt que Patres intra Canonem concluserunt ; ex quibus fidei nostrze assertiones constare yoluerunt. Scien-

VOL, II.— LAUD,

dum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt qui non Canonici, sed Eeclesiastici, a majoribus appellati sunt: ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, quee dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoe ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo voca- bulo non auctor libelli, sed seripturae qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobie, et Judith, et Machabzorum libri. In Novo vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur Pastoris, sive Hermetis, qui appellatur duz viz, vel judicium Petri; que omnia legi