images of Christ crucifyed vsed in the Church with Apostolicall allowance we haue the plaine words of S. Paul Gal. 3.1 O senselesse Galathians who hath be witched you not to obey the Gospel before whose eyes Christ Iesus is painted Crucifyed among you The Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liuely set forth in the picture of his Crucifixion so that S. Paul proueth the Galatians were senselesse people that honoring Christ Iesus pictured before their eyes as crucifyed yet did not hope for Saluation by his Crosse and Crucifixion but by Circumcision and the obseruances of the Law This sense being according to the plaine proper and literall sense of the wordes Protestants are bound by the rule of their Religion to admit thereof and cannot without impiety refuse it and expound the place of metaphoricall Painting except they can euidently demonstrate this sense to be false or incongruous against the Apostles intent which they will neuer be able to do 8. If you say that this text at the most proueth the vsing of Images for the representation not honoring of them I answere with the learned M. Montague your Bishop of Chichester that in the vsing of Images for memory sake the honouring of them is necessarily included which he proueth euidently and together affirmes that it is strange that any Christian should be displeased with the Doctrine That respect and honour is to be giuen to Images 9. The Persons of the Trinity we picture not but only the person of Goa the Sonne in the forme and shape of man as personally he was Onely we represent the type wherein God the Father appeared to wit the forme of the Ancient of dayes described Dan. 7. and the type wherein the Holy Ghost appeared the forme of a Doue recorded Math. 3. 10. For Inuocation of Angels we haue the practise and example of holy Iacob Gen. 84.15 The Angell which deliuered me from all euill blesse these Children which text you cannot answere without iugling and changing the Angell into the figure of another substance 11. For the sufficiency of the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread we haue the expresse warrant of our Lord Ioan. 6.59 He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer And for the practise of Communion in one kind for lay men we haue his example Luc. 24.30.31 12. For the adoration of the Sacrament we haue the Scripture in the plaine and proper sense For sayth D. Morton your B. of Durham If the words of Christ be true in a proper and literall sense we must yield vnto Papists the whole cause of Transubstantiation c. the proper adoration of the Sacrament 13. That we prohibite certaine orders of men women to mary is a slander They freely without constraint prohibite themselues whiles by vow they bind their fayth and fidelity vnto Christ to liue single and chast peculiarly consecrated to his seruice Which fayth and fidelity if they violate and make voyd by consequent Mariage as your first reformer the Frier did who married a Nunne we hold their state sacrilegious and damnable which is the expresse doctrine of S. Paul 1. Tim. 5.12 14. The Controuersy which language is fittest and of most edification in Church seruice whether the vulgar which is best knowne in this or that particular country or some learned language Greeke or Latin which be best knowne in the whole Christian Church cannot be determined by Scripture as hath beene already proued So that measuring the way of Saluation euen by the rule of the Bible only the Roman Religion is the plainer and safer Way better warranted euen by expresse texts of Scripture The Ninth Conuiction THe chiefe Fundamental ground of the security Roman Catholiques enioy that they are in the right Way of Saluation according to which if they walke they cannot be damned is the direction of an infallible guide the holy Catholique Church which is no other but the Roman This is conuinced by what your self are forced to grāt as hath been shewed but because this businesse is the maine and the totall I will here repeate some of the passages though very briefly 1. First conuicted by the wordes of S. Paul you grant that the visible Catholique Church is the pillar and ground of truth that is the teacher of all necessary and profittable truth by duty and office yea that she is always in fact the teacher of all truth necessary to Saluation For say you that the true Church alwayes shall be the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth we grant and must grant For it is of the essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable Thus you grant that there is and alwayes shall be a Catholique Church which shall not only belieue inwardly and in heart but also teach and a propose without fayle all diuine reuelation necessary to Saluation For it is her very essence to be so Wherefore not only in belieuing but also in teaching and proposing all necessary truth she can no more faile then from her owne being which is indefectible Hence she is and you must grant she is an infallible guide in Fundamentalls Because to shew men the way to heauen by teaching them all reuealed truth that is necessary to bring them thither what is it but to be a guide of men vnto Saluation shewing them the Fundamental doctrines of Christian Religion without which no man is saued 2. Secondly the visible Catholique Church being as you grant she is an infallible teacher or guide in Fundamentalls must of necessity be also infallible in all her proposalls The necessity of this consequence you deny a thousand tymes and almost in euery period of your third Chapter yet you affirme it in expresse termes Pag. 105 n. 139. lin 23. To say that the Church is an infallible guide in Fundamentals were to oblige our selues to find some certain Society of men of whome we might be certain that they neither do nor can erre in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamental and what is not and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make her infallible in all thinges she proposes and requires to be belieued Which truth you proue vnanswerably Pag. 148. n. 36. 3. Thirdly the visible Catholique Church being a guide in Fundamentals that is alwayes a Teacher of all necessary truth is a Church c of one denomination that is some settled certaine Society of Christians knowne and distinguished from other Societies by adhering to such a Bishop This is proued by this Syllogisme wherein both the premises be your owne formall assertions The Church is appointed of God to be the teacher and guide of men in the way of Saluation and so she is able and fit for that office For God would not by his word haue appointed her an office for which she is vnfit and vnable
to perferme it yea you say the Church is not only able to performe the office of guide but also that alwayes in fact she doth exercise the same in teaching all necessary truth But you say pag. 163. lin 9. A Church of one denomination distinguished from all others by adhering to such a Bishop such a determinate Church alone can performe the office of Guide and Directour And Pag. 105. n. 239. lin 30. No Church can possibly be fit to be a guide but only a Church of some certaine denomination as the Greeke the Roman the Ahissine Wherefore the Visible Catholique Church being fit and able to performe the office of Guide and Directour as you grant she is and that it is essentially necessary that she be so she is and of necessity must be a Church of one denomination subiect to one certaine supreme Guide and Bishop 4. From these most certaine truthes by you granted approued and proued it is necessarily and euidently consequent that the Roman Church is the Visible Catholique Church of God an infallible Teacher of all fundamentall and necessary truth yea infallible in all thinges she proposes as matter of fayth This I say is cleerely consequent of the former grants For the visible Church being the Guide Teacher and Directour of men is on the one side a Church of one denomination else she could not performe that office of guide which she doth as you confesse alwayes actually performe On the other side being the Catholique that is the Vniuersall Church she must be spread ouer the face of the earth as the Roman is in Europe Africa Asia America and in many of the particular Kingdomes and Prouinces of these foure quarters of the world So that the wordes of S. Paul to the Romans come to be verified no lesse now then at that time your fayth is renowned and published in the whole world Which vniuersality or vniuersal Vnity agrees to no other Church of one denomination as is manifest Wherefore the Roman Church is the Holy Catholique Church the infallible guide of men in the way of Saluation 5. Hence is concluded the security of Roman Catholiques that they cannot possibly erre about matters of fayth so long as they follow the dogmatical directions and definitions of the Roman Church Contrariwise they who oppose what they know to be proposed by her as matter of fayth erre Heretically damnably and cannot possibly be saued without expresse repentance of their errours The Conclusion 6. THis argument of the assured Saluation of Roman Catholiques and of the assured damnation of all the knowing opposers of their Religion and Church being thus euidently demonstrated for Conclusion I could wish an Ocean of teares of bloud endued with the quality of mollifying hearts as hard as the Adamant for so I might condignely and fruitefully deplore the pittifull state the commiserable condition the vnfortunate thraldome in Errour of many millions in our deare Country caused by mortall auersion from the true Catholique Church which is instilled into their mindes by Heretical education 7. They grant conuicted by the euidence of Gods word that the Catholique Church is the ground and rocke of Truth wheron men may securely rest and rely an infallible Guide and teacher of all Fundamentals consequently of all euen profitable truth about Diuine matters They further acknowledge conuicted by experience and reason that the Church cannot be fit orable to performe the office of guide Directour except it be of one denomination of one obedience subiect to one determinate Bishop as her supreme Pastour and Gouernour They cannot but see with their eyes there is no Church Catholique or vniuersally diffused of one Fayth of one Obedience of one Denomination subiect to one Pastour acknowledged of all of that Religion but the Roman Consequently that there is no Church besides the Roman fit or able to performe the office of Guide and Directour to men that are saued as the true Catholique Church is bound to do and alwayes actually doth These thinges they confesse or see and yet so inflexible is the obstinacy the passion pride against the Roman Church wherwith Education like Medusa's head hath dulled stupifyed and instoned their soules as they contemne her Direction forsakes her Communion hate her Authority scorne her Motherly care of their Saluation running to perdition in the way of their owne fallible and palpably false conceytes fancied to be Scripture 8. Why did our Sauiour make his Church the pillar and ground of truth that is an infallible Teacher of the doctrine of Saluation but that he would haue men to make vse of her teaching As knowing that through a world of errours which carry with them a faire shew of truth they could not attayne to eternal Happinesse without a Visible infallible Guide No doubt when he gaue her the office of Mother he bound vs as we would be his Children and Heyres to loue honour and reuerence Her and to liue alwayes in the lap of her Communion When he gaue her the office of Guide he bound vs to follow her directions as we desire to speed in our iourney to him and to come to see for euer his Blessed face When he gaue her the office of Rocke he obliged vs to build our fayth and hope of Saluation on her Teaching assuring vs that no sublimity of wit vnderstanding no height of perfection be it in our conceite neuer so eleuate can reach to Heauen which is not grounded on the neuer-fayling fortitude of this Rocke 9. They then that haue disioyned themselues from the wombe and lap of this Mother can neuer be so in Gods fauour as to be his Children the Heyres of his glory the fellow heyres with Christ They that follow not the Directions of this euer vn-erring Guide be not in the way towardes him that is Truth and Life but wander in a wildernesse of Errour the issue wherof is eternall Death· They that haue not setled the feete of their Fayth and Affection on this Rocke the sole Rocke of safety in this vast Ocean of dangers what are they but wauing and wauering Babes floating in a sea of vncertainties tossed this way and that way with euery gust of erroneous doctrine 10. For a man not to belieue that our Sauiour did institute his Church to continue for euer the Teacher of all sauing truth the Rocke of Saluation against which the gates of Hell shall neuer preuayle what is this but to stop his eares against the cleer and plaine voyce of his word For a man to say that he gaue the office of Guide to a confused multitude and Chaos of different Religions and Obediences and not to a Church of one denomination which alone is able to performe that office what is it but to open his mouth into blasphemies against his Diuine Wisedome For a man not to see that there is no vniuersally diffused Church in the world of one fayth and obedience all the Professours thereof adhering
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
Alfarache his saying that the Fooles Hospital is of large extent to be most true He can range and reuell within the compasse thereof in a world of sottish extrauagances from hoat to cold from snow to fire from Oxford to London from London to Toledo from Toledo backe againe to King and Country and then fetch a new carriere ouer the whole Vniuerse and euery part thereof to be sure that no part is greater then the whole What is impertinentcy what is deserting the matter and argument in hand if this be not Good Syr be pleased to vnderstand that the Controuersy betwixt D. Potter and our Maintayner is not about all Kind of propositions nor whether snow be blacke or fire cold nor about your not being Arch-Bishop of Canterbury nor about the way from your Hall to your Chamber but about propositions pertayning to Christian faith not euident to sense but only to be knowne by reuelation from heauen Our Maintayner auoucheth that these Diuine truths cannot be knowne assuredly but by the teaching of Gods Church infallible in all her proposals This he proueth not as you feigne by this principle He that may possibly erre can neuer be sure he doth not erre but by this He that may erre and hath some times erred by following some certaine Rule can neuer be sure he doth not erre by following the same rule If a Iudge condemne a man to death wrongfully vpon euidence giuen against him by two witnesses how can he be sure that he doth not condemne another man vniustly if he haue no greater assurance then the deposition of two witnesses not knowne to be of better credit conscience A traueller hath been misguided out of his way by inquiring of the first man he met trusting his direction how can he be sure he is not out of his way by crediting the word of another directour equally vnknowne vnto him This then is the Argument of Charity Maintayned which you durst not encounter but ran about the world in the wild-goose chase to auoyd the force thereof No man can be sure he doth not erre by following a rule which is fallible and deceitfull But to iudge of the sense of the Scripture by the sole seeming euidence of the text is a rule fallible which often fayleth and deceaueth them who rely thereon because many places are not taken in their plain proper literall sense and many texts considered by themselues seeme cleere and plaine which conferred with other texts that seeme to say the contrary become darke and obscure Therefore to discerne the true sense and meaning of Scripture by the sole seeming euidence of some text thereof is a rule fallible Protestāts by the sole direction therof can neuer be sure or infallibly certain about any mystery of faith 10. And I pray you good Sir leaue your wild vagaries come home to the litle closet of your wits hold them close to the matter and then tell vs A Protestant who denyes the wordes of Christ This is my Body to be true in their plain proper and literall sense how can he be sure himselfe or how can he assure others that this text The word was made flesh is to be taken and true in the plain proper and literal sense Do not tell vs that you know the way from your Hall to your chamber that snow is white fyre hoat M. Knot is not Arch-Bishop of Toledo but giue vs an assured rule whereby to know that this text The word was made flesh is literally to be vnderstood in the plain substantial sense the text This is my body ought to be figuratiuely interpreted so that the Body of Christ be taken for but a peece of Bread The meane while I conclude that Protestants seing they haue not any infallible rule to assure them of the sense of Scripture cannot firmely belieue the Mysteries reuealed therein and so they haue not such a persuasion of the truth of Gods word as is worthy of God and pleasing to him nor will they euer obtayne sauing fayth till they ioyne with Roman Catholiques to acknowledge the infallible authority of the visible Catholike Church The seauenth Conuiction BEcause you cannot damne Roman Catholiques for any want of necessary and fundamentall truth you endeauour to procure their damnation and plead earnestly for it in regard they do not endeauour to know all profitable truth In which discourse you prodigiously contradict other assertions of your Booke By the discouery of which damnation will be seene to fall a way from vs vpon your owne head togeather with the cause meritorious thereof the not caring to auoyd vnfundamentall heresies 1. First you contradict your selfe in the same sentence wherby you make your Way plaine and yet impossible to be gone Pag. 221 lin 19. This is a way so plaine as fooles cannot except they will erre from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth not being free from errour but endeuoring to know the truth and obey it and to be free from errour is by this Way made the onely condition of Saluation It is strange you should say that fooles cannot erre from your Way vnlesse they will whereas your selfe being so wise a man haue erred so mightily from your Way no doubt against your will as you are gone a contrary way In the first part of your saying you pronounce your Way to be so plaine as fooles except they will cannot misse of being saued therein but in the second you require so much and so hard conditions of Saluation as you make the same wholy impossible for fooles and ignorant persons and morally impossible euen to the learned'st leaders of your flocke For you require to Saluation that men know not onely all necessary truth but also that they endeauour to know all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth For by vertue of your speach they are bound to endeauour for the knowledge of that truth which in this sentence you say they are not bound to know But the truth you say in this sentence they are not bound to know is not all necessary truth but all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth Ergo your followers are bound as they will be saued though not to know yet to labour endeauour study to know all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth about Diuine matters Which is as much as to say that none can be saued in your way but such as haue studied Diuinity and haue not omitted so much as one question thereof not only about profitable points of that Science but also about vnnecessary and vnprofitable quirks absolutely all What can be imagined more vaine fond and absurd then to bind all men as they will be saued to study and endeauour for the knowledg of all Diuinity and Diuine truth And yet such is your desire to damne vs as you will do it vpon any condition though your selfe and all other Protetestants be damned in our company 2. Secondly you grossely
of so grosse ignorance and non-sense as this No verily But perchance the matter is this you say that Protestants to whome the Roman Religion appeareth though but probably the safer cannot continue Protestants except they continue fooles Now Protestants by this confession of D. Potter cannot but see apparently the Roman Religion to be the safer Wherfore that this notwithstanding they may continue still Protestants you would make them such fooles as to belieue that though ioyned with a verbe in the Present Tense doth import onely an imaginary not a reall supposition Wherefore if you should say as in effect you do say though the Religion of Protestants be false and damnable yet I will do my best to defend it Protestāts must be such fooles as to take this not as a positiue assertion that their Religion is false damnable in your iudgment but as a Rhetoricall Concession as if you had said Imagine or put case the Religion of Protestants be false and damnable I hope Protestants will be wiser then to be made such fooles by you as to continue in a Religion which cannot be maintayned but by such fopperies as these Your Vanity in contemning the foresayd Argument §. 4. 9. You many times seeme to contemne and scorne the Argument drawne from the confession of Protestants and the former testimony of D. Potter You say we rely vpon his priuate Opinion vpon his vncertaine Charitable hope that his thinking so is no reason we should thinke so except we thinke him infallible that whosoeuer is moued with his argument is so simple c. Wherin you may seeme which happens very seldome to agree with D. Potter who doth much sleight our arguing from the Confession of our Aduersaries page 81. If they haue no better ground of their beleefe then their Aduersaries Charitable iudgment of their errours they will be so farre from conuincing their Aduersaries of lacke of wisedome that themselues cannot escape the imputation of folly 10. Thus the Doctour endeauours to lay the imputation of folly vpon vs for vrging our aduersaries fauourable iudgement of our errours as a good argument that may moue men to imbrace our Religion But in this charging vs with folly his owne lacke of wisedome and consideration may be conuinced by what he writeth some few pages before against zelots for these he condemneth not onely of want of charity but also of lacke of wisedome for iudging so seuerely of our errours as to cut vs of from hope of Saluation Pag. 76. The Roman Churches communion sayth he we forsake not no more then the Body of Christ whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member though corrupted And this cleeres vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and hope of Saluation the Church from which it separates And if any Zelots amongst vs haue proceeded to heauier censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and Wisedome cannot be iustifyed Thus he From which words I conclude a double truth the one against you the other against D. Potter himselfe The first that this Charitable iudgement about the Saluation of Roman Catholiques because their errours are small and not in themselues damnable is not the priuate opinion of D. Potter but the censure and doome of the whole Protestant english Church condistinct from zelots or Puritans For how can this whole Church be iustified and cleered from the imputation of Schisme by reason of her Charitable iudgement of our errours if this be not the Charitable iudgement of this whole Church but only the opinion of D. Potter and of some other few priuate Protestants Secondly I gather that this iudgement is not onely according to Christian Charity but also according to Christian Wisedome and floweth from the rules and Principles of them both Otherwise what cause or reason hath D. Potter to charge Zelots who iudge not fauourably of our errours with want not only of Charity but also of wisedome Their Charity saith he and Wisedome cannot be iustified If the iudgment of Protestants so fauorable about our errours be of meere Charity not wise not prudent not solidely grounded on truth why may not the wisedome of Zelots who will not consent thereunto be iustified On the other side if the iudgment of Protestants be conforme to Christian wisedome and Diuine truth what wisedome is it in D. Potter to charge vs with folly and want of wisedome for building and relying theron 11. Besides this iugdment of Protestants that we may be saued in our Religion our errours not being damnable if it be voyde of wisdome and not solidly grounded on truth how is it charitable that is how can it proceed from true Christian Charity If fond loue and affection to the saluation of Creatures not guided by the rules of Christian truth be Christian charity then the iudgment of Origen were ful of Christian Charity who extended saluation euen vnto Diuells Wherfore your iudgment that we may be saued because our errours are not damnable cannot be charitable vnlesse it be conforme to the rules and principles of Christian truth and wisdome on which if it be grounded why may we not build and rely theron Why may we not without imputation of folly make this one pillar of our comfort and constancy in the Roman Communion and Fayth 12. Adde hereunto that it is euen ridiculous in D. Potter and other Protestantes of his stampe to brag and boast as they doe that forsooth it is excesse of their Charity and good will to the Roman Church which makes them to iudge so kindly and fauourably of her errours For by their wordes and writings they shew themselues to be voyd of all loue and Charity and to be full of bitter zeale and passion towardes her so farre that though in their conscience they iudge her free from damnable errours yet in their passion they hate abhorre rate and reuile her as if she were the vildest Religion in the world These speaches of D. Potter against her she hath many wayes played the Harlot and in that regard deserued a bill of diuorce from Christ and the detestation of Christians the proud and curst Dame of Rome which takes vpon her to reuell in the house of God Popery is the contagion and plague of the Church These speaches I say euery man will presently perceiue that they are voyd of Charity wordes of contumely and reproach proceeding not from cleere and calme iudgment but from the fuming fornace of passion you produce them as if D. Potter by them did ouerthrow what we haue proued to be his iudgment that our errors be not damnable But in very truth they be only passionate speaches vttered without iudgment reason or discretion yea against his owne iudgment tokens of his mortall auersion from that Church in whome he can finde no mortall or damnable errour It is not then Charity or kind affection or any good will to Roman Catholiks
and in particular which be the articles essentially necessary vnto Saluation and you in many places signify that they are innumerable 10. On the Forehead of your Booke you haue printed this sentence of King Iames The number of thinges absolutely necessary to Saluation is not great Wherefore the shortest and speediest way to conclude a general peace and concord in matters of Religion would be to seuer exactly thinges necessary from thinges not necessary and to vse all industry that in necessaries there may be agreement and in thinges not necessary place be left vnto Christian liberty In your Dedicatory you professe that your Booke in a manner is nothing else but a pursuance of and a superstruction vpon this Blessed Doctrine wherwith you adorn'd arm'd the Frontispice thereof This is the flattering of your forhead and your setting a fayre Hypocriticall face of Friendship on this sentence which you hate blaspheme in your heart and in the heart and bosome of your Booke For some few leaues from the beginning you fall to reiect pursue and persecute this your Blessed sentence and your superstruction theron is nothing else but a load of reproaches You say that to seuer exactly thinges necessary from thinges not necessary which that learned Prince esteemeth to be of great vse of great necessity and the shortest way to conclude the generall peace of Christendome about Religion a thinge not only factible but also which may easily speedily be done this I say which your Frontispicial sentence proclaymeth most vsefull and factible the inside of your Booke declareth to be a thing of extreme great difficulty and of extreme little necessity an intricate peece of businesse apparantly vnnecessary of no vse a vaine labour to no purpose Behold your wordes Pag. 23. lin 5. To seuer exactly and punctually these verities the one from the other c. is a businesse of extreme great difficulty and of extreme litle necessity He that shall goe about it shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it And then it is apparently vnnecessary to goe about it because he that belieues all certainly belieues all necessaries And againe ibid. lin 15. And when they had done it it had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of belieuing those truths of Scripture which are not fundamental as those that are These be your wordes by the force of which you knocke on the head the sentence of king Iames nayled on the forehead of your Booke and also giue a deadly stabbe on the heart of poore Protestants and driue out of it all hope of Saluation 11. For you neither do nor can tell them which points of fayth are Fundamentall and necessary to be knowne distinctly of all without the least of which you say it implies contradiction they should be saued How then shall they be sure they haue all Fundamental truth You say he that belieues all certainly belieues all that is necessary And pag. 225. lin 1. to a Protestant requesting of you to know which in particular be fundamental truths you answere It is a vaine question belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall This rule of assurance you repeate almost in the same formal wordes I dare say a thousand times which is craftily couched in equiuocal and ambiguous termes and hath a double sense being in the one false and deceitfull in the other impossible to be kept If belieue all import no more then belieue in general and confusedly all contayned in the Holy Bible to be true your rule is false deceitfull damnable that men by belieuing all shall certainly belieue all necessaries as they ought vnto Saluation For you say Pag. 163. n. 3. Fundamental and essential points be such as are not only plainly reuealed of God and so certaine truths but also commanded to be preach't to all men and to be distinctly belieued of all and so necessary truths And Pag. 194. lin 16. you teach that to the constitution of Fundamental pointes is required that they be First actually reuealed of God Secondly commanded vnder paine of damnation to be particularly knowne I meane knowne to be Diuine reuelations and distinctly to be belieued Wherfore your rule Belieue all in generall and you shall be sure to belieue all Fundamentals sufficiently vnto saluation is by your owne definitions proued false and damnable But if your rule haue this sense Belieue all that is in the Bible explicitly distinctly in particular and then you shall be sure to belieue all necessaries if this I say be your meaning you lay on your Protestants a most heauy burthen a most vnsupportable load a most tyrannicall and impossible command For what you say that the burthen is light and that all Protestants comply with this your command pag. 129. n. 5. that all of them agree with explicite fayth in all those thinges which are plainly and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture that is in All that God hath plainly reuealed this I say is ridiculous there being millions of truths plainly vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture which millions of Protestants neuer heard yea there be I dare say a thousand such truths which your selfe are ignorant off 12. In contradiction of this your inconsiderate assertion you grant pag. 137. lin 5. That there be many truths which in themselues are reuealed plainly inough which yet are not plainly reuealed vnto some Protestantes of excellent vnderstanding nor are belieued of them because they are prepossest with contrary opinions and with preiudices by the strange power of education instilled vnto their mindes How then is it true that Protestantes all of them agree with explicite fayth in all thinges which are plainly reuealed of God How can those Protestantes who disbelieue many truths reuealed in Scripture plainly inough be sure they belieue all fundamentall and necessary truth seing they obserue not your command Belieue all and you shal be sure to belieue all that is fundamentall Who doth or can assure them that among these many points of Fayth reuealed in Scripture plainly inough none be fundamental It is therfore manifest that Protestants except you giue them an exact Catalogue of all your fundamentals which they are bound vnder payne of uamnation distinctly and explicitly to belieue can neuer be sure they belieue all fundamentall truth And it is seely for you when Charity Maintayned vrgeth you for a Catalogue of your Fundamentals to thinke that you may stop his mouth with importuning him for a Catalogue of our Churches Proposals for we say of our Churches Proposals that it is sufficient to belieue them implicitly we do not say they must be belieued of all distinctly and in particular What need then is there of a Catalogue wherin such Proposals are set downe distinctly and in particular Now you affirme of your Fundamentals that
that these Bookes be the word of God resteth finally not vpō the credit of human Tradition but vpon the Scripture onely which shewes it selfe with euident certitude to be diuine and supernaturall truth and so reuealed of God Euen as light is seene by its owne brightnesse and hony is proued to be sweet by the very tast thereof But this point of Protestancy you reiect as fond vaine ridiculous pag. 371. n. 51. and proue it to be such Because if the Bookes of Scripture were euidently certayne if they did with euident certitude demonstrate themselues to be Diuine truth then all men that haue vnderstanding and capacity to apprehend the right sense and sentence of Scripture would belieue them to be true which experience sheweth be otherwise If Protestants answere that such as haue their tast distempered to them hony is bitter so Infidels through preiudice and distemper of passions do not perceaue and tast the Diuinity of the Doctrines of the Scripture Against this the reply is ready and conuincing For they who through distemper of their palate iudge hony to be bitter do not apprehend the true tast of hony but a tast contrary to the true tast thereof which being in their palate they conceaue it to be in the meate But Infidels by their vnderstanding do rightly apprehend and conceaue the true senses of Scripture and the mysteries of fayth deliuered therein more cleerely then many Christians of meane capacity do and yet they do not iudge them to be Diuine truth or truth at all Ergo the very true sense and sentence of Scripture doth not with euident certainty shew it selfe to be Supernaturall truth such as could not be reuealed but of God 6. Finally if the Protestants beliefe of Scripture be grounded vpon sight of the truth thereof this their beliefe is not sauing fayth for Fayth by which men are saued as hath beene sayd is that wherby they submit by voluntary obedience their vnderstanding to Gods word belieuing firmely and assuredly vpon the Authority thereof things in themselues incredible and aboue the reach of human reason But Protestants do not belieue the doctrine of Scripture because it is the word of God but because as they say they see it to be Diuine truth and consequētly the word of God Ergo they haue not the fayth of humble submission to Gods word which is the onely fayth that pleaseth God and by which men are saued 7. The third Argument Protestants haue not fayth of infallible adherence that is fayth worthy of God about the sense and interpretation of Scripture For holding the Churches interpretation to be fallible they pretend to be sure by this rule that what they belieue to them seemes plainely cleerely euidently reuealed and proposed in the Scripture But this rule of assurance is not infallible but very fallible and deceytfull For euen Protestants thēselues contend that many texts and places of Scripture which seeme plaine and cleere are to be vnderstood figuratiuely against the plaine proper and literall sense For example the words of our Lord about the chiefe Sacrament mystery of fayth THIS is My Body This is My BLOVD in their plaine proper and literall sense deliuer and establish Transubstantiation as Protestants grant Hence Protestants that are resolued not to belieue a mystery so high aboue reason seemingly repugnant to sense will by no meanes allow these wordes to be true in their proper and literal sense they will not yield to the plain euidence of the Diuine text Whereupon it is euidently consequent that they cannot be sure about any mystery of fayth by vertue of the sole seeming euidence of the sacred Text. For instance take the most fundamental text of Scripture about the most fundamētal mystery of Christian Religion to wit the Incarnation of the Sonne of God The Word was made flesh How doth this text euidently conuince that the Eternal Word and Sonne of God was made Man truely substantially personally What Protestants say of the word of Christ This is my Body why may not Nestorians affirme about this text The Word was made ffesh that it is not true in a proper plaine and literal sense but metaphorically figuratiuely that God and Man were made one in Christ by affectual vnion as two great friendes are said to be one How can Protestants be themselues assured or how can they proue by the sole euidence of the text that this Nestorian interpretation is false And if their beliefe of the mystery of the Incarnation be not solide and firme grounded on a rule of interpretation infallibly certaine how can they be saued 8. Learned and iudicious Readers may find in your booke a world of laughter about your answering the arguments of Charity Maintayned you do it so vnscholler-like so okerly and vntowardly Let your answere to this argument serue for a patterne Our Maintayner vrgeth D. Potter that if the Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall you can neuer be sure of any such point For as you erre about some deceyued by the seeming euidence of the Scripture so you cannot be sure you do not erre about other You answere Pag. 117. n. 160. A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this principle that whosoeuer possibly may erre he can neuer be certaine that he doth not erre A Iudge may possibly erre in iudgment can he therefore neuer be sure he hath iudged aright A Traualler may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my chamber Or can our London-Carrier haue no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London And a litle after nu 161. whereas our Mayntainer argueth that you cannot be sure it is an errour to make the Church Iudge of Controuersies because you pretend to be sure by the seeming euidence of Scripture but this rule is not infallible so you cānot be sure by the warrant thereof The ground of this Sophisme say you is very like the former viz. that we can be certaine of the falshood of no proposition but those only that are damnable errours But I pray good Sir giue me your opinion of these The snow is balcke the fire is cold M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo the whole is not greater then a part of the whole that twise two make not foure in your opinion good Sir are these damnable heresies Or because they are not so haue we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir consider seriously with what strāge captions you haue gone about to delude your King and your Country if you be conuinced they are so giue glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which standes vpon such deceytfull foundations This you write which you could neuer haue written had you been with your London Carrier sober and in your wits You haue proued Gusman de
maintaine that the Religion of Protestants is a safe way to saluation yea you grant the same not to be free from errours damnable of themselues The Argument propounded §. 1. 2. THe Argument I set downe in this manner No man shal be or can be damned eternally for errours which be not damnable of themselues This is cleere Because God being iust who renders to euery one according to their deserts cannot punish men more then their offences do of themselues deserue but rather somewhat vnder their merit But the errours pretended to be found in the Roman Church cannot of thēselues deserue eternall damnation being but veniall but little ones not damnable of themselues as Protestants grant This Assumption needs no proofe being notorious ouer all England For what more dayly and vsuall what more frequent and familiar then for Protestants to reproach vs with want of Charity because we will not yield their errours not to be damnable nor destructiue of saluation as they grant ours to be This is cōfirmed by the often reiterated confession of D. Potter specially pa. 77. where he hath these words To forsake the errours of the Roman Church and not to ioyne with her in those practises we account erroneous we are forced of necessity For though in themselues they be not damnanable to them which belieue as they professe yet for vs to profese what we belieue not were without question damnable And they with their errours by the grace of God might go to Heauen when we for our hypocrisy and dissimulation without repentance should certainly be condemned to Hell And agayne To him who in simplicity of heart belieues and professeth them withall feareth God and worketh righteousnesse to him they shall proue veniall such a one shall by the mercy of God be deliuered from them or be saued with them But he that against Fayth and Conscience shall go along with the streame to professe practise them because they are but little-ones his Case is dangerous and without repentance desperate And againe pag. 19. We belieue the Roman Religion safe that is not damnable to some such as belieue what they professe but we belieue it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they belieue the contrary Your impudent deniall of the text §. 2. 3. YOu acknowledge that Charity maintayned vrgeth this testimony of D. Potter builds his discourse theron often which you say he doth fraudulētly as an egregious Sophister impudently without conscience or modesty outfacing the truth For Protestants you say neither do or euer did acknowledge that our errours are not damnable and that you for your part though you were on the rack should not confesse it As for D. Potter you deny that he sayd of the errours he imputeth to the Roman Church though in themselues they be not damnable yea you contest that his words are though in themselues they be damnable Pag. 275. lin 4. D. Potter confesseth no such matter but only that he hopes that your errours though in themselues sufficiently damnable yet by accident did not damne all that held them such he meanes and sayes as were excusably ignorant of the truth And pag. 263. n. 26. Where doth D. Potter say any such thing as you pretend c. He sayth indeed that though your errours were in themselues damnable and full of great impiety yet he hopes those amongst you who were inuincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned Thus you And you repeate it almost in the same wordes in an hundred passages of your Booke still noting these wordes though in themselues damnable in a distinct character as D. Potters formall text which yet is no where found in any part of his Treatise 4. And in this denial of the text in this contestation that D. Potter said of our Errours though in themselues they be damnable you with great shew of confidēce persist till almost the very finishing of your Booke Then being but three leaues from the end as Theeues when they are ready to be cast of the ladder make true confessions strucken with remorse of conscience you vtter this deposition against your selfe Cap. 7. n. 29. Indeed D. Potter sayes of your errours though in themselues they be not damnable to them which belieue as they professe yet for vs to professe what we belieue not were without question damnable Is this true Doth D. Potter say of our errous though in themselues they be not damnable Hath he these very words indeed See thē whether the reproach which you cast vnworthily on Charity maintayned the reproach of outfacing the truth without conscience or modestie do not fall heauily on your owne head For now vpon the ending of your Booke you confesse that D. Potter indeed sayes of our Errours though in themselues they be not damnable whereas before you said and repeated it againe and againe with deepe protestation and insolent insultation against your Aduersary that D. Potter said no such thinge yea that his wordes were the plaine contradiction to wit though in themselues they be damnable and full of great impiety How this can be excused from the crime of forgery I do not see 5. More cunningly in shew not so enormously but indeed no lesse fraudulently maliciously do you change the pointing of D. Potters text and so turne his assertion into the plaine contrary He pag. 79. in the name of English Protestants sayth of the Roman Religion We belieue it safe that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some such as belieue what they professe Thus he and he maketh a Comma between some and such to deuide them and to shew that such is vsed not to limit the some that are not damned but to declare who they be to wit all such as cordially belieue our Roman Religion and professe it You reciting his words leaue out the Comma and ioyne some and such togeather making the Doctour say We belieue her Religion safe that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some such as belieue as they professe As who should say D. Potter grants our Religion safe and not damnable to some who in simplicity of heart belieue and professe it not to all such but some such only Against his expresse Tenet and text yea further you vrge this text corrupted by your dispunction thereof as an Argument that D. Potter holdes our errours damnable in themselues Pag. 306. lin 1. It is remarkable that he confesses your errours to some men not damnable which cleerely importes that according to his iudgment they were damnable of themselues though by accident to them who liued and dyed in inuincible ignorance they might proue not damnable Thus you argue vpon your owne corruption of D. Potters text For in truth he confesses the errours imputed vnto vs not to be damnable and our Religion to be safe not to some such only but to all
such as belieue as they professe to all such as be not hypocriticall Professours but professe it in simplicity of heart belieuing it to be true Nor doth he say that vnto such Roman belieuers our errours are not damnable by accident as you feigne but the expresse contrary that euen in themselues they be not damnable to them Behold how opposite is D Potters true sentence to that you haue forged for him You make him say Our errours are euen in themselues damnable and only by accident pardonable whereas he sayth the contrary they are in themselues but littleons but venial and consequently if any sincere Roman Catholiques be damned this is by accident by reason of some extrinsecal damnable circumstance not by the intrinsecal malignity of their errours not by the force such errours haue in themselues and in their owne nature to merit damnation 6. But some may obiect that D. Potter doth not say absolutely Our errours be not in themselues damnable but only not in themselues damnable to them that belieue as they professe which is a different thinge I answer this is a subtilty which findeth a difference where there is no diuersity As to say of a potion that it is not of it selfe deadly to such as drinke it take it into their bowells and heart is all one as to say it is deadly to none but harmelesse and innoxious in it selfe so to say our errours are not in themselues damnable to such as heartily belieue and professe them is as much as to say they are of themselues damnable vnto none but absolutely veniall of their owne nature not destructiue of Saluation For to whome may they be in themselues damnable if they be not so to them that take them into their heart by sincere and cordiall beliefe As none can be damned for sinne but such as commit sinne so none can be damned for erring but such as erre and are guilty of erring Now those that in their heart belieue not errours do not erre nor are guilty of erring wherefore such neither are nor can be damned for erring or holding of errours For if they hypocritically professe Errours which they do not belieue they be damnable indeed but not for erring but for their hypocrisy and dissimulation as D. Potter truly sayth Your ignorant exposition of D. Potter §. 3. 7. HAuing at last acknowledged D. Potters text that he said of our errours though in themselues they be not damnable you tell vs that we mistake his meaning by taking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctours for a positiue assertion For to say though your Errours be not damnable we may not professe them is not to say Your errours are not damnable but only through they be not As if you should say Though the Church erre in points not fundamental yet you may not separate from it or Though we do erre in belieuing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry I presume you would not thinke it fayrely done if any man should interprete these your speaches as confessions that you do erre in points not fundamentall that you erre in belieuing the Real Presence And therefore you ought not to haue mistaken D Potters wordes as if he confessed the Errours of your Church not damnable when he sayes no more then this though they be not damnable or suppose or put case they be not damnable Thus you Wherein your falshood is notable and your ignorance admirable First it is false that D. Potter sayes no more but this though they be not damnable For besides this he sayth that Protestants who belieue them to be errours must not presume to professe them because they are but littleons He saith in the name of all Protestants We belieue the Roman Religion to be safe that is not damnable to such as belieue as they professe We hope and thinke very well of all those holy and deuout soules which informer ages liued and died in the Church of Rome c. We doubt not but they obtayned pardon of all their ignorances Nay our Charity reaches further to All those at this day who in simplicity of heart belieue the Roman Religion and professe it Be these Rhetoricall Concessions not Positiue Assertions that the errours which Protestants impute to the Roman Church are not damnable of thēselues but onely by accident when they are hypocritically against conscience professed 8. Secondly I am amazed that you a Maister of Arts of Oxford of so long standing are ignorant of the difference in speach betwixt the Present Tense and the Preter imperfect which euery man and woman by common sense doth feele and perceaue For the particle though ioyned with a verbe of the Present Tense doth suppose a thing present and existing in reality truth so that if you will suppose the existence of a thing by imagination or in conceyt onely you must vse the Preter imperfect Wherfore neyther the Author of Charity maintayned nor any Catholique that is intelligent will say to you in the Present Tense as you make him Though the Church do erre in points not fundamentall yet you must not separate from it but in the Preter imperfect Though the Church did erre in points fundamentall yet you were not to separate from her Nor will he or any Catholique that is wise vse that eyther sottish or impious speach you haue penned for him Though we erre in belieuing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry God forbid This were not a Rhetoricall Concession but a Diabolical Profession that our beliefe of the Reall presence is an errour A true Catholique that can vtter his mind in good English will say Though we did erre in belieuing the Reall Presence of our Lords Body in the Eucharist yet this errour would free vs from Idolatry Thus the examples you bring of Rhetoricall Concessions make against you being in deed positiue Assertions and shew your discourse to be neyther good Logick nor Rhetoricke nor Grammer 9. And I pray you the Proposition you haue forged for D. Potter though the errours of the Roman Church be in themselues damnable and full of great impiety yet by accident they do not damne all that hold them is it not a Positiue Assertion that our doctrines are damnable and full of great impiety in D. Potters opinion Wherfore this proposition which is truly D. Potters though the errours of the Roman Church be not in themselues damnable yet Protestants who know them to be Errours may not professe them is a positiue Assertion that our supposed errours be not damnable in his iudgement Should one say to you though in your iudgement you belieue Christ our Sauiour not to be true God yet you dare not professe it outwardly for feare of the fagot would you take this as a Rhetoricall supposition not as a Reall accusation that you are an Infidell in your heart Is it possible you should be guilty