The Argument propounded. §. 1.

2. THe Argument I set downe in this manner. No man shalbe, or can be damned eternally, for errours, which be not damnable of themselues. This is cleere; Because God being iust, who renders to euery one according to their deserts, cannot punish men more then their offences do of themselues deserue, but rather somewhat vnder their merit. But the errours pre­tended to be found in the Roman Church, cannot of thē ­selues deserue eternall damnation, being but veniall, but little ones, & not damnable of themselues, as Protestants grant. This Assumption needs no proofe, being noto­rious ouer all England. For what more dayly and vsuall, what more frequent and familiar, then for Protestants to reproach vs with want of Charity; because we will not yield their errours not to be damnable nor destru­ctiue of saluation, as they grant ours to be. This is cōfirmed by the often reiterated confession of D. Potter specially pa. 77. where he hath these words: To forsake the errours of the Roman Church, and not to ioyne with her in those practises we account erroneous, we are forced of necessity. For though in themselues they be not damna­nable to them which belieue as they professe; yet for vs to profese what we belieue not, were without question damnable. And they with their errours (by the grace of God) might go to Heauen, when we for our hypo­crisy and dissimulation without repentance, should certainly be condemned to Hell. And agayne: To him who [Page 10] in simplicity of heart belieues and professeth them, & withall feareth God and worketh righteousnesse, to him they shall proue veniall: such a one shall by the mercy of God be deliuered from them, or be saued with them. But he that against Fayth and Conscience shall go along with the streame, to professe & practise them, because they are but little-ones, his Case is dange­rous, and without repentance desperate. And againe. pag. 19. We belieue the Roman Religion safe, that is, not dam­nable to some, such as belieue what they professe; but we belieue it not safe, but very dangerous (if not cer­tainly damnable) to such as professe it, when they be­lieue the contrary.

Your impudent deniall of the text. §. 2.

3. YOu acknowledge that Charity maintayned vr­geth this testimony of D. Potter, & builds his discourse theron often: which you say, he doth fraudu­lētly as an egregious Sophister, impudently without conscience or modesty outfacing the truth. For Protestants Pag. 400. n. 28. Cap. 7. n. 2 [...]. you say, neither do, or euer did acknowledge, that our er­rours are not damnable: and that you for your part, though you were on the rack, should not confesse it. As for D. Potter you deny, that he sayd of the errours he imputeth to the Roman Church, though in themselues they be not damnable; yea you contest that his words are, though in themselues they be damnable. Cap. 5. n. 58. lin. 8. Pag. 275. lin. 4. D. Potter confesseth no such matter, but only that he hopes that your errours, though in themselues sufficiently dam­nable, yet by accident did not damne all that held them; such he meanes, and sayes, as were excusably ignorant of the truth. And Cap. 5. n. 26. lin. 17. pag. 263. n. 26. Where doth D. Potter say any such thing as you pretend &c. He sayth indeed, that [Page 11] though your errours were in themselues damnable, and full of great impiety; yet he hopes those amongst you who were inuin­cibly ignorant of the truth, might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned. Thus you. And you repeate it, al­most in the same wordes, in an hundred passages of your Booke, still noting these wordes, though in them­selues damnable, in a distinct character, as D. Potters for­mall text, which yet is no where found in any part of his Treatise.

4. And in this denial of the text, in this contesta­tion, that D. Potter said of our Errours, though in them­selues they be damnable, you with great shew of confidēce persist, till almost the very finishing of your Booke. Then being but three leaues from the end (as Theeues when they are ready to be cast of the ladder, make true confessions) strucken with remorse of conscience, you vtter this deposition against your selfe Cap. 7. n. 29. In­deed D. Potter sayes of your errours, though in themselues they be not damnable to them which belieue as they professe; yet for vs to professe what we belieue not, were without que­stion damnable, Is this true? Doth D. Potter say of our er­rous though in themselues they be not damnable? Hath he these very words indeed? See thē whether the reproach which you cast vnworthily on Charity maintayned, the reproach of outfacing the truth without conscience or mode­stie, do not fall heauily on your owne head. For now vpon the ending of your Booke you confesse, that D. Potter indeed sayes of our Errours, though in themselues they be not damnable, whereas before you said and repea­ted it againe and againe, with deepe protestation, and insolent insultation against your Aduersary, that D. Potter said no such thinge; yea that his wordes were the plaine contradiction, to wit, though in themselues they be [Page 12] damnable, and full of great impiety. How this can be excu­sed from the crime of forgery, I do not see.

5. More cunningly & in shew not so enormously, but indeed no lesse fraudulently & maliciously, do you change the pointing of D. Potters text, and so turne his assertion into the plaine contrary. He pag. 79. in the name of English Protestants sayth of the Roman Reli­gion: We belieue it safe, that is, by Gods great mercy not damnable to some, such as belieue what they professe. Thus he; and he maketh a Comma between some, and such, to de­uide them, and to shew that such is vsed not to limit the some that are not damned; but to declare who they be, to wit, all such as cordially belieue our Roman Re­ligion and professe it. You reciting his words Pag. 404. lin. 20. Cap. 7. n. 29. leaue out the Comma, and ioyne some and such togeather, ma­king the Doctour say, We belieue her Religion safe, that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some such as belieue as they professe. As who should say, D. Potter grants our Religion safe, and not damnable to some, who in simplicity of heart belieue and professe it, not to all such, but some such only. Against his expresse Tenet and Pag. 76. lin. 26. text, yea fur­ther you vrge this text corrupted by your dispunction thereof as an Argument, that D. Potter holdes our er­rours damnable in themselues. Pag. 306. lin. 1. Cap. 5. n. 105. lin. 23. It is remarkable, that he confesses your errours to some men not damnable, which cleerely importes, that according to his iudg­ment they were damnable of themselues, though by accident, to them who liued and dyed in inuincible ignorance, they might proue not damnable. Thus you argue vpon your owne corruption of D. Potters text. For in truth he confesses the errours imputed vnto vs not to be dam­nable, and our Religion to be safe, not to some such on­ly, but to all such as belieue as they professe, to all such [Page 13] as be not hypocriticall Professours, but professe it in simplicity of heart, belieuing it to be true. Nor doth he say, that vnto such Roman belieuers our errours are not dam­nable by accident (as you feigne) but the expresse con­trary, that euen in themselues they be not damnable to them. Behold how opposite is D Potters true sentence, to that you haue forged for him. You make him Pag. 278 lin. 8. cap. 5. n. 61. say, Our er­rours are euen in themselues damnable, and only by accident pardonable; whereas he sayth the contrary, they are in themselues but littleons, but venial, and consequently, if any sincere Roman Catholiques be damned, this is by accident, by reason of some extrinsecal damnable cir­cumstance, not by the intrinsecal malignity of their er­rours, not by the force such errours haue in themselues, and in their owne nature to merit damnation.

6. But some may obiect, that D. Potter doth not say absolutely, Our errours be not in themselues damnable, but only, not in themselues damnable to them that belieue as they professe, which is a different thinge. I answer, this is a subtilty which findeth a difference where there is no diuersity. As to say of a potion, that it is not of it selfe deadly to such as drinke it, & take it into their bowells and heart, is all one as to say, it is deadly to none, but harmelesse and innoxious in it selfe: so to say, our er­rours are not in themselues damnable to such as heartily be­lieue and professe them, is as much as to say, they are of themselues damnable vnto none, but absolutely veniall & of their owne nature not destructiue of Saluation. For to whome may they be in themselues damnable, if they be not so to them that take them into their heart by sin­cere and cordiall beliefe. As none can be damned for sinne, but such as commit sinne; so none can be damned for erring, but such as erre, and are guilty of erring. [Page 14] Now those that in their heart belieue not errours, do not erre, nor are guilty of erring: wherefore, such nei­ther are, nor can be damned for erring, or holding of errours. For if they hypocritically, professe Errours which they do not belieue, they be damnable indeed; but not for erring, but for their hypocrisy and dissimulation, as D. Potter truly sayth.

Your ignorant exposition of D. Potter. §. 3.

7. HAuing at last acknowledged D. Potters text, that he said of our errours, though in them­selues they be not damnable, you Cap. 7. n. 29. initio. tell vs; that we mi­stake his meaning, by taking a supposition of a confession, for a confession, a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctours, for a positiue assertion. For to say, though your Errours be not damnable we may not professe them, is not to say, Your er­rours are not damnable, but only through they be not: As if you should say; Though the Church erre in points not fun­damental; yet you may not separate from it; or, Though we do erre in belieuing Christ really present, yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry. I presume you would not thinke it fayrely done, if any man should interprete these your speaches, as confessions that you do erre in points not funda­mentall; that you erre in belieuing the Real Presence. And therefore you ought not to haue mistaken D Pot­ters wordes, as if he confessed the Errours of your Church not damnable; when he sayes no more, then this, though they be not damnable, or suppose, or put case they be not damnable. Thus you. Wherein your falshood is notable, Pag. 77. and your ignorance admirable. First, it is false, that D. Potter sayes no more but this, though they be not damnable. For besides this he sayth, that Protestants who belieue them to be errours, must not presume to [Page 15] professe them because they are but littleons. He saith in the name of all Protestants: We belieue the Roman Religion to be safe, that is, not damnable to such as belieue as they pro­fesse. We hope and thinke very well of all those holy and de­uout soules which informer ages liued and died in the Church of Rome &c. We doubt not but they obtayned pardon of all their ignorances. Nay our Charity reaches further to All those at this day who in simplicity of heart belieue the Roman Reli­gion, and professe it. Be these Rhetoricall Concessions, not Positiue Assertions, that the errours which Protestants impute to the Roman Church are not damnable of thē ­selues; but onely by accident, when they are hypocriti­cally against conscience professed?

8. Secondly, I am amazed that you a Maister of Arts of Oxford, of so long standing are ignorant of the difference in speach, betwixt the Present Tense, and the Preter imperfect, which euery man and woman by com­mon sense doth feele and perceaue. For the particle though, ioyned with a verbe of the Present Tense, doth suppose a thing present, and existing in reality & truth: so that, if you will suppose the existence of a thing by imagination, or in conceyt onely; you must vse the Preter imperfect. Wherfore neyther the Author of Cha­rity maintayned, nor any Catholique that is intelligent, will say to you in the Present Tense, as you make him, Though the Church do erre in points not fundamentall, yet you must not separate from it; but in the Preter imperfect; Though the Church did erre in points fundamentall, yet you were not to separate from her. Nor will he, or any Catho­lique that is wise, vse that eyther sottish or impious speach you haue penned for him, Though we erre in belie­uing Christ really present, yet our errour frees vs from Ido­latry. God forbid. This were not a Rhetoricall Conces­sion, [Page 16] but a Diabolical Profession, that our beliefe of the Reall presence is an errour. A true Catholique that can vt­ter his mind in good English will say, Though we did erre in belieuing the Reall Presence of our Lords Body in the Eu­charist; yet this errour would free vs from Idolatry. Thus the examples you bring of Rhetoricall Concessions make a­gainst you, being in deed positiue Assertions, and shew your discourse to be neyther good Logick, nor Rheto­ricke, nor Grammer.

9. And I pray you, the Proposition you haue forged for D. Potter, though the errours of the Roman Church be in themselues damnable, and full of great impiety, yet by acci­dent they do not damne all that hold them; is it not a Positiue Assertion that our doctrines are damnable and full of great impiety in D. Potters opinion? Wherfore this pro­position which is truly D. Potters: though the errours of the Roman Church be not in themselues damnable, yet Prote­stants who know them to be Errours, may not professe them, is a positiue Assertion, that our supposed errours be not damnable in his iudgement. Should one say to you, though in your iudgement you belieue Christ our Saui­our not to be true God, yet you dare not professe it out­wardly for feare of the fagot; would you take this as a Rhetoricall supposition, not as a Reall accusation, that you are an Infidell in your heart? Is it possible you should be guilty of so grosse ignorance and non-sense as this? No verily. But perchance the matter is this: you say Pag. 395. l. 3. If this did ap­peare, to per­suade any man to con­tinue a Prote­stant, were to persuade him to conti­nue a Foole. that Protestants, to whome the Roman Reli­gion appeareth, though but probably, the safer, cannot continue Protestants, except they continue fooles. Now Pro­testants by this confession of D. Potter, cannot but see apparently, the Roman Religion to be the safer. Wher­fore, that, this notwithstanding, they may continue [Page 17] still Protestants; you would make them such fooles, as to belieue, that, though, ioyned with a verbe in the Present Tense, doth import onely an imaginary, not a reall sup­position. Wherefore if you should say (as in effect you do say) though the Religion of Protestants be false and damnable, yet I will do my best to defend it; Protestāts must be such fooles as to take this, not as a positiue asserti­on, that their Religion is false & damnable in your iudg­ment; but as a Rhetoricall Concession, as if you had said; Imagine, or put case, the Religion of Protestants be false and damnable. I hope Protestants will be wiser then to be made such fooles by you as to continue in a Religion which cannot be maintayned, but by such fopperies as these.

Your Vanity in contemning the foresayd Argument. §. 4.

9. You many times seeme to contemne and scorne the Argument drawne from the confession of Protestants, and the former testimony of D. Potter. You say we rely vpon his priuate Opinion, vpon his vn­certaine Pag. 226. n. 63. Charitable hope, that Pag. 116. n. 158. in fine. his thinking so is no reason we should thinke so, except we thinke him infallible, that whosoeuer is moued with his argument is so simple &c. Wherin you may seeme (which happens very seldome) to agree with D. Potter, who doth much sleight our arguing from the Confession of our Aduersaries page. 81. If they haue no better ground of their beleefe then their Ad­uersaries Charitable iudgment of their errours; they will be so farre from conuincing their Aduersaries of lacke of wise­dome, that themselues cannot escape the imputation of folly.

10. Thus the Doctour endeauours to lay the imputa­tion of folly vpon vs, for vrging our aduersaries fauou­rable [Page 18] iudgement of our errours, as a good argument, that may moue men to imbrace our Religion. But in this charging vs with folly, his owne lacke of wise­dome and consideration may be conuinced, by what he writeth some few pages before against zelots: for these he condemneth not onely of want of charity, but also of lacke of wisedome, for iudging so seuerely of our errours as to cut vs of from hope of Saluation. Pag. 76. The Roman Churches communion (sayth he) we forsake not, no more then the Body of Christ; whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member, though corrupted. And this cleeres vs from the imputation of Schisme, whose property it is, to cut of from the Body of Christ, and hope of Saluation, the Church from which it separates. And if any Zelots amongst vs haue proceeded to heauier censures, their zeale may be excused, but their Charity and Wisedome cannot be iustifyed. Thus he. From which words I conclude a double truth; the one against you, the other against D. Potter himselfe. The first; that this Charitable iudgement about the Saluation of Roman Catholiques, because their errours are small, and not in themselues damnable, is not the priuate opini­on of D. Potter; but the censure and doome of the whole Protestant english Church, condistinct from zelots, or Puritans. For how can this whole Church be iustified, and cleered from the imputation of Schisme, by reason of her Charitable iudgement of our errours, if this be not the Charitable iudgement of this whole Church, but only the opinion of D. Potter, and of some other few priuate Protestants? Secondly I gather, that this iudgement is not onely according to Christian Charity; but also ac­cording to Christian Wisedome, and floweth from the rules and Principles of them both. Otherwise what cause or reason hath D. Potter to charge Zelots, who [Page 19] iudge not fauourably of our errours, with want not only of Charity, but also of wisedome: Their Charity (saith he) and Wisedome cannot be iustified? If the iudgment of Protestants so fauorable about our errours be of meere Charity, not wise, not prudent, not solidely grounded on truth; why may not the wisedome of Zelots, who will not consent thereunto be iustified? On the other side, if the iudgment of Protestants be conforme to Christian wise­dome and Diuine truth, what wisedome is it in D. Potter to charge vs with folly and want of wisedome, for building and relying theron?

11. Besides, this iugdment of Protestants, that we may be saued in our Religion, our errours not being dam­nable, if it be voyde of wisdome, and not solidly grounded on truth; how is it charitable, that is, how can it proceed from true Christian Charity? If fond loue and affection to the saluation of Creatures, not guided by the rules of Christian truth, be Christian charity; then the iudg­ment of Origen were ful of Christian Charity, who ex­tended saluation euen vnto Diuells. Wherfore your iudgment, that we may be saued, because our errours are not damnable, cannot be charitable, vnlesse it be conforme to the rules, and principles of Christian truth and wisdome: on which if it be grounded, why may we not build, and rely theron? Why may we not without imputation of folly, make this one pillar of our comfort, and constancy in the Roman Communion and Fayth?

12. Adde hereunto, that it is euen ridiculous in D. Potter and other Protestantes of his stampe, to brag and boast as they doe, that forsooth it is Cap. 4. n. 63. lin. 22. Excesse of chari­ty may make him cē ­sure your er­rours more fauora­bly, thē he should do. excesse of their Charity and good will to the Roman Church, which makes them to iudge so kindly and fauourably of her errours. [Page 20] For, by their wordes and writings, they shew themsel­ues to be voyd of all loue and Charity, and to be full of bitter zeale and passion towardes her; so farre, that though in their conscience they iudge her free from damnable errours, yet in their passion they hate, & ab­horre, rate and reuile her, as if she were the vildest Re­ligion in the world. These speaches of D. Potter against her, she hath many wayes played the Harlot, and in that re­gard deserued a bill of diuorce from Christ, and the detesta­tion of Christians: the proud and curst Dame of Rome, which takes vpon her to reuell in the house of God: Popery is the con­tagion and plague of the Church. These speaches I say eue­ry man will presently perceiue, that they are voyd of Charity, wordes of contumely and reproach, procee­ding not from cleere and calme iudgment, but from the fuming fornace of passion: you produce them, as if D. Potter by them did ouerthrow what we haue proued to be his iudgment, that our errors be not damnable: But in very truth they be only passionate speaches, vttered without iudgment, reason, or discretion, yea against his owne iudgment; tokens of his mortall auersion from that Church, in whome he can finde no mortall or damnable errour. It is not then Charity or kind af­fection, or any good will to Roman Catholiks, which moueth D. Potter, & such other Ministers to maintaine the errours of the Roman Church to be but littleones, and not damnable; but because they dare not hold the con­trary, in regard of the vnchristian absurdities, which they perceiue to be consequent theron, as by the next Section will appeare.

All Christians of former ages damned, if the errours of the Roman Church be damnable of themselues. §. 5.

13. CAn any absurdity be more vast and vnchri­stian then this contained in the title of this paragraph? What wonder, if Protestants (that be mo­derate, and not carried away with precipitous zeale) through horrour to be forced vnto this immanity, dare not affirme, that our errours are in themselues damnable; though otherwise their little loue towardes vs consi­dered, they could do it with all their heart. To proue this vast absurdity to be consequent vpon the said pro­position, we must suppose, what no man doth or can deny, that for many ages before Luther, all the famous men for learning and sanctity, who by heroicall actes of Charity, and other Christian vertues, and working of Miracles maintained the credit of the Christian name, held the doctrines of the Roman Church, which Protestants contend to be erroneous. The fame is also euident concerning the Fathers of the more Primitiue times, and is confessed by Protestantes, De­fence against the re­ply of Cart­wright pag. 47. namly D. Whit­gift late Archbishop of Canterbury: Almost all the Bi­shops and Writers of the Greeke Church, and of the Latin al­so, for the most part were spotted with the doctrines of free­will, of Merit, of Inuocation of Saintes, and such like; So that, if the Doctrines of the Roman Church, which Protestantes traduce as erroneous, be damnable of themselues; it is consequent, that the most famous Bi­shops, Doctours and Saints in so many former Chri­stian ages were guilty of errours in themselues, and of themselues damnable: which being so, they should be [Page 22] all certainly damned, without any hope of their Salua­tion.

14. This consequence I proue by what you by write Cap. 7. n. 26. lin. 30. pag. 403. lin. 30. They that haue vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their errours, and neglect to vse them; we dare not flatter with so easy a censure as to giue them hope of Saluation. But the eminent Fathers and Christian Sain­tes of so many ages before Luther, had sufficient vnder­standing, and meanes to discouer their errours; and yet neuer made vse of them. They had excellent vnder­standings, they were verst in all manner of sciences, & they had the holy Scripture, which you say is the only meanes to know all necessary truth, and to discouer all damnable errours; a meanes not only sufficient, but al­so, in your iudgment, most playne, and easy; so that men not only may, but also cannot but therin discouer which be damnable errours, except they wilfully shut their eyes against the light. Therefore there is no hope of the saluation of the Ancient Fathers, and Saintes of for­mer Christian ages, if your Proposition be true, they who had sufficient vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their errours, and neglected to vse them, there is for them no hope of Saluation. Moreouer, Cap. 6. n. 64. lin 8. pag. 279. num. 64. lin. 8. you say, that which is in it selfe damnable, will actually bring damnation vpon them, that keep themselues in it, by their owne voluntary and auoydable fault; But the Ancient Fathers and holy Saints in the ages before Luther held the doctrines of the Roman Church which you ac­count damnable, full of great impiety and Idolatry, & they kept thēselues in them (according to your groūds) by their owne voluntary and auoydable fault: for they had sufficient meanes to discouer their errours, to wit, they had the holy Scripture, wherin (as you say) these [Page 23] errours are discouered, not onely with sufficient, but also with abundant clarity, Pre­face. n. 11. lin. 17. How is it, possi­ble any thing should be plai­ner forbidden, then the worship of Angels &c. pag. 181. n. 86. Places of scrip­ture a­gainst our er­rours as cleere as the light at noone. that there cannot possibly be greater; you must therefore of necessity grant, that these damnable and impious errours (if they be such as you say they are) brought actually damnation vpon the Fathers and Saints of former ages. Agayne, page 290. lin. 2. of liuing in the Communion of the Roman Church, and approuing her doctrines and practises you say, Cap. 5. n. 86. Though we hope it was pardonable in them who had no meanes to know their errour; yet of its owne nature, and to them who did or might haue knowne their errour, it was cer­tainely damnable. Now the holy Fathers, and Christian Saints of former ages might haue knowne our errours (if they be errours) because they had the holy Scriptures in which, you say, such errours are discouered, & their damnable falshood, so plainly, as nothing can be more: If then you say true, that the Roman Religion, is full of great impiety and damnable doctrines, it is euidently con­sequent by your principles, that all holy Bishops, Do­ctours, and Saints who are confessed to haue held the sayd doctrines, are certainly damned for euer, no hope remaining of their saluation. Wherfore the reason why Protestants hold our Religion safe, and a sure way to Heauen, as being free from damnable errour, is not Charity and excesse of good will they beare to our per­sons, as they pretend; but feare of the vast absurdity, which they see consequent thereupon, that so many former ages, and worldes of holy Bishops, Doctours, Conuerters of Nations, workers of Miracles, and ad­mirable Saints, are certainly damned.

15. There be many Protestant Ministers that could find in their hearts to grant this dismall position of the damnation of the ancient euer esteemed Saints, if the [Page 24] same would stand them in steed to maintaine the diui­sion from the Roman Church; yet they dare not ven­ture cleerly to auerre so much, for feare that this would produce the contrary effect, and moue many of their followers to recoyle back from them. For in the separa­tion made by Luther from the Roman Church, there be many piously inclined mindes, carefull of their future eternity either of weale or woe, cordially desirous to be secure of the happines of the one, and mighty fearefull to fall into the misery of the other. Should Protestant Ministers cleerly deliuer their mindes, that the Roman Religion is damnable euen of it selfe, a direct way to Hell, and that such as walke, or haue walked therein are certainely damded; these piously disposed and time­rous Soules would feele horrour to be of the Protestant Religion, which cannot be the way of saluation, ex­cept the Roman Christianity so great, so glorious, so continued from Christ and his Apostles, contayning within her bosome, so many worlds of holy Bishops, learned and pious Pastours, and of admirable Saints be damned, at least all the intelligent Professors therof. The apprehension of this dreadfull and dangerous state amazed euen the stout and curst heart of Luther, whē he saw himselfe engaged in a course, out of which he could not issue with saluation, except so many for­mer ages of Saints were damned. Prae­fat. de abro­ganda Missa prinatâ, Quoties palpita­uit mihi tremu­lum cor. & repre­hendens obiecit illud fortissi­mum ar­gumen­tum; Tu solus sa­pis, tot ne errāt vniuersi? Tanta saecula ignora­uerunt? How often (sayth he) did my heart tremble and pant within my breast, obiecting against me that most stronge argument; Art thou onely wise? Did so many Christian worldes in former ages all erre? What, if perhaps thou thy selfe be in errour, and draw an infinite number of Souls after thee into errour, to be damned eternally with thee?

16. You say, Pag. 397. n. 17. that your Saluation doth not depend [Page 25] on ours, that you might be saued though we were Turkes and Pagans: this I well belieue. But now that the Roman Church is not Turcisme, nor Iudaisme, but a Kingdome of Christ diffused ouer the earth, the onely Christian Catholique Religion in the world, which is come from our Sauiour by conspicuous linage, and line of succession by the Apostles; what Christian will not tremble to be in a state, wherein he must expect Salua­tion from Christ, by damning that Religion, which is so notoriously descended from him?

17. The innated instinct of Godlinesse, the sparkes of Piety which nature hath hidden within the bowels of euery reasonable soule, moue men to acknowledge and reuerence that Religion, as being of God, which they see marked and adorned with diuine and superna­turall workes, aboue the course and forces of nature. Which Maiesty of miracles shining so gloriously in the Roman Church, can any man that is Religious & fear­full of God, iudge the same damnable, and venture his soule on the damnation thereof? Wherefore not Loue, not Charity, not Goodwill to the Roman Catholiques is that which moueth Protestants to pronunce her Re­ligion safe, and free from damnable errour; but the horrour of damning togeather with vs, innumerable millions of holy and heauenly men of former Christian worlds.

18. Finally Protestants vnder pretence of fauouring and comforting vs seeke their owne comfort & solace; that they may find some shelter of hope of saluation vn­der the wings of the Roman Religion, who in their opposition against her find none, or only poore, meagre and miserable hopes. For, laying for ground this truth, that our Religion is safe; & then assuming this falshood, [Page 28] that theirs is the same with ours for substance and in all necessary points; they cheere vp many drooping hearts, that can feele no comfort in hoping to be saued by damning the Roman Church: so that care of their owne Sparta, desire to stay the wiser sort of their fol­lowers in their course of Diuision from the Roman Church; this I say is one of the reasons which maketh Ministers to preach the certainty of Saluation in our Church, and to maske themselues with a vizard of Charity and Friendship towards vs.

That Protestant Religion is not safe, euen in your iudgment. §. 6.

19. YOu say in your Preface n. 39. that you haue not vndertaken the peculiar defence of the do­ctrine of the Church of England; nor of any other particu­lar Protestant Church, but the common cause of all Prote­stants, to maintayne the doctrine of them all; not that it is absolutely true, (for, that is impossible seing they hold contradictions) but that it is free from all impiety and damna­ble errour. This drift pretended and professed so glo­riously in the Title and Preface of your booke, you crosse and contradict in the bosome, and heart thereof, con­demning Protestants of errours, euen in themselues, damnable, as I shall make good and cleere by the foure ensuing testimonies. First Pag. 218. lin. 34. I would not be mistaken, as though I thought the errours of some Prote­stants inconsiderable thinges, and matters of no moment: for the. Truth is, I am very fearfull, that some of their opinions either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, though not of themselues so damnable, but that iust and holy men may be saued with them; yet are frequent occasions of remisnes, and not seldome of security in sinning &c. Behold you, who in [Page 29] your Preface made all Protestants secure of their Salua­tion, because free from errours in themselues damnable; now are very fearfull of them, and dare not acquit them of errours considerable, of moment, in themselues damnable, though not so damnable, but iust and holy men may be saued, with them; Which qualification of your errours doth not so temper or allay their malig­nity, as to make them lesse damnable then those you impute to the Roman Church: seing you often ac­knowledge, that with them, and in them, good holy soules may be saued.

20. Secondly Pag. 21. lin. 39. you write more cleerely to make Protestants, euen millions of them, Answere to the Preface n. 26. in fine. guilty of damnable errours. If any Protestant, or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in errour by any sinne of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such errour is (as the cause of it) sinfull and damnable; yet not exclusiue of all hope of Saluation, but pardonable, if discouered vpon a particular and explicite repentance; if not discouered, vpon a generall and implicite repentance &c. Thus you directly accuse Protestants of sinfull and damnable errours, of errours pardonable, and consequently damnable in themselues. For you say pag. 16. n. 21. lin. 15. the very saying they were pardonable, implies, they needed pardon, and therefore were in them­selues damnable. This being so, how haue you cleered the Doctrine of all Protestant Sects, though not from all falshood, yet from all errour in it selfe damnable? How do they all of them goe a safe way to saluation, if millions of them walke in damnable errours, which you say, will bring damnation vpon all them that continue in them by their voluntary fault? What reason can you bring, why your Booke might not be inscribed; The Religion of Papists a safe way to Saluation, aswell as, the Religion of [Page 28] Protestants? For you say Protestants erre damnably as­well as we; Millions of them aswell as millions of ours; their errours are damnable in themselues aswell as ours; Ours pardonable by Gods great mercy aswel as theirs; they cannot be saued without repentance no more then we; and we may be saued in our errors by a gene­rall repentance aswell as they? How then is not our Religion a safe way to Saluation aswell as theirs, euen by your Booke of purpose written to saue them, and damne vs.

21. Thirdly, Pag. 280. n. 95. lin. 19. Cap. 5. n. 91. lin. 19. Though Prote­stants haue some Errours; yet seing they are neyther so great as yours, nor imposed with such tyranny, nor maintayned with such obstinacy, he that conceaues &c. In these wordes you suppose, that Protestants haue errours, and great er­rours imposed with tyranny, maintayned with obsti­nacy. How then is their Religion a safe way of Saluation? Can saluation stand with impious errours, imposed vpon others with tiranny, and maintayned with obsti­nacy vntill death? But their errours are not (you say) so great as ours, nor imposed with such tiranny, nor maintayned with such obstinacy. Were this true; it would not proue Protestancy to be a good and safe way to Saluation, & not in it selfe damnable; but only, that ours is more damnable, and a worse way. Besides that our errours be greater then theirs is said by you many times, but not proued so much as once. And seing our errours though (as you say) damnable in themselues yet be pardonable by Gods great mercy; how be the greater then yours, which are also damnable in themselues, and only pardo­nable by Gods great mercy? From the number of all Protestants, whose Religion you defend to be a safe Way, I hope Socinians or new Samosatenians are not ex­cluded. [Page 29] These hold, that Christ Iesus is not the Eternall only begotten Sonne of God; yea that he was, and is a meere man, though an holy man, and a great Pro­phet. Will you say that this errour which conceaues no more diuinely of Christ then do the very Turkes, is not greater then any we maintayne, not more fundamen­tal, and essentially destructiue of Saluation? If you do, most Protestants in England will thinke you worthy of the Fagot?

22. Fourthly, Pag. 290. num. 87. you write, Cap. 5. n. 87. that Protestants, seing they be not free from errours, that it is hardely possible, but they must be guilty of extreme impiety. In that place you endeauour to ans­were our Argument, that it was great imprudency in Protestants to forsake the whole visible Catholique Church, for errours not fundamentall, seing they con­fesse, that in their separation against her, they could not be sure of not falling into errours of the like quali­ty and note, yea into greater, to wit fundamental. You are in this point eager, and protest, that Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to auoyd this mischiefe (of erring at the least vn-fundamentally) that they proclaime to all the world, that it is most prone and easy to do so, to all those that feare God and loue the truth; and hardely possible, for them to do otherwise without supine negli­gence and extreme impiety. Ponder I pray you this place, and conferre it with other passadges of your booke, & you will see, that you make all Protestants extremely impious. For it is most prone and easy for Protestants that feare God and loue the truth to auoyd all errours, specially such as need pardon, and be damnable in themselues: so that it is hardely possible for them to be in any errour without supine negligence and extreme [Page 32] impiety. Now there are not any Protestants in the world, no not English Protestants by name, whome you dare defend to be free from errours not funda­mentall; and millions of them as you confesse are by the sinne of their will betrayed into, and kept in er­rours damnable in themselues. Ergo, it is hardly possi­ble; but all Protestants must be guilty of supine negli­gence, and extreme impiety about matters of Fayth, Which being so; how is that Religion a safe way of Sal­uation, in which hardly any be saued? yea, how be not their errours vnpardonable, seing you write. Pag 275. lin. 15. that, Cap. 5. n. 58. lin. 18. God is infinitely iust, and therefore (it is to be feared) will not pardon Catholiques who might easely haue come to the knowledge of the truth, but through negligence would not? How then will he pardon Protestants, to whome it was (you say) most prone and easy to haue come to the knowledge of the truth, and to haue auoy­ded all errours, but would not through supine negli­gence, and extreme impiety?

23. I haue been the larger in declaring and strengh­thening this Argument, and shewing the insuperable, force therof. First, because it is the Argument most vr­ged by the pithy, and learned Catholique Treatise of Charity mistaken, as also by Charity maintayned, both which bookes by the cleering of this point are shewed to remayne vnanswered. Secondly, because this Argu­ment from the confession of our Aduersaries, as it is cleere, manifest, and conuincing; so it is within the reach and capacity of euery one. For who so stupide & voyd of sense, as not to see that Religion to be the sa­fer, which is confessed to be safe, euen in her Aduersa­ries iudgment grounded vpon the neuer fayling prin­ciples of Christian Charity, wisdome, and truth?

Three Suppositions. §. 1.

1. TO proue this, we must suppose three thin­ges, which are knowne and notorious truths. First, that Christians who belieue in Christ the eternall Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world, can­not be damned for any errours of ignorance inuincible, or for any inuoluntary erring. This truth you often af­firme in some passages of your booke, and deny it as of­ten in other. Pag. 19. lin. 27. 1. E­dit. pag. 19. lin. 9. you say, That if in me alone were a confluence of all such errours of all Protestantes in the world that were thus qualified (with ignorance inuincible) I should not be so much afrayd of them all, as I should be to aske pardon for them &c. To aske pardon of simple and purely inuoluntary errours, is tacitely to imply, that God is angry with vs for them, and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke, when he giues no straw; of expecting to gather, where he strewed not; to reape, where he sowed not, of being of­fended with vs, for not doing what he knowes, we cannot do. Heare you make it a kind of blasphemy to say, that in­voluntary errours are pardonable, or need pardon; be­cause the very saying they were pardonable importes [Page 32] they need pardon, and consequently, that God is offen­ded with vs for them. Notwithstanding, that errours purely inuoluntary, or of inuincible ignorance be par­donable, and need pardon from Gods great mercy, you frequently professe speaking of our errours. Pag. 308. lin. 41. We hold your errours damnable in themselues, yet by ac­cident through ignorance inuincible, we hope they were not vnpardonable. Pag. 291. lin. 4. Your erring was we hope par­donable, in them that had no meanes to know their errours. Pag. 263. lin. 27. Your errours were in themselues damna­ble yet we hope that those amongst you that were inuincibly ig­norant of the truth, might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned, and their soules saued. This is your waue­ring and tottering manner of discoursing; but the truth is, God is not offended with errours of ignorance in­uincible, because God is offended only for sinne, wher­as inuoluntary erring cannot be sinne; because to be voluntary is of the nature and difinition of Sinne.

2. Secondly, we suppose, that the Roman doctri­nes, which Protestants accuse to be errours, are defini­tions of Generals Councells, and were for many ages the publike receiued doctrine in the whole visible Christian Church; for which reason you say Pag. 279. n. 64. lin. 8. cap. 5. n. 64. lin. 8. That euen the visible Church, is not free from damnable er­rours. Thirdly, we suppose that it is vnlawfull and dam­nable for any man to depart from the Roman Church, to forsake her doctrine, or to oppose the definition of a Generall Councell, except he haue apparent and eui­dent reasons which demonstrate that the truth stādeth on his side. This you teach, pag. 272. n. 53. Cap. 5. n. 53. It concernes euery man, that separates from any Churches Com­munion, euen as much as his Saluation is worth, to looke most carefully, that the cause of his separation be [Page 33] iust and necessary. And pag. 200. lin. 25. Cap. 3. n. 18. infine. I willingly con­fesse the iudgment of a Councell, though not infallible; yet is so far directiue and obliging, that without appa­rent reason of the contrary, it may be sinne to reiect it; at least not to afford it an outward submission.But D. Potter D. Potter pag. 166. more cleerly and fully affirmeth, That Gene­rall Councels, are the highest Tribunals which the Church hath vpon earth; that their authority is immediatly deriued & delegated from Christ; that no Christian is exempted from their censures, and iurisdiction; that their decrees bind all per­sons to externall obedience, and may not be questioned, but vpon euident reasons.

That the belieuers of the Roman Church cannot erre, but through Ignorance inuincible. §. 2.

3. FOr the title of this Section I argue thus: Those errours are vnauoydable and inuin­cible, which cannot be auoyded without damnable sinne: But Roman Catholiques cannot auoyd the er­rous of the Roman Church (if she haue any) without damnable sinne: Therfore their errours (if they do erre) must of necessity be ignorances inuincible, and vnauoydable, such as they cannot shake of without damning themselues. The Minor, or assumption of this argument I proue; because Roman Catholiques that be sincere and cordiall belieuers of the doctrine of the Ro­man Church, cannot haue necessary & forcing reasons, nor euident demonstrations, that the Roman Church is in errour. This is cleere: For if they haue necessary and inforcing reasons, and euident demonstrations whereby they are conuicted in conscience, that the Roman Church erreth, they be now no more Roman Catholiques nor belieuers of the Roman Church, but [Page 34] Protestants, and her Aduersaries in their iudgment. It is therefore impossible, that Roman Catholiques, so longe as they be sincere and Cordiall belieuers of the Roman Doctrine, should haue euident demonstrations, that the Roman Church erreth: And if the [...] haue not euident demonstrations, it were damnable for them to forsake her doctrines, which Protestants account erroneous nor can they do it without damning their soules. Who then doth not see, that their erring (if they erre) is en­forced, vn auoydable, proceeding from ignorance in­uincible, for which sort of ignorance it is impossible they should be damned.

4. You to auoyde the force of this Argument con­tend, that though your reasons are necessary, enforcing, as cleere as the light at noone; yet we are not conuicted by them in conscience; not that they want euidence, but that we are obstinately peruerse. This your shift & cauill, is easily shewed to be friuolous and false. Friuolous, be­cause you only say without any proofe, that we are ob­stinately peruerse, and if to say it without proofe be inough, then the same answere will serue, and doth de facto serue euery Heretique, euery Sect-maister, euery forger of new Monsters; for when he findeth himselfe in straytes, and not able to bring so much as a probable reason for his new deuised impieties; he falleth present­ly to cry, that his Texts of Scripture are as cleere as the sunne; his Arguments euident demonstrations; that the reason Catholiques neglect and reiect him, is not want of euidence in his arguing; but that we are wilfully blind, obstinately peruerse, men that haue eyes to see and will not see, giuen ouer to stronge delusions, and vnto a reprobate sense. And what is this but to change schollership into scolding, reasoning into rayling, disputing into cla­morous [Page 35] and contumelious wrangling; wherin he get­teth the victory who is the stoufest Stentor, and can crye loudest against his Aduersaries, You are willfully blind, you are obstinately peruerse. In which kind of arguing See pag. 380. n. 72. cap. 6. n. 72. you are very eloquent, according to the stile of hereti­ques, quorum doctrina (sayth In cap. 22. Jsaiae. S. Hierome) non in sen­su, sed in multiloquio & elamore consistit.

5. Secondly it is false: because necessary and enfor­cing reasons, or euident demonstrations presented vn­to the vnderstanding, necessitate the said Vnderstan­ding, and compell the Conscience to assent, let the Will be neuer so peruerse. The peruersity of Will may make a man deny with his mouth, what in Conscience he knoweth to be true; it may make him hate & impugne knowne truth, but it cannot possibly make him not see, what by the light of euident demonstration is made cleere to his vnderstanding. This I proue by your owne sayings, as pag. 370. n. 50. Cap. 6. n. 50. Apparent arguments neces­sitate the vnderstanding to assent. and Pag. 371. n. 81. You contend, that Protestants hold not that it is euidently certaine, that these bookes in particular are the word of God. For (say Cap. 6. n. 81. you) they are not, eyther so fond as to be ignorant, nor so vaine as to pretend, that all men do assent to it; which they would, if they were euidently certain: or so ridicu­lous as to imagine that an Indian that had neuer heard of Christ or Christianity, reading the Bible in his owne lan­guage, would without miracle belieue it to be the word of God, which yet he could NOT CHOOSE but do, if it were eui­dently certaine. Heere you affirme, that all men in the world would belieue the Christian Bible to be the word of God, yea they could not choose but assent vnto it as vnto Diuine truth, if it did shew it selfe to be such with euident certainty. And yet there be millions in the [Page 36] world that be obstinately peruerse against the Chri­stian Bible. Ergo demonstrations which shew a truth to the vnderstanding with euident certainty, necessitate the Vnderstanding to assent, This is auer­red also by M. Hooker, Eccles. Pol. Preface pag. 29. lin. 26. An ar­gument necessa­ry, and demon­stratiue, being propo­sed to ANY MAN & vnder­stood; the mind cannot choose but in­wardly assent. though the Will be ob­stinately peruerse. But Catholiques though they vn­derstand, ponder, and consider your pretended euident demonstrations, and texts of Scripture as cleere as the sunne, can dissent from them, & rest persuaded in their conscience against your conclusions by pious constan­cy of fayth. Wherefore your Arguments be not eui­dent demonstrations, and consequently no man can be moued with them to forsake the Roman Church, and her Doctrine of Generall Councels without commit­ting damnable sinne: yea they are so farre from being irresistable, as they are vaine, weake, contemptible, euen those which you pretend to be so cleere as none can possibly be cleerer, as I haue shewed in the former Treatise Cap. 6. Conuict. 6. n. 29.

That Protestants if they erre, cannot be saued by ignorance, or generall repentance. §. 3.

6. THe first part of the Title, that they cannot be saued by ignorance, I proue thus. Either Protestants haue demonstrations & euident certainty, that the Roman Church erreth, that her definitions which they forsake, and keep themselues in opposition against them, be false and impious; or they haue not. If they haue, they be not ignorant, but full of cleere and manifest certainty about all those points wherein they forsake the Roman Church. If they haue not, they are indeed in ignorance; but in such ignorance as will not saue them, but rather make them more damnable, to wit, in the ignorance of Pride. For is it not damnable, [Page 37] and execrable Pride, for a simple and ignorant man, to abandon the Roman Church, adorned with so many glorious markes of the true Christian Church; to reiect the definition of Generall Councels without any ne­cessary and inforing reasons, without any sure ground, or euident certainty that they be errours? No doubt such an one, the more ignorant that he is, the more damnable wretch he is; and by so much is his pride more detestable. Wherfore Protestants, if in their vn­dertaking and venturing to reiect the definition of Councels, and the receaued Traditions of so many former Christian ages, they chance to erre, though but out of simplicity and ignorance, this simplicity and ig­norance, will not excuse and mitigate, but rather ac­cuse and aggrauate the crime of their erring presump­tion and pride.

7. This truth, that Protestants cannot be saued by ignorance (as Roman Catholiques may,) you seeme to acknowledge pag. 285. lin. 7. We assure our selues, if our liues be answerable, we shall be saued by our knowledge. And we hope (and I tell you agayne, spes est rei incertae nomen) that some of you may possibly be saued by occasion of their vn­affected ignorance. Behold the way of saluation by Igno­rance you leaue vnto vs, and in your great excesse of cha­rity hope, that some of vs may possibly be saued throgh ignorance. But you Protestants are sure to be saued by your knowledge, by your euident certainty, that the truth standes on your side, against the definition of former Christian worlds. Now, if this be the case of Prote­stants, that they must be saued by their owne know­ledge, by being sure they haue such euident certainty of truth as may counter poyse the authority of so many Christian ages and Councels; how pittifull and lamen­table [Page 38] is their case? They cannot be saued except they be furnisht with knowledge, and euident certainty, that they haue truth on their side: For if they want this knowledge, they cannot prudently nor without exe­crable Pride oppose Generall Councels, which stand for the Roman Doctrines. But Protestants, at least mil­lions of them, are as sure and certayne as they liue, that they haue no such knowledge, no such euident demon­stration or certainty, that the Roman Church and Councels erre: Therefore they cannot (except they be stupide and senselesse) but be sure they are in a dam­nable state, and shall certainly be damned except they change their course.

8. The second part of this Section that Protestants, if they erre cannot be saued from their sinfull & dam­nable errours by general repentance is proued; Because Generall Repentance doth extend only to those things, wherein the Penitent may lawfully, and with a safe conscience apprehend, 2. Edit. pag. 20. lin. 33. and feare there may be sinne. For as you say pag. 20. lin. 45. Generall repentance is vniuer­sall sorow for all their sinnes, both which they know they haue committed, or which they feare they may haue. But Prote­stants belieue their Religiō against the Church of Rome to be the Gospell, to be the word of God, to be most in­fallible Christian truth, and so do not feare any fault or sinne in their beliefe; yea they cannot with a safe con­science so much as apprehend that their beliefe may be sinfull, false, or vncertayne. For (as you say cap. 5. n. 107.) this were to doubt of the certainty of the Gospell. Ergo, the Generall repentance of Protestants neyther doth, nor can extend it selfe to recall virtually and implicitely the Doctrine they hold against the Roman Church; no more then they repent of the Doctrine they hold a­gainst [Page 39] Iewes and Turkes. For they hold both these Do­ctrines, as much the one as the other, to be the word of God; and therefore not to be doubted of, much lesse repented as though it might be sinfull errour. Moreo­uer it is not possible, that a man should at the same time repent himselfe of a thing, and together detest from his heart all repenting thereof. But Protestants abhorre & detest as impious all doubting, and much more all re­penting of their Religion, as it is opposed against the pretended Superstitions, Impieties, Idolatries of the Church of Rome; for they thinke it holy Scripture, Di­uine Reuelation as certayne as the Gospell. Wherfore it is impossible, that Protestants should repent of their opposing the Church of Rome, so long as they be Pro­testants, and belieue the doctrine of Protestancy to be the Gospell, and the Roman Religion to be full of Im­piety and Idolatry. There is no hope such Protestants can be saued, except God send into their heart, the light of his Spirit, and make them see their Religion, so farre as it is opposite to the Roman, to be but a masse of old damned Heresies, and moue them to repent and to recall, and detest them in particular.

Your impudent slandering of Charity Maintayned that he granteth Saluation vnto any Prote­stant that is ignorant, or repentant. §. 4.

9. YOu are much vexed that the Roman Religion is proclaimed safe euen by her Aduersaries; and that yours is wholly destitute of such comfortable testimonies. Wherfore the warrant you cannot ob­tayne by truth and fayre dealing, you seeke to get by falshood, fraud, and forgery, euen of our Maintayner [Page 40] to whome you speake in this manner pag. 31. lin. 12. That which you do say doth plainely inough affoard vs these Corollaries. Cap. 1. n. 3. 1. That whatsoeuer Protestant wan­teth capacity, or hauing it, wanteth sufficient meanes of instruction to conuince his conscience of the fal­shood of his owne, & the truth of the Roman Religion; by the confession of his most rigide Aduersaries, may be saued, notwithstanding any errour in his Religion. 2. That nothing hinders, but that a Protestant dying a Protestant, may dye with Contrition for all his sinnes. 3. That if he dye with Contrition, he may, and shall be saued. All these acknowledgements we haue from you, whiles you are (as you say) stating, but, as I conceaue, granting the very point in question; which was (as I haue already proued out of C. M.) whether without vncharitablenesse you may pronounce, that Prote­stants dying in their Religion, and without particular repentance and dereliction of it, cannot possibly be saued.

16. Thus without shame you falsify the Tenet of your Aduersary & the doctrine of our Church. Where doth our Maintayner say, that whatsoeuer Protestant not­withstanding any errour? Socinians be Protestants in your account because they hold the Bible, the Bible, and on­ly the Bible, who maintayne Christ Iesus not to be the eternall Sonne of God incarnated. Where doth our Maintayner affirme, that these Protestants may be saued in this so vild errour, vpon any condition? yea where doth he say of any Protestant, that he may be saued in any errour, which the maintaynes knowingly against the Roman Religion, if he want sufficient meanes of in­struction to conuince his conscience of the falshood of his owne, and truth of the Roman? He hath no such wordes, and his wordes from which you pretend to [Page 41] draw this wine of Comfort for Protestants, haue not any the least relish of that sense. These they are: when any man esteemed Protestant, leaueth to liue in this world, we do not instantly with precipitation auouch, that he is lodged in Hell. For we are not alwayes acquainted with what sufficiency of meanes he was furnished for instruction; we do not pene­trate his capacity to vnderstand his Catechist; we haue no re­uelation what light might haue cleered his errours, or Contri­tion retracted his sinnes in the last moment before death. Here our Maintayner requires sufficient meanes of in­struction that a man be bound to belieue: but he sayth not, as you make him say, that this instruction must conuince his conscience, that his owne Religion is false, and the Roman true. If a Protestant be thus farre instructed as to perceaue, that the Roman Religion is by the full consent of former Christian ages, and by the defini­tion of Generall Councels deliuered as the doctrine of Christ Iesus, and his Apostles; if I say, any Protestant be thus farre instructed, he is so sufficiently instructed, that if he refuse to belieue he is certainly damned. Do not you professe, that to forsake any Church without necessary causes, is as much as a mans saluation is worth? Doth not D. Potter auouch, that it is not law­full to goe against the definition of Generall Councels without euident reasons? Wherefore Protestants that haue abandoned the Roman Church, are by your prin­ciples conuinced to be in a damnable state, if they know the Roman Religion to be the Christian tradi­tion of their Ancestours, the definition of Catholique Councels. Nor is it necessary, that they be conuinced in conscience, that the Roman Religion is true, it suffi­ceth they haue no conuictiue demonstrations against it. Wherefore it is extreme want of conscience in you [Page 42] to say, that our Maintayner, and the most rigide Aduer­saries of Protestancy affirme, that no Protestant shall be damned for any errour whatsoeuer he holdes against the Roman Church; except he be conuicted in con­science, that his owne Religion is false, and the Ro­man true.

11. And yet not content to haue brought this fal­shood as a Corollary from his wordes, you make it his formal saying, and set it downe in a distinct Character as his verball and formall assertion. Pag. 31. n. 4. lin. 6. Charity mistaken affirmed vniuersally, Cap. 1. n. 4. lin. 6. and without any limi­tation, that Protestants that dye in the beliefe of their Reli­gion, without particular repentance, cannot be saued: But this presumption of his you qualify by SAYING; that this sen­tence cannot be pronounced truly, and therefore not charitably, neyther of those Protestants, that want meanes sufficient to conuince them of the truth of your Religion, and falshood of their owne; nor of those, who, though they haue neglected the meanes they might haue had, dyed with Contrition, that is, with a sorrow for all their sinnes, proceeding from the loue of God. Thus you: shewing the Adamantinall hardnes of your Socinian for head and Samosatenian conscience. For this long sentence which you set downe, charactered as the saying of Charity Maintayned with a direct affir­mation, that it is his saying, is forged and feigned by your selfe from the first to the last syllable thereof: not only against his meaning in that place, but also the whole drift of his Treatise. For what is the drift there­of, but only to shew, that the Roman is the true Church; and that her proposing of a doctrine to be be­lieued is sufficient to bind men to belieue it, without any other Conuiction besides the authority of her infal­lible word?

[Page 43]12. Also the second assertion you impute to him, That nothing hinders, but that a Protestant dying a Prote­stant, may dye with contrition for all his sinnes, is an impu­dent vntruth: no such acknowledgment in all his book. You seeke to gather it from these wordes, We haue no reuelation, what light may haue cleered his errours; or Contri­tion haue retracted his sinnes. This reason (say you) or con­trition haue retracted his sinnes, being distinct from the for­mer, and deuided from it by the disiunctiue particle (or) in­sinuates, that though no light did cleere the errours of a dying Protestant, yet Contrition might, for ought you know, retract his sinnes. This is a fond & voluntary inference: for the clause ( or contrition retracted his sinnes) was not added to signify, that a Protestant may haue contrition of all his sinnes, though his vnderstanding be not cleered from his errours: but to declare, that though his vnder­standing be cleered from errours; yet this will not suf­fice that he be saued, except after the abiuration of his errours, he do further conceaue hearty sorow & Con­trition for the deadly and damnable sinnes of affection and action he may haue committed.

13. For, that a Protestant cannot be truly penitēt of all his sinnes, vntill his vnderstanding be cleered, or at least his zeale allayed, that he become remisse in his Re­ligion and doubtfull; this reason doth inuincibly con­clude. It is impossible, that a man should repent of a thinge, at that time, when he is in actual or habitual heat of affection vnto it. But Protestants (so long as they are Protestants, and their Vnderstandings not cleered from their errours, or their zeale allayed with cold doubtfulnes) are alwayes either actually, or habi­tually in the heat of condemning the Roman Church for Impieties and Idolatries; in the heat of presum­ptuous [Page 44] Pride, whereby they preferre their seely conceits about the sense of Scripture, before the iudgement of the Church, and her Generall Councels. Ergo, it is im­possible, that a Protestant persisting stiffely in his Reli­gion, should be penitent of all his sinnes knowne and vnknowne.

That Roman Catholiques are free from all Funda­mentall Errours, and your Contradictions herein. §. 1.

1. HE that belieues all Fundamentals, cannot be dam­ned for any errour in fayth; though he belieue more, or lesse to be Fundamentall then is so. This is your for­mall assertion in so many wordes, pag. 207. n. 34. Cap. 4. n. 34. lin. 2. which supposed I assume: But Roman Catholiques belieue all Fundamentals, that is, all necessary truth: Ergo, they cannot be damned for any errour in fayth. The assumption of this argument might be proued, by many testimonies from your Booke. I will insist vpon two, the one in this Section, the other in the next. Pag. 16. lin. 8. We grant the Roman Church was a part of the whole Church. And if she were a true part of the Church, she retayned those truths, which were simply necessary to saluation. For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man, or Church a mem­ber [Page 45] of the Church Catholique. In our sense therefore of the word Fundamentall, we hope she erred not fundamentally. Thus you, who Cap. 5. n. 95. pag. 280. n. 95. say the playne contra­ry, that our errours are fundamentall. And pag. 289. nu. 86. Cap. 5. n. 86. that our Church not onely might, but also did fall into substantiall errours.

2. I know, that to salue this Contradiction, and to put the terme of fundamentall Errours vpon our Church you haue coyned a distinction of two kinds of funda­mentall errours. Cap. 5. n. 88. Pag. 290. n. 88. Fundamentall Errours (say you) may signifie, eyther such as are repugnant to Gods command, and so in their owne nature damnable; though to those that out of ignorance inuincible practise them not vnpar­donable: and such as are not onely meritoriously, but remedi­lessely pernicious and destructiue of Saluation. According to this distinction you grant, that the Roman Religion hath fundamentall errours of the first kind, though as you hope none of the second. But this distinction (to omit that you ouerthrow the same in both the members thereof as will afterward appeare) will not serue your turne, nor reconcile your contradiction. For when you say we belieue all Fundamentals, you professe to take the word in your owne sense. But in your sense the word Fundamentall signifies all kind of necessary truth; for so you warne vs Cap. 4. n. 52. in fine. pag. 220. lin. 5. May it please you to take notice now at last, that by fundamentall, we meane All, and onely that which is necessary; and then I hope you will grant, that we may safely expect Saluation in a Church which hath all things fundamentall to Saluation. Thus you: which is as much as if you had sayd, that by Fundamentall you vn­derstand, not only the things which are remedilessely and indispensably necessary; but also those that be ne­cessary onely because commanded. For how can men [Page 46] safely expect Saluation without those things, which by the commandement of God are necessary to Saluation? Though men with fundamentall errours of the first kind may (in your doctrine) possibly be saued; yet you say their state is not safe, but Pag. 133. Their state is dange­rous though not des­perate. dangerous. Now such as haue all truth Fundamentall to Saluation, they not onely may possibly be saued; but also safely expect Sal­uation, as you contend. Ergo, when you say our Church retaynes all Fundamentals to Saluation and erres not Fundamentally, you will haue vs take notice, that you meane, she is free not onely from such damnable er­rours, as absolutely destroy, but also from those which endanger Saluation. Consequently, when you say absolutely (as euery where you do) that our errours are Fundamentall, or substantiall, or damnable, or dangerous, you contradict your other assertion, that we retayned all things simply necessary to saluation, and erred not Fundamentally.

3. Besides in the frontispice of your booke, you haue printed this sentence of our late King Iames, Things simply necessary to Saluation be those, which eyther the Word of God doth expressely command to be belieued or done; or those which the Ancient Church did by necessary consequēce draw out of the Word of God. Now you grant in expresse termes, that the Roman Church retayned all things Pag. 16. lin. 7. simply necessary to Saluation. Ergo, you must grant, that she retayned all those things, which eyther the word of God doth expressely command to be belieued or done; or which from the Word of God, the Ancient Church deduced, and so can want nothing necessary by Diuine command, nor haue errours fundamentall, so much as of the first kind.

4. The reason you are about this point so various [Page 47] and continually contentious and fighting with your selfe, is the inward combat of your vnruly passions. On the one side, you are incited with fury to damne vs, and make our Religion damnable; on the other, vexed and galled, that neither euidence of truth, no nor D. Potter himselfe will giue you full freedome to do it. Hence your waue and wander, you say and vnsay, you runne this way and that way vpon aduerse and contrary as­sertions; so much, as euen in the same short sentence, you plainely contradict your selfe pag. 16. n. 21. lin. 11. 2. Edit. pag. 16. n. 8. Though we say the errours of the Roman Church were not de­structiue of Saluation, but pardonable, euen to them that dyed in them vpon a generall Repentance, yet we deny not but in themselues they were damnable. Do not you perceaue, that this speach destroyeth it selfe, that our errours are not destructiue of Saluation, and yet are in themselues dam­nable? what is destructiue of Saluation, but that which of it selfe, and in its nature is apt and sufficient to de­stroy Saluation, and to bring damnation on men? And is not damnable the very same? How then can our er­rours be in themselues damnable, and yet not destru­ctiue of Saluation? You say, a poyson may be deadly in it selfe and yet not kill him, who togeather with it takes an an­tidote. Very true: but can poyson be in it selfe deadly, & not in itselfe destructiue of life? Can it be of it selfe apt to cause death & not apt to destroy life? How then are our errours not destructiue of Saluation, and yet damnable and apt to bring damnation on vs?

5. In like manner you professe very often, that the Roman Church retayned the substance and essence of a Christian Church; that you do not cut her off from the hope of Saluation. And yet at other times being en­raged with the title of Catholique giuen her by the con­sent [Page 48] of mankind; you protest, that Pag. 362. li. 8. Cap. 6. n. 40. lin. 4 [...]. she is Catholique to herselfe alone, and Hereticall to all the rest of Christian Churches. Which is as much as if you had said; she wan­tes the very essence of a Christian Church. For pag. 332. n. 11. Cap. 6. n. 11. you write: It is not Heresy to oppose any truth propounded by the Church; but only such a truth as is an essen­tial part of the Ghospell of Christ. Wherefore the Roman Church (if she be hereticall) opposes some essentiall, part of the Ghospell of Christ, and consequently she wantes fayth of some essentiall part of the Ghospell. What is consequent hereupon? That the Roman Church, not only is not an incorrupt Church, but not a Christian Church so much as for substance and es­sence. The Consequence is manifest. For that cannot be a Christian Church for substance & essence, which doth not hold the Gospell of Christ the Christian Re­ligion for substance and essence, as the Roman Church doth not if she be Heretical, as you say she is. For as that cannot be a man which wantes an essential part of a man: so that cannot be the Gospell of Christ, nor the Christian Religion for essence, which the Roman Church holdes, if she want an essential part thereof, as you say she doth. Behold how furies of passion distract you into contrary parts. Yea this which now you so peremptorily decree, that heresy is not to oppose any truth, but only an essential part of the Gospell, you contradict an hundred times in your booke, where you distinguish heresies fundamental against the Essentials of the Gospell, Pag. 277. lin. vlt. and not fundamental against Truths of the Gospell profita­ble, but not necessary. How can this subsist, if that only be Heresy which opposes the Essentials of the Gospell?

The security in the Roman Church is so great, as it is Madnesse to leaue it. §. 2.

6. THis I shall make good and euident by your owne most true & vndeniable sayings. Our Maintayner obiectes, that some Protestants leauing the Roman Church haue fallen away by degrees, euen from the Fundamentals of Christianity. Cap. 3. n. 63. lin. 14. You answer p. 168. lin. 9. What if some forsaking the Church of Rome, haue forsaken fundamental truths? Was this because they forsooke the Church of Rome? No sure: this is, non causa pro cau­sa: For else all that haue forsaken that Church, should haue done so; which we say they haue not: but because they went too farre from her. The golden meane, the narrow way is hard to be found, hard to be kept; hard but not impossible; hard, but yet you must not please your selues out of it, though you erre on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part: for this is the on­ly way, that leades to life, and few there be that find it. It is true, if we said, there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in lea­uing it, it were MADNESSE to persuade any man to leaue it. Thus you. Before I come to the prin­cipall intent, let me note and put you in mind of two thinges. First that here (as euery where also commonly) you argue fondly, that the cause why some forsaking the Roman Church, forsook also the funda­mentals of Christianity, was not their forsaking the Roman Church, For els, say you, all that haue forsaken her should haue done so. An argument fond and full of igno­rance. Otherwise, we might say, that Couetousnesse was not the cause, that Iudas betrayed his Maister; for else all couetous seruants should betray their maisters, [Page 50] which we know is not so: we may say that zeale of Puritanisme was not the cause, that Enoch ap euan mur­thered his Brother and Mother; because many zealous Puritans do not murther their Brothers, and mothers that oppose them. These instances and a thousand more which might be brought lay open your ignorance, that you do not distinguish betwixt naturall necessary causes, whose force cannot be resisted; and morall causes, which freely incline the will, leauing it liberty to resist, which is the reason they are effectuall in some, and not in o­thers.

7. Secondly I note, that you also heere keepe your wont of contradicting your selfe. What you heere say that the narrow and onely way to life and saluation is hard to be found, hard to be kept, without erring on the right hand or on the left; how doth it agree with, or how doth it not directly destroy what you teach Cap. 4. n. 53. lin. [...]9. pag. 221. lin. 20. about your Protestant safeway· This is a way so plaine, that fooles except they will cannot erre from it; because in this way, not being free from errour, but indeauouring to be free, is the onely condition of Saluation. How is, not being free from errour, but endeauouring to be free, in your way the onely condition of Saluation; if keeping the golden meane, and the narrow way without erring eyther on the right hand or left, be in your doctrine the sole meanes of Saluation? How is the way so plaine, that e­uen fooles, vnlesse they will, cannot erre from it, if it be hard to be kept without erring on the right hand or left? And pag. 290. n. 87. Cap. 5. n. 87. in fine. whereas the Maintayner sayth, that Protestants should not haue left the Roman Church, for errours vn-fundamētall, seing they were not sure by their departure to auoyd this kind of mischiefe; yea they were sure they could not auoyd it: you say [Page 51] Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to auoyd this mischiefe (of errours vn-fundamentall) that they proclayme to all the world, that it is most prone and easy to do so, to all those that feare God, and loue truth; and hardly possibly for them to do otherwise without supine negli­gence and extreme impiety. How do these sayings hange together; The golden meane of sauing truth the only way to life, is hard, difficile, and only not impossible to be kept without erring from it eyther on the left hand Fundamentally; or one the right vn-fundamentally: The way of sauing truth is most prone and easy to be kept, without erring so much as vn-fundamentally; yea, it is hardly possible to erre from it, on eyther side, without supine negligence, and extreme impiety?

8. But now to the Principall intent; by this your confession it is euident, that it is madnes for any man to to leaue the Roman Church, and that your writing to per­swade them to leaue it was a fit of distemper in your brayne. For you confesse, that if you sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leauing it; is were madnesse to persuade any man to leaue it. Now I assume: But you say both, that there is no dan­ger in the Roman Church, and that there is extreme danger in leauing it. That you say the first, I proue, be­cause you say, that he who belieues all Fundamentall truth, cannot be damned for any errour in fayth. And pag. 376. n. 57. Cap. 6. n. 57. in fine. he that belieues all necessary truth, if his life be answerable to his fayth, how is it possible he should fayle of Saluaton? But you affirme, that the Roman Church retaynes all fundamentall and necessary truth, in that you onely charge her of going from the Golden meane of exact truth, on the right hand, on the surer part. Wher­fore in the Roman Church men may safely expect Sal­uation; [Page 52] there is no danger, yea there is no possibility of damnation for errours in faith with in her Communiō. That you say the second, that there is extreme dāger in leauing the Roman Church, I shew, euē by this testimo­ny. For you say the Roman Church erreth on the right hand, on the milder part; so that they who leaue her, must of ne­cessity depart so farre from her on the left hand, that is, into the direfull gulfe of fundamentall errours; except they keepe themselues in the golden meane, in the narrow way; But the golden meane, the narrow way, is (as you pro­fesse) hard to be found; hard, and onely not impossible to be kept: Ergo, in leauing the Roman Church there is dan­ger, and exceeding great danger which can hardly be auoyded, of falling into errours fundamentall, remedi­lessely, and fatally damnable. These being your Cōfessions and otherwise of themselues manifest truths, you must acknowledge it is euen madnesse and fury for any man to forsake the Roman Church; and that your writing to diuert men from her Communion, was a fit of phrensy.

That Protestants can neuer be sure that they belieue all fundamentall and necessary Truth. §. 3.

9. IT being indispensably necessary vnto Salua­tion to know distinctly and in particular all Fundamental & essentiall truthes; how can Christian soules that be pious, carefull of their eternity, fearfull to fall into damnation euerlasting, rest quiet or calme in conscience, till they know an exact Catalogue of these Fundamentals; that so they may be sure, they know and belieue them distinctly and in particular? Now Protestants neither do, nor can agree vpon an exact Catalogue of their Fundamētals, nor wil tel their [Page 53] followers distinctly, and in particular which be the ar­ticles essentially necessary vnto Saluation, and you in many places signify, that they are innumerable.

10. On the Forehead of your Booke, you haue printed this sentence of King Iames: The number of thinges absolutely necessary to Saluation is not great: Where­fore the shortest and speediest way to conclude a general peace and concord in matters of Religion, would be to seuer exactly thinges necessary from thinges not necessary; and to vse all in­dustry, that in necessaries there may be agreement, and in thin­ges not necessary, place be left vnto Christian liberty. In your Dedicatory you professe, that your Booke in a manner is nothing else but a pursuance of, and a super­struction vpon this Blessed Doctrine, wherwith you adorn'd & arm'd the Frontispice thereof. This is the flattering of your forhead, and your setting a fayre Hypocriticall face of Friendship on this sentence, which you hate & blaspheme in your heart, and in the heart and bosome of your Booke. For some few leaues from the begin­ning you fall to reiect, pursue, and persecute this your Blessed sentence; and your superstruction theron is no­thing else, but a load of reproaches. You Pag. 23. say, that to seuer exactly thinges necessary from thinges not necessary (which that learned Prince esteemeth to be of great vse, of great necessity, and the shortest way to conclude the generall peace of Christendome about Religion, & a thinge not only factible, but also which may easily & speedily be done;) this I say, which your Frontispicial sentence proclaymeth most vsefull and factible, the inside of your Booke declareth to be a thing of extreme great difficulty, and of extreme little necessity, an intricate peece of businesse, apparantly vnnecessary, of no vse, a vaine labour, to no purpose. Behold your wordes, Pag. 23. lin. 5. [Page 54] To seuer exactly and punctually these verities the one from the other &c. is a businesse of extreme great difficulty, and of extreme litle necessity. He that shall goe about it shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it, and almost impossi­ble that he should be certaine he hath done it, when he hath done it. And then it is apparently vnnecessary to goe a­bout it, because he that belieues all, certainly belieues all neces­saries. And againe, ibid. lin. 15. And when they had done it, it had been to no purpose, there being as matters now stand, as great necessity of belieuing those truths of Scripture which are not fundamental, as those that are. These be your wor­des: by the force of which you knocke on the head, the sentence of king Iames, nayled on the forehead of your Booke: and also giue a deadly stabbe on the heart of poore Protestants, and driue out of it all hope of Salua­tion.

11. For you neither do, nor can tell them, which points of fayth are Fundamentall, and necessary to be knowne distinctly of all; without the least of which you say Cap. 6. n. 75. in fine. it implies contradiction they should be saued. How then shall they be sure they haue all Fundamental truth? You say, he that belieues all, certainly belieues all that is necessary. And pag. 225. lin. 1. Cap. 4. n. 59. in fine. to a Protestant reque­sting of you to know, which in particular be funda­mental truths, you answere; It is a vaine question: belieue all, and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall. This rule of assurance you repeate almost in the same formal wordes, I dare say a thousand times, which is craftily couched in equiuocal, and ambiguous termes, and hath a double sense, being in the one false, and de­ceitfull; in the other impossible to be kept. If ( belieue all) import no more, then, belieue in general and confused­ly all contayned in the Holy Bible to be true, your rule [Page 55] is false, deceitfull, damnable, that men by belieuing all, shall certainly belieue all necessaries, as they ought, vnto Saluation. For you say Cap. 4. n. 3. Pag. 163. n. 3. Fundamen­tal and essential points be such, as are, not only plainly reuea­led of God, and so certaine truths; but also commanded to be preach't to all men, and to be distinctly belieued of all, and so necessary truths. And Cap. 4. n. 4. lin. 20. Pag. 194. lin. 16. you teach, that to the constitution of Fundamental pointes, is requi­red, that they be, First actually reuealed of God; Secondly commanded vnder paine of damnation to be particularly knowne (I meane, knowne to be Diuine reuelations) and di­stinctly to be belieued. Wherfore your rule ( Belieue all in generall, and you shall be sure to belieue all Fundamentals sufficiently vnto saluation) is by your owne definitions proued false, and damnable. But, if your rule haue this sense; Belieue all that is in the Bible explicitly, distinctly, & in particular, and then you shall be sure to belieue all necessaries, if this (I say) be your meaning, you lay on your Pro­testants a most heauy burthen, a most vnsupportable load, a most tyrannicall and impossible command. For what you say that the burthen is light, and that all Pro­testants comply with this your command, pag. 129. n. 5. Cap. 3. n. 5. lin. 4. that all of them agree with explicite fayth in all those thinges, which are plainly and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scri­pture, that is in All, that God hath plainly reuealed; this, I say, is ridiculous; there being millions of truths plainly & vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture, which millions of Protestants neuer heard: yea, there be, I dare say, a thousand such truths which your selfe are ignorant off.

12. In contradiction of this your inconsiderate as­sertion, you grant pag. 137. lin. 5. Cap. 3. n. 19. lin. 20. That there be many truths, which in themselues are reuealed plainly inough, which yet are not plainly reuealed vnto some Protestantes of [Page 56] excellent vnderstanding, nor are belieued of them, because they are prepossest with contrary opinions, and with preiudi­ces, by the strange power of education, instilled vnto their mindes. How then is it true, that Protestantes, all of them agree with explicite fayth in all thinges which are plain­ly reuealed of God? How can those Protestantes (who dis­belieue many truths reuealed in Scripture plainly inough) be sure they belieue all fundamentall and necessary truth; seing they obserue not your command, Belieue all, and you shalbe sure to belieue all that is fundamentall? Who doth, or can assure them, that among these many points of Fayth reuealed in Scripture plainly inough, none be fundamental. It is therfore manifest that Protestants (except you giue them an exact Catalogue of all your fundamentals which they are bound vnder payne of uamnation distinctly and explicitly to belieue) can ne­uer be sure they belieue all fundamentall truth. And it is seely for you, Pag. 158. n. 52. lin. 19. pag. 160. n. 33. lin. 31. pag. 162. lin. 20. when Charity Maintayned vrgeth you for a Catalogue of your Fundamentals, to thinke that you may stop his mouth, with importuning him, for a Catalogue of our Churches Proposals; for we say of our Churches Proposals, that it is sufficient to be­lieue them implicitly: we do not say, they must be belie­ued of all distinctly and in particular. What need then is there of a Catalogue, wherin such Proposals are set downe distinctly, and in particular? Now you affirme of your Fundamentals, that all men are bound vpon their saluation, to know and belieue them in particular and yet obstinatly refuse to giue them an exact ac­count, which in particular they be.

13. Besides, what an intricate and infinite obliga­tion do you charge vpon Protestantes, in saying, that there is (as thinges now stand) at great necessity of belieuing [Page 57] those truths of Scripture which are not fundamentall, as those that are so. For the necessity of belieuing fundamentals deliuered in holy Scripture is vnder paine of dam­nation to know them in particular, and distinctly; which obligation is so strict, that you say it implies contradiction, that Saluation be had without the least of them. Now if the necessity of belieuing not funda­mentals, be as great as this; yea the same with this; no Protestant can be saued that doth not belieue such pas­sages of Scripture as be not fundamentall distinctly & in particular, euen as he is bound to belieue fundamen­tals. You often (as pa. 169. lin. 12.) Cap. 3. n. 64. lin. 33. eagerly and bit­terly declame against vs for requiring harder and heauier conditions of Saluation, then God requires, or then were re­quired in the dayes of the Apostles. Who more guilty of this crime then your selfe? For this your necessity of belieuing the not fundamentall truthes of Scripture, as much as the fundamental, was not euer in Gods Church; seeing your selfe onely say it is so as matters now stand. Wherby you insinuate, that as matters stood anciently, this great necessity and obligation had no place in Gods Church. Nor can you say, that it is required of God: for then it would be deliuered in Scripture and consequētly perpetuall in the Church euer since the Ghospell was written: wher­as your wordes vrging this obligation onely (as now matters stand) imply the contrary. It is therefore mani­fest, that this necessity so heauy and direfull, is layd vpon Protestants, not by Apostolicall commaund, not by diuine Precept; but by your selfe and other proud ignorant Ministers, who neither know which be Fun­damentals, nor can agree vpon any short rule, within the compasse of which they are all comprized. Hence they are forced to send euery Protestant to fish for [Page 58] Fundamentals, in the vast and deepe Ocean of holy Scripture; not giuing them any direction, any rule, any assurance of finding them all, except they can compre­hend cleerly and distinctly all the innumerable truthes plainely reuealed therein.

14. Finally, what you say pag. 134. lin. 24. That may be sufficiently declared to one, which is not sufficiently de­clared to another; and consequently, that may be fundamen­tall to one, which to another is not. And pag. 281. lin. 4. Cap. 5. n. 17. The same errour may be not Capitall to men that want meanes of finding the truth; and Capitall to others, who haue meanes and neglect to vse them. This doctrine by you often repea­ted, driueth Protestants into a Thicket of Thornes and briers: into new insuperable difficulties & vncertainties of their Saluation. For though a Protestant were sure (which in Protestācy he can neuer be) that he distinctly belieues all capital & essential truthes, which are to be belieued of all; how shall he be sure, that he belieues all truthes, which to him in particular (in regard of his greater knowledge and capacity) are, you say, Ca­pitall and Fundamentall? How can he be certaine, that there are not some capitall and substantiall truths, which he hath not found in Scripture, though he had meanes of finding them? And if he want beliefe of these Fundamentall and Capitall truths; how can he possibly be saued? For though you should say, that these are the least of thinges fundamentally necessary to saluation; yet this will not possibilitate their salua­tion: it being contradiction, to say, that Saluation may be had, without any the LEAST thing necessary to Saluation, as you affirme, Cap. 6 in fine totius ca­pitis. Pag. 382 lin. 1.

That in your VVay English Protestants cannot be saued more then Socinians; with fixproofes, that you are of this impious Sect. §. 1.

1. YOu say in your Preface n. 39. that you haue not vndertaken the particular defence of the Church of England, but the common Cause, and Religion of all Protestants. And pag. 375. n. 56. you professe, that by the Religion of Protestants, which you mayntaine to be a safeway to saluation, you do not vnderstand the do­ctrine of Luther, or Caluin, or Melancton; nor the Confes­sion of Augusta, or Geneua; nor the Catechisme of Hie­delberge; nor the articles of the Church of England; no nor the Harmonie of Protestants Confessions: but that wherin they all agree as a perfect rule of their fayth and actions, the BIBLE, the BIBLE, I say the BIBLE onely is the Religion of Protestants.This is the onely Religion, the onely way you could find to saue English Protestants, wherin they can no more be saued, then any other that belieue the Bible, and only the Bible, as a perfect rule of their life and actions. Now in the number of Protestants, Ghospelers, and Biblists, the new Ebionites, or Samosatenians whon we terme Socinians, are compre­hended; [Page 60] the most blasphemous Heretiques against the Fundamentall articles of Christianity that euer brea­thed, worse then Arians: For Arians acknowledged the Eternity of our Lord Christ Iesus, that he had an Eter­nall most perfect diuine Essence; only they would not confesse him to be coequall, and consubstantiall to his Father▪ But Socinians deny him to be the eternall Sonne of God, affirme him to be meere man, and tearmed the sonne of God, as other Iust and holy men and Prophets are.

2. Now that Socinians are by your account in the number of them, that goe the safe way to Saluation, as well as English Protestants, is manifest; not only be­cause they professe the Bible, and onely the Bible; but also because they are that sort of Christians, whose Religion you follow as these six arguments euince.

3. First, because being so much suspected and ac­cused euen in publique writing to be of that impious Sect: and if you were not prouoked to make a cleere profession of the Christian fayth against them, you haue not done it: you say sometimes, that Christ is the Sonne of God; but neuer his Eternall Sonne, which omis­sion of the word Eternall in a man so suspected of Soci­nianisme as you are, is in the iudgement of our late So­ueraigne Pro­ceeding against D. Ʋor­stius. pag. 81. For of Vor­stius his booke stiled de Filiatio­ne Chri­sti, with­out ae­terna; the King fayth: For this title only, an Au­thour so suspe­cted as he, is worthy of the fagot. King Iames a signe of guiltines, & maketh your Booke worthy of the fagot.

4. Secondly, because you dislike words about mat­ters of Fayth not found in the Scripture, which Christi­ans vse for the better declaration of the Creed. This you tearme, Pag. 198. li. 16. a vayne conceit, that we can speake of the things of God, better then in the word of God. You declame also bitterly against, persecuting cursing, damning of such as will not subscribe vnto the words of men, as the words of God. No [Page 61] reader of vnderstanding in Ecclesiasticall affayres can doubt, but you gird at the word [...], consubstantiall, decreed by the first Councels of Nice, to declare the substantiall Equality betwixt the three diuine Persons: and at the word [...], Deipara, Gods Mother, comman­ded by the Councel of Ephesus to be giuen to the Bles­sed Virgin; to signifie, that she was mother to him, that was personally, not onely true man, but also the eter­nall God: These Canons of the first generall Councels, these sacred formes of Ecclesiasticall speach, you can­not indure; because they thunder against Socinians; they proclaime them to be Heretiques, and strike their Im­pieties dead.

5. Thirdly, because you Pag. 381. n. 72. cap 6. n. 72. lin 21. reprehend them, who by firme resolution of their will vphold themselues in the beliefe of their Religion, though their reason and vnderstan­ding fayle them Which is as much as if you had sayd, We are not, through pious affection and reuerence of Gods word, to belieue things aboue the reach of reason; things in the apprehension of which our naturall vn­derstanding faileth: as are the mysteries of the Trinity, & of the Eternall Generation of the Sonne of God.

6. Fourthly, because you say, Pag. 218. lin. 15. that they who cap­tiuate their vnderstanding, to the beleefe of those things, which seeme irreconcileable contradictions; may aswell belieue reall contradictions, Pag. 217. n. 47. Cap. 4. n. 47. which no wiseman will do. But he that belieues the mystery of the B. Trinity, & the Sonne of God his Eternall Generation, must of necessity captiuate his vnderstanding to the beliefe of impossibilities, implicancies, contradictions, seeming to be such in hu­man reason, as euery true Christian by experience fin­deth. Therefore in your opinion no wise man doth, or will belieue them.

[Page 62]7. Fiftly, because you ioyne with the Car­pocrates, Ebion, Cerdo. aunci­ent enemyes of Christ Iesus his God head, to disparage the Gospell of S. Iohn; wherein Ioan­nes ad­uersus Ebionem scripsit Euange­lium, Diuinam Christi edisse­rens na­tiuitatē. Hieron. de. Script. Eccles. the eternall Genera­ation of the Word, the onely begotten Sonne of God, is most fully and plainely deliuered; as also the indispen­sable necessity of belieuing the same, Ioan. 3.8. He that belieueth in him is not damned; he that belieueth not is already damned; because he belieues not in the Name of the onely be­gotten Sonne of God. For though you dare not say plai­nely that S. Iohns Ghospell is of no authority, yet in ef­fect you say as much; contending, that in his Ghospell Pag. 211. in. 42. lin. 11. nothing is contayned of necessary beliefe, which is not cleerely & plainely set downe Pag. 212. lin. 1. Such a perfect Gospel. in S. Lukes Gospell. Wherfore; because Christ Iesus his being the Eternall Word and sonne of God, is no where set downe so cleerly in the Gospell of S. Luke, you Socinians will not be bound to belieue it; through our Lord himselfe in S. Iohns Gospell pronoūce, that he who belieues it not, is alrea­dy damned, that is, as sure to be damned, as if he were al­ready in Hell. Now what is this, but in fauour of Soci­niansme to giue the lye to S. Iohn; yea to our Sauiour himselfe?

8. Sixtly, you are proued to be not onely a Socinian, but also impiously obstinate in the defence of that Sect, by your changing the sacred text of Gods word, that they may not seeme therin accursed. S. Iohn in his first Epistle Cap. 4. v. 2. giueth this signe to know the spirit of true Prophets and Preachers, Euery spirit which con­fesseth Iesus Christ to be come in flesh is of God; and euery Spirit which confesseth not Iesus Christ to be come in flesh is not of God, but of Antichrist. And Ep. 2. v. 7. Many Decey­uers are come out into the world, who do not confesse Iesus Christ to be come in flesh; this is a Deceyuer & an Antichrist. [Page 63] In which places it is manifest, that S. Iohn speakes of false Christians, namely the Ebion confiteba­tur Iesum Christum, sed eum nudum esse homi­nem affe­rebat, non autem Deum vnigeni­tum, Sa­pientiam & Ʋerbū Dei. Ig­natius Epist. ad Phila­delphos. Ebionites, who deny Christ Iesus to be a Person come from the bosome of God vested with humane flesh who deny him to be the Word made flesh, the Sonne of God incarnate. Which being your Socinian Beliefe, that the same might not seeme damned as Antichristian; you make bold with Gods word, and thrust in your owne wordes in place ther­of, Preface num. 12. The rule, S. Iohn giues to make this trial of Spirits by, is to consider whether, they con­fesse Iesus to be the Christ, that is, the guide of their fayth, and Lord of their actions. And pag. 339. lin. 4. you say, S. Iohn Ep. 2. v. 7. speabes not of Heretiques, but of no Christians, of Antichrists, of such as denied Iesus to be the Christ. Thus still, as often as S. Iohn sayth, such as deny Iesus Christ to be come in flesh be false Prophets, decey­uers, Antichrists, you change the text into such as deny Iesus to be the Christ, as though S. Iohn had spoken in this place against Iewes, who deny Iesus to be the Christ, or the promised Messias. Whereby you not only chauge the text; but also foyst in a falshood into Gods Word. For it is false, that whosoeuer confesseth Iesus to be the Christ, is therby knowne to be of God, and a true Christian: seing Turkes confesse Iesus to be the Christ, that is, the Messias promised to the Iewes; and yet are not Christians. And that S. Iohn speaketh against Here­tiques, who vnder the name of Christians, went about preaching, that Iesus Christ is not the eternal sonne of God, is cleere by the wordes which immediatly follow: He Epist. 2. v. [...]. that departeth, and abideth not in the Doctrine of Christ, hath not God: He that abideth in his doctrine, hath the Fa­ther and the Sonne. If any come to you, and bringe not this Doctrine, receiue him not into your house; bid him not God [Page 64] speed: For he that sayth to him, God speed, is partaker of his malignant workes.

9. What then may we thinke of those English Pro­testants, and of their state and Saluation, who haue made you the Patron of their Religion, and Pastour of their soules? can they be excused from being partakers with you in your malignant workes, tending to the peruer­sion and damnation of many? I confesse you haue re­warded them as they deserue. For you giue them no better assurance, or hope of Saluation, then to Socinians, who deny Christ Iesus to be the Eternal only begotten Sonne of God, whose damnation goeth before them vnto iudg­ment. Miserable they are, who be so desperately bent against Charity maintayned by Catholiques, as rather then yield to be saued in the Catholique Roman Church, will be defended by such a Socinian Patron, and in a Way which giueth them no hope of saluation; but to­gether with Heretikes, who deny the Incarnation of the eternal Sonne of God, who are branded in Scripture with the note of Deceyuers and Antichrists: and by the mouth of our Lord himselfe, men already damned.

That in your VVay Iewes and Turkes may be saued aswelll as Protestants. §. 2.

10. PRotestants of your stampe who pretend to belieue the Bible, and only the Bible, being de­uided into King Iames, Procee­ding a­gainst Worstins pag. 65. innumerable sects (agreeing in nothing but in their vnion against the Pope) cannot but be full of ma­ny contrary and aduerse errours, as you grant. Where­fore in your Way they are saued in their errours by inuinci­ble ignorance; or if their ignorance be vincible, sinfull, and damnable, by General Repentance. But by your Principles, Iewes and Turkes may be saued in their [Page 65] false Religions through inuincible ignorance, or gene­rall Repentance. That they may be saued by inuincible ignorance, is proued by what you write Pag. 393. lin. 1. Cap. 7. n. 8. lin. 26. ante fi­nem. Certainly Religion is one of those thinges, which are ne­cessary only because commanded. For if none were comman­ded vnder paine of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any? Neither can it be damnable to be of a false Religion, vnlesse it be a sin to be so. Thus you: whereupon I assume this Hypothesis: to Turkes, Iewes, Pagans, that are in­uincibly ignorant of the falshood of their owne Reli­gion, and truth of the Christian, it is no sinne to be of their false Religion and enemies of Christ our Lord:This hath been already shewed by your acknow­ledgments; that God cannot be offended with men for errours purely inuoluntary, nor can he damne them for not doing what he knowes they cannot do. Wherefore it is impossible, that God should damne Iewes, or Turkes, or Pagans for errous of inuincible and inuo­luntary ignorance: so that if your Thesis be true, that no false Religion is damnable, but only because it is sinne: it is comequent, that men may be saued in any Religion euen in Iudaisme, Turcisme, Paganisme through inuin­cible ignorance.

11. You say 2. Ed. pag. 24. lin. 23. Pag. 24. lin. 34. Who can find fault with D. Potter for saying, If, through want of meanes of in­struction, incapacity, inuincible or probable ignorance a man dye in errour be may be saued? Now many Iewes, and Turkes, and Pagans dye in their errours, through want of instruction, or incapacity, or inuincible ignorance. Ergo, they may be saued in their false Religions & im­pious errours. If you answer that your proposition, that men who dye in their errours may be saued, is to be vn­derstood of such as dye in errours that be damnable only [Page 66] meritoriously, because sinnes, and against Gods commande, not of errours which remedilessely, fatally, vnauoydably destroy Sal­uation, which no ignorance can excuse, for which no repentance can begge pardon without a dereliction of them, as you say pag. 336. n. 19. I reply that this answere confirmes the Saluation of Iewes and Turkes & Pagans in your do­ctrine and Way. According to which, to dye in any false Religion cannot be damnable, remedilessely, but only meritoriously, because a sinne, and an offence of God: wherefore if any Iew, or Turke, or Pagan want capa­city, or meanes of instruction, and so be inuincibly ig­norant, he may be saued, euen as Protestants are saued in your safe Way.

12. I omit that you plainely contradict your selfe in saying that there be some errours which remediles­ly destroy Saluation, because the contrary truth is neces­sary, Cap. 6. n. 19. lin. 33. non solum necessitate praecepti, sed medij, not only because commanded, but also because the sole meanes or reme­dy against sinne. This doctrine I say doth not agree with your assertion, that Religion it selfe is necessary only because it is commanded; and that it cannot be dam­nable to be of any false Religion, but only because it is a sinne. For what thinges or doctrines can be necessa­ry, not only because commanded, but also because the sole remedy against sinne, if Religion (which is, to be­lieue that God is, and that he is are warder of them that seeke him) be necessary only because commanded; not be­cause the meanes without which no man can be iusti­fyed from sinne and saued? If to be of a false Religion, or of no Religion be damnable onely meritoriously; be­cause a sinne; what errour can be imagined so malig­nant, as to destroy Saluation not onely meritoriously, but also remedilessely, or fatally, as you speake?

[Page 67]13. Secondly that Iewes and Turkes may accor­ding to the Principles of your safe way, be saued in their errours by Generall repentance for all their sinnes, is proued: because there is no repugnance, but they may conceaue contrition for all their sinnes. For they be­lieue in one only God, Creatour of heauen and earth. The Iewes further belieue the truths reuealed in the old testament, the Turkes belieue in Iesus, that he is the Christ, the messias, which is to belieue in him as farre as Socinians belieue in him; yea, they pray vnto him and inuocate him, which some Bel­larmin. l. 1. de Chri­sto. c. 1. Socinians refuse to doe, because they hold we are to inuocate the true God only; and to them Christ is not God, but a meere holy man. Why then may not Iewes, & Turkes loue the true God, and conceaue sorow of all their offences and sinnes a­gainst so good a Lord, so worthy of all loue, of all their sinnes I say knowne and vnknowne, in which number all sin­full errours must of necessity be contayned as you say pag. 21. lin antepenullina, and pag. 20. lin vltima.

14. To this purpose very forcible and pregnant it is, what you say to vs speaking indefinitely of different Religions and Sects, pag. 32. n 4. You must not hereafter affirme, that of men of different Religions, one side onely can be saued; but you must temper the crudenesse of this assertion; by saying, One side only can be saued, except want of conuicti­on, or else repentance excuse the other. This your Charita­ble exception comprehends Turkes, & Iewes, that are of a different Religion from Christians; that they may be excused frō damnation through want of Conuictiō, or through a generall Repentance of all their sinnes knowne and vnknowne. You giue vs warning in the same place saying to vs: You must abstayne frō affirming, that Protestants dying in their Religion cannot be saued; [Page 68] For you must alwayes remember to adde this caution, vnlesse they were excusably ignorant, or dyed with contrition. A goodly aduise, which because S. Paul obserued not, you must say he was to blame & vncharitable in pronoun­cing, 1. Co. 6 9 10. Galat. 5.20.21. that impious men, drunkards, Heretiques, sectaries shall not possesse the Kingdome of God. For he should haue remembred to adde this caution; except they be excu­sably ignorant, or dye with contrition. Nor must you say, that Turkes and Iewes dying in their Religion cannot be saued; but you must alwayes remember to adde this caution; vnlesse they were excusably ignorant of the falshood of it; or dyed with contrition. And then considering, that you cannot know, whether or no they were sufficiently conuinced of the truth of christian Religion, you are obliged in charity to iudge the best, & hope they are not. And is not this to mantayne, that men may be saued in any Religion, Christian, Ie­wish, or Turkish, aswell in the one as in the other? No Religion among Christians, no Sect among Prote­stants is found which you doe Pre­face n. 39. or dare defend to be free from errours against fayth and Religion; and so in your Way none are sure to be saued, but through ig­norance, or generall Repentance for their errours. But Iewes and Turkes may be saued in eyther of these wayes; their errours (according to your principles) not being remedilessely damnable.

You damne vs to Hell for being faythfull, and con­stant Christians. §. 1.

1. YOu often proclame vs, to be men wilfully blind, sure to fall into the ditch of damnatiō. For this your censure of vs you giue this reason; Pag. 380. n. 72. be­cause we will not enter into any triall of our Religion, with in­difference, with liberty of iudgement, with are solution to doubt of it, if vpon examination, the grounds of it proue vncer­taine; or to leaue it, if they proue apparantly false: my owne ex­perience assures me, that herein I do you no wronge; but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your doctrine, among mortall sinnes. Thus you. And we willingly grant, and openly professe, that we hold it a mortall sinne to doubt deliberately of any poynt of our fayth. But must we be damned in this respect? O how doth malignancy against our saluation confound your memory and wit? For against doubting in matters of Religion you write most earnestly pag. 195. n. 11. lin. 20. which of vs euer taught, it was not damnable to deny or doubt of the truth of any thing, whereof we eyther know or belieue, that God hath reuealed it? Thus you. Now if it be dam­nable to doubt of the truth of any thing we belieue to be reuealed of God; what an obliuious Creature are you, who will haue vs damned for not yielding to do that very thing, which you proclame damnable to be done? you will haue vs sent to Hell, because we ranke doubting of any part of our fayth (which we hold reuealed of God) among deadly and damnable sinnes; and yet your selfe ranke this doubting among deadly and damnable crimes, with an earnest tacite detestation of the con­trary Doctrine, which of vs euer taught it is not dam­nable?

[Page 70]2. Haue you so soone forgot your selfe? Are your sayings no sooner out of your pen, then out of your memory and head? which of vs (say you) euer taught it is not damnable? Euen your selfe good Sir, you William Chilling worth teach it is not damnable, yea you hold it damnable for any man to ranke doubting of the Re­ligion, which he holdes reuealed of God among mor­tall sinnes, which you proue; because seing euery man must resolue neuer to commit mortall sinne, it followes, that he must neuer examine the grounds of his Religion, for feare of doub­ting; or if he doe, he must resolue, that no motiues, be they neuer so strong, shall moue him to doubt. This is your argu­ment, vpon which you conclude we are a company of blind inconsidering men, louers of the darkenesse, and not of light. And yet your selfe, are so blind, so inconsidering, and your wits are so dulled and darkened, as you do not perceaue, that this very argument proueth you & all your Biblists to be in the same case we are; to wit obstinately blind: for you grant, that all of you ranke doubting of your Religion among mortall sinnes, that is, you all teach that it is damnable to doubt of the truth of any thing you belieue to be reuealed of God. Hence it followes that seing you must resolue neuer to commit damnable sinne; that you must neuer examine the grounds of it at all, for feare you should be moued to doubt; or if you do you must resolue that no motiues, be they neuer so strong, shall moue you to doubt. You see your argument agaynst vs turneth vpon your selues, and proueth you are obstinate and blind, and in danger of the Ditch as much as we are.

3. And do not you further teach and contend, that it is damnable for you to doubt of the Doctrine of Diuels: if you belieue it to be Diuine Reuelation? Cap. 2. n. 122. lin. 21. Pag. 99. n. 122. l. 22. If by the discourse of the Diuel I be (I wil not say [Page 71] conuinced, but) persuaded, though falsely, that it is a Di­uine Reuelation, and shall deny to belieue it, I shall be a formal (though not a material) Heretique; For he that belieues any thinge to be a Diuine Reuelation, and yet will not belieue it to be true; must of necessity be­lieue, that God is false, which according to your do­ctrine, is the Formality of an Heretique. You who teach, that he who will not belieue (and he that will doubt, will not belieue) that thing to be truth, which falsely by the persuasion of the Diuel, he belieues to be Diuine Re­uelation, is a formal Heretique, and a blasphemous wretch: you (I say) that teach this, who will not won­der, how you could be so inconsiderate, as to make vs damnable, because we resolue not to doubt of that do­ctrine, which by the Tradition of so many Christian Ages, by our Pastours and Ancestours, men renowned for Learning, Sanctity, Miracles, for expelling of Di­uels, for conuerting of nations, hath been deliuered, & persuaded vnto vs to be reuealed of God?

That your Protestant VVay to be firme to no Religiō, but still in motion and change, is damnable. §. 2.

4. ABout your selfe, and your being vngroun­ded and vnsetled in matters of Religion, thus you write, and sincerely professe pag. 278. lin. 29. Cap. 5. n. 16. in. fine. I truly for my part, if I did not find in my selfe a loue and desire of all profitable truth; if I did not put away idlenesse, & preiudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bot­tome all my opinions of Diuine matters, being prepared in mind to follow God, and God only, which way so euer he shall lead me; If I did not hope, that I eyther do, or endeauour to do, these thinges; certainly I should haue litle hope of obtay­ning Saluation. Here you professe, that neither Christian [Page 72] Religion, nor any truth thereof, hath been as yet fir­mely rooted, or deepely by the fingar of God printed in your heart. You declare your soule to be a Blanke, noted with no Religion: but prepared for any, which to you shall seeme of God, to wit you are ready to be­lieue not absolutly, but Pre­face n. 5. as most probable for the present; but resolued neuer to belieue God so firmely, as to ranke doubting of what you haue receaued as his word, among mor­tall sinnes.

5. That this your practise implyeth doubting of all Christian Religion, I proue; because you professe, to question and examine all your opinions of Diuine matters; to make an if, or a doubt of the certainty and truth of them all; that is, you examine them, prepared in mind to leaue them all and euery one, if vpon trial they seeme to you false. But among your opinions of Diuine mat­ters, your persuasion that our Christian Scriptures and doctrines are Diuine oracles, and Gods word, is one; for you hold the Diuinity of Scriptures, & consequent­ly of the Doctrines contained therein, only as an opi­nion very probable, as is hereafter Con­uict. 6. shewed. Ergo you question the holy Scripture, the Religion and Gospell of Christ; you make an if of the truth and certainty thereof: You examine it doubtingly, with liberty of iudgment, prepared in mind to leaue it, if perchance you find the grounds thereof apparently false. What is this, but to be a Nullifidian, a man setled in no Reli­gion, but doubtfull of all? Such an one as they were whome the Apostle 2. Ti. 3.7. checketh, terming them, men still learning, but neuer attayning to the assured knowledge of any thinge. Againe Cap. 5. n. 107. initio. Pag. 307. n. 107. you write, thus speaking vnto our Maintayner: Your eleauenth fal­shood is, that our first reformers ought to haue doubted, whether [Page 73] their opinions were certaine: which is to say, they ought to haue doubted of the certainty of Scripture: which in formall and expresse termes contaynes many of these opinions. From this testimony I conclude, that you doubt of the cetainty of the Scripture. You professe to examine and question all your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters; to make a doubt of the certainty of them. But you contend, that some of your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters, be such as to make a doubt or question of the certainty of them, is to doubt of the certainty of formall and ex­presse Scripture. Ergo, your Way, and practise of doub­ting of all your opinions about Diuine matters, is doubting euen of the truth of the Christian Scripture, and Ghos­pell of Christ. A thinge most impious and execrable as you now suppose, & yet so fond and forgetfull you are, as to say, you should haue litle hope of Saluation did you not do it, or endeauour to do it.

6. In fine, your safe Way is a Labyrinth of implica­tory and inextricable errours. Protestants, that are concluded therein, are lost in a maze of vncertainties, and in an intricate mixture of contrary doctrines, be­ing sure to find nothing therein but damnation, which way so euer they turne themselues. Do they doubt of the truth of their Religion which they belieue to be the Ghospell? They are both according to truth, and in your doctrine, damnable wretches, as being formall Heretiques. Be they so firme in their Religion, as they ranke doubting thereof among deadly sinnes? Then they are (you say) obstinately blind, sure to fall into the pit of perdition, as much as we are, at the least you affoard them litle hope of obtayning Saluation.

The ground of your Safety, onely false suppositions, and foolish braggs. §. 1.

2. FIrst it is false, that if Protestants say true, we do that which is impious. For Protestants against Zelots maintayne, that our practises though erroneous in their iudgement, yet are not impious, and in themselues damnable; and that they who in sincerity of heart professe them, shall this notwithstanding D. Potter pag. 78. with­out doubt be saued.

3. Secondly, it is false, that if we be in the right, yet you may be secure inough in your refusing to vse these our practises, because they be not necessary. For though it be no sinne of it selfe purely to omit pious practises, and profi­table deuotions: yet to omit them out of proud cōtempt, and much more out of an Hereticall persuasion, that they be impious, is vndoubtedly an heynous and damna­ble crime. It is not necessary that you marry a wife, you may be saued if you lead a chast single life: but if you omit mariage out of an opinion, that it is a thing impure, or out of contempt of that doctrine, that Ep­hes. 5.32. Mariage is a great Sacrament in Christ and his Church; you will (except you repent) certainly be damned. In like manner, if we be in the right, and that these be pious [Page 91] Christian practises of voluntary deuotion, you who relinquish them out of contempt, and Hereticall per­suasion that they are impious, cannot escape damnation without a dereliction of your errour.

4. Thirdly, it is false, that if we be in the right, yet you only do not something which we confesse not ne­cessary to be done. For we do not say of all these pra­ctises, that they be not necessary to be done; yea we say, it is necessary to Saluation to receaue the B. Sacrament, and in receauing to adore it. Besides we say, that you not only omit to do what is not necessary to be done, but also condemne the vniuersall practises of Gods Church, and definitions of her Generall Councells; which is not only not necessary to be done, but also exe­crable, impious, hereticall to be done.

5. Fourthly, it is a foolish bragge that you can al­leadge such cleere texts of Scripture against these our practises. For if you can alleade them, why do you con­ceale them? Why are you ashamed to bring them to light? Why haue you not stored your booke with such allegations as are able to put the matter out of question? Some very few you haue produced, Church Conque­rant cap. 6. con­uict. 8. and those which you tearme the playnest that possibly may be, I haue shewed to be darke, obscure, yea by you falsifyed in the text?

6. Fiftly, it is also a foolish bragge, that your texts of Scripture be certainly such as make the matter que­stionable: which you proue very grauely, because we cannot with any modesty deny it. Verily had you any modesty or shame, you would blush to dispute so poo­rely, miserably, seelily in a Controuersy of such mo­ment which concernes the eternal damnation of your Country. I adde, though it were true (as it is most false) [Page 92] that your texts make the matter questionable; yet your abandoning the Roman Church is damnable. For, Ar­guments which make the matter questionable, be not ne­cessary nor euident: But it is damnable to forsake the Church of Rome, and the definition of General Coun­cels without reasons necessary and euident, as both you and D. Potter affirme, as hath beene often noted.

These doctrines and practises are proued by manifest and plaine Scripture. §. 2.

ON the other side, Roman Catholiques do not boast ridiculously, as you do, of their texts of Scri­pture; but by manifest euiction shew euen these, of the impiety of which you seeme most cōfident, to be Chri­stian and pious, and consequently, that your damning of them is damnable and impious.

7. For images of Christ crucifyed vsed in the Church with Apostolicall allowance we haue the plaine words of S. Paul Gal. 3.1. O senselesse Galathians, who hath be wit­ched you not to obey the Gospel, before whose eyes Christ Iesus, is painted Crucifyed among you. The Greeke word is [...] liuely set forth in the picture of his Crucifixion; so that S. Paul proueth the Galatians were senselesse people, that honoring Christ Iesus pictured before their eyes as crucify­ed; yet did not hope for Saluation by his Crosse and Crucifixion; but by Circumcision, and the obseruan­ces of the Law. This sense being according to the plaine proper, and literall sense of the wordes, Protestants are bound by the rule of their Religion to admit thereof, and cannot without impiety refuse it, and expound the place of metaphoricall Painting; except they can eui­dently [Page 93] demonstrate this sense to be false or incon­gruous against the Apostles intent, which they will ne­uer be able to do.

8. If you say, that this text at the most proueth the vsing of Images for the representation, Appeale to Caesar pag. 254.255. not honoring of them: I answere with the learned M. Montague your Bishop of Chichester, that in the vsing of Images for me­mory sake, the honouring of them is necessarily in­cluded, which he proueth euidently, and together af­firmes, that it is strange, that any Christian should be displea­sed with the Doctrine, That respect and honour is to be giuen to Images.

9. The Persons of the Trinity we picture not, but only the person of Goa the Sonne in the forme and shape of man, as personally he was. Onely we represent the type wherein God the Father appeared, to wit, the forme of the Ancient of dayes, described Dan. 7. and the type, wherein the Holy Ghost appeared the forme of a Doue, re­corded Math. 3.

10. For Inuocation of Angels, we haue the practise and example of holy Iacob Gen. 84.15. The Angell which deliuered me from all euill, blesse these Children: which text, you cannot answere without iugling and changing the Angell into the figure of another substance.

11. For the sufficiency of the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread, we haue the expresse warrant of our Lord, Ioan. 6.59. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer. And for the practise of Communion in one kind for lay men we haue his example Luc. 24.30.31.

12. For the adoration of the Sacrament, we haue the Scripture in the plaine and proper sense. For (sayth D. Morton Lib. 2. initio. your B. of Durham) If the words of Christ be true in a proper and literall sense, we must yield vnto Papists the [Page 94] whole cause of Transubstantiation &c. the proper adoration of the Sacrament.

13. That we prohibite certaine orders of men & women to mary is a slander. They freely without constraint pro­hibite themselues, whiles by vow they bind their fayth, and fidelity vnto Christ, to liue single and chast, & pe­culiarly consecrated to his seruice. Which fayth and fi­delity, if they violate and make voyd by consequent Mari­age (as your first reformer the Frier did, who married a Nunne), we hold their state sacrilegious and dam­nable, which is the expresse doctrine of S. Paul, 1. Tim. 5.12.

14. The Controuersy, which language is fittest, and of most edification in Church seruice: whether the vul­gar, which is best knowne in this or that particular country; or some learned language, Greeke or Latin, which be best knowne in the whole Christian Church; cannot be determined by Scripture, as hath beene al­ready proued. So that measuring the way of Saluation euen by the rule of the Bible only, the Roman Religion is the plainer, and safer Way, better warranted, euen by expresse texts of Scripture.