by the first Authors of the Protestant Religion Quest 9 and the second done and still continued by their followers Or if the first Authors of Protestant Religion received those points of their Doctrine from any visible Church in the whole World which existed immediately before their relinquishing the Roman Doctrine let that Church be produced and named Sir Answ 9 this Question desires another Question for answer what do you mean by whether the first was not done by the first Authors of the Protestant Religion If you mean insolent madnesse insufferable height of pride for any Christian whatsoever to call in question much more to censure and condemn as erroneous that which all the visible Churches in the World taught and Practised With your good leave you must name the first Authors and what it was they censured and condemned and so you must explain what followes and the second done and still continued by their followers if you meane manifest foolery to follow any Teachers and to give eare and belief to them who contradict the universall Practise and Doctrine of the whole Christian World You must name that universall Doctrine and Practise of the whole Christian World and how we have contradicted it else you fight with the wind and say nothing For the rest of this ninth Question to produce and name that visible Church from whence we have received those points of Doctrine which existed immediately before we relinquished the Roman Doctrine the Roman Church it self is named and named thus Antiquam Romam non Anglia Roma reliquit Anglia non Romam Britannes Roma repellit Do but return to the old Roman Doctrine in the Primitive and Catholick Constitution of it and we are friends till then Farewell Seeing Protestants affirm Quest 10 that the Roman Church is infected with errors in faith which they pretend to have purged in their Reformation I demand that it be evidenced when any of those pretended errors began to be publickly taught and Practised out of some approved Authors of any Age who affirm that the publick profession of the said errors begun in or about their times for seeing they were publickly Practised through all Christendom if that publick Practise had ever begun in any Age since the Apostles it must have been taken notice of whereby their instances of Consumption of the Lungs of a beard growing white c. are shewed to be nothing to the purpose because they are either wholly secret or insensible and no way publick or notorious as these were and seeing faith by St. Paul Eph. 4. v. 1 3. is said to be one and reckoned up with the Unity of God and Christ and so must be perfectly one how Protestants and those of the Roman Church be properly said to have one Faith when the one believes what the other disbelieves And as opinions contradicting one another cannot be said to be one opinion how can Faiths contradicting one another be said to be one Faith Neither is it enough to say that they are one in that wherein they agree for so they will be one onely in part or partially and not absolutely and entirely and as the least difference destroys the perfect Unity of God and Christ so will it do that of Faith and though my opinion agree with that of another in many things but disagrees in many other from his we can never be said absolutely as it must be in Faith to be of the same and one opinion Dolosus versatur â—iâ—ca universalibus Answ 10 your arguing by universalls and yet requiring particular answers argues you to be deceiptfull and to seek for Triumph more then Truth yet that people may be undeceived I shall follow your universalls with my particulars and though I could pay you with your own coyne in saying while the good man slept the enâ—â—ous man sowed Tares yet I pay you in more current coyne and say Protestants affirm not that the Roman Church is infected with errors in Faith and yet we say there are manifest and clear errors in the Roman Church which we purged and when some of your Errors not pretended but reall Errors begun thus is evidenced Purgatory was never publickly taught by the whole Christian Church and never decreed by the Roman Church it self untill the Elorentine Council 1439. Transubstantiation was never publickly taught by the whole Christian Church nor allowed or decreed by the Roman Church it self untill the Laterane Council 1215. Worshipping of Images was never publickly taught nor allowed or decreed untill the second Nicene Council 787. Communion in one kind not above 200. yeares Supremacy of the Pope was condemned by St. Gregory himself lib. 1. Ep. 16. Anno 600. for Antichristian For your Consumption in the Lungs and a Beard growing white I think with you they are nothing to the purpose whether yours or ours nor is it to my purpose to be satisfied with the colour of your Beard whether it be blew or yellow To your Text of St. Paul Eph. 4. v. 1 2. I confesse Faith is said to be one and believe you believe that you of the Roman and we of the English Church have both but one Faith whether you take it for the Rule of Faith the Creed If you have a new Creed we leave you or the end of Faith Salvation if you have any other end we leave you or the meanes of that Faith and Salvation Christ If you have any other means we leave you still and for your contradicting opinions I tell you it is a lame similitude to bring in thereby contradicting Faith for though you and I agree but partially in points of opinion yet we agree entirely in point of Faith Whether it be not a great Argument Quest 11 to induce any rationall indifferent man to judge that the Protestant Authors are put to great straits and to desperate acknowledgments which being ashamed of the first refuge of their beginners in dying for the defence of their succession to an invisible Church in alleadging for their Predecessors and continuance of the visibility of their Church Berengarius the Waldenses Albigerses Wicklifsts Hussits and other publickly condemned Hereticks they confesse now that they have no other means to save their visible Succession but by acknowledging that they succeed to the Church of Rome and other Churches adjoyning with her against them in all the points of difference betwixt them and her and all those who are united to her to be true Churches of Christ and consequently to hold no fundamentall Error at all and consequent to this to acknowledge that their first Authors and Churches both in England and other Countries wronged the Church of Rome and those others insufferably first in condemning them of Superstition Idolatry Antichristianisme c. Which are fundamentall Errors in Religion and destructive of Salvation Secondly upon this pretext in destroying burning and alienating to secular uses so many thousands of their Churches Monasteries Townes Cities Castles Villages Thirdly in Massacrating and
point and Article of Christian Faith as well according to the substance resurget that our Saviour should rise again which Protestants grant to be a fundamentall point as the circumstance of time tertia die the third day Now suppose that some Christian to whom this whole sentence of Scripture is sufficiently propounded should firmly believe the substance of the Resurrection because he esteems it to be a fundamentall point but should disbelieve the precise circumstance of time that it was onely upon the third and no other day I demand seeing both the one and the other is propounded equally as expresly contained in that sentence of Holy Scripture whether he that disbelieves that the Resurrection happened upon the third day and dies in that belief can be saved To your distinction of fundamentall and not fundamentall Answ 15 it is as much yours as ours and what the late Reverend and Learned Archbishop of Cant. answered the Jesuit or A. L. in that point the same I give you and beseech you as you will answer it to Almighty God say whether you do not believe the Jesuit or A. C. was not fully satisfied by the Bishop If you will have more thus Points fundamentall without believing which an ignorant man cannot be saved are set down in the Creed points fundamentall which a learned man opposing that is Maliciously Schismatically Heretically opposing are many more even as many as the Scriptures propose or the Church the Catholick Church either Representative in a lawfull Generall Council or otherwise collected altogether shall determine from the Scripture either Divinely or deductively For your Catalogue and precise number of fundamentall Errors in Faith as it came from a cunning brain so I leave it where I found it To your more modest demand which are destructive of and which are consistent with Salvation I answer impugning any Article of Faith stubbornly and maliciously is destructive of Salvation disbelieving what a Church-shall determine though it consists not with yet is not destructive of Salvation To your Grecian Church erring fundamentally about the Procession of the Holy Ghost I say no more then what some of your own have said though they disagree in words yet they agree in sence and so erre not fundamentally thereby to make it no true Church of Christ but onely circumstantially and so remain a true Church of Christ which if you do not remember you may take it in this Distick Ex Patre Gnato procedit Spiritus Almus Quamvis dissideat nomine Graecafides An Erroneous Church they may be in this particular yet a true Church they are notwithstanding this particular because they deny not the Consubstantiality of the Persons For your lightness of matter which the Creed containes as it came in by a Parenthesis so I wish you had left it out for fear some whether yours or ours I fear both think lightly in time of all The circumstances of Time and Persons Pontius Pilate and the Third day are to be believed as well as the Substance Christ suffering and his Resurrection that is the circumstances being maliciously impugned not simply disbelieved will not consist with Salvation To your precise number of Canonicall Books of Scripture though the Creed define them not yet that doth not argue the Creed not to b◠in them or they in the Creed put both together and you have a sufficient Rule to know which are and which are not fundamentall points Though the Scriptures do not tell you which are and which are not Canonicall yet the Church hath and for all that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith not the Church because the Church is but the Door and Threshold the Scripture the house and Foundation The incorrupt purity of the Originall we enjoy in our Translations because our Translations agree with the Originall nor yet doth it follow that the determinate belief of what is true Scripture is necessary to Salvation that is to all men to all men fundamentall points are necessary to some onely all is necessary Nor is your Example so evident as you would have it appear for you begin it with a suppositum non supponendum make it your own not another mans case and deny the Resurrection of Christ upon the Third day or assign it to another if you dare I dare not nor dare I say you may be saved or shall be damned if you do such secrets belong not to me and I wish you not to be too busie with them lest you scorch your fingers I demand farther Quest 16 That seeing St. Paul Heb. 11.1 saies that Faith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the substance or ground as the Protestants English Bible of Anno 1648. hath it of things hoped for and is reckoned up by the same Apostle Heb. 6.1 2. amongst those which are called by him Basis the Foundation one of them being Faith to God and the Apostle Eph. 2.20 saies we are built 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the foundation of the Prophets and the Apostles which now according to the Protestants can be nothing else save the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles in Holy Scripture I demand whether to say that some points of Faith are not fundamental or belonging to the foundation be not as contrary to common sense as to say that some stone in the foundation of a building belongs not to the foundation or is not fundamental Sir Answ 16 whether the Translation be Ground or Substance needs not trouble you nor shall it me since the Original will bear either and Faith to God is one of them which are called Basis or foundation And we are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles may signifie the writings of the Prophets and Apostles in holy Scriptures This and all this will not bring in your demand whether to say that some points of Faith are not fundamental or belonging to the foundation be not as contrary to common sense as to say that some stone in the foundation of a building belongs not to the foundation or is not fundamental Or if it did what harm hence to the Church of England which saies not any points of Faith are not fundamental Further I demand Quest 17 That seeing St. Paul affirms in the forecited place Heb. 6.2 that Laying on of hands amongst many other points is the foundation how Protestants can deny that seeing the Laying on of hands is disbelieved and rejected by them in the Sacrament of Confirmation and by some in the Administration of Holy Orders as a Popish Superstition such Protestants differ fundamentally from those of the Roman Church Or if the Laying on of hands belong to the foundation as St. Paul here affirmed why Annointing with Oyle mentioned by St. James should not also be a fundamental point Or why Laying on of hands being onely as Protestants esteem it a Ceremony not Sacramental should be here termed the foundation and the substance of the Eucharist which all hold to be Sacramental and more than
a meer Ceremony should not be fundamental Or lastly what reason there is to say that Laying on of hands hath a neerer connexion to the radical and prime mysteries of our Faith then many other points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church Whether by Laying on of hands here is intended Confirmation which to be a Sacrament properly so taken Answ 17 will be hard for you to prove but not hard for me to grant that it is Sacramentale quoddam and yet not Sacramentum for want of visibile signum invisibilis gratiae and yet hard again for you to make it a foundation the use whereof is not disbelieved or rejected by us No the disuse of it is lamented and let them answer it who have caused it Yes and Laying on of hands in the Administration of Holy Orders is used by all those who are ordained Episcopally and yet no Sacrament for all that though we confess it a foundation quoad Ecclesiastices not quoad Ecclesiam Why Annointing with Oyle mentioned by St. James should not be a fundamental point you might have told your self without demand from others because the Epistle of St. James and some other Books were not received into the Canon of the Scripture untill some time after the Foundation was laid Nor is Laying on of hands esteemed by Protestants a Ceremony not Sacramentall nor is it by St. Paul termed the Foundation and substance of the Eucharist We all you and we hold the Eucharist to be a Sacrament and not onely Sacramentall but Fundamentall that is Inadultis Nor do I remember that I ever read that Laying on of hands hath a nearer connexion to the radicall and prime Mysteries of our Faith unless onely in Ecclesiasticis then many other points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church It is yet further demanded Quest 18 seeing Protestants affirm that the whole Catholick visible Church may erre in the definition of points of Faith not fundamentall and seeing that they affirm that the points in difference betwixt us are not fundamentall and so not necessary to Salvation and lastly seeing they affirm also that the Scriptures may be obscure in points not necessary to Salvation by what means can they ever think to convince the Roman Church of Error in these points of difference betwixt them and her Sir Answ 18 with your favour Protestants do not affirm that the whole Catholick Church can erre in Doctrines absolutely fundamentall and necessary to all mens Salvation for so we should destroy an Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church which consists of Triumphant souls as well as Militant men but that this or that visible Church or the whole visible Church and Catholick as limitted to visible may erre in the definition of points not fundamentall yes and fundamentall too Protestants do affirm and the reason is because the whole visible Church consists of men and men when they are at best are subject to Error Nor do Protestants affirm the points in difference betwixt you and them to be not fundamentall or unnecessary to Salvation for some of them are so fundamentall and necessary to Salvation to you and such learned men as you are that unless you leave them you will hardly finde the way to Heaven take one for all and let the Merit of your own works be it and see if your sharing with Christ in earning a part of your Salvation will not lose you the whole and so by this the rest of this Question is answered and the Roman Church convinced of Error in points of difference betwixt them and her Seeing also that every point of Faith is a Divine Truth Quest 19 proceeding from the Revelation of God and to be believed as I suppose for the present with the common consent of Protestants with an infallible assent of Faith if the universall visible Church may erre and the Scripture may be obscure as is generally affirmed by our Adversaries in points of Faith not fundamentall how shall such points as are in Controversie betwixt us and are accounted by Protestants not fundamentall or not necessary to Salvation be discerned to be points of Faith or how agreed this Modern Protestant Doctrine of no difference betwixt us in points necessary to Salvation which that of their beginners and more antient Predecessors who taught that the Scriptures were clear onely in all points necessary to Salvation and upon that pretext both affirmed that our Doctrines against them were clearly convinced of falsehood by the Authority of sole Scripture and allowed all Lay-people promiscuously to read them as being clear to them in all the points controverted betwixt us for this manifestly supposes that they were held by those beginners to be points of Faith necessary to Salvation or fundamentals Or what means is there to believe them as points of Faith seeing they can never be believed infallibly upon the Churches Authority by reason of her pretended fallibility in them nor expresly for the Authority of Scripture by reason of its obscurity in the delivery of them according to the principles of Protestants That every point of Faith as divine Truth Answ 19 proceeding from the Revelation of God if you are not equivocall in that expression is to be believed is granted but whether as you suppose with a common consent of Protestants with an infallible assent of Faith I cannot say for if by infallible assent you mean a full assurance or great confidence I can tell you Protestants are not so bold we confess assurance to be the effect of a strong Faith we affirm it not to be the Essence of all Faith If the universall visible Church may erre and the Scriptures may be obscure as is generally affirmed by out Adversaries in points of Faith not fundamentall how shall such points as are in Controversie betwixt us and are accounted by Protestants not fundamentall or not necessary to Salvation be discerned to be points of Faith How the universall visible Church may erre I told you in the former and how the Scriptures may be obscure and to whom I tell you in this Protestants do not generally affirm them obscure in points not fundamentall though if they did it were nothing to the purpose in points controverted betwixt us That Scriptures are the Rule of Faith which is fundamental is by Protestants affirmed That the Scriptures are easie and plain to all sorts of men learned and unlearned which use the means and are diligent in reading them is likewise affirmed when they are obscure to any they are obscure to them onely who have not eyes enlightned to see into them they who have humble and diligent souls will soon discern which be and which be not points of Faith How our predecessor and modern Protestants agree need no further demonstration then what is already given that the Scriptures are cleer onely in all points necessary to Salvation is for you to prove Pretext we know none your Doctrines against
us are clearly convinced by Authority of Scripture not alone but of expositors also Lay-people allowed by Protestants to read the Scriptures and so they were by the Primitive Fathers and so they would by you if you would follow Primitive and Catholick example we hold them clear in points of Faith necessary to Salvation which though not believed infallibly upon the Churches Authority by reason of her not pretended fallibility yet are believed expresly for and by the Authority of Scripture without any obscurity in the delivery of them not according to the principall of Protestants onely but of the Primitive Fathers also I demand further Quest 20 if the whole visible Church may erre in the definition of any points whatsoever that Error must either proceed from ignorance and want of light or from malice and want of vertue and goodness not the second for then the whole visible Church of Christ should not be sancta Holy as it is believed to be in our Creed and described in the Scriptures but should become a Harlot and abominable deceiver of the world and a seducer of Nations in teaching contrary to the known truth not the first for if she could erre out of ignorance to what purpose do Protestants appear to her Determination in a lawful and general Council in any of the points of difference betwixt them and those of the Roman Church seeing she may through ignorance erre in the determination of them as being not fundamental according to them neither can it be said notwithstanding the whole visible Churches fallibility in points not fundamental nay though it should actually erre and that Error should be evidently discovered yet even those who had thus evidently discovered the said Errors were to conforme themselves to those erroneous definitions of a general Council for if this conformity be understood of an internal conformity in Judgment as it is wholly impossible seeing that were to judge the same thing to be true and not true at the same time and to judge against an evident knowledge and if it be understood of an external conformity and profession onely it were manifestly impious and high Hypocrisie in resisting the known Truth revealed by Almighty God which they evidently know to be a most false Error in Faith Secondly if one were to subscribe and externally to conform himself to the definitions of lawful general Councils which one perswades himself he evidently knows to be erroneous till another be assembled to correct them why did not Protestants afford this external conformity to the definition of the general Councils of Florence of Lateran and to the second Council of Nice to omit others till some other lawful general Council came to correct their pretended Errors they having no other reason to reject the authority of the said Councils then that they define many things against the Protestant Doctrine Thirdly seeing it was never yet seen nor can be ever made manifest that any lawful general Council revoked any definition in matter of Faith of any former lawful general Council what hope is there that they should now begin to do what was never done before them Fourthly if it were supposed that any such revocatory definition should issue from them that party whose Doctrine should be condemned by such revocations would accuse the Council of Error as much as the contrary party accused the former Council of error in defining against them and so the controversie would remain as indetermined as it was before neither would it be possible to determine it fully by a general Council for the party condemned would still expect another Council to revoke that definition which seems to him evidently erroneous and so there would be no end of new determinations and revocations in infinitum Yet farther seeing lawfull Generall Councils do not onely oblige even under pain of Anathema or being accursed and excommunicated all Christians to believe and profess the Doctrine which they teach them not onely to be true and free from Error but to be divine Truth revealed by God himself if they should erre in any such definition they must make God the Father of Error and untruth which quite destroys the veracity of God and consequently overthrowes the main and primary foundation of Christian Faith and therefore must necessarily be held to include a fundamentall Error So impossible and implicatory a thing it is for them to erre in matter of Faith and not to erre fundamentally For either that erring Council must define some positive Error or that which God never revealed to be revealed from God or that some true Revelation from God is an Error Both which conâ—â—ine no lesse malice then this To make God a Lyer How the whole visible Church may erre Answ 20 you have heard now whether from Ignorance or Malice you would know from malice I think not because then it would not be Sancta Holy as you say most rightly but why not from Ignorance For they are but men and men at best know not all things they know but in part and yet we appeale to the determination of her in a lawfull Generall Council because what she knowes in part and what you know in part and what we know in part may amount to more then half the whole and therein we shall acquiesce untill we know perfectly So then the malicious erroneous definition of a Generall Council if lawfully called being declined we shall study conformity both internall in judgement and externall in profession without sinning either against evident knowledge within or by high Hypocrisie without And yet why we conformed not to the definitions of the Generall Councils as you call them of Florence of Lateran and the second of Nice you know if you would express it as well as we not so much for defining many things against our as against the Catholick Doctrine Nor thirdly is all hope taken away from doing what was never done as you say but most untruly because some Generall Councils have revoked what former Generall Councils lawfully called have determined And fourthly upon supposition that any such revocatory definition should issue that either you or our selves either of our Doctrines being condemned should still expect another Council to revoke that definition For certainly the Catholick Christian will be so modest as to stand to the definition of that spirituall power which he acknowledgeth the highest upon Earth though the Catholick Roman would not unless the Bishop of Rome both called and commanded the Council and so the In infinitum would be yours not ours And farther let it be granted that lawfull Generall Councils do oblige under pain of Anathema to believe and profess that Doctrine which they teach to be free from Error and a divine Truth revealed by God himself so it be not a new Revelation against the old we would not believe they make God the Author of Error or a Lyer you may do it if you please or dare Seeing St. Quest 21 Paul Eph. 4.14 affirmes
simple and well-meaning men amongst you the distinction of your veniall Sins we refer to your selves every sin we say is mortall so long as a man wilfully continues in it knowing it to be sin Nor do we hold it a point of Faith to accuse the Church of Rome of Superstition and Idolatry but if you are guilty of such Crimes look you to it we erre not damnably in saying Worshipping Images or God by Images is Idolatry and therefore for all this are true Churches of Christ we condemn not the visible Churches of the West nor of the East much less whole Christendom for 900. yeares together of Superstition name but one point we hold contrary to the Tenents of the Catholick Church for 1600. yeares I give you a larger time we yield You are come acain to erring venially and lightly to which you had answer before onely take this by way of addition to your Quotation of the Bishop of Cant. p. 129. Num. 3. All that that Learned and most Reverend Bishop saies and grants is that the Church of Rome is a true Church in Effence and this because she receiveth the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though as but a partiall and imperfect Rule and both the Sacraments as Instrumentall Causes and Seales of Grace though they adde more and misuse these And now what you have got by this Quotation when you have understood it you may alter to a better Mode To your last which charges us to Communicate in Prayer and Sacraments with the Presbyterians and Calvinists and so are guilty of deadly Schisme and are thereby consequently uncapable of Salvation I would and do wish you had not spoke false English for we Communicate neither with Presbyterian or Calvinist let them be all one it is all one to me they are at a greater dinance from us then Rome it self And I think the poor Church of England suffers more under one of them then ever she did under the Church of Rome and therefore as yet are as capable of Salvation as you of the Roman Church because we hold of the Catholick in which and which Church onely is Salvation and from which Church if you have made a Schisme by giving the cause of separation let it be your care to return to the Catholick that we may shake hands and be friends Whether it be not a great Argument of security to those who either are of the Roman Church or convert themselves to it Quest 12 that her very Adversaries after so many condemnations of her to hold most grievous and damnable Errors dare not now accuse her to hold any Error destructive of Salvation so that the belief of her Doctrine in every point their obedience to all her Commandments the exercise of all her Practises their praying to Saints reverencing of holy Images adoring of Christ as really and naturally present in the Sacrament c. consist with Salvation And though some say Bishop of Cant. p. 281. though these destroy not Salvation yet they are dangerous points and Practises weakning the Foundation and endeavouring the destruction of it in continuance of time yet who sees not that it is more secure to hold a Religion which makes the Foundation onely weak by their Adversaries concession then to hold theirs which the contrary party most constantly affirms to destroy quite and rase the Foundation of Religion and to make Salvation not onely hard and in danger but utterly impossible till it be deserted Security it may be Answ 12 not a safe security for certainly praying to Saints which hath neither Precept Pattern nor Promise Reverencing of holy Images which hath a direct prohibition if they are not holy and how they are made holy you should do well to tell us adoring Christ as really and naturally present in the Sacrament if by naturally present you understand carnally which hath a direct negation in the Scriptures will not consist with salvation no not with a possibility of Salvation which you might have learnt from the Archbishop of Cant. if you had Quoted him right for in the 181. p. which you cite not a word of any such thing But in the 281. and 282. it is to the purpose not yours but ours and there you shall find thus much with much more a secure way they cannot go that hold with such Corruptions when they know them now whether it be wisdom in such a point as Salvation is to forsake a Church in the which the ground of Salvation is firm to follow a Church in which it is but possible one may be saved but very probably he may do worse if he look not well to the Foundation judge ye So the Archbishop so I and so you have an answer to your 12. Question Whether it be a likely thing Quest 13 that the chiefest of the pretended Errors in the Roman Religion contain any danger of losing Salvation in maintaining them seeing for this 1000 yeares by the common confession of Protestants themselves they have been universally believed and Practised as matters belonging to Christian Faith and Duty both by the Latine and Greek Church and in the belief and Practise of them was the common way wherein Christians were saved which if it were dangerous what other safe way was there wherein Christians might be saved and yet certainly there was alwaies a safe way to Heaven And what likelihood is there that the safe way should be wholly unknown and unpractised for so many hundred yeares together and the common known way according to the full belief and setled perswasion of all the visible Churches of Christendom should be dangerous and unsafe Or what reason can be given that the Professors of the Doctrine of the Roman Church should be in an unsafe and dangerous way before Protestants began seeing they had none in those times to shew them that they were in danger Yes Answ 13 likely enough for the chiefest of the Errors not pretended but Errors in the Roman Religion contain danger of losing Salvation in maintaining them else why did Bellarmine himself the greatest and learned'st Champion the Church of Rome ever had Lib. 5. de Just c. 7. say in regard of the uncertainty of our own Righteousness and of the danger of vaine-glory it is safest to repose our whole trust in the mercy and goodnesse of God And I think and you believe this is one Error which contains Error of losing Salvation for he that stands upon his own Merits totally or partially is very like to come short of Salvation Else King David would never have prayed Enter not into judgement with thy Servant O Lord for no flesh is righteous in thy sight Else the Prophet Isaiah would never have said our Righteousnesse is as a filthy cloath Else Christ would never have Commanded us to confess when we have done all we can to say we are unprofitable Servants Seeing for 1000. yeares by the common consent of Protestants themselves they have been universally believed and Practised
putting to cruell Torments and death so many Priests and Professors of the Roman Religion Fourthly in depriving their Bishops and Clergymen of their respective Church-Governments Dignities Seas Benefices and Churches and setting up others they get livings in their places Fifthly in making it no less then High-Treason which is yet in force either to be Priests or to communicate with them in many Spirituall Church-Offices and Sacraments Sixtly in continuing to this day in a violent detaining of their Churches Benefices Dignities and Spirituall Functions from all those of the Roâ—an profession and holding them in their own hands and all this because they maintain certain pretended Errors which they now confess not to be fundamentall nor destructive of Salvation and consequently that those of the Roman Church have suffered and still suffer all these intollerable injuries for that which even these Modern Authors acknowledg to be no more then a venial and small sin for if it were mortall it would destroy Salvation so long as one wilfully continues in it which they affirm it does not Further by this Acknowledgement these modern Protestant Authors must confess that their former Writers who were of a contrary mind in charging the Church of Rome and the rest with her of Superstition and Idolatry c. and all those who then joyned with them and all their modern Churches and Protestants both without and within England who at this day hold it a point of their Faith to accuse the Church of Rome in the same mannerâ— erre damnably against Christian Truth and so consequently are no true Churches of Christ for it cannot be less then a damnable Error to make it a point of their Faith and Religion to condemn any one much more all the visible Churches of the West nay and of the East too and so of whole Christendom for nine hundred yeares together of grievous Superstition when upon better examination the Doctors of the same Protestant Church are compelled by force of truth to confess that those Churches neither are nor ever were guilty of those horrid Errors and at most erre onely venially and lightly which hinder them not either to be a true Church of Christ or to obtain Salvation Bishop of Cant. p. 129. num 3. Even while they constantly and immoveably maintain them and accuse all who wilfully contradict them and condemn them as erroneous And hence also it follows that seeing these modern Protestant Authors and their party Communicate in Prayer and Sacraments with the Presbyterians and Calvinists who accuse the Church of Rome of Idolatry c. and so put it in fundamentall error and acknowledg themselves to make one Church with them must be guilty of deadly Schisme by that Communion and acknowledgment and consequently so long as they continue in that Communion are uncapable of Salvation Here are many words to small purpose Answ 11 a Question might have been couched in five lines enlarged to five pages my answer must be answerable Know you therefore whosoever you are without a name Protestants are not put to great straits nor desperate acknowledgments they are not ashamed of their first beginners They stand not for the Succession of an invisible Church they acknowledg not for their first beginners of a visible Church Berengarius the Waldenses Albigenses Wicklifsts Hussits whom yet you cannot truly affirm to have been legally condemned for Hereticks but we alleadge for our Predecessors Christ and his Apostles Ignatius Clemens Hegesippus Polycarpus Irenaeus Theophilus Tertullian Cyprian Origan Methodius Gregory Neozes Constantius Magnus Eusebius Casarian Lactantius Athanasius Hilarius Basilius Magnus Gregorius Nyssenus Gregorius Nazianzenus Hieronymus Epiphanius Ambrotius Chrysostomus Cyrillus Theodoretus Augustinus with the foure Oecumenicall Councils of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Calcedon with all the holy company of Saints and noble Army of Martyrs untill the seventh Age against whose positions if we hold any thing name it we answer it prove it we yeild and many more Catholicks since we acknowledge not to succeed the Church of Rome we were and are as the Church of Rome was of the Catholick Church we acknowledge her to be a true Church we deny her to be the true Church she is and we are parts of the true Church yet we not so erroneous as she we acknowledge not to have wronged the Church of Rome we complain that the Church of Rome or rather the Bishop of Rome with his Court hath wronged that Church this Church and with both the whole Chatholick Church by Quittance and by Forfeiture 1. By Quittance the Bishop of Rome hath wronged the Church in assuming to himself the Title of Vniversall Bishop and spirituall Soveraigne and Monarch of the Church which is as inconsistent with a Provinciall Patriarchiat-ship which was never by any nor shall by me be denyed him as Humane and Divine Institution 2. By Forfeiture for if the Rebellion of an Inferior forfeits by renouncing his Loyalty to his Superiour then the Bishop of Rome is notorious in his Rebellion against Generall Councils the onely Supreme Ecclesiasticall power and not onely against a Generall Council the Representative Church but also against the Catholick Church in usurping a Dominion over it And not onely by Rebellion but also by Robbery who but the Bishop of Rome would have robbed the King of England of his Investitures of Bishops which Henry the seventh protested against by his Proctour Who but the Bishop of Rome robbed the King of his Patronages by Collations Provisions and Expectative Graces Who but he robbed the King of England of the last Appeales of his Subjects contray to the ancient Lawes of England I could go on to inferior Robberies committed by the Bishop of Rome upon the Nobility and Clergy of England but I hasten to the rest of your Question We have not condemned your Church of Rome of Superstition Idolatry Antichristianisme c. Private men it may be have the Church of England have not and if the Church of Rome be guilty of such Errors let her free her self The Church of England hath not destroved burnt alienated to secular uses thousands of your Churches Monasteries Townes Citties Villages if any such things have been done let the Actors be quesstioned let not the Church of England be blamed The Church of England hath not put to cruell Torments and death many Priests and Professors of the Roman Religion nor deprieved their Bishops and Clergy of their Church-Governments the Church of England hath onely recovered their own the Church of England hath not made it High Treason to be Priests you know when they are executed they executed for something else then for being Priests The Church of England continues not in a violent detaining of Roman Benefices but in a lawfull possession of their own and all this not for certain pretended but reall Errors which you of the Roman Church do hold and destructive to Salvation to such knowing men as your self though not of the same consequence to
It is not long since you said for 900. yeares now a thousand but to let that pass for it is but 100. yeares difference and we can well afford it you since it is said again as before prove any point that the Church of England holds was not the universall Doctrine of the Catholick Church for 900. yes 1600. yeares and then it shall be confest you have said something and therefore no danger yet but Christians were saved in and by the right way but not in and by the Roman way as the Roman way is now And yet more you had some that did tell you that the present Roman way was not is not a safe way to Salvation what else perswaded St. Bernard to deny praying to Saints What else before him put Gelasius to say taking the Cup from the Laity cannot be done without grand Sacriledge What else after both put Gerson to give this sage advice I see that the Reformation of the Church will never be effected by a Council without the Presidence of a well-affected wise and constant guide Let the members therefore provide for themselves throughout the Kingdoms and Provinces when they shall be able and know how to compass this work What else made Robert de Grosteste write a sharpe Letter to the Pope exhorting him to reforme some Monstrous Enormities which flew from Rome as a poysonous Fountain and infected the whole Church And this and a great deal more does tell you some in those times there were to shew you you were in danger Whether it hath any shew of probability Quest 14 that the said pretended Errors though they rase not the Foundation of Christian Faith as the late Protestants confess Bishop of Cant. p. 283. yet they may in time endanger the rasing and destruction of it as they argue seeing that after the universall belief of them for 1000. yeares together the Foundation yet remains undestroyed and entire For if 1000. years continuance of them hath stood with the integrity of the Foundation what appearance is there that they will ever cause or induce the destruction of it No indeed there is not a shew of probability Answ 14 but there is a sound probability of it and this the Archbishop p. 285. tells you such ill luck you have in quoting him saying that the Errors of the Roman Church are so many and some so great for which he cites Bellarmine In praefat operibus praefixa as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the Truth manifested to them And surely the Foundation once weakned is in some probability of being rased and destroyed even by the vertue of Gutta cavat Lapidem Further concerning this Protestant distinction of Errors in Faith Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Quest 15 I demand first what they understand by fundamentall Errors for if they mean any nicety in speculation or Theologicall discourse it belongs not to the knowledge of the unlearned either therefore by a fundamentall Error such an Error in Faith as destroys Salvation howsoever that comes to pass or they say nothing to the present purpose This therefore supposed to be their meaning I demand secondly a Catalogue and precise number of the fundamentall Errors in Faith that is how many and which are those Errors in Faith which destroy Salvation For what helps it a Christian to know that there are such destructive and damnable Errors unless he knew whether he held any such Errors himself or no And how can he ever be certain of that so long as he is ignorant which are fundamentall Errors which not If this Catalogue be refused I demand at least some evident means or mark to distinguish Errors in Faith destructive to Salvation or damnable from others consistent with Salvation or veniall which is neither to deny any of the Articles contained in the three Creeds as some Protestants have thought for one of them puts the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the denyall of which they neither do nor can hold to be a fundamentall Error unless they affirm the Grecian Church to erre fundamentally and so deny it to be a true Church of Christ which were quite against the said Protestants seeing they maintain the contrary Nor is the Creed of the Apostles alone a sufficient Rule to determine fully which are fundamentall which not both because there are some things in it which by reason of the lightness of the matter they containe come not by far so near the radicall and primary mysteries of Christian Faith as do many points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church and therefore cannot with any shew of Truth be termed fundamentall by Protestants such as are the circumstances of Time and Persons as that our Saviour suffered under Pontius Pilate and no other judge that he rose the third and no other day c. and because some points necessary to the subsistance of Christian Faith according to Protestants are not expresly defined in that Creed as that the Holy Scriptures are the Divine word of God which is the precise number of the Books of Canonicall Scriprure whether there is any written word of God or no or any Sacraments c. So that a Christian finds not all fundamentall points of Faith set down expresly in the Apostles Creed neither is the Scripture a sufficient Rule to know which are which are not fundamentall points for there are a thousand nay a million of Truths expressed in Scriptures which touch not immediately the Foundation of Faith as Protestants terme it and no small number of points according to them fundamentall which are not exprest in Scripture as the number of Canonicall Books the entire incorrupt purity of the Originall in any Copy or Copies which is come to the hands of Protestants c. which in their principles are such points of Faith that true Faith and consequently Salvation cannot be obtained without them For if sole Scripture as they affirm be the Rule of Faith and all that is in Scripture is to be believed and nothing to be believed but what is in Scripture or evidently deduced from it seeing Faith is necessary to Salvation the determinate belief of all that is true Scripture from which onely they say the true points of Faith are drawn must be necessary to Salvation and so a fundamentall point of Faith Thirdly I demand how any Christian can affirm that the danger of any point of Faith whatsoever being sufficiently propounded as such is consistent with Salvation seeing all such denialls or disbeliefs include this damnable malice of attributing falsity to that which is revealed by God himself as all points of Faith are how small soever the matter be which is revealed in them which appeares evidently by this example I suppose that this sentence of Scripture tertia die resurget he shall rise again the third day is sufficiently propounded to any one as a
that our Saviour had appointed Pastors and Teachers till the day of judgement as a means to preserve Christian people from being carryed about with every wind of Doctrine cannot be understood disjunctively For then if those Pastors preserved them from being seduced in one onely point of Christian Doctrine it would not be true that they preserved them from being carryed about with every wind of Doctrine but they must be understood Conjunctively that is that they preserve them from being carryed away with any wind of Doctrine whatsoever which should chance to be buzzed into their Eares by false Teachers now seeing such winds of erroneous Doctrine are raised as well in points which Protestants account not fundamentall as in fundamentals the meaning of the Apostle then must be that by meanes of these Pastors Christians be preserved from following any Error in Faith whether it be fundamentall or not fundamentall and consequently that they can assuredly direct them to eschew all Errors in Faith which they could not do if they themselves were subject to teach them any Errors or seduce them by any winde of Doctrine whatsoever Seeing also that St. Paul in the same place Eph. 4.10 tells us that the said Pastors are to Consummate the Saints and to build up the Mysticall body of Christ I demand whether the Apostle by these words make not those Pastors able to secure Christian people from Error not onely in the Foundation as Protestants terme it but in superstructures also for otherwise they would have been instituted by our Saviour onely to found his Mysticall body the Church but not to build it up and to ground and initiate the Saints but not to Consummate them Sir Answ 21 whether your exposition of St. Pauls Text Eph. 4.14 be current or not is a Question if it be why may not the words be undestood disjunctively as well as conjunctively Your own Predecessors the Romanists thought so where they say upon these words the use of spirituall Governors not all Pastors and Teachers is to keep us in the Unity and constancy of the Catholick Faith that we be not carryed away with the blast and wind of every Heresie and there are Errors and windes of Doctrine besides Heresies which is a proper note of Sects and new Doctrine which trouble the infirme weaklings of this Church as sometimes the Arrians then the Manichees then the Nestorians then the Latherans and Calvinists and such like so the Rhemists they might have left the last out as being yet uncondemned of Heresie but you will have the words understood Conjunctively That the people be preserved from being carryed away with any wind of Doctrine whatsoever and if this be granted you what get you by it more then Turpe est Doctori for I pray what Pastors or Teachers have carryed about silly people with such windes and kindes of Doctrine as these That Christ descended onely in Limbum Patrum a higher part of Hell That some sinners go into Purgatory a side part of Hell That half a Sacrament is enough contrary to Christs Institution and the Catholick Churches practise for 1000. years That the intention of the Priest is of the essence of Baptism That worship is due to Images That there is a Transubstantiation a conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ corporally I forbear a new Creed made at the no general or lawful Council of Trent and many more such winds of Doctrine wherewith you have carried about some souls To your other Text Eph. 4.10 and your demand upon it whether the Apostle by these words To consumniate the Saints and to build up the Mystical body of Christ make not those Pastors able to secure Christian people from error not onely in the foundation but in the superstructures also Sure I think not for the Apostle himself was enabled by God and so are all Pastors that do their duty conscientiously The Apostle onely tels the succeeding Pastors their duty and wo to them if they do it not he enables them not to do it If it should be answered Quest 22 that these and such like promises or institutions of Christ are onely conditional that is truly intended on his part but yet may be frustrated by the malice of such as correspond not to his intention and therefore though he intend that these Pastors should perform the said Offices in the Church yet that it involved this condition if they were not wanting on their parts but by their failing the institution of Christ is made frustrate and of no effect I answer to this prophane and unchristian Objection first that if Christs promises and institutions be thus inefficacious and conditional that notwithstanding the promises that Christ hath made for the preservation of his Church yet by the malice of Christians or others the whole Christian Church may utterly fail and come to nothing Secondly that it may erre even in fundamental points contrary to the Doctrine of Protestants and so become a Synagogue of Satan Thirdly that the ancient Promises of the coming of the Messias of the REdemption of Mankind of the saving of some at the last Judgement c. have no absolute certainty in them and so by the malice of men might have been or may be frustrated Fourthly that by this there is no certain credit to be given to any Promise or Institution of God or Christ in the whole Old or New Testament for a thousand different conditions may be invented which not being performed or put the prediction failes Thus one may say upon the like grounds that as the promises of benefits and blessings may be hindred by the malice and demerits of wicked persons so the threats thundrings of punishments upon sinners may be hindred by the vertues and good works of Saints and because we have no rule to know what proportion of goodness or malice is sufficient to frustrate such predictions we remain wholly uncertain whether they shall be absolutely verified or no unless therefore this principle be setled that all divine Institutions and Predictions are to be held absolute and never to be frustrated whensoever it is not evidently apparent that they are conditional and may be hindred there can be no certainty that any Institution or prediction in the whole Scripture shall be absolutely fulfilled Seeing therefore it is not evident that this institution Eph. 4. c. and others of the same nature concerning the Church are conditionall they are to be supposed to be absolute and not to be frustrated by any malice of men whatsoever Fifthly no Protestants who hold the whole visible Church cannot perish nor all the Pastors prove wilfull Seducers can apply this answer to the Text now cited viz. Eph. 4. c. for if it be hindered by the malice of the said Pastors they must with joynt consent maliciously teach false Doctrine to be the Doctrine of Christ which were to teach fundamentall Errors and to fall off from Christ If this
was one of those blind Guides which whosoever blindly followes is threatned by our Saviour that both he and his Guide shall fall into the Duch Thâ—â— I hope you will grant it was not Pride but Conscience that moved me so to do for as it is a wise humiliation to obey those whom God hath set over me so it is a sinfull Credulity to follow every man or every Church that without warrant will take upon them to be my Guides Shew then some good and evident title which the Church of Rome hath to this office produce but one reason for it which upon triall will not finally be resolved and vanish into uncertainties and if I yield not unto it say if you please I am as proud as Lucifer In the meane time give me leave to think it strange and not far from a Prodigie that the Doctrine of the Roman Church being the Guide of Faith if it be true Doctrine should either not be known to the four Evangelists or if it were known to them being wise and good men they should either be so envious of the Churches happiness or so forgetfull of the work they took in hand which was to write the whole Gospell of Christ â—s not so much as one of them should mention so much as once this so necessary a part of the Gospell without the belief whereof there is no Salvation and with the belief whereof unless men be snatcht away by suddain death there is hardly any Damnation It is evident they do all of them with one consent speak very plainly of many things of no importance in comparison hereof and is it credible or indeed possible that with one Torrent or rather conspiracy they should be so deeply silent concerning this Unum necessarium You may believe it if you can for my part I cannot unless I see demonstration for it For if you say they send us to the Church and consequently to â—he Church of Rome this is to suppose that which can never be proved viz. That the Church of Rome is the onely Church and without this supposition upon the division of the Church I am as far to seek for a guide of my faith as ever as for Example In that great division of the Church when the whole world wondred saith St. Hierome that it was become Arrian when Liberius Bishop of Rome as St. Athanasius St. Hierome and St. Hillary testifie subscribed their Heresie and joyned in Communion with them or in the division of the Greek and the Roman Church about the Procession of the Holy Ghost when either side was the Church unto it self and each part heretical or schismatical to the other what direction could I then an ignorant man have found from that Text of Scripture Unless he hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen or a Publicane or upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it Again give me leave to wonder that neither St. Paul writing to the Romans should so much as intimate this their priviledge of Infallibility but rather the contrary put them in fear in the 11. Chapter because they as well as the Jews were in danger of falling away That St. Peter your pretended Bishop of Rome writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his departure should not once acquaint the Christians whom he writes to what guide they should follow after he was taken from them That the Writers of the New Testament should so frequently forewarn men of Hereticks false Christs false Prophets and not once arme them against them with letting them know this onely meanes of avoyding their danger That so great a part of the New Testament should be employed against Antichrist and so little indeed none at all about the Vicar of Christ and the Guide of the Faithfull That our Saviour should leave this onely means for the ending of Controversie and speak so obscurely and ambiguously that now our Judge is the greatest controversie and the greatest hindrance of ending them That there should be better evidence in the Scripture to entitle the King to this Office who disclaims it than the Pope who pretends it That St. Peter should never exercise over the Apostles any one Act of Jurisdiction nor they ever give him any one title of Authority over them That if the Apostles did know that St. Peter was made head of them when our Saviour said Thou art Peter they should still contend who should be the first and that our Saviour should not tell them that Peter was the man That St. Paul should say He was in nothing inferior to the very chief Apostles That the Catechumeni in the primitive Church should never be taught this foundation of their faith That the Fathers Tertullian St. Jerome and Optatus when they flew highest in commendation of the Roman Church should attribute no more to her than to all other Apostolical Churches That in the controversie about Easter the Bishops and Churches of Asia should be so ill catechiz'd as not to know this principle of Religion The necessity of conformity with the Church of Rome That they should never be pressed with any such conformity in all things but onely with the particular Tradition of the Western Churches in that point That Fryverus and many other Bishops notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam should not yet think that a necessary nor a sufficient ground of Excommunication which the Church of Rome thought to be so That St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk should be so ill instructed in their Faith as not to know this Foundation of it That they likewise were never urged with any such necessity of Conformity with the Church of Rome nor charged with Heresie or Error for denying it That when Liberius joyned in Communion with the Arrians and subscribed their Heresie the Arrians then should not be the Church and Guide of Faith That never any Hereticks for five Ages after Christ were pressed with this Argument of the Infallibility of the present Church of Rome or charged with the deniall of it as a detestable Heresie for that Aeneas Silvius should have cause to say Ante tempora Concilii Nicaeni quisque sibi vivebat parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam That the Ecclesiasticall story of those times mention no Acts of Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches as if there should be a Monarchy and Kings for some Ages together and should exercise no Acts of Jurisdiction in it That to supply this defect the Decretall Epistles should be so impudently forged which in a manner speaks nothing but Reges Monarchas I mean The Popes making Lawes for and exercising Authority over all other Churches That the Africane Churches in St. Austins time should be ignorant that the Pope was Head of the Church and Judge of Appeales jure divino and that there was a Necessity of Conformity with the Church of Rome in