consequently of the Doctrines contained therein only as an opinion very probable as is hereafter 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 checketh terming them men still learning but neuer attayning to the assured knowledge of any thinge Againe Pag. 307. n. 107. you write thus speaking vnto our Maintayner Your eleauenth falshood is that our first reformers ought to haue doubted whether 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 sixt Conuiction 1. THis Conuiction sheweth that only Roman Catholiques haue sauing fayth which is demonstrated by three Arguments The first Sauing fayth is that without which it is impossible to please God Now fayth which pleaseth Gods must be on the one side certaine and infallible otherwise it is not worthy of God to whose word we owe so firme beliefe that if an Angel from heauen should Euangelize against that we haue receaued as his word he were not to be heard but to be accursed On the other side it must be a free and voluntary assent not enforced by the euidence of the thinge For if the reason of belieuing be euident and such as doth necessitate the Vnderstanding to assent the assent is not pleasing to God because it is not voluntary obedience and submission to his word Roman Catholiques by belieuing the Church to be infallible in all her proposals obtaine a persuasion about Diuine mysteries firme and infallible and yet of voluntary obedience and submission But the Opposers of the Roman Church not only want certainty in truth but also know not which way to challenge infallible certainty without euidence 2. This may be proued by what you write Pag. 329. lin 31. The infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe yet is not made appeare to vs infallibly certaine to my vnderstanding is an impossibility What is this but to say that fayth of a thing cannot be infallibly certaine except the thinge belieued be made so cleere and apparent that the vnderstanding cannot choose but assent vnto it For what appeares to vs to be infallibly certaine is seen of vs to be infallibly certaine What we see to be infallible certaine we cannot choose but assent that it is so So that a firme grounded beliefe of the truth of thinges not appearing without which it is impossible to please God is by your doctrine to Protestants impossible 3. Moreouer that Protestants cannot haue fayth pleasing to God that is fayth infallibly certayne not grounded on euidence I demonstrate in this sort No man can be assured infallibly of the truth of things not seene nor to him euidently certaine but by the word of an Authour infallibly veracious in all his words deliuered vnto him by a witnesse of infallible truth For if the witnesse or messenger of the word be fallible let the Authour of the word be neuer so infallible our assent to the truth of the thing proposed cannot be infallible Now Protestants haue not the word of God by meanes of a witnesse and messinger infallible For the witnesse proposer and messenger of the word of God is the visible Catholique Church which Protestants hold to be fallible full of false Traditions not free so you say from errour in it selfe damnable and in this sense Fundamentall Wherfore it is demonstratiuely certaine that onely Roman Catholiques who belieue the Church to be infallible can haue Fayth worthy of God Fayth of voluntary submission to Gods word that is fayth of things to them not euidently yet infallibly certayne and consequently they only please God by their belieuing and are saued 4. The second Argument You say pag. 148. lin 16. There is no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but onely because it is Gods word so that you cannot belieue the doctrines and myestries reuealed in Scripture to be true more firmely and infallibly then you belieue the Scripture to be Gods word for we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued thereby otherwise it is no proofe as you say pag. 37â— n. 59. But your assurance that the Scripture is the word of God is onely human probable and so absolutely fallible For you belieue the bookes which were neuer doubted of in the Church to be Gods word and a perfect rule of fayth onely by the tradition or testimonies of the ancient Churches pag. 63. lin 35. But the ioynt tradition of all the Apostolicall Churches with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same doctrine is onely a very probable argument as you affirme pag. 361. n. 40. Ergo your fayth that Scripture is Gods word consequently of all the mysteries therin reuealed is but human and probable and therefore vnworthy of God being not firmer then the credit we yield to euery morall honest man For to vs his word is probable and credible and to you the word of God is no more 5. Protestants commonely pretend that their fayth
that these Bookes be the word of God resteth finally not vpō the credit of human Tradition but vpon the Scripture onely which shewes it selfe with euident certitude to be diuine and supernaturall truth and so reuealed of God Euen as light is seene by its owne brightnesse and hony is proued to be sweet by the very tast thereof But this point of Protestancy you reiect as fond vaine ridiculous pag. 371. n. 51. and proue it to be such Because if the Bookes of Scripture were euidently certayne if they did with euident certitude demonstrate themselues to be Diuine truth then all men that haue vnderstanding and capacity to apprehend the right sense and sentence of Scripture would belieue them to be true which experience sheweth be otherwise If Protestants answere that such as haue their tast distempered to them hony is bitter so Infidels through preiudice and distemper of passions do not perceaue and tast the Diuinity of the Doctrines of the Scripture Against this the reply is ready and conuincing For they who through distemper of their palate iudge hony to be bitter do not apprehend the true tast of hony but a tast contrary to the true tast thereof which being in their palate they conceaue it to be in the meate But Infidels by their vnderstanding do rightly apprehend and conceaue the true senses of Scripture and the mysteries of fayth deliuered therein more cleerely then many Christians of meane capacity do and yet they do not iudge them to be Diuine truth or truth at all Ergo the very true sense and sentence of Scripture doth not with euident certainty shew it selfe to be Supernaturall truth such as could not be reuealed but of God 6. Finally if the Protestants beliefe of Scripture be grounded vpon sight of the truth thereof this their beliefe is not sauing fayth for Fayth by which men are saued as hath beene sayd is that wherby they submit by voluntary obedience their vnderstanding to Gods word belieuing firmely and assuredly vpon the Authority thereof things in themselues incredible and aboue the reach of human reason But Protestants do not belieue the doctrine of Scripture because it is the word of God but because as they say they see it to be Diuine truth and consequētly the word of God Ergo they haue not the fayth of humble submission to Gods word which is the onely fayth that pleaseth God and by which men are saued 7. The third Argument Protestants haue not fayth of infallible adherence that is fayth worthy of God about the sense and interpretation of Scripture For holding the Churches interpretation to be fallible they pretend to be sure by this rule that what they belieue to them seemes plainely cleerely euidently reuealed and proposed in the Scripture But this rule of assurance is not infallible but very fallible and deceytfull For euen Protestants thēselues contend that many texts and places of Scripture which seeme plaine and cleere are to be vnderstood figuratiuely against the plaine proper and literall sense For example the words of our Lord about the chiefe Sacrament mystery of fayth THIS is My Body This is My BLOVD in their plaine proper and literall sense deliuer and establish Transubstantiation as Protestants grant Hence Protestants that are resolued not to belieue a mystery so high aboue reason seemingly repugnant to sense will by no meanes allow these wordes to be true in their proper and literal sense they will not yield to the plain euidence of the Diuine text Whereupon it is euidently consequent that they cannot be sure about any mystery of fayth by vertue of the sole seeming euidence of the sacred Text. For instance take the most fundamental text of Scripture about the most fundamētal mystery of Christian Religion to wit the Incarnation of the Sonne of God The Word was made flesh How doth this text euidently conuince that the Eternal Word and Sonne of God was made Man truely substantially personally What Protestants say of the word of Christ This is my Body why may not Nestorians affirme about this text The Word was made ffesh that it is not true in a proper plaine and literal sense but metaphorically figuratiuely that God and Man were made one in Christ by affectual vnion as two great friendes are said to be one How can Protestants be themselues assured or how can they proue by the sole euidence of the text that this Nestorian interpretation is false And if their beliefe of the mystery of the Incarnation be not solide and firme grounded on a rule of interpretation infallibly certaine how can they be saued 8. Learned and iudicious Readers may find in your booke a world of laughter about your answering the arguments of Charity Maintayned you do it so vnscholler-like so okerly and vntowardly Let your answere to this argument serue for a patterne Our Maintayner vrgeth D. Potter that if the Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall you can neuer be sure of any such point For as you erre about some deceyued by the seeming euidence of the Scripture so you cannot be sure you do not erre about other You answere Pag. 117. n. 160. A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this principle that whosoeuer possibly may erre he can neuer be certaine that he doth not erre A Iudge may possibly erre in iudgment can he therefore neuer be sure he hath iudged aright A Traualler may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my chamber Or can our London-Carrier haue no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London And a litle after nu 161. whereas our Mayntainer argueth that you cannot be sure it is an errour to make the Church Iudge of Controuersies because you pretend to be sure by the seeming euidence of Scripture but this rule is not infallible so you cānot be sure by the warrant thereof The ground of this Sophisme say you is very like the former viz. that we can be certaine of the falshood of no proposition but those only that are damnable errours But I pray good Sir giue me your opinion of these The snow is balcke the fire is cold M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo the whole is not greater then a part of the whole that twise two make not foure in your opinion good Sir are these damnable heresies Or because they are not so haue we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir consider seriously with what strāge captions you haue gone about to delude your King and your Country if you be conuinced they are so giue glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which standes vpon such deceytfull foundations This you write which you could neuer haue written had you been with your London Carrier sober and in your wits You haue proued Gusman de
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 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. 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 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. 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 is false deceitfull damnable that men by belieuing all shall certainly belieue all necessaries as they ought vnto Saluation For you say 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 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. 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. That there be many truths which in themselues are reuealed plainly inough which yet are not plainly reuealed vnto some Protestantes of 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 shal be 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 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
maintaine that the Religion of Protestants is a safe way to saluation yea you grant the same not to be free from errours damnable of themselues The Argument propounded §. 1. 2. THe Argument I set downe in this manner No man shal be 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 thēselues 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 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 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 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 pag. 263. n. 26. Where doth D. Potter say any such thing as you pretend c. He sayth indeed that 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 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 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 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. 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
Saluation is worth to looke most carefully that the cause of his separation be iust and necessary And pag. 200. lin 25. 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 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 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 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 you are very eloquent according to the stile of heretiques quorum doctrina sayth 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. 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 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 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 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 and execrable Pride for a simple and ignorant man to abandon the Roman Church adorned with
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 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 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 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 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 The third Conuiction IN this Conuiction I am to proue three things first that Roman Catholiques hold all fundamētall truth and so are secure from damnation Secondly that it is madnesse to persuade any man to leaue the Roman Church Thirdly that it is impossible that Protestants should be sure they belieue all Fundamentall truths 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. 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 of the Church Catholique In our sense therefore of the word Fundamentall we hope she erred not fundamentally Thus you who pag. 280. n. 95. say the playne contrary that our errours are fundamentall And pag. 289. nu 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 of mankind you protest that 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. 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 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
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 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. 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 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. 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 Pag. 382 lin 1. The fourth Conuiction YOu could find no Way to make good the Saluation of English Protestants against the demonstrations of Charity maintayned but onely such a Way wherein the vildest Heretiques that now liue or euer liued vnder the cope of Heauen may be saued as well as they yea euen Iewes and Turkes these two consequences frō your principles I will demonstrate in two Sections of this Conuiction 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 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 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 a vayne conceit that we can speake of the things of God better then in the word of God You declame also bitterly
Church in errour yet excommunicate those that belieue your owne supposition What found vanity is this To say Our Aduersaries do vntruly suppose there be corruptions in our Church is this a courteous supposall and not rather a constant deniall that she doth erre and a charge of falshood vpon them that so suppose Is the vntrue supposition of our Aduersaries our owne supposition I was euen amazed at your inconsideration when I read these words in your Booke pag. 280. n. 95. lin 8. Why I pray may not a man of iudgement continue in the communion of a Church confessedly corrupted aswell as in a Church supposed to be corrupted A strange assertion A man may aswell imbrace the cōmunion of a Church corrupted confessedly by the concession of her friends as of a Church vntruly supposed by her Aduersaries to be corrupt So that with you for a Christian to say S. Ioseph was the Father of Christ and the Blessed Virgin corrupt according to the vntrue supposition of the Iewes is all one as to say S. Ioseph was the Father of Christ and the Blessed Virgin corrupt confessedly euen by the concession of Christians Wherfore if it be damnable to neglect Heresies not Fundamentall as without question it is this proueth Protestants damnable who thinke it not against Saluation to hold errours in fayth and heresies against the definition of the whole Church if such heresies be about matters profitable onely and not simply necessary The eight Conuiction 1. YOu inscribe the pages of your last Chapter with this title The Religion of Protestants a safer Way to Saluation then the Religion of Papists For which assertion besides bare and bold affirmations earnest verball expressions manifest tokens as you say of a weake cause you haue one Argument which is this pag. 393. n. 9. If the safer way for auoyding sinne be also the safer way for auoyding damnation then certainly the way of Protestants must be more secure and the Roman way more dangerous Take into your consideration these ensuing controuersies Whether it be lawfull to worship Pictures To picture the Trinity To inuocate Saints and Angels To deny laymen the Cup in the Sacrament To prohibite certayne Orders of men and women to mary To celebrate the publique seruice of God in a language the assistants generally vnderstand not and you will not choose but confesse that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sinne and we on that which is more secure For in all these things if we say true you do that which is impious On the other side if you were in the right yet we might be secure inough for we should onely not do something which you confesse not necessary to be done We pretend and are ready to iustify out of Principles agreed vpon betweene vs that in all these things you violate the manifest Commandements of God and alleage such texts of Scripture against you as if you would weigh them with any indifferēcy would put the matter out of question but certainely you cannot with any modesty deny but that at least they make it questionable This argument I haue set downe at large because it is the best in your booke and yet vaine and weake as I now demonstrate 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 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 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 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 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 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
vniuersally to one certayne Bishop besides the Roman what is it but in a desperate moode of neglect to shut his eyes against the truth that may saue his soule the cleere euidence whereof shineth ouer the world So that I may say with the Apostle Quomodo nos effugiemus si tantam neglexerimus salutem How shall we escape from being damned if we neglect so great a meanes such an assured way of Saluation 11. A Way so secure to be followed so obuious to be found so cleere to be seene so facile to be gone so hard to be lost In which we haue the succour of so many Sacraments not onely that of Baptismes to put vs in the Way and giue vs Gods Holy Spirit to walke therein but also that of the Bread of life to refresh vs when we faynt that of Chrisme to confirme vs when we are stronge that of Pennance or imposition of Hands to help vs vp when we are fallen that of Holy Oyle to heale vs when we are sicke 12. A Way beaten made plaine by the precedent walking therein of so many former Christian worlds proued to be the sole Way to Heauen by the writings of so many most holy and learned Ancient Fathers sealed and enobled for such with the sacred bloud of innumerable Martyrs confirmed by the perpetuall and vnto this day continued Conuersion of Nations to the Roman Church by the glorious labours of her Apostolical Preachers 13. Finally a Way printed with the foote-stepps of Sanctity of so many millions of admirable pious and Religions Christians who went this Way to Eternall Happines and haue from thence sent vs tidings of their safe arriuall by the testimony of euident miracles and vndoubted apparitions to assure vs we cannot fayle of comming thither if we walke constantly in the Way of the same fayth they professed and in the exercise of the same Christian Vertues they practised FINIS The contents of the Booke the summe of ech of the Nine Conuictions The first Conuiction THe Confession of Protestants that our Religion is a safe Way to Saluation proued against M. Chillingworths falsifications and ignorant explications of D. Potters words § 1.2.3 That the argument drawne from the confession of Protestants is not voluntary and of meere charity but enforced by the principles of Christianity § 4.5 That M. Chillingworth doth expressely teach the errours of Protestants to be damnable in themselues and the Roman Religion to be as safe as it § 6. The second Conuiction Though the false supposition were granted that the Roman Church erreth yet Roman Catholiques caÌ„not be damned for following her errours because they cannot but be excused by ignorance inuincible § 1.2 That Protestants if they erre as certainty they do cannot be saued by Ignorance or General Repentance § 3. M. Chillingworth his impudent falsifying of the Tenet of Charity Maintayned § 4. The third Conuiction The Roman Church holding all fundamentall and necessary truth no man can possibly be damned in her Communion for any errour in fayth so that it is madnesse to leaue it § 1.2 That Protestants cannot possibly be sure they belieue all necessary truth what impossible conditions of Saluation M. Chillingworth layes vpon them § 3. The fourth Conuiction That in M. Chillingworth his Way English Protestantes can be no more saued then Socinians who deny Christ to be God yea no more then Iewes and Turkes with six proofes that he is a Socinian § 1.2 The fifth Conuiction That M. Chillingworth damneth Roman Catholiques for being faithfull and constant Christians § 1. That in his Way Protestants are bound to be still doubtfull and changing the articles of their Religion and that this is damnable § 2. The sixt Conuiction That only Roman Catholiques can haue fayth which pleaseth God and saueth the Belieuer demonstrated by three arguments The seauenth Conuiction M. Chillingworth his vayne contradictious endeauour to damne the Roman Church because forsooth she doth not care to auoyd Heresies not Fundamental that this is the daÌ„nable state of Protesters against her The eight Conuiction M. Chillingworth his instances in some points wherin he pretendes the way of Protestants to be safer then ours proued to be false suppositions idle brags § 1. The Roman Doctrine and practise euen in those instances proued by plaine texts of Scripture § 2. The Ninth Conuiction That the true Catholique Church is infallible in all her Proposals known by subordination to one supreme Bishop that this church caÌ„ be no other theÌ„ the Roman The Conclusion Faults escaped in the Print PAge Line Errour Correction 6. 20. in marg omitted Lib. 3. cont lit Petil. c. 18. 37. 5. inforing inforcing 52. 7. so farre too farre 63. 21. change change 84. 13. your you 88. 2. impudently impudency (a) DeuÌ„ time mandata eius obserua hoc est enim omnis homo Ecclesiastae c. 12. v. 13. Lib 3. contra lâ—t Petil c. 13. (b) Pag. 279. n. 64. (c) Pag. 397. n 18. (d) SaxuÌ„ versat neque proficit hiluÌ„ (e) Pag. 400. n. 28. Cap. 7. n. 2â— (f) Cap. 5. n. 58. lin 8. (g) Cap. 5. n. 26. lin 17. (h) Pag. 404. lin 20. Cap. 7. n. 29. (i) Pag. 76. lin 26. (k) Cap. 5. n. 105. lin 23. (l) Pag. 278 lin 8. cap. 5. n. 61. (m) Cap. 7. n. 29. initio Pag. 77. (n) Pag. 395. l. 3. If this did appeare to persuade any man to continue a Protestant were to persuade him to continue a Foole. (o) Pag. 226. n. 63. (p) Pag. 116. n. 158. in fine (q) Cap. 4. n. 63. lin 22. Excesse of charity may make him ceÌ„sure your errours more fauorably theÌ„ he should do (a) Defence against the reply of Cartwright pag. 47. (r) Cap. 7. n. 26. lin 30. (s) Cap. 6. n. 64. lin 8. (t) 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 (u) Cap. 5. n. 86. (k) Praefat de abroganda Missa prinatâ Quoties palpitauit mihi tremulum cor reprehendens obiecit illud fortissimum argumentum Tu solus sapis tot ne erraÌ„t vniuersi Tanta saecula ignorauerunt (l) Pag. 397. n. 17. Answere to the Preface n. 26. in fine (z) Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 19. Cap. 5. n. 87. Cap. 5. n. 58. lin 18. (a) 1. Edit pag. 19. lin 9. (b) Pag. 279. n. 64. lin 8. cap. 5. n. 64. lin 8. (c) Cap. 5. n. 53. (d) Cap. 3. n. 18. infine (e) D. Potter pag. 166. (f) See pag. 380. n. 72. cap. 6. n. 72. (g) In cap. 22. Jsaiae (h) Cap. 6. n. 50. (i) Cap. 6. n. 81. (k) 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 2. Edit pag. 20.