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 third Conuiction. (Book 3)

IN this Conuiction I am to proue three things: first, that Roman Catholiques hold all fundamētall truth, and so are secure from damnation. Secondly, that it is madnesse to persuade any man to leaue the Roman Church. Thirdly, that it is impossible, that Protestants should be sure they belieue all Fundamentall truths.

That Roman Catholiques are free from all Funda∣mentall Errours, and your Contradictions herein. §. 1.

1. HE that belieues all Fundamentals, cannot be dam∣ned for any errour in fayth; though he belieue more, or lesse to be Fundamentall then is so. This is your for∣mall assertion in so many wordes, pag. 207. n. 34. (k) 1.1 which supposed I assume: But Roman Catholiques belieue all Fundamentals, that is, all necessary truth: Ergo, they cannot be damned for any errour in fayth. The assumption of this argument might be proued, by many testimonies from your Booke. I will insist vpon two, the one in this Section, the other in the next. Pag. 16. lin. 8. We grant the Roman Church was a part of the whole Church. And if she were a true part of the Church, she retayned those truths, which were simply necessary to saluation. For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man, or Church a mem∣ber

of the Church Catholique. In our sense therefore of the word Fundamentall, we hope she erred not fundamentally. Thus you, who (l) 1.2 pag. 280. n. 95. say the playne contra∣ry, that our errours are fundamentall. And pag. 289. nu. 86. (m) 1.3 that our Church not onely might, but also did fall into substantiall errours.

2. I know, that to salue this Contradiction, and to put the terme of fundamentall Errours vpon our Church you haue coyned a distinction of two kinds of funda∣mentall errours. (n) 1.4 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 vnpar∣donable: and such as are not onely meritoriously, but remedi∣lessely 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 (o) 1.5 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 vn∣derstand, not only the things which are remedilessely and indispensably necessary; but also those that be ne∣cessary 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 (p) 1.6 dangerous. Now such as haue all truth Fundamentall to Saluation, they not onely may possibly be saued; but also safely expect Sal∣uation, 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 er∣rours, 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 (q) 1.7 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 as∣sertions; so much, as euen in the same short sentence, you plainely contradict your selfe pag. 16. n. 21. lin. 11.* 1.8 Though we say the errours of the Roman Church were not de∣structiue 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 dam∣nable? what is destructiue of Saluation, but that which of it selfe, and in its nature is apt and sufficient to de∣stroy Saluation, and to bring damnation on men? And is not damnable the very same? How then can our er∣rours be in themselues damnable, and yet not destru∣ctiue of Saluation? You say, a poyson may be deadly in it selfe and yet not kill him, who togeather with it takes an an∣tidote. 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 en∣raged with the title of Catholique giuen her by the con∣sent

of mankind; you protest, that (r) 1.9 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 wan∣tes the very essence of a Christian Church. For pag. 332. n. 11. (s) 1.10 you write: It is not Heresy to oppose any truth propounded by the Church; but only such a truth as is an essen∣tial 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 es∣sence. The Consequence is manifest. For that cannot be a Christian Church for substance & essence, which doth not hold the Gospell of Christ the Christian Re∣ligion 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,* 1.11 and not fundamental against Truths of the Gospell profita∣ble, but not necessary. How can this subsist, if that only be Heresy which opposes the Essentials of the Gospell?

The security in the Roman Church is so great, as it is Madnesse to leaue it. §. 2.

6. THis I shall make good and euident by your owne most true & vndeniable sayings. Our Maintayner obiectes, that some Protestants leauing the Roman Church haue fallen away by degrees, euen from the Fundamentals of Christianity.* 1.12 You answer p. 168. lin. 9.

What if some forsaking the Church of Rome, haue forsaken fundamental truths? Was this because they forsooke the Church of Rome? No sure: this is, non causa pro cau∣sa: For else all that haue forsaken that Church, should haue done so; which we say they haue not: but because they went too farre from her. The golden meane, the narrow way is hard to be found, hard to be kept; hard but not impossible; hard, but yet you must not please your selues out of it, though you erre on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part: for this is the on∣ly way, that leades to life, and few there be that find it. It is true, if we said, there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in lea∣uing it, it were MADNESSE to persuade any man to leaue it.

Thus you. Before I come to the prin∣cipall intent, let me note and put you in mind of two thinges. First that here (as euery where also commonly) you argue fondly, that the cause why some forsaking the Roman Church, forsook also the funda∣mentals of Christianity, was not their forsaking the Roman Church, For els, say you, all that haue forsaken her should haue done so. An argument fond and full of igno∣rance. Otherwise, we might say, that Couetousnesse was not the cause, that Iudas betrayed his Maister; for else all couetous seruants should betray their maisters,

which we know is not so: we may say that zeale of Puritanisme was not the cause, that Enoch ap euan mur∣thered his Brother and Mother; because many zealous Puritans do not murther their Brothers, and mothers that oppose them. These instances and a thousand more which might be brought lay open your ignorance, that you do not distinguish betwixt naturall necessary causes, whose force cannot be resisted; and morall causes, which freely incline the will, leauing it liberty to resist, which is the reason they are effectuall in some, and not in o∣thers.

7. Secondly I note, that you also heere keepe your wont of contradicting your selfe. What you heere say that the narrow and onely way to life and saluation is hard to be found, hard to be kept, without erring on the right hand or on the left; how doth it agree with, or how doth it not directly destroy what you teach (t) 1.13 pag. 221. lin. 20. about your Protestant safeway· This is a way so plaine, that fooles except they will cannot erre from it; because in this way, not being free from errour, but indeauouring to be free, is the onely condition of Saluation. How is, not being free from errour, but endeauouring to be free, in your way the onely condition of Saluation; if keeping the golden meane, and the narrow way without erring eyther on the right hand or left, be in your doctrine the sole meanes of Saluation? How is the way so plaine, that e∣uen fooles, vnlesse they will, cannot erre from it, if it be hard to be kept without erring on the right hand or left? And pag. 290. n. 87. (u) 1.14 whereas the Maintayner sayth, that Protestants should not haue left the Roman Church, for errours vn-fundamētall, seing they were not sure by their departure to auoyd this kind of mischiefe; yea they were sure they could not auoyd it: you say

Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to auoyd this mischiefe (of errours vn-fundamentall) that they proclayme to all the world, that it is most prone and easy to do so, to all those that feare God, and loue truth; and hardly possibly for them to do otherwise without supine negli∣gence and extreme impiety. How do these sayings hange together; The golden meane of sauing truth the only way to life, is hard, difficile, and only not impossible to be kept without erring from it eyther on the left hand Fundamentally; or one the right vn-fundamentally: The way of sauing truth is most prone and easy to be kept, without erring so much as vn-fundamentally; yea, it is hardly possible to erre from it, on eyther side, without supine negligence, and extreme impiety?

8. But now to the Principall intent; by this your confession it is euident, that it is madnes for any man to to leaue the Roman Church, and that your writing to per∣swade them to leaue it was a fit of distemper in your brayne. For you confesse, that if you sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leauing it; is were madnesse to persuade any man to leaue it. Now I assume: But you say both, that there is no dan∣ger in the Roman Church, and that there is extreme danger in leauing it. That you say the first, I proue, be∣cause you say, that he who belieues all Fundamentall truth, cannot be damned for any errour in fayth. And pag. 376. n. 57. (y) 1.15 he that belieues all necessary truth, if his life be answerable to his fayth, how is it possible he should fayle of Saluaton? But you affirme, that the Roman Church retaynes all fundamentall and necessary truth, in that you onely charge her of going from the Golden meane of exact truth, on the right hand, on the surer part. Wher∣fore in the Roman Church men may safely expect Sal∣uation;

there is no danger, yea there is no possibility of damnation for errours in faith with in her Communiō. That you say the second, that there is extreme dāger in leauing the Roman Church, I shew, euē by this testimo∣ny. For you say the Roman Church erreth on the right hand, on the milder part; so that they who leaue her, must of ne∣cessity depart so farre from her on the left hand, that is, into the direfull gulfe of fundamentall errours; except they keepe themselues in the golden meane, in the narrow way; But the golden meane, the narrow way, is (as you pro∣fesse) hard to be found; hard, and onely not impossible to be kept: Ergo, in leauing the Roman Church there is dan∣ger, and exceeding great danger which can hardly be auoyded, of falling into errours fundamentall, remedi∣lessely, and fatally damnable. These being your Cōfessions and otherwise of themselues manifest truths, you must acknowledge it is euen madnesse and fury for any man to forsake the Roman Church; and that your writing to diuert men from her Communion, was a fit of phrensy.

That Protestants can neuer be sure that they belieue all fundamentall and necessary Truth. §. 3.

9. IT being indispensably necessary vnto Salua∣tion to know distinctly and in particular all Fundamental & essentiall truthes; how can Christian soules that be pious, carefull of their eternity, fearfull to fall into damnation euerlasting, rest quiet or calme in conscience, till they know an exact Catalogue of these Fundamentals; that so they may be sure, they know and belieue them distinctly and in particular? Now Protestants neither do, nor can agree vpon an exact Catalogue of their Fundamētals, nor wil tel their

followers distinctly, and in particular which be the ar∣ticles 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: Where∣fore 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 in∣dustry, that in necessaries there may be agreement, and in thin∣ges 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 super∣struction 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 begin∣ning you fall to reiect, pursue, and persecute this your Blessed sentence; and your superstruction theron is no∣thing else, but a load of reproaches. You (x) 1.16 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 impossi∣ble that he should be certaine he hath done it, when he hath done it. And then it is apparently vnnecessary to goe a∣bout it, because he that belieues all, certainly belieues all neces∣saries. 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 wor∣des: 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 Salua∣tion.

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 (z) 1.17 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. (a) 1.18 to a Protestant reque∣sting of you to know, which in particular be funda∣mental 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 de∣ceitfull; in the other impossible to be kept. If (belieue all) import no more, then, belieue in general and confused∣ly 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 (b) 1.19 Pag. 163. n. 3. Fundamen∣tal and essential points be such, as are, not only plainly reuea∣led 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 (c) 1.20 Pag. 194. lin. 16. you teach, that to the constitution of Fundamental pointes, is requi∣red, 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 di∣stinctly 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 Pro∣testants 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 Pro∣testants comply with this your command, pag. 129. n. 5. (d) 1.21 that all of them agree with explicite fayth in all those thinges, which are plainly and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scri∣pture, 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 as∣sertion, you grant pag. 137. lin. 5. (e) 1.22 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 preiudi∣ces, 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 plain∣ly reuealed of God? How can those Protestantes (who dis∣belieue 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 shalbe 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 ne∣uer be sure they belieue all fundamentall truth. And it is seely for you, (f) 1.23 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 be∣lieue them implicitly: we do not say, they must be belie∣ued 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 all men are bound vpon their saluation, to know and belieue them in particular and yet obstinatly refuse to giue them an exact ac∣count, which in particular they be.

13. Besides, what an intricate and infinite obliga∣tion 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 dam∣nation 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 funda∣mentals, be as great as this; yea the same with this; no Protestant can be saued that doth not belieue such pas∣sages of Scripture as be not fundamentall distinctly & in particular, euen as he is bound to belieue fundamen∣tals. You often (as pa. 169. lin. 12.) (g) 1.24 eagerly and bit∣terly declame against vs for requiring harder and heauier conditions of Saluation, then God requires, or then were re∣quired 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: wher∣as your wordes vrging this obligation onely (as now matters stand) imply the contrary. It is therefore mani∣fest, 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 Fun∣damentals, 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 compre∣hend 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 de∣clared to another; and consequently, that may be fundamen∣tall to one, which to another is not. And pag. 281. lin. 4. (f) 1.25 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 repea∣ted, 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, Ca∣pitall 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 salua∣tion: it being contradiction, to say, that Saluation may be had, without any the LEAST thing necessary to Saluation, as you affirme, (g) 1.26 Pag. 382 lin. 1.

Notes

• (k) 1.1

  Cap. 4. n. 34. lin. 2.
• (l) 1.2

  Cap. 5. n. 95.
• (m) 1.3

  Cap. 5. n. 86.
• (n) 1.4

  Cap. 5. n. 88.
• (o) 1.5

  Cap. 4. n. 52. in fine.
• (p) 1.6

  Pag. 133. Their state is dange∣rous though not des∣perate.
• (q) 1.7

  Pag. 16. lin. 7.
• * 1.8

  2. Edit. pag. 16. n. 8.
• (r) 1.9

  Pag. 362. li. 8. Cap. 6. n. 40. lin. 4••.
• (s) 1.10

  Cap. 6. n. 11.
• * 1.11

  Pag. 277. lin. vlt.
• * 1.12

  Cap. 3. n. 63. lin. 14.
• (t) 1.13

  Cap. 4. n. 53. lin. ••9.
• (u) 1.14

  Cap. 5. n. 87. in fine.
• (y) 1.15

  Cap. 6. n. 57. in fine.
• (x) 1.16

  Pag. 23.
• (z) 1.17

  Cap. 6. n. 75. in fine.
• (a) 1.18

  Cap. 4. n. 59. in fine.
• (b) 1.19

  Cap. 4. n. 3.
• (c) 1.20

  Cap. 4. n. 4. lin. 20.
• (d) 1.21

  Cap. 3. n. 5. lin. 4.
• (e) 1.22

  Cap. 3. n. 19. lin. 20.
• (f) 1.23

  Pag. 158. n. 52. lin. 19. pag. 160. n. 33. lin. 31. pag. 162. lin. 20.
• (g) 1.24

  Cap. 3. n. 64. lin. 33.
• (f) 1.25

  Cap. 5. n. 17.
• (g) 1.26

  Cap. 6 in fine totius ca∣pitis.