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
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
putting to cruell Torments and death so many Priests and Professors of the Roman Religion Fourthly in depriving their Bishops and Clergymen of their respective Church-Governments Dignities Seas Benefices and Churches and setting up others they get livings in their places Fifthly in making it no less then High-Treason which is yet in force either to be Priests or to communicate with them in many Spirituall Church-Offices and Sacraments Sixtly in continuing to this day in a violent detaining of their Churches Benefices Dignities and Spirituall Functions from all those of the Roâ—an profession and holding them in their own hands and all this because they maintain certain pretended Errors which they now confess not to be fundamentall nor destructive of Salvation and consequently that those of the Roman Church have suffered and still suffer all these intollerable injuries for that which even these Modern Authors acknowledg to be no more then a venial and small sin for if it were mortall it would destroy Salvation so long as one wilfully continues in it which they affirm it does not Further by this Acknowledgement these modern Protestant Authors must confess that their former Writers who were of a contrary mind in charging the Church of Rome and the rest with her of Superstition and Idolatry c. and all those who then joyned with them and all their modern Churches and Protestants both without and within England who at this day hold it a point of their Faith to accuse the Church of Rome in the same mannerâ— erre damnably against Christian Truth and so consequently are no true Churches of Christ for it cannot be less then a damnable Error to make it a point of their Faith and Religion to condemn any one much more all the visible Churches of the West nay and of the East too and so of whole Christendom for nine hundred yeares together of grievous Superstition when upon better examination the Doctors of the same Protestant Church are compelled by force of truth to confess that those Churches neither are nor ever were guilty of those horrid Errors and at most erre onely venially and lightly which hinder them not either to be a true Church of Christ or to obtain Salvation Bishop of Cant. p. 129. num 3. Even while they constantly and immoveably maintain them and accuse all who wilfully contradict them and condemn them as erroneous And hence also it follows that seeing these modern Protestant Authors and their party Communicate in Prayer and Sacraments with the Presbyterians and Calvinists who accuse the Church of Rome of Idolatry c. and so put it in fundamentall error and acknowledg themselves to make one Church with them must be guilty of deadly Schisme by that Communion and acknowledgment and consequently so long as they continue in that Communion are uncapable of Salvation Here are many words to small purpose Answ 11 a Question might have been couched in five lines enlarged to five pages my answer must be answerable Know you therefore whosoever you are without a name Protestants are not put to great straits nor desperate acknowledgments they are not ashamed of their first beginners They stand not for the Succession of an invisible Church they acknowledg not for their first beginners of a visible Church Berengarius the Waldenses Albigenses Wicklifsts Hussits whom yet you cannot truly affirm to have been legally condemned for Hereticks but we alleadge for our Predecessors Christ and his Apostles Ignatius Clemens Hegesippus Polycarpus Irenaeus Theophilus Tertullian Cyprian Origan Methodius Gregory Neozes Constantius Magnus Eusebius Casarian Lactantius Athanasius Hilarius Basilius Magnus Gregorius Nyssenus Gregorius Nazianzenus Hieronymus Epiphanius Ambrotius Chrysostomus Cyrillus Theodoretus Augustinus with the foure Oecumenicall Councils of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Calcedon with all the holy company of Saints and noble Army of Martyrs untill the seventh Age against whose positions if we hold any thing name it we answer it prove it we yeild and many more Catholicks since we acknowledge not to succeed the Church of Rome we were and are as the Church of Rome was of the Catholick Church we acknowledge her to be a true Church we deny her to be the true Church she is and we are parts of the true Church yet we not so erroneous as she we acknowledge not to have wronged the Church of Rome we complain that the Church of Rome or rather the Bishop of Rome with his Court hath wronged that Church this Church and with both the whole Chatholick Church by Quittance and by Forfeiture 1. By Quittance the Bishop of Rome hath wronged the Church in assuming to himself the Title of Vniversall Bishop and spirituall Soveraigne and Monarch of the Church which is as inconsistent with a Provinciall Patriarchiat-ship which was never by any nor shall by me be denyed him as Humane and Divine Institution 2. By Forfeiture for if the Rebellion of an Inferior forfeits by renouncing his Loyalty to his Superiour then the Bishop of Rome is notorious in his Rebellion against Generall Councils the onely Supreme Ecclesiasticall power and not onely against a Generall Council the Representative Church but also against the Catholick Church in usurping a Dominion over it And not onely by Rebellion but also by Robbery who but the Bishop of Rome would have robbed the King of England of his Investitures of Bishops which Henry the seventh protested against by his Proctour Who but the Bishop of Rome robbed the King of his Patronages by Collations Provisions and Expectative Graces Who but he robbed the King of England of the last Appeales of his Subjects contray to the ancient Lawes of England I could go on to inferior Robberies committed by the Bishop of Rome upon the Nobility and Clergy of England but I hasten to the rest of your Question We have not condemned your Church of Rome of Superstition Idolatry Antichristianisme c. Private men it may be have the Church of England have not and if the Church of Rome be guilty of such Errors let her free her self The Church of England hath not destroved burnt alienated to secular uses thousands of your Churches Monasteries Townes Citties Villages if any such things have been done let the Actors be quesstioned let not the Church of England be blamed The Church of England hath not put to cruell Torments and death many Priests and Professors of the Roman Religion nor deprieved their Bishops and Clergy of their Church-Governments the Church of England hath onely recovered their own the Church of England hath not made it High Treason to be Priests you know when they are executed they executed for something else then for being Priests The Church of England continues not in a violent detaining of Roman Benefices but in a lawfull possession of their own and all this not for certain pretended but reall Errors which you of the Roman Church do hold and destructive to Salvation to such knowing men as your self though not of the same consequence to