6. fine in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 14. circa med pag. 89. acknowledgeth a particular blessing of God in the Church of Rome and an evident work of the Holy Ghost saying That the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the faith since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them c. and hath also in some manner preserved and hitherto maintained both the Word and Sacraments that Christ himself did leave unto us which surely saith he is a very special blessing of God and an evident work of the Holy Ghost c. To make good saith Brereley ibidem in the margent at †M. Bunny's words of the evident work of the Holy Ghost in preservation of the Roman Sea the same hath appeared many waies extraordinary and admirable As first in that the other four Patriarchal Seas are noted and known to have been pestered every one of them with confessed Arch-hereticks or Inventers of new doctrines against some principal Article of our Christian faith As at Antioch Paulus Samosetanus at Hierusalem Joannes and Arsenius at Alexandria Dioscorus at Constantinople Macedonius and Nestorius onely the Sea of Rome hath been preserved free from all such known note or touch For howsoever our Adversaries do pretend some one or other Pope to have had his private errour yet to charge any Pope with being an Arch heretick as before-said they have not any colour Secondly in that the Cities of all the other Patriarchal Seas and the Bishops belonging to them now are and of long have been oppressed with Infidels and their succession is either none or but inglorious whereas God hath yet hitherto disposed otherwise of the City and Sea of Rome Thirdly in the example of so many great Christian Kingdomes and Countryes in Asia Africk and Europe which forsaking the Communion of this Sea became not long afterwards barbarous and subject to Infidels accordingly as it is foretold of the true Churches prerogative The Nation and Kingdome that will not serve thee shall perish and those Nations shall be utterly destroyed Esay 60.12 Fourthly in that this is the onely Sea or Church which is confessed by our Adversaries to have continued known and visible for these last thousand or 1300 years whereof see Brereley tract 1. sect 2. at k. l. sect 8. in the margent at c. tract 2. c. 2. sect 7. fine at 3 4 5 6 c. converting also to the Christian faith during all that time by its Legats and Preachers so many confessed Nations and Kingdomes of the Gentiles agreeable to the predictions of the Prophets in that behalf whereof see Brereley tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. initio in the margent at* Fifthly in that this Sea hath been persecuted by the contrary factions of so many Christian Princes by the very Citizens and Cardinals of Rome by the Schisms Factions and wicked lives of the Popes themselves by the implacable hatred and contradiction of so many confessed heresies and hereticks of every age conspiring all of them howsoever divided otherwise among themselves to malign and impugn this Sea as the principal object of their daily continued malice So Hell gates may be said to have assaulted her and yet not prevailed Matth. 16.18 Upon which consideration but duely had of all Hereticks though divided among themselves yet joyning so together in malice against the Roman Sea how can that out-faced opinion of our Adversaries be possibly true which M. D. Downham in his treatise concerning Antichrist l. 2. pag. 22. ante med delivereth saying We hold Antichrist to be the whole body of Hereticks in the last age of the world c. The head of which body is the Papacie The Pope to be their Head and yet he ever against them all and they all ever against him is it possible 6. Pu. Besides what hath been said out of Brereley of this point that Protestants confess that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation I will shew the same yet more at large D. Potter in his Answer to Charity mistaken pag. 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanists as he calls us the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learned Protestants yield them c. In proof whereof he cites in his margent Iunius D. Reinolds and sayes See the judgement of many other writers in the advertisement annexed to the old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaptists grant it Fr. Johnson in his Christian Plea pag. 123. So that with this one Testimonie of Potter we have many other even of our greatest Adversaries And pag. 62. he saith To those twelve Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholicks have added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and unwritten dogmaticall Traditions their Transubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of the Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new doctrines and decrees canonized in their late Synod of Trent Upon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we have cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we believe the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to contain all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therefore those Points of our Doctrine which he gives for instance are no Fundamentall errors nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the chiefest Points controverted between us and Protestants even Transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose Yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councill of Trent Therefore we are free from Fundamentall errors by the confession of our Adversaries pag. 59. he further saith The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old The reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure qualities If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the old Church and if it were only cleansed from corrupt qualities without change of the substance the substance must be still the same it was and that which was must be still the same with that which is pag. 61. The things which the Protestants believe on their part and wherein they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaries themselves do avow and receive them
defence of their foresaid Doctrine For they alleage Amos 3.6 and Esay 45.7 apud Calvinum ubi supra pag. 542. b. ante med 1 Reg. 22.21 p. 346. a. ante med and Hieremie 10.32 apud Calvinum ubi supra pag. 541. b. post med ad Epist ad Rom. c 7. ubi supra pag. 542. a. initio 1 Joan. 3.9 ubi supra pag. 547. b. post med with testimonies of Scriptures all [u] Calvin ubi supra pag. 527. b. post med pag 543. a. ante med Epicurism and impure liberty of life I sayd upon the very foresaid grounds For it appeareth by Calvins report of their words in tract Theologic pag. 540. a. circa med their chief reason to be cùm Deus rerum omnium author sit nullum jam boni mali discrimen esse habendum sed quicquid agitur bonum esse because whatsoever God doth is good And Calvin ibidem pag. 518. a. ante med saith of the same Libertines Temulenti isti à Deo fieri omnia perstrepentes eum mali Authorem constituunt Deinde quasi immutetur mali natura cùm sub hoc nominis velo tegitur bonum esse affirmant c. And Calvin also ubi supra pag. 542. b. paulo post medium saith furthermore of one of their chief men Persuadet nihil esse mali in stupris adulteriis cùm à Deo fieri omnia cognoscimus And again ibidem pag. 543. a. paulo ante medium he saith yet further of him In summa huc tantùm spectat ut discrimen tollat boni mali ut nemini quidvis facere aut perpetrare Religio sit cùm omnia Deo tribuat And like as Calvin excuseth the absurdity of his like Doctrin pretending it to be inexplicable and above understanding requiring therefore our humble belief thereto saying Instit l. 1. c. 18 sect 3. Ubi non capimus quomodo fieri velit Deus quod facere vetat veniat nobis in memoriam nostra imbecillitas simul reputemus lucem quam inhabitat non frustra vo ari inaccessam quia caligine obducta est so they in like excuse of their Doctrine say as Calvin ubi supra pag. 540. a. prope finem reporteth their words Omnes nostri sensus Deo subjiciendi sunt nec quicquam de sapientia nostra persuasum habere debemus mens nostra subigenda ut veluti captiva Christo morem gerat So agreeable verbatim almost are they with the foresaid reason delivered by Calvin that Calvin immediatly upon his foresaid recital of their said words addeth saying thereof Quod ipsi fatemur imò nullo utitur apparatu hic impostor quem ex Doctrina nostra furatus non sit So confessedly doth their Doctrine jump and agree with Calvin in the very first grounds and reasons thereof 41. Although [x] See Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 13. initio the Nycene Councel and Athanasius his received Creed be that Christ is very God of very God Yet saith Whitaker contra Camp 208. pag. 121. circa med of Calvins opinion to the contrary which condemneth this for barbarous Howsoever the Fathers of the Nycene Councel affirm Christ to be God of God Calvin nevertheless affirmeth that we are strongly to believe that Christ is God himself Utcunque Patres illi Niceni Christum esse dixerint Deum de Deo tamen firmissimè tenendum esse confirmat Calvinus Christum ex se habere ut Deus sit nisi volumus Christum sua Divinitate spoliare And Danaeus contra Bellarminum part 1. ad Controvers 2. cap. 19. pag. 121. saith Hanc phrasin Deus de Deo verè sensit scripsit Calvinus impropriam esse ac barbariem redolere And which is most fearful that if the Father have his essence of himself the Son his of the Father and the Spirit from them both do not then three Essences hereupon arise Si Pater saith Calvin in admonitione ad Polonos extant in tract Theologic pag. 793. b. fine suum esse habet à seipso Filius suum esse à Patre Spiritus ab utroque annon tres Essentiae emergent All which to forbear the Fathers is contrary to the testimony both of Scripture Christ saying as the Father hath life in himself so likewise hath he given to the Son to have life in himself John 5.26 And again As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father John 6.57 and to the other more sober learned Protestants For Szegedinus in loc com pag. 634. paulo post med saith directly Dicendum est Filium eam ipsam Deitatem quae est Patris habere non ex sese sed ex Patre Also Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. pag. 113. initio saith The Father alone is originally that Deity which Christ is not And see him further pag. 106. fine 113. ante medium Which his assertion D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 16.17 specially defendeth affirming further pag. 17. initio that Christ hath received his substance by the gift of eternal generation pag. 18. ante med that Christ is God by being of God light by issuing out of light and more plainly yet ibid. pag. 121. Also Mr. Fox Apoc. pag. 474. initio saith Christus Deus ex Deo And Lobecius in disput 30. Theolog pag. 49. saith Filius non solum id quo Filius dicitur habet à Patre verum etiam suam Essentiam Solus enim Pater vitam seu Essentiam habet à seipso And D. Dove in his Confutation of Atheism pag. 37. fine saith God the Father from everlasting understanding himself begat his Son coeternal with himself c. And the confession of Belgia in the Harmony c. pag. 34. initio saith We believe that Christ in respect of his Divine Nature is the only Son of God And Melancthon in loc com of An. 1561. pag. 24. fine saith Pater aeternus sese intuens gignit cogitationem sui quae est imago ipsius dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia cogitatione generatur and ibid. pag. 25. initio he saith Secunda Persona filius dicitur quia de substantia Patris natus est Moreover Calvin Epist 2. ad Polonos extant in his tract Theolog. c. pag. 396. a. paulo ante medium saith Precatio vulgo trita est Sancta Trinitas unus Deus miserere nostri mihi non placet ac omninò barbariem sapit Calvin also affirms that the Son hath his substance distinct from the Father in Act. Serveti pag. 872. and passim Hereof see also Cnoglerus in his tria symbola pag. 34. and he Calvin also saith that according to his Divinity he maketh intercession to God the Father in Ep. ad Polones and see also his words in respons ad Polonos extant in tract Theolog. c. pag. 791. b. fine and that the name of God is properly attributed to the Father by way of excellency in tract Theolog. c. in explicat perfid Gentilis pag.
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.
appeareth most plainly 1. By their own most evident testimonies 2. By their like confessed examples thereof given And 3. By their undoubted answerable practice To give proof of every of these parts 1. And first concerning their testimonies in this kind M. D. Baro saith [e] M. D. Baro in his four Sermons and two Questions dispâ—ted ad Clerum c. Serm. 3. pag. 448. fine I dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God And M. Hooker also saith [f] M. Hooker in his fist Book of Ecclesiastical Policy pag. 188. initio and Joannes Regius in his Libeâ— Apologeticus c. in considerat Censurae c. pag. 95. saith In Papatu autem cùm suerit Ecclesia vera c. The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the House of God a limb of the visible Church of Christ and [g] M. Hooker ubi supra pag. 130. ante med We gladly acknowledge them to be of the Family of Jesus Christ M. Bunny likewise saith of Catholicks and Protestants [h] M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 18. pag. 109. circa med Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God [i] M. Bunny ubi supra pag. 113. post med we are no several Church from them nor they from us In like sort doth M. D. Some in defence thereof against Penry the Puritan say [k] M. D. Some in his defence against M. Penry and refutation of many absurdities c. in M. Penry 's treatise pag. 164. ante med That the Papists are not altogether aliens from Gods covenant I have shewed before for [l] M. D. Some ubi supra pag. 182. iâ—icio in the judgement of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministry a true Christ c. [m] M. D. Some ubi supra pag. 176. propè finem If you think that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you think absurdly and dissent from the judgement of the learned Protestants Also M. D. Field saith †M. D. Field Of the Church l. 3. cap. 46. fine pag. 182. initio We doubt not but the Church in which the Bishop of Rome with more than Luciferlike pride exalted himself was notwithstanding the true Church of God that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ and by force thereof did convert many from errour c. In like sort doth M. Thomas Morton affirm in express words that †M. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel and of the Church pag. 94. fine Papists are to be accounted the Church of God because saith he they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world Lastly to omit many * Peter Martyr as it appeareth by his Epistles annexed to his Common Places in English pag. 153. a fine desired at the Conference had at Poisy between the Catholicks Protestants that they should not for diversity of opinion break brotherly charity nor call one another Hereticks And see the same opinion yet further affirmed by the Protestant writer against Nicholas Machiavel printed at London 1602. pag. 80. post med 83. paulò post med 85. propè finem others M. D. Covel in his late Treatise published by authority and dedicated to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury defendeth this opinion at large and concludeth saying [n] M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker 's five Books of Ecclesiastical Policy published by authority pag. 77. ante med We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of Christ and that those that live and dye in that Church may notwithstanding be saved Insomuch as he doubteth not to charge the Puritans with [o] M. D. Covel ubi supra pag. 68. paulò post med ignorance for their contrary opinion Hitherto concerning their testimonies before undertaken 2. Secondly as concerning now their like confessed examples we will out of very many allege onely some few It will not we think be denied but that our late Soveraign King Henry the eighth did after his breach with Rome believe and maintain the whole frame and substance of our Catholick faith the Article of the Popes Primacy onely excepted To which end their own Author Sleydan saith of him [2] Sleydan in English l. 13. fol. 174. a. initio He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome but kept still his doctrine and M. Fox saith accordingly [3] Fox Act. Mon. pag. 1472. b. fine He set forth and by full consent of Parliament established the Book of six Articles containing the sum of Popish Religion And it is evident that he himself in person not onely as then disputed [4] Act. Mon. pag. 530. a. 〈◊〉 b. initio but also [5] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med commanded [5] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med sentence to be pronounced against Lambert as also the Lord Cromwel read and [6] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. pronounced that sentence and at his own death protested himself [7] Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. circa med and see Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 591. to dye in the Catholick faith not doubting in any Article of faith or Sacrament of the Church though saith he many have slandered me to the contrary And yet he is commended by M. Fox to dye as [8] Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. post med a valiant Souldier and Captain of Christ As also the Church under the reign of King Henry the eighth is by M. Fulk affirmed to be a true [9] M. Fulk against Hâ—â—kitâ—s Sanders c. pag. 564. sect 80 82. Church and the King himself acknowledged in like manner for [10] Fulk ubi supra sect 82. and se D. Humfrey in jesuitismi part 2. rat 3. pag. 304. circa med a member of the Catholick Church of Christ In like sort [11] Osiander cent 12. pag. 309. post med S. Bernard lived some 400 years since as M. Jewel confesseth even [12] Jewel in his defence of the Apology printed 1571. pag. 557. paulò ante med and see Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 2. pag. 154. ante med in the midst of the Popes rout and tyrannie And as we find he was not troubled or gainsaid so much as in any one Article different from the doctrine of the Roman Church at that time so we find confessed to the contrary that he acknowledged even the [13] Bernard l. 2. de considerat 2d Eugenium vide Epist 125. 131. epist 190. ad Innocentium and see this confessed by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Luc. 22. sect 11. fol. 133. b. post initium and by M. Whitaker l. 2. contra Duraeum pag. 154 ante med Popes
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