as well as they Therefore we Catholicks have the life and substance of Religion pag. 60. In the prime grounds or Principles of Christian Religion we have not forsaken the Church of Rome Therefore he grants that we have the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion pag. 11. For those Catholick verities which she the Roman Church retains we yield her a member of the Catholick though one of the most unsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholicks Behold we are members of the Catholick Church which could not be if we erred in any one Fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholicks why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholick And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to urge against us and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugns himself whiles he speaks against us not distinguishing between universall as Logicians speak of it which signifies one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholick as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spread over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and upon that vain conceit telling his unlearned Reader that universall and particular are tearms repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholick cannot be affirmed of D. Potter nor D. Potter said to be a Catholick because a particular cannot be said to be universall or an universall pag. 75. To depart from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and Practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation pag. 70. They the Roman Doctors confesse that setting aside all matters controverted the main positive truths wherein all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to believe and how to live so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctors confess that setting aside all matters controverted c. is very untrue it being manifest that Catholicks believe Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we have all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledge and practise for us to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherein we differ from Protestants saith pag. 74. If the Mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and novelties he shall find in that which remains little difference of importance between us Therefore de facto we believe all things of importance which Protestants believe After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes pag. 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may believe his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse prove and the Objection which he raises from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise this Objection which he makes to himself were clearly impertinent and foolish if he could have dispatched all by saying we erre in essentiall points which had been an evident and more then a just cause to justify their separation which yet appears further by his Answer to the said Objection That to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation And afterward in the next pag. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome he saith expresly Her Communion we forsake not no more than the Body of Christ whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member though corrupted And this clears us from the imputation of Schism whose propertie it is to cut off from the Body of Christ the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ and should be cut off from the hope of salvation therefore she doth not erre in any Fundamental point p. 83. We were never disjoyned from her the Church of Rome in those main essentiall truths which give her the name and essence of a Church You must then say that she errs not in any Fundamental Point For the essence of a Church cannot subsist with any such error And that it may appear how desirous he is that it should be believed Catholicks Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion he adds these words immediately after those which we have last cited Whereof if the mistaker doubt he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholick writers One of France who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved as he believes the Hugonots and Catholicks of that Kingdom to be all of the same Church and Religion because of truths agreed upon by both And another of our Country as it is said who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors both Papists and Protestants who are all of the same mind Thus you see he ransacks all kind of proofs to shew that Catholicks and Protestants differ not in the substance and essence of Faith and to that end cites for Catholick writers those two who can be no Catholicks as Charity Maintained part 1. chap. 3. pag. 104. Shews the former in particular to be a plain Heretick or rather Atheist Lucian-like jesting at all Religion Pag. 78. he saith We hope and think very well of all those holy and devout souls which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome Nay our Charity reaches further to all those at this day who in simplicity of heart believe the Roman Religion and professe it To these words of the Doctor if we subsume But it were impossible that any can be saved even by Ignorance or any simplicitie of heart if he erre in a Fundamentall point because as by every such error a Church ceases to be a Church so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Church the Conclusion will be that we doe not erre in any Fundamentall point Nay pag. 79. he saith further We believe it the Roman Religion safe that is by Gods great Mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved we are even safe upon condition we believe that Faith to be true which we professe and for which we have suffered so long so great and so many
Christi satisfaciat c. And see Melancthon's words more vehement full and at large ibidem in his Epistle to Fredericus Miconius alleged there pag. 618. 644. post med 645. And see Hospinian in historia Sacramentar part altera fol. 68 b. And yet of Melancthon's change afterwards unto Calvinisme see the same confessed by Hospinian in Hist Sacrament part altera fol. 115. a. initio circa med fol. 141. b. initio And by Osiander in Epitom c. Centur. 16. pag. 615. initio where Osiander doth expresly charge Melancthon with inconstantia Viro Theologo indigna And see no lesse there pag. 667. Hence it is that though the Protestants in Colloq Attembergensi printed in quarto Jenae ad Salam 1570. fol. 510. b. paulo post medium do there commend and tearm Melancthon to be optimum Sanctissimum Virum c. Yet in regard of such his noted and known inconstancy in Doctrine it is also there fol. 337. b. circa medium said of him illud saltem de locis Phillippi paucis et modeste addimus Primum constare Philippum toties fere eos mutasse rebus verbis ut quibus sit fides adhibenda in dubio est Lutherum istam crebram mutationem improbasse ex fide dignis accepimus And see further of Melancthon's inconstancy the Protestant Writer Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist l. 2. fol. 91. a. post med b. fol. 92 a b. fol. 94 95. And see Osiander in Epitom c. Centur. 16 pag. 809. circa post medium pag. 703. paulo post medium where it is said of him Hujus viri eruditioni si constantia in vera religione respondisset plane incomparabilis vir extitisset c. Wherefore I may conclude with the words of Gasper Ulenbergius in libro cui titulus Granes juste cause cur Catholicis in communione veteris ejusque veri Christianismi permanendum sit c. Causa 15 c. 15. pag. 315. Edit Collon 1589 in octavo Where he saith Quamobrem non est usque adco a veritate alienum quod Melancthonem nobili cuidam Johanni Bartholomeo a Velberg consuluisse aiunt ut a Catholico communicandi atque orandi ritu non discederet ac inter cetera hoc ejus quoque verba ad eundem nobilem dicta referunt Nullum habeo digitum inquit in manu mea cujus jactur a non optarim me nunquam ad scribendum de rebus Theologicis accessisse sed vocasse Philosophiae meae quemadmodum feci a principio verum longius nunc progressus sum quam ut regredi passim hactenus Melancthon ex cujus verbis promptum est Estimare quomodo ipsius Conscientia propter grave hoc in Religione dissidium cui suscitando ipse quoque manum admovit constituta fuerit Scribit hoc Wolfangus Agricola Becanus Pastor Paltensis in Concione de Matrimonio Of Bucer 58 COncerning Bucer's [o] Brereley tract 2. c. 2. sect 10. subd 5. Doctrine among his many other grosse absurdities wherewith Mr. Cartwright allegeth in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 522. prope initium Chargeth him apud Brerely hic at l. he was so inclining to the Lybell of Divorce permitted by Moses that he doubted not to teach that as there is at this day like hardness of Hearts so the distressed Wives ought to be releived no less now than in time past For saith he the Magistrate now hath no less Authority in this matter than Moses had and at this day ought to use the same Bucer in sacra quatuor Evangel c. In Mat. 19. fol. 147. paulo post med And see the Index or table to that book under the letter R. at the word Repudium And see the other Edition of his Book Anno 1536. pag. 390 prope finem 391 ante med In Matth. c. 19. he saith apud Brereley hic at d. in the margent Sive juste sive injusté repudiata aliqua fuerit si nulla ei sit spes ad primum virum redeundi cupiat autem piè vivere maritoque opus habeat ducens eam nequaqam peccabit And in further proof of the continuance thereof to this time he yet further saith Neither is it to be beleived that Christ would forbid any thing of that which his Father commanded but he commanded to the hard of heart that if they would not intreat their wives with Nuptiall equity they should then procure liberty by a Libell of divorce to marry again Bucer ibidem paulo post apud Brereley hic at 5. And Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana de Regno Christi l. 2. c. 26 27. pag. 99 100. affirmeth further most plainly the same Doctrine ibidem c. 28. pag. 101. in which places he doubteth not to teach that Quicunque nolit c. Whosoever will not induce his mind to love his Wife and to intreat her with all conjugall Charity that man is commanded by God to put her away and marry another And that this being commanded in the old Law pertaineth also to Christians See this ibidem pag. 100 In like sort also doth he allow and defend liberty of Divorce and Marriage again in case of the ones departure from the other Bucer in script Anglican de Regno Christi l. 2. c. 26. pag. 114. c. 41. pag. 122 In case also of Homicide ibidem l. 2. c. 37. post med c. 40 initio or but repairing to the company or banquet of immâ—dest persons ibidem l. 2. c. 37. pag 115. ante med c. 40. pag. 120 post med likewise in case of incurable infirmity of the Woman by Child-birth or of the man by Lunacy or otherwise whereby either party is become unable to render marriage right Bucer ibidem c. 42. pag. 123 prope finem 124 circa med In these and many other such like cases he yet further generally concludeth the lawfullness of Divorce and Marriage again ibidem pag. 124 prope finem and see also the marginal note there where is set down Conclusio quod aliis de causis quam fornicationis concedenda sint legitima divortia novaque inire connubia And in the Text there it is said Haec adferenda putavi ad eam explicandam questionem num concedi a Christianis Principibus Rerumpub moderatoribus possit divertium facere ad alteras transire nuptias aliis quam fornicationis et stupri de causis Ex quibus siomnia rite et ex verbo Dei ponderentur satis liquebit neminem nec virum nec mulierum cui opus sit ad bene casteque vivendum conjuge ac conjuge cohabitate aut conjugii necessaria officia faciente prohibere debere quin vir talem quaer at uxorem et habeat et mulier talem virum si depreheasum evictum sit vel virum cui pia mulier nupta fuit vel mulierem quam vir pius uxorem duxit praestare necessaria conjugii officia aut abstinatè nolle aut hujusmodi
observations upon the Confession of Ausburg to indeavour by his explication to make it agreeable in sense to Calvinism And so likewise as is there testified did the Neustadians in their late admonition c. 5. they endeavoured to make the confession of Augusta which teacheth the Real Presence to be Zuinglian that is against the Real Presence exclaiming thereat and saying thereof (f) Gerhardus Giesekenius ubi supra pag. 77. prope initium Si haec res c. If this thing had been done in Arabia America Sardinia or such like remote Countries and of former times this usurpation of fraud and historical falshood were more tolerable But seeing say they the Question is of such things as be done in our own times and in the sight of all men who with a quiet mind can indure such lyes And as thus with the Lutherans so likewise with our Catholick Writers of this age is our Adversaries like practise no less notorious To forbear their exceeding boldness in alleging (g) See Erasmus and Picus alleged for Protestants in Brereley tract 2. c. 2. sect 2. in the margent at * after o. Erasmus and Picus Mirandula as Members of their Protestant Church it is beyond belief and a very wonderment that M. D. Field a man otherwise grave and learned should not be abashed by his publick writing so confidently to averre of our so many Christian Catholick Churches dispersed through the world at Luthers first appearing that they were all of them saith he (h) D. Field of the Church l. 3. pag. 76. post med 72. ante med the true Protestant Churches of God and that they which then believed those damnable errors which the Romanists now defend were a particular faction only most directly against that which so many learned Protestants have as from common knowledge most plainly and fully (i) Confessed to the contrary in Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 11. subd 3. at i e. * f. and so forwards to the end of that subdivision confessed to the contrary By which examples thus given of our Adversaries boldness with their own Protestant and our Catholick writers of this present age your most excellent Majesty may the more easily conjecture the like boldness in Mr. Jewel Mr. Whitaker and others in their provoking as before said to the antient Fathers Pu. This infamy of Protestants falsifying Authors is acknowledged and confessed by Mr. William Chillingworth who amongst all the Protestant Divines of England was pickt out to defend their cause This man in his ninth Motive to be a Catholick speaks in this manner Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the beginning maintained with gross falsifications and calumnies whereof their prime Controversy-writers are notoriously and in a high degree guilty And what do you think doth he answer to this his own Motive after he was turned Protestant Take it in his own words Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault than Protestants To which I answer that we Catholicks for our part may be well content to leave Protestant-writers with the just imputation of gross falsifyers and Calumniators of which vices he accuses them But we can give him no commission to utter against us more than he can ever prove or can have any shadow of truth For my part if any Catholick should in matters of Faith and Religion defend his cause though in it self good with falsifications and calumnies both his book and he would deserve to be purged by fire Nevertheless I must adde that there is a main difference between Catholicks and Protestants in this particular though our writers were supposed to be as guilty of this crime as he confesseth our Adversaries to be My reason is clear because we do not rely either upon our own understanding for interpreting Scripture or on the judgement and fidelity of any private person But Protestants not believing any infallible publick Judge of Controversies must depend very much on the fidelity of their prime Controversy writers whom this man first as we have heard affirmed and now again in his answer to his Motives and after he was turn'd Protestant confirms to be notoriously and in a high degree guilty of gross falsifications and calumnies 23. Besides all that hath been said the antiquity of Catholick Religion is proved by the confessed belief and practise of the Primitive Church in the time of Constantine the Great the first Christian Emperour (*) Brereley tract 2. cap. 1. sect 3. For it is evident that Constantine (e) Civitatem multis templis in honorem Martyrum illustrissimisque aedibus sacris adornavit Euseb de vita Constantini l. 3. c. 47. erected Temples in memory of Martyrs (f) Apostolorum templum ad perpetuam illorum memoriam conservandam aedificare caepit Euseb de vita Constant l. 4. c. 58. and ibidem cap. 59. it is said Haec omnia dedicavit Imperator ut Servatoris nostri Apostolorum memoriam apud omnes gentes aeternitatem compararet And Bullinger in his Treatise De origine erroris Printed Tiguri 1539. fol. 102. b. ante med saith Constantini Magni tempore Iuxus nimius templorum ornatus initia accepit dedicated a most sumptuous Church in memory of the Apostles (g) Euseb de vit Constantini lib. 4. cap. 60. saith In opportunum venturae mortis diem hic locum sibi provida dispensatione designavit c. ut detunctus quoque precationum quae ibidem essent ad Apostolorum gloriam offerendae particeps efficeretur provided his Sepulcher there to the end that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers there offered (h) The Centurists cent 4. col 452. line 29. say Constantinus etiam diem festum admodum solemnem ad celebrandam dedicationem Templi indixit c. he celebrated the dedication of the Temple with an yearly festival day (i) Ibidem cent 4. col 497. lin 50. it is said of Constantine Templorum recens extructorum consecrationes exornationes superbas alia que superstitiosa quorum maximam partem Constantinus excogitavit in multis Ecclesias propagavit This consecration of Churches was antiently done with the sign of the Cross as St. Augustine serm 19. de Sanctis testifyeth saying Crucis charactere Bafilicae dedicantur altar a consecrantur And also with sprinkling of holy water whereof see Beda hist l. 5. c. 4. and St. Gregory apud Bedam hist li. 1. c. 30. ante med and confessed by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Tim. 4. sect 13. fol. 378. a. prope initium He caused Churches new builded to be consecrated for service therein to be celebrated it being then usual for (†) The Centur. cent 4. col 408. lin 54. say Christianos in templis nondum consecratis non convenisse clarè indicat Athanasius in Apologia ad Constantium Of this Conseccation of Churches see further Concil 5. Carthag can 6. And Gelasius
any such objection as this at that time when Protestants did much affect the use of lights Altars Pictures in their Churches In the meane time who would not I know not whether to say laugh or conceive just indignation to see so great a Champion as M. Chillingworth was esteemed to object such matters as these and as causes sufficient to forsake Gods Church 96. Ninthly he specifyes our saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds to the hono◠of Saints and of Ave-Maries to the honor of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin This is not unlike to the former neither can I imagine what difficulty he can find that any good work as saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds is even in the account of Protestants and the saying of Ave-Maries must be sapposed to be in the opinion of these Protestants who allow prayers made to Saints may be offered in honor of Saints What will he say to the known doctrine of S. Augustine that although Sacrifice be offered to God only yet it may be offered in honor of Saints And much more why may not Pater-nosters and Creeds be offered in honour of Saints and Ave-Maries in honor of other Saints though the words be directed only to the Blessed Virgin In the mean time I return to say can such matters as these be alleged in the day of judgement as sufficient to excuse Luther and his followers from the grievous sin of Schism in forsaking the Communion of all Churches then extant 97. Tenthly He names the infallibilitie of the Bishop or Church of Rome Answer It cannot be expected that Protestants or any other divided from the Church of Rome will in expresse termes acknowledge her to be infallible under that word of Infallible but it hath been shewed that if they will speak with consequence to themselves they cannot deny her to be infallible while they give her such titles and grant her such Prerogatives as we have seen heretofore and deny not but that the ancient Fathers yielded her a preheminence before all other Churches and took her Doctrine and Practise for a Rule and proof of the Truth or falshood of what was believed or practised through all Christian Churches Yea and we have heard Protestants confessing that the Popes Authority for conserving unity and deciding Controversies in matters of faith is altogether necessary and that there cannot be expected any peace and union among Christians except by submitting to the Pope Besides Protestants commonly grant that the true Church is infallible in fundamental points and we must either say that the Roman Church was the true Church when Luther appeared or that Christ had no true Church on earth at that time nor hath any at this present seeing even the chiefest Protestants agree with us in many of those very points for which the first Protestants pretended to forsake all Churches extant when they appeared 98. Eleaventhly He objects our prohibiting the Scripture to be read publickely in the Church in such languages as all may understand Of this we have spoken heretofore Neither is it true that there is any general prohibition to read any Scripture in the Church in such a language as all may understand for some Preachers are wont to read in a vulgar language the Gospell of which they are to preach but our doctrine is that there is no Divine precept to use vulgar languages in the Liturgy or publick Offices recited in the name of the Church But what would he say to the custome which I have understood to have been used in Ireland of forcing people of that Nation to be present even at Sermons made in English of which they understand not one word which is a case far different from the use of an unknown tongue in the Liturgie or publick Offices ordained to the publick worship of God by the Church and not referred immediately for a Catechism or Instruction of the people as Sermons are 99. Twelfthly He strangely mentions our doctrine of the Blessed Virgines immunity from actual sin and our doctrine and worship of her immaculate Conception Answer It is a sign you want better matter while you object these points Your conscience cannot but tell you that you know we are so farr from making the immaculate Conception a point of Faith that there is a severe prohibition that neither part censure the other of Heresie Error or the like so that this Instance is manifestly impertinent The reader may be pleased to read Bellarmine tom 4. de amissione Gratiae statu peccati lib. 4. cap. 15. where he saith Quod ad primum scilicet non haberi apud Catholicos pro re certa explorata ac fide Catholica tenenda beatam Virginem sine peccato fuisse conceptam Joannes Pomeranus unus ex primis Lutheri discipulis in comment cap. 1. 44. Hierem. scribere ausus est pro articulo fidei apud Catholicos haberi B. Virginem sine ullo peccato immo etiam de Spiritu Sancto fuisse conceptam Sed hoc impudentissimum mendacium satis apertè refellunt duae Pontificum constitutiones Concilii aecumenici decretum quibus constitutionibus ac decretis Catholici omnes libenter obediunt Sixtus IV. Pontifex Max. in ea Constitutione quae incipit Gravè nimis de reliquiis veneratione Sanctorum desirtis verbis pronuntiat nondum esse quaestionem istam de Conceptione B. Virginis ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolica sede definitam ideò paenam excommunicationis statuit in eos qui alterutram sententiam ut haereticam damnare audent Judicium Sixti Pontificis sequutum est Concilium TRIDENTINUM ses 5. ac demum nostro tempore PIUS V. in constitutione quam edidit de conceptione Beatissimae Virginis Mariae Besides Protestants themselves acknowledge this point to be a thing indifferent excusable and not defined as may be seen in the fift Consideration num 4. at †next after f. in the margent at Fifthly and as Brereley tract 2. c. 2. sect 14. in the margent at †next after f. at Fifthly tract 2. c. 3. sect 5. subd 2. at f. in the margent proves saying Touching our B. Ladies being preserved from Original sin and the worshipping of Images Mr. Bunny in his Treatise tending to pacification sect 17. pag. 104. paulo ante med pag. 105. saith If any think it more honor able for the Blessed Virgin yea for Christ himself that took flesh of her to have been without sin and thereuppon for his part do rather think that by special praerogative she also was preserved from original corruption c. in these or such like whosoever will condemn all those that are not perswaded as we are committeth an uncharitable part towards those his brethren And D. Field ibid. apud Brereley pag. 499. in the margent at * expresly affirmes lib. 3. of the Church c. 42. pag. 174. post med the point concerning the Conception of our Blessed Lady to be a controversie not [ſ] Not defined saith M.
that many learned Protestants do not believe all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag. 269. n. 45. A man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himself and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of a Church consists For this cause he saith That although Protestants leave the external Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essential to a Church as Fundamental points are Therfore he supposeth the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamental Article Otherwise Protestants had left her that is they had disagreed from her in a Fundamental point P. 272. n. 52 and pag. 283. n. 73. He denies that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essential and fundamental Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag. 272. n. 52. He saith In the reason of our separation from the external Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches external Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamental points Protestants must have forsaken us chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamental errours of Faith Therefore he grants that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag. 401. n. 26. He confesseth that D. Potter saith indeed that our not cutting off your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees us from the imputation of Schism Pag. 133. n. 12. He saith expresly By confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well he makes so open a confession that we believe much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I said before we will not because we cannot yield so much to Protestants And here I must ask again how he could say Pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresie and yielding you salvation neither D. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seeing he saith that by the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we believe much more than is necessary to salvation by what Logick will he deduce that we believe not as much as is necessary 8. These so many and so clear words of D. Potter and M. Chillingworth may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty he could say Pag. 280. n. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamental it is an affected mistake as I have often told you And Pag. 308. 108. As for your obtruding upon us that we believe the Points of difference not Fundamental or necessary you have been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a Saying void of all truth and a shamefull calumny in him 9. To these testimonies of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be alleged out of other Protestants as we have seen divers other alleged by Potter D. Laud in his book against Fisher Pag. 299. saith I doe acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself Behold not only a possibility of salvation but also the reason thereof because we believe the Creed c. which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselves may be saved though they differ in many points from one another This I say is the reason of D. Laud which other Protestants must approve though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one believe the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therefore doe in this as in many other things speak inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag. 376. he saith The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therefore say I we hold no Fundamental errors wherein whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And Pag. 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I think cannot be denyed and in proof hereof Pag. 281. he alleges Luther Field Joseph Hall Geor Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And D. Jeremie Taylor in his liberty of Prophecying Pag. 251. sect 20. teaches that we keep the foundation and believe many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errors are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding which as I said may easily be believed of us Catholicks who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures And in particular he shews that Prayer for the dead and the doctrine of Transubstantiation are not Fundamental errours and also saith these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag. 258 that there is implyed as great difficulty in the mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by Idolatrie in adoring the Sacrament 10. Thus good Reader having proved out of the Confession of Protestants That the first Protestants who pretended to reform all Churches extant when they appeared led such lives and taught such Doctrines as no man of judgement can think them to have been fit Instruments for that Work That Protestants confesse the Ancient Holy Fathers to stand for us That the chiefest Protestant Writers joyn with Catholicks against other Protestants in the most principal Articles of Religion Yea even in those very points for which Luther and his followers opposed our Doctrine and forsook our Communion which deserves well to be considered That our Doctrines have been confirmed by Miracles and finally That all