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
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
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
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