any errour or seduce them by any wâ—nd of doctrine whatsoever Seeing also that S. Paul in the same place Ephesians the 4. v. 10. tells us that the said Pastours are to consummate the Saints and to build up the mysticall Body of Christ I demand whither the Apostle by these words make not those Pastours able to secure Christian people from errour not only in the foundation as Protestants term it but in superstructures also for otherwise they would have been instituted by our Saviour only to found his mysticall Body the Church but not to build it up and to ground or initiate the Saints but not to consummate them Quest 22. If it should be answered that these and such like promises or institutions of Christ are only conditionall that is truly intended on his part but yet may be frustrated by the malice of such as corrrespond not to his intention and therefore though he intended that these Pastours should performe the said offices in the Church yet that it involved this condition if they were not wanting on their parts but by their failing the institution of Christ is made frustrate and of no effect I answer to this prophane and unchristian objection first that if Christs promises and institutions be thus inefficacious and conditionall that notwithstanding all the promises that Christ hath made for the preservation of his Church yet by the malice of Christians or others the whole Christian Church may utterly faile and come to nothing Secondly that it may erre even in fundamentall points contrarie to the doctrine of Protestants and so become a Synagogue of Satan Thirdly that the ancient promises of the coming of the Messias of the redemption of mankind of the saving of some at the last judgement c. have no absolute certainty in them and so by the malice of men might have been or may be frustrated Fourthly that by this there is no certain credit to be given to any promise or institution of God or Christ in the whole old or new Testament For a thousand different conditions may be invented which not being performed or put the prediction fails thus one may say upon the like grounds that as the promises of benefits or blessings might be hindred by the malice and demerits of wicked persons so the Threats and Thundrings of punishments upon sinners may be hindred by the vertues and good works of Saints and because we have no rule to know what proportion of goodness or malice is sufficient to frustrate such predictions we remain wholly uncertain whither they shall be absolutely verified or no unless therefore this principle be setled that all divine institutions and predictions are to be held absolute and never to be frustrated whensoever it is not evidently apparent that they are conditionall and may be hindred there can be no certainty that any institution or prediction in the whole Scripture shall be absolutely fullfilled Seeing therefore it is not evident that this institution Ephesians the 4. c. and others of the same nature concerning the Church are conditionall they are to be supposed to be absolute and not to be frustrated by any malice of men whatsoever Fifthly no Protestant who holds the whole visible Church cannot perish nor all her Pastours prove willfull Seducers can apply this answer to the Text now cited viz. Ephesians 4. c. for if it be hindred by the malice of the said Pastours they must with joint consent maliciously and wittingly teach false doctrine to be the doctrine of Christ which were to teach fundamentall errours and to fall of from Christ If this solution may pass for current who can be certainly assured that there is any true Church of Christ visible or invisible existent now in the world for all the promises concerning the continuance of it to the worlds end may be as well said to be as well conditionall frustrable by the malice of men as this Ephesians the 4. c. and who knows that the said malice is not already grown to that height that it hath deserved that God should take his true Church quite out of the world and so that there is now no true Church at all existent in the whole world Quest 23. Whither it be not evident that unlearned Protestants who cannot determine differences in religion either by force of argument or places of Scripture but must wholly depend in the choice of their faith upon the authority and credit of Christian Teachers are not obliged in conscience to preferre that authority and credibility of Doctours before all others which all circumstances confidered is absolutely and unquestionably the greater authority Quest 24. Whither that authority of Doctours where those of one side are equall at least if not exceeding them of the contrarie party in learning wisedome zeal sincerity vertue sanctitie and all other qualities and perfections which conferre to the accomplishment of compleat authority in a Christian Teacher and with this equality incomparably exceed the Doctours of the other party in number is not in all prudence to be judged absolutely unquestionably the greater authority Quest 25. Whither this equality at least in all the said perfections is not to be found in the Roman Doctours compared with those of Protestants Quest 26. Whither with this forementioned equalizing the Protestant Doctours those of the Roman Church the many years of their continuance and universall extent of their religion considered exceed not incomparably in number those of the Protestant profession Quest 27. Whither this equality in perfections incomparable excess in number considered all unlearned Protestants are not obliged both in prudence and conscience to preferre the authority of the Roman Doctours before that of Protestants and consequently to follow the Roman and desert the Protestant doctrine Quest 28. Whither upon the foresaid considerations the authority of the Protestant Doctours in all things wherein they contradict the Roman is not contemptibile and unable to sway the judgement of any prudent Christian to frame any morall esteem of it for though in matters wherein they are either seconded or not contradicted by an authority incomparably greater then their own they may deservedly be esteemed for their naturall abilities and morall qualities worthy of credit yet in all things where in they stand in opposition and contradiction against an authority incomparably exceeding theirs they deserve nothing but to be slighted contemned by all those who are to be led by the sole force of authority Thus when Protestant Doctours affirm that either Scriptures or Fathers are for them and against the Roman Church what they say in this is not to be regarded seeing the authoritie of the Roman Doctours absolutely greater then theirs unanimously affirms the quite contrary Thus when they affirm that the Roman Church is full of errours and superstitions crept in they know neither when nor how their accusation is to be slighted being clearly and constantly contradicted by a far greater authority Thus they
Questions propounded for Resolution of unlearned PROTESTANTS In matter of Religion to the Doctours of the Prelaticall pretended Reformed Church of England Printed at Paris 1657. Questions propounded for Resolution of unlearned PROTESTANTS In matter of Religion to the Doctours of the Prelaticall pretended reformed Church of England 1. Quest WHither every Christian is not obliged to chuse the safest way all things considered to Salvation 2. Quest Whither that way wherein both parties acknowledge that unlearned men may have possibility of Salvation 1 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 only party and that incomparably less in number but by the other incomparably greater party which equalizes the less in all respects requisite to gain credit and authority is constantly held to be utterly void of all possibility of Salvation even for unlearned persons 3. Quest Whither this be not the present case betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church according to the acknowledgement of the latest and learnedst of Protestant Authours they acknowledging the 2 said possibility of Salvation for unlearned persons in the Romane and the Romane Doctours denying all possibility to unlearned Protestants so long as they remain willfully in the Protestant Religion 4. Quest Whither all unlearned Protestants who are sufficiently informed of what is here said are not quilty of a damnable neglect of their Salvation so long as they remain Protestants and refuse to be of the Roman Church 5. Quest Whither a person who is in quiet possession of any Goods Titles Rights or Dignities c. retain not the right to all such Goods and is wrongfully deprived of them so long as he neither confesses that he hath no right to them nor is condemned by the clear sentence of any lawfull and competent judge of sufficient authority to define against him but still maintaineâ— his cause against his Adversary and gives at least probable answers to all that he alledges against him and pleads to be restored to his ancient possession taken from him by force and violence And whither he who thus violently took the possession from him be not obliged in conscience to restore it to him again and whither he proceeds not unjustly so long as he retains it from him 6. Quest Whither this hath not been within the last hundred and fifty years and still is the proceeding of Protestants against the Romane Church violently excluding her Bishops Pastours and people from the quiet possession of many hundred years continuance of their Doctrine Dignities Titles Governments Benefices Churches Possessions and still retayning them and refusing to restore them those of the Romane Church still claiming their right and never having been condemned by any competent and lawfull judge nor acknowledging themselves convinced to have obtained that possession wrongfully 7. Quest Whither the quiet possession of many ages both of the Eastern and Western Churches in their unanimous consent of Doctrine and practise in most points of controversie betwixt them and Protestants be not a sufficient proof to justifie the said doctrine and practise till it be convinced clearly evidently and undeniably by reason or authority or lawfully condemned of errour So that it belongs to Protestants who are the Aggressours to convince their adversaries of errour and not to those of the Roman or Grecian Churches to prove their Tenents by any other argument then that of their quiet ancient and universall possession though Catholicks be upon the affirmative and Protestants upon the negative as he who quietly possesses the name title armes and lands of such or such a familie hath sufficiently proved that he has right to them and that they are truly his till he either confesse that the contrary is sufficiently proved or that it be lawfully determined against him 8. Quest Whither it is not a most insolent madness as St. Augustin terms it or an insufferable height of pride for any Christian whatsoever to call in question much more to censure and condemne as erroneous that which all the visible Churches in the world taught and practised and a manifest foolery to follow any teachers and give eare and belief to them who contradict the universall practise and doctrine of the whole Christian world 9. Quest Whither the first was not done by the first Authors of Protestant Religion and the second done and still continued by their followers or if the first Authours of Protestant Religion received those points of their doctrine from any visible Church in the whole world which existed immediately before their relinquishing the Roman doctrine let that Church be produced and named 10. Quest Seeing Protestants affirme that the Roman Church is infected with errours in Faith which they pretend to have purged in their Reformation I demand that it be evidenced when any of these pretended errours begun to be publickly taught practised out of some approved Authours of any age who affirm that the publick profession of the said errours begun in or about their time For seeing they were publickly practised through all Christendom if that publick practise had ever begun in any age since the Apostles it must have been taken notice of whereby their instances of consumption in the Lungs of a beard growing white c. are shewed to be nothing to the purpose because they are either wholly secret or insensible and no way publick and notorious as these were And seeing Faith by S. Paul Ephes. 4. v. 1. 2. is said to be one and reckoned up with the unity of God and Christ and so must be perfectly one how Protestants and those of the Roman Church can properly be said to have one Faith when the the one believes what the other disbelieves And as opinions contradicting one another cannot be said to be one opinion how can Faiths contradicting one another be said to be one Faith neither is it enough to say that they are one in that wherein they agree for so they will be one only in part or partially and not absolutely and entirely and as the least difference destroyes the perfect unitie of God Christ so will it do that of faith and though my opinion agree with that of another in many things but disagrees in many others from his we can never be said absolutely as it must be in faith to be of the same or one opinion Quest 11. Whither it be not a great argument to induce any rationall indifferent man to judge that the Protestant Authours are put to great Straits and to desperate acknowledgements when being ashamed of the first refuge of their beginners in flying for the defence of their Succession to an invisible Church and no less of the second in alleadging for their predecessours and continuance of the visibilitie of their Church Berengarius the Waldenses Albigenses Wicleffests Hussites and other publickly condemned
be obscure in points not necessarie to salvation by what means can they ever think to convince the Roman Church of errour in these points of difference betwixt them and her Quest 19. Seeing also that every point of faith is a divine truth 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 Scriptures 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 necessarie 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 with that of their beginners and more ancient Predecessours who taught that the Scriptures were clear only in all points necessary to salvation and upon that pretext both affirmed that our doctrin's against them were clearly convinced of falshood by the authority of sole Scripture and allowed all lay people promiscuously to read them as being clear to them in all the points controversed betwixt us for this manifestly supses that they were held by those beginners to be points of faith necessary to salvation or fundamentalls or what means is there to believe them as points of faith seeing they can never be believed infallibly upon the Churches authoritie by reason of her pretended fallibilitie in them nor expresly for the authoritie of Scripture by reason of its obscurity in the delivery of them according to the principles of Protestants Quest 20. I demand further if the whole visible Church may erre in the definition of any point of faith whatsoever that errour must either proceed from ignorance want of light or from malice and want of vertue or 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 abominable willfull deceiver of the world and a seducer of Nations in teaching contrarie to the known truth not the first for if she could erre out of ignorance to what purpose do Protestants appeal to her determination in a lawfull generall Councell in any of the points in difference betwixt them and those of the Roman Church seeing she may through ignorance erre in the determination of them as being not fundamentall according to them Neither can it be said that notwithstanding the whole visible Churches fallibility in points not fundamentall nay though it should actually erre and that errour should be evidently discovered yet even those who had thus evidently discovered the said errours were to conform themselves to those erroneous definitions of a generall Councell For if this conformity be understood of an internall conformity in judgement 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 externall conformity and profession only it were manifestly impious and high hipocrisie in resisting the known truth and professing to believe that as a divine Truth revealed by Almighty God which they evidently know to be a most false errour in faith Secondly if one were to subscribe externally to conform himself to the definitions of lawfull generall Councells which one perswades himself he evidently knows to be erroneous till another Councell be assembled to correct them why did not Protestants afford this externall conformity to the definitions of the Generall Councell of Florence of Lateran and to the second Councell of Nice to omit others till some other lawfull generall Councell came to correct their pretended errours they having no other reason to reject the authority of the said Councells 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 lawfull generall Councell revoked any definition in matter of faith of any former lawfull generall Councell what hope is there that they shall now begin to do what was never done before them Fourthly if it were supposed that any such revocatorie definition should issue from them that party whose doctrine should be condemned by such revocations would accuse that Councell of errour as much as the contrary party accused the former Councell of errour in defining against them and so the controversie would remain as indetermined as it was before neither would it be possible ever to determine it fully by a generall Councell for the party condemned would still expect another Councell 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 further seeing lawfull generall Councells do not only oblige even under pain of Anathema or being accursed and excommunicated all Christians to believe and profess the doctrine which they teach them not only to be true and free from errour but to be divine Truth revealed by God himself if they should erre in any such definition they must make God the Authour of errour and untruth which quite destroyes the veracity of God and consequently overthrows the main and primary foundation of Christian faith and therefore must necessarily be held to include a fundamentall errour so impossible and implicatorie a thing it is for them to erre in matter of faith and not to erre fundamentally For either that erring Councell must define some positive errour or that which God never revealed to be revealed from God or that some true revelation of God is an errour both which contain no less malice then this to make God a lyar Quest 21. Seeing S. Paul Ephes. 4. v. 14. affirms that our Saviour had appointed Pastours and Teachers till the day of judgement as a means to preserve Christian people from being carried about with every wind of doctrine these words every wind of doctrine cannot be understood disjunctively for then if those Pastours preserved them from being seduced in one only point of Christian doctrine it would not be true that they preserved them from being carried about with every wind of doctrine but they must be understood conjunctively that is that they preserve them from being carried away with any wind of doctrine whatsoever which should chance to be buzzed into their ears by false Teachers Now seeing such winds of erroneous doctrine are raised as well in points which Protestants account not fundamentall as in fundamentalls the meaning of the Apostle must be that by means of those Pastours Christians be preserved from following any errour in faith whither it be fundamentall or not fundamentall and consequently that they can assâ—redly direct them to eschew all errours in faith which they could not do if they themselves were subject to teach them