Questions propounded for Resolution of unlearned PROTESTANTS, In matter of Religion, to the doctors of the prelatical pretended Reformed Church of England.  
Printed at Paris, 1657.   

Questions propounded for Resolution of unlearned PROTESTANTS, In matter of Religion, to the doctors of the prelatical pretended, reformed Church of England.  
1. Quest. WHither every Christian is not obliged, to choose 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 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 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 authors; they acknowledging the 
2 B. of Cant. in fore-cited place.  said possibility of Salvation for unlearned persons in the Roman, and the Roman doctors denying all possibility to unlearned Protestants, so long as they remain wilfully 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 lawful 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 alleges 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 Roman Church, violently excluding her Bishops, pastors, and people, from the quiet possession, of many hundred years' continuance, of their Doctrine, Dignities, Titles, Governments, Benefices, Churches, Possessions, and still retaining them, and refusing to restore them; those of the Roman Church still claiming their right, and never having been condemned by any competent and lawful 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 practice, in most points of controversy betwixt them and Protestants, be not a sufficient proof to justify the said doctrine and practice; till it be convinced clearly, evidently and undeniably, (by reason or authority) or lawfully condemned of error? So that it belongs to Protestants, who are the Aggressours, to convince their adversaries of error, and not to those of the Roman, or Grecian Churches, to prove their tenants by any other argument, then that of their quiet, ancient, and universal possession, though Catholics be upon the affirmative, and Protestants upon the negative; as he who quietly possesses the name, title, arms and lands of such, or such a family, hath sufficiently proved, that he has right to them, and that they are truly his, till he either confess, 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 condemn as erroneous, that which all the visible Churches in the world taught and practised; and a manifest foolery, to follow any teachers, and give ear and belief to them, who contradict the universal practice 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 authors 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 affirm, that the Roman Church is infected with errors in Faith, which they pretend to have purged in their Reformation, I demand that it be evidenced, when any of these pretended errors begun to be publicly taught & practised out of some approved authors of any age, who affirm, that the public profession of the said errors begun in or about their time. For seeing they were publicly practised through all Christendom, if that public practice 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 showed to be nothing to the purpose; because they are either wholly secret, or insensible, and no way public 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 destroys the perfect unity 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 rational indifferent man, to judge that the Protestant authors 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 alleging for their predecessors and continuance of the visibility of their Church, Berengarius, the Waldenses, Albigenses, Wicleffests, Hussites, and other publicly condemned heretics, 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 joining 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 fundamental error at all; & consequent to this, to acknowledge, that their first authors & Churches, both in England and other countries, wronged the Church of Rome and those others insufferably, first, in condemning them of Superstition, idolatry, Antichristianism, &c. which are fundamental errors in Religion, and destructive of Salvation. Secondly upon this pretext in destroying, burning, and alienating to secular uses so many thousands of their Churches, Monasteries, Towns, cities, Castles, Villages. Thirdly in massacring and putting to cruel 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 yet living, in their places. Fifthly in making it no less than high Treason, (which is yet in force) either to be Priests, or to communicate with them in many spiritual Church offices and Sacraments. Sixthly in continuing to this day, in a violent detaining of their Churches, benefices, dignities, and spiritual functions, from all those of the Roman Profession, and holding them in their own hands; and all this, because they maintain certain pretended errors, which they now confess not to be fundamental, nor destructive of Salvation; & consequently that those of the Roman Church have suffered, and still suffer all these intolerable injuries, for that which even these modern Authors acknowledge to be no more than a venial or small sin: for if it were mortal, 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 joined 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, err damnably against Christian Truth, and consequently are no true Churches of Christ. For it cannot be less than 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 years 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 any of those horrid errors, and at the most err only venially and lightly; which hinder them not, either to be 
1 Bish. 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 wilfully contradict them, or condemn them as erroneous.  
And hence also it follows, that seeing those 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 fundamental error,) and acknowledge themselves to make one Church with them, must be guilty of deadly schism 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 security 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 errors, dare not now accuse her to hold any error destructive of salvation; so that the belief of her doctrine in every point, their obedience to all her commands, the exercise of all her practices, their praying to Saints, reverencing of holy Images, adoring of Christ as really and naturally present in the Sacrament, &c. consist with salvation. And though some say, though they destroy not salvation, 
B. of Cant. above cited 181.  yet they are dangerous points, and practices, weakening 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 adversary's confession, then to hold theirs, which the contrary 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 errors in the Roman religion, contain any danger of losing salvation, in maintaining them, seeing for this thousand years, by the common confession of Protestants themselves, they have been universally believed and practised, as matters belonging to Christian faith and duty, both by the Latin and Greek Church; and so the belief and practice 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 certainly there was always a safe way to Heaven: And what likelihood 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 & settled persuasion of all the visible Churches of Christendom, should be dangerous and unsafe? or what reason can be given, that the professors of the doctrine of the Roman Church, should be in an unsafe, or dangerous way, before Protestants begun seeing they had none in those times, to show them, that they were in danger.  
Quest. 14 Whither it have any show of probability, that the said pretended errors, 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 universal 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 integrity 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 errors in faith, fundamental and not fundamental, I demand first, what they understand by fundamental errors? for if they mean any nicety in speculation, or theological discourse, it belongs not to the knowledge of the unlearned: either therefore they must understand by a fundamental 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, & precise number of the fundamental errors in faith, that is, how many, & 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 know whether he hold any such error himself, or no? And how can he ever be certain of that, so long as he is ignorant, which are fundamental errors, which not? If this Catalogue be refused, I demand at least some evident means, or marks, to distinguish errors in faith, destructive of salvation or damnable, from others consistent with salvation, or venial: 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 denial of which they neither do, nor can hold to be a fundamental error, unless they affirm the Grecian Church to err fundamentally, & 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 fundamental 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 radical and primary mysteries of Christian faith, as do many points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church, and therefore cannot with any show of truth be termed fundamental by Protestants, such as are the circumstances of time & 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 subsistence of Christian faith according to Protestants, are not expressly defined in that Creed; as that the Holy Scriptures are the divine word of God, which is the precise number of the Books of canonical Scripture; whither, there is any written word of God, or no; or any Sacraments, &c. so that a Christian finds not all fundamental points of faith set down expressly in the Apostles Creed. Neither is the Scripture a sufficient rule to know which are, which are not fundamental 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, fundamental, which are not expressed in Scripture, as the number of canonical Books, the entire incorrupt purity of the original, 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 only (they say) the true points of faith are drawn, must be necessary to salvation, and so a fundamental point of faith.  
Thirdly, I demand, how any Christian can affirm, that the denial of any point of faith whatsoever, being sufficiently propounded as such, is consistent with salvation, seeing all such denials, 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 fundamental point) as the circumstance of time, Tertia die, the third day. Now suppose that some Christian, to whom this whole sentence of Scripture is sufficiently propounded, should firmly believe the substance, or mystery of the resurrection, because he esteems it to be a fundamental point, but should disbelieve the precise circumstance of time, that it was only upon the third, and no other day, I demand seeing both the one and the other is propounded equally, as expressly contained in that sentence of Holy Scripture, whither he that disbelieves that the resurrection happened upon the third day, and dies in that belief, can be saved?  
Quest. 16. I demand farther, that seeing S. Paul, Hebr. 11. v. 1. says, that faith is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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. says we are built {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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 some points of Faith are not fundamental, or belonging to the foundation, be not as contrary to common sense, as to say, that some stone in the foundation of a building belongs not to the foundation, or is not fundamental?  
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 oil, mentioned by S. James, should not also be a fundamental point? or why, laying on of hands (being only, as Protestants esteem it, a ceremony not sacramental) should be here termed the foundatìon and the substance of the Eucharist, which all hold to be sacramental, and more than a mere ceremony, should not be fundamental? or lastly, what reason there is to say, that laying on of hands hath a nearer connexion to the radical and prime mysteries of our faith, than many other points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church?  
It is yet further demanded, seeing Protestants affirm, that the whole visible Catholic Church may err in the definition of points of faith not fundamental; and seeing they affirm, that the points in difference betwixt us, are not fundamental, and so not necessary to salvation; & 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?  
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 universal visible Church may err, and the Scriptures may be obscure as is generally affirmed by our adversaries in points of faith not fundamental, how shall such points as are in controversy betwixt us, and are accounted by Protestants not fundamental, 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, with that of their beginners, and more ancient predecessors, 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 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 controversed betwixt us? for this manifestly supses, 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 church's authority by reason of her pretended fallibility in them; nor expressly for the authority 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 err, in the definition of any point of faith whatsoever, that error must either proceed from ignorance & want of light, or from malice and want of virtue 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 wilful deceiver of the world, and a seducer of Nations in teaching, contrary to the known truth: not the first, for if she could err out of ignorance, to what purpose do Protestants appeal to her determination in a lawful general council, in any of the points in difference betwixt them and those of the Roman Church, seeing she may through ignorance err in the determination of them, as being not fundamental, according to them.  
Neither can it be said, that, notwithstanding the whole visible church's fallibility in points not fundamental, nay though it should actually err, and that error should be evidently discovered, yet even those who had thus evidently discovered the said errors, were to conform themselves to those erroneous definitions of a general council. For if this conformity be understood of an internal 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 external conformity and profession only, it were manifestly impious and high hypocrisy, 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 error in faith. Secondly, if one were to subscribe & externally to conform himself to the definitions of lawful general counsels, which one persuades himself, he evidently knows to be erroneous, till another council be assembled to correct them, why did not Protestants afford this external conformity to the definitions of the general council 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 counsels, 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 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 council of error, as much as the contrary party accused the former council of error in defining against them; and so the controversy would remain as indetermined as it was before: neither would it be possible ever 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 further, seeing lawful general counsels 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 error, but to be divine Truth, revealed by God himself; if they should err in any such definition, they must make God the author of error and untruth, which quite destroys the veracity of God, and consequently overthrows the main and primary foundation of Christian faith, and therefore must necessarily be held to include a fundamental error: so impossible and implicatorie a thing it is, for them to err in matter of faith, and not to err 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 of God is an error; both which contain no less malice than this, to make God a liar.  
Quest. 21. Seeing S. Paul, Ephes. 4. v. 14. affirms, that our Saviour had appointed pastors 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 pastors 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 fundamental as in fundamentals, the meaning of the Apostle must be, that by means of those pastors Christians be preserved from following any error in faith, whither it be fundamental or not fundamental; and consequently that they can ass●redly direct them, to eschew all errors in faith, which they could not do, if they themselves were subject to teach them any error, 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, that the said pastors are to consummate the Saints, and to build up the mystical Body of Christ, I demand, whither the Apostle by these words make not those pastors, able to secure Christian people from error, 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 mystical 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 conditional, 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 pastors should perform 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 profane and unchristian objection, first, that if Christ's promises and institutions be thus inefficacious and conditional, 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 fail and come to nothing; Secondly that it may err even in fundamental points (Contrary to the doctrine of Protestants) and so become a Synagogue of Satan. Thirdly, that the ancient promises, of the coming of the Messiah, 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 hindered by the malice and demerits of wicked persons, so the Threats and thunderings of punishments upon sinners, may be hindered by the virtues 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 settled, 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 conditional, and may be hindered, there can be no certainty, that any institution, or prediction in the whole Scripture shall be absolutely fulfiled. Seeing therefore it is not evident, that this institution Ephesians the 4. &c. and others of the same nature concerning the Church, are conditional, 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 pastors prove wilful Seducers, can apply this answer to the Text now cited, viz. Ephesians 4. &c. for if it be hindered by the malice of the said pastors, they must with joint consent maliciously and wittingly teach false doctrine to be the doctrine of Christ, which were to teach fundamental errors, 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 world's end, may be as well said to be as well conditional & 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 prefer that authority and credibility of doctors, before all others, which all circumstances confidered, is absolutely and unquestionably the greater authority.  
Quest. 24. Whither that authority of doctors, where those of one side are equal at least, if not exceeding them of the contrary party, in learning, wisdom, zeal, sincerity, virtue, sanctity, and all other qualities and perfections, which confer to the accomplishment of complete authority in a Christian Teacher, and with this equality incomparably exceed the doctors 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 doctors, compared with those of Protestants?  
Quest 26. Whither with this forementioned equalizing the Protestant doctors, those of the Roman Church, the many years of their continuance, and universal 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 prefer the authority of the Roman doctors 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 doctors, in all things wherein they contradict the Roman, is not contemptibile, and unable to sway the judgement of any prudent Christian, to frame any moral esteem of it: for though in matters, wherein they are either seconded, or not contradicted, by an authority incomparably greater than their own, they may deservedly be esteemed, for their natural abilities and moral 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 doctors 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 authority of the Roman doctors, absolutely greater than theirs, unanimously affirms the quite contrary. Thus when they affirm that the Roman Church is full of errors, 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 wilfully in their religion, they deserve no credit at all, for the quite contrary is most constantly defended by the incomparably stronger authority of the Roman doctors: and the like is to be affirmed in all the points of difference betwixt the two Religions. So that a Protestant is not to consider the abilities & authority of his doctors absolutely, or in matters out of controversy, 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 authority of all the doctors of the whole body of Protestants, be so inconsiderable, in comparison with that of the Roman doctors, how much less will be the authority of any one sect, or party of them; and then how minute and scarce perceptible will be the authority of a Lawd, an Hammond, a Chillingworth, a Fern, a Bramhall, a tailor, &c. which now obtain so powerful an Ascendant, upon the hearts of our modern lay Protestants; seeing they are in a manner nothing in respect of the authority of the Roman doctors.  
Quest. 30. All this is demanded, supposing that the Roman doctors were only equal to those of Protestants in all the forenamed qualities, conducing to the perfect authority of a Master in Christianity: But now I demand, whether those, who have authority of Teaching in the Roman Church, generally speaking, in so much as can be prudently deduced by experience from them, are not much excelling the Protestant ministry in all the said qualities?  
What counsels have they worth the mentioning in comparison with the general counsels consenting with the present Roman Church, (even according to their own confession) as the second of Nice, the great council of Lateran, the council of Constance, Florence & Trent, wherein such multitudes of learned men, & Holy Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, doctors, Prelates, both of the Eastern and Western Churches, unanimously confirmed the Roman, and condemned the Protestant doctrine?  
What proofs of learning have the Protestant ministry, comparable to those of the Roman doctors, whereof many have written one, no small number two, others three and four, others six, eight, ten, twelve, and some twenty & four and twenty great Tomes in Folio, and those replenished in the general repute of Christendom, even amongst Protestants also, with profound and high learning?  
Who amongst their ministry have they, who have obtained the universal esteem of sanctity, as hath our Gregory, Beda, Thomas, Bonaventure, Antonine, Dominic, 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 gospel, even with the undergoing of unheard-of torments, and suffering most cruel Martyrdoms, as many of the Roman clergy have done within these late years? let them name but 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 clergy, and retired religious.  
Where is that unanimous consent in all points of faith (seeing they are perpetually jarring, not only 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 doctors?  
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 human faith be infringed) many of ours have done, both against them and heathens?  
I could instance in many more particulars, but these may suffice for these short demands. Whence appears evidently, that whosoever professes to be led by the sole authority of Christian doctors, and pastors, must either deserve the esteem, I say not 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 doctors, 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 original beginners of any Sect in Protestancy, in preferring their sole authority before that of the Prelates and doctors of all the visible Churches in Christendom, existent when they begun first to preach their doctrine, but the extreme madness of all the ignorant laity, who followed them, upon their sole authority, and preferred one single person upon his bare word, (without any extraordinary signs or manifest proofs from heaven attesting his authority) before all the doctors, Prelates, counsels, 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 frenzy, 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, that seeing on one side the true Christian religion, having the divine wisdom for its author, 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 press farther, whether the proving that Protestant religion cannot be prudently chosen, or retained, by any unlearned persons, who are sufficiently informed, of the eminent authority propounding the Roman religion, is not a sufficient argument to them, that no sect amongst them in any point wherein it differs from the Roman, hath either any solid ground in the holy Scriptures, or true relation to God's 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 several sect, make vainly of them.  
Quest. 34. And upon this, I demand yet farther, whether the Roman doctors have any obligation to urge any other argument than this, either from Scripture, Fathers, or reason against Protestants, till they have cleared their religion from the impeachment of imprudence, committed by their followers in the election of it, or persisting in it, as is afore declared.  
Quest. 35. On the contrary side; I demand whether the Roman doctors have any obligation in rigour of dispute, to use any other argument, for persuading unlearned persons, to desert the Protestant, and embrace the Roman religion, than 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, persuade themselves, that they proceed prudently in preferring their own before the Roman. Seeing this erroneous persuasion is the first step which must be redressed relinquishing the one; and the contrary persuasion, 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 prudential motives to prefer 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, and so is in great likelihood 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 doctors, to prove at least the moral 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 show to such as are brought on so far, the most high divine infallibility of the Roman religion. Hence therefore I demand, whether our late Protestants, and Socinians, proceed not preposterously, and unreasonably, in pressing Roman doctors, to demonstrate the divine infallibility of the truth of the Roman religion, before they themselves grant, that it is either infallible in any degree, or morally certain, or probable, or prudential. For though it be necessary, to prove all these particulars in their due circumstances, yet there is no necessity, to prove them all at once to every adversary, but by degrees the one in order after the other, with correspondence, to what of them is 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 progress of our adversary, and still stopping, and going forward along with him. And if this method had been strictly held by our late controvertists, the adversaries mouths had been stopped long before this.  
Quest. 36. Seeing these demands are 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 showed 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 embraced, (by such as are in the number of the unlearned, and yet are sufficiently informed about the force of the authority of those who teach them) save the Roman, and that no religion can be true, which cannot be prudently embraced by such unlearned persons, seeing in a manner the whole multitude of Christians consists of those who are unlearned, and must according to prudence, follow the authority or their Teachers. Those things, I say considered, it is finally demanded, whether by proving, that the Roman faith only can be prudently embraced (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.  
FINIS.