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,Bishop of Can­terbury, in his Relation of the conference, &c. §. 35. pag. 280. 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 [Page 12] 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 B. of Cant. in fore cited place. 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 [Page 13] 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 maintaine [...] 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?

[Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 S^t. Augustin. terms it) or an insufferable height of pride, for any Christian whatsoever to call in question, much more to censure [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] their predecessours and continuance of the visibilitie of their Church, Be­rengarius, the Waldenses, Albigenses, Wicleffests, Hussites, and other pu­blickly condemned hereticks, they confess, that they have now no other means to save their visible succession, but by acknowledging, that they suc­ceed to the Church of Rome, and other Churches joyning with her against them in all the points of difference betwixt them, and her; and so are en­forced to acknowledge her, and all those who are united to her, to be true Churches of Christ, and consequently to hold no fundamentall errour at all; & consequent to this, to acknowledge, that their first Authours & Churches, both in England and other countries, wronged the Church of Rome and those others insufferably, first, in con­demning them of Superstition, Idola­trie, Antichristianisme, &c. which are fundamentall errours in Religion, and destructive of Salvation. Secondly [Page 20] upon this pretext in destroying, burn­ing, and alienating to secular uses so many thousands of their Churches, Monasteries, Towns, Citties, Castles, Villages. Thirdly in massacring and putting to cruell torments and death, so many Priests and Professours of the Roman religion. Fourthly in de­priving their Bishops and Clergie-men of their respective Church-govern­ments, dignities, Seas, Benefices and Churches, and setting up others, they yet living, 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. Sixthly in continuing to this day, in a violent detaining of their Churches, benefices, dignities, and spirituall functions, from all those of the Roman Profession, and holding them in their own hands; and all this, because they maintain certain pre­tended errours, which they now con­fess [Page 21] not to be fundamentall, nor de­structive of Salvation; & consequent­ly that those of the Roman Church have suffered, and still suffer all these intollerable injuries, for that which even these modern Authors acknow­ledge to be no more then a veniall or small sin: for if it were mortall, it would destroy Salvation, so long as one willfully continues in it; which they affirm, it does not.

Further by this acknowledgement, these modern Protestant Authours must confess, that their former wri­ters, who were of a contrarie mind, in charging the Church of Rome and the rest with her, of superstition, and Idolatrie, &c. and all those, who then joyned with them, and all their mo­dern Churches and Protesters, both without and within England, who at this day hold it as a point of their faith, to accuse the Church of Rome in the same manner, erre damnably against Christian Truth, and conse­quently [Page 22] are no true Churches of Christ. For it cannot be lesse then a damnable errour to make it a point of their faith, and religion, to condemne 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 years together, of grievous superstition, when upon better examination, the Doctours of the same Protestant Church are com­pelled by force of Truth to confess, that those Churches neither are, nor ever were guilty of any of those hor­rid errours, and at the most erre only venially and lightly; which hinder them not, either to beBish. Cant. p. 129. num. 3. a true Church of Christ, or to obtain Salvation, even while they most constantly and im­moveably maintain them; and accurse all who willfully contradict them, or condemne them as erroneous.

And hence also it follows, that ceing those modern Protestant Au­thours [Page 23] and their partie, communicate in prayer and Sacraments, with the Presbyterians and Calvinists, who accuse the Church of Rome of Idola­trie, &c. (and so put it in fundamentall errour,) and acknowledge themselves to make one Church with them, must be guilty of deadly schisme by that communion and acknowledgement; and consequently so long as they con­tinue in that communion, are uncapa­ble of Salvation.

Quest. 12. Whether it be not a great argument of securitie to those who either are of the Roman Church, or convert themselves to it, that her ve­ry adversaries after so many condem­nations of her to hold most grievous, and damnable errours, dare not now accuse her to hold any errour destru­ctive of salvation; so that the belief of her doctrine in every point, their obe­dience to all her commands, the exer­cise of all her practises, their praying to Saints, reverencing of holy Images, [Page 24] adoring of Christ as really and natu­rally present in the Sacrament, &c. consist with salvation. And though some say, though they destroy not salvation,B. of Cant. above cited 181. yet they are dangerous points, and practises, weakning the foundation, and en­dangering 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 only weak, by their adversaries confession, then to hold theirs, which the contra­rie party most constantly affirms to destroy quite, & raise the foundation of religion, and to make salvation, not only hard & in danger, but utterly im­possible, till it be deserted.

Quest. 13. Whither it be a likely thing, that the chiefest of the pretended errours in the Roman religion, con­tain any danger of loosing salvation, in maintaining them, seeing for this thousand years, by the common con­fession [Page 25] of Protestants themselves, they have been universally believed and practised, as matters belonging to Christian faith and dutie, both by the Latin and Greek Church; and so 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; & yet certainlie there was alwayes a safe way to Heaven: And what likelyhood is there, that the safe way should be wholly unknown and unpractised for so many hundred years together, and the common known way, according to the full belief & setled perswasion of all the visible Churches of Chri­stendom, should be dangerous and un­safe? or what reason can be given, that the Professours of the doctrine of the Roman Church, should be in an un­safe, or dangerous way, before Prote­stants begun seeing they had none in those times, to shew them, that they were in danger.

[Page 26] Quest. 14 Whither it have any shew of probabilitie, that the said pretended errours, though they raise not the foundation of Christian faith (as the late Protestants confess) yet they may in time endanger the raising and de­struction of it, as they argue, seeing that after the universall belief of them, for a thousand years together, the foundation remains yet unde­stroyed and entire?B. of Cant. p. 283. For if a thousand years conti­nuance of them hath stood with the integritie of the foun­dation, what appearance is there, that they will ever cause, or induce the de­struction of it?

Quest. 15. Further concerning this Protestant distinction of errours in faith, fundamentall and not funda­mentall, I demand first, what they understand by fundamentall errours? for if they mean any nicetie in specu­lation, or Theologicall discourse, it belongs not to the knowledge of the [Page 27] unlearned: either the refore they must understand by a fundamentall errour, such an errour in faith, as destroyes 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, & precise number of the fundamentall errours in faith, that is, how many, & which are those errours in faith, which destroy salva­tion? for what helps it a Christian to know, that there are such destructive and damnable errours, unless he know whether he hold any such errour him­self, or no? And how can he ever be certain of that, so long as he is igno­rant, which are fundamentall errours, which not? If this Catalogue be re­fused, I demand at least some evident means, or marks, to distinguish er­rours in faith, destructive of salvation or damnable, from others consistent with salvation, or veniall: which is neither to deny any of the Articles [Page 28] 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 deniall of which they nei­ther do, nor can hold to be a funda­mentall errour, unless they affirm the Grecian Church to erre fundamen­tally, & so denie it to be a true Church of Christ; which were quite against the said Protestants, seeing they main­tain the contrarie. Nor is the Creed of the Apostles alone a sufficient rule to determine fully, which are funda­mentall points, which not; both be­cause there are some things in it, which (by reason of the lightness of the matter they contain,) come not by far so near the radicall and primarie misteries 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 [Page 29] the circumstances of time & persons, as that our Saviour suffered under Pontius Pilate, and no other judge, that hee rose the Third, and no other day, &c. And because some points, ne­cessarie to the subsistence 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 Scripture; whither, 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 term it; and no small number of points, according to them, fundamentall, which are not [Page 30] expressed in Scripture, as the number of Canonicall Books, the entire in­corrupt puritie of the originall, in any copie, 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 affirme) 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 necessarie to salvation, the determinate belief of all that is true Scripture, from which only (they say) the true points of faith are drawn, must be necessarie to salvation, and so a fundamentall point of faith.

Thirdly, I demand, how any Chri­stian can affirm, that the denyall of any point of faith whatsoever, being sufficiently propounded as such, is con­sistent with salvation, seeing all such [Page 31] denyalls, 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 so ever the matter be, which is revealed in them; which appears evi­dently in this example.

I suppose that this sentence of Scri­pture, Tertiâ die resurget, he shall rise again the third day, is sufficiently pro­pounded to any one, as a point and article of Christian faith, as well ac­cording to the substance resurget, that our Saviour should rise again, (which Protestants grant to be a fundamen­tall point) as the circumstance of time, Tertia die, the third day. Now suppose that some Christian, to whom this whole sentence of Scripture is sufficiently propounded, should firme­ly believe the substance, or mysterie of the resurrection, because he esteems it to be a fundamentall point, but should disbelieve the precise circum­stance of time, that it was only upon the [Page 32] 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, whither he that disbelieves that the resurrection happened upon the third day, and dyes in that belief, can be saved?

Quest. 16. I demand farther, that seeing S. Paul, Hebr. 11. v. 1. says, that faith is [...], the substance, or ground (as the Protestant English Bi­ble of Anno 1648. hath it) of things hoped for, and is reckoned up by the same Apostle Hebr. 6. v. 1. 2. amongst those things, which are called by him basis, the foundation, one of them being Faith to God. And the Apostle Ephes. 2. v. 20. sayes we are built [...], upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, which now, according to Protestants, can be nothing else save the writings of the Prophets and Apostles in Holy Scri­pture, I demand, whither to say that [Page 33] some points of Faith are not fundamen­tall, or belonging to the foundation, be not as contrarie to common sense, as to say, that some stone in the founda­tion of a building belongs not to the foundation, or is not fundamen­tall?

Quest. 33. Further I demand, that seeing S. Paul affirms in the fore cited place, Hebrews the 6. vers. 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) that such Protestants dif­ferre fundamentally, or in the foun­dation from those of the Roman Church? or, if the laying on of hands belong to the foundation, as S. Paul here affirmed, why anointing with oyle, mentioned by S. Iames, should not also be a fundamentall point? or [Page 34] why, laying on of hands (being only, as Protestants esteem it, a ceremonie not Sacramentall) should be here termed the foundatìon and the sub­stance of the Eucharist, which all hold to be Sacramentall, and more then a meere ceremonie, should not be fundamentall? or lastly, what reason there is to say, that laying on of hands hath a nearer connexion to the radi­call and prime mysteries of our faith, then many other points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church?

It is yet further demanded, seeing Protestants affirme, that the whole visible Catholick Church may erre in the definition of points of faith not fundamentall; and seeing they affirm, that the points in difference betwixt us, are not fundamentall, and so not necessarie to salvation; & lastly. Seeing they affirm also, that the Scriptures may be obscure in points not neces­sarie to salvation, by what means can [Page 35] 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, [Page 36] 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, [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] 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 [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 ass [...]redly direct them, to eschew all errours in faith, which they could not do, if they themselves were subject to teach them any errour, or seduce them by any w [...]nd of doctrine whatsoever.

Seeing also that S. Paul, in the same place, Ephesians the 4. v. 10. tells us, [Page 43] 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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, [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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?

[Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 say, that Protestants may be saved, living and dying willfully in their religion, they deserve no credit at all, for the quite contrary is most constantly defended by the incompa­rably stronger authoritie of the Ro­man Doctours: and the like is to be [Page 51] affirmed in all the points of difference betwixt the two Religions. So that a Protestant is not to consider the abili­ties & authority of his Doctours ab­solutely, or in matters out of contro­versie, but as contradicting an autho­rity [...]comparably exceeding theirs; in which contradiction they deserve nei­ther credit nor esteem.

Quest. 29. I demand further, that if the authoritie of all the Doctours of the whole body of Protestants, be so inconsiderable, in comparison with that of the Roman Doctours, how much less will be the authoritie of any one sect, or party of them; and then how minute and scarce perceptible will be the authoritie of a Lawd, an Hammond, a Chillingworth, a Fern, a Bramhall, a Taylor, &c. which now obtain so powerfull an Ascendant, up­on the hearts of our modern lay Pro­testants; seeing they are in a manner nothing in respect of the authoritie of the Roman Doctours.

[Page 52] Quest. 30. All this is demanded, supposing that the Roman Doctours were only equall to those of Prote­stants in all the forenamed qualities, conducing to the perfect authoritie of a Master in Christianity: But now I demand, whether those, who have au­thoritie 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 ministrie in all the said qualities?

What Councells have they worth the mentioning in comparison with the generall Councells consenting with the present Roman Church, (even according to their own confes­sion) as the second of Nice, the great Councell of Lateran, the Councell of Constance, Florence & Trent, where­in such multitudes of learned men, & Holy Patriarchs, Metropolitanes, Archbishops, Bishops, Doctours, Pre­lates, both of the Eastern and We­stern [Page 53] Churches, unanimously confirm­ed the Romane, and condemned the Protestant doctrine?

What proofs of learning have the Protestant ministry, comparable to those of the Roman Doctours, where­of many have written one, no small number two, others three and four, others six, eight, ten, twelve, and some twenty & 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 ministrie have they, who have obtained the univer­sall esteem of sanctitie, as hath our Gregorie, Beda, Thomas, Bonaventure, Antonine, Dominicke, 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 Gospell, even with the undergoing of unheard-of torments, [Page 54] and suffering most cruell Martyr­doms, as many of the Roman Clergie have done within these late years? let them name but one sole Minister, who hath suffered Martyrdom for preach­ing Christian faith to the Pagans.

What means have the Protestant Ministry, with their wives, goods and families, to apply themselves to study and devotion, comparable to our single Clergie, and retired religious.

Where is that unanimous consent in all points of faith (seeing they are perpetually jarring, not onely one with another, but the same Ministers dissenting notoriously now, from what they taught twenty years ago) amongst them, compared to the con­stancy and agreement of our Do­ctours?

What Miracles have any of their Ministry ever done, in confirmation, either of their doctrine against the Roman Church, or of the Christian faith against heathens, as (unless all hu­mane [Page 55] 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 Doctours, and Pastours, must either deserve the esteem, I say not only of an unchristian, but even of an impru­dent man, if he adhere to so undeser­ving and contemptible an authority, as is that of the Protestant Ministry in comparison of the Roman Doctours, who so incomparably outstrip them, not only in multitude, but in all the motives and perfections, which give credit to the authority of a Christian Teacher.

Quest. 31. Whether hence be not evidently discovered, not only the in­sufferable pride of Luther, and the o­ther originall beginners of any Sect in Protestancy, in preferring their sole [Page 56] authority before that of the Prelates and Doctours of all the visible Churches in Christendom, existent when they begun first to preach their doctrine, but the extream madnesse of all the ignorant laity, who followed them, upon their sole authority, and preferred one single person upon his bare word, (without any extraordina­ry signes or manifest proofs from hea­ven attesting his authority) before all the Doctours, Prelates, Councells, Churches within the precincts of Christendom, both of that present time and for nine hundred years be­fore? and if those were infested with so deep a frenesie, how can any man be judged deservedly discreet and pru­dent, who approves of their proceed­ings in this particular, and sides with them, (at least in some article or o­ther) in the opposition of the whole Christian world, as all Protestants do, even to this day.

Quest. 32. Hence I farther demand, [Page 57] that seeing on one side the true Chri­stian religion, having the divine wis­dome for its authour, cannot admit of any thing imprudent, as properly be­longing to it, in the choice of it: and on the other, that the Protestant religion, or any sect whatsoever sprung from it, or existent in it, cannot be prudently chosen, by any unlearned person, who is sufficiently informed of the nullity of that authority which propounds it, compared with the authority pro­pounding the Roman religion; whe­ther I say, those particulars consider­ed, the Protestant religion, in any sect of it whatsoever, can be esteemed the true Christian religion?

Quest. 33. Hence, I presse farther, whether the proving that Protestant religion cannot be prudently cho­sen, or retayned, 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 [Page 58] sect amongst them in any point where­in it differs from the Roman, hath ei­ther any solid ground in the holy Scri­ptures, or true relation to Gods holy Spirit, or coherence with true reason; seeing a religion, which cannot by them be chosen prudently, cannot possibly proceed from any of these three; whatsoever fair show Prote­stants, each respectively to his severall sect, make vainly of them.

Quest. 34. And upon this, I demand yet farther, whether the Roman Do­ctours 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 a fore decla­red.

Quest. 35. On the contrary side; I demand whether the Roman Do­ctours have any obligation in rigour [Page 59] of dispute, to use any other argument, for perswading unlearned persons, to desert the Protestant, and imbrace the Roman religion, then this of 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 relinquishing the one; and the contrary perswasion, the first step which must be fixed, in approaching to the other. Now when unlearned Protestants once confess that they are convinced in this, and thereupon re­cede from Protestancy, but object that the prudentiall motives to preferre the Roman religion before the Pro­testant, as they convince that the Pro­testant is wholly improbable, and so to be deserted, so they convince no more then that the Roman is proba­ble, [Page 60] and so is in great likelyhood to be the true religion, but convince not, that it is so much as morally certain? to Protestants brought thus far, there is an obligation put upon Roman Do­ctours, to prove at least the morall certainty of it; to such as acknowledge that it is morally certain that the Ro­man religion, is the sole true saving religion, but deny, notwithstanding, that it thereby follows that it is falli­bly certain; rises an obligation to prove, that it is also 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 Doctours, to demonstrate the divine [Page 61] infallibility of the truth of the Roman religion, before they themselves grant, that it is either infallible in any degree, or morally certain, or proba­ble, or prudentiall. 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 denied, 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 imperfectionibus, ad perfe­ctiora, still observing the stop, or pro­gresse of our adversary, and still stop­ping, and going forward along with him. And if this methode had been strictly held by our late controver­tists, the adversaries mouths had been stopped long before this.

Quest. 36. Seeing these demands are [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] proposed to such as believe that with­out true Christian faith no man can be saved, and that this saving faith is one only; and that this only faith is infal­lible, & 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, & beliefs, now on foot in these parts of Christendom, there is none that can be prudently imbra­ced, (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 imbraced 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 or their Teachers. Those things, I say considered, it is finally demanded, [Page 63] whether by proving, that the Roman faith only can be prudently imbraced (which is already done) it is not made inevitably clear, that the Roman on­ly, is that Divine, Infallible, One, true Faith, wherein Christians may be saved.