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
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 that your Saluation doth not depend 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 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 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 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 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. 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
contradict your selfe whiles your declame against our Religion as extreme dangerous because we do not you say care to auoyd errours not fundamentall which declamations are frequent in your booke particularly Pag. 277. n. 61. lin 29. Neither is there any reason why such a Church should please her selfe too much for retayning fundamentall truths whiles she remaynes so regardlesse of others For though the simple defect of some truths profitable onely and not simply necessary may consist with Saluation yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance that the neglect of such truths is not damnable Besides who is there that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not according to the vsuall fecundity of errour bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pestilent and pernicious c. Lastly who can say that she hath sufficiently dicharged her duty to God and man by auoyding onely fundamentall Heresies if in the meane tyme she be negligent of others which though they do not destroy Saluation yet obscure and hinder onely not blocke vp the way to it Thus you who seeme as forgetfull of your selfe as he was who is sayd to haue had so little wit as he could not remember his owne name For had you remembred your name to the questions Who can giue such a Church sufficiēt assurance who can put her in sufficient caution Who can say she hath done her duty sufficiently You would haue readily answered I William Chillingworth for you often vndertake for a Church that retaynes all Fundamentall truths to be her surety and giue her assurance of Saluation agaynst all these pretended dangers You say they who belieue all fundamentals belieue all necessaries and so wee must confesse that they may safely expect Saluation except we will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary You say poynts circumstantiall that is not fundamentall be those of which we may be securely ignorant such as euen the Pastours themselues are not bound to know or belieue or not disbelieue them absolutely and alwayes but then only when they do see know them to be deliuered in Scripture as Diuine Reuelations I say when they do so and know and not onely when they may c. Otherwise it should be a damnable sinne in any learned man actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture for though he did not know it to be reuealed yet he might haue knowne it had he with diligence perused Scripture You say he that belieues all fundamentals cannot be damned for any errour of fayth You earnestly demand He that belieues all necessary truth how can he possibly fayle of Saluation if his life be answerable to his fayth 3. By these sayings do not you giue men that retayne all fundamentals good cause of too much that is of excessiue pleasure and content by telling them they cannot possibly be damned for any errour in fayth Do not you affoard abundant assurance that neglect to know truths not fundamentall is not damnable there being no obligation to know them or to vse diligence to find them The people and euen the Pastours may securely be ignorant of them yea actually disbelieue them Do not you put such a Church in sufficient caution that errours not Fundamentall cannot bring forth errours pestilent and pernicious that she hath performed her duety to God and man sufficiently vnto Saluation by auoyding Fundamentall Heresies Except you will say more is necessary then that which is necessary that can be which cannot be that is possible which is altogether impossible men are bound to know that which they are not bound to know men are damned for not caring to know that whereof they might be securely ignorant Into this maze of contradictions you are brought by your will to damne vs which is much stronger then your wit 4. Your third Deuise to damne vs it yet more full of strange forgetfulnesse and contradiction of your selfe You suppose that we distinguish Heresies into two kinds some fundamentall some not fundamentall that we hold the first damnable and vtterly destructiue of Saluation and so to be carefully auoyded but that men may be saued in their heresies of the second kind Hence you say we regard not Heresies vnfundamentall we are carelesse and negligent to auoyd them being persuaded that if we hold all fundamentall truth we cannot be damned for any errour or heresy against fayth In regard of this loose doctrine and our negligence consequent thereupon you say we are in great danger of damnation This is your Plea against our Saluation so dull and so voyd of memory as you may seeme to haue forgotten euen the argument of the whole booke of Charity manitayned and of your owne For this distinction of Heresies into two sortes some Fundamentall some not Fundamental is taught by Protestants who by the largenesse laxitie of this doctrine would draw some kind of Heretiques to wit Heretiques not fundamentall within the compasse of the fold of Christ and the number of them that be saued This is the substance of D. Potters whole treatise which our maintayner impugneth Is it not thē prodigious want of memory to charge the Roman Church with this Doctrine and to seeke her damnation because forsooth she doth not care to auoyd Heresies not Fundamentall For our Roman Theology doth not allow the distinction of errours or heresies agaynst fayth into Fundamentall and not Fundamentall in your sense for we hold Heresies damnable and equally damnable as much those that are against Truths profitable only as those that destroy truths simply necessary Hence in the Way of the Roman Church he that knowing Transubstantiation to be proposed as matter of fayth by the definition of the Church shall presume to gaine say it is as full formall and very an Heretique as he who denyes the personall vnion of two Natures Diuine and Human in Christ For the greatnes of the malice of Heresy is not measured by the greatnesse of the matter denyed but by the greatnes of the pride wherby an Heretique preferres his fancies of Scripture before the definition of the Church by the greatnes of that impiety wherby he presumes to reiect that doctrine which he hath so many stronge reasons to belieue to be reuealed of God 5. If you say that Charity maintayned doth suppose that the Roman Church hath some corruptions and errours in fayth not Fundamentall I answere it is impudently in you so to affirme and great vanity to gather your affirmation from these his wordes As for our Churchs corruptions in doctrine I speake vpon the vntrue supposition of our Aduersaries you vpon no better warrant then this say to our Maintayner pag. 274. n. 58. You are so courteous as to suppose corruptions in your doctrine And a little after pag. 275. n. 59. I thanke you for your courteous supposall that your Church may erre And pag. 276. lin 2. You suppose your