The totall summe. Or No danger of damnation vnto Roman Catholiques for any errour in faith nor any hope of saluation for any sectary vvhatsoeuer that doth knovvingly oppose the doctrine of the Roman Church. This is proued by the confessions, and sayings of M. William Chillingvvorth his booke.

The first Conuiction. (Book 1)

1. THis is drawne from the concession of Pro∣testants, that Roman Catholiques may be saued in their Religion; because their errours are but litle ons, not Fundamentall, or in themselues damnable; wheras Roman Catholiques neyther do, nor can by the principles of their Religion grant the same warrant to any what∣soeuer, that continues vnto death an opposer of the Church of Rome. An argument often vrged by Charity maintayned, grounded on a testimony of D. Potter, which you say he buildeth on, in almost (b) 1.1 fourty, yea more then in (c) 1.2 an hundred places of his booke: and you, as often at least, striue and struggle with this Argument, labouring to remoue the pressing difficulties thereof, with the same progresse & successe, as Sifiphus(d) 1.3 is said to make, who to aduance a huge stone vp-hill, striueth eternally in vaine. Your euasions and shiftes, I will particularly refute, and lay open their falshood and vanity; wherby it shalbe made apparent, that both the booke of Cha∣rity maintayned resteth hitherto vnanswered, and that this Argument drawne from the confession of Prote∣stants, is altogether vnanswerable. I shall first propose our Argument, strenthened with D. Potters suffrage. Secondly, discouer how impudently you deny D. Potters text. Thirdly, how at last you acknowledge it, & giue an explication therof full of grosse ignorance. Four∣thly, how weakly, and in vayne you would seeme to contemne this Argument as poore, and seely. Fiftly, I will declare the force of this Argument, and shew the reason why Protestants (that be wise, and not distem∣pered with furious zeale) dare not condemne the Roman Religion & Communion, as damnable of it selfe.

Finally, that not only Roman Catholikes, but that you your selues dare not maintaine, that the Religion of Pro∣testants 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 shalbe, 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 pre∣tended to be found in the Roman Church, cannot of thē∣selues deserue eternall damnation, being but veniall, but little ones, & not damnable of themselues, as Protestants grant. This Assumption needs no proofe, being noto∣rious 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 destru∣ctiue 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 damna∣nable 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 hypo∣crisy 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 dange∣rous, and without repentance desperate. And againe. pag. 19. We belieue the Roman Religion safe, that is, not dam∣nable to some, such as belieue what they professe; but we belieue it not safe, but very dangerous (if not cer∣tainly damnable) to such as professe it, when they be∣lieue the contrary.

Your impudent deniall of the text. §. 2.

3. YOu acknowledge that Charity maintayned vr∣geth this testimony of D. Potter, & builds his discourse theron often: which you say, he doth fraudu∣lētly as an egregious Sophister, impudently without conscience or modesty outfacing the truth. For Protestants(e) 1.4 you say, neither do, or euer did acknowledge, that our er∣rours 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. (f) 1.5 Pag. 275. lin. 4.

D. Potter confesseth no such matter, but only that he hopes that your errours, though in themselues sufficiently dam∣nable, yet by accident did not damne all that held them; such he meanes, and sayes, as were excusably ignorant of the truth.

And (g) 1.6 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 inuin∣cibly ignorant of the truth, might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned. Thus you. And you repeate it, al∣most in the same wordes, in an hundred passages of your Booke, still noting these wordes, though in them∣selues damnable, in a distinct character, as D. Potters for∣mall text, which yet is no where found in any part of his Treatise.

4. And in this denial of the text, in this contesta∣tion, that D. Potter said of our Errours, though in them∣selues 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. In∣deed 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 que∣stion damnable, Is this true? Doth D. Potter say of our er∣rous 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 mode∣stie, 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 repea∣ted 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 excu∣sed 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 Reli∣gion: 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 de∣uide 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 Re∣ligion and professe it. You reciting his words (h) 1.7 leaue out the Comma, and ioyne some and such togeather, ma∣king 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 (i) 1.8 text, yea fur∣ther you vrge this text corrupted by your dispunction thereof as an Argument, that D. Potter holdes our er∣rours damnable in themselues. Pag. 306. lin. 1. (k) 1.9 It is remarkable, that he confesses your errours to some men not damnable, which cleerely importes, that according to his iudg∣ment 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 dam∣nable, and our Religion to be safe, not to some such on∣ly, 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 dam∣nable by accident (as you feigne) but the expresse con∣trary, 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 (l) 1.10 say, Our er∣rours 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 cir∣cumstance, not by the intrinsecal malignity of their er∣rours, 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 er∣rours are not in themselues damnable to such as heartily be∣lieue 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 sin∣cere 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 nei∣ther 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 them∣selues they be not damnable, you (m) 1.11 tell vs; that we mi∣stake 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 er∣rours are not damnable, but only through they be not: As if you should say; Though the Church erre in points not fun∣damental; 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 funda∣mentall; that you erre in belieuing the Real Presence. And therefore you ought not to haue mistaken D Pot∣ters 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,* 1.12 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 pro∣fesse. We hope and thinke very well of all those holy and de∣uout 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 Reli∣gion, and professe it. Be these Rhetoricall Concessions, not Positiue Assertions, that the errours which Protestants impute to the Roman Church are not damnable of thē∣selues; but onely by accident, when they are hypocriti∣cally 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 com∣mon 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 Cha∣rity 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 Catho∣lique that is wise, vse that eyther sottish or impious speach you haue penned for him, Though we erre in belie∣uing Christ really present, yet our errour frees vs from Ido∣latry. God forbid. This were not a Rhetoricall Conces∣sion,

but a Diabolical Profession, that our beliefe of the Reall presence is an errour. A true Catholique that can vt∣ter his mind in good English will say, Though we did erre in belieuing the Reall Presence of our Lords Body in the Eu∣charist; yet this errour would free vs from Idolatry. Thus the examples you bring of Rhetoricall Concessions make a∣gainst you, being in deed positiue Assertions, and shew your discourse to be neyther good Logick, nor Rheto∣ricke, 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 acci∣dent 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 pro∣position which is truly D. Potters: though the errours of the Roman Church be not in themselues damnable, yet Prote∣stants 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 Saui∣our not to be true God, yet you dare not professe it out∣wardly 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 of so grosse ignorance and non-sense as this? No verily. But perchance the matter is this: you say (n) 1.13 that Protestants, to whome the Roman Reli∣gion appeareth, though but probably, the safer, cannot continue Protestants, except they continue fooles. Now Pro∣testants by this confession of D. Potter, cannot but see apparently, the Roman Religion to be the safer. Wher∣fore, 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 sup∣position. 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 asserti∣on, that their Religion is false & damnable in your iudg∣ment; 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 vn∣certaine (o) 1.14 Charitable hope, that (p) 1.15 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 ar¦guing from the Confession of our Aduersaries page. 81. If they haue no better ground of their beleefe then their Ad∣uersaries Charitable iudgment of their errours; they will be so farre from conuincing their Aduersaries of lacke of wise∣dome, that themselues cannot escape the imputation of folly.

10. Thus the Doctour endeauours to lay the imputa∣tion of folly vpon vs, for vrging our aduersaries fauou∣rable

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 wise∣dome 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 opini∣on 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 ac∣cording 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 wise∣dome 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 dam∣nable, 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 iudg∣ment of Origen were ful of Christian Charity, who ex∣tended 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 (q) 1.16 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 themsel∣ues 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, & ab∣horre, rate and reuile her, as if she were the vildest Re∣ligion in the world. These speaches of D. Potter against her, she hath many wayes played the Harlot, and in that re∣gard deserued a bill of diuorce from Christ, and the detesta∣tion of Christians: the proud and curst Dame of Rome, which takes vpon her to reuell in the house of God: Popery is the con∣tagion and plague of the Church. These speaches I say eue∣ry man will presently perceiue, that they are voyd of Charity, wordes of contumely and reproach, procee∣ding 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 af∣fection, or any good will to Roman Catholiks, which moueth D. Potter, & such other Ministers to maintaine the errours of the Roman Church to be but littleones, and not damnable; but because they dare not hold the con∣trary, in regard of the vnchristian absurdities, which they perceiue to be consequent theron, as by the next Section will appeare.

All Christians of former ages damned, if the errours of the Roman Church be damnable of themselues. §. 5.

13. CAn any absurdity be more vast and vnchri∣stian then this contained in the title of this paragraph? What wonder, if Protestants (that be mo∣derate, and not carried away with precipitous zeale) through horrour to be forced vnto this immanity, dare not affirme, that our errours are in themselues damnable; though otherwise their little loue towardes vs consi∣dered, they could do it with all their heart. To proue this vast absurdity to be consequent vpon the said pro∣position, we must suppose, what no man doth or can deny, that for many ages before Luther, all the famous men for learning and sanctity, who by heroicall actes of Charity, and other Christian vertues, and working of Miracles maintained the credit of the Christian name, held the doctrines of the Roman Church, which Protestants contend to be erroneous. The fame is also euident concerning the Fathers of the more Primitiue times, and is confessed by Protestantes,(a) 1.17 namly D. Whit∣gift late Archbishop of Canterbury: Almost all the Bi∣shops and Writers of the Greeke Church, and of the Latin al∣so, for the most part were spotted with the doctrines of free∣will, of Merit, of Inuocation of Saintes, and such like; So that, if the Doctrines of the Roman Church, which Protestantes traduce as erroneous, be damnable of themselues; it is consequent, that the most famous Bi∣shops, Doctours and Saints in so many former Chri∣stian ages were guilty of errours in themselues, and of themselues damnable: which being so, they should be

all certainly damned, without any hope of their Salua∣tion.

14. This consequence I proue by what you by write (r) 1.18 pag. 403. lin. 30. They that haue vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their errours, and neglect to vse them; we dare not flatter with so easy a censure as to giue them hope of Saluation. But the eminent Fathers and Christian Sain∣tes of so many ages before Luther, had sufficient vnder∣standing, and meanes to discouer their errours; and yet neuer made vse of them. They had excellent vnder∣standings, they were verst in all manner of sciences, & they had the holy Scripture, which you say is the only meanes to know all necessary truth, and to discouer all damnable errours; a meanes not only sufficient, but al∣so, in your iudgment, most playne, and easy; so that men not only may, but also cannot but therin discouer which be damnable errours, except they wilfully shut their eyes against the light. Therefore there is no hope of the saluation of the Ancient Fathers, and Saintes of for∣mer Christian ages, if your Proposition be true, they who had sufficient vnderstanding and meanes to discouer their errours, and neglected to vse them, there is for them no hope of Saluation. Moreouer, (s) 1.19 pag. 279. num. 64. lin. 8. you say, that which is in it selfe damnable, will actually bring damnation vpon them, that keep themselues in it, by their owne voluntary and auoydable fault; But the Ancient Fathers and holy Saints in the ages before Luther held the doctrines of the Roman Church which you ac∣count damnable, full of great impiety and Idolatry, & they kept thēselues in them (according to your groūds) by their owne voluntary and auoydable fault: for they had sufficient meanes to discouer their errours, to wit, they had the holy Scripture, wherin (as you say) these

errours are discouered, not onely with sufficient, but also with abundant clarity, (t) 1.20 that there cannot possibly be greater; you must therefore of necessity grant, that these damnable and impious errours (if they be such as you say they are) brought actually damnation vpon the Fathers and Saints of former ages. Agayne, page 290. lin. 2. of liuing in the Communion of the Roman Church, and approuing her doctrines and practises you say, (u) 1.21 Though we hope it was pardonable in them who had no meanes to know their errour; yet of its owne nature, and to them who did or might haue knowne their errour, it was cer∣tainely damnable. Now the holy Fathers, and Christian Saints of former ages might haue knowne our errours (if they be errours) because they had the holy Scriptures in which, you say, such errours are discouered, & their damnable falshood, so plainly, as nothing can be more: If then you say true, that the Roman Religion, is full of great impiety and damnable doctrines, it is euidently con∣sequent by your principles, that all holy Bishops, Do∣ctours, and Saints who are confessed to haue held the sayd doctrines, are certainly damned for euer, no hope remaining of their saluation. Wherfore the reason why Protestants hold our Religion safe, and a sure way to Heauen, as being free from damnable errour, is not Charity and excesse of good will they beare to our per∣sons, as they pretend; but feare of the vast absurdity, which they see consequent thereupon, that so many former ages, and worldes of holy Bishops, Doctours, Conuerters of Nations, workers of Miracles, and ad∣mirable Saints, are certainly damned.

15. There be many Protestant Ministers that could find in their hearts to grant this dismall position of the damnation of the ancient euer esteemed Saints, if the

same would stand them in steed to maintaine the diui∣sion from the Roman Church; yet they dare not ven∣ture cleerly to auerre so much, for feare that this would produce the contrary effect, and moue many of their followers to recoyle back from them. For in the separa∣tion made by Luther from the Roman Church, there be many piously inclined mindes, carefull of their future eternity either of weale or woe, cordially desirous to be secure of the happines of the one, and mighty fearefull to fall into the misery of the other. Should Protestant Ministers cleerly deliuer their mindes, that the Roman Religion is damnable euen of it selfe, a direct way to Hell, and that such as walke, or haue walked therein are certainely damded; these piously disposed and time∣rous Soules would feele horrour to be of the Protestant Religion, which cannot be the way of saluation, ex∣cept the Roman Christianity so great, so glorious, so continued from Christ and his Apostles, contayning within her bosome, so many worlds of holy Bishops, learned and pious Pastours, and of admirable Saints be damned, at least all the intelligent Professors therof. The apprehension of this dreadfull and dangerous state amazed euen the stout and curst heart of Luther, whē he saw himselfe engaged in a course, out of which he could not issue with saluation, except so many for∣mer ages of Saints were damned. (k) 1.22 How often (sayth he) did my heart tremble and pant within my breast, obiecting against me that most stronge argument; Art thou onely wise? Did so many Christian worldes in former ages all erre? What, if perhaps thou thy selfe be in errour, and draw an infinite number of Souls after thee into errour, to be damned eternally with thee?

16. You say, (l) 1.23 that your Saluation doth not depend

on ours, that you might be saued though we were Turkes and Pagans: this I well belieue. But now that the Roman Church is not Turcisme, nor Iudaisme, but a Kingdome of Christ diffused ouer the earth, the onely Christian Catholique Religion in the world, which is come from our Sauiour by conspicuous linage, and line of succession by the Apostles; what Christian will not tremble to be in a state, wherein he must expect Salua∣tion from Christ, by damning that Religion, which is so notoriously descended from him?

17. The innated instinct of Godlinesse, the sparkes of Piety which nature hath hidden within the bowels of euery reasonable soule, moue men to acknowledge and reuerence that Religion, as being of God, which they see marked and adorned with diuine and superna∣turall workes, aboue the course and forces of nature. Which Maiesty of miracles shining so gloriously in the Roman Church, can any man that is Religious & fear∣full of God, iudge the same damnable, and venture his soule on the damnation thereof? Wherefore not Loue, not Charity, not Goodwill to the Roman Catholiques is that which moueth Protestants to pronunce her Re∣ligion safe, and free from damnable errour; but the horrour of damning togeather with vs, innumerable millions of holy and heauenly men of former Christian worlds.

18. Finally Protestants vnder pretence of fauouring and comforting vs seeke their owne comfort & solace; that they may find some shelter of hope of saluation vn∣der the wings of the Roman Religion, who in their opposition against her find none, or only poore, meagre and miserable hopes. For, laying for ground this truth, that our Religion is safe; & then assuming this falshood,

that theirs is the same with ours for substance and in all necessary points; they cheere vp many drooping hearts, that can feele no comfort in hoping to be saued by damning the Roman Church: so that care of their owne Sparta, desire to stay the wiser sort of their fol∣lowers in their course of Diuision from the Roman Church; this I say is one of the reasons which maketh Ministers to preach the certainty of Saluation in our Church, and to maske themselues with a vizard of Charity and Friendship towards vs.

That Protestant Religion is not safe, euen in your iudgment. §. 6.

19. YOu say in your Preface n. 39. that you haue not vndertaken the peculiar defence of the do∣ctrine of the Church of England; nor of any other particu∣lar Protestant Church, but the common cause of all Prote∣stants, to maintayne the doctrine of them all; not that it is absolutely true, (for, that is impossible seing they hold contradictions) but that it is free from all impiety and damna∣ble errour. This drift pretended and professed so glo∣riously in the Title and Preface of your booke, you crosse and contradict in the bosome, and heart thereof, con∣demning Protestants of errours, euen in themselues, damnable, as I shall make good and cleere by the foure ensuing testimonies. First Pag. 218. lin. 34. I would not be mistaken, as though I thought the errours of some Prote∣stants inconsiderable thinges, and matters of no moment: for the. Truth is, I am very fearfull, that some of their opinions either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, though not of themselues so damnable, but that iust and holy men may be saued with them; yet are frequent occasions of remisnes, and not seldome of security in sinning &c. Behold you, who in

your Preface made all Protestants secure of their Salua∣tion, because free from errours in themselues damnable; now are very fearfull of them, and dare not acquit them of errours considerable, of moment, in themselues damnable, though not so damnable, but iust and holy men may be saued, with them; Which qualification of your errours doth not so temper or allay their malig∣nity, as to make them lesse damnable then those you impute to the Roman Church: seing you often ac∣knowledge, that with them, and in them, good holy soules may be saued.

20. Secondly Pag. 21. lin. 39. you write more cleerely to make Protestants, euen millions of them,* 1.24 guilty of damnable errours. If any Protestant, or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in errour by any sinne of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such errour is (as the cause of it) sinfull and damnable; yet not exclusiue of all hope of Saluation, but pardonable, if discouered vpon a particular and explicite repentance; if not discouered, vpon a generall and implicite repentance &c. Thus you directly accuse Protestants of sinfull and damnable errours, of errours pardonable, and consequently damnable in themselues. For you say pag. 16. n. 21. lin. 15. the very saying they were pardonable, implies, they needed pardon, and therefore were in them∣selues damnable. This being so, how haue you cleered the Doctrine of all Protestant Sects, though not from all falshood, yet from all errour in it selfe damnable? How do they all of them goe a safe way to saluation, if millions of them walke in damnable errours, which you say, will bring damnation vpon all them that continue in them by their voluntary fault? What reason can you bring, why your Booke might not be inscribed; The Religion of Papists a safe way to Saluation, aswell as, the Religion of

Protestants? For you say Protestants erre damnably as∣well as we; Millions of them aswell as millions of ours; their errours are damnable in themselues aswell as ours; Ours pardonable by Gods great mercy aswel as theirs; they cannot be saued without repentance no more then we; and we may be saued in our errors by a gene∣rall repentance aswell as they? How then is not our Religion a safe way to Saluation aswell as theirs, euen by your Booke of purpose written to saue them, and damne vs.

21. Thirdly, Pag. 280. n. 95. lin. 19. (z) 1.25 Though Prote∣stants haue some Errours; yet seing they are neyther so great as yours, nor imposed with such tyranny, nor maintayned with such obstinacy, he that conceaues &c. In these wordes you suppose, that Protestants haue errours, and great er∣rours imposed with tyranny, maintayned with obsti∣nacy. How then is their Religion a safe way of Saluation? Can saluation stand with impious errours, imposed vpon others with tiranny, and maintayned with obsti∣nacy vntill death? But their errours are not (you say) so great as ours, nor imposed with such tiranny, nor maintayned with such obstinacy. Were this true; it would not proue Protestancy to be a good and safe way to Saluation, & not in it selfe damnable; but only, that ours is more damnable, and a worse way. Besides that our errours be greater then theirs is said by you many times, but not proued so much as once. And seing our errours though (as you say) damnable in themselues yet be pardonable by Gods great mercy; how be the greater then yours, which are also damnable in themselues, and only pardo∣nable 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 ex∣cluded.

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 Pro∣phet. 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 fundamen∣tal, 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,* 1.26 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 ans∣were our Argument, that it was great imprudency in Protestants to forsake the whole visible Catholique Church, for errours not fundamentall, seing they con∣fesse, that in their separation against her, they could not be sure of not falling into errours of the like quali∣ty 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 negli∣gence 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 funda∣mentall; and millions of them as you confesse are by the sinne of their will betrayed into, and kept in er∣rours damnable in themselues. Ergo, it is hardly possi∣ble; but all Protestants must be guilty of supine negli∣gence, and extreme impiety about matters of Fayth, Which being so; how is that Religion a safe way of Sal∣uation, in which hardly any be saued? yea, how be not their errours vnpardonable, seing you write. Pag 275. lin. 15. that,* 1.27 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 auoy∣ded all errours, but would not through supine negli∣gence, and extreme impiety?

23. I haue been the larger in declaring and strengh∣thening this Argument, and shewing the insuperable, force therof. First, because it is the Argument most vr∣ged 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 Argu∣ment 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 sa∣fer, which is confessed to be safe, euen in her Aduersa∣ries iudgment grounded vpon the neuer fayling prin∣ciples of Christian Charity, wisdome, and truth?

Notes

• (b) 1.1

  Pag. 279. n. 64.
• (c) 1.2

  Pag. 397. n 18.
• (d) 1.3

  Saxū versat ne{que} pro∣ficit hilū.
• (e) 1.4

  Pag. 400. n. 28. Cap. 7. n. 2••.
• (f) 1.5

  Cap. 5. n. 58. lin. 8.
• (g) 1.6

  Cap. 5. n. 26. lin. 17.
• (h) 1.7

  Pag. 404. lin. 20. Cap. 7. n. 29.
• (i) 1.8

  Pag. 76. lin. 26.
• (k) 1.9

  Cap. 5. n. 105. lin. 23.
• (l) 1.10

  Pag. 278 lin. 8. cap. 5. n. 61.
• (m) 1.11

  Cap. 7. n. 29. initio.
• * 1.12

  Pag. 77.
• (n) 1.13

  Pag. 395. l. 3. If this did ap∣peare, to per∣suade any man to con∣tinue a Prote∣stant, were to persuade him to conti∣nue a Foole.
• (o) 1.14

  Pag. 226. n. 63.
• (p) 1.15

  Pag. 116. n. 158. in fine.
• (q) 1.16

  Cap. 4. n. 63. lin. 22. Excesse of chari∣ty may make him cē∣sure your er∣rours more fauora∣bly, thē he should do.
• (a) 1.17

  De∣fence against the re∣ply of Cart∣wright pag. 47.
• (r) 1.18

  Cap. 7. n. 26. lin. 30.
• (s) 1.19

  Cap. 6. n. 64. lin 8.
• (t) 1.20

  Pre∣face. n. 11. lin. 17. How is it, possi∣ble any thing should be plai∣ner for¦bidden, then the worship of Angels &c. pag. 181. n. 86. Places of scrip∣ture a∣gainst our er∣rours as cleere as the light at noone.
• (u) 1.21

  Cap. 5. n. 86.
• (k) 1.22

  Prae∣fat. de abro∣ganda Missa prinatâ, Quoties palpita∣uit mihi tremu∣lum cor. & repre∣hendens obiecit illud fortissi∣mum ar∣gumen∣tum; Tu solus sa∣pis, tot ne errāt vniuersi? Tanta saecula ignora∣uerunt?
• (l) 1.23

  Pag. 397. n. 17.
• * 1.24

  Answere to the Preface n. 26. in fine.
• (z) 1.25

  Cap. 5. n. 91. lin. 19.
• * 1.26

  Cap. 5. n. 87.
• * 1.27

  Cap. 5. n. 58. lin. 18.