Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	article_n	authority_n	church_n	1,686	5	4.1311	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

not to goe so far that it should labour to shake the foundation it selfe of the Church S. August Ser. 14. de verbis Apost cap. 12. g Out of this place we may gather that all points defined are fundamental All points defined are as S. Austen speaketh made firme by full authority of the Church But all points made firme by full authority of the Church are fundamentall in such sense as the Iesuite taketh the word fundamentall that is in S. Austens language such as cannot be denyed or doubtfully disputed against without shaking the foundation of the Church For denying or doubtfully disputing against any one why not against another another and so against all sith all are made firme to vs by one and the same diuine reuelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full authority of the Church which being weakened in any one cannot be to firme in any other h By the word Fundamentall is vnderstood not only those Primae Credibilia or prime Principles which do not depend vpon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as both the B. and D. White say they are fundamentall points but all which do so pertaine to supernaturall diuine infallible Christian faith by which Faith Christ the only prime foundation of the Church doth dwell in our hearts 1. Cor. 3. 11. which Fayth is to the Church the substance basis and foundation of all good things which are to be hoped for Heb. 11. as that they being once confirmed or made firme by full authority of the Church if they are wittingly willingly and especially obstinately denyed or questioned al the whole frame and in a sort the foundation it self of all supernaturall diuine Christian Faith is shaken i The Chaplaine granteth that there are quaedam prima Credibilia or some prime Principles in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp So as euery point of the Creed is not a prime Foundation and therefore the B. himself did not vnderstād the word fundamentall so strictly as if that which in one respect is a foundation may not in another respect to wit as included in and depending vpō a more prime Principle be accoūted a superstructure k If the B. meane that Onely those points are fundamentall which are expressed in the Creed of the Apostles I meruayle how he can afterwards account Scriptures wherof no expresse mention is made in the Creed to be the foundation of their Faith But if he meane that not only those are fundamentall which are expressed but also all that is infolded in the Articles of the Creed Then not Scriptures onely but some at least of Church Traditions vnwritten may be accounted fundamentall to wit all those that are inwrapped in these two Articles I belieue in the holy Ghost The holy Catholique Church as all those are which being first reuealed by the holy Ghost vnto the Apostles haue byn by successiue Tradition of the Church assisted by the same holy Ghost deliuered vnto vs one of which is That the Bookes of Scriptures themselues be diuine and infallible in euery part which is a foundation so necessary as if it be doubtfully questioned all the Faith built vpon Scripture falleth to the ground And therefore I meruayle how the B. can say as he doth afterwards in the Relation That Scriptures Onely and not any vnwritten Tradition was the foundation of their Faith l The reason why the Iesuite did specially vrge M. Rogers booke was for that it was both set out by publique authority and beareth the Title of the Catholique doctrine of the Church of England Our priuate Authors are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to take vpon them to expresse our Cath. doctrine in any matter subiect to question m By Protestants publick doctrine in this place the Iesuite meant as he vnderstood the B. to meane onely of English Protestants for the words going before making mention only of the English Church do limit the generall word Protestants to this limited sense n This Answer hath reference to that sense which the question had of Onely English Protestantes and not of all English Protestants out of such as the B. and others are who by office are teachers of Protestant doctrine who do either sweare to the booke of Articles or by subscribing oblige themselues to teach that and no contrary doctrine But if the Chaplain to discredit the Relation will needs inforce a larger extent of the sense contrary to the meaning of him that made the answere and him that asked the Question who vnderstood one another in that sense which I haue declared he must know that although none do sweare or subscribe besides the English clergy to the Book of Articles yet all who wil be accounted members of or to haue communion with one and the same English Protestant church are bound eyther to hold all those Articles or at least not to hold contrary to any one of them in regard the English Protestant church doth exclude euery one from their church by Excommunication ipso facto as appeareth in their book of Canons Can. 5. Who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So as in this respect I do not see why any one who pretendeth to be of one and the same Protestant communion with the church of England can be sayd not to be obliged to hold one and the same doctrine which is in the book of Articles not onely as the chaplaine sayth in chiefest doctrines which like a cheuerell point may be enlarged to more by those who agree in more and straitned to fewer by those who agree in fewer points but absolutly in all points and not to hold contrary to any one or any the least part of any one of them Such a shrew as it seemes is the church of England become no lesse then the chaplaine saith the church of Rome to haue bene in denying her blessing and denouncing Anathema against all that dissent although most peaceably in some particulers remote inough from the foundation in the Iudgment of the purer sort both of forraine and home-bred Protestants o The Chaplaine saith The Church of England grounded her positiue Articles vpon Scripture c. True if themselues in their owne cause may be admitted for competent Iudges in which sort some other Nouellist will say that he groundeth his positiue Articles vpon scriptures and his Negatiue refuse not only our Catholique but also Protestant doctrines As for example Baptizing of Infants vpon this Negatiue ground it not expressely at least euidently affirmed in Scriptures nor directly at least not demonstratiuely concluded out of it In which case I would gladly know what the Chaplaine would answere to defend this doctrine to be a point of Faith necessary for the saluation of poore Infants necessitate medij as all Catholique Deuines hold I answere with S. Austen Aug. l. 1. contra Cresc c. 31. Scripturarum à

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

related only he sayd 1. That himselfe did not remember a point or two which both M. Fisher and M. B. did perfectly remember to haue bene so as is here related 2. He sayd that something more was sayd then is related which M. Fisher did not deny but was willing to add any thing that D. Whyte could put him in mind of or that himselfe should after remember and so being put in remembrance made by D. Whyte to wit Whereas M. Fisher vpon some occasion or other had sayd That although a generall Councell might erre in the premisses yet not in the Conclusion D. Whyte obiected saying That in all sciēces the conclusiō is no more certayne thē the Premisses therfore if the premisses in a general councell be fallible the conclusion cannot be infallible To which M. Fisher answered saying Although in sciences which depend only vpon the light of Nature the conclusion cannot be more certaine then the premisses yet in a generall councell assisted by the holy Ghost in the finall conclusion or definitiue sentence the conclusion is alwayes infallible although sometimes the premisses be fallible And M. Fisher had great reason to answere in this manner Indeed if to define a matter of Fayth were to conclude the same by way of discourse out of Principles as the Argument doth suppose then if Councels might erre in the Promisses they might likewise erre in their Conclusion and d●finitiue sentence But this supposition is false Infallibility in defining being a diuine Assistance not to inferre one thing out of another by way of connexion and consequence but to decree and declare what is conform 〈…〉 to the word of God by way of authority binding the Church so to believe And this definition is euer infallible though all the arguments the Councell bringes by way of discourse in proofe of the definition eyther before or after the same is made be not still demonstratiue Another obiection M. Fisher hath since that time remembred to wit that D. White alleaged something out of Abulensis in Matt. 7. 19. which M. Fisher differred to make answere vnto vntil he might see the Author himself hauing had experience inough how falsely many Ministers the Authors and how false their Note-Bookes be Now M. Fisher hath seene the booke and findeth the words cited by D. White to contayne two parts one as contrary to D. White as the other seemeth contrary to M. Fisher that the whole discourse of Abulensis in that place sheweth that euen that part which seemeth contrary to M. Fisher doth nothing preudice M. Fishers cause as will appeare to any that will duly ponder all that is there sayd of the Authority of the Church in defining what bookes be and what be not Canonicall For Abulensis expressly declareth that all and only those bookes are to be accounted Canonicall which the church doth define to be canonicall and the reason why he did in his priuate opinion thinke one or two Bookes not to be canonicall which we do now hold for canonicall is for that the Church had not then so cleerely defined them to be Canonicall as it hath done since A 〈…〉 sts wrot that passage as there are diuers other Bookes held for Canonicall euen by Protestants which haue not beene so esteemed by some of the Ancient Fathers in regard the church had not then so clearely defined them to be canonicall as is hath done in after times A third obiection was made by D. White about the worship of Images which D. White would needs affirme to be an Innouation and gross● Error of Papists Which M. Fisher denied and sayd that the worship meaning the same worship which is due to the Prototypon is not giuen by vs to the Image it selfe This obiection D. White vrged no further the first day but the next day of meeting he vrged those words of Bellarmine Datur veneratio ipsi imagini M. Fisher anwered that Bellarmine did not meane that the same worship which was due to the Prototypon was giuen to the Image it selfe but an inferior degree of worship and that also for the Prototypons sake Then D. White betooke himselfe to Suares saying That Suares did hold that the same worship which was giuen to the Prototypon was giuen to the Image M. Fisher answering sayd You do not vnderstand our Authors For sayd M. Fisher they that seeme to giue most giue the least to Images for those that say that one and the same worship is giuen to the Image and that which is represented by it hold the Image to be incapable of any part of worship and so the whole to pertayne to the thing Wheras others who distinguish one honour to be due to the thing and another farre inferior to be giuen to the Image giue something as M. Fisher explicated in the example of the respect one beareth to the picture of his friend which although it be not capable of that friendly respect and affection which by looking vpon it he exciteth in himselfe towards his friend represented by it yet is it capable of an inferiour degree of respect as to be set in a more worthy and eminent place c. then it should be if it were the picture of some other who were not ones friend These be the chiefe Passages of this Conference between D. White and M. Fisher so far as hath come to my notice who haue vsed so much diligence in inquiring the truth of this matter as I haue no doubt but for substance I haue not omitted any thing that may much import considering what the occasion and subiect of the Conference was to wit that Paper written by M. Fisher in which he proued the Roman Church and those who agree in Fayth with it to be that Company of whome euery one must learne what is the truth in all points and questions of Fayth necessary to saluation which paper not being substantially confuted as it was not by any thing sayd by D. White or any other at that time or after D. Whyte is yet obliged to make a better answere if he meane to giue satisfaction either to Catholiques or Protestants in this most important point of a perpetually visible church of which all forts must learne true diuine infallible Faith necessary to Saluation FINIS A RELATION OF THE Conference between a certain B. M. Fisher defended against the said B. his Chaplayne The Preface GENTLE Reader I think it needful to let thee vnderstand that whereas the Chaplaine of a certayne B. sayth in the Preface of his Answere to a Relation of what passed betweene the said B. and M. Fisher That the Iesuite spread abroad papers of this Conference which were full of partiality to his cause more full of calumney against the B. the truth is that the Iesuite did not at all so much as in speach much lesse in papers publish this or either of the other two Conferences which he had with D. White vntill he was forced vnto it by false

not signanter and expresly make this precise Answere which now he maketh nor scarse any part of it as appeareth by the Relation of the first Conference made by the Iesuite in fresh memory and conferred with D. White himself who did not at that time contradict it in this point Thirdly the reason which moued the Iesuite to say that D. White had secured him as is said in this Relation was for that D. White in the said first Conference graunted that there must be one or other church continually visible which had in all ages taught the vnchanged Fayth of Christ in all points fundamentall and being vrged to assigne such a church D. Whyte expressely graunted that he could not assigne and shew any church different from the Roman which held in all ages all points fundamentall Whence the Iesuite gathered his opinion to be that the Roman church held and taught in all ages vnchanged Fayth in all fundamentall points and did not in any age erre in any point fundamentall Whereupon the Iesuite asked whether errours in points not fundamentall were damnable D. White answered they were not so long as one did not hold them against his conscience which Answere he repeated againe to M. B. asking the same question Out of all which the Iesuite did collect that D. Whites opinion was that the Roman church held all points fundamentall and only erred in points not fundamentall which he accounted not damnable so long as one did not hold them against his conscience and thereuppon the Iesuit might well say that D. White had giuen security to him who holdeth no Faith different from the Roman nor contrary to his owne conscience As for D. Whites saying he could discerne but small loue of truth and few signes of grace in the Iesuite I will let it passe as the censure of an Aduersary looking vpon the Iesuite with eyes of dislyke which is not to be regarded further then to returne vpon him not a like censure but a charitable wish that he may haue no lesse loue of truth nor fewer signes of grace then the Iesuite is thought to haue by those who know him better then D. White doth e The Chaplain noteth that the B. was confident and had reason of his confidence For sayth he To belieue the Scripture and Creed in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church to receiue the first fowre Generall Councells so much magnified by Antiquity To belieue all points of doctrine generally receiued as fundamentall in the Church of Christ is a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue saluation And I would fayne see sayth the chaplain any one point maintained by the church of England that can be proued to depart from the foundation To which I answer first that if to say thus be a sufficient cause of confidence I meruayle why the chaplain maketh such difficulty to be confident of the saluation of Rom. Catholiques who belieue all this in a farre better maner then Protestants do neyther can they be proued to depart from the foundation so much as Protestants do who denying infallible authority to all the Pastours of the cath church assembled in a Generall councell do in effect deny Infallibility to the whole catholique church which is bound to heare belieue what is defined and to practise what is prescribed by her Pastours in a generall councell and ordinarily doth so belieue and practise Secondly I aske how Protestants who admit no certaine and infallible meanes and rule of Fayth beside onely Scripture can be infallibly sure that they belieue the same entier scripture and creed and the foure first Generall councels c. in the same vncorrupted sense which the Primitiue Church belieued What text of scripture doth tell that Protestants who now liue do belieue all this or that all this is expressed in those particuler Bibles or in the writings of the Fathers or Councells which now are in the Protestants handes or that Protestants do rightly vnderstand the sense of all which is expressed in their bookes according to that which was vnderstood by the Primitiue Church and the Fathers which were present at the foure first Generall Councells Or that all and onely those points which Protestants do account to be fundamentall and necessary to be expresly knowne by all were so accounted by the Primitiue Church I suppose neither the B. nor the Chaplain can produce any text of scripture sufficient to assure one of all this And therefore he had need to seeke some other Infallible rule and meanes by which he may know these things infallibly or els he hath no reason to be so confident as to aduenture his soule that one may be saued liuing and dying in the Protestant Fayth f Heere I note that the Iesuite was as confident for his part as the B. for his but with this difference that the B. had not sufficient reason of his Confidence as I haue declared But the Iesuite had so much reason both out of expresse scriptures and Fathers and the infallible authority of the Church that the B. himself then did not nor his Chaplaine now doth not taxe the Iesuit of any rashnes but the Chaplain expresly graunteth that There is but one sauing Faith and the B. did as was related graunt that the La. might be saued in the Rom. Fayth which is as much as the Iesuite did take vpon his soule Onely the chaplain saith without any proofe that we haue many dangerous errours but he neither tels vs which they be nor why he thinketh them dangerous but leaueth vs to look to our owne soules and so we do and haue no cause to doubt because we do not hold any new deuise of our owne or any other man or any thing contrary but all most conformable to scriptures interpreted by Vnion consent of Fathers and definitions of Councells Which being so the B. and his chaplaine had need to looke to their soules for if there be but one sauing Fayth as the Chaplain graunteth and he hath reason because S. Paul sayth Ephes. 4. Vna fides One Fayth and S. Leo serm de Natiuit Nisi vna est fides non est vnlesse it be One it is not Fayth and this One Fayth was once the Roman which also yet is as the B. graunteth a sauing Fayth or else he ought not to haue granted that one may be saued liuing dying in it I see not how they can haue their soules saued without they entirely imbrace this Fayth being the Cath. Fayth which as S. Athanasius in Symb. affirmeth vnles one hold entiere that is euery point of it and inuiolate that is belieuing all in right sense and for the true formall reason of diuine reuelation sufficiently applied to our vnderstāding by the Infallible authority of the Cath. Church proposing to vs by her Pastours this reuelation without doubt he shall perish for euer In which sort if the B. and his chaplain did belieue any one Article they finding the same