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
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
that some Protestants leauing the Roman Church haue fallen away by degrees euen from the Fundamentals of Christianity 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 followers distinctly