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
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
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
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
solution may pass for current who can be certainly assured that there is any true Church of Christ visible or invisible existent now in the world for all the promises concerning the continuance of it to the worlds end may be as well said to be as well conditionall and frustrate by the malice of men as this Eph. 4 c. and who knowes that the said malice is not already grown to that height that it hath deserved that God should take his true Church quite out of the world and so that there is now no true Church existent in all the world Sir in this long passage Answ 22 you have fought onely with your own wind instead of a Question you have supposed an Answer and then given your own Answer to your own Questioning Answer or Answering Question both which being full enough of I leave it as I find it unless you will have a Syllogisme without a Syllogisme Answer a Question without a Question and then you shall have it thus That which was never Questioned or Answered ought not now to be Questioned or Answered but the frustrating of Gods predictions conditionall or absolute by mans malice or merits was never Questioned or Answeted therefore now ought not to be Questioned or Answered Such as these may well come out of a Jesuiticall Court but never yet came from the Catholick Church Sir I must and do tell you there is little less then Blasphemy in your supposition and somewhat more then little less in your position this is beyond Nihil dictum quod non dictum fuit prius Whether it be not evident Quest 23 that unlearned Protestants who cannot determine differences in Religion either by force of Argument or places of Scripture but must wholly depend in the choice of their Faith upon Authority and Credit of Christian Teachers are not obliged in Conscience to prefer that Authority and credibility of Doctors which all circumstances considered is absolutely and unquestionably the greater Authority No Answ 23 it is not yet evident for unlearned Protestants can determine differences in Religion if not by force of Argument yet by places of Scripture which they of Rome cannot do and the reason is ready they deny their Laity we allow ours to read the Scripture and therefore need not depend upon their Teachers but upon the Teacher of us all nor have you yet proved your Authority unquestionably the greater but unquestionably the least of all Authorities unless you take it Sensu Romano non Catholico what the next produces we shall see Whether that Authority of Doctors Quest 24 where those of one side are equall at least if not exceeding them of the contrary party in Learning Wisdome Zeal Sanctity Vertue Sincerity and all other Qualities and Perfections which confer to the accomplishment of complete Authority in Christian Teacher and with this equality incomparably exceed the Doctors of the other party in number is not in all prudence to be judged absolutely and unquestionably the greatest Authority To pass your impertinences of Idem upon Idem Answ 24 and your over-weening opinion of exceeding the Protestants party in Learning Wisdome Zeal Sincerity Virtue Sanctity to which adde but the Scripture and we will acknowledge a complete Authority and submit to the exposition of that Authority in the sense of the four first Generall Councils and the Fathers of the first 800. years or a present lawfully called Generall Council to which if you will do the like we shall then praise God for the fruition of what we yet pray for the Peace and Unity of Christendom Whether this equality at least in all the said perfections Quest 25 is not to be found in the Roman Doctors compared with those of the Protestants Let the equality at least Answ 25 be granted in all the said perfections Quoad hominem though the Comparison savers not well what you gaine by it we may see anon Whether this forementioned equalizing the Protestant Doctors those of the Roman Church Quest 26 the many yeares of their continuance and universall extent of their Religion considered exceed not incomparably in number those of the Protestants profession No it doth not Answ 26 neither incomparably nor yet comparably for the many years of continuance will exceed on our part so that you divide the years equally from 800. to 800. and then judge your selves which 800. years comes nearest to the primitive purity in matter of Religion your 800. or our 800. Name but one general Council or any number of Fathers for the first 800. exceeding our number actum est the field is yours Whether this equality in perfections Quest 27 and incomparable excess in number considered all unlearned Protestants are not obliged both in Prudence and Conscience to prefer the Authority of the Roman Doctors before that of Protestants and consequently to follow the Roman and desert the Protestant Doctrine No Answ 27 not yet for all this is but Idâ—m per idem still onely you have now added Conscience to Prudence adde but Scripture to your Roman Doctors and that Scripture expounded by the first 800. years either representatively or successively or by a present lawfully called general Council and we shall have conscience yours and ours ruled by prudence and prudence following conscience and by both Unity restored Whether upon the foresaid considerations the Authority of the Protestant Doctors Quest 28 in all things wherein they contradict the Romans is not contemptible and unable to sway the judgement of any prudent Christian to frame any moral esteem of it for though in matters wherein they are seconded or not contradicted by an Authority incomparably greater than their own they may deservedly be esteemed for their Naturall Abilities and Morall Qualities worthy of Credit yet in all things wherein they stand in opposition and contradiction against an Authority incomparably exceeding theirs they deserve nothing but to be sleighted and contemned by all those who are to be led by the sole force of Authority Thus when Protestant Doctors affirm that either the Scriptures or Fathers are for them and against the Roman Church what they say in this is not to be regarded seeing the Authority of the Roman Doctors absolutely greater then theirs unanimously affirm the quite contrary thus when they affirm that the Roman Church is full of Errors and Superstitions crept in they know neither when nor how their accusation is to be sleighted being clearly and constantly contradicted by a far greater Authority Thus when they say that Protestants may be saved living and dying wilfully in their Religion they deserve no Credit at all for the quite contrary is most constantly defended by the incomparably stronger Authority of the Roman Doctors the like is to be affirmed in all points of difference betwixt the two Religions so that a Protestant is not to consider the Abilities and Authority of his Doctors absolutely or in matters out of Controversie but as contradicting an Authority incomparably excelling theirs
in which contradiction they deserve neither Credit nor Esteem It was once twice trice before but an equalizing Answ 28 but it is now once twice thrice four times an incomparably greater Authority and all this is Gratis dictum prove your Authority greater and but greater without incomparably then ours and we yield in the mean time you shall give me leave to send you this Syllogisme for answer to your Question Protestants alleadging Scripture expounded by the Fathers for the first 800. yeares are at least of an equall Authority with the Church and Doctors of Rome alleadging Scripture without the exposition of those Fathers but Protestants so alleadge Scripture and so the Roman Doctors alleadge Scripture Therefore the Protestants are of an equal Authority at least with the Roman Doctors You will be forced to confesse more than my modesty challenges in the mean time I suspect you for an incomparably cholerick proud man contending more for Triumph than Truth and till you have incomparably proved your Authority seek not to Proselitize an unlearned Protestant to captivate his Faith and Religion to Roman Doctors without Faith or Religion I demand farther Quest 29 That if the Authority of all the Doctors of the whole Body of Protestants be so inconsiderable in comparison with those of the Roman Doctors how much less will be the Authority of any one Sect or Party of them and then how minute and scarce perceptible will be the Authority of a Laud a Hammond a Chilling-worth a Ferne a Bramhall a Taylor c. who now obtain so powerful an ascendant upon the hearts of our modern Lay protestants seeing they are in a manner nothing in respect of the Authority of the Roman Doctors Authoritatively supoken of your Roman Doctors Answ 29 and minutely spoken of Protestants but I pray whom do you intend by Laud so you stile him I knew him Mr. William Land Dr. William Laud Lord Bishop William Laud Lord Archbishop William Laud and know not you his Conference with Fisher Mr. Fisher or Dr. Fisher if he attained so high be answered Sir I can tell you of a Gentleman yet living who in Constantinople at one bout heard ten of your Doctors rejoyce much at the Archbishops death because he was the great if not the greatest enemy your Roman Church ever had and this because he laboured for an Unity and Reconciliation of Christendom answer him when you please or can and till then let him enjoy peace in his Grave without your detracting him as not living to give you his own answer By Chillingworth so you Mr. Chillingworth so I is dead too I pray you when will you answer his Letter to Mr. Lewiger a brother of your own and which I have now sent you till you do let him be in peace too Good Master Lewiger THough I am resolved not to be much afflicted for the loss of that which is not in my power to keep yet I cannot deny but the loss of a friend goes very near to my heart and by this name of friend I did presume till of late I might have called you because that perhaps for want of power and opportunity I have done you no good office yet I have been alwaies willing and ready to do you the best service I could And therefore I cannot but admire at the affected strangenesse which in your last letter to me you seemed to take upon you renouncing in a manner all relation to me and tacitly excommunicating me from all interest in you The superscription of your letter to me is to Mr. W. C. and your subscription is John L. as if you either disdained or made conscience of styling me your friend or your self mine If this proceed from reason I pray shew it If it proceed from passion or weakness I pray mend it If you think me one of those to whom St. John forbids you to say God save you then you are to think prove me one of those deceivers which denyed Jesus Christ to be come in the flesh If you think me an Heretick and therefore to be avoided you must prove me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by my own judgement which I know I cannot and therefore you cannot If you say I do not hear the Church and therefore am to be esteemed an Heathen or Publican you are to prove then that by the Church is meant the Church of Rome And yet when you have done so I hope Christians are not forbidden to shew Humanity and Civility even to Pagans For Gods sake Mr. L. free your self from this blind zeal at least for a little space and consider with reason and moderation what strange crime you can charge me with that I should deserve this strange usage especially from you Is it a crime with all my understanding to endeavour to find your Religion true and to make my self a believer of it and not to be able to do so Is it a crime to employ all my reason upon the justification of the infallibility of the Roman Church and to find it impossible to be justified I will call God to witness who knowes my heart better then you do that I have evened the scale of my judgement as much as possibly I could and have not willingly allowed any one graine of worldly motives on either side but have weighed the reasons for your Religion and against it with such indifferencie as if there were nothing in the world but God and my self and is it my fault that the scale goes down which hath the most weight in it that the building falls which hath a false Foundation Have you such power over your understanding that you can believe what you please though you see no reason or that you can suspend your belief when you do see reason If you have I pray for our old friendship sake teach me that trick and until I have learnt it I pray blame me not for going the ordinary way I mean for believing or not believing as I see reason If you can convince me of wilfull opposition against the known truth of negligence in seeking it of unwillingness to find it of preferring temporall respect before it or of any other fault that is in my power to amend It is indeed a fault if I amend it not be as angry with me as you please But to impute unto me unvoluntary Errors or that I do not see what I would see but cannot or that I will not profess what I do not believe certainly this is a far more reasonable Error then any you can justly charge me withall for let me tell you that imputing Socinianisme to me whosoever was the Author of it was a wicked and groundless slander Perhaps you will say for this is the usuall song of your side that Pride is a voluntary fault and with this I am justly chargeable for forsaking the Guide which God hath appointed me to follow but what if I forsook it because I thought I had reason to fear it
this and all other points of Doctrine Nay that the Popes themselves should be so ignorant of the true ground of this their Authority as to pretend to it not upon Scripture or universall Tradition but upon an imaginary no-such Canon of the Council of Nice That Vincentius Lyrinensis seeking for a Guide of his Faith and a preservation from Heresie should be ignorant of this so ready a one The infallibility of the Church of Rome All these things and many more are very strange to me If the infallibility of the Roman Church be in deed and was alwaies by Christians acknowledged the Foundation of our Faith And therefore I beseech you pardon me if I choose to build mine upon one that is much firmer and safer and lies open to none of those Objections which is Scripture and universall Tradition and if one that is of this Faith may have leave to do so I will subscribe with hand and heart Your very loving and true friend W. C. By Bramhall so you my Lord Bishop Bramhall so I when will you answer him or rather reply to his Answer to Mounseir Millitere he is alive and while he lives you dare not I suppose do it since he Commands as much Learning and Reason as any of you all put you altogether By Hammond Ferne Tayler so you Doctor Hammond Doctor Ferne Doctor Tayler so I nor should I have said less of any of your Roman Doctors so far have I read my Ethicks are all living and can answer for themselves with whom if you and yours hap to Cope I am confident you will fall in the Combate if you Conquer I will be your Proselite not for the strength of your Questions or pinning my Faith upon their Learning Religion Zeal Sincerity Vertue and Wisdom in all which they exceed but for the strictness of my own Conscience so that the Combate be decided before equitable and equall Judges Quest 30 All this is demanded supposing that the Roman Doctors were onely equall to those of Protestants in all the aforenamed Qualities conducing to the perfect Authority of a Master in Christianity But now I demand whether those that have Authority of Teaching in the Roman Church generally speaking in so much as can be prudently deduced by experience from them are not much excelling the Protestant Ministry in all the said Qualities What Councils have they worth the mentioning in comparison of the Generall Councils consenting with the present Roman Church even according to their own Confession as the second of Nice the Great Council of Lateran the Councill of Constance Florence and Trent wherein such multitudes of Learned men and holy Patriarchs Metropolitans Archbishops Bishops Doctors Prelates both of the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously confirmed the Roman and condemned the Protestant Doctrine What proofes of Learning have the Protestant Ministry comparable to those of the Roman Doctors whereof many have written one no small number two others three and foure others six eight ten twelve and some twenty and four and twenty great Tomes in folio and those replenished in the generall repute of Christendom even amongst Protestants also with profound and high Learning Who amongst their Ministry have they who have obtained the universall esteem of Sanctity as hath our Gregory Beda Thomas Bonaventure Antonine Dominick and diverse others Where find they amongst theirs that zeal to pass into the heart of so many barbarous and Heathen Nations to plant the Cospel even with the undergoing of unheard-of Torments and suffering most cruel Martyrdoms as many of the Roman Clergy have done within these late years Let them name but any sole Minister who hath suffered Martyrdom for preaching Christian Faith to Pagans What means have the Protestant Ministery with their Wives Goods and Families to apply themselves to study and devotion comparable to our single Clergy and retired Religions Where is that unanimous consent in all Points of Faith seeing they are perpetually jarring not onely one with another but the same Minister dissenting notoriously now from what they taught twenty years ago amongst them compared to the constancy and agreement of our Doctors What Miracles have any of their Ministery done in confirmation either of their Doctrine against the Roman Church or of the Christian Faith against Heathens as unless all human Faith be infringed many of ours have done both against them and Heathens I could instance in many more particulars but these may suffice for these short demands whence appears evidently That whosoever professes to be led by the sole Authority of Christian Doctors and Pastors must either deserve the esteem I say not onely of an unchristian but even of an imprudent man if he adhere to so undeserving and contemptible an Authoâ—ity as is that of the Protestant Ministry in comparison of the Roman Doctors who so incomparably outstrip them not onely in multitude but in all the motives and perfections which give credit to the Authority of a Christian Teacher Again Answ 30 at your incomparable comparison and with your addition of an undeserving and contemptible Authority in the Protestant Ministery outstript in multitude motives and in all perfections If this be your way to get credit to your cause much good may it do you but on an ordinary wise man I conceive it will not work Had you continued your supposition of Equality betwixt the Roman and Protestant Doctors it would more become you and might have proved a better way to overcome us how much you excell us will presently be seen in your demands The first whereof is What Councils have the Protestants worth the mentioning in comparison with the general Councils consenting with the present Roman Church and then you name five the Second of Nice the great Council of Lateran the Council of Constance Florence and Trent now I must marke a juggle here you name not what you name these Councils for but in the general the particulars must be guest at and I shall guess at them The second of Nice I conceive you name for Images or worshiping of God by Images for untill this Council which was not called untill the Year 787. Images or Worshiping of God by Images was never decreed and what value this Council is of I tell you truely from my Books There were more unlearned and evil-disposed men in it than ever were in any before or almost since it was called by Irene the Empress an Heathen borne converted Christian by Constantinus his Father to whom she was married and suffered her son Constantine to lofe his eyes for withstanding the determinations of this Council so much natural affection she had Called by her and managed by one Tharisius a Lay-man a Courtier and Bishop of one years standing and John Legate of the East Church of whom it is said he was a devout man but of no great Learning and the other two that ruled the rost in this Council were Theodosius and Constantinus of all whom together it hath been said There were
particulars considered the Protestant Religion in any Sect of it whatsoever can be esteemed the true Christian Religion Sir Answ 32 I have not yet known the Protestant Religion divided into any Sects we all believe the same Creeds we all hold the same foundation and Articles of Faith we all hold the Scriptures the onely judge of controversies which because you deny and decline we think that man imprudent who deserts the Protestant to turn Roman and him prudent that deserts the Roman to turn Protestant since there is but a possibility of salvation for an unlearned man in the Roman because it depends upon human Authority in the Protestant there is a certainty of salvation for unlearned and learned because it depends upon divine Authority and therefore a true christian Church and Religion Hence I press further Quest 32 Whether the proving that Protestant Religion cannot be prudently chosen or retained by any unlearned persons who are sufficiently informed of the eminent Authority propounding the Roman Religion is not a sufficient Argument to them that no Sect amongst them in any point wherein it differs from the Roman hath either any solid ground in the Holy Scriptuâ—es or true relation to Gods Holy Spirit or coherence with true Religion seeing a Religion which cannot by them be prudently chosen cannot possibly proceed from any of these three whatsoever fair shew Protestants each respectively to his several Sect make vainly of them Sir all these are but words Answ 33 and you do still supponere not supponenda For that Religion may be prudently chosen whose rule of Faith is certain but such is the rule of Faith in the Protestant Religion as being ultimated and determined in and by the Scripture therefore the Protestant Religion may be prudently chosen Again that Religion cannot be prudently chosen whose Authority proposing it is not sufficient but such is the Authority propounding the present Roman Religion as being human whether Pope or Council therefore the Roman present Religion cannot prudently be chosen Again that Religion may prudently be chosen which hath true relation to Gods Holy Spirit but the Protestant Religion hath such relation therefore the Protestant Religion may prudently be chosen for there is a true relation betwixt Gods Holy Spirit and Gods Holy Word because Gods Holy Spirit is the Author of Gods Holy Word I need not speak of the third because coherence with true reason follows either of the former And upon this I demand yet further Quest 34 Whether the Roman Doctors have any obligation to urge any other Argument then this either from Scripture Fathers or reason against Protestants till they have cleared their Religion from the impeachment of imprudence committed by their followers in the election of it or persisting in it as is afore declared Sir Answ 34 your afore Declaration hath proved little and your present proves less though I confess your Roman Doctors have no farther obligation to urge any other Argument then Scripture Fathers or Reason against Protestants Urge either of them to purpose and we shall be so far from clearing our Religion from the impeachment of imprudence that we will confess it is the onely prudence in the choyce of Religion to embrace the Roman Till then I say That Religion which hath not hitherto been convinced from Scriptures Fathers or Reason ought by the rule of prudence to be embraced but such is the Protestant Religion therefore by the rule of prudence the Protestant Religion ought to be embraced or if you will have it per contraria take it thus It is a part of imprudence to embrace that Religion which hath been convinced from Scriptures Fathers and Reason but such is the Roman Religion therefore it is the part of imprudence to embrace the Roman Religion Now Sir to avoid reply give me leave to tell you Baptizing as Christ hath Commanded Praying as Christ hath taught Believing the Scriptures Serving and Worshipping God without Images Receiving the Sacrament as Christ Instituted it have not been convinced by Scriptures Fathers or Reason Equalling Tradition to Scripture Worshiping of Images or God by Images Praying to Saints Receiving the Sacrament in one kind believing the Popes infallibility c. have been convinced by Scriptures Fathers and Reason On the contrary side I demand Quest 35 whether the Roman Doctors have any obligation in rigour of dispute to use any other Argument for perswading unlearned persons to desert the Protestant and embrace the Roman Religion then this imprudence in adhering to the Protestant and of prudence in uniting themselves to the Roman Church so long as the said unlearned Protestants perswade themselves that they proceed prudently in preferring their own before the Roman seeing this erroneous perswasion is the first step which must be redressed in relinquishing the one and the contrary perswasion the first step which must be fixed in approaching to the other Now when unlearned Protestants once confesse that they are convinced in this and thereupon recede from Protestancy but object that the prudentiall Motives to prefer the Roman Religion before the Protestant as they conceive that the Protestant is wholly improbable and so to be deserted so they convince no more then that the Roman is probable and so it is great Likelyhood to be the true Religion but convince not that it is so much as morally certaine To Protestants brought thus farre there is an obligation put upon the Roman Doctors to prove at least the morall certainty of it to such as acknowledge that it is morally certaine that the Roman Re-Religion is the sole true saving Religion but deny notwithstanding that it thereby followes that it is infallibly certain rises an Obligation to prove that it is Infallibly certain and when one is once convinced of this also but yet doubts whether this Infallibility be Divine and so the highest of all Infallibilities there will be also an Obligation to shew to such as are brought on so far the most high divine infallibility of the Roman Religion hence therefore I demand whether our late Protestants and Socinians proceed not preposterously and unreasonably in pressing Roman Doctors to demonstrate the Divine Infallibility of the truth of the Roman Religion before they themselves grant that it is infallible in any degree or morally certain or probable or prudential for though it be necessary to prove all these particulars in their due circumstances yet there is no necessity to prove them all at once to every Adversary but by degrees the one in order after the other with correspondence to what of them is denyed or called in question by those with whom we treat for thus we proceed orderly and logically à notioribus ad ignotiora and hold a correspondence with Nature by proceeding ab imperfectioribus ad perfectiora still observing the step or progress of our Adversary and still stepping and going along with him and if this method had been strictly held by our late controvertists the Adversaries mouths had