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
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
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
THE XXXVI QUESTIONS PROPOVNDED FOR RESOLUTION OF UNLEARNED PROTESTANTS In matter of Religion to the Doctors of The Prelaticall pretended Reformed-Church of ENGLAND RETORTED For Resolution of Unlearned PAPISTS In matter of Religion to V. H. and V. N. Doctors of the pretended Catholick Church of ROME By T. SVVADLIN D.D. Religio ofâ—o vera quae Deo honorabilior quae paci amicabilior quae Homini favorabilior LONDON Printed by J. G. for the use of the Author MDCLIX THE XXXVI QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED FOR RESOLUTION OF UNLEARNED PROTESTANTS c. WHether every Christian is not obliged to chuse the safest way all things considered Quest 1 to Salvation Yes Questionlesse Answ 1 this Question is pious and must receive an affirmative Answer If the rest prove no worse we shall not 〈◊〉 long at odds Whether that way wherein both parties acknowledge Quest 2 that unlearned men may have possibility of Salvation though one of them say it be with difficulty and danger if they look not well to the Foundation be not prudently to be judged more safe for the unlearned then that which is esteemed safe by one onely patty and that incomparably lesse in Number but by the other incomparably greater party which equallizes the less in all respects requisite to gain Credit and Authority is constantly held to be utterly voide of all possibility of Salvation even for unlearned persons I wish you had not so soon forgot the piety of your first Question it is not Answ 2 it cannot be gâ—â—nted that because the incomparably greater party Authoritatively spoken to take no notice of what followâ—◠〈…〉 Salvation to any of the incomparably less number and that less number acknowledge a possibility of Salvation to the unlearned of the greater party it is therefore prudently to be judged more safe for the unlearned to make choyce of the greater number as the safest way to Salvation For first the incomparably greater number is a Multitude and therefore not the safest way to follow them For secondly the incomparably greater number may with the incomparably conceited Crowes think their own feathers whitest For thirdly your Argument thus retorts upon your self the incomparably greater number and the incomparably less number both confess Scripture to be infallible but the less deny the Pope to be infallible The like is confest of Faith to be a sure rule Tradition is denyed by one The old Creedes both grant a new one is denyed by us To worship God is confest by both but to worship Images or God by Images is denyed by us To trust in Christs Merits is confest by both but to trust in Mans own Merits is denyed by us To pray to God in Christs Name is confest by both but to pray to Saints or to God in the Name of Saints is denyed by us In the Sacrament of the Eucharist is confest by both a Sacrifice Commemorative but a propitiatory Sacrifice is denyed by us A reall presence we both grant but a Carnall we deny The Body and Blood by Institution and Primitive Observation we both acknowledge but an Alienation of the Cup we disclaim In the English Liturgy is no error say some of you in the Roman Missall are many say all of us and therefore by this Argument of yours it is by prudence to be judged more safe for the unlearned to chuse that way to Salvation which is confest by both then that which is conceived safe by one party onely i.e. yours I have been somewhat long upon this and yet must be a little longer because of your Marginall Note viz. Bishop of Cant. Sect. 35. p. 280. Whom you quote somewhat erroniously for he bids Marke it is but a possibility of Salvation he grants to silly souls in the Romish Church but a secure way he denies you and he backs it from St. Augustine Lib. 1. de Bapt. cont Don. ca. 3. Who judged it a great sin to prefer Incerta certis uncertaine and naked possibilities before an evident and certain course And there he gives you a taste too from your own Learned Card. Bellar. lib. 5. de Justif ca. 7. Tutissimum est and afterwards layes you and the Donatists together in this want of Charity amongst you or Charity mistaken by you and lastly desires you that you would not make us as malicious at least as rash as your selves in denying Salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble and peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ let him that pleaseth read the whole thirty five Section and he will soon resolve which is the safer way yours or ours Whether this be not the present Case betwixt Protestants and those of the Church of Rome Quest 3 according to the acknowledgment of the latest and learnedest of Protestant Authors Bishop of Cant. ibid. They acknowledge the said possibility of Salvation for unlearned persons in the Roman and the Roman Doctors denying all possibility to unlearned Protestants so long as they remaine wilfully in the Protestant Religion Let it be the present Case betwixt us Answ 3 so you take the Restriction of the latest and learned'st Protestant Authors and particularly of that most Reverend Father in God and now with God because his Martyr and summe up your gaines There is a possibility and but a possibility of Salvation for unlearned Papists in the Church of Rome which argues our Charity There is no possibility for Learned or unlearned Protestants say you which argues your malice Cant. p. 285. Yes which likens and compares you with the Donatists The words of the same Archbishop Who galls you thus whether the Sacrament of Baptisme was true in the Catholick Church or in the part of Donatus The Donatists exhorted all to be Baptized amongst them why Because both parties granted that Baptisme was true amongst the Donatists which that peevish sect most unjustly denyed the sound part as St. Augustine lib. 1. Cont. Don. de Baptist ca. 3. delivers it I would aske now the Archbishops own words had not the Orthodox true Baptisme among them because the Donatists denyed it injuriously Now I say pray read the Archbishop on and put the truth into your eyes and tell the world if you see ere the worse Whether all unlearned Protestants Quest 4 who are sufficiently informed of what is heresaid are not guilty of a damnable neglect of their Salvation so long as they remaine Protestants and refuse to be of the Roman Church And why not Learned as well as unlearned Answ 4 certain 〈…〉 they would be in the deeper guilt if there were any 〈…〉 ther because Vivacity of Understanding striving 〈…〉 his own Light makes more guilty then simplicity of 〈…〉 ving can possibly do so possibility of Salvation for 〈…〉 â—â—â—ple man in the Roman Church there is but for a 〈…〉 man one that knowes the errors of the Church and 〈◊〉 know a great many there is not for ought I yet know so much as a possibility Yet
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
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
been stopped long before this Sir Answ 35 what would you be at whither would you go You have yet gained no imprudence upon the unlearned either to embrace the Roman or desert the Protestant Religion and therefore some obligation lies upon your Roman Doctors without rigor of Dispute to use some other Argument than this But this is an erroneous perswasion in the unlearned Protestants and as the first step must be removed for relinquishing their own and embracing your Religion and then you will use another Argument to convince that the Protestant Religion is wholly improbable and then you will convince that the Protestant Religion is not so much as morally cortain but your own is and then you will prove that it is the sole true saving Religion and then that it is infallibly certain and last of all that your Roman Religion is the most divine infallible certain Religion and all this to follow Logick and Nature from things known to things unknown from things imperfect to things perfect But first of all the poor unlearned Protestant must deny his own Religion to be either prudential or probable or morally certain or infallibly certain or divine Nunc lupum auribus teneo just so the Wolfe would have dealt with the Lambe to part with his Protector and then the innocent Lambe should know that he had no better friend then the Wolfe I will deal more Lambe-like with you prove either or all of these either Pro or Con for the Roman or against the Protestant and you will be taken for an excellent Logician and a good Naturalist but till then for a poor Divine since your whole course and discourse hitherto hath been but Petitio principii and not able to stop your Adversaries mouthes though you speak aloud till then I say but this much That Religion is most prudently to be chosen which hath probable Morall Infallible Divine certainty in it But such is the Protestant Religion because it is Probably Morally Infallibly and Divinely certain by the Authority of Fathers of the Councils and of the Scriptures Therefore the Protestant Religion is most prudently to be chosen because the Fathers Councils and Scriptures assert all their Affirmative Tenents Seeing these demands are proposed to such as believe Quest 36 that without true Christian Faith no man can be saved and that this saving Faith is one onely and that this onely Faith is Infallible and Divine and moreover seeing it is already shewed that every difference in any point of Faith whatsoever makes a different Faith and Religion and that amongst all the different Religions and Beliefs now on foot in these parts of Christendom there is none that can be prudently embraced by such as are in the number of the unlearned and yet are sufficiently informed about the force of the Authority of those who teach them save the Roman and that no Religion can be true which cannot be prudently embraced by such unlearned persons seeing in a manner the whole multitude of Christians consists of those who are unlearned and must according to prudence follow the Authority of their Teachers those things I say considered it is finally demanded whether by proving that the Roman Faith onely can be prudently embraced which is already done it is not made inevitably cleare that the Roman onely is that Divine Infallible one true Faith wherein Christians may be saved Sir Answ 36 those things have been considered and yet you have not proved that the Roman Faith onely can be prudently embraced though you say it is already done for it is already undone and therefore it is not inevitably cleare that the Roman onely is that Divine Infallible one true Faith wherein Christians may be saved For That Faith onely is not Divine which is built upon Tradition because Tradition is but Humane but the Roman Faith is built upon Tradition Therefore the Roman Faith onely is not that Divine Faith wherein Christians can be saved That Faith onely is not infallible which is grounded upon the Authority of men whether Pope or Council because the Authority of men whether Pope or Council is fallible But such is the Roman Faith because Virtually resolved into the Pope who cannot erre say some of the Romanists and Representatively into a Councill which cannot erre say other of the Romanists but both one and the other erroneously Therefore the Roman Faith onely is not that infallible faith wherein Christians may be saved That Faith onely is not the One which hath other Articles added to it then what the Apostles faith the Nicene faith the Athanasian faith containe But such is the Roman faith because the faith of Rome in the Council of Trent hath added the Articles of Purgatory of the Priests intention in Baptism c. Therefore the Roman faith onely is not the one faith wherein Christians may be saved That faith is not the true faith wherein the professors dare not as well dye as live but such is the Roman faith because in their Life they rely upon and preach their owne merits but at their death rely onely upon the mercies of God in the merits of Jesus Christ in which divine infallible one true faith that you and all Christians with my self may meet is the hearty desire of Sir Your Friend and Servant T. SWADLIN FINIS