THE TOTALL SUM. OR No danger of Damnation unto Roman Catholics for any Error in Faith: Nor any hope of Salvation for any Sectary whatsoever that doth knowingly oppose the Doctrine of the Roman Church.  
This is proved by the Confessions, and Sayings of M. William Chillingworth his Book.  Summa est quae conficitur ex Confessis. Aug. princ. dialect. cap. 3. Vnum est necessarium. Luc. 10. v. 42. 
Permissu Superiorum. 1639.   

The Preface.  
THIS Discourse was intended at first, as the Conclusion and closing up of the Treatise I termed, The Church Conquerant over human Wit: but being when I wrote it, in great doubt, that the said Treatise was lost in the transporting thereof from one place to another (which often happens in Countries which are infested with war) I resolved to make this Discourse more large, by the discovery of many other Contradictions in this our Adversary, and with the Refutation of such tergiversations, as Cavillers might devose, to stay piously disposed Protestants, from yielding prompt and assured assent to this most important Verity.  
And as they who make Bills of Account, when they have set down distinctly for their discharge, the particular Sums of expenses; are accustomed in the end in few Ciphers to abbreviate the Totall Sum; so this Treatise coming after the former, as the Conclusion thereof; I have given it the name of Totall Sum, the Argument handled therein being worthy of that style. For what is the final mark, the Totall, the All in all 
(a) Deum time, & mandata eius obserua: hoc est enim omnis homo. Ecclesiastae c. 12. v. 13.  of our pious endeavours, labours, cares, sollicitudes in this mortal life, but only to find out the true Religion, wherein one shall be sure of his Salvation, if simply and constantly he believe the Doctrines, and live according to the laws thereof.  
Verily this is the pith, the marrow, the Sum, the quintessence of all Controversies ventilated betwixt Protestants and us: and in particular it was the sole scope of that short substantial Treatise Charity mistaken by protestants; which being by D. Potter, in his Want of Charity, impugned, was defended and confirmed by the learned labours and elucubrations of Charity maintained. For the main Controversy debated in these three books is, whether Roman Catholics & Protestants may both be saved in their several Religions: or which comes to the same issue, seeing Protestants grant we may be saved in our Religion, because our Errors are not Fundamental and damnable, whether it is not want of Charity in us, that we will not requite them with the like mild, gentle, and comfortable doom; but constantly maintain, that Salvation cannot be had in any course of Separation, and Opposition against Doctrine proposed by the Roman Church, as matter of faith.  
And though this our Catholic determination hath been in the before named Treatise demonstrated, especially in the two last Chapters thereof; which show all Sects & Divisioners, all Protesters, and Opposers against the Church of Rome, to be guilty of the two most heinous crimes, Schism, & Heresy: yet I have thought fit & convenient, to handle this Totall of Controversies in a particular short Treatise: wherein omitting the former two heads of proof, I have urged peculiar, and proper Arguments, grounded upon evident Truths confessed, approved, confirmed even by this our Adversary, whose Book Protestants so much esteem as they stand thereon against the clear demonstrations for the Catholic Church brought by Charity maintained.  
If in this very Book, in which they so much confide (which beareth the title, The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation) the happy security of Roman Catholics, and together the unavoidable danger of their Opposers be proved, and proclaimed; if no safe path to Salvation for English Protestant's be showed in his Treatise; but they be forced to go the broad way, wherein the most damned Heretics that live under the cope of Heaven, not only Anabaptists and Arians; but also the new Samosatenians, or Socinians may be saved aswell as they: this being showed, our Protestants will be compassed about on every side with the light and evidence of this eternally importing Truth, No hope of salvation out of the Catholic Roman Church.  
And then, God forbid, they should not yield unto so clear Evictions, but fall into the extreme misery of peevish obstinacy, whereof S. Augustine saith, Nihil infelicius homine, 
Lib 3. contra l●t Petil c. 13.  qui non vult cedere veritati, quâ ita concluditur, ut exitum invenire non possit: Nothing more unhappy and wretched, than the man that will not yield unto that truth, wherewith he is so concluded and enclosed, as he knows not which way to get out.   
THE TOTALL SUM. OR The assured Salvation of Roman Catholics &c.  

An Advertisement.  
IN this treatise as in the other, I have been exact, and even scrupulous, to rehearse fully and largely our Adversary's formal words: many times also, though they were cited before, repeating them again, for the Readers greater ease, and to make this point whereon the Totall of our Eternity doth so much depend, clear and plain. In the text I cite the Page, Number and Line, or when there is no number in the page, or when the place cited comes before any number, only page and line. I have also in the margin quoted the Chapter and number, whereby the Reader may find the words in the second edition of London.   

The first Conviction.  
1. THis is drawn from the concession of Protestants, that Roman Catholics may be saved in their Religion; because their errors are but little on's, not Fundamental, or in themselves damnable; whereas Roman Catholics neither do, nor can by the principles of their Religion grant the same warrant to any whatsoever, that continues unto death an opposer of the Church of Rome. An argument often urged by Charity maintained, grounded on a testimony of D. Potter, which you say he buildeth on, in almost 
(b) Pag. 279. n. 64.  forty, yea more than in 
(c) Pag. 397. n 18.  an hundred places of his book: and you, as often at least, strive and struggle with this Argument, labouring to remove the pressing difficulties thereof, with the same progress & success, as Sifiphus 
(d) Saxun versat neque proficit hilun.  is said to make, who to advance a huge stone up-hill, striveth eternally in vain. Your evasions and shifts, I will particularly refute, and lay open their falsehood and vanity; whereby it shallbe made apparent, that both the book of Charity maintained resteth hitherto unanswered, and that this Argument drawn from the confession of Protestants, is altogether unanswerable. I shall first propose our Argument, strengthened with D. Potter's suffrage. Secondly, discover how impudently you deny D. Potter's text. Thirdly, how at last you acknowledge it, & give an explication thereof full of gross ignorance. Fourthly, how weakly, and in vain you would seem to contemn this Argument as poor, and silly. Fiftly, I will declare the force of this Argument, and show the reason why Protestants (that be wise, and not distempered with furious zeal) dare not condemn the Roman Religion & Communion, as damnable of itself. Finally, that not only Roman Catholics, but that you yourselves dare not maintain, that the Religion of Protestants is a safe way to salvation; yea you grant the same not to be free from errors damnable of themselves.  

The Argument propounded. §. 1.  
2. THe Argument I set down in this manner. No man shallbe, or can be damned eternally, for errors, which be not damnable of themselves. This is clear; Because God being just, who renders to every one according to their deserts, cannot punish men more than their offences do of themselves deserve, but rather somewhat under their merit. But the errors pretended to be found in the Roman Church, cannot of themselues deserve eternal damnation, being but venial, but little ones, & not damnable of themselves, as Protestants grant. This Assumption needs no proof, being notorious over all England. For what more daily and usual, what more frequent and familiar, then for Protestants to reproach us with want of Charity; because we will not yield their errors not to be damnable nor destructive of salvation, as they grant ours to be. This is confirmed by the often reiterated confession of D. Potter specially pa. 77. where he hath these words: To forsake the errors of the Roman Church, and not to join with her in those practices we account erroneous, we are forced of necessity. For though in themselves they be not damnanable to them which believe as they profess; yet for us to profese what we believe not, were without question damnable. And they with their errors (by the grace of God) might go to Heaven, when we for our hypocrisy and dissimulation without repentance, should certainly be condemned to Hell. And again: To him who in simplicity of heart believes and professeth them, & withal feareth God and worketh righteousness, to him they shall prove venial: such a one shall by the mercy of God be delivered from them, or be saved with them. But he that against Faith and Conscience shall go along with the stream, to profess & practise them, because they are but littleones, his Case is dangerous, and without repentance desperate. And again. pag. 19 We believe the Roman Religion safe, that is, not damnable to some, such as believe what they profess; but we believe it not safe, but very dangerous (if not certainly damnable) to such as profess it, when they believe the contrary.   

Your impudent denial of the text. §. 2.  
3. YOu acknowledge that Charity maintained urgeth this testimony of D. Potter, & builds his discourse thereon often: which you say, he doth fraudulently as an egregious Sophister, impudently without conscience or modesty outfacing the truth. For Protestants 
(e) Pag. 400. n. 28. Cap. 7. n. 2●.  you say, neither do, or ever did acknowledge, that our errors are not damnable: and that you for your part, though you were on the rack, should not confess it. As for D. Potter you deny, that he said of the errors he imputeth to the Roman Church, though in themselves they be not damnable; yea you contest that his words are, though in themselves they be damnable. 
(f) Cap. 5. n. 58. lin. 8.  Pag. 275. lin. 4. D. Potter confesseth no such matter, but only that he hopes that your errors, though in themselves sufficiently damnable, yet by accident did not damn all that held them; such he means, and says, as were excusably ignorant of the truth. And 
(g) Cap. 5. n. 26. lin. 17.  pag. 263. n. 26. Where doth D. Potter say any such thing as you pretend etc. He saith indeed, that though your errors were in themselves damnable, and full of great impiety; yet he hopes those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth, might by God's great mercy have their errors pardoned. Thus you. And you repeat it, almost in the same words, in an hundred passages of your Book, still noting these words, though in themselves damnable, in a distinct character, as D. Potter's formal text, which yet is no where found in any part of his Treatise.  
4. And in this denial of the text, in this contestation, that D. Potter said of our Errors, though in themselves they be damnable, you with great show of confidence persist, till almost the very finishing of your Book. Then being but three leaves from the end (as thieves when they are ready to be cast of the ladder, make true confessions) strucken with remorse of conscience, you utter this deposition against yourself Cap. 7. n. 29. Indeed D. Potter says of your errors, though in themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they profess; yet for us to profess what we believe not, were without question damnable, Is this true? Doth D. Potter say of our errors though in themselves they be not damnable? Hath he these very words indeed? See then whether the reproach which you cast unworthily on Charity maintained, the reproach of outfacing the truth without conscience or modesty, do not fall heavily on your own head. For now upon the ending of your Book you confess, that D. Potter indeed says of our Errors, though in themselves they be not damnable, whereas before you said and repeated it again and again, with deep protestation, and insolent insultation against your Adversary, that D. Potter said no such thing; yea that his words were the plain contradiction, to wit, though in themselves they be damnable, and full of great impiety. How this can be excused from the crime of forgery, I do not see.  
5. More cunningly & in show not so enormously, but indeed no less fraudulently & maliciously, do you change the pointing of D. Potter's text, and so turn his assertion into the plain contrary. He pag. 79. in the name of English Protestants saith of the Roman Religion: We believe it safe, that is, by God's great mercy not damnable to some, such as believe what they profess. Thus he; and he maketh a Comma between some, and such, to divide them, and to show that such is used not to limit the some that are not damned; but to declare who they be, to wit, all such as cordially believe our Roman Religion and profess it. You reciting his words 
(h) Pag. 404. lin. 20. Cap. 7. n. 29.  leave out the Comma, and join some and such together, making the Doctor say, We believe her Religion safe, that is by God's great mercy not damnable to some such as believe as they profess. As who should say, D. Potter grants our Religion safe, and not damnable to some, who in simplicity of heart believe and profess it, not to all such, but some such only. Against his express Tenet and 
(i) Pag. 76. lin. 26.  text, yea further you urge this text corrupted by your dispunction thereof as an Argument, that D. Potter holds our errors damnable in themselves. Pag. 306. lin. 1. 
(k) Cap. 5. n. 105. lin. 23.  It is remarkable, that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable, which clearly imports, that according to his judgement they were damnable of themselves, though by accident, to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance, they might prove not damnable. Thus you argue upon your own corruption of D. Potter's text. For in truth he confesses the errors imputed unto us not to be damnable, and our Religion to be safe, not to some such only, but to all such as believe as they profess, to all such as be not hypocritical Professors, but profess it in simplicity of heart, believing it to be true. Nor doth he say, that unto such Roman believers our errors are not damnable by accident (as you feign) but the express contrary, that even in themselves they be not damnable to them. Behold how opposite is D Potters true sentence, to that you have forged for him. You make him 
(l) Pag. 278 lin. 8. cap. 5. n. 61.  say, Our errors are even in themselves damnable, and only by accident pardonable; whereas he saith the contrary, they are in themselves but littleons, but venial, and consequently, if any sincere Roman Catholics be damned, this is by accident, by reason of some extrinsical damnable circumstance, not by the intrinsical malignity of their errors, not by the force such errors have in themselves, and in their own nature to merit damnation.  
6. But some may object, that D. Potter doth not say absolutely, Our errors be not in themselves damnable, but only, not in themselves damnable to them that believe as they profess, which is a different thing. I answer, this is a subtlety which findeth a difference where there is no diversity. As to say of a potion, that it is not of itself deadly to such as drink it, & take it into their bowels and heart, is all one as to say, it is deadly to none, but harmless and innoxious in itself: so to say, our errors are not in themselves damnable to such as heartily believe and profess them, is as much as to say, they are of themselves damnable unto none, but absolutely venial & of their own nature not destructive of Salvation. For to whom may they be in themselves damnable, if they be not so to them that take them into their heart by sincere and cordial belief. As none can be damned for sin, but such as commit sin; so none can be damned for erring, but such as err, and are guilty of erring. Now those that in their heart believe not errors, do not err, nor are guilty of erring: wherefore, such neither are, nor can be damned for erring, or holding of errors. For if they hypocritically, profess Errors which they do not believe, they be damnable indeed; but not for erring, but for their hypocrisy and dissimulation, as D. Potter truly saith.   

Your ignorant exposition of D. Potter. §. 3.  
7. Having at last acknowledged D. Potter's text, that he said of our errors, though in themselves they be not damnable, you 
(m) Cap. 7. n. 29. initio.  tell us; that we mistake his meaning, by taking a supposition of a confession, for a confession, a Rhetorical concession of the Doctors, for a positive assertion. For to say, though your Errors be not damnable we may not profess them, is not to say, Your errors are not damnable, but only through they be not: As if you should say; Though the Church err in points not fundamental; yet you may not separate from it; or, Though we do err in believing Christ really present, yet our error frees us from Idolatry. I presume you would not think it fairly done, if any man should interpret these your speeches, as confessions that you do err in points not fundamental; that you err in believing the Real Presence. And therefore you ought not to have mistaken D Potter's words, as if he confessed the Errors of your Church not damnable; when he says no more, than this, though they be not damnable, or suppose, or put case they be not damnable. Thus you. Wherein your falsehood is notable, 
Pag. 77.  and your ignorance admirable. First, it is false, that D. Potter says no more but this, though they be not damnable. For besides this he saith, that Protestants who believe them to be errors, must not presume to profess them because they are but littleons. He saith in the name of all Protestants: We believe the Roman Religion to be safe, that is, not damnable to such as believe as they profess. We hope and think very well of all those holy and devout souls which informer ages lived and died in the Church of Rome etc. We doubt not but they obtained pardon of all their ignorances. Nay our Charity reaches further to All those at this day who in simplicity of heart believe the Roman Religion, and profess it. Be these Rhetorical Concessions, not Positive Assertions, that the errors which Protestants impute to the Roman Church are not damnable of themselues; but only by accident, when they are hypocritically against conscience professed?  
8. Secondly, I am amazed that you a Master of Arts of Oxford, of so long standing are ignorant of the difference in speech, betwixt the Present Tense, and the Preter imperfect, which every man and woman by common sense doth feel and perceive. For the particle though, joined with a verb 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 conceit only; you must use the Preter imperfect. Wherefore neither the Author of Charity maintained, nor any Catholic that is intelligent, will say to you in the Present Tense, as you make him, Though the Church do err in points not fundamental, yet you must not separate from it; but in the Preter imperfect; Though the Church did err in points fundamental, yet you were not to separate from her. Nor will he, or any Catholic that is wise, use that either sottish or impious speech you have penned for him, Though we err in believing Christ really present, yet our error frees us from Idolatry. God forbid. This were not a Rhetorical Concession, but a Diabolical Profession, that our belief of the Real presence is an error. A true Catholic that can utter his mind in good English will say, Though we did err in believing the Real Presence of our Lord's Body in the Eucharist; yet this error would free us from Idolatry. Thus the examples you bring of Rhetorical Concessions make against you, being in deed positive Assertions, and show your discourse to be neither good Logic, nor Rhetoric, nor Grammar.  
9 And I pray you, the Proposition you have forged for D. Potter, though the errors of the Roman Church be in themselves damnable, and full of great impiety, yet by accident they do not damn all that hold them; is it not a Positive Assertion that our doctrines are damnable and full of great impiety in D. Potter's opinion? Wherefore this proposition which is truly D. Potters: though the errors of the Roman Church be not in themselves damnable, yet Protestant's who know them to be Errors, may not profess them, is a positive Assertion, that our supposed errors be not damnable in his judgement. Should one say to you, though in your judgement you believe Christ our Saviour not to be true God, yet you dare not profess it outwardly for fear of the faggot; would you take this as a Rhetorical supposition, not as a Real accusation, that you are an Infidel in your heart? Is it possible you should be guilty of so gross ignorance and nonsense as this? No verily. But perchance the matter is this: you say 
(n) Pag. 395. l. 3. If this did appear, to persuade any man to continue a Protestant, were to persuade him to continue a Foole.  that Protestants, to whom the Roman Religion appeareth, though but probably, the safer, cannot continue Protestants, except they continue fools. Now Protestants by this confession of D. Potter, cannot but see apparently, the Roman Religion to be the safer. Wherefore, that, this notwithstanding, they may continue still Protestants; you would make them such fools, as to believe, that, though, joined with a verb in the Present Tense, doth import only an imaginary, not a real supposition. Wherefore if you should say (as in effect you do say) though the Religion of Protestants be false and damnable, yet I will do my best to defend it; Protestant's must be such fools as to take this, not as a positive assertion, that their Religion is false & damnable in your judgement; but as a Rhetorical Concession, as if you had said; Imagine, or put case, the Religion of Protestants be false and damnable. I hope Protestants will be wiser than to be made such fools by you as to continue in a Religion which cannot be maintained, but by such fopperies as these.   

Your Vanity in contemning the foresaid Argument. §. 4.  
9 You many times seem to contemn and scorn the Argument drawn from the confession of Protestants, and the former testimony of D. Potter. You say we rely upon his private Opinion, upon his uncertain 
(o) Pag. 226. n. 63.  Charitable hope, that 
(p) Pag. 116. n. 158. in fine.  his thinking so is no reason we should think so, except we think him infallible, that whosoever is moved with his argument is so simple etc. Wherein you may seem (which happens very seldom) to agree with D. Potter, who doth much sleight our arguing from the Confession of our Adversary's page. 81. If they have no better ground of their belief then their Adversary's Charitable judgement of their errors; they will be so far from convincing their Adversaries of lack of wisdom, that themselves cannot escape the imputation of folly.  
10. Thus the Doctor endeavours to lay the imputation of folly upon us, for urging our adversary's favourable judgement of our errors, as a good argument, that may move men to embrace our Religion. But in this charging us with folly, his own lack of wisdom and consideration may be convinced, by what he writeth some few pages before against zealots: for these he condemneth not only of want of charity, but also of lack of wisdom, for judging so severely of our errors as to cut us of from hope of Salvation. Pag. 76. The Roman Churches communion (saith he) we forsake not, no more than the Body of Christ; whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member, though corrupted. And this clears us from the imputation of Schism, whose property it is, to cut of from the Body of Christ, and hope of Salvation, the Church from which it separates. And if any Zelots' amongst us have proceeded to heavier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their Charity and Wisdom cannot be justified. Thus he. From which words I conclude a double truth; the one against you, the other against D. Potter himself. The first; that this Charitable judgement about the Salvation of Roman Catholics, because their errors are small, and not in themselves damnable, is not the private opinion of D. Potter; but the censure and doom of the whole Protestant english Church, condistinct from zealots, or Puritans. For how can this whole Church be justified, and cleared from the imputation of Schism, by reason of her Charitable judgement of our errors, if this be not the Charitable judgement of this whole Church, but only the opinion of D. Potter, and of some other few private Protestants? Secondly I gather, that this judgement is not only according to Christian Charity; but also according to Christian Wisdom, and floweth from the rules and Principles of them both. Otherwise what cause or reason hath D. Potter to charge Zelots', who judge not favourably of our errors, with want not only of Charity, but also of wisdom: Their Charity (saith he) and Wisdom cannot be justified? If the judgement of Protestants so favourable about our errors be of mere Charity, not wise, not prudent, not solidely grounded on truth; why may not the wisdom of Zelots', who will not consent thereunto be justified? On the other side, if the judgement of Protestants be conform to Christian wisdom and Divine truth, what wisdom is it in D. Potter to charge us with folly and want of wisdom, for building and relying thereon?  
11. Besides, this iugdment of Protestants, that we may be saved in our Religion, our errors not being damnable, if it be void of wisdom, and not solidly grounded on truth; how is it charitable, that is, how can it proceed from true Christian Charity? If fond love and affection to the salvation of Creatures, not guided by the rules of Christian truth, be Christian charity; then the judgement of Origen were full of Christian Charity, who extended salvation even unto Devils. Wherefore your judgement, that we may be saved, because our errors are not damnable, cannot be charitable, unless it be conform to the rules, and principles of Christian truth and wisdom: on which if it be grounded, why may we not build, and rely thereon? Why may we not without imputation of folly, make this one pillar of our comfort, and constancy in the Roman Communion and Faith?  
12. Add hereunto, that it is even ridiculous in D. Potter and other Protestants of his stamp, to brag and boast as they do, that forsooth it is 
(q) Cap. 4. n. 63. lin. 22. Excess of charity may make him censure your errors more favourably, than he should do.  excess of their Charity and good will to the Roman Church, which makes them to judge so kindly and favourably of her errors. For, by their words and writings, they show themselves to be void of all love and Charity, and to be full of bitter zeal and passion towards her; so far, that though in their conscience they judge her free from damnable errors, yet in their passion they hate, & abhor, rate and revile her, as if she were the vildest Religion in the world. These speeches of D. Potter against her, she hath many ways played the Harlot, and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce from Christ, and the detestation of Christians: the proud and cursed Dame of Rome, which takes upon her to revel in the house of God: Popery is the contagion and plague of the Church. These speeches I say every man will presently perceive, that they are void of Charity, words of contumely and reproach, proceeding not from clear and calm judgement, but from the fuming furnace of passion: you produce them, as if D. Potter by them did overthrow what we have proved to be his judgement, that our errors be not damnable: But in very truth they be only passionate speeches, uttered without judgement, reason, or discretion, yea against his own judgement; tokens of his mortal aversion from that Church, in whom he can find no mortal or damnable error. It is not then Charity or kind affection, or any good will to Roman catholics, which moveth D. Potter, & such other Ministers to maintain the errors of the Roman Church to be but littleones, and not damnable; but because they dare not hold the contrary, in regard of the unchristian absurdities, which they perceive to be consequent thereon, as by the next Section will appear.   

All Christians of former ages damned, if the errors of the Roman Church be damnable of themselves. §. 5.  
13. CAn any absurdity be more vast and unchristian than this contained in the title of this paragraph? What wonder, if Protestants (that be moderate, and not carried away with precipitous zeal) through horror to be forced unto this immanity, dare not affirm, that our errors are in themselves damnable; though otherwise their little love towards us considered, they could do it with all their heart. To prove this vast absurdity to be consequent upon the said proposition, 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 heroical acts of Charity, and other Christian virtues, 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 evident concerning the Fathers of the more Primitive times, and is confessed by Protestants, 
(a) Defence against the reply of Cartwright pag. 47.  namely D. Whitgift late Archbishop of Canterbury: Almost all the Bishops and Writers of the Greek Church, and of the Latin also, for the most part were spotted with the doctrines of freewill, of Merit, of Invocation of Saintes, and such like; So that, if the Doctrines of the Roman Church, which Protestants traduce as erroneous, be damnable of themselves; it is consequent, that the most famous Bishops, Doctors and Saints in so many former Christian ages were guilty of errors in themselves, and of themselves damnable: which being so, they should be all certainly damned, without any hope of their Salvation.  
14. This consequence I prove by what you by write 
(r) Cap. 7. n. 26. lin. 30.  pag. 403. lin. 30. They that have understanding and means to discover their errors, and neglect to use them; we dare not flatter with so easy a censure as to give them hope of Salvation. But the eminent Fathers and Christian Saints of so many ages before Luther, had sufficient understanding, and means to discover their errors; and yet never made use of them. They had excellent understandings, they were versed in all manner of sciences, & they had the holy Scripture, which you say is the only means to know all necessary truth, and to discover all damnable errors; a means not only sufficient, but also, in your judgement, most plain, and easy; so that men not only may, but also cannot but therein discover which be damnable errors, except they wilfully shut their eyes against the light. Therefore there is no hope of the salvation of the Ancient Fathers, and Saints of former Christian ages, if your Proposition be true, they who had sufficient understanding and means to discover their errors, and neglected to use them, there is for them no hope of Salvation. Moreover, 
(s) Cap. 6. n. 64. lin 8.  pag. 279. num. 64. lin. 8. you say, that which is in itself damnable, will actually bring damnation upon them, that keep themselves in it, by their own voluntary and avoidable fault; But the Ancient Fathers and holy Saints in the ages before Luther held the doctrines of the Roman Church which you account damnable, full of great impiety and Idolatry, & they kept themselues in them (according to your grounds) by their own voluntary and avoidable fault: for they had sufficient means to discover their errors, to wit, they had the holy Scripture, wherein (as you say) these errors are discovered, not only with sufficient, but also with abundant clarity, 
(t) Preface. n. 11. lin. 17. How is it, possible any thing should be plainer forbidden, than the worship of Angels etc. pag. 181. n. 86. Places of scripture against our errors as clear as the light at noon.  that there cannot possibly be greater; you must therefore of necessity grant, that these damnable and impious errors (if they be such as you say they are) brought actually damnation upon the Fathers and Saints of former ages. Again, page 290. lin. 2. of living in the Communion of the Roman Church, and approving her doctrines and practices you say, 
(u) Cap. 5. n. 86.  Though we hope it was pardonable in them who had no means to know their error; yet of its own nature, and to them who did or might have known their error, it was certainly damnable. Now the holy Fathers, and Christian Saints of former ages might have known our errors (if they be errors) because they had the holy Scriptures in which, you say, such errors are discovered, & their damnable falsehood, 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 evidently consequent by your principles, that all holy Bishops, Doctors, and Saints who are confessed to have held the said doctrines, are certainly damned for ever, no hope remaining of their salvation. Wherefore the reason why Protestants hold our Religion safe, and a sure way to Heaven, as being free from damnable error, is not Charity and excess of good will they bear to our persons, as they pretend; but fear of the vast absurdity, which they see consequent thereupon, that so many former ages, and worlds of holy Bishops, Doctors, Converters of Nations, workers of Miracles, and admirable Saints, are certainly damned.  
15. There be many Protestant Ministers that could find in their hearts to grant this dismal position of the damnation of the ancient ever esteemed Saints, if the same would stand them in steed to maintain the division from the Roman Church; yet they dare not venture clearly to aver so much, for fear that this would produce the contrary effect, and move many of their followers to recoil back from them. For in the separation made by Luther from the Roman Church, there be many piously inclined minds, careful of their future eternity either of weal or woe, cordially desirous to be secure of the happiness of the one, and mighty fearful to fall into the misery of the other. Should Protestant Ministers clearly deliver their minds, that the Roman Religion is damnable even of itself, a direct way to Hell, and that such as walk, or have walked therein are certainly damded; these piously disposed and timorous Souls would feel horror to be of the Protestant Religion, which cannot be the way of salvation, except the Roman Christianity so great, so glorious, so continued from Christ and his Apostles, containing within her bosom, so many worlds of holy Bishops, learned and pious Pastors, and of admirable Saints be damned, at least all the intelligent Professors thereof. The apprehension of this dreadful and dangerous state amazed even the stout and cursed heart of Luther, when he saw himself engaged in a course, out of which he could not issue with salvation, except so many former ages of Saints were damned. 
(k) Praefat. de abroganda Missa prinatâ, Quoties palpitavit mihi tremulum cor. & reprehendens obiecit illud fortissimum argumentum; Tu solus sapis, tot ne errant universi? Tanta saecula ignoraverunt?  How often (saith he) did my heart tremble and pant within my breast, objecting against me that most strong argument; Art thou only wise? Did so many Christian worlds in former ages all err? What, if perhaps thou thyself be in error, and draw an infinite number of Souls after thee into error, to be damned eternally with thee?  
16. You say, 
(l) Pag. 397. n. 17.  that your Salvation doth not depend on ours, that you might be saved though we were Turks and Pagans: this I well believe. But now that the Roman Church is not Turkism, nor judaism, but a Kingdom of Christ diffused over the earth, the only Christian Catholic Religion in the world, which is come from our Saviour by conspicuous lineage, and line of succession by the Apostles; what Christian will not tremble to be in a state, wherein he must expect Salvation from Christ, by damning that Religion, which is so notoriously descended from him?  
17. The innated instinct of Godliness, the sparks of Piety which nature hath hidden within the bowels of every reasonable soul, move men to acknowledge and reverence that Religion, as being of God, which they see marked and adorned with divine and supernatural works, above the course and forces of nature. Which Majesty of miracles shining so gloriously in the Roman Church, can any man that is Religious & fearful of God, judge the same damnable, and venture his soul on the damnation thereof? Wherefore not Love, not Charity, not Goodwill to the Roman Catholics is that which moveth Protestant's to pronunce her Religion safe, and free from damnable error; but the horror of damning together with us, innumerable millions of holy and heavenly men of former Christian worlds.  
18. Finally Protestant's under pretence of favouring and comforting us seek their own comfort & solace; that they may find some shelter of hope of salvation under the wings of the Roman Religion, who in their opposition against her find none, or only poor, meager and miserable hopes. For, laying for ground this truth, that our Religion is safe; & then assuming this falsehood, that theirs is the same with ours for substance and in all necessary points; they cheer up many drooping hearts, that can feel no comfort in hoping to be saved by damning the Roman Church: so that care of their own Sparta, desire to stay the wiser sort of their followers in their course of Division from the Roman Church; this I say is one of the reasons which maketh Ministers to preach the certainty of Salvation in our Church, and to mask themselves with a vizard of Charity and Friendship towards us.   

That Protestant Religion is not safe, even in your judgement. §. 6.  
19 YOu say in your Preface n. 39 that you have not undertaken the peculiar defence of the doctrine of the Church of England; nor of any other particular Protestant Church, but the common cause of all Protestants, to maintain the doctrine of them all; not that it is absolutely true, (for, that is impossible seeing they hold contradictions) but that it is free from all impiety and damnable error. This drift pretended and professed so gloriously in the Title and Preface of your book, you cross and contradict in the bosom, and heart thereof, condemning Protestants of errors, even in themselves, damnable, as I shall make good and clear by the four ensuing testimonies. First Pag. 218. lin. 34. I would not be mistaken, as though I thought the errors of some Protestants inconsiderable things, and matters of no moment: for the. Truth is, I am very fearful, that some of their opinions either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, though not of themselves so damnable, but that just and holy men may be saved with them; yet are frequent occasions of remissness, and not seldom of security in sinning etc. Behold you, who in your Preface made all Protestants secure of their Salvation, because free from errors in themselves damnable; now are very fearful of them, and dare not acquit them of errors considerable, of moment, in themselves damnable, though not so damnable, but just and holy men may be saved, with them; Which qualification of your errors doth not so temper or allay their malignity, as to make them less damnable than those you impute to the Roman Church: seeing you often acknowledge, that with them, and in them, good holy souls may be saved.  
20. Secondly Pag. 21. lin. 39 you write more clearly to make Protestants, even millions of them, 
Answer to the Preface n. 26. in fine.  guilty of damnable errors. If any Protestant, or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in error by any sin of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such error is (as the cause of it) sinful and damnable; yet not exclusive of all hope of Salvation, but pardonable, if discovered upon a particular and explicit repentance; if not discovered, upon a general and implicit repentance etc. Thus you directly accuse Protestant's of sinful and damnable errors, of errors pardonable, and consequently damnable in themselves. For you say pag. 16. n. 21. lin. 15. the very saying they were pardonable, implies, they needed pardon, and therefore were in themselves damnable. This being so, how have you cleared the Doctrine of all Protestant Sects, though not from all falsehood, yet from all error in itself damnable? How do they all of them go a safe way to salvation, if millions of them walk in damnable errors, which you say, will bring damnation upon all them that continue in them by their voluntary fault? What reason can you bring, why your Book might not be inscribed; The Religion of Papists a safe way to Salvation, aswell as, the Religion of Protestants? For you say Protestants err damnably aswell as we; Millions of them aswell as millions of ours; their errors are damnable in themselves aswell as ours; Ours pardonable by Gods great mercy aswel as theirs; they cannot be saved without repentance no more than we; and we may be saved in our errors by a general repentance aswell as they? How then is not our Religion a safe way to Salvation aswell as theirs, even by your Book of purpose written to save them, and damn us.  
21. Thirdly, Pag. 280. n. 95. lin. 19 
(z) Cap. 5. n. 91. lin. 19  Though Protestants have some Errors; yet seeing they are neither so great as yours, nor imposed with such tyranny, nor maintained with such obstinacy, he that conceives etc. In these words you suppose, that Protestants have errors, and great errors imposed with tyranny, maintained with obstinacy. How then is their Religion a safe way of Salvation? Can salvation stand with impious errors, imposed upon others with tyranny, and maintained with obstinacy until death? But their errors are not (you say) so great as ours, nor imposed with such tyranny, nor maintained with such obstinacy. Were this true; it would not prove Protestancy to be a good and safe way to Salvation, & not in itself damnable; but only, that ours is more damnable, and a worse way. Besides that our errors be greater than theirs is said by you many times, but not proved so much as once. And seeing our errors though (as you say) damnable in themselves yet be pardonable by Gods great mercy; how be the greater than yours, which are also damnable in themselves, and only pardonable by Gods great mercy? From the number of all Protestants, whose Religion you defend to be a safe Way, I hope Socinians or new Samosatenians are not excluded. These hold, that Christ jesus is not the Eternal only begotten Son of God; yea that he was, and is a mere man, though an holy man, and a great Prophet. Will you say that this error which conceives no more divinely of Christ then do the very Turks, is not greater than any we maintain, not more fundamental, and essentially destructive of Salvation? If you do, most Protestants in England will think you worthy of the Faggot?  
22. Fourthly, Pag. 290. num. 87. you write, 
Cap. 5. n. 87.  that Protestants, seeing they be not free from errors, that it is hardly possible, but they must be guilty of extreme impiety. In that place you endeavour to answer our Argument, that it was great imprudency in Protestants to forsake the whole visible Catholic Church, for errors not fundamental, seeing they confess, that in their separation against her, they could not be sure of not falling into errors of the like quality and note, yea into greater, to wit fundamental. You are in this point eager, and protest, that Protestants are so far from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischief (of erring at the least un-fundamentally) that they proclaim to all the world, that it is most prone and easy to do so, to all those that fear God and love the truth; and hardly possible, for them to do otherwise without supine negligence and extreme impiety. Ponder I pray you this place, and confer it with other passages of your book, & you will see, that you make all Protestants extremely impious. For it is most prone and easy for Protestants that fear God and love the truth to avoid all errors, specially such as need pardon, and be damnable in themselves: so that it is hardly possible for them to be in any error without supine negligence and extreme impiety. Now there are not any Protestants in the world, no not English Protestant's by name, whom you dare defend to be free from errors not fundamental; and millions of them as you confess are by the sin of their will betrayed into, and kept in errors damnable in themselves. Ergo, it is hardly possible; but all Protestants must be guilty of supine negligence, and extreme impiety about matters of Faith, Which being so; how is that Religion a safe way of Salvation, in which hardly any be saved? yea, how be not their errors unpardonable, seeing you write. Pag 275. lin. 15. that, 
Cap. 5. n. 58. lin. 18.  God is infinitely just, and therefore (it is to be feared) will not pardon Catholics who might easily have come to the knowledge of the truth, but through negligence would not? How then will he pardon Protestants, to whom it was (you say) most prone and easy to have come to the knowledge of the truth, and to have avoided all errors, but would not through supine negligence, and extreme impiety?  
23. I have been the larger in declaring and strenghthening this Argument, and showing the insuperable, force thereof. First, because it is the Argument most urged by the pithy, and learned Catholic Treatise of Charity mistaken, as also by Charity maintained, both which books by the clearing of this point are showed to remain unanswered. Secondly, because this Argument from the confession of our Adversaries, as it is clear, manifest, and convincing; so it is within the reach and capacity of every one. For who so stupid & void of sense, as not to see that Religion to be the safer, which is confessed to be safe, even in her Adversary's judgement grounded upon the never failing principles of Christian Charity, wisdom, and truth?    

The Second Conviction.  
THough we should grant that most untrue and impossible supposition, that the Roman Church erreth; yet it would be impossible that Catholics should be damned for following her errors. The reason is, because their erring cannot but be excused by ignorance invincible: whereas Protestants, if they err damnably (as without doubt they do) neither by shelter of Ignorance, nor of General Repentance can they be saved.  

Three Suppositions. §. 1.  
1. TO prove this, we must suppose three things, which are known and notorious truths. First, that Christians who believe in Christ the eternal Son of God and Saviour of the world, cannot be damned for any errors of ignorance invincible, or for any involuntary erring. This truth you often affirm in some passages of your book, and deny it as often in other. Pag. 19 lin. 27. 
(a) 1. Edit. pag. 19 lin. 9  you say, That if in me alone were a confluence of all such errors of all Protestants in the world that were thus qualified (with ignorance invincible) I should not be so much afraid of them all, as I should be to ask pardon for them etc. To ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary errors, is tacitly to imply, that God is angry with us for them, and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick, when he gives no straw; of expecting to gather, where he strewed not; to reap, where he sowed not, of being offended with us, for not doing what he knows, we cannot do. Hear you make it a kind of blasphemy to say, that involuntary errors are pardonable, or need pardon; because the very saying they were pardonable imports they need pardon, and consequently, that God is offended with us for them. Notwithstanding, that errors purely involuntary, or of invincible ignorance be pardonable, and need pardon from God's great mercy, you frequently profess speaking of our errors. Pag. 308. lin. 41. We hold your errors damnable in themselves, yet by accident through ignorance invincible, we hope they were not unpardonable. Pag. 291. lin. 4. Your erring was we hope pardonable, in them that had no means to know their errors. Pag. 263. lin. 27. Your errors were in themselves damnable yet we hope that those amongst you that were invincibly ignorant of the truth, might by God's great mercy have their errors pardoned, and their souls saved. This is your wavering and tottering manner of discoursing; but the truth is, God is not offended with errors of ignorance invincible, because God is offended only for sin, whereas involuntary erring cannot be sin; because to be voluntary is of the nature and definition of Sinne.  
2. Secondly, we suppose, that the Roman doctrines, which Protestants accuse to be errors, are definitions of General's Counsels, and were for many ages the public received doctrine in the whole visible Christian Church; for which reason you say 
(b) Pag. 279. n. 64. lin. 8. cap. 5. n. 64. lin. 8.  That even the visible Church, is not free from damnable errors. Thirdly, we suppose that it is unlawful and damnable for any man to depart from the Roman Church, to forsake her doctrine, or to oppose the definition of a General Council, except he have apparent and evident reasons which demonstrate that the truth standeth on his side. This you teach, pag. 272. n. 53. 
(c) Cap. 5. n. 53.  It concerns every man, that separates from any Church's Communion, even as much as his Salvation is worth, to look most carefully, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary. And pag. 200. lin. 25. 
(d) Cap. 3. n. 18. infine.  I willingly confess the judgement of a Council, though not infallible; yet is so far directive and obliging, that without apparent reason of the contrary, it may be sin to reject it; at least not to afford it an outward submission. But D. Potter 
(e) D. Potter pag. 166.  more clearly and fully affirmeth, That General Counsels, are the highest Tribunals which the Church hath upon earth; that their authority is immediately derived & delegated from Christ; that no Christian is exempted from their censures, and jurisdiction; that their decrees bind all persons to external obedience, and may not be questioned, but upon evident reasons.   

That the believers of the Roman Church cannot err, but through Ignorance invincible. §. 2.  
3. FOr the title of this Section I argue thus: Those errors are unavoidable and invincible, which cannot be avoided without damnable sin: But Roman Catholics cannot avoid the errors of the Roman Church (if she have any) without damnable sin: Therefore their errors (if they do err) must of necessity be ignorances invincible, and unavoidable, such as they cannot shake of without damning themselves. The Minor, or assumption of this argument I prove; because Roman Catholics that be sincere and cordial believers of the doctrine of the Roman Church, cannot have necessary & forcing reasons, nor evident demonstrations, that the Roman Church is in error. This is clear: For if they have necessary and enforcing reasons, and evident demonstrations whereby they are convicted in conscience, that the Roman Church erreth, they be now no more Roman Catholics nor believers of the Roman Church, but Protestants, and her Adversaries in their judgement. It is therefore impossible, that Roman Catholics, so long as they be sincere and Cordial believers of the Roman Doctrine, should have evident demonstrations, that the Roman Church erreth: And if the● have not evident demonstrations, it were damnable for them to forsake her doctrines, which Protestants account erroneous nor can they do it without damning their souls. Who then doth not see, that their erring (if they err) is enforced, un avoidable, proceeding from ignorance invincible, for which sort of ignorance it is impossible they should be damned.  
4. You to avoid the force of this Argument contend, that though your reasons are necessary, enforcing, as clear as the light at noon; yet we are not convicted by them in conscience; not that they want evidence, but that we are obstinately perverse. This your shift & cavil, is easily showed to be frivolous and false. Frivolous, because you only say without any proof, that we are obstinately perverse, and if to say it without proof be enough, than the same answer will serve, and doth de facto serve every Heretic, every Sectmaister, every forger of new Monsters; for when he findeth himself in straits, and not able to bring so much as a probable reason for his new devised impieties; he falleth presently to cry, that his Texts of Scripture are as clear as the sun; his Arguments evident demonstrations; that the reason Catholics neglect and reject him, is not want of evidence in his arguing; but that we are wilfully blind, obstinately perverse, men that have eyes to see and will not see, given over to strong delusions, and unto a reprobate sense. And what is this but to change scholarship into scolding, reasoning into railing, disputing into clamorous and contumelious wrangling; wherein he getteth the victory who is the stoufest Stentor, and can cry loudest against his Adversaries, You are wilfully blind, you are obstinately perverse. In which kind of arguing 
(f) See pag. 380. n. 72. cap. 6. n. 72.  you are very eloquent, according to the style of heretics, quorum doctrina (saith 
(g) In cap. 22. Jsaiae.  S. Hierome) none in sensu, sed in multiloquio & elamore consistit.  
5. Secondly it is false: because necessary and enforcing reasons, or evident demonstrations presented unto the understanding, necessitate the said Understanding, and compel the Conscience to assent, let the Will be never so perverse. The perversity of Will may make a man deny with his mouth, what in Conscience he knoweth to be true; it may make him hate & impugn known truth, but it cannot possibly make him not see, what by the light of evident demonstration is made clear to his understanding. This I prove by your own sayings, as pag. 370. n. 50. 
(h) Cap. 6. n. 50.  Apparent arguments necessitate the understanding to assent. and Pag. 371. n. 81. You contend, that Protestants hold not that it is evidently certain, that these books in particular are the word of God. For (say 
(i) Cap. 6. n. 81.  you) they are not, either so fond as to be ignorant, nor so vain as to pretend, that all men do assent to it; which they would, if they were evidently certain: or so ridiculous as to imagine that an Indian that had never heard of Christ or Christianity, reading the Bible in his own language, would without miracle believe it to be the word of God, which yet he could NOT CHOOSE but do, if it were evidently certain. here you affirm, that all men in the world would believe the Christian Bible to be the word of God, yea they could not choose but assent unto it as unto Divine truth, if it did show itself to be such with evident certainty. And yet there be millions in the world that be obstinately perverse against the Christian Bible. Ergo demonstrations which show a truth to the understanding with evident certainty, necessitate the Understanding to assent, 
(k) This is averred also by M. Hooker, Eccles. Pol. Preface pag. 29. lin. 26. An argument necessary, and demonstrative, being proposed to ANY MAN & understood; the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent.  though the Will be obstinately perverse. But Catholics though they understand, ponder, and consider your pretended evident demonstrations, and texts of Scripture as clear as the sun, can descent from them, & rest persuaded in their conscience against your conclusions by pious constancy of faith. Wherefore your Arguments be not evident demonstrations, and consequently no man can be moved with them to forsake the Roman Church, and her Doctrine of General Counsels without committing damnable sin: yea they are so far from being irresistible, as they are vain, weak, contemptible, even those which you pretend to be so clear as none can possibly be clearer, as I have showed in the former Treatise Cap. 6. Convict. 6. n. 29.   

That Protestants if they err, cannot be saved by ignorance, or general repentance. §. 3.  
6. THe first part of the Title, that they cannot be saved by ignorance, I prove thus. Either Protestants have demonstrations & evident certainty, that the Roman Church erreth, that her definitions which they forsake, and keep themselves in opposition against them, be false and impious; or they have not. If they have, they be not ignorant, but full of clear and manifest certainty about all those points wherein they forsake the Roman Church. If they have not, they are indeed in ignorance; but in such ignorance as will not save them, but rather make them more damnable, to wit, in the ignorance of Pride. For is it not damnable, and execrable Pride, for a simple and ignorant man, to abandon the Roman Church, adorned with so many glorious marks of the true Christian Church; to reject the definition of General Counsels without any necessary and inforing reasons, without any sure ground, or evident certainty that they be errors? No doubt such an one, the more ignorant that he is, the more damnable wretch he is; and by so much is his pride more detestable. Wherefore Protestants, if in their undertaking and venturing to reject the definition of Counsels, and the received Traditions of so many former Christian ages, they chance to err, though but out of simplicity and ignorance, this simplicity and ignorance, will not excuse and mitigate, but rather accuse and aggravate the crime of their erring presumption and pride.  
7. This truth, that Protestants cannot be saved by ignorance (as Roman Catholics may,) you seem to acknowledge pag. 285. lin. 7. We assure ourselves, if our lives be answerable, we shall be saved by our knowledge. And we hope (and I tell you again, spes est rei incertae nomen) that some of you may possibly be saved by occasion of their unaffected ignorance. Behold the way of salvation by Ignorance you leave unto us, and in your great excess of charity hope, that some of us may possibly be saved through ignorance. But you Protestants are sure to be saved by your knowledge, by your evident certainty, that the truth stands on your side, against the definition of former Christian worlds. Now, if this be the case of Protestants, that they must be saved by their own knowledge, by being sure they have such evident certainty of truth as may counter poise the authority of so many Christian ages and Counsels; how pitiful and lamentable is their case? They cannot be saved except they be furnished with knowledge, and evident certainty, that they have truth on their side: For if they want this knowledge, they cannot prudently nor without execrable Pride oppose General Counsels, which stand for the Roman Doctrines. But Protestants, at least millions of them, are as sure and certain as they live, that they have no such knowledge, no such evident demonstration or certainty, that the Roman Church and Counsels err: Therefore they cannot (except they be stupid and senseless) but be sure they are in a damnable state, and shall certainly be damned except they change their course.  
8. The second part of this Section that Protestants, if they err cannot be saved from their sinful & damnable errors by general repentance is proved; Because General Repentance doth extend only to those things, wherein the Penitent may lawfully, and with a safe conscience apprehend, 
2. Edit. pag. 20. lin. 33.  and fear there may be sin. For as you say pag. 20. lin. 45. General repentance is universal sorrow for all their sins, both which they know they have committed, or which they fear they may have. But Protestants believe their Religion against the Church of Rome to be the Gospel, to be the word of God, to be most infallible Christian truth, and so do not fear any fault or sin in their belief; yea they cannot with a safe conscience so much as apprehend that their belief may be sinful, false, or uncertain. For (as you say cap. 5. n. 107.) this were to doubt of the certainty of the Gospel. Ergo, the General repentance of Protestants neither doth, nor can extend itself to recall virtually and implicitly the Doctrine they hold against the Roman Church; no more than they repent of the Doctrine they hold against jews and Turks. For they hold both these Doctrines, as much the one as the other, to be the word of God; and therefore not to be doubted of, much less repent as though it might be sinful error. Moreover it is not possible, that a man should at the same time repent himself of a thing, and together detest from his heart all repenting thereof. But Protestants abhor & detest as impious all doubting, and much more all repenting of their Religion, as it is opposed against the pretended Superstitions, Impieties, Idolatries of the Church of Rome; for they think it holy Scripture, Divine Revelation as certain as the Gospel. Wherefore it is impossible, that Protestants should repent of their opposing the Church of Rome, so long as they be Protestants, and believe the doctrine of Protestancy to be the Gospel, and the Roman Religion to be full of Impiety and Idolatry. There is no hope such Protestants can be saved, except God send into their heart, the light of his Spirit, and make them see their Religion, so far as it is opposite to the Roman, to be but a mass of old damned Heresies, and move them to repent and to recall, and detest them in particular.   

Your impudent slandering of Charity Maintained that he granteth Salvation unto any Protestant that is ignorant, or repentant. §. 4.  
9 YOu are much vexed that the Roman Religion is proclaimed safe even by her Adversaries; and that yours is wholly destitute of such comfortable testimonies. Wherefore the warrant you cannot obtain by truth and fair dealing, you seek to get by falsehood, fraud, and forgery, even of our Maintainer to whom you speak in this manner pag. 31. lin. 12. That which you do say doth plainly enough afford us these Corollaries. 
Cap. 1. n. 3.  1. That whatsoever Protestant wanteth capacity, or having it, wanteth sufficient means of instruction to convince his conscience of the falsehood of his own, & the truth of the Roman Religion; by the confession of his most rigid Adversaries, may be saved, notwithstanding any error in his Religion. 2. That nothing hinders, but that a Protestant dying a Protestant, may dye with Contrition for all his sins. 3. That if he die with Contrition, he may, and shall be saved. All these acknowledgements we have from you, whiles you are (as you say) stating, but, as I conceive, granting the very point in question; which was (as I have already proved out of C. M.) whether without uncharitableness you may pronounce, that Protestants dying in their Religion, and without particular repentance and dereliction of it, cannot possibly be saved.  
16. Thus without shame you falsify the Tenet of your Adversary & the doctrine of our Church. Where doth our Maintainer say, that whatsoever Protestant notwithstanding any error? Socinians be Protestants in your account because they hold the Bible, the Bible, and only the Bible, who maintain Christ jesus not to be the eternal Son of God incarnated. Where doth our Maintainer affirm, that these Protestants may be saved in this so vild error, upon any condition? yea where doth he say of any Protestant, that he may be saved in any error, which the maintains knowingly against the Roman Religion, if he want sufficient means of instruction to convince his conscience of the falsehood of his own, and truth of the Roman? He hath no such words, and his words from which you pretend to draw this wine of Comfort for Protestants, have not any the least relish of that sense. These they are: when any man esteemed Protestant, leaveth to live in this world, we do not instantly with precipitation avouch, that he is lodged in Hell. For we are not always acquainted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction; we do not penetrate his capacity to understand his Catechist; we have no revelation what light might have cleared his errors, or Contrition retracted his sins in the last moment before death. Here our Maintainer requires sufficient means of instruction that a man be bound to believe: but he saith not, as you make him say, that this instruction must convince his conscience, that his own Religion is false, and the Roman true. If a Protestant be thus far instructed as to perceive, that the Roman Religion is by the full consent of former Christian ages, and by the definition of General Counsels delivered as the doctrine of Christ jesus, and his Apostles; if I say, any Protestant be thus far instructed, he is so sufficiently instructed, that if he refuse to believe he is certainly damned. Do not you profess, that to forsake any Church without necessary causes, is as much as a man's salvation is worth? Doth not D. Potter avouch, that it is not lawful to go against the definition of General Counsels without evident reasons? Wherefore Protestants that have abandoned the Roman Church, are by your principles convinced to be in a damnable state, if they know the Roman Religion to be the Christian tradition of their Ancestors, the definition of Catholic Counsels. Nor is it necessary, that they be convinced in conscience, that the Roman Religion is true, it sufficeth they have no convictive demonstrations against it. Wherefore it is extreme want of conscience in you to say, that our Maintainer, and the most rigid Adversaries of Protestancy affirm, that no Protestant shall be damned for any error whatsoever he holds against the Roman Church; except he be convicted in conscience, that his own Religion is false, and the Roman true.  
11. And yet not content to have brought this falsehood as a Corollary from his words, you make it his formal saying, and set it down in a distinct Character as his verbal and formal assertion. Pag. 31. n. 4. lin. 6. Charity mistaken affirmed universally, 
Cap. 1. n. 4. lin. 6.  and without any limitation, that Protestants that dye in the belief of their Religion, without particular repentance, cannot be saved: But this presumption of his you qualify by SAYING; that this sentence cannot be pronounced truly, and therefore not charitably, neither of those Protestants, that want means sufficient to convince them of the truth of your Religion, and falsehood of their own; nor of those, who, though they have neglected the means they might have had, died with Contrition, that is, with a sorrow for all their sins, proceeding from the love of God. Thus you: showing the Adamantinall hardness of your Socinian for head and Samosatenian conscience. For this long sentence which you set down, charactered as the saying of Charity Maintained with a direct affirmation, that it is his saying, is forged and feigned by yourself from the first to the last syllable thereof: not only against his meaning in that place, but also the whole drift of his Treatise. For what is the drift thereof, but only to show, that the Roman is the true Church; and that her proposing of a doctrine to be believed is sufficient to bind men to believe it, without any other Conviction besides the authority of her infallible word?  
12. Also the second assertion you impute to him, That nothing hinders, but that a Protestant dying a Protestant, may dye with contrition for all his sins, is an impudent untruth: no such acknowledgement in all his book. You seek to gather it from these words, We have no revelation, what light may have cleared his errors; or Contrition have retracted his sins. This reason (say you) or contrition have retracted his sins, being distinct from the former, and divided from it by the disiunctive particle (or) insinuates, that though no light did clear the errors of a dying Protestant, yet Contrition might, for ought you know, retract his sins. This is a fond & voluntary inference: for the clause (or contrition retracted his sins) was not added to signify, that a Protestant may have contrition of all his sins, though his understanding be not cleared from his errors: but to declare, that though his understanding be cleared from errors; yet this will not suffice that he be saved, except after the abjuration of his errors, he do further conceive hearty sorrow & Contrition for the deadly and damnable sins of affection and action he may have committed.  
13. For, that a Protestant cannot be truly penitent of all his sins, until his understanding be cleared, or at least his zeal allayed, that he become remiss in his Religion and doubtful; this reason doth invincibly conclude. It is impossible, that a man should repent of a thing, at that time, when he is in actual or habitual heat of affection unto it. But Protestants (so long as they are Protestants, and their Understandings not cleared from their errors, or their zeal allayed with cold doubtfulness) are always either actually, or habitually in the heat of condemning the Roman Church for Impieties and Idolatries; in the heat of presumptuous Pride, whereby they prefer their silly conceits about the sense of Scripture, before the judgement of the Church, and her General Counsels. Ergo, it is impossible, that a Protestant persisting stiffly in his Religion, should be penitent of all his sins known and unknown.    

The third Conviction.  
IN this Conviction I am to prove three things: first, that Roman Catholics hold all fundamental truth, and so are secure from damnation. Secondly, that it is madness to persuade any man to leave the Roman Church. Thirdly, that it is impossible, that Protestants should be sure they believe all Fundamental truths.  

That Roman Catholics are free from all Fundamental Errors, and your Contradictions herein. §. 1.  
1. HE that believes all Fundamentals, cannot be damned for any error in faith; though he believe more, or less to be Fundamental then is so. This is your formal assertion in so many words, pag. 207. n. 34. 
(k) Cap. 4. n. 34. lin. 2.  which supposed I assume: But Roman Catholics believe all Fundamentals, that is, all necessary truth: Ergo, they cannot be damned for any error in faith. The assumption of this argument might be proved, by many testimonies from your Book. I will insist upon 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 retained those truths, which were simply necessary to salvation. For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man, or Church a member of the Church Catholic. In our sense therefore of the word Fundamental, we hope she erred not fundamentally. Thus you, who 
(l) Cap. 5. n. 95.  pag. 280. n. 95. say the plain contrary, that our errors are fundamental. And pag. 289. nu. 86. 
(m) Cap. 5. n. 86.  that our Church not only might, but also did fall into substantial errors.  
2. I know, that to salve this Contradiction, and to put the term of fundamental Errors upon our Church you have coined a distinction of two kinds of fundamental errors. 
(n) Cap. 5. n. 88  Pag. 290. n. 88 Fundamental Errors (say you) may signify, either such as are repugnant to God's command, and so in their own nature damnable; though to those that out of ignorance invincible practise them not unpardonable: and such as are not only meritoriously, but remedilessely pernicious and destructive of Salvation. According to this distinction you grant, that the Roman Religion hath fundamental errors of the first kind, though as you hope none of the second. But this distinction (to omit that you overthrow the same in both the members thereof as will afterward appear) will not serve your turn, nor reconcile your contradiction. For when you say we believe all Fundamentals, you profess to take the word in your own sense. But in your sense the word Fundamental signifies all kind of necessary truth; for so you warn us 
(o) Cap. 4. n. 52. in fine.  pag. 220. lin. 5. May it please you to take notice now at last, that by fundamental, we mean All, and only that which is necessary; and then I hope you will grant, that we may safely expect Salvation in a Church which hath all things fundamental to Salvation. Thus you: which is as much as if you had said, that by Fundamental you understand, not only the things which are remedilessely and indispensably necessary; but also those that be necessary only because commanded. For how can men safely expect Salvation without those things, which by the commandment of God are necessary to Salvation? Though men with fundamental errors of the first kind may (in your doctrine) possibly be saved; yet you say their state is not safe, but 
(p) Pag. 133. Their state is dangerous though not desperate.  dangerous. Now such as have all truth Fundamental to Salvation, they not only may possibly be saved; but also safely expect Salvation, as you contend. Ergo, when you say our Church retains all Fundamentals to Salvation and errs not Fundamentally, you will have us take notice, that you mean, she is free not only from such damnable errors, as absolutely destroy, but also from those which endanger Salvation. Consequently, when you say absolutely (as every where you do) that our errors are Fundamental, or substantial, or damnable, or dangerous, you contradict your other assertion, that we retained all things simply necessary to salvation, and erred not Fundamentally.  
3. Besides in the frontispiece of your book, you have printed this sentence of our late King james, Things simply necessary to Salvation be those, which either the Word of God doth expressly command to be believed or done; or those which the Ancient Church did by necessary consequence draw out of the Word of God. Now you grant in express terms, that the Roman Church retained all things 
(q) Pag. 16. lin. 7.  simply necessary to Salvation. Ergo, you must grant, that she retained all those things, which either the word of God doth expressly command to be believed or done; or which from the Word of God, the Ancient Church deduced, and so can want nothing necessary by Divine command, nor have errors fundamental, so much as of the first kind.  
4. The reason you are about this point so various and continually contentious and fight with yourself, is the inward combat of your unruly passions. On the one side, you are incited with fury to damn us, and make our Religion damnable; on the other, vexed and galled, that neither evidence of truth, no nor D. Potter himself will give you full freedom to do it. Hence your wave and wander, you say and unsay, you run this way and that way upon adverse and contrary assertions; so much, as even in the same short sentence, you plainly contradict yourself pag. 16. n. 21. lin. 11. 
2. Edit. pag. 16. n. 8.  Though we say the errors of the Roman Church were not destructive of Salvation, but pardonable, even to them that died in them upon a general Repentance, yet we deny not but in themselves they were damnable. Do not you perceive, that this speech destroyeth itself, that our errors are not destructive of Salvation, and yet are in themselves damnable? what is destructive of Salvation, but that which of itself, and in its nature is apt and sufficient to destroy Salvation, and to bring damnation on men? And is not damnable the very same? How then can our errors be in themselves damnable, and yet not destructive of Salvation? You say, a poison may be deadly in itself and yet not kill him, who together with it takes an antidote. Very true: but can poison be in itself deadly, & not in itself destructive of life? Can it be of itself apt to cause death & not apt to destroy life? How then are our errors not destructive of Salvation, and yet damnable and apt to bring damnation on us?  
5. In like manner you profess very often, that the Roman Church retained the substance and essence of a Christian Church; that you do not cut her off from the hope of Salvation. And yet at other times being enraged with the title of Catholic given her by the consent of mankind; you protest, that 
(r) Pag. 362. li. 8. Cap. 6. n. 40. lin. 4●.  she is Catholic to herself alone, and Heretical to all the rest of Christian Churches. Which is as much as if you had said; she wants the very essence of a Christian Church. For pag. 332. n. 11. 
(s) Cap. 6. n. 11.  you write: It is not Heresy to oppose any truth propounded by the Church; but only such a truth as is an essential part of the Gospel of Christ. Wherefore the Roman Church (if she be heretical) opposes some essential, part of the Gospel of Christ, and consequently she wants faith of some essential part of the Gospel. What is consequent hereupon? That the Roman Church, not only is not an incorrupt Church, but not a Christian Church so much as for substance and essence. The Consequence is manifest. For that cannot be a Christian Church for substance & essence, which doth not hold the Gospel of Christ the Christian Religion for substance and essence, as the Roman Church doth not if she be Heretical, as you say she is. For as that cannot be a man which wants an essential part of a man: so that cannot be the Gospel of Christ, nor the Christian Religion for essence, which the Roman Church holds, 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 Gospel, you contradict an hundred times in your book, where you distinguish heresies fundamental against the Essentials of the Gospel, 
Pag. 277. lin. ult.  and not fundamental against Truths of the Gospel profitable, but not necessary. How can this subsist, if that only be Heresy which opposes the Essentials of the Gospel?   

The security in the Roman Church is so great, as it is Madness to leave it. §. 2.  
6. THis I shall make good and evident by your own most true & undeniable sayings. Our Maintainer objects, that some Protestants leaving the Roman Church have fallen away by degrees, even from the Fundamentals of Christianity. 
Cap. 3. n. 63. lin. 14.  You answer p. 168. lin. 9 What if some forsaking the Church of Rome, have forsaken fundamental truths? Was this because they forsook the Church of Rome? No sure: this is, non causa pro causa: For else all that have forsaken that Church, should have done so; which we say they have not: but because they went too far from her. The golden means, the narrow way is hard to be found, hard to be kept; hard but not impossible; hard, but yet you must not please yourselves out of it, though you err on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part: for this is the only way, that leads 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 leaving it, it were MADNESS to persuade any man to leave it. Thus you. Before I come to the principal intent, let me note and put you in mind of two things. First that here (as every where also commonly) you argue fond, that the cause why some forsaking the Roman Church, forsook also the fundamentals of Christianity, was not their forsaking the Roman Church, For else, say you, all that have forsaken her should have done so. An argument fond and full of ignorance. Otherwise, we might say, that Covetousness was not the cause, that judas betrayed his Master; for else all covetous servants should betray their masters, which we know is not so: we may say that zeal of Puritanisme was not the cause, that Enoch ap evan murdered his Brother and Mother; because many zealous Puritans do not murder 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 natural necessary causes, whose force cannot be resisted; and moral causes, which freely incline the will, leaving it liberty to resist, which is the reason they are effectual in some, and not in others.  
7. Secondly I note, that you also here keep your wont of contradicting yourself. What you here say that the narrow and only way to life and salvation 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) Cap. 4. n. 53. lin. ●9.  pag. 221. lin. 20. about your Protestant safeway·s This is a way so plain, that fools except they will cannot err from it; because in this way, not being free from error, but endeavouring to be free, is the only condition of Salvation. How is, not being free from error, but endeavouring to be free, in your way the only condition of Salvation; if keeping the golden means, and the narrow way without erring either on the right hand or left, be in your doctrine the sole means of Salvation? How is the way so plain, that even fools, unless they will, cannot err from it, if it be hard to be kept without erring on the right hand or left? And pag. 290. n. 87. 
(u) Cap. 5. n. 87. in fine.  whereas the Maintainer saith, that Protestants should not have left the Roman Church, for errors un-fundamentall, seeing they were not sure by their departure to avoid this kind of mischief; yea they were sure they could not avoid it: you say Protestants are so far from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischief (of errors un-fundamentall) that they proclaim to all the world, that it is most prone and easy to do so, to all those that fear God, and love truth; and hardly possibly for them to do otherwise without supine negligence and extreme impiety. How do these sayings hang together; The golden means of saving truth the only way to life, is hard, difficile, and only not impossible to be kept without erring from it either on the left hand Fundamentally; or one the right un-fundamentally: The way of saving truth is most prone and easy to be kept, without erring so much as un-fundamentally; yea, it is hardly possible to err from it, on either side, without supine negligence, and extreme impiety?  
8. But now to the Principal intent; by this your confession it is evident, that it is madness for any man to to leave the Roman Church, and that your writing to persuade them to leave it was a fit of distemper in your brain. For you confess, that if you said there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leaving it; is were madness to persuade any man to leave it. Now I assume: But you say both, that there is no danger in the Roman Church, and that there is extreme danger in leaving it. That you say the first, I prove, because you say, that he who believes all Fundamental truth, cannot be damned for any error in faith. And pag. 376. n. 57 
(y) Cap. 6. n. 57 in fine.  he that believes all necessary truth, if his life be answerable to his faith, how is it possible he should fail of Saluaton? But you affirm, that the Roman Church retains all fundamental and necessary truth, in that you only charge her of going from the Golden mean of exact truth, on the right hand, on the surer part. Wherefore in the Roman Church men may safely expect Salvation; there is no danger, yea there is no possibility of damnation for errors in faith with in her Communion. That you say the second, that there is extreme danger in leaving the Roman Church, I show, even by this testimony. For you say the Roman Church erreth on the right hand, on the milder part; so that they who leave her, must of necessity depart so far from her on the left hand, that is, into the direful gulf of fundamental errors; except they keep themselves in the golden means, in the narrow way; But the golden means, the narrow way, is (as you profess) hard to be found; hard, and only not impossible to be kept: Ergo, in leaving the Roman Church there is danger, and exceeding great danger which can hardly be avoided, of falling into errors fundamental, remedilessely, and fatally damnable. These being your Confessions and otherwise of themselves manifest truths, you must acknowledge it is even madness and fury for any man to forsake the Roman Church; and that your writing to divert men from her Communion, was a fit of frenzy.   

That Protestants can never be sure that they believe all fundamental and necessary Truth. §. 3.  
9 IT being indispensably necessary unto Salvation to know distinctly and in particular all Fundamental & essential truths; how can Christian souls that be pious, careful of their eternity, fearful to fall into damnation everlasting, rest quiet or calm in conscience, till they know an exact Catalogue of these Fundamentals; that so they may be sure, they know and believe them distinctly and in particular? Now Protestant's neither do, nor can agree upon an exact Catalogue of their Fundamentals, nor will tell their followers distinctly, and in particular which be the articles essentially necessary unto Salvation, and you in many places signify, that they are innumerable.  
10. On the Forehead of your Book, you have printed this sentence of King james: The number of things absolutely necessary to Salvation is not great: Wherefore the shortest and speediest way to conclude a general peace and concord in matters of Religion, would be to sever exactly things necessary from things not necessary; and to use all industry, that in necessaries there may be agreement, and in things not necessary, place be left unto Christian liberty. In your Dedicatory you profess, that your Book in a manner is nothing else but a pursuance of, and a superstruction upon this Blessed Doctrine, wherewith you adorned & armed the Frontispiece thereof. This is the flattering of your forehead, and your setting a fair Hypocritical face of Friendship on this sentence, which you hate & blaspheme in your heart, and in the heart and bosom of your Book. For some few leaves from the beginning you fall to reject, pursue, and persecute this your Blessed sentence; and your superstruction thereon is nothing else, but a load of reproaches. You 
(x) Pag. 23.  say, that to sever exactly things necessary from things not necessary (which that learned Prince esteemeth to be of great use, of great necessity, and the shortest way to conclude the general peace of Christendom about Religion, & a thing not only factible, but also which may easily & speedily be done;) this I say, which your Frontispicial sentence proclaimeth most useful and factible, the inside of your Book declareth to be a thing of extreme great difficulty, and of extreme little necessity, an intricate piece of business, apparently unnecessary, of no use, a vain labour, to no purpose. Behold your words, Pag. 23. lin. 5. To sever exactly and punctually these verities the one from the other etc. is a business of extreme great difficulty, and of extreme little necessity. He that shall go about it shall find an intricate piece of business of it, and almost impossible that he should be certain he hath done it, when he hath done it. And then it is apparently unnecessary to go about it, because he that believes all, certainly believes all necessaries. And again, 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 believing those truths of Scripture which are not fundamental, as those that are. These be your words: by the force of which you knock on the head, the sentence of king james, nailed on the forehead of your Book: and also give a deadly stab on the heart of poor Protestants, and drive out of it all hope of Salvation.  
11. For you neither do, nor can tell them, which points of faith are Fundamental, and necessary to be known distinctly of all; without the least of which you say 
(z) Cap. 6. n. 75. in fine.  it implies contradiction they should be saved. How then shall they be sure they have all Fundamental truth? You say, he that believes all, certainly believes all that is necessary. And pag. 225. lin. 1. 
(a) Cap. 4. n. 59 in fine.  to a Protestant requesting of you to know, which in particular be fundamental truths, you answer; It is a vain question: believe all, and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamental. This rule of assurance you repeat almost in the same formal words, I dare say a thousand times, which is craftily couched in equivocal, and ambiguous terms, and hath a double sense, being in the one false, and deceitful; in the other impossible to be kept. If (believe all) import no more, then, believe in general and confusedly all contained in the Holy Bible to be true, your rule is false, deceitful, damnable, that men by believing all, shall certainly believe all necessaries, as they ought, unto Salvation. For you say 
(b) Cap. 4. n. 3.  Pag. 163. n. 3. Fundamental and essential points be such, as are, not only plainly revealed of God, and so certain truths; but also commanded to be preached to all men, and to be distinctly believed of all, and so necessary truths. And 
(c) Cap. 4. n. 4. lin. 20.  Pag. 194. lin. 16. you teach, that to the constitution of Fundamental points, is required, that they be, First actually revealed of God; Secondly commanded under pain of damnation to be particularly known (I mean, known to be Divine revelations) and distinctly to be believed. Wherefore your rule (Believe all in general, and you shall be sure to believe all Fundamentals sufficiently unto salvation) is by your own definitions proved false, and damnable. But, if your rule have this sense; Believe all that is in the Bible explicitly, distinctly, & in particular, and then you shall be sure to believe all necessaries, if this (I say) be your meaning, you lay on your Protestants a most heavy burden, a most unsupportable load, a most tyrannical and impossible command. For what you say that the burden is light, and that all Protestants comply with this your command, pag. 129. n. 5. 
(d) Cap. 3. n. 5. lin. 4.  that all of them agree with explicit faith in all those things, which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture, that is in All, that God hath plainly revealed; this, I say, is ridiculous; there being millions of truths plainly & undoubtedly delivered in Scripture, which millions of Protestants never heard: yea, there be, I dare say, a thousand such truths which yourself are ignorant off.  
12. In contradiction of this your inconsiderate assertion, you grant pag. 137. lin. 5. 
(e) Cap. 3. n. 19 lin. 20.  That there be many truths, which in themselves are revealed plainly enough, which yet are not plainly revealed unto some Protestants of excellent understanding, nor are believed of them, because they are prepossessed with contrary opinions, and with preiudices, by the strange power of education, instilled unto their minds. How then is it true, that Protestants, all of them agree with explicit faith in all things which are plainly revealed of God? How can those Protestants (who disbelieve many truths revealed in Scripture plainly enough) be sure they believe all fundamental and necessary truth; seeing they observe not your command, Believe all, and you shallbe sure to believe all that is fundamental? Who doth, or can assure them, that among these many points of Faith revealed in Scripture plainly enough, none be fundamental. It is therefore manifest that Protestants (except you give them an exact Catalogue of all your fundamentals which they are bound under pain of vamnation distinctly and explicitly to believe) can never be sure they believe all fundamental truth. And it is silly for you, 
(f) Pag. 158. n. 52. lin. 19 pag. 160. n. 33. lin. 31. pag. 162. lin. 20.  when Charity Maintained urgeth you for a Catalogue of your Fundamentals, to think that you may stop his mouth, with importuning him, for a Catalogue of our Church's Proposals; for we say of our Church's Proposals, that it is sufficient to believe them implicitly: we do not say, they must be believed of all distinctly and in particular. What need then is there of a Catalogue, wherein such Proposals are set down distinctly, and in particular? Now you affirm of your Fundamentals, that all men are bound upon their salvation, to know and believe them in particular and yet obstinately refuse to give them an exact account, which in particular they be.  
13. Besides, what an intricate and infinite obligation do you charge upon Protestants, in saying, that there is (as things now stand) at great necessity of believing those truths of Scripture which are not fundamental, as those that are so. For the necessity of believing fundamentals delivered in holy Scripture is under pain of damnation to know them in particular, and distinctly; which obligation is so strict, that you say it implies contradiction, that Salvation be had without the least of them. Now if the necessity of believing not fundamentals, be as great as this; yea the same with this; no Protestant can be saved that doth not believe such passages of Scripture as be not fundamental distinctly & in particular, even as he is bound to believe fundamentals. You often (as pa. 169. lin. 12.) 
(g) Cap. 3. n. 64. lin. 33.  eagerly and bitterly declaim against us for requiring harder and heavier conditions of Salvation, than God requires, or then were required in the days of the Apostles. Who more guilty of this crime than yourself? For this your necessity of believing the not fundamental truths of Scripture, as much as the fundamental, was not ever in God's Church; seeing yourself only say it is so as matters now stand. Whereby you insinuate, that as matters stood anciently, this great necessity and obligation had no place in God's Church. Nor can you say, that it is required of God: for than it would be delivered in Scripture and consequently perpetual in the Church ever since the Gospel was written: whereas your words urging this obligation only (as now matters stand) imply the contrary. It is therefore manifest, that this necessity so heavy and direful, is laid upon Protestants, not by Apostolical command, not by divine Precept; but by yourself and other proud ignorant Ministers, who neither know which be Fundamentals, nor can agree upon any short rule, within the compass of which they are all comprised. Hence they are forced to send every Protestant to fish for Fundamentals, in the vast and deep Ocean of holy Scripture; not giving them any direction, any rule, any assurance of finding them all, except they can comprehend clearly and distinctly all the innumerable truths plainly revealed therein.  
14. Finally, what you say pag. 134. lin. 24. That may be sufficiently declared to one, which is not sufficiently declared to another; and consequently, that may be fundamental to one, which to another is not. And pag. 281. lin. 4. 
(f) Cap. 5. n. 17.  The same error may be not Capital to men that want means of finding the truth; and Capital to others, who have means and neglect to use them. This doctrine by you often repeated, driveth Protestant's into a Thicket of Thorns and briers: into new insuperable difficulties & uncertainties of their Salvation. For though a Protestant were sure (which in Protestancy he can never be) that he distinctly believes all capital & essential truths, which are to be believed of all; how shall he be sure, that he believes all truths, which to him in particular (in regard of his greater knowledge and capacity) are, you say, Capital and Fundamental? How can he be certain, that there are not some capital and substantial truths, which he hath not found in Scripture, though he had means of finding them? And if he want belief of these Fundamental and Capital truths; how can he possibly be saved? For though you should say, that these are the least of things fundamentally necessary to salvation; yet this will not possibilitate their salvation: it being contradiction, to say, that Salvation may be had, without any the LEAST thing necessary to Salvation, as you affirm, 
(g) Cap. 6 in fine totius capitis.  Pag. 382 lin. 1.    

The fourth Conviction.  
YOu could find no Way to make good the Salvation of English Protestants, against the demonstrations of Charity maintained; but only such a Way, wherein the vildest Heretics that now live, or ever lived under the cope of Heaven, may be saved as well as they; yea even jews and Turks: these two consequences from your principles, I will demonstrate in two Sections of this Conviction.  

That in your Way English Protestant's cannot be saved more than Socinians; with fixproofes, that you are of this impious Sect. §. 1.  
1. YOu say in your Preface n. 39 that you have not undertaken the particular defence of the Church of England, but the common Cause, and Religion of all Protestants. And pag. 375. n. 56. you profess, that by the Religion of Protestants, which you maintain to be a safeway to salvation, you do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melancton; nor the Confession of Augusta, or Geneva; nor the Catechism of Hiedelberge; nor the articles of the Church of England; no nor the Harmony of Protestants Confessions: but that wherein they all agree as a perfect rule of their faith and actions, the BIBLE, the BIBLE, I say the BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants. This is the only Religion, the only way you could find to save English Protestants, wherein they can no more be saved, than any other that believe the Bible, and only the Bible, as a perfect rule of their life and actions. Now in the number of Protestants, Ghospelers, and Biblists, the new Ebionites, or Samosatenians whon we term Socinians, are comprehended; the most blasphemous Heretics against the Fundamental articles of Christianity that ever breathed, worse than Arians: For Arians acknowledged the Eternity of our Lord Christ jesus, that he had an Eternal most perfect divine Essence; only they would not confess him to be coequal, and consubstantial to his Father▪ But Socinians deny him to be the eternal Son of God, affirm him to be mere man, and termed the son of God, as other Just and holy men and Prophets are.  
2. Now that Socinians are by your account in the number of them, that go the safe way to Salvation, as well as English Protestants, is manifest; not only because they profess the Bible, and only the Bible; but also because they are that sort of Christians, whose Religion you follow as these six arguments evince.  
3. First, because being so much suspected and accused even in public writing to be of that impious Sect: and if you were not provoked to make a clear profession of the Christian faith against them, you have not done it: you say sometimes, that Christ is the Son of God; but never his Eternal Son, which omission of the word Eternal in a man so suspected of Socinianisme as you are, is in the judgement of our late Sovereign 
(h) Proceeding against D. Vorstius. pag. 81. For of Vorstius his book styled the Filiatione Christi, without aeterna; the King faith: For this title only, an Author so suspected as he, is worthy of the faggot.  King james a sign of guiltiness, & maketh your Book worthy of the faggot.  
4. Secondly, because you dislike words about matters of Faith not found in the Scripture, which Christians use for the better declaration of the Creed. This you term, 
(*) Pag. 198. li. 16.  a vain conceit, that we can speak of the things of God, better than in the word of God. You declaim also bitterly against, persecuting cursing, damning of such as will not subscribe unto the words of men, as the words of God. No reader of understanding in Ecclesiastical affairs can doubt, but you gird at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consubstantial, decreed by the first Counsels of Nice, to declare the substantial Equality betwixt the three divine Persons: and at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deipara, God's Mother, commanded by the Council of Ephesus to be given to the Blessed Virgin; to signify, that she was mother to him, that was personally, not only true man, but also the eternal God: These Canons of the first general Counsels, these sacred forms of Ecclesiastical speech, you cannot endure; because they thunder against Socinians; they proclaim them to be Heretics, and strike their Impieties dead.  
5. Thirdly, because you 
(i) Pag. 381. n. 72. cap 6. n. 72. lin 21.  reprehend them, who by firm resolution of their will uphold themselves in the belief of their Religion, though their reason and understanding fail them Which is as much as if you had said, We are not, through pious affection and reverence of God's word, to believe things above the reach of reason; things in the apprehension of which our natural understanding faileth: as are the mysteries of the Trinity, & of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God.  
6. Fourthly, because you say, 
(k) Pag. 218. lin. 15.  that they who captivate their understanding, to the belief of those things, which seem irreconcilable contradictions; may aswell believe real contradictions, 
(l) Pag. 217. n. 47. Cap. 4. n. 47.  which no wiseman will do. But he that believes the mystery of the B. Trinity, & the Son of God his Eternal Generation, must of necessity captivate his understanding to the belief of impossibilities, implicancies, contradictions, seeming to be such in human reason, as every true Christian by experience findeth. Therefore in your opinion no wise man doth, or will believe them.  
7. Fiftly, because you join with the 
(m) Carpocrates, Ebion, Cerdo.  ancient enemies of Christ jesus his God head, to disparage the Gospel of S. john; wherein 
(n) joannes adversus Ebionem scripsit Euangelium, Divinam Christi edisserens nativitatem. Hieron. de. Script. Eccles.  the eternal Generaation of the Word, the only begotten Son of God, is most fully and plainly delivered; as also the indispensable necessity of believing the same, joan. 3.8. He that believeth in him is not damned; he that believeth not is already damned; because he believes not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. For though you dare not say plainly that S. john's Gospel is of no authority, yet in effect you say as much; contending, that in his Gospel 
(o) Pag. 211. in. 42. lin. 11.  nothing is contained of necessary belief, which is not clearly & plainly set down 
(p) Pag. 212. lin. 1. Such a perfect Gospel.  in S. Luke's Gospel. Wherefore; because Christ jesus his being the Eternal Word and son of God, is no where set down so clearly in the Gospel of S. Luke, you Socinians will not be bound to believe it; through our Lord himself in S. john's Gospel pronounce, that he who believes it not, is already damned, that is, as sure to be damned, as if he were already in Hell. Now what is this, but in favour of Sociniansme to give the lie to S. john; yea to our Saviour himself?  
8. Sixtly, you are proved to be not only a Socinian, but also impiously obstinate in the defence of that Sect, by your changing the sacred text of God's word, that they may not seem therein accursed. S. john in his first Epistle Cap. 4. v. 2. giveth this sign to know the spirit of true Prophets and Preachers, Every spirit which confesseth jesus Christ to be come in flesh is of God; and every Spirit which confesseth not jesus Christ to be come in flesh is not of God, but of Antichrist. And Ep. 2. v. 7. Many Deceyvers are come out into the world, who do not confess jesus Christ to be come in flesh; this is a Deceyver & an Antichrist. In which places it is manifest, that S. john speaks of false Christians, namely the 
(q) Ebion confitebatur jesum Christum, sed eum nudum esse hominem afferebat, non autem Deum unigenitum, Sapientiam & Verbun Dei. Ignatius Epist. ad Philadelphos.  Ebionites, who deny Christ jesus to be a Person come from the bosom of God vested with humane flesh who deny him to be the Word made flesh, the Son of God incarnate. Which being your Socinian Belief, that the same might not seem damned as Antichristian; you make bold with God's word, and thrust in your own words in place thereof, Preface num. 12. The rule, S. john gives to make this trial of Spirits by, is to consider whether, they confess jesus to be the Christ, that is, the guide of their faith, and Lord of their actions. And pag. 339. lin. 4. you say, S. john Ep. 2. v. 7. speabes not of Heretics, but of no Christians, of Antichrists, of such as denied jesus to be the Christ. Thus still, as often as S. john saith, such as deny jesus Christ to be come in flesh be false Prophets, deceyvers, Antichrists, you change the text into such as deny jesus to be the Christ, as though S. john had spoken in this place against jews, who deny jesus to be the Christ, or the promised Messias. Whereby you not only chauge the text; but also foist in a falsehood into God's Word. For it is false, that whosoever confesseth jesus to be the Christ, is thereby known to be of God, and a true Christian: seeing Turks confess jesus to be the Christ, that is, the Messias promised to the jews; and yet are not Christians. And that S. john speaketh against Heretics, who under the name of Christians, went about preaching, that jesus Christ is not the eternal son of God, is clear by the words which immediately follow: He 
(r) Epist. 2. v. ●.  that departeth, and abideth not in the Doctrine of Christ, hath not God: He that abideth in his doctrine, hath the Father and the Son. If any come to you, and bring not this Doctrine, receive him not into your house; bid him not God speed: For he that saith to him, God speed, is partaker of his malignant works.  
9 What then may we think of those English Protestants, and of their state and Salvation, who have made you the Patron of their Religion, and Pastor of their souls? can they be excused from being partakers with you in your malignant works, tending to the perversion and damnation of many? I confess you have rewarded them as they deserve. For you give them no better assurance, or hope of Salvation, then to Socinians, who deny Christ jesus to be the Eternal only begotten Son of God, whose damnation goeth before them unto judgement. Miserable they are, who be so desperately bend against Charity maintained by Catholics, as rather than yield to be saved in the Catholic Roman Church, will be defended by such a Socinian Patron, and in a Way which giveth them no hope of salvation; but together with Heretics, who deny the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, who are branded in Scripture with the note of Deceyvers and Antichrists: and by the mouth of our Lord himself, men already damned.   

That in your Way jews and Turks may be saved aswelll as Protestants. protestants 2.  
10. Protestant's of your stamp who pretend to believe the Bible, and only the Bible, being divided into 
(s) King james, Proceeding against Worstins pag. 65.  innumerable sects (agreeing in nothing but in their union against the Pope) cannot but be full of many contrary and adverse errors, as you grant. Wherefore in your Way they are saved in their errors by invincible ignorance; or if their ignorance be vincible, sinful, and damnable, by General Repentance. But by your Principles, jews and Turks may be saved in their false Religions through invincible ignorance, or general Repentance. That they may be saved by invincible ignorance, is proved by what you write Pag. 393. lin. 1. 
(t) Cap. 7. n. 8. lin. 26. ante finem.  Certainly Religion is one of those things, which are necessary only because commanded. For if none were commanded under pain of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any? Neither can it be damnable to be of a false Religion, unless it be a sin to be so. Thus you: whereupon I assume this Hypothesis: to Turks, jews, Pagans, that are invincibly ignorant of the falsehood of their own Religion, and truth of the Christian, it is no sin to be of their false Religion and enemies of Christ our Lord: This hath been already showed by your acknowledgements; that God cannot be offended with men for errors purely involuntary, nor can he damn them for not doing what he knows they cannot do. Wherefore it is impossible, that God should damn jews, or Turks, or Pagans for errors of invincible and involuntary ignorance: so that if your Thesis be true, that no false Religion is damnable, but only because it is sin: it is comequent, that men may be saved in any Religion even in judaism, Turkism, Paganism through invincible ignorance.  
11. You say 
(u) 2. Ed. pag. 24. lin. 23.  Pag. 24. lin. 34. Who can find fault with D. Potter for saying, If, through want of means of instruction, incapacity, invincible or probable ignorance a man dye in error be may be saved? Now many jews, and Turks, and Pagans die in their errors, through want of instruction, or incapacity, or invincible ignorance. Ergo, they may be saved in their false Religions & impious errors. If you answer that your proposition, that men who die in their errors may be saved, is to be understood of such as dye in errors that be damnable only meritoriously, because sins, and against God's command, not of errors which remedilessely, fatally, avoidable destroy Salvation, which no ignorance can excuse, for which no repentance can beg pardon without a dereliction of them, as you say pag. 336. n. 19 I reply that this answer confirms the Salvation of jews and Turks & Pagans in your doctrine and Way. According to which, to dye in any false Religion cannot be damnable, remedilessely, but only meritoriously, because a sin, and an offence of God: wherefore if any jew, or Turk, or Pagan want capacity, or means of instruction, and so be invincibly ignorant, he may be saved, even as Protestants are saved in your safe Way.  
12. I omit that you plainly contradict yourself in saying that there be some errors which remedilessly destroy Salvation, because the contrary truth is necessary, 
Cap. 6. n. 19 lin. 33.  non solum necessitate praecepti, sed medij, not only because commanded, but also because the sole means or remedy against sin. This doctrine I say doth not agree with your assertion, that Religion itself is necessary only because it is commanded; and that it cannot be damnable to be of any false Religion, but only because it is a sin. For what things or doctrines can be necessary, not only because commanded, but also because the sole remedy against sin, if Religion (which is, to believe that God is, and that he is are warder of them that seek him) be necessary only because commanded; not because the means without which no man can be justified from sin and saved? If to be of a false Religion, or of no Religion be damnable only meritoriously; because a sin; what error can be imagined so malignant, as to destroy Salvation not only meritoriously, but also remedilessely, or fatally, as you speak?  
13. Secondly that jews and Turks may according to the Principles of your safe way, be saved in their errors by General repentance for all their sins, is proved: because there is no repugnance, but they may conceive contrition for all their sins. For they believe in one only God, Creator of heaven and earth. The jews further believe the truths revealed in the old testament, the Turks believe in jesus, that he is the Christ, the messias, which is to believe in him as far as Socinians believe in him; yea, they pray unto him and invocate him, which some 
(a) Bellarmin. l. 1. de Christo. c. 1.  Socinians refuse to do, because they hold we are to invocate the true God only; and to them Christ is not God, but a mere holy man. Why then may not jews, & Turks love the true God, and conceive sorrow of all their offences and sins against so good a Lord, so worthy of all love, of all their sins I say known and unknown, in which number all sinful errors must of necessity be contained as you say pag. 21. lin antepenullina, and pag. 20. lin ultima.  
14. To this purpose very forcible and pregnant it is, what you say to us speaking indefinitely of different Religions and Sects, pag. 32. n 4. You must not hereafter affirm, that of men of different Religions, one side only can be saved; but you must temper the crudenesse of this assertion; by saying, One side only can be saved, except want of conviction, or else repentance excuse the other. This your Charitable exception comprehends Turks, & jews, that are of a different Religion from Christians; that they may be excused from damnation through want of Conviction, or through a general Repentance of all their sins known and unknown. You give us warning in the same place saying to us: You must abstain from affirming, that Protestants dying in their Religion cannot be saved; For you must always remember to add this caution, unless they were excusably ignorant, or died with contrition. A goodly advice, which because S. Paul observed not, you must say he was to blame & uncharitable in pronouncing, 
(u) 1. Co. 6 9 10. Galat. 5.20.21.  that impious men, drunkards, Heretics, sectaries shall not possess the Kingdom of God. For he should have remembered to add this caution; except they be excusably ignorant, or dye with contrition. Nor must you say, that Turks and jews dying in their Religion cannot be saved; but you must always remember to add this caution; unless they were excusably ignorant of the falsehood of it; or died with contrition. And then considering, that you cannot know, whether or no they were sufficiently convinced of the truth of christian Religion, you are obliged in charity to judge the best, & hope they are not. And is not this to maintain, that men may be saved in any Religion, Christian, jewish, or Turkish, aswell in the one as in the other? No Religion among Christians, no Sect among Protestants is found which you do 
(x) Preface n. 39  or dare defend to be free from errors against faith and Religion; and so in your Way none are sure to be saved, but through ignorance, or general Repentance for their errors. But jews and Turks may be saved in either of these ways; their errors (according to your principles) not being remedilessely damnable.    

The fifth Conviction.  
THis Conviction over throweth the chief cause for which you charge our Religion to be damnable, & showeth: first that the thing for which you would send us to Hell, is the necessary duty of a constant Christian Faith. Secondly, that your contrary mutability and levity is Apostatical and impious.  

You damn us to Hell for being faithful, and constant Christians. §. 1.  
1. YOu often proclaim us, to be men wilfully blind, sure to fall into the ditch of damnation. For this your censure of us you give this reason; 
(x) Pag. 380. n. 72.  because we will not enter into any trial of our Religion, with indifference, with liberty of judgement, with are solution to doubt of it, if upon examination, the grounds of it prove uncertain; or to leave it, if they prove apparently false: my own experience assures me, that herein I do you no wrong; but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your doctrine, among mortal sins. Thus you. And we willingly grant, and openly profess, that we hold it a mortal sin to doubt deliberately of any point of our faith. But must we be damned in this respect? O how doth malignancy against our salvation confound your memory and wit? For against doubting in matters of Religion you write most earnestly pag. 195. n. 11. lin. 20. which of us ever taught, it was not damnable to deny or doubt of the truth of any thing, whereof we either know or believe, that God hath revealed it? Thus you. Now if it be damnable to doubt of the truth of any thing we believe to be revealed of God; what an oblivious Creature are you, who will have us damned for not yielding to do that very thing, which you proclaim damnable to be done? you will have us sent to Hell, because we rank doubting of any part of our faith (which we hold revealed of God) among deadly and damnable sins; and yet yourself rank this doubting among deadly and damnable crimes, with an earnest tacit detestation of the contrary Doctrine, which of us ever taught it is not damnable?  
2. Have you so soon forgot yourself? Are your sayings no sooner out of your pen, than out of your memory and head? which of us (say you) ever taught it is not damnable? Even yourself good Sir, you William Chilling worth teach it is not damnable, yea you hold it damnable for any man to rank doubting of the Religion, which he holds revealed of God among mortal sins, which you prove; because seeing every man must resolve never to commit mortal sin, it follows, that he must never examine the grounds of his Religion, for fear of doubting; or if he do, he must resolve, that no motives, be they never so strong, shall move him to doubt. This is your argument, upon which you conclude we are a company of blind inconsidering men, lovers of the darkness, and not of light. And yet yourself, are so blind, so inconsidering, and your wits are so dulled and darkened, as you do not perceive, that this very argument proveth you & all your Biblists to be in the same case we are; to wit obstinately blind: for you grant, that all of you rank doubting of your Religion among mortal sins, that is, you all teach that it is damnable to doubt of the truth of any thing you believe to be revealed of God. Hence it follows that seeing you must resolve never to commit damnable sin; that you must never examine the grounds of it at all, for fear you should be moved to doubt; or if you do you must resolve that no motives, be they never so strong, shall move you to doubt. You see your argument against us turneth upon yourselves, and proveth you are obstinate and blind, and in danger of the Ditch as much as we are.  
3. And do not you further teach and contend, that it is damnable for you to doubt of the Doctrine of Devils: if you believe it to be Divine Revelation? 
Cap. 2. n. 122. lin. 21.  Pag. 99 n. 122. l. 22. If by the discourse of the Devil I be (I will not say convinced, but) persuaded, though falsely, that it is a Divine Revelation, and shall deny to believe it, I shall be a formal (though not a material) Heretic; For he that believes any thing to be a Divine Revelation, and yet will not believe it to be true; must of necessity believe, that God is false, which according to your doctrine, is the Formality of an Heretic. You who teach, that he who will not believe (and he that will doubt, will not believe) that thing to be truth, which falsely by the persuasion of the Devil, he believes to be Divine Revelation, is a formal Heretic, and a blasphemous wretch: you (I say) that teach this, who will not wonder, how you could be so inconsiderate, as to make us damnable, because we resolve not to doubt of that doctrine, which by the Tradition of so many Christian Ages, by our Pastors and Ancestors, men renowned for Learning, Sanctity, Miracles, for expelling of Devils, for converting of nations, hath been delivered, & persuaded unto us to be revealed of God?   

That your Protestant Way to be firm to no Religion, but still in motion and change, is damnable. §. 2.  
4. ABout yourself, and your being ungrounded and unsettled in matters of Religion, thus you write, and sincerely profess pag. 278. lin. 29. 
(z) Cap. 5. n. 16. in. fine.  I truly for my part, if I did not find in myself a love and desire of all profitable truth; if I did not put away idleness, & prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottom all my opinions of Divine matters, being prepared in mind to follow God, and God only, which way so ever he shall lead me; If I did not hope, that I either do, or endeavour to do, these things; certainly I should have little hope of obtaining Salvation. Here you profess, that neither Christian Religion, nor any truth thereof, hath been as yet firmly rooted, or deeply by the fingar of God printed in your heart. You declare your soul to be a Blank, noted with no Religion: but prepared for any, which to you shall seem of God, to wit you are ready to believe not absolutely, but 
(a) Preface n. 5.  as most probable for the present; but resolved never to believe God so firmly, as to rank doubting of what you have received as his word, among mortal sins.  
5. That this your practice implieth doubting of all Christian Religion, I prove; because you profess, to question and examine all your opinions of Divine matters; to make an if, or a doubt of the certainty and truth of them all; that is, you examine them, prepared in mind to leave them all and every one, if upon trial they seem to you false. But among your opinions of Divine matters, your persuasion that our Christian Scriptures and doctrines are Divine oracles, and God's word, is one; for you hold the Divinity of Scriptures, & consequently of the Doctrines contained therein, only as an opinion very probable, as is hereafter 
(a) Convict. 6.  showed. Ergo you question the holy Scripture, the Religion and Gospel of Christ; you make an if of the truth and certainty thereof: You examine it doubtingly, with liberty of judgement, prepared in mind to leave it, if perchance you find the grounds thereof apparently false. What is this, but to be a Nullifidian, a man settled in no Religion, but doubtful of all? Such an one as they were whom the Apostle 
(b) 2. Ti. 3.7.  checketh, terming them, men still learning, but never attaining to the assured knowledge of any thing. Again 
(c) Cap. 5. n. 107. initio.  Pag. 307. n. 107. you write, thus speaking unto our Maintainer: Your eleventh falsehood is, that our first reformers ought to have doubted, whether their opinions were certain: which is to say, they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture: which in formal and express terms contains many of these opinions. From this testimony I conclude, that you doubt of the cetainty of the Scripture. You profess to examine and question all your Protestant opinions of Divine matters; to make a doubt of the certainty of them. But you contend, that some of your Protestant opinions of Divine matters, be such as to make a doubt or question of the certainty of them, is to doubt of the certainty of formal and express Scripture. Ergo, your Way, and practise of doubting of all your opinions about Divine matters, is doubting even of the truth of the Christian Scripture, and Gospel of Christ. A thing most impious and execrable as you now suppose, & yet so fond and forgetful you are, as to say, you should have little hope of Salvation did you not do it, or endeavour to do it.  
6. In fine, your safe Way is a Labyrinth of implicatory and inextricable errors. Protestants, that are concluded therein, are lost in a maze of uncertainties, and in an intricate mixture of contrary doctrines, being sure to find nothing therein but damnation, which way so ever they turn themselves. Do they doubt of the truth of their Religion which they believe to be the Gospel? They are both according to truth, and in your doctrine, damnable wretches, as being formal Heretics. Be they so firm in their Religion, as they rank doubting thereof among deadly sins? Then they are (you say) obstinately blind, sure to fall into the pit of perdition, as much as we are, at the least you afford them little hope of obtaining Salvation.    

The sixth Conviction.  
1. THis Conviction showeth, that only Roman Catholics have saving faith, which is demonstrated by three Arguments. The first: Saving faith, is that, 
(d) Hebr. 11.6.  without which it is impossible to please God. Now faith which pleaseth Gods must be on the one side certain and infallible; otherwise it is not worthy of God, to whose word we owe so firm belief; that, if an Angel from heaven should Euangelize against that we have received as his word, he were not to be heard, but to be accursed. On the other side, it must be a free and voluntary assent; not enforced by the evidence of the thing. For if the reason of believing be evident, and such as doth necessitate the Understanding to assent, the assent is not pleasing to God; because it is not voluntary obedience and submission to his word. Roman Catholics by believing the Church to be infallible in all her proposals, obtain a persuasion about Divine mysteries firm and infallible, and yet of voluntary obedience and submission. But the Opposers of the Roman Church, not only want certainty in truth; but also know not which way to challenge infallible certainty, without evidence.  
2. This may be proved by what you write, 
(e) Cap. 6. n. 7. circa medium.  Pag. 329. lin. 31. The infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in itself; yet is not made appear to us infallibly certain, to my understanding is an impossibility. What is this but to say, that faith of a thing cannot be infallibly certain; except the thing believed be made so clear and apparent, that the understanding cannot choose but assent unto it? For what appears to us to be infallibly certain, is seen of us to be infallibly certain: What we see to be infallible certain, we cannot choose but assent, that it is so. So that, a firm 
(f) Hebr. 11.1. 6. Fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium.  grounded belief of the truth of things not appearing, without which it is impossible to please God, is by your doctrine to Protestants impossible.  
3. Moreover, that Protestants cannot have faith pleasing to God, that is, faith infallibly certain not grounded on evidence, I demonstrate in this sort. No man can be assured infallibly of the truth of things not seen, nor to him evidently certain, but by the word of an Author infallibly veracious in all his words, delivered unto him by a witness of infallible truth: For if the witness, or messenger of the word be fallible, let the Author of the word be never so infallible, our assent to the truth of the thing proposed cannot be infallible. Now Protestants have not the word of God by means of a witness and messenger infallible: For the witness, proposer, and messenger of the word of God is the visible Catholic Church, which Protestants hold to be fallible, full of false Traditions, not free (so you 
(g) Pag 279. n. 64. The visile Church is not free from all errors in itself damnable.  say) from error in itself damnable, and in this sense 
(h) Pag. 291 lin. 8. From such fundamental errors the Church Catholic is not secured.  Fundamental. Wherefore it is demonstratively certain, that only Roman Catholics (who believe the Church to be infallible) can have Faith worthy of God; Faith of voluntary submission to God's word, that is, faith of things to them not evidently yet infallibly certain, and consequently they only please God, by their believing and are saved.  
4. The second Argument. You say 
(i) Cap 3. n. 36. lin. 23.  pag. 148. lin. 16. There is no other reason to believe the Scripture to be true, but only because it is God's word: so that you cannot believe the doctrines and myestries revealed in Scripture to be true, more firmly and infallibly than you believe the Scripture to be God's word: for we must be surer of the proof, then of the thing proved thereby, otherwise it is no proof, as you say pag. 37●. n. 59 But your assurance that the Scripture is the word of God, is only human, probable, and so absolutely fallible. For you believe the books which were never doubted of in the Church to be God's word, and a perfect rule of faith, only by the tradition or testimonies of the ancient Churches 
(k) Cap. 2. n. 27.  pag. 63. lin. 35. But, the joint tradition of all the Apostolical Churches with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine, is only a very probable argument, as you affirm 
(l) Cap. 6. n. 40.  pag. 361. n. 40. Ergo, your faith, that Scripture is God's word, & consequently of all the mysteries therein revealed, is but human and probable, and therefore unworthy of God, being not firmer than the credit we yield to every moral honest man. For to us his word is probable and credible, and to you the word of God is no more.  
5. Protestants commonely pretend, that their faith, that these Books be the word of God, resteth finally, not upon the credit of human Tradition, but upon the Scripture only; which shows itself with evident certitude to be divine and supernatural truth and so revealed of God, 
(m) Calvin. l. 1. Instit c. 7. n. 2. Quod autem rogant, unde persuade bimur scripturas à Deo fluxisse: perinde est ac si quis roget, unde discemus lucem discernere à tenebris, suave ab amaro etc.  Even as light is seen by its own brightness, and honey is proved to be sweet by the very taste thereof. But this point of Protestancy you reject, as fond, vain, ridiculous, pag. 371. n. 51. and prove it to be such. Because, if the Books of Scripture were evidently certain, if they did with evident certitude demonstrate themselves to be Divine truth; then all men that have understanding and capacity to apprehend the right sense and sentence of Scripture would believe them to be true, which experience showeth be otherwise. If Protestants answer, that such as have their taste distempered, to them honey is bitter; so Infidels, through prejudice and distemper of passions, do not perceive, and taste the Divinity of the Doctrines of the Scripture. Against this, the reply is ready and convincing: For they who through distemper of their palate, judge honey to be bitter, do not apprehend the true taste of honey, but a taste contrary to the true taste thereof; which being in their palate, they conceive it to be in the meat. But Infidels by their understanding do rightly apprehend, and conceive the true senses of Scripture, and the mysteries of faith delivered therein more clearly than many Christians of mean capacity do: and yet they do not judge them to be Divine truth, or truth at all. Ergo the very true sense and sentence of Scripture, doth not with evident certainty show itself to be Supernatural truth, such as could not be revealed, but of God.  
6. Finally, if the Protestants belief of Scripture be grounded upon sight of the truth thereof, this their belief is not saving faith: for Faith by which men are saved (as hath been said) is that whereby they submit by voluntary obedience, their understanding to God's word; believing firmly and assuredly upon the Authority thereof, things in themselves incredible, and above the reach of human reason. But Protestants do not believe the doctrine of Scripture because it is the word of God, but because (as they say) they see it to be Divine truth, and consequently the word of God. Ergo, they have not the faith of humble submission to God's word, which is the only faith that pleaseth God, and by which men are saved.  
7. The third Argument: Protestants have not faith of infallible adherence, that is, faith worthy of God, about the sense, and interpretation of Scripture. For holding the Church's interpretation to be fallible; they pretend to be sure by this rule, that what they believe, to them seems plainly, clearly, evidently revealed, and proposed in the Scripture. But this rule of assurance is not infallible, but very fallible and deceitful. For even Protestants themselues contend, that many texts and places of Scripture, which seem plain and clear, are to be understood figuratively against the plain, proper, and literal sense. For example the words of our Lord about the chief Sacrament & mystery of faith, THIS is My Body, This is My BLOOD, in their plain, proper and literal sense deliver and establish Transubstantiation (as Protestants 
(n) B. Morton l. 2. de enchar. initio.  grant.) Hence Protestants, that are resolved not to believe a mystery so high above reason, & seemingly repugnant to sense, will by no means allow these words to be true in their proper and literal sense: they will not yield to the plain evidence of the Divine text. Whereupon it is evidently consequent, that they cannot be sure, about any mystery of faith, by virtue of the sole seeming evidence of the sacred Text. For instance; take the most fundamental text of Scripture, about the most fundamental mystery of Christian Religion, to wit, the Incarnation of the Son of God, 
(o) joan. 1. 12.  The Word was made flesh. How doth this text evidently convince, that the Eternal Word, and Son of God was made Man truly, substantially, personally? What Protestants say of the word of Christ, This is my Body; why may not Nestorians affirm about this text, The Word was made ffesh, that it is not true in a proper, plain, and literal sense, but metaphorically, figuratively, that God and Man were made one in Christ by affectual union, as two great friends are said to be one? How can Protestants be themselves assured, or how can they prove by the sole evidence of the text, that this Nestorian interpretation is false? And if their belief of the mystery of the Incarnation be not solid and firm, grounded on a rule of interpretation infallibly certain; how can they be saved?  
8. Learned and judicious Readers may find in your book a world of laughter about your answering the arguments of Charity Maintained: you do it so unschollerlike, so okerly and untowardly. Let your answer to this argument serve for a pattern. Our Maintainer urgeth D. Potter, that if the Church may err in points of faith not fundamental, you can never be sure of any such point: For as you err about some, deceived by the seeming evidence of the Scripture, so you cannot be sure you do not err about other. You answer 
(p) Cap. 2. n. 160.  Pag. 117. n. 160. A pretty Sophism depending upon this principle, that whosoever possibly may err, he can never be certain, that he doth not err. A judge may possibly err in judgement: can he therefore never be sure he hath judged aright? A Travaller may possibly mistake his way; must I therefore be doubtful, whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my chamber? Or can our London-Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day, when he is sober, and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? And a little after nu. 161. whereas our maintainer argueth, that you cannot be sure it is an error to make the Church judge of Controversies, because you pretend to be sure by the seeming evidence of Scripture; but this rule is not infallible, & so you cannot be sure by the warrant thereof. The ground of this Sophism (say you) is very like the former, viz. that we can be certain of the falsehood of no proposition, but those only, that are damnable errors. But I pray, good Sir, give me your opinion of these: The snow is black, the fire is cold, M. Knot is Archbishop of Toledo, the whole is not greater than a part of the whole, that twice two make not four, in your opinion, good Sir, are these damnable heresies? Or because they are not so, have we no certainty of the falsehood of them. I beseech you, Sir, consider seriously with what strange captions you have gone about to delude your King and your Country: & if you be convinced they are so, give glory to God, and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion, which stands upon such deceitful foundations. This you write, which you could never have written, had you been with your London Carrier sober, and in your wits. You have proved Gusman de Alfarache his saying, that the Fool's Hospital is of large extent, to be most true: He can range and revel within the compass thereof in a world of sottish extravagances; from hot to cold, from, snow to fire, from Oxford to London, from London to Toledo, from Toledo back again to King and Country, and then fetch a new career over the whole Universe, and every part thereof, to be sure, that no part is greater than the whole. What is impertinentcy, what is deserting the matter and argument in hand, if this be not?  
Good Sir, be pleased to understand, that the Controversy betwixt D. Potter and our Maintainer, is not about all Kind of propositions, nor whether, snow be black, or fire cold, nor about your not being Archbishop of Canterbury, nor about the way from your Hall to your Chamber: but about propositions pertaining to Christian faith, not evident to sense, but only to be known by revelation from heaven. Our Maintainer avoucheth, that these Divine truths cannot be known assuredly, but by the teaching of God's Church, infallible in all her proposals. This he proveth not (as you feign) by this principle, He that may possibly err, can never be sure he doth not err, but by this: He that may err, and hath some times erred by following some certain Rule, can never be sure he doth not err by following the same rule. If a judge condemn a man to death wrongfully, upon evidence given against him by two witnesses, how can he be sure, that he doth not condemn another man unjustly; if he have no greater assurance, than the deposition of two witnesses, not known to be of better credit & conscience? A traveller hath been misguided out of his way, by enquiring of the first man he met, & trusting his direction; how can he be sure he is not out of his way by crediting the word of another director equally unknown unto him? This then is the Argument of Charity Maintained, which you durst not encounter; but ran about the world in the wild-goose chase, to avoid the force thereof. No man can be sure he doth not err by following a rule which is fallible and deceitful; But to judge of the sense of the Scripture, by the sole seeming evidence of the text, is a rule fallible, which often faileth, and deceiveth them who rely thereon: because many places are not taken in their plain, proper, literal sense; and many texts considered by themselves, seem clear and plain, which conferred with other texts (that seem to say the contrary) become dark and obscure: Therefore to discern the true sense and meaning of Scripture by the sole seeming evidence of some text thereof, is a rule fallible: & Protestant's by the sole direction thereof can never be sure, or infallibly certain about any mystery of faith.  
10. And I pray you, good Sir, leave your wild vagaries, come home to the little closet of your wits, hold them close to the matter, and then tell us: A Protestant who denies the words of Christ, This is my Body, to be true in their plain, proper and literal sense; how can he be sure himself, or how can he assure others, that this text, The word was made flesh, is to be taken, and true in the plain, proper and literal sense? Do not tell us, that you know the way from your Hall to your chamber, that snow is white, fire hot, M. Knot is not Archbishop of Toledo; but give us an assured rule whereby to know, that this text, The word was made flesh, is literally to be understood in the plain substantial sense: & the text, This is my body, aught to be figuratively interpreted, so that the Body of Christ, be taken for but a piece of Bread? The mean while I conclude that Protestants seeing they have not any infallible rule to assure them of the sense of Scripture; cannot firmly believe the Mysteries revealed therein: and so they have, not such a persuasion of the truth of God's word, as is worthy of God, and pleasing to him: nor will they ever obtain saving faith, till they join with Roman Catholics, to acknowledge the infallible authority of the visible Catholic Church.   

The seaventh Conviction.  
BEcause you cannot damn Roman Catholics for any want of necessary and fundamental truth; you endeavour to procure their damnation, and plead earnestly for it, in regard they do not endeavour to know all profitable truth. In which discourse you prodigiously contradict other assertions of your Book. By the discovery of which, damnation will be seen to fall a way from us upon your own head, together with the cause meritorious thereof, the not caring to avoid unfundamentall heresies.  
1. First you contradict yourself in the same sentence, whereby you make your Way plain, and yet impossible to be gone. Pag. 221 lin. 19 
(q) Cap. 4. n. 53. post medium.  This is a way so plain, as fools cannot (except they will) err from it. Because not knowing absolutely all truth; nay not all profitable truth, & not being free from error, but endeavouring to know the truth and obey it, and to be free from error, is by this Way made the only condition of Salvation. It is strange you should say, that fools cannot err from your Way, unless they will: whereas yourself being so wise a man have erred so mightily from your Way, (no doubt against your will) as you are gone a contrary way. In the first part of your saying you pronounce your Way to be so plain as fools, except they will, cannot miss of being saved therein: but in the second, you require so much, and so hard conditions of Salvation, as you make the same wholly impossible for fools and ignorant persons; and morally impossible even to the learned'st leaders of your flock. For you require to Salvation, that men know, not only all necessary truth, but also that they endeavour to know all profitable truth, yea absolutely all truth. For by virtue of your speech they are bound to endeavour for the knowledge of that truth, which in this sentence, you say, they are not bound to know. But the truth you say in this sentence they are not bound to know, is not all necessary truth, but all profitable truth, yea absolutely all truth: Ergo your followers are bound, as they will be saved, though not to know, yet to labour, endeavour, study to know all profitable truth, yea absolutely all truth about Divine matters. Which is, as much as to say, that none can be saved in your way, but such as have studied Divinity, and have not omitted so much as one question thereof, not only about profitable points of that Science, but also about unnecessary and unprofitable quirks, absolutely all. What can be imagined more vain fond, and absurd, then to bind all men, as they will be saved, to study and endeavour for the knowledge of all Divinity, and Divine truth? And yet such is your desire to damn us, as you will do it upon any condition; though yourself, and all other protestants be damned in our company.  
2. Secondly you grossly contradict yourself, whiles your declaim against our Religion as extreme dangerous, because we do not (you say) care to avoid errors not fundamental: which declamations are frequent in your book, particularly Pag. 277. n. 61. lin. 29. 
(r) Cap. 5. n 61. lin. 28.  Neither is there any reason, why such a Church should please herself too much for retaining fundamental truths; whiles she remains so regardless of others. For, though the simple defect of some truths profitable only, and not simply necessary, may consist with Salvation; yet who is there that can give her sufficient assurance, that the neglect of such truths is not damnable? Besides, who is there, that can put her in sufficient caution, that these errors about profitable matters may not (according to the usual fecundity of error) bring forth others of a higher quality, such as are pestilent and pernicious etc. Lastly, who can say, that she hath sufficiently dicharged her duty to God and man, by avoiding only fundamental Heresies; if in the mean time she be negligent of others, which though they do not destroy Salvation, yet obscure and hinder, & only not block up the way to it. Thus you: who seem as forgetful of yourself, as he was, who is said to have had so little wit, as he could not remember his own name. For had you remembered your name, to the questions, Who can give such a Church sufficient assurance? who can put her in sufficient caution? Who can say, she hath done her duty sufficiently? You would have readily answered, I William Chillingworth: for you often undertake for a Church that retains all Fundamental truths, to be her surety, and give her assurance of Salvation against all these pretended dangers. You say, they who believe all fundamentals, believe all necessaries, and so we must confess, that they may safely expect Salvation: except we will say, that more is necessary, then that which is necessary. You say, points circumstantial (that is not fundamental) be those of which we may be securely ignorant, such as even the Pastors themselves are not bound to know, or believe, or not disbelieve them absolutely and always, but then only when they do see, & know them to be delivered in Scripture as Divine Revelations. I say when they do so, and know, and not only when they may etc. Otherwise it should be a damnable sin in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular Historical verity contained in Scripture: for though he did not know it to be revealed, yet he might have known it, had he with diligence perused Scripture. You say, he that believes all fundamentals, cannot be damned for any error of faith. You earnestly demand, He that believes all necessary truth, how can he possibly fail of Salvation if his life be answerable to his faith?  
3. By these sayings do not you give men, that retain all fundamentals, good cause of too much (that is of excessive) pleasure and content; by telling them they cannot possibly be damned for any error in faith? Do not you afford abundant assurance, that neglect to know truths not fundamental, is not damnable, there being no obligation to know them, or to use diligence to find them? The people, and even the Pastors may securely be ignorant of them, yea actually disbelieve them? Do not you put such a Church in sufficient caution, that errors not Fundamental cannot bring forth errors pestilent and pernicious? that she hath performed her duty to God and man sufficiently unto Salvation, by avoiding Fundamental Heresies? Except you will say more is necessary, then that which is necessary; that can be which cannot be; that is possible which is altogether impossible; men are bound to know that which they are not bound to know; men are damned for not caring to know, that whereof they might be securely ignorant. Into this maze of contradictions you are brought by your will to damn us, which is much stronger than your wit.  
4. Your third device to damn us, it yet more full of strange forgetfulness, and contradiction of yourself. You suppose, that we distinguish Heresies into two kinds, some fundamental, some not fundamental; that we hold the first damnable and utterly destructive of Salvation, and so to be carefully avoided; but that men may be saved in their heresies of the second kind. Hence you say, we regard not Heresies unfundamentall, we are careless and negligent to avoid them; being persuaded, that if we hold all fundamental truth, we cannot be damned for any error or heresy against faith. In regard of this loose doctrine and our negligence consequent thereupon; you say, we are in great danger of damnation. This is your Plea against our Salvation, so dull, and so void of memory as you may seem to have forgotten even the argument of the whole book of Charity manitayned, and of your own. For this distinction of Heresies into two sorts, some Fundamental, some not Fundamental, is taught by Protestants, who by the largeness & laxity of this doctrine would draw some kind of Heretics, to wit Heretics not fundamental, within the compass of the fold of Christ, and the number of them that be saved. This is the substance of D. Potter's whole treatise, which our maintainer impugneth. Is it not then prodigious want of memory to charge the Roman Church with this Doctrine, and to seek her damnation, because (forsooth) she doth not care to avoid Heresies not Fundamental? For our Roman Theology doth not allow the distinction of errors or heresies against faith into Fundamental and not Fundamental in your sense: for we hold Heresies damnable, and equally damnable, as much those, that are against Truth's profitable only, as those that destroy truths simply necessary. Hence in the Way of the Roman Church, he that knowing Transubstantiation to be proposed as matter of faith, by the definition of the Church, shall presume to gain say it, is as full, formal, and very an Heretic, as he who denies the personal union of two Natures, Divine and Human in Christ. For the greatness of the malice of Heresy is not measured by the greatness of the matter denied; but by the greatness of the pride, whereby an Heretic prefers his fancies of Scripture before the definition of the Church; & by the greatness of that impiety, whereby he presumes to reject that doctrine, which he hath so many strong reasons to believe to be revealed of God.  
5. If you say, that Charity maintained doth suppose, that the Roman Church hath some corruptions and errors in faith not Fundamental; I answer it is impudently in you so to affirm; and great vanity to gather your affirmation from these his words, As for our Churchs' corruptions in doctrine (I speak upon the untrue supposition of our Adversaries): you upon no better warrant than this; say to our Maintainer pag. 274. n. 58. 
(t) Cap. 5. n. 58. & 59  You are so courteous as to suppose corruptions in your doctrine. And a little after pag. 275. n. 59 I thank you for your courteous supposal, that your Church may err. And pag. 276. lin. 2. You suppose your Church in error; & yet excommunicate those that believe your own supposition. What found vanity is this? To say, Our Adversaries do untruly suppose there be corruptions in our Church, is this a courteous supposal, and not rather a constant denial that she doth err, and a charge of falsehood upon them that so suppose? Is the untrue supposition of our Adversaries our own supposition? I was even amazed at your inconsideration when I read these words in your Book pag. 280. n. 95. lin. 8. 
(u) Cap. 5 n 95. lin. 8.  Why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the communion of a Church confessedly corrupted; aswell as in a Church supposed to be corrupted? A strange assertion; A man may aswell embrace the communion of a Church corrupted confessedly by the concession of her friends; as of a Church untruly supposed by her Adversaries to be corrupt. So that with you, for a Christian to say, S. joseph was the Father of Christ, and the Blessed Virgin corrupt, according to the untrue supposition of the jews, is all one, as to say, S. joseph was the Father of Christ, and the Blessed Virgin corrupt confessedly even by the concession of Christians. Wherefore if it be damnable to neglect Heresies not Fundamental (as without question it is) this proveth Protestant's damnable, who think it not against Salvation to hold errors in faith, and heresies against the definition of the whole Church, if such heresies be about matters profitable only, and not simply necessary.   

The eight Conviction.  
1. YOu inscribe the pages of your last Chapter with this title: The Religion of Protestants a safer Way to Salvation then the Religion of Papists. For which assertion (besides bare and bold affirmations, & earnest verbal expressions, manifest tokens (as you say) of a weak cause) you have one Argument which is this, pag. 393. n. 
(y) Cap. 5. n. 9  9 If the safer way for avoiding sin, be also the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly the way of Protestants must be more secure, and the Roman way more dangerous. Take into your consideration these ensuing controversies. Whether it be lawful to worship Pictures? To picture the Trinity? To invocate Saints and Angels? To deny laymen the Cup in the Sacrament? To prohibit certain Orders of men and women to marry. To celebrate the public service of God in a language the assistants generally understand not? and you will not choose but confess, that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin; and we on that which is more secure. For in all these things (if we say true) you do that which is impious. On the other side, if you were in the right, yet we might be secure enough; for we should only not do something, which you confess not necessary to be done. We pretend, and are ready to justify out of Principles agreed upon between us; that in all these things you violate the manifest Commandments of God; and allege such texts of Scripture against you, as (if you would weigh them with any indifferency) would put the matter out of question: but certainly you cannot with any modesty deny, but that at least they make it questionable. This argument I have set down at large, because it is the best in your book, and yet vain and weak, as I now demonstrate.  

The ground of your Safety, only false suppositions, and foolish brags. §. 1.  
2. FIrst it is false, that if Protestants say true, we do that which is impious. For Protestants against Zelots' maintain, that our practices though erroneous in their judgement, yet are not impious, and in themselves damnable; and that they who in sincerity of heart profess them, shall this notwithstanding 
(y) D. Potter pag. 78.  without doubt be saved.  
3. Secondly, it is false, that if we be in the right, yet you may be secure enough in your refusing to use these our practices, because they be not necessary. For though it be no sin of itself purely to omit pious practices, and profitable devotions: yet to omit them out of proud contempt, and much more out of an Heretical persuasion, that they be impious, is undoubtedly an heinous and damnable crime. It is not necessary that you marry a wife, you may be saved if you lead a chaste single life: but if you omit marriage out of an opinion, that it is a thing impure, or out of contempt of that doctrine, that 
(z) Ephes. 5.32.  Marriage is a great Sacrament in Christ and his Church; you will (except you repent) certainly be damned. In like manner, if we be in the right, and that these be pious Christian practices of voluntary devotion, you who relinquish them out of contempt, and Heretical persuasion that they are impious, cannot escape damnation without a dereliction of your error.  
4. Thirdly, it is false, that if we be in the right, yet you only do not something which we confess not necessary to be done. For we do not say of all these practices, that they be not necessary to be done; yea we say, it is necessary to Salvation to receive the B. Sacrament, and in receiving to adore it. Besides we say, that you not only omit to do what is not necessary to be done, but also condemn the universal practices of God's Church, and definitions of her General Counsels; which is not only not necessary to be done, but also execrable, impious, heretical to be done.  
5. Fourthly, it is a foolish brag that you can allege such clear texts of Scripture against these our practices. For if you can alleade them, why do you conceal them? Why are you ashamed to bring them to light? Why have you not stored your book with such allegations as are able to put the matter out of question? Some very few you have produced, 
Church Conquerant cap. 6. convict. 8.  and those which you term the plainest that possibly may be, I have showed to be dark, obscure, yea by you falsifyed in the text?  
6. Fiftly, it is also a foolish brag, that your texts of Scripture be certainly such as make the matter questionable: which you prove very gravely, because we cannot with any modesty deny it. Verily had you any modesty or shame, you would blush to dispute so poorly, miserably, seelily in a Controversy of such moment which concerns the eternal damnation of your Country. I add, though it were true (as it is most false) that your texts make the matter questionable; yet your abandoning the Roman Church is damnable. For, Arguments which make the matter questionable, be not necessary nor evident: But it is damnable to forsake the Church of Rome, and the definition of General Counsels without reasons necessary and evident, as both you and D. Potter affirm, as hath been often noted.   

These doctrines and practices are proved by manifest and plain Scripture. §. 2.  
ON the other side, Roman Catholics do not boast ridiculously, as you do, of their texts of Scripture; but by manifest eviction show even these, of the impiety of which you seem most confident, to be Christian and pious, and consequently, that your damning of them is damnable and impious.  
7. For images of Christ crucified used in the Church with Apostolical allowance we have the plain words of S. Paul Gal. 3.1. O senseless Galathians, who hath be witched you not to obey the Gospel, before whose eyes Christ jesus, is painted crucified among you. The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lively set forth in the picture of his Crucifixion; so that S. Paul proveth the Galatians were senseless people, that honouring Christ jesus pictured before their eyes as crucified; yet did not hope for Salvation by his Cross and Crucifixion; but by Circumcision, and the observances of the Law. This sense being according to the plain proper, and literal sense of the words, Protestants are bound by the rule of their Religion to admit thereof, and cannot without impiety refuse it, and expound the place of metaphorical Painting; except they can evidently demonstrate this sense to be false or incongruous against the Apostles intent, which they will never be able to do.  
8. If you say, that this text at the most proveth the using of Images for the representation, 
Appeal to Caesar pag. 254.255.  not honouring of them: I answer with the learned M. Montague your Bishop of Chichester, that in the using of Images for memory sake, the honouring of them is necessarily included, which he proveth evidently, and together affirms, that it is strange, that any Christian should be displeased with the Doctrine, That respect and honour is to be given to Images.  
9 The Persons of the Trinity we picture not, but only the person of Goa the Son in the form and shape of man, as personally he was. Only we represent the type wherein God the Father appeared, to wit, the form of the Ancient of days, described Dan. 7. and the type, wherein the Holy Ghost appeared the form of a Dove, recorded Math. 3.  
10. For Invocation of Angels, we have the practice and example of holy jacob Gen. 84.15. The Angel which delivered me from all evil, bless these Children: which text, you cannot answer without juggling and changing the Angel into the figure of another substance.  
11. For the sufficiency of the Sacrament under the form of bread, we have the express warrant of our Lord, joan. 6.59. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. And for the practice of Communion in one kind for lay men we have his example Luc. 24.30.31.  
12. For the adoration of the Sacrament, we have the Scripture in the plain and proper sense. For (saith D. Morton 
(z) Lib. 2. initio.  your B. of Durham) If the words of Christ be true in a proper and literal sense, we must yield unto Papists the whole cause of Transubstantiation etc. the proper adoration of the Sacrament.  
13. That we prohibit certain orders of men & women to marry is a slander. They freely without constraint prohibit themselves, whiles by vow they bind their faith, and fidelity unto Christ, to live single and chaste, & peculiarly consecrated to his service. Which faith and fidelity, if they violate and make void by consequent Marriage (as your first reformer the Friar did, who married a Nun), we hold their state sacrilegious and damnable, which is the express doctrine of S. Paul, 1. Tim. 5.12.  
14. The Controversy, which language is fittest, and of most edification in Church service: whether the vulgar, which is best known in this or that particular country; or some learned language, Greek or Latin, which be best known in the whole Christian Church; cannot be determined by Scripture, as hath been already proved. So that measuring the way of Salvation even by the rule of the Bible only, the Roman Religion is the plainer, and safer Way, better warranted, even by express texts of Scripture.    

The Ninth Conviction.  
THe chief Fundamental ground of the security Roman Catholics enjoy, that they are in the right Way of Salvation, according to which if they walk they cannot be damned; is the direction of an infallible guide, the holy Catholic Church, which is no other but the Roman. This is convinced by what yourself are forced to grant, as hath been showed, 
(a) Church Conquerant cap. 5.6. &. 7.  but because this business is the main and the total, I will here repeat some of the passages though very briefly.  
1. First, convicted by the words of S. Paul, you grant, that the visible Catholic Church is the pillar and ground of truth, that is, the teacher of all necessary, and profittable truth by duty and office; yea that she is always in fact the teacher of all truth necessary to Salvation. For (say you) that the true Church always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth, we grant, and must grant: For it is of the essence of the Church to be so; and any company of men were no more a Church without it, than any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. Thus you grant, that there is and always shall be a Catholic Church, which shall not only believe inwardly and in heart; but also teach and (a) propose without fail all divine revelation 
(b) The visible Church shall always without fail propose so much of God's revelation, as is sufficient unto Salvation. For otherwise it will not be the visible Church.  necessary to Salvation. For it is her very essence to be so. Wherefore not only in believing, but also in teaching and proposing all necessary truth, she can no more fail then from her own being which is indefectible. Hence she is (and you must grant she is) an infallible guide in Fundamentals: Because to show men the way to heaven, by teaching them all revealed truth that is necessary to bring them thither; what is it, but to be a guide of men unto Salvation; showing them the Fundamental doctrines of Christian Religion, without which no man is saved?  
2. Secondly, the visible Catholic Church, being (as you grant she is) an infallible teacher or guide in Fundamentals, must of necessity be also infallible in all her proposals. The necessity of this consequence you deny a thousand times, and almost in every period of your third Chapter; yet you affirm it in express terms. Pag. 105 n. 139. lin. 23. To say, that the Church is an infallible guide in Fundamentals, were to oblige our selves to find some certain Society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither do, nor can err in Fundamentals; nor in declaring what is Fundamental, and what is not: and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make her infallible in all things she proposes; and requires to be believed. Which truth you prove unanswerably. Pag. 148. n. 36.  
3. Thirdly, the visible Catholic Church being a guide in Fundamentals, that is, always a Teacher of all necessary truth, is a Church (c) of one denomination, that is, some settled certain Society of Christians known and distinguished from other Societies, by adhering to such a Bishop. This is proved by this Syllogism, wherein both the premises be your own formal assertions. The Church is appointed of God to be the teacher and guide of men in the way of Salvation, and so she is able and fit for that office. For God would not by his word have appointed her an office, for which she is unfit and unable to perferme it; yea, you say, the Church is not only able to perform the office of guide; but also that always in fact she doth exercise the same in teaching all necessary truth. But you say 
(d) Cap. 3. n. 55.  pag. 163. lin. 9 A Church of one denomination distinguished from all others by adhering to such a Bishop; such a determinate Church alone can perform the office of Guide and Director. And Pag. 
(e) Cap. 2. n. 139.  105. n. 239. lin. 30. No Church can possibly be fit to be a guide, but only a Church of some certain denomination, as the Greek, the Roman, the Ahissine. Wherefore the Visible Catholic Church being fit, and able to perform the office of Guide and Director (as you grant she is, and that it is essentially necessary that she be so) she is, and of necessity must be a Church of one denomination, subject to one certain supreme Guide and Bishop.  
4. From these most certain truths by you granted, approved and proved, it is necessarily and evidently consequent; that the Roman Church is the Visible Catholic Church of God, an infallible Teacher of all fundamental and necessary truth: yea infallible in all things she proposes as matter of faith: This I say, is clearly consequent of the former grants. For the visible Church being the Guide, Teacher and Director of men, is on the one side a Church of one denomination; else she could not perform that office of guide which she doth (as you confess) always actually perform. On the other side, being the Catholic, that is, the Universal Church, she must be spread over the face of the earth; as the Roman is in Europe, Africa, Asia, America, and in many of the particular Kingdoms, and Provinces of these four quarters of the world. So that the words of S. Paul to the Romans, come to be verified no less now, then at that time, your faith is renowned and published in the whole world. Which universality, or universal Unity agrees to no other Church of one denomination, as is manifest. Wherefore the Roman Church is the Holy Catholic Church, the infallible guide of men in the way of Salvation.  
5. Hence is concluded the security of Roman Catholics, that they cannot possibly err about matters of faith, so long as they follow the dogmatical directions and definitions of the Roman Church. chose they who oppose what they know to be proposed by her, as matter of faith, err Heretically & damnably, and cannot possibly be saved without express repentance of their errors.   

The Conclusion.  
6. THis argument of the assured Salvation of Roman Catholics, and of the assured damnation of all the knowing opposers of their Religion and Church, being thus evidently demonstrated; for Conclusion I could wish an Ocean of tears of blood, endued with the quality of mollifying hearts, as hard as the Adamant: for so I might condignly and fruitfully deplore the pitiful state, the commiserable condition, the unfortunate thraldom in Error of many millions in our dear Country, caused by mortal aversion from the true Catholic Church, which is instilled into their minds by Heretical education.  
7. They grant, convicted by the evidence of God's word, that the Catholic Church is the ground and rock of Truth, whereon men may securely rest and rely; an infallible Guide and teacher of all Fundamentals; consequently of all even profitable truth about Divine matters. They further acknowledge, convicted by experience and reason, that the Church cannot be fit orable to perform the office of guide & Director, except it be of one denomination, of one obedience, subject to one determinate Bishop as her supreme Pastor and Governor. They cannot but see with their eyes, there is no Church Catholic, or universally diffused, of one Faith, of one Obedience, of one Denomination, subject to one Pastor, acknowledged of all of that Religion, but the Roman: Consequently, that there is no Church besides the Roman fit, or able to perform the office of Guide and Director to men that are saved, as the true Catholic Church is bound to do, and always actually doth. These things they confess, or see; and yet so inflexible is the obstinacy, the passion, & pride against the Roman Church, wherewith Education (like Medusa's head) hath dulled, stupified, and instoned their souls, as they contemn her Direction, forsakes her Communion, hate her Authority, scorn her Motherly care of their Salvation, running to perdition in the way of their own fallible, and palpably false conceits fancied to be Scripture.  
8. Why did our Saviour make his Church the pillar and ground of truth, that is, an infallible Teacher of the doctrine of Salvation; but that he would have men to make use of her teaching? As knowing, that, through a world of errors, which carry with them a fair show of truth, they could not attain to eternal Happiness, without a Visible infallible Guide. No doubt when he gave her the office of Mother, he bound us as we would be his Children and Heirs, to love, honour, and reverence Her; and to live always in the lap of her Communion. When he gave her the office of Guide, he bound us to follow her directions, as we desire to speed in our journey to him, and to come to see for ever his Blessed face. When he gave her the office of Rock, he obliged us to build our faith and hope of Salvation on her Teaching; assuring us that no sublimity of wit & understanding, no 
(a) Omnis caelo inferenda sublimitas in huius Petrae firmitate consurgit. S. Leo. serm. 3. in annivers. Assump. suc.  height of perfection, be it in our conceit never so elevate, can reach to Heaven, which is not grounded on the never-failing fortitude of this Rock.  
9 They then that have disjoined themselves from the womb and lap of this Mother, can never be so in God's favour, as to be his Children, the Heirs of his glory the fellow heirs with Christ: They that follow not the Directions of this ever un-erring Guide, be not in the way towards him, that is Truth and Life, but wander in a wilderness of Error, the issue whereof is eternal Death· They that have not settled the feet of their Faith and Affection on this Rock, the sole Rock of safety in this vast Ocean of dangers; what are they but waving and wavering Babes, floating in a sea of uncertainties, tossed this way and that way with every gust of erroneous doctrine?  
10. For a man not to believe, that our Saviour did institute his Church to continue for ever, the Teacher of all saving truth; the Rock of Salvation, against which the gates of Hell shall never prevail; what is this, but to stop his ears against the clear and plain voice of his word? For a man to say, that he gave the office of Guide to a confused multitude and Chaos of different Religions and Obediences and not to a Church of one denomination, which alone is able to perform that office; what is it but to open his mouth into blasphemies against his Divine Wisdom? For a man not to see, that there is no universally diffused Church in the world of one faith, and obedience, all the Professors thereof adhering universally to one certain Bishop, besides the Roman; what is it but in a desperate mood of neglect, to shut his eyes against the truth, that may save his soul, the clear evidence whereof shineth over the world? 
Hebr. 2.3.  So that I may say with the Apostle, Quomodo nos effugiemus si tantam neglexerimus salutem? How shall we escape from being damned, if we neglect so great a means; such an assured way of Salvation?  
11. A Way so secure to be followed, so obvious to be found so clear to be seen, so facile to be gone, so hard to be lost? In which we have the succour of so many Sacraments, not only that of Baptisms to put us in the Way, and give us Gods Holy Spirit to walk therein; but also that of the Bread of life, to refresh us when we faint; that of Chrism to confirm us when we are strong; that of Penance, or imposition of Hands, to help us up, when we are fallen, that of Holy Oil to heal us, when we are sick.  
12. A Way beaten & made plain by the precedent walking therein, of so many former Christian worlds; proved to be the sole Way to Heaven, by the writings of so many most holy and learned Ancient Fathers; sealed and ennobled for such with the sacred blood of innumerable Martyrs; confirmed by the perpetual, and unto this day continued Conversion of Nations to the Roman Church; by the glorious labours of her Apostolical Preachers.  
13. Finally a Way printed with the footestepps of Sanctity of so many millions of admirable pious and Religions Christians; who went this Way to Eternal Happiness; and have from thence sent us tidings of their safe arrival, by the testimony of evident miracles and undoubted apparitions: to assure us, we cannot fail of coming thither, if we walk constantly in the Way of the same faith they professed; and in the exercise of the same Christian Virtues they practised.   
FINIS.  

The contents of the Book, & the sum of each of the Nine Convictions.  

The first Conviction.  
THe Confession of Protestants, that our Religion is a safe Way to Salvation, proved against M. Chillingworths' falsifications, and ignorant explications of D. Potter's words. §. 1.2.3.  
That the argument drawn from the confession of Protestants is not voluntary and of mere charity, but enforced by the principles of Christianity. §. 4.5.  
That M. Chillingworth doth expressly teach the errors of Protestants to be damnable in themselves, and the Roman Religion to be as safe as it. §. 6.   

The second Conviction.  
Though the false supposition were granted, that the Roman Church erreth; yet Roman Catholics cannot be damned for following her errors; because they cannot but be excused by ignorance invincible. §. 1.2.  
That Protestants if they err (as certainty they do) cannot be saved by Ignorance, or General Repentance. §. 3.  
M. Chillingworth his impudent falsifying of the Tenet of Charity Maintained. §. 4.   

The third Conviction.  
The Roman Church holding all fundamental and necessary truth, no man can possibly be damned in her Communion for any error in faith; so that it is madness to leave it. §. 1.2.  
That Protestants cannot possibly be sure they believe all necessary truth; & what impossible conditions of Salvation M. Chillingworth lays upon them. §. 3.   

The fourth Conviction.  
That in M. Chillingworth his Way English Protestants can be no more saved than Socinians, who deny Christ to be God; yea no more than jews and Turks: with six proofs, that he is a Socinian. §. 1.2.   

The fifth Conviction.  
That M. Chillingworth damneth Roman Catholics for being faithful and constant Christians. § 1.  
That in his Way Protestant's are bound to be still doubtful, and changing the articles of their Religion, and that this is damnable. §. 2.   

The sixth Conviction.  
That only Roman Catholics can have faith which pleaseth God, and saveth the Believer, demonstrated by three arguments.   

The seaventh Conviction.  
M. Chillingworth his vain & contradictious endeavour to damn the Roman Church, because forsooth she doth not care to avoid Heresies not Fundamental; & that this is the damnable state of Protesters against her.   

The eight Conviction.  
M. Chillingworth his instances in some points wherein he pretends the way of Protestants to be safer than ours, proved to be false suppositions & idle brags. §. 1.  
The Roman Doctrine and practise even in those instances proved by plain texts of Scripture. §. 2.   

The Ninth Conviction.  
That the true Catholic Church is infallible in all her Proposals, known by subordination to one supreme Bishop; & that this church can be no other than the Roman.   
The Conclusion.   

Faults escaped in the Print.  
PAge. Line. Error. Correction. 6. 20. in marg. omitted Lib. 3. cont. lit. Petil. c. 18. 37. 5. inforing enforcing 52. 7. so far too far 63. 21. change change 84. 13. your you 88 2. impudently impudence