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
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
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