a meer Ceremony should not be fundamental Or lastly what reason there is to say that Laying on of hands hath a neerer connexion to the radical and prime mysteries of our Faith then many other points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church Whether by Laying on of hands here is intended Confirmation which to be a Sacrament properly so taken Answ 17 will be hard for you to prove but not hard for me to grant that it is Sacramentale quoddam and yet not Sacramentum for want of visibile signum invisibilis gratiae and yet hard again for you to make it a foundation the use whereof is not disbelieved or rejected by us No the disuse of it is lamented and let them answer it who have caused it Yes and Laying on of hands in the Administration of Holy Orders is used by all those who are ordained Episcopally and yet no Sacrament for all that though we confess it a foundation quoad Ecclesiastices not quoad Ecclesiam Why Annointing with Oyle mentioned by St. James should not be a fundamental point you might have told your self without demand from others because the Epistle of St. James and some other Books were not received into the Canon of the Scripture untill some time after the Foundation was laid Nor is Laying on of hands esteemed by Protestants a Ceremony not Sacramentall nor is it by St. Paul termed the Foundation and substance of the Eucharist We all you and we hold the Eucharist to be a Sacrament and not onely Sacramentall but Fundamentall that is Inadultis Nor do I remember that I ever read that Laying on of hands hath a nearer connexion to the radicall and prime Mysteries of our Faith unless onely in Ecclesiasticis then many other points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church It is yet further demanded Quest 18 seeing Protestants affirm that the whole Catholick visible Church may erre in the definition of points of Faith not fundamentall and seeing that they affirm that the points in difference betwixt us are not fundamentall and so not necessary to Salvation and lastly seeing they affirm also that the Scriptures may be obscure in points not necessary to Salvation by what means can they ever think to convince the Roman Church of Error in these points of difference betwixt them and her Sir Answ 18 with your favour Protestants do not affirm that the whole Catholick Church can erre in Doctrines absolutely fundamentall and necessary to all mens Salvation for so we should destroy an Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church which consists of Triumphant souls as well as Militant men but that this or that visible Church or the whole visible Church and Catholick as limitted to visible may erre in the definition of points not fundamentall yes and fundamentall too Protestants do affirm and the reason is because the whole visible Church consists of men and men when they are at best are subject to Error Nor do Protestants affirm the points in difference betwixt you and them to be not fundamentall or unnecessary to Salvation for some of them are so fundamentall and necessary to Salvation to you and such learned men as you are that unless you leave them you will hardly finde the way to Heaven take one for all and let the Merit of your own works be it and see if your sharing with Christ in earning a part of your Salvation will not lose you the whole and so by this the rest of this Question is answered and the Roman Church convinced of Error in points of difference betwixt them and her Seeing also that every point of Faith is a Divine Truth Quest 19 proceeding from the Revelation of God and to be believed as I suppose for the present with the common consent of Protestants with an infallible assent of Faith if the universall visible Church may erre and the Scripture may be obscure as is generally affirmed by our Adversaries in points of Faith not fundamentall how shall such points as are in Controversie betwixt us and are accounted by Protestants not fundamentall or not necessary to Salvation be discerned to be points of Faith or how agreed this Modern Protestant Doctrine of no difference betwixt us in points necessary to Salvation which that of their beginners and more antient Predecessors who taught that the Scriptures were clear onely in all points necessary to Salvation and upon that pretext both affirmed that our Doctrines against them were clearly convinced of falsehood by the Authority of sole Scripture and allowed all Lay-people promiscuously to read them as being clear to them in all the points controverted betwixt us for this manifestly supposes that they were held by those beginners to be points of Faith necessary to Salvation or fundamentals Or what means is there to believe them as points of Faith seeing they can never be believed infallibly upon the Churches Authority by reason of her pretended fallibility in them nor expresly for the Authority of Scripture by reason of its obscurity in the delivery of them according to the principles of Protestants That every point of Faith as divine Truth Answ 19 proceeding from the Revelation of God if you are not equivocall in that expression is to be believed is granted but whether as you suppose with a common consent of Protestants with an infallible assent of Faith I cannot say for if by infallible assent you mean a full assurance or great confidence I can tell you Protestants are not so bold we confess assurance to be the effect of a strong Faith we affirm it not to be the Essence of all Faith If the universall visible Church may erre and the Scriptures may be obscure as is generally affirmed by out Adversaries in points of Faith not fundamentall how shall such points as are in Controversie betwixt us and are accounted by Protestants not fundamentall or not necessary to Salvation be discerned to be points of Faith How the universall visible Church may erre I told you in the former and how the Scriptures may be obscure and to whom I tell you in this Protestants do not generally affirm them obscure in points not fundamentall though if they did it were nothing to the purpose in points controverted betwixt us That Scriptures are the Rule of Faith which is fundamental is by Protestants affirmed That the Scriptures are easie and plain to all sorts of men learned and unlearned which use the means and are diligent in reading them is likewise affirmed when they are obscure to any they are obscure to them onely who have not eyes enlightned to see into them they who have humble and diligent souls will soon discern which be and which be not points of Faith How our predecessor and modern Protestants agree need no further demonstration then what is already given that the Scriptures are cleer onely in all points necessary to Salvation is for you to prove Pretext we know none your Doctrines against
us are clearly convinced by Authority of Scripture not alone but of expositors also Lay-people allowed by Protestants to read the Scriptures and so they were by the Primitive Fathers and so they would by you if you would follow Primitive and Catholick example we hold them clear in points of Faith necessary to Salvation which though not believed infallibly upon the Churches Authority by reason of her not pretended fallibility yet are believed expresly for and by the Authority of Scripture without any obscurity in the delivery of them not according to the principall of Protestants onely but of the Primitive Fathers also I demand further Quest 20 if the whole visible Church may erre in the definition of any points whatsoever that Error must either proceed from ignorance and want of light or from malice and want of vertue and goodness not the second for then the whole visible Church of Christ should not be sancta Holy as it is believed to be in our Creed and described in the Scriptures but should become a Harlot and abominable deceiver of the world and a seducer of Nations in teaching contrary to the known truth not the first for if she could erre out of ignorance to what purpose do Protestants appear to her Determination in a lawful and general Council in any of the points of difference betwixt them and those of the Roman Church seeing she may through ignorance erre in the determination of them as being not fundamental according to them neither can it be said notwithstanding the whole visible Churches fallibility in points not fundamental nay though it should actually erre and that Error should be evidently discovered yet even those who had thus evidently discovered the said Errors were to conforme themselves to those erroneous definitions of a general Council for if this conformity be understood of an internal conformity in Judgment as it is wholly impossible seeing that were to judge the same thing to be true and not true at the same time and to judge against an evident knowledge and if it be understood of an external conformity and profession onely it were manifestly impious and high Hypocrisie in resisting the known Truth revealed by Almighty God which they evidently know to be a most false Error in Faith Secondly if one were to subscribe and externally to conform himself to the definitions of lawful general Councils which one perswades himself he evidently knows to be erroneous till another be assembled to correct them why did not Protestants afford this external conformity to the definition of the general Councils of Florence of Lateran and to the second Council of Nice to omit others till some other lawful general Council came to correct their pretended Errors they having no other reason to reject the authority of the said Councils then that they define many things against the Protestant Doctrine Thirdly seeing it was never yet seen nor can be ever made manifest that any lawful general Council revoked any definition in matter of Faith of any former lawful general Council what hope is there that they should now begin to do what was never done before them Fourthly if it were supposed that any such revocatory definition should issue from them that party whose Doctrine should be condemned by such revocations would accuse the Council of Error as much as the contrary party accused the former Council of error in defining against them and so the controversie would remain as indetermined as it was before neither would it be possible to determine it fully by a general Council for the party condemned would still expect another Council to revoke that definition which seems to him evidently erroneous and so there would be no end of new determinations and revocations in infinitum Yet farther seeing lawfull Generall Councils do not onely oblige even under pain of Anathema or being accursed and excommunicated all Christians to believe and profess the Doctrine which they teach them not onely to be true and free from Error but to be divine Truth revealed by God himself if they should erre in any such definition they must make God the Father of Error and untruth which quite destroys the veracity of God and consequently overthrowes the main and primary foundation of Christian Faith and therefore must necessarily be held to include a fundamentall Error So impossible and implicatory a thing it is for them to erre in matter of Faith and not to erre fundamentally For either that erring Council must define some positive Error or that which God never revealed to be revealed from God or that some true Revelation from God is an Error Both which conâ—â—ine no lesse malice then this To make God a Lyer How the whole visible Church may erre Answ 20 you have heard now whether from Ignorance or Malice you would know from malice I think not because then it would not be Sancta Holy as you say most rightly but why not from Ignorance For they are but men and men at best know not all things they know but in part and yet we appeale to the determination of her in a lawfull Generall Council because what she knowes in part and what you know in part and what we know in part may amount to more then half the whole and therein we shall acquiesce untill we know perfectly So then the malicious erroneous definition of a Generall Council if lawfully called being declined we shall study conformity both internall in judgement and externall in profession without sinning either against evident knowledge within or by high Hypocrisie without And yet why we conformed not to the definitions of the Generall Councils as you call them of Florence of Lateran and the second of Nice you know if you would express it as well as we not so much for defining many things against our as against the Catholick Doctrine Nor thirdly is all hope taken away from doing what was never done as you say but most untruly because some Generall Councils have revoked what former Generall Councils lawfully called have determined And fourthly upon supposition that any such revocatory definition should issue that either you or our selves either of our Doctrines being condemned should still expect another Council to revoke that definition For certainly the Catholick Christian will be so modest as to stand to the definition of that spirituall power which he acknowledgeth the highest upon Earth though the Catholick Roman would not unless the Bishop of Rome both called and commanded the Council and so the In infinitum would be yours not ours And farther let it be granted that lawfull Generall Councils do oblige under pain of Anathema to believe and profess that Doctrine which they teach to be free from Error and a divine Truth revealed by God himself so it be not a new Revelation against the old we would not believe they make God the Author of Error or a Lyer you may do it if you please or dare Seeing St. Quest 21 Paul Eph. 4.14 affirmes
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
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
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
in which contradiction they deserve neither Credit nor Esteem It was once twice trice before but an equalizing Answ 28 but it is now once twice thrice four times an incomparably greater Authority and all this is Gratis dictum prove your Authority greater and but greater without incomparably then ours and we yield in the mean time you shall give me leave to send you this Syllogisme for answer to your Question Protestants alleadging Scripture expounded by the Fathers for the first 800. yeares are at least of an equall Authority with the Church and Doctors of Rome alleadging Scripture without the exposition of those Fathers but Protestants so alleadge Scripture and so the Roman Doctors alleadge Scripture Therefore the Protestants are of an equal Authority at least with the Roman Doctors You will be forced to confesse more than my modesty challenges in the mean time I suspect you for an incomparably cholerick proud man contending more for Triumph than Truth and till you have incomparably proved your Authority seek not to Proselitize an unlearned Protestant to captivate his Faith and Religion to Roman Doctors without Faith or Religion I demand farther Quest 29 That if the Authority of all the Doctors of the whole Body of Protestants be so inconsiderable in comparison with those of the Roman Doctors how much less will be the Authority of any one Sect or Party of them and then how minute and scarce perceptible will be the Authority of a Laud a Hammond a Chilling-worth a Ferne a Bramhall a Taylor c. who now obtain so powerful an ascendant upon the hearts of our modern Lay protestants seeing they are in a manner nothing in respect of the Authority of the Roman Doctors Authoritatively supoken of your Roman Doctors Answ 29 and minutely spoken of Protestants but I pray whom do you intend by Laud so you stile him I knew him Mr. William Land Dr. William Laud Lord Bishop William Laud Lord Archbishop William Laud and know not you his Conference with Fisher Mr. Fisher or Dr. Fisher if he attained so high be answered Sir I can tell you of a Gentleman yet living who in Constantinople at one bout heard ten of your Doctors rejoyce much at the Archbishops death because he was the great if not the greatest enemy your Roman Church ever had and this because he laboured for an Unity and Reconciliation of Christendom answer him when you please or can and till then let him enjoy peace in his Grave without your detracting him as not living to give you his own answer By Chillingworth so you Mr. Chillingworth so I is dead too I pray you when will you answer his Letter to Mr. Lewiger a brother of your own and which I have now sent you till you do let him be in peace too Good Master Lewiger THough I am resolved not to be much afflicted for the loss of that which is not in my power to keep yet I cannot deny but the loss of a friend goes very near to my heart and by this name of friend I did presume till of late I might have called you because that perhaps for want of power and opportunity I have done you no good office yet I have been alwaies willing and ready to do you the best service I could And therefore I cannot but admire at the affected strangenesse which in your last letter to me you seemed to take upon you renouncing in a manner all relation to me and tacitly excommunicating me from all interest in you The superscription of your letter to me is to Mr. W. C. and your subscription is John L. as if you either disdained or made conscience of styling me your friend or your self mine If this proceed from reason I pray shew it If it proceed from passion or weakness I pray mend it If you think me one of those to whom St. John forbids you to say God save you then you are to think prove me one of those deceivers which denyed Jesus Christ to be come in the flesh If you think me an Heretick and therefore to be avoided you must prove me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by my own judgement which I know I cannot and therefore you cannot If you say I do not hear the Church and therefore am to be esteemed an Heathen or Publican you are to prove then that by the Church is meant the Church of Rome And yet when you have done so I hope Christians are not forbidden to shew Humanity and Civility even to Pagans For Gods sake Mr. L. free your self from this blind zeal at least for a little space and consider with reason and moderation what strange crime you can charge me with that I should deserve this strange usage especially from you Is it a crime with all my understanding to endeavour to find your Religion true and to make my self a believer of it and not to be able to do so Is it a crime to employ all my reason upon the justification of the infallibility of the Roman Church and to find it impossible to be justified I will call God to witness who knowes my heart better then you do that I have evened the scale of my judgement as much as possibly I could and have not willingly allowed any one graine of worldly motives on either side but have weighed the reasons for your Religion and against it with such indifferencie as if there were nothing in the world but God and my self and is it my fault that the scale goes down which hath the most weight in it that the building falls which hath a false Foundation Have you such power over your understanding that you can believe what you please though you see no reason or that you can suspend your belief when you do see reason If you have I pray for our old friendship sake teach me that trick and until I have learnt it I pray blame me not for going the ordinary way I mean for believing or not believing as I see reason If you can convince me of wilfull opposition against the known truth of negligence in seeking it of unwillingness to find it of preferring temporall respect before it or of any other fault that is in my power to amend It is indeed a fault if I amend it not be as angry with me as you please But to impute unto me unvoluntary Errors or that I do not see what I would see but cannot or that I will not profess what I do not believe certainly this is a far more reasonable Error then any you can justly charge me withall for let me tell you that imputing Socinianisme to me whosoever was the Author of it was a wicked and groundless slander Perhaps you will say for this is the usuall song of your side that Pride is a voluntary fault and with this I am justly chargeable for forsaking the Guide which God hath appointed me to follow but what if I forsook it because I thought I had reason to fear it
was one of those blind Guides which whosoever blindly followes is threatned by our Saviour that both he and his Guide shall fall into the Duch Thâ—â— I hope you will grant it was not Pride but Conscience that moved me so to do for as it is a wise humiliation to obey those whom God hath set over me so it is a sinfull Credulity to follow every man or every Church that without warrant will take upon them to be my Guides Shew then some good and evident title which the Church of Rome hath to this office produce but one reason for it which upon triall will not finally be resolved and vanish into uncertainties and if I yield not unto it say if you please I am as proud as Lucifer In the meane time give me leave to think it strange and not far from a Prodigie that the Doctrine of the Roman Church being the Guide of Faith if it be true Doctrine should either not be known to the four Evangelists or if it were known to them being wise and good men they should either be so envious of the Churches happiness or so forgetfull of the work they took in hand which was to write the whole Gospell of Christ â—s not so much as one of them should mention so much as once this so necessary a part of the Gospell without the belief whereof there is no Salvation and with the belief whereof unless men be snatcht away by suddain death there is hardly any Damnation It is evident they do all of them with one consent speak very plainly of many things of no importance in comparison hereof and is it credible or indeed possible that with one Torrent or rather conspiracy they should be so deeply silent concerning this Unum necessarium You may believe it if you can for my part I cannot unless I see demonstration for it For if you say they send us to the Church and consequently to â—he Church of Rome this is to suppose that which can never be proved viz. That the Church of Rome is the onely Church and without this supposition upon the division of the Church I am as far to seek for a guide of my faith as ever as for Example In that great division of the Church when the whole world wondred saith St. Hierome that it was become Arrian when Liberius Bishop of Rome as St. Athanasius St. Hierome and St. Hillary testifie subscribed their Heresie and joyned in Communion with them or in the division of the Greek and the Roman Church about the Procession of the Holy Ghost when either side was the Church unto it self and each part heretical or schismatical to the other what direction could I then an ignorant man have found from that Text of Scripture Unless he hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen or a Publicane or upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it Again give me leave to wonder that neither St. Paul writing to the Romans should so much as intimate this their priviledge of Infallibility but rather the contrary put them in fear in the 11. Chapter because they as well as the Jews were in danger of falling away That St. Peter your pretended Bishop of Rome writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his departure should not once acquaint the Christians whom he writes to what guide they should follow after he was taken from them That the Writers of the New Testament should so frequently forewarn men of Hereticks false Christs false Prophets and not once arme them against them with letting them know this onely meanes of avoyding their danger That so great a part of the New Testament should be employed against Antichrist and so little indeed none at all about the Vicar of Christ and the Guide of the Faithfull That our Saviour should leave this onely means for the ending of Controversie and speak so obscurely and ambiguously that now our Judge is the greatest controversie and the greatest hindrance of ending them That there should be better evidence in the Scripture to entitle the King to this Office who disclaims it than the Pope who pretends it That St. Peter should never exercise over the Apostles any one Act of Jurisdiction nor they ever give him any one title of Authority over them That if the Apostles did know that St. Peter was made head of them when our Saviour said Thou art Peter they should still contend who should be the first and that our Saviour should not tell them that Peter was the man That St. Paul should say He was in nothing inferior to the very chief Apostles That the Catechumeni in the primitive Church should never be taught this foundation of their faith That the Fathers Tertullian St. Jerome and Optatus when they flew highest in commendation of the Roman Church should attribute no more to her than to all other Apostolical Churches That in the controversie about Easter the Bishops and Churches of Asia should be so ill catechiz'd as not to know this principle of Religion The necessity of conformity with the Church of Rome That they should never be pressed with any such conformity in all things but onely with the particular Tradition of the Western Churches in that point That Fryverus and many other Bishops notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam should not yet think that a necessary nor a sufficient ground of Excommunication which the Church of Rome thought to be so That St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk should be so ill instructed in their Faith as not to know this Foundation of it That they likewise were never urged with any such necessity of Conformity with the Church of Rome nor charged with Heresie or Error for denying it That when Liberius joyned in Communion with the Arrians and subscribed their Heresie the Arrians then should not be the Church and Guide of Faith That never any Hereticks for five Ages after Christ were pressed with this Argument of the Infallibility of the present Church of Rome or charged with the deniall of it as a detestable Heresie for that Aeneas Silvius should have cause to say Ante tempora Concilii Nicaeni quisque sibi vivebat parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam That the Ecclesiasticall story of those times mention no Acts of Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches as if there should be a Monarchy and Kings for some Ages together and should exercise no Acts of Jurisdiction in it That to supply this defect the Decretall Epistles should be so impudently forged which in a manner speaks nothing but Reges Monarchas I mean The Popes making Lawes for and exercising Authority over all other Churches That the Africane Churches in St. Austins time should be ignorant that the Pope was Head of the Church and Judge of Appeales jure divino and that there was a Necessity of Conformity with the Church of Rome in
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
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