Mercy & truth. Or Charity maintayned by Catholiques. By way of reply vpon an answere lately framed by D. Potter to a treatise which had formerly proued, that charity was mistaken by Protestants: with the want whereof Catholiques are vniustly charged for affirming, that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes saluation. Deuided into tvvo parts.

CHAP. III. That the distinction of points funda∣mentall and not fundamentall, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present Controuersy. And that the Catholique Visible Church can∣not erre, in either kind of the said points.

THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs, and therfore if it be either vntrue or impertinent (as they vnderstand, & apply it) the whole edifice built ther∣on, must be ruinous and false. For if you ob∣iect their bitter and continued discords in mat∣ters of faith, without any meanes of agreement; they instantly tell you (as Charity Mistaken plainely shewes) that they differ only in points not fundamentall. If you conuince them, euen by their owne Confessions, that the ancient Fathers taught diuers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants; they reply, that

those Fathers may neuertheles be saued, because those errors were not fundamentall. If you will them to remember, that Christ must alwayes haue a visible Church on earth, with admini∣stration of Sacraments, and succession of Pa∣stors, and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman, whose Communion and Doctrine, Luther then forsooke, and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Heresy; they haue an Answere (such as it is) that the Catholique Church cannot perish, yet may erre in points not fundamentall, and ther∣fore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors, vnder paine of Damnation; as if (forsooth) it were Damnable, to hold an error not Fundamentall, nor Damna∣ble. If you wonder how they can teach, that both Catholiques, and Protestants may be sa∣ued in their seuerall professions; they salue this contradiction, by saying, that we both a∣gree in all fundamentall points of faith, which is inough for saluation. And yet, which is pro∣digiously strange, they could neuer be induced to giue a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall, but only by some generall des∣cription, or by referring vs to the Apostles Creed, without determining, what points therein be fundamentall, or not fundamentall for the matter; and in what sense, they be, or be not such: and yet concerning the meaning of di∣uers points contained, or reduced to the Creed,

they differ both from vs, and amōg themselues. And indeed, it being impossible for them to exhibite any such Catalogue, the said distinction of points, although it were pertinent, and true, cannot serue them to any purpose, but still they must remaine vncertaine, whether or not they disagree from one another; from the ancient Fathers; and from the Catholique Church, in points fundamentall: which is to say, they haue no certainty, whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith, without which they can∣not hope to be saued. But of this more heer∣after.

2. And to the end, that what shall be sayd concerning this distinction, may be better vn∣derstood, we are to obserue; that there be two precepts, which concerne the vertue of fayth, or our obligation to belieue diuine truths. The one is by Deuines called Affirmatiue, wherby we are obliged to haue a positiue, explicite be∣liefe of some chiefe Articles of Christian faith. The other is termed Negatiue, which strictly binds vs not to disbelieue, that is, not to belieue the cōtrary of any one point sufficiently repre∣sented to our vnderstācing, as reuealed, or spo∣ken by Almighty God The sayd Affirmatiue Precept (according to the nature of such com∣mands) inioynes some act to be performed, but not at all tymes, nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons, in respect of all Obiects to be belieued. For obiects; we grant that some are more neces∣sary

to be explicitely, and seuerall belieued then other: eyther because they are in themselues more great, and weighty; or els in regard they instruct vs in some necessary Christian duty to∣wards God, our selues, or our Neyghbour. For persons; no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others, by reason of their office, vocation, capacity or the like. For tymes; we are not obliged to be still in act of exerci∣sing acts of fayth, but according as seuerall oc∣casions permit, or require The second kind of precept called Negatiue, doth (according to the nature of all such commands) oblige vni∣uersally, all persons, in respect of all obiects; & at all tymes; semper & pro semper, as Deuines spea∣ke. This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples. I am not obliged to be alwayes helping my Neighbour, because the Affirma∣tiue precept of Charity, bindeth onely in some particuler cases: But I am alwayes bound by a Negatiue precept, neuer to doe him any hurt, or wrong. I am not alwayes bound to vtter what I know to be true: yet I am obliged, neuer to speake any one least vntruth, agaynst my know∣ledge. And (to come to our present purpose) there is no Affirmatiue precept, commanding vs to be at al times actually belieuing any one, or all Articles of faith: But we are obliged, neuer to exercise any act against any one truth, knowne to be reuealed. All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely, and distinctly to know all things te∣stified

by God either in Scripture, or otherwise: but euery one is obliged, not to belieue the con∣trary of any one point, knowne to be testified by God. For that were in fact to affirme, that God could be deceiued, or would deceiue; which were to ouer throw the whole certainty of our faith, wherin the thing most principall, is not the point which we belieue, which Deuines cal the Materiall Obiect, but the chiefest is the Mo∣tiue for which we belieue, to wit, Almighty God's infallible reuelation, or authority which they terme the Formall obiect of our faith. In two senses therefore, and with a double relation, points of fayth may be called fundamentall, and necessary to saluation. The one is taken with reference to the Affirmatiue Precept, when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and belieue them expli∣citely and seuerally. In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith, which D: Potter(a) 1.1 to no purpose laboureth to proue against his Aduersary, who in expresse words doth grant and explicate(b) 1.2 it. But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter, & not say one pertinent word in defense of his distinction, as it was impugned by Charity Mi∣staken, and as it is wont to be applied by Prote∣stants. The other sense, according to which, points of faith may be called Fundamentall, and necessary to saluation, with reference to the Negatiue precept of faith, is such, that we can∣not

not without grieuous sinne, and forfeiture of saluation, disbelieue any one point, sufficiently propounded, as reuealed by Almighty God. And in this sense we auouch, that there is no di∣stinction in points of faith, as if to reiect some must be damnable, and to reiect others, equally proposed as God's word, might stand with sal∣uation. Yea the obligation of the Negatiue pre∣cept is far more strict, then is that of the Affir∣matiue, which God freely imposed, & may free∣ly release. But it is impossible, that he can dis∣pense, or giue leaue to disbelieue, or deny what he affirmeth: and in this sense, sinne & damna∣tion are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall, then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall. All this I shew by an Example, which I wish to be particularly noted for the present, and for diuers other occasions hereaf∣ter. The Creed of the Apostles containes diuers fundamentall points of faith, as the Deity, Trinity of Persons, Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of our Sauiour Christ &c. It con∣taines also some points, for their matter, and narure in themselues not fundamentall, as vn∣der what Iudge our Sauiour suffered, that he was buried, the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day &c. But yet neuer∣thelesse, whosoeuer once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed, the deniall of them is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamentall error: & this is the precise point

of the present question.

3. And all that hitherto hath been said, is so manifestly true, that no Protestant or Chri∣stian, if he do but vnderstand the termes, and state of the Question, can possibly deny it: In so much as I am amazed, that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits, should so en∣slaue themselues to their Predecessors in Pro∣testantisme, as stil to harp on this distinction, & neuer regard how impertinently, and vntruly it was applyed by them at first, to make all Pro∣testants seeme to be of one fayth, because for∣sooth they agree in fundamentall points. For the difference among Protestants, consists not in that some belieue some points, of which o∣thers are ignorant, or not bound expressely to know (as the distinction ought to be applyed;) but that some of them disbelieue, and dire∣ctly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what o∣thers do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God, wherein there is no difference betweene points fundamentall, and not fundamentall; Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as reuealed by God, it is not agaynst faith to reiect them, or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to be∣lieue them; and the like is of points not funda∣mentall, which assoone as they come to be suffi∣ciently propounded as diuine Truths, they can no more be denyed, then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner. Neither wil

it auayle them to their other end, that for pre∣seruation of the Church in being, it is sufficient that she do not erre in poins fundamentall. For if in the meane time she maintaine any one Er∣rour against Gods reuelation, be the thing in it selfe neuer so small, her Errour is damnable, and destructiue of saluation.

4. But D. Potter forgetting to what pur∣pose Protestants make vse of their distinction, doth finally ouer throw it, & yields to as much as we can desire. For, speaking of that measure(c) 1.3 and quantity of faith without which none can be saued, he sayth: It is inough to belieue some things by a vertuall faith, or by a generall, and as it were, a negatiue faith, whereby they are not denied or contra∣dicted. Now our question is in case that diuine truths, although not fundamentall, be denied and contradicted; and therefore, euen accor∣ding to him, all such deniall excludes saluation. After, he speakes more plainely. It is true (saith he) whatsoeuer(d) 1.4 is reuealed in Scripture, or pre∣pounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamentall, in regard of the diuine authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such as may not be denied, or contradicted without Infidelity: such as euery Christian is bound with himility, and reuerence to belieue, whensoeuer the knowledge thereof is offered to him. And further: Where(e) 1.5 the reuealed will or word of God is suffi∣ciently propounded; there he that opposeth, is conuin∣ced of error, and he who is thus conuinced is an Here∣tique,

and Heresie is a worke of the flesh which exclu∣deth from heauen. (Gal. 5.20.21.) And hence it followeth, that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH, and necessary for his salua∣tion, that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God, whereof he may be conuinced that they are from God. Can any thing be spoken more crearely or di∣rectly for vs, that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point, though neuer so small, if once it be sufficiently propounded, as a diuine truth, and that there is, in this sense, no distin∣ction betwixt points fundamentall, and not fundamentall? And if any should chance to i∣magine, that it is against the foundation of faith, not to belieue points Fundamentall, al∣though they be not sufficiently propounded, D. Potter doth not admit of this(f) 1.6 difference bet∣wixt points fundamentall, and not fundamen∣tall. For he teacheth, that sufficient proposition of reuealed truth is required before a man can be conuin∣ced, and for want of sufficient conuiction he ex∣cuseth the Disciples from heresy, although they belieued not our Sauiours Resurrection,(g) 1.7 which is a very fundamentall point of faith. Thus then I argue out of D. Potters owne con∣fesson: No error is damnable vnles the contra∣ry truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God: Euery error is damnable, if the contra∣ry truth be sufficiently propounded as reuealed by God: Therfore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation, if the difference

arise not from the manner of being propoun∣ded. And what now is become of their distin∣ction?

5. I will therfore conclude with this Ar∣gument. According to all Philosophy and Di∣uinity, the Vnity, and distinction of euery thing followeth the Nature & Essence thereof, and therfore if the Nature and being of fayth, be not taken from the matter which a man belieues, but from the motiue for which he belieues, (which is God's word or Reuelation) we must likewise affirme that the Vnity, and Diuersity of faith, must be measured by God's reuelation (which is alike for all obiects) and not by the smalnes, or greatnes of the matter which we belieue. Now, that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnes, or smallnes of the things belieued, is manifest; because otherwise one who belieues only fundamentall points, and another who together with them, doth al∣so belieue points not fundamentall, should haue faith of different natures, yea there should be as many differences of faith, as there are different points which men belieue, according to diffe∣rēt capacities, or instruction &c. all which con∣sequences are absurd, & therfore we must say, that Vnity in Fayth doth not depend vpō points fundamentall, or not fundamentall, but vpon God's reuelation equally or vnequally propo∣sed: and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall

points, do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different ob∣iects which are belieued by them, & since they disagree in things Equally reuealed by Almighty God, it is euident that they forsake the very Formall motiue of faith, which is Gods reuela∣tion and consequently loose all Faith, and Vnity therin.

6. The first part of the Title of this Chap∣ter (That the distinction of points fundamentall & not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants, is both impertinent and vntrue) being demonstrated; let vs now come to the second: That the Church is infallible in all her definitions, whether they concerne points fundamentall, or not fundamentall. And this I proue by these reasons.

7. It hath beene shewed in the prcedent Chapter, that the Church is Iudge of Contro∣uersies in Religion; which she could not be, if she could erre in any one point, as Doctor Potter would not deny, if he were once persuaded that she is Iudge. Because if she could erre in some points, we could not rely vpon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing.

8. This same is proued by the reason we al∣ledged before, that seeing the Church was in∣fallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written (vnles we will take away all certainty of fayth for that tyme) we cannot with any shew of reason affirme, that she hath been de∣priued thereof by the adioined comfort, & help

of sacred Writ.

9. Moreouer to say, that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine, ma∣keth her lyable to damnable sinne and errour; & yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably. For if in that kind of Oath, which Deuines call Assertorium, wherin God is called to witnes, euery falshood is a deadly sinne in any priuate person whatsoeuer, although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall, nor preiu∣diciall to any; because the quantity, or greatnes of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the manner, & authority whereby it is auouched, and by the iniury that is offered to Almighty God in ap∣plying his testimony to a falshood: in which respect it is the vnanimous consent of all Deui∣nes, that in such kind of Oaths, no leuitas mate∣riae, that is, smallnes of matter, can excuse from a mortall sacriledge, agaynst the morall vertue of Religiō which respects worship due to God: If, I say, euery least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresayd kind of Oath; much more perni∣cious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound vntrue Articles of fayth, thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood, and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same. Besids, according to the doctrine of all Deuines, it is not only iniu∣rious to Gods Eternall Verity, to disbelieue things by him reuealed, but also to propose as

reuealed truths, thinges not reuealed: as in commonwealths it is a haynous offence to coy∣ne eyther by counterfeyting the mettall or the stamp, or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeyt, although the contents were sup∣posed to be true. And whereas, to shew the detestable sinne of such pernicious fictions, the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broa∣chers of faygned reuelations, visions, miracles, prophecies &c. as in particuler appeareth in the Councell of(h) 1.8 Lateran, excommunicating such persons; if the Church her selfe could pro∣pose false reuelations, she herselfe should haue beene the first, and chiefest deseruer to haue been censured, and as it were excommunicated by herselfe. For (as they holy Ghost sayth in(i) 1.9 Iob) doth God need your lye, that for him you may speake deceypts? And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verifyed in fictitious reuelations: If any(k) 1.10 shals add to these things, God will add vnto him the plagues which are written in this Booke: & D. Potter sayth, To add(l) 1.11 to it (speaking of the Creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract frō it. And therfore to say the Church may add false Reuelations, is to accuse her of high presumption, and of pernicious errour excluding saluation.

10. Perhaps some will heere reply that al∣though the Church may erre, yet it is not im∣puted to her for sinne, by reason she doth not erre vpon malice, or wittingly, but by igno∣rance,

or mistake.

11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cānot serue. For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall, she cannot but know, that she may erre in points not funda∣mentall, at least she cannot be certaine that she cānot erre, & therfore cannot be excused from headlong & pernicious temerity, in proposing points not fundamētall, to be belieued by Chri∣stians, as matters of faith, wherin she can haue no certainty, yea which alwayes imply a fal∣shood. For although the thing might chance to be true, and perhaps also reuealed; yet for the matter she, for her part, doth alwaies expose her∣selfe to danger of falshood & error; and in fact doth alwayes erre in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall; because she proposeth it as a point of faith cer∣tainly true, which yet is alwayes vncertaine, if she in such things may be deceiued.

12. Besides, if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, she may erre in pro∣posing some Scripture for Canonicall, which is not such: or els erre in keeping and conseruing from corruptions such Scriptures as are alrea∣dy belieued to be Canonicall. For I will sup∣pose, that in such Apocryphall Scripture as she deliuers, there is no fundamentall error against faith, or that there is no falshood at all but on∣ly want of diuine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant, that it is a funda∣mentall

error, to apply diuine reuelation to any point not reuealed, or els must yield, that the Church may erre in her Proposition, or Custody of the Canon of Scripture: And so we cannot be sure whether she haue not been deceiued al∣ready, in Bookes recommended by her, and ac∣cepted by Christians. And thus we shall haue no certainty of Scripture, if the Church want certainty in all her definitions. And it is wor∣thy to be obserued, that some Bookes of Scrip∣ture which were not alwayes knowne to be Canonicall, haue been afterward receiued for such; but neuer any one Booke, or syllable de∣fined by the Church to be Canonicall, was af∣terward questioned, or reiected for Apocry∣phall. A signe, that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost, neuer to propose as diuine truth, any thing not reuealed by God: & that, Omission to define points not sufficient∣ly discussed is laudable, but Commission in pro∣pounding things not reuealed, inexcusable; into which precipitation our Sauiour Christ neuer hath, nor neuer will permit his Church to fall.

13. Nay, to limit the generall promises of our Sauiour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamētall, namely, that the gates(m) 1.12 of hell shall not preuaile against her: and that, the holy Ghost(n) 1.13 shall lead her into all truth &c. is to destroy all Faith. For we may by that do∣ctrine, and manner of interpreting the Scri∣pture, limit the Infallibility of the Apostles

words, & preaching, only to points fundamen∣tall: and whatsoeuer general Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their Infallibility, they may, by D. Potters example be explicated, & re∣strained to points fundamentall. By the same reason it may be further affirmed, that the Apo∣stles, and other Writers of Canonicall Scrip∣ture, were endued with infallibility, only in setting downe points fundamentall. For if it be vrged, that all Scripture is diuinely inspired; that it is the word of God &c. D. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answere to say, that Scripture is ins∣pired &c. only in those parts, or parcels, wherin it deliuereth fundamentall points. In this man∣ner D. Fotherby sayth: The Apostle(o) 1.14 twice in one Chapter professed, that this he speaketh, & not the Lord; He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God, that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man. D. Potter also speakes very dangerously towards this purpose, Sect. 5. where he endeauoureth to proue, that the infallibility of the Church is li∣mited to points fundamētall, because as Nature, so God is neither defectiue in(p) 1.15 necessaries, nor la∣uish in superfluities. Which reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture, and of the Apostles must be restrained to points neces∣sary to saluation, that so God be not accused, as defectiue in necessaries, or lauish in superfluities. In the same place he hath a discourse much ten∣ding to this purpose, where speaking of these

words: The Spirit shall leade you into all truth, and shall abide with(q) 1.16 you for euer, he sayth: Though that promise was(r) 1.17 directly, and primarily made to the Apostles (who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner, then any since them) yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church, and is verified in the Church Vniuersall. But all truth is not simply all, but all of some kind. To be led into all truths, is to know, and belieue them. And who is so simple as to be ignorant, that there are many millions of truths (in Nature, History, Diuinity) whereof the Church is simply ignorant. How many truths lye vn∣rouealed in the infinite treasury of God's wisdome, wherewith the Church is not acquainted &c. so then, the truth it selfe enforceth vs to vnderstand by (all truths) not simply all, not all which God can possibly reueale, but all pertayning to the substance of faith, all truth absolutely necessary to saluation. Marke what he sayth. That promise (The spirit shall lead you into all truth,) was made directly to the A∣postles, & is verified in the vniuersall Church, but by all truth is not vnderstood simply all, but all apper∣tayning to the substance of faith, and absolutely ne∣cessary to saluation. Doth it not hence follow, that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth, is to be vnderstood only of all truth absolutly necessary to saluation? & con∣sequently their preaching, and writing, were not infallible in points not fundamentall? or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as diuine truth, the like must be

affirmed of the Church, because D. Potter tea∣cheth, the sayd promise to be verifyed in the Churh. And as he limits the aforesayd wordes to points fundamentall; so may he restrayne what other text soeuer that can be brought for the vniuersall infallibility of the Apostles or Seriptures. So he may; and so he must, least o∣therwise he receiue this answere of his owne from himseife, How many truths lye vnreuealed in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome, wherewith the Church is not acquainted? And therefore to veri∣fy such generall sayings, they must be vnder∣stood of truths absolutely necessary to Salua∣tion. Are not these fearefull cōsequences? And yet D. Potter will neuer be able to auoyd them, till he come to acknowledge the Infallibility of the Church in al points by her proposed as diui∣ne truths; & thus it is vniuersally true that she is lead into al truth, in regard that our Sauiour ne∣uer permits her to define, or teach any falshood.

14. All, that with any colour may be repli∣ed to this argument is; That if once we call a∣ny one Booke, or parcell of Scripture in que∣stion; although for the matter it containe no fundamentall errour, yet it is of great impor∣tance and fundamentall, by reason of the con∣sequēce; because if once we doubt of one Boo∣ke receiued for Canonicall, the whole Canon is made doubtfull and vncertayne, and there∣fore the Infallibility of Scripture must be vni∣uersall, and not confined within compasse of

points fundamentall.

15. I answere: For the thing it selfe it is very true, that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture receaued for such, I may doubt of all: And thence by the same parity I inferre, that if we did doubt of the Churches Infallibility in some points, we could not belieue her in any one, and consequently not in propounding Ca∣nonicall Bookes, or any other points fundamen∣tall, or not fundamentall; which thing being most absurd, and withall most impious, we must take away the ground thereof, & belieue that she cannot erre in any point great or small: and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intended to proue. Yet I add, that Prote∣stants cannot make vse of this reply, with any good coherence to this their distinction, and some other doctrines which they defend. For if D. Potter can tell what points in particuler be fundamentall (as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth) then he may be sure, that whensoeuer he meets with such points in Scripture, in them it is in∣fallibly true, although it might erre in others: & not only true, but cleere, because Protestants teach, that in matters necessary to Saluation, the Scripture is so cleere, that all such necessary Truths are eyther manifestly contayned there∣in, or may be cleerely deduced from it. Which doctrines being put togeather, to wit: That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall; that they cleerely containe all such points; and

that they can tell what points in particuler be such, I meane fundamentall; it is manifest, that it is sussiciēt for Saluation, that Scripture be in∣fallible only in points fundamentall. For sup∣posing these doctrines of theirs to be true, they may be sure to find in Scripture all points ne∣cessary to saluation, although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment. Neyther will they be able to auoyde this impiety against ho∣ly Scripture, till they renounce their other do∣ctrines: and in particuler, till they belieue that Christs promises to his Church, are not limi∣ted to points fundamentall.

16. Besides, from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points, it follow∣eth, that no true Protestant learned, or vnlear∣ned, doth or can with assurance belieue the v∣niuersall Church in any one point of doctrine. Not in points of lesser momēt, which they call not fundamentall; because they belieue that in such points she may erre. Not in fundamentalls; because they must know what points be funda∣mentall, before they go to learne of her, least other wise they be rather deluded, then instru∣cted; in regard that her certaine, and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall. Now, if before they addresse themselues to the Church, they must know what points are fun∣damentall, they learne not of her, but will be be as fit to teach, as to be taught by her: How then are all Christians so often, so seriously,

vpon so dreadfull menaces, by Fathers, Scrip∣tures, and our blessed Sauiour himselfe, coun∣selled and commaunded to seeke, to heare, to obey the Church? S. Augustine was of a very different mind from Protestants: If (sayth he) the(s) 1.18 Church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that ought to be so done, is a most insolent madnes. And in another place he sayth. That which(t) 1.19 the whole Church holds, and is not ordained by Coūcels, but hath alwaies beene kept, is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority. The same holy Father tea∣cheth, that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proued by Scripture alone, and yet that it is to be belieued, as deriued from the Apostles. The custome of our Mother the(u) 1.20 Church (saith he) in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor is it at all to be belieued, vnles it were an Apostoli∣call Tradition. And elsewhere. Christ(w) 1.21 is of profit to Children baptized; Is he therefore of profit to persons not belieuing? But God forbid, that I should say Infants doe not belieue. I haue already sayd, he be∣lieues in another, who sinned in another. It is sayd, he belieues, & it is of force, and he is reckoned among the faythfull that are baptized. This the authority of our Mother the Church hath; against this st••ēgth, against this inuincible wal whosoeuer rusheth shalbe crushed in pieces. To this argument the Protestants in the Cōference at Ratisbon, gaue this round answer: Nos ab Augustino(x) 1.22 hac in parte liberè dissentimus.

In this we plainely disagree from Augustine. Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fun∣damentall in D. Potters sense, then according to S. Augustine, the infallibility of the Church ex∣tends to points not fundamentall. But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point; then ac∣cording to the same holy Doctour, we must rely on the authority of the Church, for some fun∣damentall point, not contained in Scripture, but deliuered by Tradition. The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not re∣baptizing of those who were baptized by Here∣tiques, whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner. We follow(y) 1.23 indeed in this matter euen the most certaine authori∣ty of Canonicall Scriptures. But how? Consider his words: Although verily there be brought no exam∣ple for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures, yet euen in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by vs, while we do that, which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend, that so, because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs, whosoeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question, must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it, which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth de∣monstrate to vs. Amōg many other points in the aforesaid words, we are to obserue, that accor∣ding to this holy Father, when we proue some points not particulerly contained in Scripture, by the authority of the Church, euen in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such

points without Scripture, because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church; and therfore re∣lying on her we rely on Scripture, without danger of being deceiued by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church. And else where he sayth: Seing this is(z) 1.24 written in no Scri∣pture, we must belieue the testimony of the Church, which Christ declareth to speake the truth. But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques, is no necessary point of faith, nor the contrary an heresy: wherin he cōtradicteth S. Augustine, from whom we haue now heard, that what the Church teacheth, is truly said to be taught by Scripture; and consequently to deny this particuler point, deliuered by the Church, is to oppose Scripture it selfe. Yet if he will needs hold, that this point is not funda∣mentall, we must conclude out of S. Augustine, (as we did concerning the baptizing of Chil∣dren) that the infallibility of the Church rea∣cheth to points not fundamentall. The same Fa∣ther in another place, concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques, sayth: The(a) 1.25 Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this, but this Custome ought to be belieued to be originally taken from their tradition, as there are many things that the vniuersall Church obserueth which are therfore with good reason belie∣ued to haue beene commanded by the Apostles, al∣though they be not written. No lesse cleere is S. Chry∣sostome

for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church. For treating these words (2. Thess. 2. Stand, and hold the Traditions which you haue lear∣ned whether by speach or by our Epistle) saith: Hence it is(b) 1.26 manifest that they deliuered not all things by letter, but many things also without writing, & these also are worthy of beliefe. Let vs therfore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe. It is a Tradition: Seeke no more. Which words are so plaine against Protestants, that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome, saying: I answere(c) 1.27 that this is an inconsiderate speach, and vnworthy so great a Father. But let vs conclude with S. Augu∣stine, that the Church cannot approue any er∣ror against fayth, or good manners. The Church (sayth he) being(d) 1.28 placed betwixt much chasse & cockle, doth tollerate many things; but yet she doth not approue, nor dissemble, nor do those things which are against fayth, or good life.

17. And as I haue proued that Protestants, according to their grounds, cannot yield infal∣lible assent to the Church in any one point: so by the same reason I proue, that they cannot rely vpon Scripture it selfe in any one point of sayth. Not in points of lesser moment (or not fundamentall,) because in such points the Ca∣tholique Church, (according to D. Potter) and much more any Protestant may erre, & thinke it is contained in Scripture, when it is not. Not in points fundamentall, because they must first know what points be fundamentall, before

they can be assured, that they cannot erre in vnderstanding the Scripture, and consequently independantly of Scripture, they must fore∣know all fundamentall points of fayth: and therfore they do not indeed rely vpon Scrip∣ture, either for fundamentall, or not funda∣mentall points.

18. Besides, I mainely vrge D. Potter, and o∣ther Protestants, that they tell vs of certaine points which they call fundamentall, and we cannot wrest from them a list in particuler of such points, without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall, and be capable of saluation. And which is most lamentable, insteed of giuing vs such a Cata∣logue, they fall to wrangle among themselues about the making of it.

19. Caluin holds the(e) 1.29 Popes Primacy. Inuocation of Saints, Freewill, and such like, to be fundamentall errors ouerthrowing the Gospell. Others are not of his mind, as Melan∣cthon who sayth, in(f) 1.30 the opinion of himselfe, and other his Brethren, That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of vse, or profit to this end, that Consent of Doctrine may be retained. An agree∣ment therfore may easily be established in this Ar∣ticle of the Popes Primacy, if other Articles could be agreed vpon. If the Popes Primacy be a meanes, that consent of Doctrine may be retained, first submit to it, and other articles wilbe easily agreed vpon. Luther also sayth of the Popes Pri∣macy,

it may be borne(g) 1.31 with••••. And why then, O Luther, did you not beare with it? And how can you, and your followers be excused from damnable Schisme, who chose rather to de∣uide Gods Church, then to beare with that, which you confesse may be borne withall? But let vs go forward. That the doctrine of free∣will, Prayer for the dead, worshipping of I∣mages, Worship and Inuocation of Saints, Reall presence, Transubstantiation, Recea∣uing vnder one kind, Satisfaction, and Me∣rit of workes, and the Masse, be not funda∣mentall Errours, is taught (respectiuè) by di∣uers Protestants, carefully alledged in the Pro∣testants(h) 1.32 Apology &c. as namely by Perkins, Cartwright, Frith, Fulke, Henry Spark, Goade, Lu∣ther, Reynolds, Whitaker, Tindall, Francis Fohn∣son, with others. Contrary to these, is the Con∣fession of the Christian fayth, so called by Prote∣stāts, which I mentioned(i) 1.33 heertofore, wher∣in we are damned vnto vnquencheable fire, for the doctrine of Masse, Prayer to Saints, and for the dead, Freewill, Presence at Idol-seruice, Mans merit, with such like. Iustificatiō by saith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the(k) 1.34 Church: The only principall origen of(l) 1.35 Saluation: of all other points of(m) 1.36 dectrine the chiefest and weighti••st. Which yet, as we haue seen, is cōtrary to other Protestants, who teach that merit of good workes is not a fundamen∣tall Errour; yea, diuers Protestants defend me∣rit

of good works, as may be seene in(n) 1.37 Brere∣ley. One would thinke that the Kings Supre∣macy, for which some blessed men lost their li∣ues was once among Protestants held for a Ca∣pitall point; but now D. Andrewes late of Win∣chester in his booke agaynst Bellarmine tells vs, that it is sufficient to reckon it among true doctri∣nes. And Wotton denies that Protestants(o) 1.38 Hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essentiall point of fayth. O freedome of the new Ghospell? Hold with Catholiques, the Pope; or with Protestants, the King; or with Puritanes, neyther Pope, nor King, to be Head of the Church, all is one, you may be saued. Some, as Castalio,(p) 1.39 and the whole Sect of the Academicall Protestants, hold, that doctrines about the Supper, Baptis∣me, the state and office of Christ, how he is one with his Father, the Trinity, Predestination, and diuers other such questions are not necessa∣ry to Saluatiō. And (that you may obserue how vngrounded, and partiall their Assertions be) Perkins teacheth, that the Reall presence of our Sauiours Body in the Sacramēt as it is belieued by Catholiques, is a fundamentall errour; and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Luthe∣rans not to be such, notwithstāding that diuers chiefe Lutherans, to their Consubstantiation ioyne the prodigious Heresy of Vbiquitation. D. Vshher in his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catho∣lique fayth, grants Saluation to the Aethiopians, who yet with Christian Baptisme ioyne Circū∣cision

D. Potter(q) 1.40 cites the doctrine of some whome he termeth men of great learning and iudgement: that, all who professe to loue and honour IESVS-CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church, and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren. One of these men of great learning and iudg∣ment, is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent, whose loue & honour to Iesus-Christ, you may perceyue, by his saying, that the Chur∣ches of Arians (who denyed our Sauiour Christ to be God) are to be accounted the Church of God, because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell,* 1.41 which is Fayth in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God, and Sauiour of the world. And, which is more, it see∣meth by these charitable men, that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to be∣lieue one only God. For D. Potter(r) 1.42 among the arguments to proue Hookers, & Mortons opi∣nion, brings this: The people of the ten Tribes after their defection, notwithstanding their grosse corrup∣tions, and Idolatry, remained still a true Church. We may also, as it seemeth by these mens rea∣soning, deny the Resurrection, and yet be mē∣bers of the true Church. For a learned man (sayth D. Potter(s) 1.43 in behalfe of Hookers, and Mortons opinion) was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church, though he did pro∣fessedly doubt of the last Resurrectiō of our bo∣dies. Deere Sautour! What tymes doe we be∣hold? If one may be a member of the true Church, and yet deny the Trinity of Persons,

the God head of our Sauiour, the necessity of Baptisme, if we may vse Circumcision, and with the worship of God ioyne Idolatry, wher∣in doe we differ from Turks, and Iewes? or ra∣ther are we not worse, then eyther of them? If they who deny our Sauiours diuinity might be accounted the Church of God, how will they deny that fauour to those ancient Heretiques, who denyed our Sauiours true humanity? and so the totall deny all of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church. S. Huary(t) 1.44 maketh it of equall necessity for Saluation, that we belieue our Sauiour to be true God, and true Man, saying: This manner of Confession we are to hold, that we remember him to be the Sonne of God, and the Sonne of Man, be∣cause the one without the other, can giue no hope of Saluation. And yet D. Potter sayth of the afore∣sayd doctrine of Hooker and Morton: The(u) 1.45 Reader may be pleased to approue, or reiect it, as he shall find cause. And in another place(w) 1.46 he shew∣eth so much good liking of this doctrine, that he explicateth and proueth the Churches per∣petuall Visibility by it. And in the second Edi∣tion of his booke, he is carefull to declare, and illustrate it more at large then he had done be∣fore: howsoeuer, this sufficiently sheweth, that they haue no certainty, what points be funda∣mentall. As for the Arians in particuler, the Authour whome D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholike, but is indeed a plaine Heretique, or

rather Atheist, Lucian-like resting at all Reli∣gion, placeth Arianisme among fundamentall errors: But(x) 1.47 contrarily an English Prote∣stant Deuine masked vnder the name of Ire∣naeus Philalethes, in a little Booke in Latin enti∣tuled, Dissertatio de pace & concordiae Ecclesiae, en∣deauoureth to proue, that euen the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with saluation. Diuers Protestants haue taught, that the Ro∣man Church, erreth in fundamentall points: But D. Potter, and others teach the contrary, which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points. You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error, in the matter(y) 1.48 and nature of it properly hereticall; because they taught that the Church remained only with them, in the part of Donatus: And yet ma∣ny Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall error, that them∣selues goe further, and say; that for diuers ages before Luther there was no true visible Church at all. It is then too too apparent, that you haue no agreement in specifying, what be funda∣mentall points; neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be; for if you haue any such meanes, why do you not agree? You tell vs, the Creed containes all points fundamen∣tall, which although it were true, yet you see it serues not to bring you to a particuler know∣ledge, and agreement in such points. And no wonder. For (besides what I haue said already

in the beginning of this Chapter, & am to deli∣uer more at large in the next) after so much la∣bour and paperspent to proue that the Creed cō∣taynes all fundamentall points, you conclude: It remaines(a) 1.49 very probable, that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundament all truths, wher∣of consists the Vnity of fayth, and of the Catholique Church. Very probable? Then, according to all good Logick, the contrary may remaine very probable, and so all remaine as full of vncertain∣ty, as before. The whole Rule, say you, & the fol Iudge of your faith, must be Scripture. Scri∣pture doth indeed deliuer diuine Truths, but feldome doth qualify them, or declare whether they be, or be not, absolutly necessary to salua∣tion. You fall(b) 1.50 heauy vpon Charity Mistaken, because he demands a particuler Catalogue of fundamental points, which yet you are obli∣ged in conscience to doe, if you be able. For without such a Catalogue, no man can be as∣sured whether or no, he haue fayth sufficient to Saluation. And therefore take it not in ill part, if we agayne and agayne demand such a Cata∣logue. And that you may see we proceed faire∣ly, I will performe, on our behalfe, what we request of you, & do heer deliuer a Catalogue, wherein are comprized all points by vs taught to be necessary to Saluation, in these wordes: We are obliged, vnder payne of damnation, to belieue whatsoeuer the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth, as renealed by Almighty God. If any be

of another mind, all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique. But inough of this. And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points.

20. For, euen out of your owne doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessa∣ry to saluation, any wise man will infer, that it behooues all, who haue care of their soules, not to forsake her in any one point. 1. Because they are assured, that although her doctrine proued not to be true in some point, yet euen according to D. Potter, the error cannot be fundamentall, nor destructiue of fayth, and saluation: neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring (if it were possible) with the vniuersall Church. Secondly, since she is, vnder paine of eternall damnation, to be belieued, and obeyed in some things, wherin confessedly she is en∣dewed with infallibility; I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment. For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence, and be afraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment? Thirdly, since (as I said) we are vndoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest, or fundamentall points, and that there is no Rule to know preci∣sely what, and how many those fundamentall points be; I cannot without hazard of my soule, leaue her in any one point, lest perhaps that point or points wherin I forsake her, proue in∣deed to be fundamentall, and necessary to sal∣uation.

Fourthly, that visible Church which can not erre in points fundamentall, doth with∣out distinction, propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be belieued vn∣der Anathema's or Curses, esteeming all those who resist, to be deseruedly cast out of her Communion, and holding it as a point necessa∣ry to saluation, that we belieue she cannot erre: wherin if she speake true, then to deny any one point in particuler, which she defineth, or to af∣firme in generall, that she may erre, puts a man into state of damnation. Wheras to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to salua∣tion, can not endanger saluation; as likewise to remaine in her Communion, can bring no great harme, because she cannot maintaine any damnable error, or practise: but to be deuided frō her (she being Christs Catholique Church) is most certainely damnable. Fifthly, the true Church, being in lawfull, and certaine posses∣sion of Superiority and Power, to command & require Obedience, from all Christians in some things; I cannot without grieuous sinne with∣draw my obedience in any one, vnles I euident∣ly know, that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth. And who can better in∣forme me, how far God's Church can proceed, then God's Church herselfe? Or to what Do∣ctor can the Children, and Schoollers, with grea∣ter reason, and more security, fly for direction,

then to the Mother, and appointed Teacher of all Christians? In following her, I shall sooner be excused, then in cleauing to any particuler Sect, or Person, teaching, or applying Scriptures against her doctrine, or interpretation. Sixtly, the fearefull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours, haue failed, euen in fundamentall points, and suffered ship wracke of their Salua∣tion ought to deter all Christians, from oppo∣sing her in any one doctrine, or practise: as (to omit other, both ancient and moderne heresies) we see that diuers chiefe Protestants, preten∣ding to reforme the corruptions of the Church, are come to affirme, that for many Ages, she erred to death, and wholy perished; which D. Potter, cannot deny to be a fundamentall Er∣rour against that Article of our Creed, I belieue the Catholike Church, as he affirmeth it of the Donatists, because they confined the vniuersall Church within Afirica, or some other small tract of soile. Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour, it is most safe for me to belieue al the Decrees of that Church, which cānot erre fundamentally: especially if we add; That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Deuines, one errour in fayth, whether it be for the matter if selfe, great or small, destroyes fayth, as is hewed in Charity Mistaken; and cō∣sequently to accuse the Church of any one Er∣rour, is to affirme, that the lost all fayth, and

erred damnably: which very saying is damna∣ble, because at leaues Christ no visible Church on earth.

21. To all these arguments I add this demō∣stration: D. Potter teacheth, that there neyther was(c) 1.51 nor can be any iust cause to depart frō the Church of Christ, no more then from Christ himselfe. But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of fayth, men not only may, but must forsake her in those, (vnles D. Potter will haue them to be∣lieue one thing, and professe another:) and if such errours, and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy, publique Ser∣uice, administration of Sacraments, & the like; they who perceiue such errours, must of neces∣sity leaue her externall Cōmunion. And there∣fore if once we grant the Church may erre, it followeth that men may, and ought to forsake her (which is against D. Potters owne wordes,) or else they are inexcusable who left the Com∣munion of the Roman Church, vnder pretence of Errors, which they grant, not to be funda∣mentall. And if D. Potter thinke good to ans∣were this argument, he must remember his owne doctrine to be, that euen the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall.

22. An other argument for the vniuersall infallibility of the Church, I take out of D. Pot∣ters owne words. If (sayth he) we(d) 1.52 did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly

Catholique. These words cannot be true, vnlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique, cannot erre in points not fundamentall. For if she may erre in such points, the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall, may agree with the Church truly Catholique, if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall. Therfore either he must ac∣knowledge a plaine contradiction in his owne words, or else must grant, that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamen∣tall, which is what we intended to proue.

23. If Words cannot perswade you, that in all Controuersies you must rely vpon the infal∣libility of the Church; at least yield your as∣sent to Deeds. Hither to I haue produced Argu∣ments drawne, as it were, ex naturâ rei, from the Wisdome, and Goodnes of God, who can∣not faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controuersies, which, as we haue proued, can be no other, except a Visible Church, infallible in all her Definitions. But because both Catholiques and Protestants, re∣ceiue holy Scripture, we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concerne Faith and Religion. Our Sa∣uiour speaketh cleerely: The gates of Hell(e) 1.53 shall not preuaile against her. And, I will aske my(f) 1.54 Father, and he will giue you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for euer, the Spirit of truth. And, But when he, the Spirit of(g) 1.55 truth cometh, he shall

teach you all truth. The Apostle sayth, that the Church is, the Pillar, and ground(h) 1.56 of Truth. And, He gaue, some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Euangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, vn∣to the worke of the Ministery, vnto the edifying of the body of Christ: vntill we meete all into the vnity of faith, and knowledge of the Sonne of God, into a per∣fect man, into the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ: that now we be not Children wauering, and carried about with euery wind of dectrine in the wie∣kednes of men, in craftines, to the circumuention(i) 1.57 of Errour. All which wordes seeme cleerely inough to proue, that the Church is vniuer∣sally infallible, without which, Vnity of faith could not be conserued agaynst euery wind of Doctrine: And yet Doctor Potter(k) 1.58 limits these promises & priuiledges to fundamentall points, in which he grants the Church cannot erre. I vrge the wordes of Scripture, which are v∣niuersall, and doe not mention any such re∣straint. I alleadge that most reasonable, and receaued Rule, that Scripture is to be vnder∣stood literally, as it soundeth, vnlesse some manifest absurdity force vs to the contrary. But all will not serue, to accord our different interpretations. In the meane tyme diuers of Doctor Potters Brethren steppe in, and reiect his limitation, as ouer large, and som what tasting of Papistry: And therfore they restraine the mentioned Texts, either to the Infallibility

which the Apostles, and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture: or else to the inui∣sible Church of the Elect; and to them, not abso∣lutely, but with a double restriction, that they shall not fall damnably, & finally; and other men haue as much right as these, to interpose their opinion, & interpretation. Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scri∣pture: We confer diuers places and Text: We consult the Originals: We examine Transla∣tions: We endeauour to pray hartily: We pro∣fesse to speake sincerely; To seeke nothing but truth and saluation of our owne soules, & that of our Neighbours; and finally we vse all those meanes, which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture: Neuertheles we neither do, or haue any possible meanes to agree, as long as we are left to our selues; and when we should chance to be agreed, the doubt would still remaine whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no: And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God, the Louer of soules, hath left no certaine infallible meanes, to decide both this, and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or vpon any other occasion. Our remedy therfore in these con∣tentions must be, to consult, and heare God's Visible Church, with submissiue acknowledg∣ment of her Power, and Infallibility in what∣soeuer she proposeth as a reuealed truth: accor∣ding

to that diuine aduice of S. Augustine in these words. If at length(l) 1.59 thou seeme to be suffi∣ciently tossed, and hast a desire to put an end to thy paines, follow the way of the Catholique Discipline, which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come downe euen to vs, and from vs shall descend to all posterity. And though I conceiue that the di∣stinction of points fundamentall, and not funda∣mentall hath now beene sufficiently confuted; yet that no shadow of difficulty may remaine, I will particulerly refell a common saying of Protestants, that it is sufficient for saluation, to belieue the Apostles Creed, which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamentall points of Fayth.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Pag. 209
• (b) 1.2

  Charity Mistaken c. 8. pag. 75.
• (c) 1.3

  pag. 211.
• (d) 1.4

  pag. 212.
• (e) 1.5

  pag. 250.
• (f) 1.6

  Pag. 246.
• (g) 1.7

  pag. 246.
• (h) 1.8

  Sub Le∣on. 10. Sess. 11.
• (i) 1.9

  Cap. 13. v. 7.
• (k) 1.10

  Cap. vlt. v. 18.
• (l) 1.11

  pag. 222.
• (m) 1.12

  Matt. 16.18.
• (n) 1.13

  Ioan. 16.13.
• (o) 1.14

  In his Sermōsserm: 2. pag. 50.
• (p) 1.15

  pag. 150.
• (q) 1.16

  Joan. c. 16.13. &c. 14.16.
• (r) 1.17

  Pag. 151.152.
• (s) 1.18

  Epist. 118.
• (t) 1.19

  lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24.
• (u) 1.20

  lib. 10. de Genesi ad liter. cap. 23.
• (w) 1.21

  Serm. 54. de verbis Apost. c. 18.
• (x) 1.22

  See Pro∣tocoll. Mo∣nac. edit. 2. pag. 367.
• (y) 1.23

  lib. 1. cont. Cres∣con. cap. 32. & 33.
• (z) 1.24

  De vnit. Eccles. c. 19.
• (a) 1.25

  De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23.
• (b) 1.26

  Hom. 4.
• (c) 1.27

  De Sacra Script. pag. 678.
• (d) 1.28

  Ep. 119.
• (e) 1.29

  Instit. l. 4. çap. 2.
• (f) 1.30

  Cent. Ep. Theolog. cp. 74.
• (g) 1.31

  In Asser∣tionibus art. 36.
• (h) 1.32

  Tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 14. after F.
• (i) 1.33

  Cap. 1. n. 4.
• (k) 1.34

  Chark. in the Tower disputation the 4. dayes conference.
• (l) 1.35

  Fox Act. Monn. pag. 402.
• (m) 1.36

  The Con∣fession of Bo∣hemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 253.
• (n) 1.37

  Tract. 3. Sect. 7. vn∣der nt. n. 15.
• (o) 1.38

  In his answere to a Popish pamphlet. p. 68.
• (p) 1.39

  Vid. Gul. Reginald. Caln. Tur∣cism. lib. 2. çap. 6.
• (q) 1.40

  Pag. 113.114.
• * 1.41

  Morton in his Treatise of the King dome of Israel. pag. 94.
• (r) 1.42

  pag. 121.
• (s) 1.43

  pag. 122.
• (t) 1.44

  Commēt. in Matt. c. 16.
• (u) 1.45

  pag. 123.
• (w) 1.46

  pag. 253.
• (x) 1.47

  A mode∣rate exami∣nation &c. ç. 1. paulo post initiu••••.
• (y) 1.48

  pag. 126
• (a) 1.49

  pag. 241.
• (b) 1.50

  pag. 215
• (c) 1.51

  pag. 75.
• (d) 1.52

  pag. 97.
• (e) 1.53

  Matt. 16.
• (f) 1.54

  Ioan. 14.
• (g) 1.55

  Ioan. 16.
• (h) 1.56

  1. Tim. cap. 3.
• (i) 1.57

  Ephes. 4.
• (k) 1.58

  pag. 151.153.
• (l) 1.59

  De vtil. pred. oap. 8.