consequently of the Doctrines contained therein only as an opinion very probable as is hereafter shewed Ergo you question the holy Scripture the Religion and Gospell of Christ you make an if of the truth and certainty thereof You examine it doubtingly with liberty of iudgment prepared in mind to leaue it if perchance you find the grounds thereof apparently false What is this but to be a Nullifidian a man setled in no Religion but doubtfull of all Such an one as they were whome the Apostle checketh terming them men still learning but neuer attayning to the assured knowledge of any thinge Againe Pag. 307. n. 107. you write thus speaking vnto our Maintayner Your eleauenth falshood is that our first reformers ought to haue doubted whether their opinions were certaine which is to say they ought to haue doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes contaynes many of these opinions From this testimony I conclude that you doubt of the cetainty of the Scripture You professe to examine and question all your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters to make a doubt of the certainty of them But you contend that some of your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters be such as to make a doubt or question of the certainty of them is to doubt of the certainty of formall and expresse Scripture Ergo your Way and practise of doubting of all your opinions about Diuine matters is doubting euen of the truth of the Christian Scripture and Ghospell of Christ A thinge most impious and execrable as you now suppose yet so fond and forgetfull you are as to say you should haue litle hope of Saluation did you not do it or endeauour to do it 6. In fine your safe Way is a Labyrinth of implicatory and inextricable errours Protestants that are concluded therein are lost in a maze of vncertainties and in an intricate mixture of contrary doctrines being sure to find nothing therein but damnation which way so euer they turne themselues Do they doubt of the truth of their Religion which they belieue to be the Ghospell They are both according to truth and in your doctrine damnable wretches as being formall Heretiques Be they so firme in their Religion as they ranke doubting thereof among deadly sinnes Then they are you say obstinately blind sure to fall into the pit of perdition as much as we are at the least you affoard them litle hope of obtayning Saluation The sixt Conuiction 1. THis Conuiction sheweth that only Roman Catholiques haue sauing fayth which is demonstrated by three Arguments The first Sauing fayth is that without which it is impossible to please God Now fayth which pleaseth Gods must be on the one side certaine and infallible otherwise it is not worthy of God to whose word we owe so firme beliefe that if an Angel from heauen should Euangelize against that we haue receaued as his word he were not to be heard but to be accursed On the other side it must be a free and voluntary assent not enforced by the euidence of the thinge For if the reason of belieuing be euident and such as doth necessitate the Vnderstanding to assent the assent is not pleasing to God because it is not voluntary obedience and submission to his word Roman Catholiques by belieuing the Church to be infallible in all her proposals obtaine a persuasion about Diuine mysteries firme and infallible and yet of voluntary obedience and submission But the Opposers of the Roman Church not only want certainty in truth but also know not which way to challenge infallible certainty without euidence 2. This may be proued by what you write Pag. 329. lin 31. The infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe yet is not made appeare to vs infallibly certaine to my vnderstanding is an impossibility What is this but to say that fayth of a thing cannot be infallibly certaine except the thinge belieued be made so cleere and apparent that the vnderstanding cannot choose but assent vnto it For what appeares to vs to be infallibly certaine is seen of vs to be infallibly certaine What we see to be infallible certaine we cannot choose but assent that it is so So that a firme grounded beliefe of the truth of thinges not appearing without which it is impossible to please God is by your doctrine to Protestants impossible 3. Moreouer that Protestants cannot haue fayth pleasing to God that is fayth infallibly certayne not grounded on euidence I demonstrate in this sort No man can be assured infallibly of the truth of things not seene nor to him euidently certaine but by the word of an Authour infallibly veracious in all his words deliuered vnto him by a witnesse of infallible truth For if the witnesse or messenger of the word be fallible let the Authour of the word be neuer so infallible our assent to the truth of the thing proposed cannot be infallible Now Protestants haue not the word of God by meanes of a witnesse and messinger infallible For the witnesse proposer and messenger of the word of God is the visible Catholique Church which Protestants hold to be fallible full of false Traditions not free so you say from errour in it selfe damnable and in this sense Fundamentall Wherfore it is demonstratiuely certaine that onely Roman Catholiques who belieue the Church to be infallible can haue Fayth worthy of God Fayth of voluntary submission to Gods word that is fayth of things to them not euidently yet infallibly certayne and consequently they only please God by their belieuing and are saued 4. The second Argument You say pag. 148. lin 16. There is no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but onely because it is Gods word so that you cannot belieue the doctrines and myestries reuealed in Scripture to be true more firmely and infallibly then you belieue the Scripture to be Gods word for we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued thereby otherwise it is no proofe as you say pag. 37â— n. 59. But your assurance that the Scripture is the word of God is onely human probable and so absolutely fallible For you belieue the bookes which were neuer doubted of in the Church to be Gods word and a perfect rule of fayth onely by the tradition or testimonies of the ancient Churches pag. 63. lin 35. But the ioynt tradition of all the Apostolicall Churches with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same doctrine is onely a very probable argument as you affirme pag. 361. n. 40. Ergo your fayth that Scripture is Gods word consequently of all the mysteries therin reuealed is but human and probable and therefore vnworthy of God being not firmer then the credit we yield to euery morall honest man For to vs his word is probable and credible and to you the word of God is no more 5. Protestants commonely pretend that their fayth
and Turkes may be saued in eyther of these wayes their errours according to your principles not being remedilessely damnable The fifth Conuiction THis Conuiction ouer throweth the chiefe cause for which you charge our Religion to be damnable sheweth first that the thing for which you would send vs to Hell is the necessary duty of a constant Christian Fayth Secondly that your contrary mutability and leuity is Apostaticall and impious You damne vs to Hell for being faythfull and constant Christians §. 1. 1. YOu often proclame vs to be men wilfully blind sure to fall into the ditch of damnatiō For this your censure of vs you giue this reason because we will not enter into any triall of our Religion with indifference with liberty of iudgement with are solution to doubt of it if vpon examination the grounds of it proue vncertaine or to leaue it if they proue apparantly false my owne experience assures me that herein I do you no wronge but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your doctrine among mortall sinnes Thus you And we willingly grant and openly professe that we hold it a mortall sinne to doubt deliberately of any poynt of our fayth But must we be damned in this respect O how doth malignancy against our saluation confound your memory and wit For against doubting in matters of Religion you write most earnestly pag. 195. n. 11. lin 20. which of vs euer taught it was not damnable to deny or doubt of the truth of any thing whereof we eyther know or belieue that God hath reuealed it Thus you Now if it be damnable to doubt of the truth of any thing we belieue to be reuealed of God what an obliuious Creature are you who will haue vs damned for not yielding to do that very thing which you proclame damnable to be done you will haue vs sent to Hell because we ranke doubting of any part of our fayth which we hold reuealed of God among deadly and damnable sinnes and yet your selfe ranke this doubting among deadly and damnable crimes with an earnest tacite detestation of the contrary Doctrine which of vs euer taught it is not damnable 2. Haue you so soone forgot your selfe Are your sayings no sooner out of your pen then out of your memory and head which of vs say you euer taught it is not damnable Euen your selfe good Sir you William Chilling worth teach it is not damnable yea you hold it damnable for any man to ranke doubting of the Religion which he holdes reuealed of God among mortall sinnes which you proue because seing euery man must resolue neuer to commit mortall sinne it followes that he must neuer examine the grounds of his Religion for feare of doubting or if he doe he must resolue that no motiues be they neuer so strong shall moue him to doubt This is your argument vpon which you conclude we are a company of blind inconsidering men louers of the darkenesse and not of light And yet your selfe are so blind so inconsidering and your wits are so dulled and darkened as you do not perceaue that this very argument proueth you all your Biblists to be in the same case we are to wit obstinately blind for you grant that all of you ranke doubting of your Religion among mortall sinnes that is you all teach that it is damnable to doubt of the truth of any thing you belieue to be reuealed of God Hence it followes that seing you must resolue neuer to commit damnable sinne that you must neuer examine the grounds of it at all for feare you should be moued to doubt or if you do you must resolue that no motiues be they neuer so strong shall moue you to doubt You see your argument agaynst vs turneth vpon your selues and proueth you are obstinate and blind and in danger of the Ditch as much as we are 3. And do not you further teach and contend that it is damnable for you to doubt of the Doctrine of Diuels if you belieue it to be Diuine Reuelation Pag. 99. n. 122. l. 22. If by the discourse of the Diuel I be I wil not say conuinced but persuaded though falsely that it is a Diuine Reuelation and shall deny to belieue it I shall be a formal though not a material Heretique For he that belieues any thinge to be a Diuine Reuelation and yet will not belieue it to be true must of necessity belieue that God is false which according to your doctrine is the Formality of an Heretique You who teach that he who will not belieue and he that will doubt will not belieue that thing to be truth which falsely by the persuasion of the Diuel he belieues to be Diuine Reuelation is a formal Heretique and a blasphemous wretch you I say that teach this who will not wonder how you could be so inconsiderate as to make vs damnable because we resolue not to doubt of that doctrine which by the Tradition of so many Christian Ages by our Pastours and Ancestours men renowned for Learning Sanctity Miracles for expelling of Diuels for conuerting of nations hath been deliuered persuaded vnto vs to be reuealed of God That your Protestant VVay to be firme to no Religiō but still in motion and change is damnable §. 2. 4. ABout your selfe and your being vngrounded and vnsetled in matters of Religion thus you write and sincerely professe pag. 278. lin 29. I truly for my part if I did not find in my selfe a loue and desire of all profitable truth if I did not put away idlenesse preiudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of Diuine matters being prepared in mind to follow God and God only which way so euer he shall lead me If I did not hope that I eyther do or endeauour to do these thinges certainly I should haue litle hope of obtayning Saluation Here you professe that neither Christian Religion nor any truth thereof hath been as yet firmely rooted or deepely by the fingar of God printed in your heart You declare your soule to be a Blanke noted with no Religion but prepared for any which to you shall seeme of God to wit you are ready to belieue not absolutly but as most probable for the present but resolued neuer to belieue God so firmely as to ranke doubting of what you haue receaued as his word among mortall sinnes 5. That this your practise implyeth doubting of all Christian Religion I proue because you professe to question and examine all your opinions of Diuine matters to make an if or a doubt of the certainty and truth of them all that is you examine them prepared in mind to leaue them all and euery one if vpon trial they seeme to you false But among your opinions of Diuine matters your persuasion that our Christian Scriptures and doctrines are Diuine oracles and Gods word is one for you hold the Diuinity of Scriptures
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
pardonable by Gods great mercy From the number of all Protestants whose Religion you defend to be a safe Way I hope Socinians or new Samosatenians are not excluded These hold that Christ Iesus is not the Eternall only begotten Sonne of God yea that he was and is a meere man though an holy man and a great Prophet Will you say that this errour which conceaues no more diuinely of Christ then do the very Turkes is not greater then any we maintayne not more fundamental and essentially destructiue of Saluation If you do most Protestants in England will thinke you worthy of the Fagot 22. Fourthly Pag. 290. num 87. you write that Protestants seing they be not free from errours that it is hardely possible but they must be guilty of extreme impiety In that place you endeauour to answere our Argument that it was great imprudency in Protestants to forsake the whole visible Catholique Church for errours not fundamentall seing they confesse that in their separation against her they could not be sure of not falling into errours of the like quality and note yea into greater to wit fundamental You are in this point eager and protest that Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to auoyd this mischiefe of erring at the least vn-fundamentally that they proclaime to all the world that it is most prone and easy to do so to all those that feare God and loue the truth and hardely possible for them to do otherwise without supine negligence and extreme impiety Ponder I pray you this place and conferre it with other passadges of your booke you will see that you make all Protestants extremely impious For it is most prone and easy for Protestants that feare God and loue the truth to auoyd all errours specially such as need pardon and be damnable in themselues so that it is hardely possible for them to be in any errour without supine negligence and extreme impiety Now there are not any Protestants in the world no not English Protestants by name whome you dare defend to be free from errours not fundamentall and millions of them as you confesse are by the sinne of their will betrayed into and kept in errours damnable in themselues Ergo it is hardly possible but all Protestants must be guilty of supine negligence and extreme impiety about matters of Fayth Which being so how is that Religion a safe way of Saluation in which hardly any be saued yea how be not their errours vnpardonable seing you write Pag 275. lin 15. that God is infinitely iust and therefore it is to be feared will not pardon Catholiques who might easely haue come to the knowledge of the truth but through negligence would not How then will he pardon Protestants to whome it was you say most prone and easy to haue come to the knowledge of the truth and to haue auoyded all errours but would not through supine negligence and extreme impiety 23. I haue been the larger in declaring and strenghthening this Argument and shewing the insuperable force therof First because it is the Argument most vrged by the pithy and learned Catholique Treatise of Charity mistaken as also by Charity maintayned both which bookes by the cleering of this point are shewed to remayne vnanswered Secondly because this Argument from the confession of our Aduersaries as it is cleere manifest and conuincing so it is within the reach and capacity of euery one For who so stupide voyd of sense as not to see that Religion to be the safer which is confessed to be safe euen in her Aduersaries iudgment grounded vpon the neuer fayling principles of Christian Charity wisdome and truth The Second Conuiction THough we should grant that most vntrue and impossible supposition that the Roman Church erreth yet it would be impossible that Catholiks should be damned for following her errours The reason is because their erring cannot but be excused by ignorance inuincible wheras Protestantes if they erre damnably as without doubt they do neither by shelter of Ignorance nor of Generall Repentance can they be saued Three Suppositions §. 1. 1. TO proue this we must suppose three thinges which are knowne and notorious truths First that Christians who belieue in Christ the eternall Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world cannot be damned for any errours of ignorance inuincible or for any inuoluntary erring This truth you often affirme in some passages of your booke and deny it as often in other Pag. 19. lin 27. you say That if in me alone were a confluence of all such errours of all Protestantes in the world that were thus qualified with ignorance inuincible I should not be so much afrayd of them all as I should be to aske pardon for them c. To aske pardon of simple and purely inuoluntary errours is tacitely to imply that God is angry with vs for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he giues no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reape where he sowed not of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot do Heare you make it a kind of blasphemy to say that involuntary errours are pardonable or need pardon because the very saying they were pardonable importes they need pardon and consequently that God is offended with vs for them Notwithstanding that errours purely inuoluntary or of inuincible ignorance be pardonable and need pardon from Gods great mercy you frequently professe speaking of our errours Pag. 308. lin 41. We hold your errours damnable in themselues yet by accident through ignorance inuincible we hope they were not vnpardonable Pag. 291. lin 4. Your erring was we hope pardonable in them that had no meanes to know their errours Pag. 263. lin 27. Your errours were in themselues damnable yet we hope that those amongst you that were inuincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned and their soules saued This is your wauering and tottering manner of discoursing but the truth is God is not offended with errours of ignorance inuincible because God is offended only for sinne wheras inuoluntary erring cannot be sinne because to be voluntary is of the nature and difinition of Sinne. 2. Secondly we suppose that the Roman doctrines which Protestants accuse to be errours are definitions of Generals Councells and were for many ages the publike receiued doctrine in the whole visible Christian Church for which reason you say That euen the visible Church is not free from damnable errours Thirdly we suppose that it is vnlawfull and damnable for any man to depart from the Roman Church to forsake her doctrine or to oppose the definition of a Generall Councell except he haue apparent and euident reasons which demonstrate that the truth stādeth on his side This you teach pag. 272. n. 53. It concernes euery man that separates from any Churches Communion euen as much as his
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
all men are bound vpon their saluation to know and belieue them in particular and yet obstinatly refuse to giue them an exact account which in particular they be 13. Besides what an intricate and infinite obligation do you charge vpon Protestantes in saying that there is as thinges now stand at great necessity of belieuing those truths of Scripture which are not fundamentall as those that are so For the necessity of belieuing fundamentals deliuered in holy Scripture is vnder paine of damnation to know them in particular and distinctly which obligation is so strict that you say it implies contradiction that Saluation be had without the least of them Now if the necessity of belieuing not fundamentals be as great as this yea the same with this no Protestant can be saued that doth not belieue such passages of Scripture as be not fundamentall distinctly in particular euen as he is bound to belieue fundamentals You often as pa. 169. lin 12. eagerly and bitterly declame against vs for requiring harder and heauier conditions of Saluation then God requires or then were required in the dayes of the Apostles Who more guilty of this crime then your selfe For this your necessity of belieuing the not fundamentall truthes of Scripture as much as the fundamental was not euer in Gods Church seeing your selfe onely say it is so as matters now stand Wherby you insinuate that as matters stood anciently this great necessity and obligation had no place in Gods Church Nor can you say that it is required of God for then it would be deliuered in Scripture and consequētly perpetuall in the Church euer since the Ghospell was written wheras your wordes vrging this obligation onely as now matters stand imply the contrary It is therefore manifest that this necessity so heauy and direfull is layd vpon Protestants not by Apostolicall commaund not by diuine Precept but by your selfe and other proud ignorant Ministers who neither know which be Fundamentals nor can agree vpon any short rule within the compasse of which they are all comprized Hence they are forced to send euery Protestant to fish for Fundamentals in the vast and deepe Ocean of holy Scripture not giuing them any direction any rule any assurance of finding them all except they can comprehend cleerly and distinctly all the innumerable truthes plainely reuealed therein 14. Finally what you say pag. 134. lin 24. That may be sufficiently declared to one which is not sufficiently declared to another and consequently that may be fundamentall to one which to another is not And pag. 281. lin 4. The same errour may be not Capitall to men that want meanes of finding the truth and Capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them This doctrine by you often repeated driueth Protestants into a Thicket of Thornes and briers into new insuperable difficulties vncertainties of their Saluation For though a Protestant were sure which in Protestācy he can neuer be that he distinctly belieues all capital essential truthes which are to be belieued of all how shall he be sure that he belieues all truthes which to him in particular in regard of his greater knowledge and capacity are you say Capitall and Fundamentall How can he be certaine that there are not some capitall and substantiall truths which he hath not found in Scripture though he had meanes of finding them And if he want beliefe of these Fundamentall and Capitall truths how can he possibly be saued For though you should say that these are the least of thinges fundamentally necessary to saluation yet this will not possibilitate their saluation it being contradiction to say that Saluation may be had without any the LEAST thing necessary to Saluation as you affirme Pag. 382 lin 1. The fourth Conuiction YOu could find no Way to make good the Saluation of English Protestants against the demonstrations of Charity maintayned but onely such a Way wherein the vildest Heretiques that now liue or euer liued vnder the cope of Heauen may be saued as well as they yea euen Iewes and Turkes these two consequences frō your principles I will demonstrate in two Sections of this Conuiction That in your VVay English Protestants cannot be saued more then Socinians with fixproofes that you are of this impious Sect. §. 1. 1. YOu say in your Preface n. 39. that you haue not vndertaken the particular defence of the Church of England but the common Cause and Religion of all Protestants And pag. 375. n. 56. you professe that by the Religion of Protestants which you mayntaine to be a safeway to saluation you do not vnderstand the doctrine of Luther or Caluin or Melancton nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneua nor the Catechisme of Hiedelberge nor the articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmonie of Protestants Confessions but that wherin they all agree as a perfect rule of their fayth and actions the BIBLE the BIBLE I say the BIBLE onely is the Religion of Protestants This is the onely Religion the onely way you could find to saue English Protestants wherin they can no more be saued then any other that belieue the Bible and only the Bible as a perfect rule of their life and actions Now in the number of Protestants Ghospelers and Biblists the new Ebionites or Samosatenians whon we terme Socinians are comprehended the most blasphemous Heretiques against the Fundamentall articles of Christianity that euer breathed worse then Arians For Arians acknowledged the Eternity of our Lord Christ Iesus that he had an Eternall most perfect diuine Essence only they would not confesse him to be coequall and consubstantiall to his Father But Socinians deny him to be the eternall Sonne of God affirme him to be meere man and tearmed the sonne of God as other Iust and holy men and Prophets are 2. Now that Socinians are by your account in the number of them that goe the safe way to Saluation as well as English Protestants is manifest not only because they professe the Bible and onely the Bible but also because they are that sort of Christians whose Religion you follow as these six arguments euince 3. First because being so much suspected and accused euen in publique writing to be of that impious Sect and if you were not prouoked to make a cleere profession of the Christian fayth against them you haue not done it you say sometimes that Christ is the Sonne of God but neuer his Eternall Sonne which omission of the word Eternall in a man so suspected of Socinianisme as you are is in the iudgement of our late Soueraigne King Iames a signe of guiltines maketh your Booke worthy of the fagot 4. Secondly because you dislike words about matters of Fayth not found in the Scripture which Christians vse for the better declaration of the Creed This you tearme a vayne conceit that we can speake of the things of God better then in the word of God You declame also bitterly
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