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
which moueth D. Potter such other Ministers to maintaine the errours of the Roman Church to be but littleones and not damnable but because they dare not hold the contrary in regard of the vnchristian absurdities which they perceiue to be consequent theron as by the next Section will appeare All Christians of former ages damned if the errours of the Roman Church be damnable of themselues §. 5. 13. CAn any absurdity be more vast and vnchristian then this contained in the title of this paragraph What wonder if Protestants that be moderate and not carried away with precipitous zeale through horrour to be forced vnto this immanity dare not affirme that our errours are in themselues damnable though otherwise their little loue towardes vs considered they could do it with all their heart To proue this vast absurdity to be consequent vpon the said proposition we must suppose what no man doth or can deny that for many ages before Luther all the famous men for learning and sanctity who by heroicall actes of Charity and other Christian vertues and working of Miracles maintained the credit of the Christian name held the doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants contend to be erroneous The fame is also euident concerning the Fathers of the more Primitiue times and is confessed by Protestantes namly D. Whitgift late Archbishop of Canterbury Almost all the Bishops and Writers of the Greeke Church and of the Latin also for the most part were spotted with the doctrines of free-will of Merit of Inuocation of Saintes and such like So that if the Doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestantes traduce as erroneous be damnable of themselues it is consequent that the most famous Bishops Doctours and Saints in so many former Christian ages were guilty of errours in themselues and of themselues damnable which being so they should be all certainly damned without any hope of their Saluation 14. This consequence I proue by what you by write pag. 403. lin 30. They that haue vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their errours and neglect to vse them we dare not flatter with so easy a censure as to giue them hope of Saluation But the eminent Fathers and Christian Saintes of so many ages before Luther had sufficient vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their errours and yet neuer made vse of them They had excellent vnderstandings they were verst in all manner of sciences they had the holy Scripture which you say is the only meanes to know all necessary truth and to discouer all damnable errours a meanes not only sufficient but also in your iudgment most playne and easy so that men not only may but also cannot but therin discouer which be damnable errours except they wilfully shut their eyes against the light Therefore there is no hope of the saluation of the Ancient Fathers and Saintes of former Christian ages if your Proposition be true they who had sufficient vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their errours and neglected to vse them there is for them no hope of Saluation Moreouer pag. 279. num 64. lin 8. you say that which is in it selfe damnable will actually bring damnation vpon them that keep themselues in it by their owne voluntary and auoydable fault But the Ancient Fathers and holy Saints in the ages before Luther held the doctrines of the Roman Church which you account damnable full of great impiety and Idolatry they kept thēselues in them according to your groūds by their owne voluntary and auoydable fault for they had sufficient meanes to discouer their errours to wit they had the holy Scripture wherin as you say these errours are discouered not onely with sufficient but also with abundant clarity that there cannot possibly be greater you must therefore of necessity grant that these damnable and impious errours if they be such as you say they are brought actually damnation vpon the Fathers and Saints of former ages Agayne page 290. lin 2. of liuing in the Communion of the Roman Church and approuing her doctrines and practises you say Though we hope it was pardonable in them who had no meanes to know their errour yet of its owne nature and to them who did or might haue knowne their errour it was certainely damnable Now the holy Fathers and Christian Saints of former ages might haue knowne our errours if they be errours because they had the holy Scriptures in which you say such errours are discouered their damnable falshood so plainly as nothing can be more If then you say true that the Roman Religion is full of great impiety and damnable doctrines it is euidently consequent by your principles that all holy Bishops Doctours and Saints who are confessed to haue held the sayd doctrines are certainly damned for euer no hope remaining of their saluation Wherfore the reason why Protestants hold our Religion safe and a sure way to Heauen as being free from damnable errour is not Charity and excesse of good will they beare to our persons as they pretend but feare of the vast absurdity which they see consequent thereupon that so many former ages and worldes of holy Bishops Doctours Conuerters of Nations workers of Miracles and admirable Saints are certainly damned 15. There be many Protestant Ministers that could find in their hearts to grant this dismall position of the damnation of the ancient euer esteemed Saints if the same would stand them in steed to maintaine the diuision from the Roman Church yet they dare not venture cleerly to auerre so much for feare that this would produce the contrary effect and moue many of their followers to recoyle back from them For in the separation made by Luther from the Roman Church there be many piously inclined mindes carefull of their future eternity either of weale or woe cordially desirous to be secure of the happines of the one and mighty fearefull to fall into the misery of the other Should Protestant Ministers cleerly deliuer their mindes that the Roman Religion is damnable euen of it selfe a direct way to Hell and that such as walke or haue walked therein are certainely damded these piously disposed and timerous Soules would feele horrour to be of the Protestant Religion which cannot be the way of saluation except the Roman Christianity so great so glorious so continued from Christ and his Apostles contayning within her bosome so many worlds of holy Bishops learned and pious Pastours and of admirable Saints be damned at least all the intelligent Professors therof The apprehension of this dreadfull and dangerous state amazed euen the stout and curst heart of Luther whē he saw himselfe engaged in a course out of which he could not issue with saluation except so many former ages of Saints were damned How often sayth he did my heart tremble and pant within my breast obiecting against me that most stronge argument Art thou onely wise Did so many Christian worldes in former ages all erre What if perhaps
pardonable by Gods great mercy From the number of all Protestants whose Religion you defend to be a safe Way I hope Socinians or new Samosatenians are not excluded These hold that Christ Iesus is not the Eternall only begotten Sonne of God yea that he was and is a meere man though an holy man and a great Prophet Will you say that this errour which conceaues no more diuinely of Christ then do the very Turkes is not greater then any we maintayne not more fundamental and essentially destructiue of Saluation If you do most Protestants in England will thinke you worthy of the Fagot 22. Fourthly Pag. 290. num 87. you write that Protestants seing they be not free from errours that it is hardely possible but they must be guilty of extreme impiety In that place you endeauour to answere our Argument that it was great imprudency in Protestants to forsake the whole visible Catholique Church for errours not fundamentall seing they confesse that in their separation against her they could not be sure of not falling into errours of the like quality and note yea into greater to wit fundamental You are in this point eager and protest that Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to auoyd this mischiefe of erring at the least vn-fundamentally that they proclaime to all the world that it is most prone and easy to do so to all those that feare God and loue the truth and hardely possible for them to do otherwise without supine negligence and extreme impiety Ponder I pray you this place and conferre it with other passadges of your booke you will see that you make all Protestants extremely impious For it is most prone and easy for Protestants that feare God and loue the truth to auoyd all errours specially such as need pardon and be damnable in themselues so that it is hardely possible for them to be in any errour without supine negligence and extreme impiety Now there are not any Protestants in the world no not English Protestants by name whome you dare defend to be free from errours not fundamentall and millions of them as you confesse are by the sinne of their will betrayed into and kept in errours damnable in themselues Ergo it is hardly possible but all Protestants must be guilty of supine negligence and extreme impiety about matters of Fayth Which being so how is that Religion a safe way of Saluation in which hardly any be saued yea how be not their errours vnpardonable seing you write Pag 275. lin 15. that God is infinitely iust and therefore it is to be feared will not pardon Catholiques who might easely haue come to the knowledge of the truth but through negligence would not How then will he pardon Protestants to whome it was you say most prone and easy to haue come to the knowledge of the truth and to haue auoyded all errours but would not through supine negligence and extreme impiety 23. I haue been the larger in declaring and strenghthening this Argument and shewing the insuperable force therof First because it is the Argument most vrged by the pithy and learned Catholique Treatise of Charity mistaken as also by Charity maintayned both which bookes by the cleering of this point are shewed to remayne vnanswered Secondly because this Argument from the confession of our Aduersaries as it is cleere manifest and conuincing so it is within the reach and capacity of euery one For who so stupide voyd of sense as not to see that Religion to be the safer which is confessed to be safe euen in her Aduersaries iudgment grounded vpon the neuer fayling principles of Christian Charity wisdome and truth The Second Conuiction THough we should grant that most vntrue and impossible supposition that the Roman Church erreth yet it would be impossible that Catholiks should be damned for following her errours The reason is because their erring cannot but be excused by ignorance inuincible wheras Protestantes if they erre damnably as without doubt they do neither by shelter of Ignorance nor of Generall Repentance can they be saued Three Suppositions §. 1. 1. TO proue this we must suppose three thinges which are knowne and notorious truths First that Christians who belieue in Christ the eternall Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world cannot be damned for any errours of ignorance inuincible or for any inuoluntary erring This truth you often affirme in some passages of your booke and deny it as often in other Pag. 19. lin 27. you say That if in me alone were a confluence of all such errours of all Protestantes in the world that were thus qualified with ignorance inuincible I should not be so much afrayd of them all as I should be to aske pardon for them c. To aske pardon of simple and purely inuoluntary errours is tacitely to imply that God is angry with vs for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he giues no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reape where he sowed not of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot do Heare you make it a kind of blasphemy to say that involuntary errours are pardonable or need pardon because the very saying they were pardonable importes they need pardon and consequently that God is offended with vs for them Notwithstanding that errours purely inuoluntary or of inuincible ignorance be pardonable and need pardon from Gods great mercy you frequently professe speaking of our errours Pag. 308. lin 41. We hold your errours damnable in themselues yet by accident through ignorance inuincible we hope they were not vnpardonable Pag. 291. lin 4. Your erring was we hope pardonable in them that had no meanes to know their errours Pag. 263. lin 27. Your errours were in themselues damnable yet we hope that those amongst you that were inuincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned and their soules saued This is your wauering and tottering manner of discoursing but the truth is God is not offended with errours of ignorance inuincible because God is offended only for sinne wheras inuoluntary erring cannot be sinne because to be voluntary is of the nature and difinition of Sinne. 2. Secondly we suppose that the Roman doctrines which Protestants accuse to be errours are definitions of Generals Councells and were for many ages the publike receiued doctrine in the whole visible Christian Church for which reason you say That euen the visible Church is not free from damnable errours Thirdly we suppose that it is vnlawfull and damnable for any man to depart from the Roman Church to forsake her doctrine or to oppose the definition of a Generall Councell except he haue apparent and euident reasons which demonstrate that the truth stādeth on his side This you teach pag. 272. n. 53. It concernes euery man that separates from any Churches Communion euen as much as his
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
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