CHAP. I. The ANSWER to the First CHAPTER.

1. AD 1. §.] Protestants are here accused of uncharit­ableness while they accuse you of it: and you make good this charge in this manner. Protestants charge the Roman Church with many and great Errors, judge recon­ciliation of their Doctrine and ours impossible, and that for them who are convicted in Conscience of her Errors, not to for­sake her in them, or to be reconciled unto her, is damnable. Therefore if Roman Catholicks be convicted in Conscience of the Errors of Protestants, they may and must judge a recon­ciliation with them damnable, and consequently, to judge so is no more uncharitable in them, than it is in Protestants to judge as they do.

CHIL. All this I grant; nor would any Protestant ac­cuse you of want of Charity if you went no further. If you be perswaded in Conscience that our Religion is erroneous, the profession of it, though in it self most true, to you would be damnable. For it is no uncharita­bleness to judge Hypocrisie a damnable Sin. Let Hypo­crite then and Dissemblers on both Sides pass. It is not [Page 51]towards them, but good Christians; not to Protestant Pro­fessors but Believers that we require your Charity. What think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our Religion, that they are resolved to Die in it, and if occasion were to Die for it? What Charity have you for them? What think you of those that in the Days of our Fathers, laid down their Lives for it? are you content that they shall be saved, or do you hope they may be so? Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errors, there is good hope they might Die with Repentance? and if they did so, certainly they are saved. If you will do so, this Controversie is ended. No man will hereafter charge you with want of Charity. This is as much as either we give you, or expect of you, while you remain in your Religion. But then you must leave abusing silly People, with telling them (as your fashion is) that Protestants con­fess Papists may be saved, but Papists confess not so much of Protestants; therefore yours is the safer way, and in Wis­dom and Charity to our own Souls we are bound to follow it. For granting this, you grant as much hope of Salvati­on to Protestants, as Protestants do to you. If you will not, but still affirm, as C. M. does, that Protestants (not dissemblers but believers) without a particular Repentance of their Religion cannot be saved: This I say, is a want of Charity.

But I pray Sir what dependance is there between these Propositions: We that hold Protestant Religion false should be damned if we should profess it, Therefore they also shall be damned, that hold it true? Just as if you should conclude, Because he that doubts is Damned if he Eat, Therefore he that does not doubt is damned also if he Eat. And therefore though your Religion to us, or ours to you, if professed against Conscience would be damnable; yet may it well be uncharitable to define it shall be so, to them that profess either this or that according to Conscience.

3. Ad 3.4.5.6. §.] C. M. Our meaning is not, that we give Protestants over to reprobation; that we offer no Prayers in hope of their Salvation; that we hold their Case desperate. God forbid, &c.

CHIL. I wish with all my Heart that you had expres­sed your self in this matter more fully and plainly. Yet that which you say, doth plainly enough afford us these Corolla­ries. 1. That whatsoever Protestant wanteth Capacity, or hav­ing it, wanteth sufficient means of instruction to convince his Conscience of the falshood of his own, and 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 Die with contrition for all his Sins. 3. That if he Die with Contrition, he may and shall be saved.

4. All these acknowledgments we have from you, while you are, as you say, stating, but, as I conceive grant­ing the very point in question. So that according to your Doctrine, the heavy sentence shall remain upon such only, as either were, or but for their own fault, might have been sufficiently convinced of the truth of your Religi­on, and the falshood of their own, and yet Die in it without contrition. Which Doctrine if you would stand to, and not pull down, and pull back with one hand, what you give and build with the other, this controversie were ended; and I should willingly acknowledge, that which follows in your fourth paragraph; That you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter allows you. But then I must in­treat you to alter the argument of this Chapter, and not to go about to give us reasons, why amongst Men of different Religions, one side only can be saved absolutely, which your Reasons drive at: But you must temper the crudeness of your Assertion by saying, One Side only can be saved, un­less want of Conviction, or else Repentance excuse the other. Besides you must not only abstain from damning any Pro­testant in particular, but from affirming in general, that Protestants Dying in their Religion cannot be saved; for you must always remember to add this caution, unless they were excusably ignorant of the falshood of it, or Died with contrition. And then considering that you cannot know, whether or no, all things considered, they were convin­ced sufficiently of the truth of your Religion and the [Page 53]falshood of their own, you are obliged by Charity to judge the best, and hope they are not. Considering again, that notwithstanding their Errors, they may Die with contrition, and that it is no way improbable that they do so, and the contrary you cannot be certain of, You are bound in Charity to judge and hope they do so. Con­sidering thirdly and lastly, that if they Die not with Con­trition, yet it is very probable they may Die with Attriti­on, and that this pretence of yours, that Contrition will serve without actual Confession, but Attrition will not, is but a Nicety or Phansie, or rather to give it the true name, a Device of your own, to serve ends and purposes; (God having no where declared himself, but that wheresoever he will accept of that Repentance, which you are pleas­ed to call Contrition, he will accept of that which you call Attrition; For though he like best the bright Flam­ing Holocaust of Love, yet he rejects not, he quenches not the smoaking Flax of that Repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds from hope and fear:) These things I say, considered, (unless you will have the Charity of your Doctrine rise up in judgment against your uncharitable Practice) you must not only not be peremptory, in damning Protestants, but you must hope well of their Salvation: and out of this hope, you must do for them as well as others, those, as you conceive, Charitable offices, of Praying, giving Alms and offering Sacrifice, which usually you do, for those of whose Sal­vation you are well and Charitably persuaded; (for I be­lieve you will never conceive so well of Protestants, as to assure your selves they go directly to Heaven.) These things when you do I shall believe you think as Charita­bly as you speak. But until then, as he said in the Co­medy, Quid verba audiam cum facta videam? so may I say to you, Quid verba audiam cum facta non videam? To what purpose should you give us Charitable Words, which presently you retract again, by denying us your Charitable Actions. And as these things you must do, if you will stand to and make good this pretended Cha­rity, so must I tell you again and again, that one thing [Page 54]you must not doe; I mean you must not affright poor People out of their Religion, with telling them, that by the Confession of both sides, your way is safe, but in your judgment, ours undoubtedly damnable. Seeing neither you deny Salvation to Protestants Dying with repentance, nor we promise it to you, if ye Die without it. For to deal plainly with you, I know no Protestant that hath any o­ther hope of your Salvation, but upon these grounds, that unaffected ignorance may excuse you, or true repentance obtain pardon for you; neither do the heavy censures which Protestants (you say) pass upon your Errors, any way hinder but they may hope as well of you, upon re­pentance, as I do. For the fierce Doctrine, which, God knows who, teaches, that Christ for many Ages before Lu­ther had no visible Church upon Earth; will be mild enough, if you conceive them to mean (as perhaps they do) by no visible Church, none pure and free from corruptions, which in your judgment is all one with no Church. But the truth is the corruption of the Church, and the destruction of it, is not all one. For if a particular man or Church may (as you confess they may) hold some particular Errors, and yet be a member of the Church Universal: why may not the Church hold some Universal Error, and yet be still the Church? especially, seeing you say, it is no­thing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church, that makes an Error damnable, and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church, I mean that the present Church should oppose it self. And then for the English Protestants, though they censure your Errors deeply, yet, by your fa­vour, with their deepest censures it may well consist that invincible ignorance may excuse you from damnation for them. For you your self confess that ignorance may excuse Errors, even in Fundamental Articles of Faith: so that a man so erring shall not offend at all in such his ignorance or Error; they are your own words. p. 19. And again with their heaviest censures it may well consist, that your Er­rors though in themselves damanble, yet may prove not damning to you, if you Die with true repentance, for all your sins known and unknown.

5. Thus much Charity therefore, if you stand to what you have said, is interchangeably granted by each Side to the other, that Neither Religion is so fatally destructive, but that by ignorance or repentance Salvation may be had on both Sides: though with a difference that keeps Papists still on the more uncharitable Side. For whereas we con­ceive a lower degree of repentance (that which they call Attrition) if it be true, and effectual, and convert the Heart of the Penitent, will serve in them: They pre­tend (even this Author which is most charitable towards us,) that without Contrition there is no hope for us: But though Protestants may not obtain this purchase at so easie a rate as Papists, yet (even Papists being Judges) they may obtain it; and though there is no entrance for them but at the only door of Contrition, yet they may enter, Heaven is not inaccessible to them. Their Errors are no such impenetrable Istmus's between them and Salvation, but that Contrition may make a way through them. All their Schism and Heresie is no such fatal Poyson, but that if a man joyn with it the Antidote of a general re­pentance, he may Die in it, and live for ever. Thus much then being acknowledged, I appeal to any indifferent reader, whether C. M. be not by his Hyperaspist forsaken in the plain Field, and the point in question granted to D. Potter, viz. That Protestancy even without a particular repentance, is not destructive of Salvation; so that all the Controversie remaining now, is, not simply whether Pro­testancy unrepented destroys Salvation? as it was at first pro­posed, but Whether Protestancy in it self (that is abstracting from ignorance and contrition) destroys Salvation? So that as a foolish Fellow who gave a Knight the Lie, desiring withal leave of him to set his Knighthood aside, was answered by him, that he would not suffer any thing to be set aside that belonged unto him: So might we justly take it amiss, that conceiving as you do Ignorance and Repentance such necessary things for us, you are not more willing to consider us with them, than without them. For my part such is my Charity to you, that considering what great necessity You have, as much as any [Page 56] Christian Society in the World, that these Sanctuaries of Ig­norance and Repentance should always stand open, I can very hardly persuade my self so much as in my most se­cret consideration to devest you of these so needful qua­lifications: But whensoever your Errors, superstitions and impieties come into my mind, (and besides the general bonds of humanity and Christianity, my own particular Obligations to many of you, such and so great, that you cannot perish without a part of my self,) my only comfort is amidst these Agonies, that the Doctrine and Practice too of Repentance, is yet remaining in your Church: And that though you put on a Face of confidence of your Innocence in point of Doctrine, yet you will be glad to stand in the Eye of Mercy as well as your fellows, and not be so stout, as to refuse either Gods pardon or the Kings.

6. But for the present, Protestancy is called to the Barr, and though not sentenced by you to Death without Mer­cy, yet arraigned of so much natural malignity (if not corrected by Ignorance or Contrition) as to be in it self de­structive of Salvation. Which controversie I am content to dispute with you; only remembring you, that the ad­ding of this limitation [in it self] hath made this a new Question, and that this is not the conclusion for which you were charged with want of Charity.

7. Ad 7. and 8. §.] C. M. Now this is our gradatio nof reasons. Almighty God having ordained mankind to a super­natural end of Eternal Felicity, hath in his providence setled competent Means, &c.

CHIL. In your gradation I shall rise so far with you as to grant, that Christ founded a visible Church, stored with all helps necessary to Salvation, particularly with sufficient means to beget and conserve Faith, to maintain Unity, and compose Schisms, to discover and condemn Heresies, and to determine all controversies in Religion, which were necessary to be determined. For all these purposes, he gave at the be­ginning (as we may see in the Ep. to the Ephesians) Apo­stles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors: who by word of mouth taught their contemporaries, and by wri­tings [Page 57](wrote indeed by some, but approved by all of them) taught their Christian posterity to the Worlds End, how all these ends, and that which is the End of all these ends, Salvation, is to be atchieved. And these means the Pro­vidence of God hath still preserved, and so preserved, that they are sufficient for all these intents. I say sufficient, though, through the Malice of Men, not always effectual, for that the same means may be sufficient for the com­passing an end, and not effectual, you must not deny, who hold that God gives all men sufficient means of Salva­tion, and yet that all are not saved. I said also, sufficient to determine all controversies, which were necessary to be de­termined. For if some controversies may for many Ages be undetermined, and yet in the mean while men be sa­ved; why should, or how can the Churches being fur­nished with effectual means to determine all Controver­sies in Religion be necessary to Salvation, the end it self, to which these means are ordained being as experience shews not necessary? Plain sense will teach every man, that the necessity of the means must always be measured by, and can never exceed the necessity of the end. As if eating be necessary, only that I may live, then certain­ly if I have no necessity to live, I have no necessity to eat. If I have no need to be at London, I have no need of a Horse to carry me thither. If I have no need to Fly, I have no need of Wings. Answer me then I pray directly, and Categorically, Is it necessary that all Con­troversies in Religion should be determined, or is it not? If it be, why is the question of Predetermination, of the immaculate conception, of the Popes indirect power in tem­poralties, so long undetermined? if not, what is it but Hypocrisie to pretend such great necessity of such effe­ctual means, for the archieving that end, which is it self not necessary. Christians therefore have and shall have means sufficient (though not always effectual) to determine not all controversies but all necessary to be determined. I pro­ceed on farther with you, and grant that this means to decide controversies in Faith and Religion, must be in­dued with an Universal Infallibility in whatsoever it pro­poundeth [Page 58]for a Divine truth. For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, in any thing which God requires men to believe, we can yield unto it but a wa­vering and fearful assent in any thing. These grounds therefore I grant very readily, and give you free leave to make your best advantage of them. And yet, to deal truly, I do not perceive how from the denial of any of them it would follow that Faith is Opinion: or from the granting them, that it is not so. But for my part, what­soever clamour you have raised against me, I think no otherwise of the Nature of Faith, I mean Historical Faith, than generally both Protestants and Papists do; for I con­ceive it an assent to Divine Revelations upon the Authority of the revealer. Which though in many things it differ from Opinion, (as commonly the Word Opinion is understood) yet in some things, I doubt not but you will confess, that it agrees with it. As first, that as Opinion is an Assent, so is Faith also. Secondly, that as Opinion, so Faith is always built upon less evidence than that of Sence or Sci­ence. Which assertion you not only grant but mainly contend for in your sixth Ch. Thirdly and lastly, that as Opinion, so Faith admits degrees; and that as there may be a strong and weak Opinion, so there may be a strong and weak Faith. These things if you will grant (as sure if you be in your right mind you will not deny any of them) I am well contented that this ill-sounding Word, Opinion, should be discarded, and that among the Intel­lectual habits you should seek out some other Genus for Faith. For I will never contend with any man about Words, who grants my meaning.

8. But though the Essence of Faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection, yet may it be enquired, whether any certain­ty of Faith, under the highest degree may be sufficient to please God and attain Salvation. Whereunto I answer, that though men are unreasonable, God requires not any thing but Reason. They will not be pleased without a down weight, but God is contented if the Scale be turned. They pre­tend, that Heavenly things cannot be seen to any pur­pose, but by the mid-day-light: But God will be satisfi­ed, [Page 59]if we receive any degree of light which makes us leave the Works of Darkness and walk as Children of the Light. They exact a certainty of Faith above that of Sence or Science, God desires only that we believe the conclusion, as much as the premises deserve, that the strength of our Faith be equal or proportionable to the credibility of the Motives to it. Now though I have and ought to have an absolute certainty of this Thesis, All which God reveals for truth is true, being a proposition that may be demonstrated, or rather so evident to any one that understands it, that it needs it not; Yet of this Hypothe­sis, That all the Articles of our Faith were revealed by God, we cannot ordinarily have any rational and acquired cer­tainty, more than moral, founded upon these considerati­ons: First that the goodness of the precepts of Christia­nity, and the greatness of the promises of it, shews it, of all other Religions, most likely to come from the Foun­tain of goodness. And then that a constant, famous and very general Tradition, so credible, that no Wise Man doubts of any other, which hath but the Fortieth part of the credibility of this, such and so credible a Tradition, tells us, that God himself hath set his Hand and Seal to the Truth of this Doctrine, by doing great, and glorious, and frequent miracles in confirmation of it. Now our Faith is an assent to this conclusion, that the Doctrine of Christianity is true, which being deduced from the former Thesis, which is Metapyhsically certain, and from the for­mer Hypothesis, whereof we can have but a Moral certain­ty, we cannot possibly by natural means be more certain of it than of the weaker of the premises; as a River will not rise higher than the Fountain from which it flows. For the conclusion always follows the worser part, if there be any worse: and must be Negative, Particular, Con­tingent, or but Morally certain, if any of the Proposi­tions, from whence it is derived be so: Neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree, unless we be thus cer­tain of all the principles whereon it is grounded. As a man cannot go or stand strongly, if either of his Legs be weak. Or as a building cannot be stable, if any one [Page 60]of the necessary Pillars thereof be infirm and instable. Or as, If a meassage be brought me, from a man of abso­lute credit with me, but by a messenger that is not so, my confidence of the Truth of the Relation, cannot but be rebated and lessened, by my diffidence in the Relator.

9. Yet all this I say not as if I doubted, that the Spirit of God, being implored by devout and humble Prayer and sincere obedience, may, and will by degrees, advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adhe­rence, beyond their certainty of evidence. But what God gives as a reward to believers, is one thing: and what he requires of all men, as their duty, is another: and what­he will accept of out of grace and favour, is yet another. To those that believe and live according to their Faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how they know not) what they did but believe: And to be as fully and reso­lutely assured of the Gospel of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himself with their Ears, which saw it with their Eyes, which looked upon it, and whose hands hand­led the Word of Life. He requires of all, that their Faith should be (as I have said) proportionable to the motives and Reasons enforcing to it; he will accept of the weak­est and lowest degree of Faith, if it be living and effe­ctual unto true obedience. For he it is that will not quench the smoaking Flax, nor break the bruised Reed. He did not reject the Prayer of that distressed man that cried unto him, Lord I believe, Lord help my unbelief. He commands us to receive them that are weak in Faith, and thereby de­clares that he receives them. And as nothing avails with him, but Faith wich worketh by love: So any Faith, if it be but as a grain of Mustard seed, if it work by love, shall certainly avail with him and be accepted of him. Some experience makes me fear, that the Faith of considering and discoursing men, is like to be crackt with too much straining: And that being possessed with this false Prin­ciple, that it is in vain to believe the Gospel of Christ, with such a kind or degree of assent, as they yield to other matters of Tradition: And finding that their Faith of it, [Page 61]is to them undiscernable, from the belief they give to the truth of other Stories; are in danger either not to believe at all, thinking not at all as good as to no purpose, or else, though indeed they do believe it, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonies and perplexities, as fearing they have not that, without which it is impossible to please God and obtain Eternal happiness. Consideration of this advantage, which the Devil proba­bly may make of this Phansie, made me willing to insist somewhat largely upon the Refutation of it.

10. I return now thither from whence I have digressed, and assure you, concerning the grounds afore-laid, which were, that there is a Rule of Faith, whereby controversies may be decided, which are necessary to be decided, and that this rule is Universally infallible, That notwithstanding any Opinion I hold, touching Faith, or any thing else, I may, and do believe them, as firmly as you pretend to do. And therefore you may build on, in Gods name, for by Gods help, I shall always embrace, whatsoever structure is naturally and rationally laid upon them, whatsoever conclusion may, to my understanding, be evidently de­duced from them. You say, out of them it undeniably follows, That of two disagreeing in matter of Faith, the one cannot be saved, but by Repentance or Ignorance. I an­swer by distinction of those terms, two dissenting in a matter of Faith. For it may be either in a thing which is indeed a matter of Faith, in the strictest sense, that is, something, the Belief whereof God requires under pain of damnation: And so the conclusion is true, though the Consequence of it from your former premisses either is none at all, or so obscure, that I can hardly discern it. Or it may be as it oftens falls out concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith, is yet overvalued by the Parties at variance, and esteemed to be so. And in this sense it is neither consequent nor true. The untruth of it I have already declared in my examination of your Preface. The inconsequence of it is of it self evident; for who ever heard of a wilder Collection than this — [Page 62]

• God hath provided means sufficient to decide all Con­troversies in Religion, necessary to be decided;
• This means is Universally infallible,
• Therefore of two, that differ in any thing which they esteem a matter of Faith, one cannot be saved.

He that can find any connection between these Pro­positions, I believe will be able to find good coherence between the Deaf Plantiff's Accusation, in the Greek E­pigram, and the Deaf Defendants Answer, and the Deaf Judges Sentence: And to contrive them all into a formal Categorical Syllogism.

11. Indeed if the matter in agitation were plainly de­cided, by this infallible means of deciding Controversies, and the Parties in variance knew it to be so, and yet would stand out in their dissention; this were in one of them, direct opposition to the Testimony of God, and undoubtedly a damnable sin. But if you take the liber­ty to suppose what you please, you may very easily con­clude what you list. For who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable Postulates, that every emergent Controversie of Faith, is plainly decided by the means of dicision which God hath appointed, and that of the Parties litigant, one is always such a convicted Recusant as you pretend! Certainly, if you say so, having no bet­ter warrant than you have, or can have for it, this is more proper and formal uncharitableness, than ever was charged upon you. Methinks, with much more Reason, and much more Charity, you might suppose, that many of these Controversies which are now dispu­ted among Christians (all which profess themselves lov­ers of Christ, and truly desirous to know his Will and do it) are either not decidable by that means which God hath provided, and so not necessary to be decided: Or if they be, yet not so plainly and evidently, as to oblige all men to hold one way: or Lastly, if decidable, and evidently decided, yet you may hope that the erring part, by rea­son of some Vail before his Eyes, some excusable ignorance or unavoidable prejudice, does not see the Question to be decided against him, and so opposes not that which He [Page 63]doth know to be the word of God, but only that which You know to be so, and which he might know, were he void of prejudice. Which is a fault I confess, but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men ve­ry often: and not of such a gigantick disposition as you make it, to fly directly upon God Almighty, and to give him the Lie to his Face.

12. Ad 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. §.] In all this long discourse you only tell us what you will do, but do nothing, but reserve them to the Chapters following, and there they shall be examined. The Sum of all collected by your self, §. 16. is this.

• That the Infallible means of determining Controversies, is the Visible Church.
• That the distinction of points Fundamental, and not Funda­mental, maketh nothing to the present Question.
• That to say the Creed containeth all Fundamentals, is neither pertinent nor true.
• That whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schism and Heresie.
• That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards one self, Protestants are in state of Sin, while they remain divi­ded from the Roman Chruch.

To all these Assertions I will content my self for the present to oppose this one, That not one of them all is true. Only I may not omit to tell you, that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himself desires it should be, yet the Corollary which you deduce from it, would be utter­ly inconsequent, That whosoever denys any point proposed by the Church, is injurious to Gods Divine Majesty, as if he could deceive, or be deceived. For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be, yet if it appeared not to me to be so, I might very well believe God most true, and your Church most false. As though the Gospel of S. Matthew be the Word of God, yet if I neither knew it to be so, nor be­lieved it, I might believe in God, and yet think that Gos­pel a Fable. Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to [Page 64]remember, that our being guilty of this impiety, depends not only upon your being, but upon our knowing that you are so. Neither must you argue thus, The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities, there­fore he that opposes Her calls Gods Truth in Question: But thus rather; The Church of Rome is so, and Protestants know it to be so, therefore in opposing Her, they impute to God, that either he deceives them, or is deceived himself. For as I may deny something which you upon your know­ledg have affirmed, and yet never disparage your hone­sty, if I never knew that you affirmed it: So I may be undoubtedly certain of Gods Omniscience, and Veracity, and yet doubt of something which he hath revealed, pro­vided I do not know, nor believe that he hath revealed it. So, that though your Church be the appointed wit­ness of Gods Revelations; yet until you know, that we know she is so, you cannot without foul Calumny impute to us, That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving, or being deceived. You will say perhaps, That this is di­rectly consequent from our Doctrine, That the Church may Err, which is directed by God in all Her propo­sals. True, if we knew it to be directed by him, o­therwise not; much less if we believe, and know the contrary. But then if it were consequent from our Opi­nion, have you so little Charity as to say, that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions.; Such consequences, I mean, as they do not own but dis­claim, and if there were a necessity of doing either, would much rather forsake their Opinion than embrace these Consequences? What Opinion is there that draws after it such a Train of portentous Blasphemies, as that of the Dominicans, by the judgment of the best Writers of your own Order? And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargeable with all these Blasphemies? If not, seeing our case (take it at the worst) is but the same, why should not your judgment of us be the same? I appeal to all those Protestants that have gone over to your Side; whether when they were most averse from it, they did ever deny or doubt of Gods omniscience or veracity; [Page 65]whether they did ever believe, or were taught, that God did deceive them, or was deceived himself. Nay, I provoke to you your self, and desire you to deal truly, and to tell Us whether you do in your Heart believe, that we do indeed not believe the Eternal Veracity of the Eternal Verity? And if you judge so strangely of us, having no better ground for it, than you have or can have, we shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitableness towards us, this being the extremity of true uncharitableness. If not, then I hope having no other ground but this (which sure is none at all) to pronounce us damnable Hereticks, you will cease to do so; and hereafter (as, if your ground be true, you may do with more truth and Charity) Col­lect thus, They only Err damnably, who oppose what they know God hath testified, But Protestants sure do not oppose what they know God hath testified, at least we cannot with Charity say they do, Therefore they either do not Err damna­bly, or with Charity we cannot say they do so.

13. Ad 17. §.] Protestants (you say) according to their own grounds must hold that of Persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief one part only can be saved, therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for hold­ing the same. The consequence I acknowledg, but won­der much what it should be that lays upon Protestants any necessity to do so! You tell us it is their holding Scrip­ture the sole Rule of Faith: for this, you say, obligeth them to pronounce them damned, that oppose any least point delivered in Scripture. This I grant, If they oppose it after sufficient declaration, so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture, or have no just probable Rea­son, and which may move an honest man to doubt whe­ther or no it be there contained. For to oppose in the first Case in a man that believes the Scripture to be the Word of God, is to give God the Lie. To oppose in the second, is to be obstinate against Reason, and therefore a sin though not so great as the former. But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary belief; and that for these Reasons. First, because the contrary belief may be touch­ing [Page 66]a point not at all mentioned in Scripture; and such points, though indeed they be not matters of Faith, yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteemed to be so. So that, though it were damnable to oppose any point contained in Scripture; yet Persons of a contrary belief (as Victor and Polycrates, S. Cyprian, and Stephen) might both be saved, because their contrary belief was not touch­ing any point contained in Scripture. Secondly, because the contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous, and with probability capable of diverse Senses; and in such Cases it is no mar­vel, and sure no Sin, if several men go several ways. Thirdly, because the contrary belief may be concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides, (which is a sure note of a point not necessary) that men of honest and upright Hearts, true lovers of God and of truth, such as desire, above all things, to know Gods Will and to do it, may, without any fault at all, some go one way, and some another, and some (and those as good men as either of the former) suspend their judgments, and expect some Elias to solve doubts, and reconcile repugnances. Now in all such Questions one side or other (which soever it is) holds that which in­deed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture, which God intended; for it is impossible that God should intend Con­tradictions. But then this intended Sense is not so fully declared, but that they which oppose it may verily be­lieve that they indeed maintain it, and have great shew of reason to induce them to believe so; and therefore are not to be damned, as men opposing that which they either know to be a truth delivered in Scripture, or have no probable Reason to believe the contrary; but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolved, as men who endeavour to find the Truth, but fail of it through humane frailty.

This ground being laid, the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories, which you conceive impossible, is very obvious and easie.

14. To the first, Whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any any one Truth contained in holy Writ? I an­swer, Yes, if he knew it to be so, or have no probable Reason to doubt of it: otherwise not.

15. To the second, Whether there be in such denial any di­stinction between Fundamental and not Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie? I answer, Yes, There is such a di­stinction. But the Reason is, because these points, either in themselves, or by accident, are Fundamental, which are evidently contained in Scripture, to him that knows them to be so: Those not Fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only, not evidently.

16. To the third, Whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamental points of Faith, as if believing it alone we were at Liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture? I answer, It was never alledged to any such purpose; but only as a sufficient, or rather more than a sufficient Summary of those points of Faith, which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitely; and that only of such which were meerly and purely Credenda, and not Agenda.

17. To the fourth, drawn as a Corollary from the for­mer, Whether this be not to say, that of Persons contrary in belief, one part only can be saved? I answer, By no means. For they may differ about points not contained in Scripture: They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture: They may differ about some Doctrines, for and against which Scriptures may be alledged with so great probability, as may justly excuse either Part from Heresie, and a self-condemning obstinacy. And there­fore, though D. Potter do not take it ill, that you believe your selves may be saved in your Religion; yet notwith­standing all that hath yet been pretended to the contra­ry, he may justly condemn you, and that out of your own principles, of uncharitable presumption, for affirming as you do, that no man can be saved out of it.

CHAP. II. The ANSWER to the Second CHAPTER.

C. M. Of our estimation, respect and reverence to holy Scrip­ture, even Protestants themselves give Testimony, while they possess it from us, and take it upon the integrity of our custody, &c.

CHIL. Ad §. 1.] He that would Usurp an absolute Lordship and Tyranny over any People, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Laws, made to maintain the Common Liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the Power and Authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Laws; if he can rule his People by his Laws, and his Laws by his Lawyers. So the Church of Rome, to establish Her Tyranny over mens Consci­ences, needed not either to abolish or corrupt the Holy Scriptures, the Pillars and Supporters of Christian Liber­ty (which in regard of the numerous multitude of Copies dispersed through all places, Translated into almost all Languages, guarded with all sollicitous care and industry, had been an impossible attempt;) But the more expedite way, and therefore more likely to be successful, was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publick and authorized interpreter of them, and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrine she pleased under the Title of Traditions or Definitions. For by this means, she might both serve her self of all those causes of Scripture, which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon Her ambitious pre­tences, which in case the Scripture had been abolished, she could not have done; and yet be secure enough of [Page 69]having either her Power limitted, or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them; this being once setled in the minds of men, that unwritten Doctrines, if proposed by her, were to be received with equal reverence to those that were written: and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seemed to mens reason and understanding to be so, but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so, seemed in never so unreasonable, and incongruous. The matter be­ing once thus ordered, and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your Directors and Judges (no farther than you please) but your Servants and Instruments, always prest and in readiness to advance your designs, and dis­abled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or im­peach them; it is safe for you to put a Crown on their head, and a Reed in their Hands, and to bow before them, and cry, Hail King of the Jews! to pretend a great deal of esteem, and respect, and reverence to them, as here you do. But to little purpose is verbal reverence without entire submission and sincere obedience; and, as our Sa­viour said of some, so the Scripture, could it speak, I be­lieve would say to you, Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not that which I command you? Cast away the vain and ar­rogant pretence of Infallibility, which makes your Errors incurable. Leave Picturing God, and Worshiping him by Pictures. Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men. Debar not the Laity of the Testament of Christ's Blood. Let your publick Prayers, and Psalms and Hymes be in such Language as is for the Edification of the Assistants. Take not from the Clergy that Liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them. Do not impose upon men that Humility of Worshiping Angels which S. Paul condemns. Teach no more proper Sacrifices of Christ but one. Ac­knowledge them that Die in Christ to be blessed, and to rest from their Labours. Acknowledge the Sacrament after Con­secration, to be Bread and Wine, as well as Christs Bo­dy and Blood. Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all. Let not the Weapons of your Warfare be Carnal; such as are Massa­cres, Treasons, Persecutions, and in a word all means [Page 70]either violent or fraudulent: These and other things, which the Scripture commands you, do, and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve; but till you do so, to talk of estimation, respect, and reve­rence to the Scripture, is nothing else but talk.

2. For neither is that true which you pretend, That we possess the Scripture from you, or take it upon the integrity of your Custody, but upon Universal Tradition, of which you are but a little part. Neither, If it were true that Pro­testants acknowledged, The integrity of it to have been guard­ed by your alone Custody, were this any argument of your reverence towards them. For first, you might preserve them entire, not for want of Will, but of Power to cor­rupt them, as it is a hard thing to Poyson the Sea. And then having prevailed so far with men, as either not to look at all into them, or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them, and to see no­thing in them, though as clear as the Sun, if it any way made against you, you might keep them entire, without any thought or care to conform your Doctrine to them, or reform it by them (which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures) but out of a persuasion, that you could qualifie them well enough with your glosses and inter­pretations, and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrine, at least, in their judgment, who were prepossessed with this persuasion, that your Church was to judge of the sense of Scripture, not to be judged by it.

3. Whereas you say, No cause imaginable could avert your will from giving the function of Supream and sole judge to holy Writ, but that the thing is impossible, and that by this means controversies are encreased and not ended. What indiffe­rent and unprejudiced man may not easily conceive ano­ther cause which (I do not say does, but certainly) may prevert your Wills, and avert your understandings from submitting your Religion and Church to a Tryal by Scrip­ture. I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this means you would fall into, of losing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility, and consequently your Power and Authority over mens Con­sciences, [Page 71]and all that depends upon it; so that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up, yet it may be feared that with a great many among you (though I censure or judge no man) the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen, may have with you also the more effectual, though more secret influence: and that is, that by this craft we have our living; by this craft, I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent Try­al of your Religion by Scripture, and making them yield up and captivate their judgment unto yours.

As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole Judge of Controversies, that is, the sole rule for man to judge them by (for we mean nothing else) you only affirm it without proof, as if the thing were evident of it self. And therefore I, conceiving the contrary to be more evident, might well content my self to deny it without refutation. Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me, If Scripture cannot be the Judge of any Controversie, how shall that touching the Church and the Notes of it be de­termined? And if it be the sole Judge of this one, why may it not of others? Why not of All? Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it self is the subject of the Question, which cannot be determined but by na­tural reason, the only Principle, beside Scripture, which is common to Christians.

4. Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them, Scripture is innocent of it; as also this Opinion; That Controversies are to be decided by Scripture. For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgments to Scripture, and that only, and would require no more of any man but to do so, it were impossible but that all Controversies, touching things necessary and very profit­able should be ended: and if others were continued or increased, it were no matter.

5. In the next Words we have direct Boyes-play; a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other; an acknowledgment made in one line, and re­tracted in the next. We acknowledge (say you) Scripture to be a perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule, [Page 72]only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition. As if you should have said, we acknowledge it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing can be; only we deny it to be as per­fect a Rule as a writing may be. Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgment, or retract your re­tractation of it; for both cannot possibly stand together. For if you will stand to what you have granted, That Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a Writing can be: you must then grant it both so Compleat, that it needs no addition, and so evident, that it needs no interpreta­tion: For both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule; and a Writing is capable of both these properties.

6. That both these Properties are requisite to a perfect rule, it is apparent: Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity: As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertain­ing to the Integrity of a Man; and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule, of its self is not a perfect Rule. And then, the end of a rule is to regulate and direct. Now every instrument is more or less perfect in its kind, as it is more or less fit to attain the end for which it is ordained: But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so, is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so: Therefore it is requisite also to a rule (so far as it is a Rule) to be evident; otherwise indeed it is no rule, because it cannot serve for direction. I con­clude therefore, that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule: both to be so compleat as to need no Ad­dition; and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation.

7. Now that a Writing is capable of both these perfecti­ons, it is so plain, that I am even ashamed to prove it. For he that denies it must say, That something may be spoken which cannot be written. For if such a compleat and e­vident rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth, as you pretend it may, and is; and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written; then such a com­pleat and evident rule of Faith may also be written. If you will have more light added to the Sun, answer me then to these Questions. Whether your Church can set down in wri­ting [Page 73]all these, which she pretends to be Divine unwritten Traditions, and add them to the verities already written? And whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther in­terpretations? If she cannot, then she hath not that pow­er which you pretend she hath, of being an Infallible Teacher of all Divine verities, and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the Faith: for she cannot teach us all Divine verities, if she cannot write them down; neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be inter­preted: If she can; Let her do it, and then we shall have a writing, not only capable of, but, actually endowed with both these perfections, of being both so compleat as to need no Addition, and so evident as to need no In­terpretation. Lastly, whatsoever your Church can do or not do, no man can without Blasphemy deny, that Christ Jesus, if he had pleased, could have writ us a rule of Faith so plain and perfect, as that it should have wan­ted neither any part to make up its integrity, nor any clear­ness to make it sufficiently intelligible: And if Christ could have done this, then the thing might have been done; a writing there might have been indowed with both these properties. Thus therefore I conclude, a wri­ting may be so perfect a Rule, as to need neither Addi­tion nor Interpretation; But the Scripture you acknowledge a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule, there­fore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation.

8. You will say, that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith, yet it must be beholden to Tradition to give it this Testimony, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the Word of God. I answer: First, there is no absolute necessity of this. For God might, if he thought good, give it the attestation of perpetual Miracles. Secondly, that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith, another to be proved so unto us. And thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith, by its own saying so, for nothing is proved true by being said or writ­ten in a Book, but only by Tradition which is a thing cre­dible of it self; yet it may be so in it self, and contain [Page 74]all the material Objects, all the particular Articles of our Faith, without any dependance upon Tradition; even this also not excepted, that this Writing doth contain the rule of Faith. Now when Protestants affirm against Papists, that Scripture is a perfect rule of Faith, their mean­ing is not, that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved, which are to be believed: For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer, that there is a God, or that the Book called Scripture is the Word of God; For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spok­en, will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written: But their meaning is, that the Scripture, to them which presuppose it Divine, and a Rule of Faith, as Papists and Protestants do, contains all the material Objects of Faith; is a compleat and Total, and not only an imperfect and a partial Rule.

9. But every Book and Chapter, and Text of Scripture is Infallible and wants no due perfection, and yet excludes not the Addition of other Book, of Scripture; Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition. I answer; Every Text of Scripture though it have the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture, yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith; and that only is the perfection which is the sub­ject of our discourse. So that this is to abuse your Rea­der with the ambiguity of the word Perfect. In effect, as if you should say, a Text of Scripture may be a per­fect Text, though there be others beside it; therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith, though there be other parts of this Rule, besides the Scripture, and though the Scripture be but a part of it.

10. The next Argument to the same purpose is, for Sophistry, Cosin German to the former. When the first Books of Scripture were written, they did not exclude unwrit­ter Tradition: Therefore now also, that all the Books of Scrip­ture are written, Traditions are not excluded. The sense of which Argument (if it have any) must be this. When only a part of the Scripture was written, then a part of the Divine Doctrine was unwritten; Therefore now [Page 75]when all the Scripture is written, yet some part of the Divine Doctrine is yet unwritten. If you say, your con­clusion is not that it is so, but without disparagement to Scripture, may be so: without disparagement to the truth of Scripture, I grant it; but without disparagement to the Scriptures being a perfect Rule, I deny it. And now the Question is not of the Truth, but the perfection of it; which are very different things, though you would fain confound them. For Scripture might very well be all true, though it contain not all necessary Divine Truth. But unless it do so, it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith; for that which wants any thing is not perfect. For I hope you do not imagine, that we conceive any Anti­pathy between Gods Word Written and unwritten, but that both might very well stand together. All that we say is this, that we have reason to believe that God de Facto, hath ordered the matter so, that all the Gospel of Christ, the whole Covenant between God and Man, is now Written. Whereas if he had pleased, he might so have disposed it, that part might have been written, and part unwritten: but then he would have taken order, to whom we should have had recourse, for that part of it which was not written; which seeing he hath not done (as the Progress shall demonstrate) it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten. We know no man there­fore that says, It were any injury to the written Word to be joyned with the unwritten, if there were any where­with it might be joyned; but that we deny. The fideli­ty of a Keeper may very well consist with the Authority of the thing committed to his Custody. But we know no one Society of Christians that is such a faithful Keeper as you pretend. The Scripture it self was not kept so faithfully by you, but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it; all which could not pos­sibly be Divine, and yet, in several parts of your Church, all of them, until the last Age, were so esteemed. The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture, which without Question, the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians are wholly lost; there remains no certain­ty [Page 76]scarce of any one. Those Worlds of Miracles, which our Saviour did, which were not written, for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men. And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not, as that which S. Paul glances at, in his second Epistle to the Thesalon. of the cause of the hindrance of the coming of Antichrist, are wholly lost and extinguished. So unfaithful or negligent hath been this keeper of Di­vine verities; whose eyes, like the Keepers of Israel (you say) have never Slumbred nor Slept. Lastly, we deny not but a Judge and a Law might well stand together, but we deny that there is any such Judge of Gods appointment. Had he intended any such Judge, he would have named him, lest otherwise (as now it is) our Judge of Controver­sies should be our greatest Controversie.

11. Ad 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. §.] In your second Paragraph, you sum up those arguments wherewith you intend to prove, that Scripture alone cannot be Judge in Controversies. Wherein I profess unto you before hand, that you will fight without an Adversary. For though Protestants, being warranted by some of the Fathers, have called Scripture the Judge of Controversies; and you in saying here, That Scripture alone cannot be Judge, imply that it may be cal­led in some sense a Judge, though not alone: Yet to speak properly (as men should speak when they write of Con­troversies in Religion) the Scripture is not a Judge of Con­troversies, but a Rule only and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by. Every man is to Judge for himself with the Judgment of Discretion, and to choose either his Re­ligion first, and then his Church, as we say: or as you, his Church first, and then his Religion. But by the con­sent of both sides, every man is to judge and choose: and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choice, if he be a natural man, is Reason, if he be already a Christian, Scripture, which we say is the Rule to judge Controver­sies by. Yet not all simply, but all the Controversies of Christians, of those, that are already agreed upon This first Principle that, the Scripture is the Word of God. But that there is any man, or any company of men appoint­ed [Page 77]to be judge for all men, that we deny, and that I believe you will never prove. The very truth is, we say no more in this matter, than evidence of Truth hath made you confess in plain terms in the beginning of this chap. viz That Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith, for as much as a writing can be a Rule. So that all your reasons where­by you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this office of Judging, we might let pass as impertinent to the con­clusion which we maintain, and you have already grant­ed; yet out of courtesie we will consider them.

12. Your first is this; a Judge must be a person fit to end Controversies, but the Scripture is not a person, nor fit to end Controversies, no more than the Law would be without the Judges, therefore though it may be a Rule it cannot be a Judge. Which conclusion I have already granted. Only my re­quest is, that you will permit Scripture to have the pro­perties of a Rule, that is, to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it, to that end for which it was ordained. And that is as much as we need desire. For as if I were to go a Journey and had a guide which could not Err, I needed not to know my way: so on the other side, if I know my way or have a plain rule to know it by, I shall need no guide. Grant therefore Scripture to be such a Rule, and it will quickly take away all necessi­ty of having an Infallible guide. But without a living Judge it will be no fitter (you say) to end Controversies, than the Law alone to end Suits. I answer, if the Law were plain and perfect, and men honest and desirous to under­stand aright, and obey it, he that says it were not fit to end Controversies, must either want understanding him­self, or think the World wants it. Now the Scripture, we pretend, in things necessary is plain and perfect, and men, we say, are obliged, under pain of Damnation, to seek the true sense of it, and not to wrest it to their precon­ceived Phansies. Such a Law therefore to such men can­not but be very fit to end all Controversies, necessary to be ended. For others that are not so, they will end when the World ends, and that is time enough.

13. Your next encounter is with them, who acknow­ledging the Scripture a Rule only and not a Judge, make the Holy Ghost, speaking in Scripture, the judge of Con­troversies. Which you disprove by saying, That the Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us, than the Scripture in which he speaks. But by this reason neither the Pope, nor a Council can be a Judge neither. For first, denying the Scriptures, the writings of the Holy Ghost, to be Judges, you will not I hope offer to pre­tend, that their decrees, the writings of men are more capable of this function: the same exceptions at least, if not more, and greater lying against them as do against Scripture. And then what you Object against the Holy Ghost, speaking in Scripture, to exclude him from this office, The same I return upon them and their decrees, to debar them from it; that they speaking unto us on­ly in their decrees, are no more intelligible than the de­crees in which they speak. And therefore if the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture may not be a judge for this reason; neither may they, speaking in their decrees, be Judges for the same Reason. If the Popes decrees (you will say) be obscure, he can explain himself, and so the Scripture cannot. But the Holy Ghost, that speaks in Scripture, can do so, if he please, and when he is pleased will do so. In the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leisure, and to be content, that those things of Scripture which are plain should be so, and those which are obscure should remain obscure, un­til he please to declare them. Besides he can (which you cannot warrant me of the Pope or a Coucil) speak at first so plainly, that his Words shall need no farther ex­planation; and so in things necessary we believe he has done. And if you say, the Decrees of Councils touching Controversies, though they be not the Judge, yet they are the Judges Sentence: So, I say, the Scripture, though not the Judge, is the Sentence of the Judge. When therefore you conclude, That to say a Judge is necessary for deciding Con­troversies, about the meaning of Scripture, is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speaks in Scrip­ture: [Page 79]This I grant is true, but I may not grant that a Judge (such a one as we dispute of) is necessary either to do the one, or the other. For if the Scripture (as it is in things necessary) be plain, why should it be more necessary to have a judge to interpret them in plain places, than to have a judge to interpret the meaning of a Councils de­crees, and others to interpret their Interpretations, and others to interpret theirs, and so on for ever? And where they are not plain, there if we, using diligence to find the truth, do yet miss of it and fall into Error, there is no danger in it. They that Err, and they that do not Err may both be saved. So that those places which con­tain things necessary, and wherein Error were dangerous, need no Infallible interpreter because they are plain: and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary, neither is Error in them dangerous.

The Law-maker speaking in the Law, I grant it, is no more easily understood than the Law it self, for his Speech is nothing else but the Law: I grant it very necessary, that besides the Law-maker speaking in the Law, there should be other Judges to determine Civil and Criminal Controversies, and to give every man that Justice which the Law allows him. But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessity of a visible Judge in Controversies of Religion. I say is Sophistical: and that for many Reasons.

14. First, Because the variety of Civil cases is infinite, and therefore there cannot be possibly Laws enough pro­vided for the determination of them: and therefore there must be a Judge to supply out of the Principles of Rea­son the interpretation of the Law, where it is defective. But the Scripture (we say) is a perfect Rule of Faith, and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it.

15. Secondly, To execute the Letter of the Law, ac­cording to rigour, would be many times unjust, and there­fore there is need of a Judge to moderate it; whereof in Religion there is no use at all.

16. Thirdly, In Civil and Criminal causes the parties have for the most part so much interest, and very often so little honesty, that they will not submit to a Law though [Page 80]never so plain, if it be against them; or will not see it to be against them, though it be so never so plainly: where­as if men were honest, and the Law were plain and ex­tended to all cases, there would be little need of Judges. Now in matters of Religion, when the Question is, whe­ther every man be a fit Judge and chooser for him­self, we suppose men honest, and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity. And such men, we conceive, will think it highly concerns them to be of the true Religion, but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true. And then we suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plain and ea­sie, and consequently every man in this cause to be a com­petent Judge for himself; because it concerns himself to judge right as much as Eternal happiness is worth. And if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it.

17. Fourthly, in Civil Controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience, and not to an inter­nal and active. We are bound to obey the Sentence of the Judge, or not to resist it, but not always to believe it just. But in matters of Religion, such a Judge is re­quired whom we should be obliged to believe, to have judged right. So that in Civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge; But in Religi­on none but he that is infallible.

18. Fifthly, in Civil Causes there is means and power, when the Judge has decreed, to compel men to obey his Sentence: otherwise, I believe, Laws alone, would be to as much purpose, for the ending of differences, as Laws and Judges both. But all the Power in the World is nei­ther fit to convince, nor able to compel a mans Consci­ence to consent to any thing. Worldly terror may pre­vail so far as to make men profess a Religion which they believe not, (such men I mean, who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs, and a Hell for those that dissemble such truths as are necessary to be professed:) But to force, either any man to believe what he believes not, or any honest man to dissemble what he does believe [Page 81](if God commands him to profess it,) or to profess what he does not believe, all the Powers in the World are too weak, with all the Powers of Hell, to assist them.

19. Sixthly, in Civil Controversies the case cannot be so put, but there may be a Judge to end it, who is not a party: In Controversies of Religion, it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party. For this must be the first, whether he be a Judge or no, and in that he must be a party. Sure I am, the Pope, in the Controversies of our time, is a chief party; for it highly concerns him, even as much as his Popedom is worth, not to yield any one point of his Religion to be Erroneous. And he is a man subject to like passions with other men. And therefore we may justly decline his Sentence, for fear temporal respects should either blind his judgment, or make him pronounce against it.

20. Seventhly, in Civil Controversies, it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too: and therefore either the Plantiff must injure the Defen­dant, by disquieting his possession, or the Defendant wrong the Plantiff by keeping his right from him. But in Con­troversies of Religion the Case is otherwise. I may hold my Opinion and do you no wrong, and you yours and do me none. Nay we may both of us hold our Opinion, and yet do our selves no harm; provided, the difference be not touching any thing necessary to Salvation, and that we love truth so well, as to be diligent to inform our Conscience, and constant in following it.

21. Eightly, For the ending of Civil Controversies, who does not see it is absolutely necessary, that not only Judges should be appointed, but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are? Thus all the Judges of our Land are known men, known to be Judges, and no man can doubt or question, but these are the Men. O­therwise if it were a disputable thing, who were these Judges, and they had no certain warrant for their Autho­rity, but only some Topical congruities, would not any man say such Judges, in all likelihood, would rather mul­tiply Controversies, then end them?

22. Ninthly, and lastly, For the deciding of Civil Con­troversies men may appoint themselves a judge. But in matters of Religion, this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it: who doth not always give us those things which we conceive most expedient for our selves.

23. So likewise if our Saviour, the King of Heaven, had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some Visible Judge finally determined, who can doubt, but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter? He would have said plainly. The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies. For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome to this Office, and yet would not say so, nor cause it to be written— ad Rei memoriam—by any of the Evangelists or Apostles, so much as once; but leave it to be drawn out of uncer­tain Principles, by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences, He that can believe it, let him. All these Reasons, I hope, will convince you, that though we have, and have great necessity of, Judges in Civil and Criminal causes: yet you may not conclude from thence, that there is any publick authorized Judge to determine Controver­sies in Religion, nor any necessity there should be any.

24. But the Scripture stands in need of some watchful and unerring eye to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure. Very true, but this is no other than the watchful Eye of Divine pro­vidence: the goodness whereof will never suffer, that the Scriptures should be depraved and corrupted, but that in them should be always extant a conspicuous and plain way to Eternal happiness. Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodness, than to suf­fer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any mat­ter of moment, and yet to exact of men the belief of those verities, which without their fault, or knowledge, or pos­sibility of prevention, were defaced out of them. So that God requiring of men to believe Scripture in its purity, ingages himself to see it preserved in sufficient purity, and you need not fear but he will satisfie his ingagement. [Page 83]You say, we can have no assurance of this but your Churches Vigilancy. But if we had no other we were in a hard case; for who could then assure us that your Church has been so vigilant, as to guard Scripture from any the least alteration? There being various Lections in the ancient Copies of your Bibles, what security can your new raised Office of Assurance give us, that, that reading is true which you now receive, and that false which you reject? Cer­tainly they that anciently received and made use of these divers Copies, were not all guarded by the Churches vi­gilancy from having their Scripture altered from the purity of the Original in many places. For of different readings, it is not in nature impossible that all should be false, but more than one cannot possibly be true. Yet the want of such a protection was no hindrance to their Salvation, and why then shall the having of it be necessa­ry for ours? But then this Vigilancy of your Church, what means have we to be ascertain'd of it? First, the thing is not evident of it self; which is evident, because many do not believe it. Neither can any thing be pretended to give evidence to it, but only some places of Scripture; of whose incorruption more than any other what is it that can secure me? If you say the Churches vigilancy, you are in a Circle, proving the Scriptures uncorrupted by the Churches vigilancy, and the Churches vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture, and again the incorruption of those places by the Churches vigilan­cy. If you name any other means, than that means which secures me of the Scriptures incorruption in those places, will also serve to assure me of the same in other places. For my part, abstracting from Divine Providence, which will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked up or made invisible, I know no other means (I mean no other natural and rational means) to be assured hereof, than I have that any other Book is uncorrupted. For though I have a greater degree of rational and humane Assurance of that than this, in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible, That the Scripture hath been pre­served from any material alteration; yet my assurance of [Page 84]both is of the same kind and condition, both Moral as­surances, and neither Physical or Mathematical.

25. To the next argument the Reply is obvious; That though we do not believe the Books of Scripture to be Canoni­cal because they say so, (For other Books that are not Cano­nical may say they are, and those that are so may say nothing of it:) yet we believe not this upon the Autho­rity of your Church, but upon the Credibility of Univer­sal Tradition, which is a thing Credible of it self, and there­fore fit to be rested on; whereas the Authority of your Church is not so. And therefore your rest thereon is not rational but meerly voluntary. I might as well rest upon the judgment of the next man I meet, or upon a chance of a Lottery for it. For by this means I only know I might Err, but by relying on you I know I should Err. But yet (to return you one suppose for another) suppose I should for this and all other things submit to her directi­on, how could she assure me that I should not be mis-led by doing so? She pretends indeed infallibility herein, but how can she assure us that she hath it? What, by Scrip­tures. That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility, and therefore not of yours. What then, by Reason? That you say may deceive in other things, and why not in this? How then will she assure us hereof, By saying so? Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Que­stion still, How it can prove it self to be infallibly true. Neither can there be an end of the like multiplied De­mands, till we rest in something evident of it self, which demonstrates to the World that this Church is infallible. And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on, it must of necessity, like the Island of Delos, flote up and down for ever. And yet upon this point according to Papists all other Controver­sies in Faith depend.

26. To the 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, §.] The sum and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this, That it appears, by the Confessions of some Protestants, and the Contentions of others, that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture, what it is: and about the Various reading and [Page 85]Translations of it, which is true and which not, are not to be determined by Scripture, and therefore that all Controver­sies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture.

27. To which I have already answered saying, That when Scripture is affirmed to be the rule by which all Controversies of Religion are to be decided, Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concern­ing the Scripture it self. For as that general saying of Scripture, He hath put all things under his Feet, is most true, though yet S. Paul tells us, That when it is said, he hath put all things under him, it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him: So when we say that all Contro­versies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture, it is manifest to all, but Cavillers, that we do and must except from this generality, those which are touching the Scripture it self. Just as a Merchant shewing a Ship of his own, may say, all my substance is in this Ship; and yet never intended to deny, that his Ship is part of his substance, nor yet to say that his Ship is in it self. Or as a man may say, that a whole House is supported by the Foundation, and yet never mean to exclude the Foundation from be­ing a part of the House, or to say that it is supported by it self. Or as you your selves use to say, that the Bishop of Rome is head of the whole Church, and yet would think us but Captious Sophisters should we infer from hence, that either you made him no part of the whole, or else made him head of himself. Your negative conclusion therefore, that these Questions touching Scripture, are not decidable by Scripture, you needed not have cited any Autho­rities, nor urged any reason to prove it; it is evident of it self, and I grant it without more ado. But your Co­rollary from it, which you would insinuate to your un­wary reader, that therefore they are to be decided by your, or any Visible Church, is a meer inconsequence, and very like his collection, who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his Wife, presently concluded that he must have her; as if there had been no more men in the World but Pamphilus and himself. For so you as if there were nothing in the World capable of this Office, but the [Page 86]Scripture, or the present Church, having concluded against Scripture, you conceive, but too hastily, that you have concluded for the Church. But the truth is, neither the one nor the other have any thing to do with this matter. For first, the Question whether such or such a Book be Canoni­cal Scripture, though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture, by shewing apparent and irreconcilable con­tradictions between it and some other Book confessedly Canonical; yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the Testimonies of the ancient Churches: any Book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonical, or to be doubted of as uncertain, or rejected as Apocryphal, according as it was received, or doubted of, or rejected by them. Then for the Question, of various readings which is the true, it is inreason evident and confessed by your own Pope, that there is no possible determination of it, but only by comparison with ancient Copies. And lastly for Controversies about different Translations of Scripture, the Learned have the same means to satisfie themselves in it, as in the Questions which happen about the Translation of any other Author, that is, skill in the Language of the Original, and com­paring Translations with it. In which way if there be no certainty, I would know what certainty you have, that your Doway Old, and Rhemish New Testament are true Translations? And then for the unlearned those on your Side are subject to as much, nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours. Neither is there any reason imaginable, why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of the Translation of our Church, that it is free from Error, if not absolutely, yet in matters of moment, as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemish Testament, or Doway Bible. The best direction I can give them is to compare both together, & where there is no real difference (as in the Translation of controverted places I believe there is very little) there to be confident, that they are right; where they differ, therefore to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow. Which way of proceeding, if it be subject to some possible Error, is it the best that either we, or you have; and it is not required that we use any bet­ter than the best we have.

28. You will say, Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better. I answer, it would be so, if we could be infallibly cer­tain, that your Church is infallible, that is, if it were either evident of it self, and seen by its own light, or could be reduced unto and setled upon some Principle that is so. But seeing you your selves do not so much as pretend, to enforce us to the belief hereof, by any proofs infallible and convincing, but only to induce us to it, by such as are, by your confession, only probable, and prudential motives; certainly it will be to very little purpose, to put off your uncertainty for the first turn, and to fall upon it at the second: to please your selves in building your House upon an imaginary Rock, when you your selves see and confess, that this very Rock stands it self at the best but upon a frame of Timber. I answer secondly, that this cannot be a better way, because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible, and indeed hath not the real prescription of this priviledge, but only pleas­eth her self with a false imagination and vain presumpti­on of it: as I shall hereafter demonstrate by may unan­swerable arguments.

31. But, seeing the belief of the Scripture is a necessary thing, and cannot be proved by Scripture, how can the Church of England teach, as she doth, Art. 6. That all things necessary are contained in Scripture?

32. I have answered this already. And here again I say, That all but Cavillers will easily understand the mean­ing of the Article to be, That all the Divine Verities, which Christ revealed to his Apostles, and the Apostles taught the Churches, are contained in Scripture. That is, all the material Objects of our Faith; whereof the Scripture is none, but only the means of conveying them unto us: which we believe not finally, and for it self, but for the matter contained in it. So that if men did believe the Doctrine contained in Scripture, it should no way hinder their Sal­vation, not to know whether their were any Scripture or no. Those Barbarous Nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case, and yet no doubt but they might be saved. The end that God aims at, is the belief of the Gospel, [Page 88]the Covenant between God and Man; the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end, and this also we are to believe, but not as the last Object of our Faith, but as the instrument of it. When therefore we sub­scribe to the 6. Art. you must understand that, by Articles of Faith, they mean the final and ultimate Objects of it, and not the means and instrumental Objects;

33. But, Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of Holy Scripture. Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. James. Kemnitius, and other Luth. the second of Peter, the second and third of John. The Epistle to the Heb. the Epistle of James, of Jude, and the Apocalyps. Therefore without the Authority of the Church, no certainty can be had what Scrip­ture is Canonical.

34. So also the Ancient Fathers, and not only Fathers, but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the Au­thority of the very same Books: and by their difference shewed, they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgment of your or any Church. For had they done so, they must have agreed all with that Church, and consequently among themselves. Now I pray tell me plainly, Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical, or had they not? If they had not, it seems there is no such great harm or danger in not hav­ing such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no, as you require: If they had, why may not Prote­stants, notwithstanding their differences, have sufficient certainty hereof, as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches, notwithstanding theirs?

35. You proceed. And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art. have these Words, In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Books, of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church; you demand, what they mean by them? Whether that by the Churches con­sent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical? I Answer for them. Yes, they are so. And whereas you infer from hence, This is to make the Church Judge: I have told you already, That of this Controversie we make the Church the Judge; but not the present Church, much less [Page 89]the present Roman Church, but the consent and Testimo­ny of the Ancient and Primitive Church. Which though it be but a highly probable inducement, and no demonstra­tive enforcement, yet methinks you should not deny but it may be a sufficient ground of Faith: Whose Faith, even of the Foundation of all your Faith, your Churches Au­thority, is built lastly and wholly upon Prudential Mo­tives.

36. But by this Rule the whole Book of Esther must quit the Canon; because it was excluded by some in the Church: by Melito, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen. Then for ought I know he that should think he had reason to ex­clude it now, might be still in the Church as well as Melito, Athanasius, Nazianzen were. And while you thus inveigh against Luther, and charge him with Luci­ferian Heresies, for doing that which you in this very place confess that Saints in Heaven before him have done, are you not partial and a Judge of evil thoughts?

37. Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes, Job, and the Pro­phets, though you make such Tragedies with them, I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction, and far from having in them any Fundamental Heresie. He that condemns him for saying, the Book of Ecclesi­astes is not full, That it hath many abrupt things, condemns him, for ought I can see, for speaking truth. And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing. The Book of Job may be a true Histo­ry, and yet as many true Stories are, and have been an Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Pa­tience. And though the Books of the Prophets were not written by themselves, but by their Disciples, yet it does not follow that they were written casually: (Though I hope you will not damn all for Hereticks, that say, some Books of Scripture were written casually.) Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be called in question for being written by their Disciples, seeing being so writ­ten they had attestation from themselves. Was the Pro­phesie of Jeremy the less Canonical, for being written by Baruch? Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the [Page 90]Gospel, and S. Mark the Scholar writ it, is it the more likely to be called in Question?

38. But leaving Luther, you return to our English Ca­non of Scripture; And tell us, that in the New Testament, by the above mentioned rule, (of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church) divers Books must be discanonized. Not so. For I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles and to be Cano­nical: but I cannot in Reason believe this of them so un­doubtedly, as of those Books which were never questioned. At least I have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now: having the example of Saints in Heaven, either to justifie, or excuse such their doubting or denial.

39. You observe in the next place, that our sixth Arti­cle, specifying by name all the Books of the Old Testament, shuffles over these of the New with this generality—All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical: And in this you fancy to your self a mystery of iniquity. But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of, I believe the Church, as well as the King, may give for her Motto, Honi soit qui mal y pense. For all the Bibles which since the Composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England, do testifie and even proclaim to the World, that by— Commonly re­ceived, they meant, received by the Church of Rome, and other Churches before the Reformation. I pray take the pains to look in them, and there you shall find the Books which the Church of England counts Apocryphal marked out and severed from the rest, with this Title in the begin­ning, The Books called Apocrypha; and with this close or Seal in the End, The End of the Apocrypha. And having told you by name, and in particular, what Books only She Esteems Apocryphal, I hope you will not put Her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in Her judg­ment Canonical.

40. But if by Commonly received, She meant, by the Church of Rome; Then by the same reason, must She receive divers Books of the Old Testament which She rejects.

41. Certainly a very good Consequence. The Church of England receives the Books of the New Testament, which the Church of Rome receives; Therefore she must receive the Books of the Old Testament which she receives. As if you should say, If you will do as we, in one thing, you must in all things. If you will pray to God with us, you must pray to Saints with us. If you hold with us, when we have reason on our side, you must de so, when we have no reason.

43. But, with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article, That by Scripture we mean those Books that were never doubted of; and in the latter say, We receive all the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, whereas of them many were doubted? I answer. When they say, of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church, They mean not, those only of whose Au­thority there was simply no doubt at all, by any man in the Church; But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church, or by all Churches, but had attesta­tion, though not Universal, yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonical. In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose number and Authority was not so great, as to prevail against the contrary suffrages.

44. But, if to be commonly received, pass for a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by, why not of the Old? You conclude many times very well, but still when you do so, it is out of principles which no man grants. For who ever told you, that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by? Have you been trained up in Schools of subtilty, and cannot you see a great difference, between these two, We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received, and we receive those that are com­monly received, because they are so? To say this, were indeed to make, being commonly received, a Rule or Reason to know the Canon by. But to say the former, doth no more make it a Rule, than you should make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them, if you should [Page 92]say, as you may, The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical, as they are received by the Church of England.

45. You demand, upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you, in some, and with you against Lu­ther in others? And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon, and agree neither with us, nor Luther? For sure your differing from us both, is of it self no more apparently reasonable, than our agreeing with you in part, and in part with Luther. If you say, your Churches Infallibility is your ground: I demand a­gain some Infallible ground both for the Churches Infal­libility, and for this, that Yours is the Church; and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands, until you settle me upon a Rock; I mean, give such an answer, whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence. If you say, This is Universal Tradition: I reply, your Churches Infallibility is not built upon it, and that the Canon of Scripture, as we receive it, is. For we do not profess our selves so absolutely, and undoubtedly certain; neither do we urge others to be so, of those Books, which have been doubted, as of those that never have.

46. The Conclusion of your Tenth. §. is, That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone, but by some extrinsecal Authority: Which you need not prove, for no Wise Man denies it. But then this authority is that of Universal Tradition, not of your Church. For to me it is altogether as [...], that the Gospel of Saint Matthew is the Word of God, as that all which your Church says is true.

47. That Believers of the Scripture, by considering the Divine matter, the excellent precepts, the glorious promises contained in it, may be confirmed in their Faith, of the Scriptures Divine Authority; and that a­mong other inducements and inforcements hereunto, internal arguments have their place and force, certainly no man of understandeng can deny. For my part I profess, if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good, and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness, as [Page 93]the Miracles, by which it was confirmed, were great, I should want one main pillar of my Faith, and for want of it, I fear should be much staggered in it. Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying, The Be­liever sees, by that glorious beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture, and by many internal Arguments, that the Scrip­ture is of Divine Authority. By this (saith he) he sees it, that is, he is moved to, and strengthened in his belief of it: and by this partly, not wholly; by this, not alone, but with the concurrence of other Arguments. He that will quarrel with him for saying so, must find fault with the Master of the Sentences, and all his Scholars, for they all say the same.

48. In the next Division, out of your liberality, you will suppose, that Scripture, like to a corporal light, is by it self alone able to determine and move our understand­ing to assent: yet notwithstanding this supposal, Faith still (you say) must go before Scripture, because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes: so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith. But to my understand­ing, if Scripture do move and determine our Understand­ing to assent, then the Scripture, and its moving must be before this assent, as the cause must be before its own ef­fect; now this very assent is nothing else but Faith, and Faith nothing else than the Understandings assent. And therefore (upon this supposal) Faith doth, and must ori­ginally proceed from Scripture, as the effect from its proper cause: and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith, unto which it moves and determines, and consequently if this suppo­sition of yours were true, there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, Scripture it self being able (as here you suppose) to determine and move the understanding to assent, that is to believe them, and the Verities contained in them. Neither is this to say, that the Eyes with which we see, are made by the light by which we see. For you are mistaken much, if you conceive that in this comparison, Faith answers to the Eye. But if you will not pervert it, the Analogy [Page 94]must stand thus-; Scripture must answer to light; The Eye of the Soul, that is the Understanding, or the facul­ty of assenting, to the bodily Eye; And lastly assenting or believing to the Act of seeing. As therefore the light, determining the Eye to see, though it presupposes the Eye which it determines, as every Action doth the Object on which it is imployed, yet it self is presupposed and ante­cedent to the Act of seeing, as the cause is always to its effect: So, if you will suppose that Scripture, like light, moves the understanding to assent, The Understanding (that's the Eye and Objection which it works) must be before this influence upon it; But the Assent, that is the belief whereof the Scripture moves, and the understand­ing is moved, which answers to the Act of seeing, must come after. For if it did assent already, to what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before? Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so, any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already? Or an Architect build an House that is built already? Or than this very world can be made again before it be un­made? Transubstantiation indeed is fruitful of such Mon­sters. But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error, will easily perceive, that Jam factum facere, and Factum infectum facere, are equally impossible. But I digress.

49. The close of this Paragraph, is a fit cover for such a Dish. There you tell us, That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, this can be no other than the Church. By the Church, we know you do, and must understand the Roman Church: so that in effect you say, no man can have Faith, but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority. And that is to say, that the King and all other Protestants, to whom you write, though they verily think they are Christians and believe the Gospel, because they assent to the truth of it, and would willingly Die for it, yet indeed are Infi­dels and believe nothing. The Scripture tells us, The Heart of man knoweth no Man, but the Spirit of Man which is in him. And who are you, to take upon you to make us [Page 95]believe, that we do not believe, what we know we do? But if I may think verily that I believe the Scripture, and yet not believe it; how know you that you believe the Roman Church? I am as verily, and as strongly persuad­ed that I believe the Scripture, as you are that you be­lieve the Church. And if I may be deceived, why may not you? Again, what more ridiculous, and against sense and experience, than to affirm, That there are not Millions amongst you and us that believe, upon no other reason than their Education, and the authority of their Parents and Teachers, and the Opinion they have of them? The tenderness of the subject, and aptness to re­ceive impressions, supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent! And will you proscribe from Heaven all those believers of your own Creed, who do indeed lay the Foundation of their Faith (for I cannot call it by any other name) no deeper than upon the Authority of their Father, or Master, or Parish Priest? Certainly, if these have no true Faith, your Church is very full of In­fidels. Suppose Xaverius by the Holiness of his Life had converted some Indians to Christianity, who could (for so I will suppose) have no knowledge of your Church but from him, and therefore must last of all build their Faith of the Church upon their Opinion of Xaverius: Do these remain as very Pagans after their Conversion, as they were before? Are they brought to assent in their Souls, and obey in their Lives the Gospel of Christ, only to be Tantalized and not saved, and not benefited but de­luded by it, because, forsooth, it is a man and not the Church that begets Faith in them? What if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient? Do they therefore not believe what they do believe, because they do it up­on sufficient motives? They choose the Faith imprudent­ly parhaps, but yet they do choose it. Unless you will have us believe that, that which is done, is not done, be­cause it is not done upon good reason: which is to say, that never any man living ever did a foolish action. But yet I know not why the Authority of one Holy Man, which apparently has no ends upon me, joyned with the [Page 96]goodness of the Christian Faith, might not be a far great­er and more rational motive to me to embrace Christia­nity, than any I can have to continue in Paganism. And therefore for shame, if not for Love of Truth, you must recant this fancy when you write again: and suffer true Faith to be many times, where your Churches Infal­libility has no hand in the begetting of it. And be con­tent to tell us hereafter, that we believe not enough, and not go about to persuade us, we believe nothing, for fear with telling us what we know to be manifestly false, you should gain only this, Not to be believed when you speak truth. Some pretty Sophisms you may happily bring us to make us believe, we believe nothing: but Wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophistical. And therefore as he that could not answer Zeno's subtilties a­gainst the existence of Motion, could yet confute them by doing that, which he pretended could not be done: So if you should give me a hundred Arguments to per­suade me, because I do not believe Transubstantiation, I do not believe in God, and the Knots of them I could not unty, yet I should cut them in pieces with doing that, and knowing that I do so, which you pretend I cannot do.

53. It is superfluous for you to prove out of S. Athana­sius, and Austine that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church. Understanding by Church, as here you explain your self, The Credit of Tradition. And that not the Tradition of the Present Church, which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient, but such a Tradi­dition, which involves an evidence of Fact, and from Hand to Hand, from Age to Age, bringing us up to the times and Persons of the Apostles, and our Saviour Himself, commeth to be confirmed by all these Miracles, and other Arguments, whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true. Thus you. Now prove the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it. Prove your whole Doctrine, or the Infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition, and we will yield to you in all things. Take the alledged places of S. Athanasius, and S. Austin, in this [Page 97]sense, (which is your own,) and they will not press us any thing at all. We will say, with Athanasius, That only four Gospels are to be received, because the Canons of the Holy and Catholick Church (understand of all Ages since the per­fection of the Canon) have so determined.

54. We will subscribe to S. Austin, and say, That we also would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Catholick Church did move us, (meaning by the Church, the Church of all Ages, and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himself and his Apostles.) Neither would Zwinglius have needed to cry out upon this saying, had he conceived as you now do, that by the Catholick Church, the Church of all Ages, fince Christ, was to be understood. As for the Council of Carthage, it may speak not of such Books only, as were certainly Canoni­cal, and for the regulating of Faith, but also of those which were only profitable, and lawful to be read in the Church. Which in England is a very slender Argument that the Book is Canonical, where every body knows that Apocryphal Books are read as well as Canonical. But howsoever, if you understand by Fathers, not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospel, but the succession of them from the Apostles; they are right in the Thesis, that whatsoever is received from these Fathers, as Canonical, is to be so esteemed; Though in the applica­tion of it, to this or that particular Book they may hap­pily Err, and think that Book received as Canonical, which was only received as Profitable to be read; and think that Book, received alwaies, and by all, which was rejected by some, and doubted of by many.

55. But we cannot be certain, in what Language the Scriptures remain uncorrupted. CHIL. Not so certain, I grant, as of that which we can demonstrate: But cer­tain enough, morally certain, as certain as the nature of the thing will bear. So certain we may be, and God requires no more. We may be as certain as S. Austin was, who in his second Book of Baptism, against the Donatists, c. 3. plainly implies, the Scripture might possibly be corrupted. He means sure in matters of little moment, such as con­certain [Page 98]not the Covenant between God and Man. But thus he saith. The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist. clearly intimates, Neque enim sic posuit in­tegritas atque notitia litera­rum quamlibet illustris Epis­copi, c [...]stodiri, quemadmo­dam scriptura Canonica tot linguarum li­teris & ordine & successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae custoditur; contra quam non defuerunt tamen, qui sub nominibus A­postolorum multa confinge­rent. Frustra quidem; Quia illa sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est. Verum quid possit ad­versus literas non Canonica authoritate fundatas etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae cona­tus audaciae, quod & adversus eos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt, sese erigere non praetermisit. Aug. ep. 48. ad Vincent. contra Donat & Rogat. That in his judgment, the only preservative of the Scriptures integrity, was the Translating it into so many Languages, and the general and perpetual use and reading of it in the Church: for want whereof the works of parti­cular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kind; but the Canonical Scripture being by this means guarded with Universal care and dilligence was not obnoxious to such attempts. And this assurance of the Scriptures incorrup­tion, is common to us with him; we therefore are as cer­tain hereof as S. Austin was, and that I hope was certain enough. Yet if this does not satisfie you, I say farther, We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was. He in his Preface to his Bible tells us, In hac Germa­ni textus pervestigatione, satis perspicue inter omnes constat, nullum argumentum esse certius ac firmius, quam antiquorem probatorum codicum latinorum fidem, &c. sic Sixtus in praefat. That in the prevestigation of the true and genuine Text, it was perspicu­ously manifest to all men, that there was no Argument more firm and certain to be relied upon, than the Faith of Anci­ent Books. Now this ground we have to build upon as well as He had: and therefore our certainty is as great, and stands upon as certain ground as his did.

56. This is not all I have to say in this matter. For I will add moreover, that we are as certain in what Lan­guage the Scripture is uncorrupted, as any man in your Church was, until Clement the 8th set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar Translation. For you do not, nor cannot, without extreme impudence deny, that until then, there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of your Church, and those very frequent in various lections: all which Copies might possibly be false in some things, but more than one sort of them, could not possibly be true in all things. Neither were it less [Page 99]impudence to pretend, that any man in your Church, could until Clements's time have any certainty what that one true Copy and reading was (if there were any one perfectly true.) Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bi­ble, might after the Edition of that very likely think themselves cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Tran­slation, without being beholden to Clement; but how fouly they were abused and deceived that thought so, the Edition of Clemens, differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places, doth sufficiently demonstrate.

57. This certainty therefore in what Language the Scripture remains uncorrupted, is it necessary to have it, or is it not? If it be not, I hope we may do well enough without it. If it be necessary, what became of your Church for 1500 Years together? All which time you must con­fess she had no such certainty: no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say, This or that Copy of the Bible is pure, and perfect, and uncorrupted in all things. And now at this present, though some of you are grown to a higher degree of Presumption in this point, yet are you as far as ever, from any true and real, and rational assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentick Tran­slation: which I suppose my self to have proved unan­swerably in divers places.

58. Ad 16. §.] C. M. Objects to Protestants, That their Translations of the Scripture are very different, and by each other mutually condemned. Luthers Translation by Zwinglius, and others: That of the Zwinglians by Luther. The Tran­slation of Oecolampadius, by the Divines of Basil: that of Castalio by Beza: That of Beza by Castalio. That of Calvin, by Carolus Molinaeus. That of Geneva by M. Parks, and King James. And lastly one of our Translations by the Puritans.

59. CHIL. All which might have been as justly ob­jected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church, and made use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it. For which I desire not that my word, but S. Austins may be taken. They which have Translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek, may be num­bred, [Page 100]but the Latine Interpreters are innumerable. For when­soever any one, in the first times of Christianity, met with a Greek Bible, and seemed to himself to have some ability in both Languages, he presently ventured upon an Interpretation. So He, in his second Book of Christian Doctrine. Cap. 11. Of all these, that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best; so we may learn from the same S. Austin in the 15. Chap. of the same Book. Amongst all these Interpretations (saith he) let the Italian be preferred: for it keeps closer to the Letter, and is perspicuous in the sense. Yet so far was the Church of that time from persuming up­on the absolute purity and perfection, even of this best Translation, that S. Hierome thought it necessary to make a new Translation of the Old Testament, out of the He­brew Fountain, (which himself testifies in his Book de Viris Illustribus,) And to correct the vulgar version of the New Testament, according to the truth of the Original Greek; amending many Errors which had crept into it, whether by the mistake of the Author, or the negligence of the Transcribers; which work he undertook and per­formed at the request of Damasus, Bishop of Rome. You constrain me (saith he) to make a new Work of an old: that after the Copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed through the whole World, I should sit as it were an Arbitra­tor amongst them, and because they vary among themselves, should determine what are those things (in them) which con­sent with the Greek verity. And after: Therefore this present Preface promises the four Gospels only corrected by col­lation with Greek Copies. But that they might not be very dissonant from the Custome of the Latine reading, I have so tempered with my stile, the Translation of the Ancients, that, those things amended wich did seem to change the sense, other things I have suffered to remain as they were. So that in this matter Protestants must either stand or fall with the Pri­mitive Church.

62. C. M. But the Faith of Protestants relies upon Scrip­ture alone; Scripture is delivered to most of them by Tran­slations; Translations depend upon the skill and honesty of Men, who certainly may Err because they are Men, and certainly [Page 101]do Err, at least some of them, because their Translations are contrary. It seems then the Faith, and consequently the Sal­vation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds.

63. CHIL. This Objection, though it may seem to do you great service for the present; yet I fear you will re­pent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault, that we make mens salvation depend upon uncertainties. For the Objection returns upon you many ways, as first thus; The Salvation of many Millions of Papists (as they sup­pose and teach) depends upon their having the Sacrament of Pennance truly administred unto them. This again upon the Minister's being a true Priest. That such or such a man is Priest, not himself, much less any other can have any possible certainty: for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals. He that will pretend to be certain of it, must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow.

64. First that he was Baptized with due matter. Se­condly, with the due form of Words, (which he cannot know, unless he were both present and attentive.) Third­ly, he must know that he was Baptized with due Inten­tion, and that is, that the Minister of his Baptism was not a secret Jew, nor a Moore, nor an Atheist, (of all which kinds, I fear experience gives you just cause to fear, that Italy and Spain have Priests not a few,) but a Christian in Heart, as well as Profession; (otherwise be­lieving the Sacrament to be nothing, in giving it be could intend to give nothing.) nor a Samosatenian, nor an Ar­rian: but one that was capable of having due intention, from which they that believe not the Doctrine of the Trinity are excluded by you. And lastly, that he was neither Drunk not Distracted at the administration of the Sacrament, nor out of negligence or malice omitted his intention.

65. Fourthly, he must undertake to know, that the Bishop which ordained him Priest, ordained him compleat­ly with due Matter, Form and Intention: and consequent­ly, that he again was neither Jew, nor Moore, nor Atheist, nor liable to any such exception, as is unconsistent with due Intention in giving the Sacrament of Orders.

66. Fifthly, he must undertake to know, that the Bi­shop which made him Priest, was a Priest himself, for your rule is, Nihil dat quod non habet: And consequently, that there was again none of the former nullities in his Baptism, which might make him incapable of Ordinati­on; nor no invalidity in his Ordination, but a true Priest to ordain him again, the requisite matter and form and due intention all concurring.

67. Lastly, he must pretend to know the same of him that made him Priest, and him that made Him Priest, even until he comes to the very Fountain of Priesthood. For take any one in the whole train and succession of Ordainers, and suppose him, by reason of any defect, only a supposed and not a true Priest, then according to your Doctrine he could not give a true, but only a supposed Priesthood; and they that receive it of him, and again, they that derive it from them, can give no better than they received; receiving nothing but a name and shadow, can give nothing but a name and shadow: and so from Age to Age, from Generation to Generation be­ing equivocal Fathers, beget only equivocal Sons; No Principle in Geometry being more certain than this, That the unsuppliable defect of any necessary Antecedent, must needs cause a nullity of all those Consequences which depend upon it. In fine, to know this one thing, you must first know Ten Thousand others, whereof not any one is a thing that can be known; there being no necessity that it should be true, which only can qualifie any thing for an Object of Science, but only, at the best, a high degree of proba­bility that it is so. But then, that of Ten Thousand pro­bables no one should be false; that of Ten Thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should be wanting, this to me is extremely improbable, and even Cousin-german to Impossible. So that the assurance here­of is like a Machine composed of an innumerable multi­tude of pieces, of which it is strangely unlikely but some will be out of order; and yet if any one be so, the whole Fabrick of necessity falls to the ground. And he that shall put together, and maturely consider all the possible [Page 103]ways of lapsing, and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome, I believe will be very inclinable to think, that it is an hundred to one, that amongst a hundred seeming Priests, there is not one true one. Nay, that it is not a thing very improbable, that amongst those many milli­ons, which make up the Romish Hierarchy, there are not twenty true. But be the truth in this what it will be, once this is certain, that They which makes mens Salvation (as you do) depend upon Priestly Absolution, and this again (as you do) upon the Truth and reality of the Priesthood that gives it, and this lastly upon a great multitude of ap­parent uncertainties, are not the fittest men in the World, to object to others as a horrible crime, That they make mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain Foundati­ons. And let this be the first retortion of your Argument.

68. But suppose this difficulty assoiled, and that an An­gel from Heaven should ascertain you (for other assurances you can have none) that the Person, you make use of, is a true Priest, and a competent Minister of the Sacra­ment of Pennance; yet still the doubt will remain, whe­ther he will do you that good which he can do, whether he will pronounce the absolving words with intent to absolve you! For perhaps he may bear you some secret malice, and project to himself your damnation, for a com­pleat Italian revenge. Parhaps (as the tale is of a Priest that was lately burnt in France) he may upon some con­ditions have compacted with the Devil to give no Sacra­ments with Intention. Lastly, he may be (for ought you can possibly know) a secret Jew, or Moor, or Anti-Tri­nitarian, or perhaps such a one as is so far from intending your forgiveness of sins and Salvation by this Sacrament, that in his heart he laughs at all these things, and thinks Sin nothing, and Salvation a word. All these doubts you must have clearly resolved (which can hardly be done but by another Revelation,) before you can upon good grounds assure your self, that your true Priest gives you true and effectual absolution. So that when you have done as much as God requires for your Salvation, yet can you by no means be secure, but that you may have the [Page 104]ill luck to be Damned: which is to make Salvation a matter of chance, and not of choice, and which a man may fail of, not only by an ill life, but by ill Fortune. Verily a most comfortable Doctrine for a considering man lying upon Death bed, who either feels or fears that his repentance is but attrition only, and not contrition, and consequently believes that if he be not absolved real­ly by a true Priest, he cannot possibly escape damnation. Such a man for his comfort, you tell, first (you that will have mens Salvation depend upon no uncertainties,) that though he verily believe that his sorrow for sins is a true sorrow, and his purpose of amendment a true purpose; yet he may deceive himself, perhaps it is not, and if it be not, he must be damned. Yet you bid him hope well: But Spes est rei incertae nomen. You tell him secondly, that though the party he confesses to, seem to be a true Priest, yet for ought he knows, or for ought himself knows, by reason of some secret undiscernable invalidity in his Bap­tism or Ordination, he may be none: and if he be none, he can do nothing. This is a hard saying, but this is not the worst. You tell him thirdly, that he may may be in such a state that he cannot, or if he can, that he will not give the Sacrament with due Intention: and if he does not, all's in vain. Put case a man by these considerations should be cast into some agonies; what advice, what comfort would you give him? Verily I know not what you could say to him, but this; that first for the Qualification required on his part, he might know that he desired to have true sorrow, and that that is sufficient. But then if he should ask you, why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowful, to be a true desire, I believe you would be put to silence. Then secondly, to quiet his fears, concerning the Priest and his intenti­on you should tell him, by my advice, that Gods goodness (which will not suffer him to damn men for not doing better than their best,) will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were unavoidable. And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: and if he gave Absolution [Page 105]without Intention, yet in doing so he should hurt himself only and not his penitent. This were some comfort in­deed, and this were to settle mens Salvation upon reason­able certain grounds. But this I fear you will never say; for this were to reverse many Doctrines established by your Church, and besides to degrade your Priesthood from a great part of their honour, by lessening the strict ne­cessity of the Laities dependance upon them. For it were to say, that the Priests Intention is not necessary to the obtaining of absolution; which is to say, that it is not in the Parsons power to damn whom he will in his Parish, because by this Rule, God should supply the defect which his malice had caused. And besides it were to say, that Infants dying without Baptism might be saved, God supplying the want of Baptism which to them is unavoidable. But beyond all this, it were to put into my mouth a full and satisfy­ing answer to your Argument, which I am now return­ing, so that in answering my objection you should answer your own. For then I should tell you, that it were al­together as abhorrent from the goodness of God, and as repugnant to it, to suffer an ignorant Lay-mans Soul to perish, meerly for being misled by an undiscernable false Translation, which yet was commended to him by the Church, which (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he had reason to rely upon either above all other, or as much as any other, as it is to damn a penitent sin­ner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution, which his Gostly Father perhaps was an Atheist and could not give him, or was a villiain and would not. This answer therefore, which alone would serve to comfort your pe­nitent in his perplexities, and to assure him that he can­not fail of Salvation if he will not, for fear of inconve­niencies you must forbear. And seeing you must, I hope you will come down from the Pulpit, and Preach no more against others for making mens Salvation depend up­on fallible and uncertain grounds, lest by judging others, you make your selves and your own Church inexcusable, who are strongly guilty of this fault, above all the men and Churches of the World: whereof I have already [Page 106]given you two very pregnant demonstrations, drawn from your presumptions tying God and Salvation to your Sacraments; And the efficacy of them to your Priests Qualifications and Intentions.

69. Your making the Salvation of Infants depend on Baptism a Casual thing, and in the power of man to confer, or not confer, would yield me a Third of the same nature. And your suspending the same on the Ba­ptizers intention a Fourth. And lastly your making the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist depend upon the casualties of the Consecrators true Priesthood and Intention, and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present, and to adore the Sacrament, which according to your Doctrine, for ought they can possibly know, may be nothing else but a piece of Bread, so exposing them to the danger of Idolatry, and conse­quently of Damnation, doth offer me a Fisth demonstra­tion of the same conclusion, if I thought fit to insist up­on them. But I have no mind to draw any more out of this Fountain; neither do I think it Charity to cloy the Reader with uniformity, when the Subject affords variety.

70. Sixthly, therefore I return it thus. The Faith of Papists relies alone upon their Churches infallibility. That there is any Church infallible, and that theirs is it, they pretend not to believe, but only upon prudential mo­tives. Dependance upon prudential motives they confess to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring. What then re­maineth but Truth, Faith, Salvation, and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground!

71. Seventhly, The Faith of Papists relies upon the Church alone. The Doctrine of the Church is delivered to most of them by their Parish Priest, or Ghostly Fa­ther, or at least by a company of Priests, who for the most part sure, are men and not Angels, in whom no­thing is more certain than a most certain possibility to Err. What then remaineth but that Truth, Faith, Sal­vation and all, must in them rely upon a fallible and un­certain ground.

72. Eighthly thus. It is apparent and undeniable, that many Thousands there are, who believe your Religion upon no better grounds, than a man may have for the be­lief almost of any Religion. As some believe it, because their Forefathers did so, and they were good People. Some, because they were Christened, and brought up in it. Some, because it is the Religion of their Country, where all other Religions are persecuted and profcribed. Some, because Protestants cannot shew a perpetual succession of Professors of all their Doctrine. Some, because the service of your Church is more stately, and pompous, and magnificent. Some, because they find comfort in it. Some, because your Religion is farther spread, and hath more Profes­sors of it, than the Religion of Protestants. Some, because your Priests compass Sea and Land to gain Proselytes to it. Lastly, an infinite number, by chance, and they know not why, but only because they are sure they are in the right. This which I say is a most certain experimented Truth, and if you will deal ingeniously, you will not de­ny it. And without question he that builds his Faith up­on our English Translation, goes upon a more prudent ground than any of these can, with reason, be pretend­ed to be. What then can you alledge but that, with you, rather than with us, Truth and Faith and Salvati­on and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds.

73. Ninthly. Your Rhemish and Doway Translations are delivered to your Proselytes, (such I mean that are dispenced with for the reading of them,) for the directi­on of their Faith and Lives. And the same may be said of your Translations of the Bible into other national Languages, in respect of those that are Licensed to read them. This I presume you will confess. And moreover, that these Translations came not by inspira­tion, but were the productions of humane Industry; and that not Angels, but men were the Authors of them. Men I say, meer men, subject to the same Passions and to the same possibility of erring with our Translators. And then how does it not unavoidably follow, that in them which depend upon these Translations for their di­rection, [Page 108]Faith, and Truth, and Salvation, and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds?

74. Tenthly and lastly (to lay the Axe to the Root of the Tree,) the Helena which you so fight for, your vul­gar Translation, though some of you believe, or pretend to believe, it to be in every part and particle of it, the pure and uncorrupted Word of God; yet others among you, and those as good and zealous Catholicks as you, are not so confident hereof.

75. First, for all those who have made Translations of the whole Bible or any part of it different many times in sense from the Vulgar, as Lyranus, Cajetan, Pagnine, Arias, Erasmus, Valla, Steuchus, and others, it is apparent and even palpable, that they never dreamt of any absolute perfection and authentical Infallibility of the Vulgar Translation. For if they had, why did they in many places reject it and differ from it?

76. Vega was present at the Council of Trent, when that decree was made, which made the Vulgar Edition (then not extant any where in the World) authentical, and not to be rejected upon any pretence whatsoever. At the forming this decree Vega I say was present, un­derstood the mind of the Council, as well as any man, and professes that he was instructed in it by the Presi­dent of it, the Cardinal S. Cruce. And yet he hath writ­ten that the Council in this decree, meant to pronounce this Translation free (not simply from all Error) but only from such Errors, out of which any opinion pernicious to Faith and Manners might be collected. This, Andradius in his defence of that Council reports of Vega, and assents to it himself. Driedo, in his Book of the Translation of Holy Scripture, hath these Words very pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose; The See Apostolick, hath approved or accepted Hie­roms Edition, not as so wholly consonant to the Original, and so entire and pure and restored in all things, that it may not be lawful for any man, either by comparing it with the Foun­tain to examine it, or in some places to doubt, whether or no Hierome did understand the true sense of the Scripture; but only as an Edition to be preferred before all others then extant, [Page 109]and no where deviating from the Truth in the Rules of Faith and good Life. Mariana, even where he is a most earnest Advocate for the Vulgar Edition, yet acknowleges the imperfection of it in these Words, Pro Edit. vulg. c. 21. p. 99. The faults of the Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Council of Trent, a multitude whereof we did collect from the varie­ty of Copies. And again, We maintain that the Hebrew and Greek, were by no means rejected by the Trent Fathers: And that the Latin Edition is indeed approved, yet not so, as if they did deny that some places might be Translated more plainly, some more properly; whereof it were easie to produce innumerable examples. And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then General of the Society: who was a great part of that Council, present at all the Actions of it, and of very great authority in it.

77. To this so great authority he adds a reason of his opinion, which with all indifferent men will be of a far greater authority. If the Council (saith he) had purposed to approve an Edition in all respects, and to make it of equal authority and credit with the Fountains, certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the Errors of the In­terpreter: which certainly they did not.

78. Lastly Bellarmine himself, Bell. de verbo Dei l. 2. c. 11. p. 120. though he will not ac­knowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition, yet he acknowledges that the case may, and does oft-times so fall out, that it is impossible to discern which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition, but only by recourse unto the Originals, and dependence upon them.

79. From all which it may evidently be collected, that though some of you flatter your selves with a vain imagi­nation of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition; yet the matter is not so certain, and so resolved, but that the best Learned men amongst you are often at a stand, and very doubtful sometimes whether your Vulgar Translation be true, and sometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Translation, and sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your Vulgar Tran­slation is no true Translation, nor consonant to the O­riginal, as it was at first delivered. And what then can [Page 110]be alledged, but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred and inforced upon you, that not only in your Lay-men, but your Clergy-men and Scholars, Faith and Truth and Salvation and all depends upon fallible and uncertain grounds? And thus by Ten several retortions of this one Argument, I have endeavoured to shew you, how ill you have complied with your own advice, which was to take heed of urging Arguments that might be returned upon you. I should now by a direct answer, shew that it presseth not us at all: but I have in passing done it al­ready, in the end of the second retortion of this Argu­ment, and thither I refer the Reader.

80. Whereas therefore, you exhort them that will have assurance of true Scriptures, to fly to your Church for it: I desire to know (if they should follow your advice) how they should be assured that your Church can give them any such assurance; which hath been confessedly so negli­gent, as to suffer many whole Books of Scripture to be ut­terly lost. Again, in those that remain, confessedly so negligent, as to suffer the Originals of these that remain to be corrupted. And lastly, so careless of preserving the integrity of the Copies of her Translation, as to suffer infinite variety of Readings to come in to them, without keeping any one perfect Copy, which might have been as the Standard, and Polycletus his Canon to correct the rest by. So that which was the true reading, and which the false, it was utterly undiscernable, but only by comparing them with the Originals, which also she pretends to be corrupted.

84. Ad 17. §.] In this Division you charge us with great uncertainty, concerning the true meaning of Scripture. Which hath been answered already, by saying, That if you speak of plain places, (and in such all things neces­sary are contained,) we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them, neither need they any Interpreter: If of obscure and difficult places, we confess we are un­certain of the sense of many of them. But then we say there is no necessity we should be certain. For if Gods Will had been we should have understood him more certainly, he would have spoken more plainly. And [Page 111]we say besides, that as we are uncertain, so are You too; which he that doubts of, let him read your Com­mentators upon the Bible, and observe their various and dissonant Interpretations, and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction.

85. Obj. But seeing there are contentions among us, we are taught by nature and Scripture, and experience (so you tell us out of M. Hooker) to seek for the ending of them, by sub­miting unto some Judicical sentence, whereunto neither part may refuse to stand.

Answ. This is very true. Neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a means of ending all our Controversies, if we could tell where to find it. But this we know, that none is fit to pronounce, for all the World, a judicial definitive obliging Sentence in Controversies of Religion, but only such a Man, or such a society of Men, as is authorized thereto by God. And besides we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not been the pleasure of God to give to any Man, or Society of Men any such authority. And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended, as we do that all sin were abolisht, yet we have little hope of the one, or the other, till the World be ended. And in the mean while, think it best to content our selves with, and to persuade others unto an Unity of Charity and mutual Tole­ration; seeing God hath authorized no man to force all men to Unity of Opinion. Neither do we think it fit to ar­gue thus, To us it seems convenient there should be one Judge of all Controversies for the whole World, there­fore God has appointed one: But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus, God hath appointed no such Judge of Controversies, therefore, though it seems to us convenient there should be one, yet it is not so: Or though it were convenient for us to have one, yet it hath pleased God (for Reasons best known to himself) not to allow us this convenience.

87. Ad 18. §.] That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be received from the Church, you need not prove, for it is very easily granted by them, who [Page 112]profess themselves very ready to receive all Truths, much more the true sense of Scripture, not only from the Church, but from any Society of men, nay from any man what­soever.

88. That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is al­ways true, that is it which you would have said: and that in some sense may be also admitted. viz. If you speak of that Church (which before you speak of in the 14. §.) that is, of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles. Upon the Tradition of which Church, you there told us, We were to receive the Scripture, and to believe it to be the Word of God. For there you teach us, that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proof, And that, such is Tradition, which from Hand to Hand, and Age to Age bring us up to the Times and Persons of the Apo­stles and our Saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles, and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true. Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the Sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church. The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture: and we are willing to believe it. And now if you make it good unto us, that the same Tradition down from the Apostles, hath delivered from Age to Age, and from Hand to Hand, any Interpretation of any Scripture, we are ready to embrace that also. But now, if you will ar­gue thus: The Church in one sense, tells us what is Scripture, and we believe, therefore if the Church ta­ken in another sense, tell us, this or that is the meaning of the Scripture, we are to believe that also; this is too transparent Sophistry, to take any but those that are wil­ling to be taken.

89. If there be any Traditive Interpretation of Scrip­ture, produce it, and prove it to be so; and we em­brace it. But the Tradition of all Ages is one thing; and the authority of the present Church, much more of the Roman Church, which is but a Part, and a corrup­ted Part of the Catholick Church, is another. And there­fore though we are ready to receive both Scripture and [Page 113]the sense of Scripture upon the authority of Original Tra­dition, yet we receive neither the one, nor the other, up­on the Authority of your Church.

90. First for the Scripture, how can we receive them upon the Authority of your Church: who hold now those Books to be Canonical, which formerly you reje­cted from the Canon? I instance, in the Book of Maccha­bees, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first of these you held not to be Canonical in S. Gregories time, or else he was no member of your Church, for it is apparent See Greg. Mor. l. 19. c. 13. He held otherwise. The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hieroms time, as it is evident out of Thus he te­stifies. Com. in Esa. c. 6. in these words. Ʋnde & Pau­lus Apost. in Epist. ad Heb. quam Latina consuetudo non recipit: and a­gain in c. 8. in these, In Ep. quae ad Hebrae­os scribitur, [...]li­cet eam [...]a [...]i­na Consuetudo inter Canoni­cas Scripturas non recipiat.) &c. ma­ny places of his Works.

91. If you say (which is all you can) that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church, not of the Roman Catholick Church; I answer, there was none such in his time, None that was called so. Secondly, what he spake of the Roman Church, must be true of all other Churches, if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholick Doctrine. Now then choose whether you will, either that the particular Roman Church, was not then believed to be the Mistris of all other Churches (notwithstand­ing, Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, omnes qui sunt undique fideles,; which Card. Perron, and his Translatress so often translates false:) Or if you say she was, you will run into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to say, that all the Churches of that time, rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews, to­gether with the Roman Church. And consequently that the Catholick Church may Err in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonical.

92. Secondly, How can we receive the Scripture up­on the authority of the Roman Church, which hath deli­vered at several times Scriptures in many places, diffe­rent and repugnant, for Authentical and Canonical? which is most evident out of the place of Malacby, which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Mass, that either all the Ancient Fathers had false Bibles, or yours is false. [Page 114]Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Jacob in Genesis, with that which is cited out of it, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to the vulgar E­dition. But above all, to any one, who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement, so evident, that the wit of man cannot disguise it.

93. Thus you see what reason we have to believe your Antecedent, That your Church it is which must declare, what Books be true Scripture. Now for the consequence, that certainly is as liable to exception as the Antecedent. For if it were true, that God had promised to assist you, for the delivering of true Scripture, would this oblige him, or would it follow from hence that He had obliged him­self, to teach you, not only sufficiently, but effectually and irrisistably the true sense of Scripture? God is not de­fective in things necessary: neither will he leave him­self without witness, nor the World without means of knowing his will and doing it. And therefore it was ne­cessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scrip­ture from any undiscernable corruption, in those things which he would have known: otherwise it is apparent, it had not been his will, that these things should be known, the only means of continuing the knowledg of them being perished. But now neither is God lavish in super­fluities, and therefore having given us means sufficient for our direction, and power sufficient to make use of these means, he will not constrain or necessitate us to make use of these means. For that were to cross the end of our Creation, which was to be glorified by our free obedience: whereas necessity and freedom cannot stand together. That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himself in his dealing with men, and that is, to set Life and Death before him, and to leave him in the hands of his own Counsel. God gave the Wisemen a Star to lead them to Christ, but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this Star: that was left to their liberty. God gave the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by Night, and a Pillar of Cloud by Day, but he constrained no man to follow them: that was left to [Page 115]their liberty. So he gives the Church, the Scripture: which in those things which are to be believed or done, are plain and easie to be followed, like the Wisemens Star. Now that which he desires of us on our part, is the Obedience of Faith, and love of the Truth, and de­sire to find the true sense of it, and industry in searching it, and humility in following, and Constancy in profes­sing it: all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity, he could no more require of us, as our duty, than he can of the Sun to shine, of the Sea to Ebb and Flow, and of all other Creatures to do those things which by meer necessity they must do, and cannot choose. Besides, what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture, whereas there are Thousands of places of Scripture, which you do not pretend certainly to un­derstand, and about the Interpretation whereof, your own Doctors differ among themselves? If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture, why do not your Doctors follow her infalli­ble direction? And if they do, how comes such diffe­rence among them in their Interpretations?

94. Again, why does your Church thus put her Can­dle under a Bushel, and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly, thus long wrapt up in Napkins? Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Ex­positions upon all the Bible? Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians, that Scripture should be In­terpreted? Is it blasphemous to say so. The Scripture it self tells us, All Scripture is profitable. And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense. And if it be not profitable, why does she imploy particular Doctors to in­terpret Scriptures fallibly? unless we must think that fal­lible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable, and in­fallible Interpretations would not be so?

95. If you say the Holy Ghost, which assists the Church in interpreting, will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit, and that the Church will do it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to do it: I demand whether the Ho­ly [Page 116]Ghosts moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church, or irresistible. If resistible, then the Holy Ghost may move, and the Church may not be moved. As certainly the Holy Ghost doth always move to an Action, when he shews us plainly that it would be for the good of men, and Honour of God. As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an in­fallible exposition of Scripture could not but be, and there is no conceivable reason, why such a work should be put off a day, but only because you are conscious to your selves, you cannot do it, and therefore make excu­ses. But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible, and you are not yet so moved to go about this work; then I confess you are excused. But then I would know, whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Council for the Reformation of your Church, at length pretended to be effected by the Council of Trent, whether they may excuse themselves, for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to do it? I would know likewise, as this motion is irresistible when it comes, so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publick Action, that it cannot possibly move without it? That is, whether the Pope now could not, if he would, seat himself in Cathedra, and fall to writing ex­positions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it? If you say he cannot, you will make your self ridiculous. If he can, then I would know, whether he should be infallibly directed in these exposi­tions, or no? If he should, then what need he to stay for irresistible motion? Why does he not go about this noble work presently? If he should not, How shall we know that the calling of the Council of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion, or upon humane im­portunity and suggestion, and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost? And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no, seeing he assists none but what he himself moves to? And whether he did move the Pope to call this Council, is a secret thing, which we cannot possibly know, nor perhaps the Pope himself.

96. If you say, your meaning is only, That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture, and not infalliblyassisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture: I put to you your own Question, why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there? Or, why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing, that is, in teaching the Church what Books be true Scripture? For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable, then will he be with them infallibly, not only to guard them from all Errors, but to guide them to all profitable truths, such as the true senses of all Scripture would be. Neither could he stay there, but defend them irresistibly from all Vices; Nor there neither, but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues: for all these things would be much for the be­nefit of Christians. If you say, he cannot do this with­out taking away their free-will in living; I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright, without taking away their free-will in believing and in professing their belief.

97. Obj. To the place of S. Austin, ( I would not be­lieve the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church did move me. Contr. ep. Fund. c. 5.)

Answ. I answer, That not the Authority of the present Church, much less of a Part of it (as the Roman Church is) was that which alone moved Saint Austin to believe the Gospel, but the perpetual Tradition of the Church of all Ages. Which you your self have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is proved, and which it self needs no proof; and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austin, Ego vero Evangelio non crede­rem nisi, &c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his Book De Util. Cred. c. 14. he shews, that his motives to believe, were, Fame, Celebrity, Consent, Antiquity. And seeing this Tradition, this Consent, this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus, as to believe the Gospel, (the Christian Tra­dition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospel) therefore he did well to conclude upon these [Page 118]grounds, that he had as much reason to disbelieve Ma­nichaeus, as to believe the Gospel. Now if you can truly say, that the same Fame, Celebrity, Consent, Antiquity, that the same Universal and Original Tradition, lies a­gainst Luther and Calvin, as did against Manichaeus, you may do well to apply the Argument against them; other­wise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names instead of Manichaeus, unless you can shew the things a­grees to them as well as him.

98. If you say, that S. Austin speaks here of the Autho­rity of the Present Church, abstracting from consent with the Ancient, and therefore you, seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin, as S. Au­stin against Manichaeus, may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him;

99. I answer, First that it is a vain presumption of yours that the Catholick Church is of your side. Secondly, that if S. Austin speak here of that present Church, which moved him to believe the Gospel, without consideration of the Antiquity of it, and its both Personal and Doctri­nal succession from the Apostles; His Argument will be like a Buskin that will serve any leg. It will serve to keep an Arrian, or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholick, as well as a Catholick from being an Arrian, or a Grecian? In as much as the Arrians and Grecians, did pretend to the Title of Catholicks, and the Church, as much as the Papists now do. If then you should have come to an Ancient Goth or Vandal, whom the Arrians converted to Christianity, and should have moved him to your Religi­on; might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans? I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church did move me. Them there­fore whom I obeyed, saying believe the Gospel, why should I not obey saying to me, do not believe the Homoousians? Choose what thou pleasest: If thou shalt say believe the Arrians, they warn me not to give any Credit to you. If therefore I believe them, I cannot believe thee. If thou say do not believe the Arrians, thou shalt not do well to force me to the Faith of the Homoousians, because by the Preaching of the Arrians [Page 119] I believed the Gospel it self. If you say, you did well to believe them, commending the Gospel, but you did not well to believe them discommending the Homoousians: Doest thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, I should believe what thou wilt, and not believe what thou wilt not? It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian, Abys­sine, Georgian, or any other of any Religion. And I pray bethink your selves, what you would say to such a one in such a case, and imagine that we say the very same to you.

101. And whereas you say, S. Austin may seem to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants, when he said, Why should I not most diligently inquire, what Christ commanded, of them before all others, by whose Authority I was moved to believe, that Christ Commanded any good thing?

Answ. I answer, Until you can shew that Protestants be­lieve that Christ commanded any good thing, that is, That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Autho­rity of the Church of Rome, this place must be wholly imper­tinent to your purpose; which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies: nay rather is it not directly against your purpose? For why may not a member of the Church of England, who received his Baptism, Education and Faith from the Ministry of this Church, say just so to you as S. Austin here to the Manichees? Why should I not most diligently inquire, what Christ commanded, of them (the Church of England) before all others, by whose authority I was moved to believe, that Christ command­ded any good thing, Can you, F. or K. or whosoever you are, better declare to me what he said, whom I would not have thought to have been or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me? This therefore (that Christ Jesus did those miracles, and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Books of the New Testament) I believed by Fame, strengthened with Celebrity and Consent, (even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another,) and lastly by Antiquity (which gives an Universal and a constant attestation to them) But [Page 120]every one may see that you, so few (in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scrip­ture,) so turbulent, (that you damn all to the Fire, and to Hell, that any way differ from you; that you profess it is lawful for you, to use violence and power whensoever you can have it, for the planting of your own Doctrine, and the extirpation of the contrary;) lastly so new in many of your Doctrines, (as in the lawfulness, and expe­dience of debarring the Laity the Sacramental Cup; the lawfulness and expedience of your Latine Service, Tran­substantiation, Indulgences, Purgatory, the Popes infalli­bility, his Authority over Kings, &c) so new I say, in com­parison of the undoubted Books of Scripture, which evi­dently containeth, or rather is our Religion, and the sole, and adequate object of our Faith: I say every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce no­thing deserving authority (with wise and considerate men) What madness is this? Believe them the consent of Chri­stians which are now, and have been ever since Christ in the World, that we ought to believe Christ; but learn of us what Christ said, which contradict and damn all o­ther parts of Christendom. Why I beseech you? Surely if they were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily persuade my self, that I were not to believe in Christ, than that I should learn any thing con­cerning him, from any other, than them by whom I be­lieved him: at least, than that I should learn what his Re­ligion was from you, who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine; which might give us just occasion, had we no other assurance of them but your Authority, to suspect the true ones. Who with forging so many false Stories, and false Authors, have taken a fair way to make the Faith of all Stories questionable; if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority: who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the Word of Christ, and which, for the most part, make either for the honour [Page 121]or profit of the Teachers of them: which (if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church) would be very apt to make suspicious men be­lieve that Christian Religion was a humane invention, taught by some cunning Impostors, only to make them­selves rich and powerful; who make a profession of cor­rupting all sorts of Authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted. For if you take this Authority upon you, upon the six Ages last past; how shall we know, that the Church of that time, did not Usurp the same Authority upon the Authors of the six last Ages before them, and so upwards until we come to Christ himself? Whose questioned Doctrines, none of them came from the Fountain of Apostolick Tra­dition, but have insinuated themselves into the Streams, by little and little, some in one Age, and some in another, some more Anciently, some more lately, and some yet are Embrio's, yet hatching, and in the Shell; as the Popes Infallibility, the Blessed Virgins immaculate conception, the Popes power over the Temporalities of Kings, the Doctrine of Predetermination, &c. all which yet are, or in time may be imposed upon Christians under the Title of Original and Apostolick Tradition; and that with that necessity, that they are told, they were as good be­lieve nothing at all, as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles, which they know to have been brought in but yesterday: which whether it be not a rea­dy and likely way to make men conclude thus with them­selves— I am told, that I were as good believe nothing at all, as believe some points which the Church teaches me, and not others: and some things which she teaches to be Ancient and Certain, I plainly see to be New and False, therefore I will believe nothing at all. Whe­ther I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus, and whether this con­clusion be not too often made in Italy, and Spain, and France, and in England too, I leave it to the judgment of those that have Wisdom and Experience. Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so far from being a suffici­ent [Page 122]Foundation for our belief in Christ, that it is in sun­dry regards a dangerous temptation against it; why should I not much rather conclude, Seeing we receive not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome, neither from her must we take his Doctrine, or the Interpretation of Scripture?

102. Ad §. 19. In this number, this Argument is con­tained. The Judge of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned; The Scripture is not so, and the Church is so; Therefore the Church is the Judge, and not the Scripture.

103. To this I answer: As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Judge, so is not that alone suffici­ent to make a Judge; otherwise you might make your self Judge of Controversies, by arguing; The Scripture is not intelligible by all, but I am, therefore I am Judge of Controversies. If you say your intent was to conclude against the Scripture, and not for the Church: I demand why then, but to delude the simple with Sopistry, did you say in the close of this §. Such is the Church, and the Scrip­ture is not such? but that you would leave it to them to infer in the end, (which indeed was more than you un­dertook in the beginning) Therefore the Church is Judge and the Scripture not. I say Secondly; that you still run upon a false supposition: that God hath appointed some Judge of all Controversies that may happen among Chri­stians, about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture: whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein, in those words of S. Paul, Quisque abundet in sensu suo, &c. I say Thirdly. Whereas some Protestants make the Scrip­ture Judge of Controversies, that they have the Autho­rity of Fathers to warrant their manner of speaking: as of Contra Par­men. l. 5. in Prin. Optatus.

104. But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Judge nor cannot be, but only, a sufficient Rule, for those to judge by, that believe it to be the word of God (as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both do,) what they are to believe, and what they are not to believe. I say sufficiently perfect, and sufficiently intelli­ble in things necessary, to all that have understanding, [Page 123]whether they be learned or unlearned. And my reason hereof is convincing and demonstrative; because nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed. For to say, that when a place of Scripture, by reason of ambiguous terms, lies indifferent between divers senses, whereof one is true, and the other is false, that God ob­liges men under pain of damnation, not to mistake through error and humane frailty, is to make God a Ty­rant, and to say that he requires us certainly to attain that end, for the attaining whereof we have no certain means; which is to say, that, like Pharaoh, he gives no straw, and requires brick; that he reaps where he sows not; that he gathers where he strews not, that he will not be pleased with our utmost endeavors to please him, without full and exact and never failing performance; that his will is we should do what he knows we cannot do; that he will not accept of us according to that which we have, but requi­reth of us what we have not. Which whether it can con­sist with his goodness, with his wisdom, and with his word, I leave it to honest men to judge. If I should send a Servant to Paris, or Rome, or Jerusalem, and he using his utmost diligence not to mistake his way, yet notwithstanding, meeting often with such places where the road is divided into several ways, whereof every one is as likely to be true, and as likely to be false as any other, should at length mistake and go out of the way; would not any man say that I were an impotent, foolish and unjust Master, if I should be offended with him for doing so? And shall we not tremble to impute that to God, which we would take in foul scorn, if it were imputed to our selves? Certainly, I for my part fear I should not love God if I should think so strangely of him.

105. Again, When you say, that unlearned, and ignorant men cannot understand Scripture, I would desire you to come out of the Clouds, and tell us what you mean: Whether, that they cannot understand all Scripture, or that they cannot understand any Scripture, or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to Heaven. If the first; I believe the Learned are in the [Page 124]same Case. If the Second; every mans experience will confute you: for who is there that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the Story, the Precepts, the Promises, and the Threats of the Gospel? If the Third; that they may understand something, but not enough for their Salvations; I ask you, first. Why then doth Saint Paul say to Timothy, The Scriptures are able to make him wise unto Salvation? Why does Saint Austin say, Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis, omnia continent quae pertinent ad Fidem Moresque vivendi? Why does every one of the four Evangelists Intitle their Book The Gospel, if any necessary and essential part of the Gospel were left out of it? Can we imagine, that either they omitted something necessary, out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary? Or knowing it to be so, maliciously con­cealed it? Or out of negligence, did the work they had undertaken by halfes? If none of these things can with­out Blasphemy be imputed to them, considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work, then cer­tainly it most evidently follows, that every one of them writ the whole Gospel of Christ; I mean all the essenti­al and necessary parts of it. So that if we had no o­ther Book of Scripture, but one of them alone, we should not want any thing necessary to Salvation. And what one of them has more than another, it is only profitable, and not necessary. Necessary indeed to be believed, be­cause revealed; but not therefore revealed, because ne­cessary to be believed.

106. Neither did they write only for the Learned, but for all men. This being one especial means of the Preach­ing of the Gospel, which was commanded to be Preach­ed, not only to Learned men but to all men. And there­fore, unless we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose, we must conceive, that they intended to speak plain, even to the capacity of the simplest; at least touch­ing all things necessary to be published by them, and be­lieved by us.

107. And whereas you pretend it is so easie, and obvi­ous both for the Learned and the ignorant, both to know which is the Church, and what are the Decrees of the Church, and what is the sense of those Decrees: I say, this is a vain pre­tence.

108. For First; How shall an unlearned man whom you have supposed now ignorant of Scripture, how shall he know which of all the Societies of Christians is indeed the Church? You will say perhaps, he must examine them by the notes of the Church, which are perpetual Visibility, Suc­cession, Conformity with the ancient Church, &c. But how shall he know, first, that these are the notes of the Church, unless by Scripture, which you say he understands not? You may say perhaps, he may be told so. But seeing men may deceive, and be deceived, and their words are no demonstrations, how shall he be assured that what they say is true? So that at the first he meets with an impreg­nable difficulty, and cannot know the Church but by such notes, which whether they be the notes of the Church he cannot possibly know. But let us suppose this Isthmus digged through, and that he is assured these are the notes of the true Church: How can he possibly be a competent Judge, which Society of Christians hath Title to these notes, and which hath not? Seeing this Trial of neces­sity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monu­ments of Christian Antiquity, which no unlearned can have, because he that hath it cannot be unlearned. As for example, how shall he possibly be able to know whe­ther the Church of Rome hath had a perpetual Successi­on of Visible Professors, which held always the same Do­ctrine which they now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary; unless he hath first examined, what was the Doctrine of the Church in the first Age, what in the second, and so forth? And whether this be not a more difficult work, than to stay at the first Age, and to examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine, with the Doctrine of the first Age, every man of ordina­ry understanding may Judge.

Let us imagine him advanced a step farther, and to know which is the Church: how shall he know what that Church hath Decreed, seeing the Church hath not been so careful in keeping of her Decrees, but that ma­ny are lost, and many corrupted? Besides, when even the Learned among you are not agreed concerning di­vers things, whether they be De Fide or not; how shall the unlearned do? Then for the sense of the Decrees, how can he be more capable of the understanding of them, then of plain Texts of Scripture, which you will not suffer him to understand? Especially, seeing the De­crees of divers Popes and Councils are conceived so ob­scurely, that the Learned cannot agree about the sense of them. And then they are written all in such Langua­ges which the ignorant understand not, and therefore must of necessity rely herein upon the uncertain and fallible authority of some particular men, who inform them that there is such a Decree. And if the Decrees were Translated into Vulgar Languages, why the Tran­slators should not be as fallible as you say the Translators of Scripture are, who can possibly imagine?

109. Lastly, how shall an unlearned man, or indeed any man, be assured of the certainty of that Decree, the certainty whereof depends upon suppositions which are impossible to be known whether they be true or no? For it is not the Decree of a Council, unless it be confirmed by a true Pope. Now the Pope cannot be a true Pope if he came in by Simony: which whether he did or no, who can answer me? He cannot be a true Pope unless he were Baptized, and Baptized he was not, unless the Minister had due Intention. So likewise he cannot be a true Pope, unless he were rightly ordained Priest, and that again de­pends upon the Ordainers secret Intention, and also upon his having the Episcopal Character. All which things, as I have formerly proved, depend upon so many uncer­tain suppositions, that no humane judgment can possibly be resolved in them. I conclude therefore, that not the learnedst man amongst you all, no not the Pope himself, can, according to the grounds you go upon, have any [Page 127]certainty, that any Decree of any Council is good and valid, and consequently, not any assurance that it is in­deed the Decree of a Council.

110. Ad §. 20.] C. M. By referring Controversies to Scripture alone, all is finally reduced to the internal private Spirit.

CHIL. If by a private Spirit, you mean, a particular persuasion that a Doctrine is true, which some men pre­tend, but cannot prove to come from the Spirit of God: I say, to refer Controversies to the Scripture, is not to refer them to this kind of private Spirit. For is there not a manifest difference between saying, the Spirit of God tells me that this is the meaning of such a Text (which no man can possibly know to be true, it being a secret thing) and between saying, these and these Reasons I have to shew, that this or that is true Doctrine, or that this or that is the meaning of such a Scripture? Reason being a publick and certain thing and exposed to all mens Trial and Examination. But now if by private Spirit you understand every Mans particular Reason, then your first and second inconvenience will presently be re­duced to one, and shortly to none at all.

111. Ad §. 21.] C. M. By taking the Office of Judicature from the Church, it is Conferred upon every particular Man.

CHIL. And does not also giving the Office of Judica­ture to the Church, come to confer it upon every particu­lar Man? For before any man believes the Church Infal­lible, must he not have reason to induce him to believe it to be so? and must he not judge of those reasons, whether they be indeed good and firm, or Captious and Sophistical? Or would you have all men believe all your Doctrine upon the Churches Infallibility, and the Churches Infallibility they know not why?

112. Secondly, supposing they are to be guided by the Church, they must use their own particular reason to find out which is the Church. And to that purpose you your selves give a great many Notes, which you pretend first to be Certain Notes of the Church, and then to be peculiar to your Church, and agreeable to none else; [Page 128]but you do not so much as pretend, that either of those pretences is evident of it self, and therefore you go a­bout to prove them both by reasons; and those reasons I hope every particular man is to judge of, whether they do indeed conclude and convince that which they are alledged for: that is, that these marks are indeed cer­tain Notes of the Church, and then that your Church hath them, and no other.

113. One of these Notes, indeed the only Note of a true and uncorrupted Church, is conformity with Anti­quity; I mean the most Ancient Church of all, that is the Primitive and Apostolick. Now how is it possible any man should examine your Church by this Note, but he must by his own particular judgment, find out what was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, and what is the Doctrine of the present Church, and be able to answer all these Arguments which are brought to prove repugnance between them? otherwise he shall but pre­tend to make use of this Note for the finding the true Church, but indeed make no use of it, but receive the Church at a venture, as the most of you do; not one in a Hundred being able to give any tolerable reason for it. So that instead of reducing Men to particu­lar reason, you reduce them to none at all, but to chance and passion, and prejudice and such other ways, which if they lead one to the Truth, they lead Hundreds, nay Thousands to Falshood. But it is a pretty thing to con­sider, how these men can blow Hot and Cold out of the same mouth to serve several purposes. Is there hope of gaining a Proselyte? Then they will tell you, God hath given every every man Reason to follow; and if the Blind lead the Blind, both shall fall into the Ditch. That it is no good reason for a mans Religion, that he was Born and brought up in it: For then a Turk should have as much reason to be a Turk, as a Christian to be a Chri­stian. That every man hath a judgment of Discretion; which if they will make use of, they shall easily find: that the true Church hath always such and such marks, and that their Church has them, and no other but theirs. But [Page 129]then if any of theirs be persuaded to a sincere and suffici­ent Trial of their Church, even by their own Notes of it, and to try whether they be indeed so conformable to An­tiquity as they pretend, then their Note is changed: you must not use your own reason nor your judgment, but refer all to the Church, and believe her to be conform­able to Antiquity, though they have no reason for it, nay though they have evident reason to the contrary. For my part I am certain that God hath given us our Reason to discern between Truth and Falshood, and he that makes not this use of it, but believes things he knows not why, I say it is by chance that he believes the Truth, and not by choice: and that I cannot but fear, that God will not accept of this Sacrifice of Fools.

114. But you that would not have men follow their Reason, what would you have them to follow? their Pas­sion? Or pluck out their eyes and go blindfold? No, you say you would have them follow Authority. On Gods name let them; we also would have them follow Au­thority; for it is upon the Authority of Universal Tradi­tion, that we would have them believe Scripture. But then as for the Authority which you would have them follow, you will let them see reason why they should follow it. And is not this to go a little about? to leave reason for a short turn, and then to come to it again, and to do that which you condemn in others? It being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to submit his reason but to reason: for he that does it to Authority, must of necessity think himself to have greater reason to believe that Authority. Therefore the confession cited by Brerely, you need not think to have been extorted from Luther and the rest. It came very freely from them, and what they say, you practise as much as they.

115. And whereas you say that a Protestant admits of Fathers, Councils, Church, as far as they agree with Scrip­ture, which upon the matter is himself: I say you admit nei­ther of them, nor the Scripture it self, but only so far as it agrees with your Church: and your Church you admit because you think you have reason to do so: [Page 130]so that by you as well as by Protestants all is finally re­solved into your own reason.

116. Nor do Hereticks only but Romish Catholicks also set up as many Judges, as there are Men and Women in the Christian World. For do not your Men and Women Judge your Religion to be true, before they be­lieve it, as well as the Men and Women of other Re­ligions? Oh but you say, They receive it not because they think it agreeable to Scripture, but because the Church tells them so. But then I hope they believe the Church be­cause their own reason tells them they are to do so. So that the difference between a Papist and a Protestant is this, not that the one judges and the other does not judge, but that the one judges his guide to be infallible, the other his way to be manifest. This same pernitious Doctrine is taught by Brentius, Zanchius, Cartwright, and others. It is so in very deed: But it is taught also by some others, whom you little think of. It is taught by S. Paul, where he says, Try all things, hold fast that which is good. It is taught by S. John, in these words, Believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no. It is taught by S. Peter, in these, Be ye ready to render a reason of the hope that is in you. Lastly, this very pernitious Doctrine is taught by our Saviour, in these words, If the Blind lead the Blind, both shall fall into the Ditch. And why of your selves Judge you not what is right? All which speeches, if they do not advise men to make use of their Reason for the choice of their Religi­on, I must confess my self to understand nothing. Last­ly, not to be infinite, it is taught by M. Knot himself, not in one Page only, or Chapter of his Book, but all his Book over; the very writing and publishing whereof, sup­poseth this for certain, that the Readers are to be Judges, whether his Reasons which he brings, be strong and con­vincing; of which sort we have hitherto met with none: or else captious, or impertinences, as indifferent men shall (as I suppose) have cause to judge them.

117. But you demand, What good Statesmen would they be, who should ideate, or fancy such a Commonwealth, as these men [Page 131]have framed to themselves a Church? Truly if this be all the fault they have, that they say. Every man is to use his own judgment in the choice of his Religion, and not to believe this or that sense of Scripture, upon the bare Authority of any Learned man or men, when he conceives he has reasons to the contrary, which are of more weight than their Authority: I know no reason, but notwithstanding all this, they might be as good Statesmen as any of the Society. But what has this to do with Common-wealths, where men are bound only to ex­ternal obedience, unto the Laws and Judgments of Courts, but not to an internal approbation of them, no nor to conceal their Judgment of them, if they disapprove them? As if I conceived I had reason to mislike the Law of pu­nishing simple Theft with Death, as Sir Thomas Moore did, I might profess lawfully my judgment, and represent my reasons to the King or Common-wealth in a Parlia­ment, as Sir Thomas Moore did, without committing any fault, or fearing any punishment.

118. To that place of S. Austin you cite (lib. 32. cont. Faust. You see that you go about to overthrow all Authority of Scripture, and that every mans mind may be to himself a Rule, what he is to allow or disallow in every Scripture:) I shall need give no other Reply, but only to desire you to speak like an honest man, and to say, whether it be all one for a man, to allow and disallow in every Scripture what he pleases, which is, either to dash out of Scripture such Texts or such Chapters, because they cross his opinion? or to say (which is worse,) Though they be Scripture they are not true? Whe­ther, I say, for a man thus to allow and disallow in Scripture what he pleases, be all one, and no greater fault, than to allow that sense of Scripture which he conceives to be true and genuine, and deduced out of the words, and to dis­allow the contrary? for Gods sake, Sir, tell me plainly; In those Texts of Scripture, which you alledge for the in­fallibility of your Church, do not you allow what sense you think true, and disallow the contrary? And do you not this by the direction of your private reason? If you do, why do you condemn it in others? If you do not, I pray you tell me what direction you follow? or whether you [Page 132]follow none at all? If none at all, this is like drawing Lots, or throwing the Dice for the choice of a Religion. If any other: I beseech you tell me what it is. Perhaps you will say, the Churches Authority; and that will be to dance finely in a round, thus, To believe the Churches In­fallible Authority, because the Scriptures avouch it; and to believe that Scriptures say and mean so, because they are so expounded by the Church. Is not this for a Father to beget his Son, and the Son to beget his Father? For a foundation to support the house, and the house to support the foundation? Would not Campian have cryed out at it, Ecce quos gyros, quos Maeandros? And to what end was this going about, when you might as well at first have con­cluded the Church infallible because she says so; as thus to put in Scripture for a meer stale, and to say, the Church is infallible because the Scripture says so, and the Scripture means so because the Church says so, which is infallible? Is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man, that you are enforced of necessity to do that your self, which so Tragically you declaim against in others? The Church, you say, is Infallible; I am very doubtful of it: How shall I know it? The Scripture you say affirms it, as in the 59. of Esau, My spirit that is in thee, &c. Well I confess I find there these words: but I am still doubtful, whether they be spoken of the Church of Christ: and if they be, whether they mean as you pretend. You say, the Church says so, which is infallible. Yea but that is the Question, and therefore not to be begged but proved. Neither is it so evident as to need no proof: otherwise why brought you this Text to prove it? Nor is it of such a strange quality, above all other Propositions, as to be able to prove it self. What then remains but that you say, Rea­sons drawn out of the Circumstances of the Text, will evince that this is the sense of it. Perhaps they will. But Reasons cannot convince me, unless I judge of them by my Reason; and for every man or woman to relie on that, in the choice of their Religion, and in the interpre­ting of Scripture, you say is a horrible absurdity; and therefore must neither make use of your own in this mat­ter, nor desire me to make use of it.

119. But Universal Tradition (you say, and so do I too,) is of it self credible: and that has in all Ages taught the Churches Infallibility with full consent. If it have, I am ready to believe it. But that it has I hope you would not have me take upon your word: for that were to build my self upon the Church, and the Church upon You. Let then the Tradition appear; for a secret Tra­dition is somewhat like a silent Thunder. You will per­haps produce, for the confirmation of it, some sayings of some Fathers, who in every Age taught this Doctrine; (as Gualterius in his Chronology undertakes to do, but with so ill success, that I heard an able Man of your Religion profess, that in the first three Centuries, there was not one Authority pertinent:) but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary? Again, how shall I be assured that the places have indeed this sense in them? Seeing there is not one Father for 500 years af­ter Christ, that does say in plain terms, The Church of Rome is Infallible. What, shall we believe your Church that this is their meaning? But this will be again to go into the Circle, which made us giddy before; To prove the Church Infallible because Tradition says so, Tradition to say so, because the Fathers say so, The Fathers to say so, because the Church says so, which is Infallible. Yea, but reason will shew this to be the meaning of them. Yes, if we may use our Reason, and rely upon it. Other­wise, as light shews nothing to the Blind, or to him that uses not his eyes; so reason cannot prove any thing to him that either has not, or uses not his reason to judge of them.

120. Thus you have excluded your self from all proof of your Churches Infallibility from Scripture or Traditi­on. And if you fly lastly to Reason it self for succour, may not it justly say to you, as Jephte said to his Bre­thren, Ye have cast me out and banished me, and do you now come to me for succour? But if there be no certainty in Rea­son, how shall I be assured of the certainty of those which you aledge for this purpose? Either I may judge of them, or not: if not, why do you propose them? If I may, why [Page 134]do you say I may not, and make it such a monstrous ab­surdity, That men in the choice of their Religion should make use of their Reason? which yet, without all que­stion, none but unreasonable men can deny, to have been the chiefest end why Reason was given them.

121. Ad §. 22.] An Heretick he is (saith D. Potter) who opposeth any truth, which to be a Divine Revelation, he is convinced in Conscience by any means whatsoever: Be it by a Preacher or Lay-man, be it by reading Scripture, or hearing them read. And from hence you infer, that he makes all these safe propounders of Faith. A most strange and illogical deduction! For may not a private man by evident reason convince another man, that such or such a Doctrine is Divine Revelation, and yet though he be a true propounder in this point, yet propound another thing falsely, and without proof, and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point? Your Preachers in their Sermons, do they not propose to men Divine Re­velations, and do they not sometimes convince men in Conscience, by evident proof from Scripture, that the things they speak are Divine Revelations? And whoso­ever being thus convinced, should oppose this Divine Revelation, should he not be an Heretick, according to your own grounds, for calling Gods own Truth into question? And would you think your self well dealt with, if I should collect from hence, that you make e­very Preacher a safe, that is, an infallible Propounder of Faith? Be the means of Proposal what it will, sufficient or insufficient, worthy of credit, or not worthy, though it were, if it were possible, the barking of a Dog, or the chirping of a Bird, or were it the Discourse of the Devil himself, yet if I be, I will not say convinced, but persuaded, though falsly, that it is a Divine Revelation, and shall deny to believe it, I shall be a formal, though not a material Heretick. For he that believes, though falsly any thing to be Divine Revelation, and yet will not believe it to be true, must of necessity believe God to be false, which according to your own Doctrine, is the formality of an Heretick.

122. And how it can be any way advantagious to Civil Government, that men without warrant from God should Usurp a Tyranny over other mens Consciences, and prescribe unto them without reason, and sometimes against reason, what they shall believe, you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe. For to say, Verily I do not see but that it must be so, is no good demon­stration. For whereas you say, that a Man may be a passionate and Seditious Creature, from whence you would have us infer, that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his Passion, and raise Sedition: There were some colour in this consequence, if we (as you do) made private men infallible interpreters for others; for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them, and use them as Instruments for their vile purposes: But when we say they can only interpret for themselves, what harm they can do by their passionate or seditious inter­pretations, but only endanger both their Temporal and Eternal happiness, I cannot imagine. For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Judge, yet we do not deny, but that there are Judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all Seditious Persons, such as draw men to disobedience ei­ther against Church or State, as well as against Rebels, and Traytors, and Thieves, and Murderers.

123. Ad §. 23.] The next § argues thus: For many Ages there was no Scripture in the World: and for many more, there was none in many places of the World: yet men want­ed not then and there some certain direction what to believe: Therefore there was then an Infallible Judge. Just as if I should say, York is not my way from Oxford to London, therefore Bristol is: Or a Dog is not a Horse, therefore he is a Man. As if God had no other ways of reveal­ing himself to men, but only by Scripture and an infal­lible Church. See Chrysost. Hom. 1. in Mat. Isidor. Pelus. l. 3. ep. 106. and also Basil. in Ps. 28. and then you shall con­fess that by o­ther means be­sides these, God did com­municate him­self unto men and made them receive and under­stand his Laws: see also to the same purpose Heb. 1.1. S. Chrysostome and Isidorus Pelusiota con­ceived he might use other means. And S. Paul telleth us that the [...] might be known by his Works; and that they had the Law written in their Hearts. Either of these ways might make some faithful men without either necessity of Scripture or Church.

124. But D. Potter says (you say,) In the Jewish Church there was a living Judge, indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment: as all points belonging to Di­vine Faith are. And where was that infallible direction in the Jewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias, and refused him? Or perhaps this was not a case of moment. D. Potter indeed might say very well, not that the high Priest was infallible, (for certainly he was not) but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed, though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed. Be­sides, it is one thing to say, that the living judge in the Jewish Church, had an infallible direction: another, that he was necessitated to follow this direction. This is the priviledge which you challenge. But it is that, not this, which the Doctor attributes to the Jews. As a man may truly say, the Wise men had an infallible direction to Christ, without saying or thinking that they were con­strained to follow it, and could not do otherwise.

125. But either the Church retains still her infallibility, or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture; which is absurd. An Argument methinks like this, Ei­ther you have Horns or you have lost them: but you never lost them, therefore you have them still. If you say you never had Horns; so say I, for ought appears by your reasons, the Church never had infallibility.

126. But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others: therefore if Scriptures were the Judge of Con­troversies, some Churches had one Judge and some another. And what great inconvenience is there in that, that one part of England should have one Judge, and another another? especially seeing the Books of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest, had as much of the Doctrine of Christianity in them, as they all had which were received by any; all the necessary parts of the Gospel being contained in every one of the four Gospels, as I have proved: So that they which had all the Books of the New Testament had nothing superflu­ous: For it was not superfluous but profitable, that the [Page 137]same thing should be said divers times, and be testified by divers witnesses: And they that had but one of the four Gospels wanted nothing necessary: and therefore it is vainly inferred by you, that with Months and Years, as new Canonical Scriptures grew to be published, the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies.

127. Heresies, you say, would arise after the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures: These cannot be disco­vered, condemned and avoided, unless the Church be Infalli­ble; Therefore there must be a Church infallible. But I pray tell me, Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered, condemned, & avoided, by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith? If Scripture be sufficient to in­form us what is the Faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresie: seeing Heresie is no­thing but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to the Faith. That which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but mani­fest the other. If any one should deny, that there is a God: That this God is omnipotent, omniscient, good, just, true, merciful, a rewarder of them that seek him, a punisher of them that obstinately offend him; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the World: that it is he by obedience to whom men must look to be saved: If any man should deny either his Birth, or Passion, or Resurrection, or Ascension, or sitting at the right Hand of God: his having all Power given him in Heaven and Earth: That it is he whom God hath appointed to be Judge of the Quick and the Dead: that all men shall Rise again at the last Day: That they which believe and repent shall be saved: That they which do not believe or repent shall be damned: If a man should hold, that either the keeping of the Mosaical Law is necessary to Salvation: or that good works are not necessary to Salvation: In a word, if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly deli­vered in Scripture, who does not see, that every one which believes the Scripture, hath a sufficient means to discover, and condemn, and avoid that Heresie, without [Page 138]any need of an infallible guide? If you say, that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith: I answer, that it is a matter of Faith to believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by God is true; for he that does not do so calls Gods Truth into questi­on. But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them, or, to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation. For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with his wisdom, to be so wanting to his own will and end, as to speak obscurely? or how can it consist with his Justice, to re­quire of men to know certainly the meaning of those words, which he himself hath not revealed? Suppose there were an absolute Monarch, that in his own absense from one of his Kingdoms, had written Laws for the Government of it, some very plainly, and some very ambiguously, and obscurely, and his Suctjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactness, and for those that were obscure, use their best diligence to find his meaning in them, and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived? should this King either with justice or wisdom be offended with these Subjects, if by reason of the obscurity of them, they mistook the sense of them, and fail of performance, by reason of their Error?

128. But, It is more useful & fit, you say, for the decid­ing of Controversies, to have besides an infallible Rule to go by, a living infallible Judge to determine them: & from hence you conclude, that certainly there is such a Judge. But why then may not another say, that it is yet more use­ful for many excellent purposes, that all the Patriarchs should be infallible, than that the Pope only should? Another, that it would be yet more useful, that all the Archbishops of every Province should be so, than that the Patriarchs only should be so. Another, that it would be yet more useful, if all the Bishops of every Diocess were so. Another, that it would be yet more available, that all the Parsons of every Parish should be so. Ano­ther, [Page 139]that it would be yet more excellent, if all the Fathers of Families were so. And lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired that every Man and every Wo­man were so: just as much as the prevention of Contro­versies, is better than the decision of them, and the pre­vention of Heresies better than the condemnation of them; and upon this ground conclude, by your own ve­ry consequence, That not only a general Council, nor only the Pope, but all the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Pastors, Fathers, nay all the men in the World are infalli­ble. If you say now, as I am sure you will, that this con­clusion is most gross, and absurd against sense and ex­perience, then must also the ground be false, from which it evidently and undeniably follows, viz. that, That course of dealing with men seems always more fit to Divine Pro­vidence, which seems most fit to humane reason.

129. And so likewise, That there should men succeed the Apostles, which could shew themselves to be their suc­cessors, by doing of Miracles, by speaking all kind of Lan­guages, by delivering men to Satan, as S. Paul did Hymenae­us, and the incestuous Corinthian, it is manifest in human reason it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of Controversies, than that the successour of the Apostles should have none of these gifts, and for want of the signs of Apostleship, be justly questionable whether he be his successor or no: and will you now conclude, That the Popes have the gift of doing Miracles, as well as the Apostles had?

130. It were in all reason very useful and requisite, that the Pope should, by the assistance of Gods Spirit, be freed from the vices and passions of men, lest otherwise, the Authority given him for the good of the Church, he might imploy (as divers Popes you well know have done) to the disturbance, and oppression and mischief of it. And will you conclude from hence, That Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men? That there never have been ambitious, covetous, lustful, tyrannous Popes.

131. Who sees not that for mens direction it were much more beneficial for the Church, that Infallibility should [Page 140]be setled in the Popes Person, than in a general Council: That so the means of deciding Controversies might be speedy, easie and perpetual, whereas that of general Coun­cils is not so. And will you hence infer, that not the Church Representative, but the Pope is indeed the infalli­ble Judge of Controversies? certainly if you should, the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good conclusion.

132. It had been very commodious (one would think) that, seeing either Gods pleasure was the Scripture should be translated, or else in his Providence he knew it would be so, that he had appointed some men for this business, and by his Spirit assisted them in it, that so we might have Translations as Authentical as the Original: yet you see God did not think fit to do so.

133. It had been very commodious (one would think) that the Scripture should have been, at least for all things necessary, a Rule, plain and perfect: And yet you say, it is both imperfect and obscure, even in things necessary.

134. It had been most requisite (one would think) that the Copies of the Bibles, should have been preserved free from variety of Readings, which makes men very uncer­tain in many places, which is the Word of God, and which is the error or presumption of man: and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us.

135. Who can conceive, but that an Apostolick Inter­pretation of all the difficult places of Scripture, would have been strangely beneficial to the Church, especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them, as is by you pretended, and God in his providence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians, would not accept of the Pope for the Judge of Controversies? And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter.

136. Who doth not see, that supposing the Bishop of Rome, had been appointed Head of the Church, and Judge of Controversies, that it would have been infinitely be­neficial to the Church, perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible, that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received, this one Proposition had been set down in Terms, The Bishops of Rome shall be always Mo­narchs [Page 141]of the Church, and they either alone, or with their ad­herents, the Guides of Faith, and the Judges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians? This, if you will deal ingenuously, you cannot but acknowledge; for then all true Christians would have submitted to him, as willing­ly as to Christ himself, neither needed you and your fel­lows, have troubled your self to invent so many Sophisms for the proof of it. There would have been no more doubt of it among Christians, than there is of the Nativi­ty, Passion, Resurrection or Ascension of Christ. You were best now rub your forehead hard, and conclude upon us, that because this would have been so useful to have been done, therefore it is done. Or if you be (as I know you are) too ingenuous to say so, then must you acknow­ledge, that the ground of your Argument, which is the very ground of all these absurdities, is most absurd; and that it is our duty to be humbly thankful for those suffici­ent, nay abundant means of Salvation, which God hath of his own goodness granted us: and not conclude, he hath done that which he hath not done, because forsooth, in our vain judgments it seems convenient he should have done so.

137. But you demand what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the Church, and existence of Scripture, that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other? Out of which words I can frame no other argument for you than this. There is no Repugnance between the Scriptures ex­istence, and the Churches infallibility, therefore the Church is infallible. Which consequence will then be good, when you can shew, that nothing can be untrue, but that only which is impossible; that whatsoever may be done, that also is done. Which, if it were true, would conclude both you and me to be infallible, as well as either your Church, or Pope: in as much as there is no more repug­nance between the Scriptures existence and our infallibility, than there is between theirs.

138. Obj. But if Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Judge, let them first produce some Scripture, affirm­ing, that by the entrance thereof, infallibility went out of the Church.

Ans. This Argument put in form runs thus. No Scri­pture affirms that by the entring thereof, infallibility went out of the Church: Therefore there is an infallible Church, and therefore the Scripture alone is not Judge, that is, the Rule to judge by. But as no Scripture affirms that by the entring of it, Infallibility went out of the Church, so nei­ther do we, neither have we any need to do so. But we say, that it continued in the Church even together with the Scriptures, so long as Christ and his Apostles were living, and then departed: God in his providence having provided a plain and infallible Rule, to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides.

141. But the Jewish Church retained Infallibility in her self; and therefore it is unjust to deprive the Church of Christ of it.

Ans. That the Jews had sometimes an infallible mira­culous direction from God, in some cases of moment, he doth affirm and had good warrant: but that the Syna­gogue was absolutely Infallible, he no where affirms, and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of you to ob­trude it upon him. And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived, but only by setling it in the High Priest, and the company adhering and subordi­nate unto him? And whether the High Priest was Infal­lible, when he believed not Christ to be the Messias, but condemned and excommunicated them that so professed, and caused him to be crucified for saying so, I leave it to Christians to judge. But then suppose God had been so pleased to do as he did not, to appoint the Synagouge an infallible guide: Could you by your rules of Logick con­strain him, to appoint such a one to Christians also, or say unto him, that, in wisdom he could not do otherwise? Vain man that will be thus always tying God to your ima­ginations! It is well for us that he leaves us not without di­rections to him, but if he will do this sometime by living Guides, sometime by written Rules, what is that to you? may not he do what he will with his own?

144. Ad §. 24. Neither is this Discourse (if you mean your Conclusion, that Your Church is the infallible Judge [Page 143]in Controversies) confirmed by Irenaeus at all ( Iren. l. 3. c. 3.) For neither has Irenaeus one syllable to this purpose, nei­ther can it be deduced out of what he says, with any colour of consequence. For first in saying, What if the Apostles had not left Scripture, ought we not to have followed the Order of Tradition? And in saying, That to this Order many Nations yield assent, who believe in Christ, having Sal­vation written in their hearts, by the Spirit of God, without Letters or Ink, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition: Doth he not plainly shew, that the Tradition he speaks of, is nothing else, but the very same that is written: nothing but to believe in Christ? To which, whether Scrip­ture alone to them that believe it, be not a sufficient guide, I leave it to you to judge. And are not his words just as if a man should say, If God had not given us the light of the Sun, we must have made use of Candles and Torches: If we had had no Eyes, we must have felt out our way: If we had no Leggs, we must have used Crutches. And doth not this in effect import, that while we have the Sun, we need no Candles? While we have our Eyes, we need not feel out our way? While we enjoy our Leggs, we need not Crutches? And by like reason, Irenaeus in saying, If we had no Scripture, we must have followed Tradi­tion, and they that have none, do well to do so, doth he not plainly import, that to them that have Scripture, and be­lieve it, Tradition is unnecessary? which could not be, if the Scripture did not contain evidently the whole tradi­on. Which whether Irenaeus believed or no, these words of his may inform you, Non enim per alios &c. we have re­ceived the disposition of our Salvation from no others, but from them, by whom the Gospel came unto us. Which Gospel truly, the Apostles first preached, and afterwards by the will of God, delivered in writing to us, to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith. Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 4 c. 11. Upon which place Bellarmine's two observati­ons, and his acknowledgment ensuing upon them, are very considerable, and as I conceive, as home to my pur­pose as I would wish them. His first Notandum is, That in the Christian Doctrin, some things are simply necessary for the Salvation of all men; as the knowledge of the Articles of the [Page 144]Apostles Creed; and besides the knowledge, of the ten Com­mandments, and some of the Sacraments. Other things not so necessary, but that a man may be saved, without the explicit knowledge and belief, and profession of them. His Second Note is, That those things which were simply necessary, the Apostles were wont to preach to all men; But of other things not all to all, but something to all, to wit, those things which were profitable for all, other things only to Prelats and Priests. These things premised, he acknowledgeth, That all those things were written by the Apostles, which are necessary for all, and which they were wont openly to preach to all; But that other things were not all written: And therefore, when Irenaeus says that the Apostles wrote what they Preach in the World, it is true, saith he, and not against Traditions, because they preached not to the People all things, but only those things, which were necessary or profitable for them.

145. So that at the most, you can infer from hence, but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible Guide, and that grounded upon a false supposition, In case we had no Scripture, but an absolute necessity here­of, and to them who have and believe the Scripture, which is your assumption, cannot with any colour from hence be concluded, but rather the contrary.

146. Neither because (as he says) it was then easie to re­ceive the Truth from Gods Church, then, in the Age next af­ter the Apostles, Then, when all the ancient and Apo­stolick Churches were at an agreement about the Funda­mentals of Faith: Will it therefore follow that now, 1600 years after, when the ancient Churches are divided almost into as many Religions as they are Churches, every one being the Church to it self, and heretical to all other, that it is as easie, but extremely difficult or rather impossible, to find the Church first independently of the true Doctrin, and then to find the truth by the Church.

148. Neither will the Apostles depositing with the Church, all things belonging to truth, be any proof that the Church shall certainly keep this depositum, entire, and sincere, without adding to it, or taking from it; for this whole de­positum was committed to every particular Church, nay, to [Page 153]every particular Man, which the Apostles converted. And yet no man, I think, will say, that there was any certainty, that it should be kept whole and inviolate by every man, and every Church. It is apparent out of Scripture, it was committed to Timothy, and by him con­signed to other faithful men: and yet S. Paul thought it not superfluous, earnestly to exhort him to the careful keeping of it: which exhortation you must grant had been vain and superfluous, if the not keeping of it had been impossible. And therefore though Irenaeus says, The Apostles fully deposited in the Church all truth, yet he says not, neither can we infer from what he says, that the Church should always infallibly keep this depositum, entire without the loss of any truth, and sincere with­out the mixture of any falshood.

149. Ad §. 25.] C. M. proceeds and tells us, That be­side all this, the Doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it self. For either they have certain and infallible means not to Err in interpreting; or not. If not, Scripture to them can­not be a sufficient ground for infallible Faith: If they have, and so cannot Err in interpreting Scripture, then they are able with infallibility to hear and determine all Controversies of Faith; and so they may be, and are Judges of Controver­sies, although they use the Scripture as a Rule. And thus against their own Doctrine, they constitute another Judge of Controversies besides Scripture alone.

C. H. And may not we with as much reason substitute Church and Papists, instead of Scripture and Protestants, and say unto you, Besides all this, the Doctrine of Pa­pists is destructive of it self. For either they have cer­tain and infallible means not to Err, in the choice of the Church, and interpreting her decrees, or they have not: If not, then the Church to them cannot be a suf­ficient (but meerly a phantastical) ground for infallible Faith, nor a meet Judge of Controversies: (For unless I be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible, how can I be upon her Authority infallibly sure, that any thing she says is infallible?) If they have certain infallible means, and so cannot Err in the choice of their Church, and in [Page 154]interpreting her decrees, then they are able with Infal­libility to hear, examine, and determine all Controver­sies of Faith, although they pretend to make the Church their Guide, And thus against their own Doctrine, they constitute another Judge of Controversies, besides the Church alone. Nay every one makes himself a chooser of his own Religion, and of his own sense of the Churches decrees, which very thing in Protestants they so highly con­demn: and so in judging others, condemn themselves.

150. Neither in saying thus have I only cried quittance with you: but that you may see how much you are in my debt, I will shew unto you, that for your Sophism a­gainst our way, I have given you a Demonstration against yours. First, I say, your Argument against us, is a tran­sparent fallacy. The first part of it lies thus: Protestants have no means to interpret, without Error, obscure and ambiguous places of Scripture; therefore plain places of Scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of Faith. But though we pretend not to certain means of not Er­ring, in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous, yet this methinks should be no impediment but that we may have certainmeans of not Erring in and about the sense of those places, which are so plain and clear that they need no Interpreters; and in such we say our Faith is contained. If you ask me how I can be sure that I know the true [...]aning of these places? I ask you again, can you be [...] that you understand what I, or any man else says? They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles Preach, could they have sufficient assurance, that they understood at any time, what they would have them do? if not, to what end did they hear them? If they could, why may we not be as well assured, that we understand sufficiently, what we conceive plain in their writings?

151. Again I pray tell us, whether you do certainly know the sense of these Scriptures, with which you pre­tend you are led to the knowledg of your Church? If you do not, how know you that there is any Church Infallible, and that these are the Notes of it, and that, [Page 155]this is the Church that hath these Notes? If you do, then give us leave to have the same means, and the same abi­lities to know other plain places, which you have to know these. For if all Scripture be obscure, how come you to know the sense of these places? If some places of it be plain, why should we stay here?

152. And now, to come to the other part of your di­lemma; in saying, If they have certain means, and so can­not Err, methinks you forget your self very much, and seem to make no difference, between, having certain means to do a thing, and the actual doing of it. As if you should conclude, because all men have certain means of Salvation, therefore all men certainly must be saved, and cannot do otherwise; as if whosoever had a Horse must presently get up and Ride; Whosoever had means to find out a way, could not neglect those means and so mistake it, God be thanked, that we have suffici­ent means to be certain enough of the truth of our Faith. But the Priviledge of not being in possibility of Erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as you to do so: and you have none at all. If you ask, see­ing we may possibly Err, how can we be assured we do not? I ask you again, seeing your Eye-sight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the Sun, when you do see it? Perhaps you may be in a dream, and perhaps you, and all the men in the World have been so, when they thought they were awake, and then only awake, when they thought they Dreamt. But this I am sure of, as sure as that God is good, that he will require no impossi­bilities of us: not an Infallible, nor a certainly—uner­ring belief, unless he hath given us certain means to a­void Error; and if we use those which we have, will never require of us, that we use that which we have not.

153. Now from this mistaken ground, that it is all one to have means of avoiding Error, and to be in no danger nor possibility of Error; You infer upon us as an absurd conclusion, That we make our selves able to deter­mine Controversies of Faith with Infallibility, and Judges of Controversies. For the latter part of this inference, we ac­knowledge [Page 156]and embrace it. We do make our selves Judges of Controversies: that is, we do make use of our own under­standing in the choice of our Religion. But this, if it be a crime, is common to us with you, (as I have proved above) and the difference is, not that we are choosers, and you not choosers, but that we, as we conceive, choose wisely, but you being wilfully blind choose to follow those that are so too; not remembring what our Saviour hath told you, when the Blind lead the Blind, both shall fall into the Ditch. But then again I must tell you, you have done ill to confound together, Judges, and infallible Judges; unless you will say, either that we have no Judges in our Courts of Civil judicature, or that they are all Infallible.

154. Thus have we cast off your dilemma, and broken both the Horns of it. But now my retortion lies heavy upon you, and will not be turned off. For first you content not your selves with a moral certainty of the things you believe, nor with such a degree of assurance of them, as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant, which is all that we require. Gods Spi­rit, if he please, may Work more, and certainty of ad­herence beyond a certainty of evidence. But neither God doth, nor man may require of us, as our Duty, to give a greater assent to the conclusion than the premises deserve; to build an infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible, and not infallible, as it were a great and heavy building upon a Foundation that hath not strength proportionable. But though God require not of us such unreasonable things, You do, and tell men they cannot be saved, unless they believe your Pro­posals with an infallible Faith. To which end they must believe also your Propounder, your Church, to be simply Infallible. Now how is it possible for them to give a rational assent to the Churches infallibility, unless they have some infallible means to know that she is infallible? Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this means, but by some other, and so on for ever: unless they can dig so deep as to come at length to the Rock, that is, to settle all upon something evident of it self, which [Page 157]is not so much as pretended. But the last resolution of all is into Motives, which indeed upon examination will scarce appear probable, but are not so much as avouch­ed to be any more than very credible. For example, if I ask you why you do believe Transubstantiation? What can you answer, but because it is a Revelation of the prime Verity. I demand again, how can you assure your self or me of that, being ready to embrace it if it may appear to be so? And what can you say, but that you know it to be so, because the Church says so, which is Infallible. If I ask, what mean You by your Church? You can tell me nothing, but the Company of Christi­ans which adhere to the Pope. I demand then lastly: Why should I believe this Company to be the Infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation? And then you tell me, that there are many Motives to induce a Man to this belief. But are these Motives lastly infallible? No say you, but very credible. Well, let them pass for such, because now we have not leisure to examine them. Yet methinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches in­fallibility, are only very credible, it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible, and as credible, and no more, perhaps somewhat less, that her Proposals, particularly Transubstantiation, are Divine Revelations. And methinks You should require only a Moral, and Modest assent to them, and not a Divine as you call it, and Infallible Faith. But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility, I hope you will give us leave to consider, and judge whether they be indeed Motives, and sufficient; or whether they be not Motiues at all, or not sufficient; or whether these Motives or Inducements to your Church be not impeached, and opposed with Com­pulsives, and enforcements, from it; or lastly, whether these Motives which You use, be not indeed only Mo­tives to Christianity, and not to Popery: give me leave for distinction sake to call your Religion so. If we may not judge of these things, how can my judgment be mo­ved with that which comes not within its cognizance? If I may, then at least I am to be a Judge of all these [Page 158]Controversies. 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church? 2. If to some, whe­ther to Yours? 3. If to Yours, whether sufficient, or in­sufficient? 4. Whether other Societies have not as many, and as great Motives to draw me to them? 5. Whether I have not greater reason to believe you do Err, than that you cannot? And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions. Am I a sufficient Judge of these Controversies, or no? If of these, why shall I stay here, why not of others? Why not of all? Nay doth not the true examining of these few, contain and lay upon me the examination of all? What other Mo­tives to your Church have you, but your Notes of it? Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fif­teen contains in it the examination of all Controversies, and not only so, but of all uncontroverted Doctrines. For how shall I, or can I know the Church of Romes confor­mity with the Ancient Church, unless I know first what the Ancient Church did hold, and then what the Church of Rome doth hold; and lastly, whether they be conform­able, or if in my judgment they seem not conformable, I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church, for want of the Note which she pretends is pro­per, and perpetual to it. So that for ought I can see, Judges we are and must be of all sides, every one for himself, and God for us all.

155. §. 26.] C. M. I ask, whether this Assertion (Scrip­ture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith) be a Fun­damental point of Faith or no?

CHIL. I answer; This assertion, that Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith, if it be taken proper­ly, is neither a Fundamental nor Unfundamental point of Faith, nor no point of Faith at all, but a plain fals­hood. It is not a Judge of Controversies but a Rule to Judge them by; and that not an absolutely perfect Rule, but as perfect as a written Rule can be; which must al­ways need something else, which is either evidently true, or evidently credible to give attestation to it, and that in this case is Universal Tradition. So that Universal Tra­dition [Page 159]is the Rule to judge all Controversies by. But then because nothing besides Scripture, comes to us with as full a stream of Tradition as Scripture, Scripture alone, and no unwritten Doctrine, nor no Infallibility of any Church, having attestation from Tradition truly Univer­sal; for this reason we conceive, as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Judges of Con­troversies, so their Writings, now they are dead, are the only Rule for us to judge them by: There being nothing unwritten, which can go in upon half so fair Cards, for the Title of Apostolick Tradition, as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so: I mean the Doctrine of the Millinaries, and of the necessity of the Eu­charist for Infants.

156. Yet when we say, the Scripture is the only Rule to Judge all Controversies by, methinks you should easily conceive, that we would be understood of all those that are possible to be Judged by Scripture, and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture. For if I had a Controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no, I would not say, that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by: seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no, he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God: or if he does not, he grants the Question, and is not the man we speak of. So likewise, if I had a Controversie about the Truth of Christ with a Jew, it would be vainly done of me, should I press him with the Authority of the New Testament which he be­lieves not, until out of some Principles common to us both, I had persuaded him that it is the Word of God. The New Testament therefore while he remains a Jew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie; In as much as that which is doubted of it self, is not fit to determine other doubts. So likewise if there were any that believed Christian Religion, and yet believed not the Bible to be the Word of God, though they believed the matter of it to be true, (which is no impossible sup­position, for I may believe a Book of S. Austines, to con­tain nothing but the Truth of God, and yet not to have [Page 160]been inspired by God himself,) against such men there­fore there were no disputing out of the Bible; because nothing in question can be a proof to it self. When therefore we say the Scripture is a sufficient means to de­termine all Controversies, we say not this, either to Athe­ists, Jews, Turks, or such Christians (if there be any such) as believe not Scripture to be the Word of God. But among such men only, as are already agreed upon this, That the Scripture is the Word of God, we say all Con­troversies that arise about Faith, are either not at all de­cidable and consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other, or they may be determined by Scri­pture. In a Word, That all things necessary to be believed are evidently contained in Scripture, and what is not there evidently contained, cannot be necessary to be believed. And our reason hereof is convincing; because nothing can Challenge our belief, but what hath descended to us from Christ by Original and Universal Tradition: Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us, There­fore nothing but Scripture can Challenge our belief. Now then to come up closer to you, and to answer to your Question, not as you put it, but as you should have put it: I say, That this position, Scripture alone is the Rule whereby they which believe it to be Gods Word are to judge all Controversies in Faith, is no fundamental point. Though not for your Reasons: For your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I have done, and supposing in it that the par­ties at variance are agreed about this, That the Scripture is the Word of God; and consequently that this is none of their Controversies. To your second, That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority, We have said already, that necessary Controversies may be and are de­cided. And if they be not ended, this is not through de­fect of the Rule, but through the default of Men. And for these that cannot thus be ended, it is not necessary they should be ended. For if God did require the ending of them, he would have provided some certain means for the ending of them. And to your Third, I say, that [Page 161]your pretence of using these means is but hypocrital: for you use them with prejudice, and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these means happily may suggest into you, if it any way cross your pre-conceived perswasion of your Churches infallibility. You give not your selves liberty of judgment in the use of them, nor suffer your selves to be led by them to the Truth, to which they would lead you, would you but be as willing to be­lieve this consequence, Our Church doth oppose Scripture, therefore it doth err, therefore it is not Infallible, as you are resolute to believe this, The Church is Infallible, there­fore it doth not err, and therefore it doth not oppose Scri­pture, though it seem to do so never so plainly.

157. You pray, but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion, but that he would confirm you in your own. You confer places, but it is that you may confirm, or colour over with plausible disguises your er­roneous doctrine, not that you may judge of them and forsake them if there be reason for it. You consult the Originals, but you regard them not when they make against your Doctrin or Translation.

159. Notwithstanding, though not for these reasons, yet for others, I conceive this Doctrin not Fundamental: Be­cause if a man should believe Christian Religion wholly, and entirely, and live according to it, such a man, though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, no nor to be the Word of God, my opini­on is he may be saved; and my reason is, because he per­forms the entire condition of the new Covenant, which is, that we believe the matter of the Gospel, and not that it is contained in these or these Books. So that the Books of Scripture are not so much the objects of our Faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding; and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrin, as re­quisite to the well-being of it. Iraeneus tells us (as M. K. acknowledgeth) of some barbarous Nations, that believed the Doctrin of Christ, and yet believed not the Scripture to be the Word of God, for they never heard of it, and Faith comes by hearing: But these barbarous people might be saved: [Page 162]therefore men might be saved without believing the Scri­pture to be the Word of God; much more without belie­ving it to be a Rule, and a perfect Rule of Faith. Neither doubt I, but if the Books of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church, where they had been before received, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by those barbarous Nations, but still by the bare belief and practice of Christianity, they might be saved: God requiring of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verities therein contained, and not the divine Authority of the Books wherein they are contained. Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable, if a man should believe the matter of these Books, and not the Authority of the Books: and therefore if a man should profess the not believing of these, I should have reason to fear he did not believe that. But there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the be­lief whereof there is an equal reason. We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the VIII. King of England, as that Jesus Christ suffered un­der Pontius Pilate: yet this is necessary to be believed, and that is not so. So that if any man should doubt of or dis­believe that, it were most unreasonably done of him, yet it were no mortal sin, nor no sin at all: God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to be­lieve all which reason induceth them to believe. There­fore as an Executor, that should perform the whole Will of the dead, should fully satisfie the Law, though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will, which in­deed is so: So I believe, that he who believes all the par­ticular doctrines which integrate Christianity, and lives according to them, should be saved, though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists, or the Epistles by the Apostles.

160. This discourse whether it be rational and conclu­ding or no, I submit to better judgment; But sure I am, that the corollary which you draw from this position, that this point is not Fundamental, is very inconsequent; that is, that we are uncertain of the truth of it, because we say the [Page 163]whole Church, much more particular Churches and pri­vate men may err in points not Fundamental. A pretty Sophism, depending upon this Principle, that whosoever possibly may err, he cannot be certain that he doth not err. And upon this ground, what shall hinder me from concluding, that seeing you also hold, that neither parti­cular Churches, nor private men are Infallible even in Fundamentals, that even the Fundamentals of Christiani­ty, remain to you uncertain? A Judge may possibly err in judgment, can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right? A Traveller 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? These you see are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like your own, as an Egg to an Egg, or Milk to Milk.

163. Ad §. 27.] C. M. S. Austin plainly affirms that to oppose the Churches definitions is to resist God himself (speaking of the Controversie of Rebaptization de Unit. Eccl. cap. 22.) where he saith that Christ bears witness to his Church, and whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church, doth resist our Saviour himself, who by his testimony recommends the Church, &c.

CHIL. I Answer, First that in many things you will not be tried by S. Augustines judgment, nor submit to his au­thority; not concerning Appeals to Rome, not concerning Transubstantiation, not touching the use and worshiping of Images, not concerning the State of Saints souls before the day of judgment, not touching the Virgin Maries free­dom from actual and original sin, not touching the ne­cessity of the Eucharist for Infants, not touching the damning Infants to Hell that die without Baptism, not touching the knowledge of Saints departed, not touching Purgatory, not touching the fallibility of Councils, even general Councils, not touching perfection and perspicui­ty of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation, not touch­ing Auricular Confession, not touching the half Commu­nion, [Page 164]not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue; In these things, I say, you will not stand to S. Austines judg­ment, and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter. 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists, and ransacking all places for arguments against them, we oppose S. Austine out of this heat, delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmly, and moderately; where he says, In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris Scriptur is, omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi. 3. We say, he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholick Church, of far greater extent, and there­fore of far greater credit and authority than the Roman Church. 4 He speaks of a point not expressed, but yet not contradicted by Scripture; whereas the errors we charge you with, are contradicted by Scripture. 5. He says not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an In­fallible definer of all emergent controversies, but for a credible witness of Ancient Tradition. Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the Church (understand of all pla­ces and ages) though he be thought to resist our Saviour, what is that to us, who cast off no practiecs of the Church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apo­stles, and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times. Lastly it is evident, and even to impudence it self undeniable, that upon this ground, of believing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ, Error was held, for example, the necessity of the Eucha­rist for Infants, and that in S. Austines time, and that by S. Austine himself: and therefore without controversie this is no certain ground for truth, which may support falshood as well as truth.

164. To the Argument wherewith you conclude, I An­swer, That though the visible Church shall always with­out fail propose so much of Gods revelation, as is suffici­ent to bring men to Heaven, for otherwise it will not be the visible Church, yet it may sometimes add to this reve­lation things superfluous, nay hurtful, nay in themselves damnable, though not unpardonable; and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable, and therefore [Page 165]it is possible, without sin, to resist in some things the Vi­sible Church of Christ. But you press us farther, and de­mand, what Visible Church was extant, when Luther began, whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church? As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman, or Roman of necessity, if it were not Protestant! yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your disputers, by some specious Argu­ments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church; and thence to infer, that without doubt it must be the Roman. But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it, and the Grecian another? And if one must be the whole, why not the Greek Church, as well as the Roman? there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own; unless it be, that she is poor, and oppressed by the Turk, and you are in glory and splendor.

CHAP. III. The ANSWER to the Third CHAPTER.

1. This distinction is imployed by Protestants to many purposes, and therefore if it be pertinent and good, (as they understand and apply it) the whole Edifice built thereon, must be either firm and stable, or if it be not, it cannot be for any default in this distinction.

2. If you object to them discords in matter of faith without any means of agreement, They will answer you, that they want not good and solid means of agreement in matters necessary to salvation, viz. Their belief of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture; which who so believes, must of necessity believe all things necessary to salvation: and their mutual suffering one [Page 166]another, to abound in their several sense, in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered. And for their agreement in all Controversies of Religion, either they have means to agree about them, or not: If you say they have, why did you before deny it? If they have not means, why do you find fault with them, for not agreeing?

3. You will say, that their fault is, that by remaining Protestants they exclude themselves from the means of agree­ment, which you have, and which by submission to your Church they might have also. But if you have means of agreement, the more shame for you that you still disagree. For who, I pray, is more inexcusably guilty, for the omis­sion of any duty; they that either have no means to do it, or else know of none they have, which puts them in the same case as if they had none: or they which profess to have an easie and expedite means to do it, and yet still leave it undone? If you had been blind (saith our Saviour to the Pharisees) you had had no sin, but now you say you see, therefore your sin remaineth.

4. If you say, you do agree in matters of Faith, I say this is ridiculous: for you define matters of Faith to be those wherein you agree. So that to say, you agree in matters of Faith, is to say, you agree in those things wherein you do agree. And do not Protestants do so likewise? Do not they agree in those things, wherein they do agree?

5. But you are all agreed that only those things wherein you do agree are matters of Faith. And Protestants if they were wise, would do so too. Sure I am they have reason enough to do so: seeing all of them agree with explicite Faith in all those things, which are plainly and undoubtedly deli­vered in Scripture, that is, in all which God hath plainly revealed: and with an implicite Faith, in that sense of the whole Scripture which God intended whatsoever it was. Secondly, That which you pretend is false; for else, why do some of you hold it against Faith, to take or allow the Oath of Allegiance, others as learned and honest as they, that it is against Faith and unlawful to refuse it and allow the refusing of it? Why do some of you hold, that it is de Fide, that the Pope is Head of the Church by divine [Page 167]Law, others the contrary? Some hold it de Fide, that the Blessed Virgin was free from Actual sin, others that it is not so. Some, that the Popes indirect power over Princes in temporalties is de Fide, Others the contrary. Some, that it is Universal Tradition, and consequently de Fide, that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin, others the contrary.

6. But what shall we say now, if you be not agreed touching your pretended means of agreement, how then can you pretend to Unity either Actual or Potential more than Protestants may? Some of you say, the Pope alone without a Council may determine all Controversies: But others deny it. Some, that a General Council without a Pope may do so: Others deny this. Some, Both in conjunction are infallible determiners: Others again de­ny this. Lastly, some among you, hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councils by the Universal Church to be the only way to decide Controversies: which others deny, by denying the Church to be Infallible. And in­deed what way of ending Cotroversies can this be, when either part may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and they receive not the decree, therefore the whole Church hath not received it?

7. Again, Means of agreeing differences are either Rational and well grounded and of Gods appointment, or voluntary and taken up at the pleasure of men. Means of the former nature, we say, you have as little as we. For where hath God appointed, that the Pope, or a Coun­cil, or a Council confirmed by the Pope, or that Society of Christians which adhere to him, shall be the Infallible Judge of Controversies. I desire you to shew any one of these Assertions plainly set down in Scripture, (as in all Reason a thing of this nature should be) or at least de­livered with a full consent of Fathers, or at least taught in plain terms by any one Father for four Hundred years after Christ. And if you cannot do this (as I am sure you cannot) and yet will still be obtruding your selves upon us for our Judges, who will not cry out, — perisse frontem de rebus? that you have lost all modesty?

8. But then for means of the other kind, such as yours are, we have great abundance of them. For besides all the ways which you have devised, which we may make use of when we please, we have a great many more, which you yet have never thought of, for which we have as good colour out of Scripture as you have for yours. For first, we could if we would, try it by Lots, whose Do­ctrine is true, and whose false. And you know it is written, Prov. 16.33. The Lot is cast into the Lap, but the whole dispo­sition of it is from the Lord. 2. We could refer them to the King, and you know it is written: Prov. 16.10. A Divine sen­tence is in the Lips of the King, his mouth transgresseth not in judgment. Prov. 21.1. The Heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord. We could refer the matter to any assembly of Christians assembled in the name of Christ, seeing it is written, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. We may refer it to any Priest, because it is written, Mat. 2.7. The Priests Lips shall pre­serve knowledge. Mat. 25.2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, &c. To any Preacher of the Gospel, to any Pa­stor, or Doctor, for to every one of them Christ hath promised Mat. 28.20. he will he with them alwaies even to the end of the World: and of every one of them it is said, Luk. 10.16. He that heareth you heareth me, &c. To any Bishop or Prelate, for it is written, Heb. 13.17. Obey your Prelates, and again Eph. 4.11. he hath given Pastors and Doctors, &c. lest we should be car­ried about with every wind of Doctrine. To any particular Church of Christians, seeing it is a particular Church which is called 1 Tim. 3.15. The House of God, a Pillar and ground of Truth: and seeing of any particular Church it is written Mat. 18.17. He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican. We might refer it to any man that prays for Gods Spirit, for it is written, Mat. 7.8. Every one that asketh receiveth: and again, Jam. 1.5. If any man want Wis­dom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. Lastly, we might refer it to the Jews, for without all doubt of them it is written, Isai. 59.21. my Spirit that is in thee, &c. All these means of agreement, where­of not any one but hath as much probability from Scri­pture, Mat. 18.20. [Page 169]as that which you obtrude upon us, offer them­selves upon a sudden to me: happily many more might be thought on, if we had time, but these are enough to shew, that would we make use of voluntary and devised means to determine differences, we had them in great abundance. And if you say these would fail us, and contradict themselves; so, as we pretend, have yours. There have been Popes against Popes: Councils against Councils: Councils confirmed by Popes, against Coun­cils confirmed by Popes: Lastly, the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages.

9. Lastly, whereas you find fault, That Protestants up­braided with their discords, answer that they differ only in points not Fundamental, I desire you tell me whether they do so, or do not so; If they do so, I hope you will not find fault with the Answer: If you say they do not so, but in points Fundamental also; then they are not mem­bers of the same Church one with another, no more than with you: And therefore why should you object to any of them, their differences from each other, any more than to your selves, their more and greater differences from you?

10. But they are convinced sometime even by their own confessions, that the Ancient Fathers taught divers points of Popery: and then they reply, those Fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those Errors were not Fundamental. And may not you also be convinced by the confessions of your own men, that the Fathers taught divers points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome, and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome? Do not your Purg­ing Indexes, clip the Tongues, and seal up the Lips of a great many for such confessions? And is not the above cited confession of your Doway Divines, plain and full to the same purpose? And do not you also, as freely as we, charge the Fathers with Errors, and yet say they were saved? Now what else do we understand by an unfundamental Error, but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved? So that still you proceed in con­demning others for your own faults, and urging argu­ments [Page 170]against us, which return more strongly upon your selves.

11. But your will is, we should remember that Christ must alwaies have a visible Church. Answ. Your pleasure shall be obeyed, on condition you will not forget, that there is a difference between perpetual Visibility, and perpetual Purity. As for the answer, which you make for us, true it is, we believe the Catholick Church cannot perish, yet that she may, and did Err in points not Fundamen­tal; and that Protestants were obliged to forsake these Errors of the Church, as they did, though not the Church for her Errors, for that they did not, but continued still members of the Church. For it is not all one (though you perpetually confound them) to forsake the Errors of the Church, and to forsake the Church: or to forsake the Church in her Errors, and simply to forsake the Church: No more than it is for me to renounce my Brothers or my Friends Vices or Errors, and to re­nounce my Brother or my Friend. The former then was done by Protestants, the latter was not done. Nay not only not from the Catholick, but not so much as from the Roman, did they separate per omnia, but only in those practices which they conceived superstitious or im­pious. If you would at this time propose a form of Li­turgy, which both Sides hold lawful, and then they would not joyn with you in this Liturgy, you might have some colour then to say, they renounce your com­munion absolutely. But as things are now ordered, they cannot joyn with you in prayers, but they must partake with you in unlawful practices, and for this reason, they (not absolutely, but thus far) separate from your commu­nion. And this, I say, they were obliged to do under pain of damnation. Not as if it were damnable to hold an Error not damnable, but because it is damnable out­wardly to profess and maintain it, and to joyn with o­thers in the practice of it, when inwardly they did not hold it. Now had they continued in your communion, that they must have done, vid. have professed to be­lieve and externally practised your Errors, whereof they [Page 171]were convinced that they were Errors: which though the matters of the Errors had been not necessary, but only profitable, whether it had not been damnable dis­simulation and Hypocrisie, I leave it to you to Judge. You your self tell us within two pages after this, that you are obliged never to speak any one least lie against your knowledge, §, 2. now what is this but to live in a per­petual lie?

12. As for that which in the next place you seem so to wonder at, That both Catholicks and Protestants, ac­cording to the opinion of Protestants, may be saved in their several professions, because forsooth, we both agree in all Fun­damental points: I Answer, this proposition so crudely set down, as you have here set it down, I know no Pro­testant will justifie. For you seem to make them teach, that it is an indifferent thing, for the attainment of Sal­vation, whether a man believe the Truth or the Falshood; and that they care not in whether of these Religions a man live or die, so he die in either of them: whereas all that they say is this, That those amongst you which want means to find the Truth and so die in Error, or use the best means they can with industry, and without partiality to find the Truth, and yet die in Error, these men, thus qualified, notwithstanding these Errors may be saved. Secondly, for those that have means to find the Truth, and will not use them, they conceive, though their case be dangerous, yet if they die with a general repentance for all their sins, known and unknown, their Salvation is not desperate. The Truths which they hold, of Faith in Christ, and Repentance, being as it were an Antidote against their Errors, and their negligence in seeking the Truth. Especially seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply, and indispensably necessary to salvation.

13. Obj. But seeing we make such various use of this di­stinction, is it not prodigiously strange that we will never be induced to give in a particular Catalogue what points be Fun­damental?

Answ. And why I pray is it so prodigiously strange that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand? God him­self hath told us, Luk. 12.48. That where much is given, much shall be required; where little is given, little shall be required. To Infants, Deaf-men, Mad-men, nothing for out we know, is given, and if it be so, of them nothing shall be required. Others perhaps may have means only given them to be­lieve, Heb. 6.11. That God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him; and to whom thus much only is given, to them it shall not be damnable, that they believe but only thus much. Which methinks is very manifest from the Apo­stle, in the Epist. to the Heb. where having first said, that without Faith it is impossible to please God, he subjoyns as his reason, for whosoever cometh unto God, must believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. Where in my opinion, this is plainly intimated, that this is the minimum quòd sic, the lowest degree of Faith, where­with, in men capable of Faith, God will be pleased: and that with this lowest degree he will be pleased, where means of rising higher are deficient. Besides, if without this belief, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, God will not be pleased, then his will is that we should believe it. Now his will it cannot be, that we should believe a falshood: It must be therefore true, that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. Now it is possi­ble that they which never heard of Christ, may seek God, therefore it is true that even they shall please him, and be rewarded by him; I say rewarded, not with bringing them immediately to Salvation without Christ, but with bringing them according to his good pleasure, first, to Faith in Christ, and so to Salvation. To which belief the story of Cornelius in the 10. chap. of the Acts of the Apostles, and S. Peters Words to him, are to me a great inducement. For first it is evident he believed not in Christ, but was a meer Gentile, and one that knew not but men might be wor­shiped, and yet we are assured that his Prayers and Alms (even while he was in that state) came up for a memorial be­fore God; That his Prayer was heard, and his Alms had in re­membrance in the sight of God. v. 4. that upon this, Then fearing [Page 173]God and working righteousness, (such as it was) he was accep­ted with God. But how accepted? Not to be brought im­mediately to Salvation, but to be promoted to a higher degree of the knowledge of Gods will: For so it is in the 4. & 5. v. Call for Simon whose firname is Peter, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do, and at the 33. vers. We are all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. So that though even in his Gentilism, he was ac­cepted in his present state, yet if he had continued in it, and refused to believe in Christ after the sufficient Revelation of the Gospel to him, and Gods will to have him believe it, he that was accepted before, would not have continued accepted still; for then that condemnation had come up­on him, than light was come unto him, and he loved Dark­ness more that Light. So that (to proceed a step farther) to whom Faith in Christ is sufficiently propounded, as necessary to Salvation, to them it is simply necessary and Fundamental to believe in Christ, that is, to expect re­mission of sins, and Salvation from him, upon the per­formance of the conditions he requires; among which conditions one is, that we believe what he has revealed ed, when it is suficiently declared, to have been reveal­by him: For by doing so, we set to our Seal, that God is true, and that Christ was sent by him. Now that may be sufficiently declared to one (all things considered,) which, (all things considered) to another is not sufficiently de­clared: and consequently that may be Fundamental and necessary to one, which to another is not so. Which Variety of circumstances, makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals, and proves your request as reasonable, as if you should desire us (accor­ding to the Fable) to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes; or to give you a Garment that will fit all statures; Or to make you a Dyal to serve all Meri­dians; or to design particularly, what Provision will serve an Army for a Year: whereas there may be an Army of Ten Thousand, there may be of 100000. And there­fore without seting down a Catalogue of Fundamentals in particular (because none that can be given, can Universally [Page 174]serve for all men, God requiring more of them to whom he gives more, and less of them to whom he gives less) we must content our selves by a general description to tell you what is Fundamental. And to warrant us in doing so, we have your own example, §. 19. where be­ing engaged to give us a Catalogue of Fundamentals, instead thereof you tell us only in general, that all is Fundamental, and not to be disbelieved under pain of damna­tion, which the Church hath defined. As you therefore think it enough to say in general, that all is Fundamental which the Church has defined, without setting down in particu­lar a compleat Catalogue of all things, which in any Age the Church has defined (which I believe you will not undertake to do, and if you do, it will be contra­dicted by your Fellows:) So in reason you might think it enough for us also to say in general, that it is suffici­ent for any mans Salvation, to believe that the Scripture is true, and contains all things necessary for Salvation; and to do his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it: without delivering any particular Catalogue of the Fun­damentals of Faith.

14. Neither doth the want of such a Catalogue leave us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pretend. For though perhaps we cannot exactly distinguish in the Scripture, what is revealed because it is necessary, from what is ne­cessary consequently and accidentally, meerly because it is re­vealed: yet we are sure enough, that all that is necessary any way is there, and therefore in believing all that is there, we are sure to believe all that is necessary. And if we Err from the true and intended sense of some, nay of many obscure or ambiguous Texts of Scripture, yet we may be sure enough, that we Err not damnably: because, if we do indeed desire and endeavour to find the Truth, we may be sure we do so, and as sure that it cannot consist with the revealed goodness of God, to damn him for Error, that desires and indeavours to find the Truth.

15. Ad §. 2.] The effect of this Paragraph (for as much as concerns us) is this, that for any man to deny belief [Page 175]to any one thing be it great or small known by him, to be revealed by Almighty God for a truth, is in effect to charge God with falshood: for it is to say that God affirms that to be Truth, which he either knows to be not a Truth, or which he doth not know to be a Truth: and therefore without all Controversie this is a damnable sin. To this I subscribe with Hand and Heart: adding withal, that not only he which knows, but he which believes (nay though it be erroneously) any thing to be revealed by God, and yet will not believe it, nor assent unto it, is in the same case, and commits the same sin of derogation from Gods most perfect and pure Veracity.

16. Ad §. 3.] I said purposely (known by himself, and believes himself) For as, without any disparagement of a mans Honesty, I may believe something to be false, which he affirms, of his certain knowledge to be true, provi­ded I neither know nor believe that he has so affirmed: So without any the least dishonour to Gods Eternal ne­ver failing Veracity, I may doubt of, or deny some truth revealed by him, if I neither know nor believe it to be revealed by him.

19. But ignorance of what we are expresly bound to know, is it self a fault, and therefore cannot be an excuse: and therefore if you could shew the Protestants differ in those points, the truth whereof (which can be but one) they were bound expresly to know, I should easily yield that one side must of necessity be in a mortal Crime. But for want of proof of this, you content your self only to say it; and therefore I also might be contented only to deny it, yet I will not, but give a reason for my de­nial. And my reason is, because our obligation expres­ly to know any Divine Truth, must arise from Gods manifest revealing of it, and his revealing unto us that he has revealed it, and that his will is, we should believe it: Now in the points controverted among Protestants, he hath not so dealt with us, therefore he hath not laid any such obligation upon us. The major of this Syl­logism is evident, and therefore I will not stand to prove it. The minor also will be evident to him that [Page 176]considers, that in all the Controversies of Protestants, there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture, Reason with Reason, Authority with Authority: which how it can consist with the manifest revealing of the truth of either Side, I cannot well understand. Besides, though we grant that Scripture, Reason and Authority, were all on one side, and the apparences of the other side all answerable: yet if we consider the strange power that education and prejudices instilled by it, have over even excellent understandings, we may well imagine, that many truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a man, prepossest with contrary opinions, not revealed plainly. Neither doubt I but God, who knows whereof we are made, and what passions we are subject unto, will compassionate such in­firmities, and not enter into judgment with us for those things, which, all things considered, were unavoidable.

20. Obj. But till Fundamentals (say you) be sufficiently proposed (as revealed by God) it is not against Faith to reject them; or rather it is not possible prudently to believe them: And points unfundamental being thus sufficiently proposed as divine Truths, may not be denied; Therefore you conclude there is no difference between them: Answ. A Circumstan­tial point, may by accident become Fundamental, be­cause it may be so proposed that the denial of it, will draw after it the denial of this Fundamental truth, that all which God says is true. Notwithstanding in themselves there is a main difference between them: Points Fundamen­tal being those only which are revealed by God, and com­manded to be Preach'd to all, and believed by all. Points circumstantial being such, as though God hath revealed them, yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under pain of Damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where, and the People may be securely ig-norant of them.

21. Obj. You say, Not Erring in points Fundamental, is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church; because any Error maintained by it against Gods Revelation is destructive. I answer. If you mean against Gods Revelation known [Page 169]by the Church to be so, it is true; but impossible that the Church should do so, for ipso Facto in doing it, it were a Church no longer. But if you mean against some Reve­lation, which the Church by error thinks to be no Reve­lation, it is false. The Church may ignorantly disbelieve such a Revelation, and yet continue a Church; which thus I prove. That the Gospel was to be preached to all Nations, was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascen­sion, in these words, Go and teach all Nations. Mat. 29.19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause, the Church disbelieved it, as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts, until the conversion of Cor­nelius, and yet was still a Church. Therefore to disbe­lieve some divine Revelation, not knowing it to be so, is not destructive of salvation, or of the being of the Church. Again, It is a plain Revelation of God, that 1 Cor. 11.2 [...]. the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist should be administred in both kinds; and 1 Cor. 14, 15, 16.26. that the publick Hymns and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification; yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing, by rea­son of the veil before their eyes, their Churches supposed infallibility, I hope the denial of them shall not be laid to their charge, no otherwise than as building hay and stubble on the Foundations, not overthrowing the Foundation it self.

24. Ad §. 5. This Paragraph, if it be brought out of the Clouds, will I believe have in it these Propositions. 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures. 2. The Nature of Faith is taken, not from the matter believed, for then they that believed different matters should have different Faiths, but from the Motive to it. 3. This Motive is Gods Re­velation. 4. This Revelation is alike for all objects. 5. Pro­testants disagree in things equally revealed by God: Therefore they forsake the formal motive of Faith: and therefore have no faith nor unity therein. Which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up a weak discourse, where­in both the Propositions are false for matter, confused and disordered for the form, and the conclusion utterly in consequent. First for the second Proposition, who knows not that the Essence of all Habits (and therefore of Faith [Page 170]among the rest) is taken from their Act, and their Ob­ject? If the Habit be general, from the Act and Object in general, if the Habit be special, from the Act and Object in special. Then for the motive to a thing, that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moves, who can doubt, that knows that a motive is an efficient cause: and that the efficient is always extrinsecal to the effect? For the fourth, that Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects, It is ambiguous: and if the sense of it be, that his Revelation is an equal Motive to induce us to believe all objects re­vealed by him, it is true, but impertinent: If the sense of it be, that all objects revealed by God are alike (that is, alike plainly and undoubtedly) revealed by him, it is perti­nent, but most untrue. Witness the great diversity of Texts of Scripture, whereof some are so plain and evident, that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them. Some are so obscure and ambiguous, that to say this or this is the certain sense of them, were high presumption. For the 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselves perhaps, but not equally to them: whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned, and shaped for the entertainment of various O­pinions, and consequently some of them, more inclined to believe such a sense of Scripture, others to believe ano­ther; which to say that God will not take into his consi­deration in judging mens Opinions, is to disparage his goodness. But to what purpose is it, that these things are equally revealed to both, (as the light is equally revealed to all blind men,) if they be not fully revealed to either? The sense of this Scripture, Why are they then baptized for the dead? and this, He shall be saved, yet so as by fire, and a thousand others, is equally revealed to you and to ano­ther interpreter, that is certainly to neither. He now con­ceives one sense of them, and you another; and would it not be an excellent inference, if I should conclude now as you do; That you forsake the formal motive of Faith, which is Gods Revelation, and consequently lose all faith and unity therein? So likewise the Jesuits and Domini­cans, the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things [Page 171]equally revealed by Almighty God: and seeing they do so, I beseech you let me understand, why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all faith and unity therein? Thus you have failed of your undertaking in your first part of your Title, and that is a very ill omen, especially in points of so streight mutual dependance, that we shall have but slender performance in your second assumpt. Which is, That the Church is Infallible in all her Definitions, whether concerning points Fundamental, or not Fundamental.

26. Ad §. 9.10, 11. I grant that the Church cannot with­out damnable sin, either deny any thing to be true, which she knows to be Gods truth: or propose any thing as his truth, which she knows not to be so. But that she may not do this by ignorance or mistake, and so without damnable sin, that you should have proved, but have not. But, say you this excuse cannot serve: for if the Church be assisted only for points fundamental, she cannot but know that she may err in points not fundamental. Ans. It does not follow, unless you suppose, that the Church knows that she is assisted no far­ther. But if, being assisted only so far, she yet did con­ceive by error her assistance absolute and unlimited, or if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentals, she yet conceived by error, that she should be guarded, from proposing any thing but what was fundamental, then the consequence is apparently false. But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not funda­mental, to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith. Ans. Neither is this destruction worth any thing; unless it be understood of such fundamental points, as she is not war­ranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture. Indeed if she propose such, as matters of Faith certainly true, she may well be questioned, Quo Warranto? She builds with­out a foundation, and says thus saith the Lord, when the Lord doth not say so: which cannot be excused from rash­ness and high presumption; such a presumption, as an Embassador should commit, who should say in his Masters name that for which he hath no commission. Of the same [Page 172]nature, I say, but of a higher strain: as much as the King of Heaven, is greater than any earthly King. But though she may err in some points not fundamental, yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others; as for ex­ample, these, That Abraham begat Isaac, that S. Paul had a Cloak, that Timothy was sick; because these, though not fundamental, i. e. no essential parts of Christianity, yet are evidently, and undeniably set down in Scripture, and consequently, may be without all rashness proposed by the Church as certain divine Revelations. Neither is your Argument concluding when you say, If in such things she may be deceived, she must be always uncertain of all such things. For my sense may sometimes possibly deceive me, yet I am certain enough that I see what I see, and feel what I feel. Our Judges are not infallible in their judg­ments, yet are they certain enough, that they judge aright, and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given, when they condemn a Thief, or a Murderer to the Gallows. A Travelleris not always certain of his way, but often mistaken; and does it therefore follow that he can have no assurance that Charing-Cross is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall? The ground of your error here, is your not distinguishing, between actual certainty and absolute infallibillty. Geometricians are not infalli­ble in their own Science: yet they are very certain of those things, which they see demonstrated. And Carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their Rule and Square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain, that in all her defini­tions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her Rule, yet be­ing certain of the infallibility of her Rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the Truth of some particular De­crees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true.

27. Ad §. 12. Obj. But if the Church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing Scripture, and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been deceived already.

Ans. The Church may err in her proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture, if you understand by the Church, any present Church of one denomination, for example, the Roman, the Greek, or so. Yet have we suffi­cient certainty of Scripture, not from the bare testi­mony of any present Church, but from Universal Tra­dition, of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part. So that here you fall into the Fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. For in effect this is the sense of your Argument: Unless the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty of Scripture from the authority of the Church: Therefore unless the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty hereof at all. As if a man should say; If the Vintage of France miscarry, we can have no Wine from France: Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all. And for the in­corruption of Scripture, I know no other rational assu­rance we can have of it, than such as we have of the in­corruption of other ancient Books, that is, the consent of ancient Copies: such I mean for the kind, though it be far greater for the degree of it. And if the Spirit of God give any man any other assurance hereof, this is not rational and discursive, but supernatural and infused. An assu­rance it may be to himself, but no argument to another. As for the Infallibility of the Church, it is so far from be­ing a proof of the Scriptures incorruption, that no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of Scripture: which yet are as subject to corruption as any other, and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been possi­ble) than any other, and made to speak as they do, for the advantage of those men, whose ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their authority. Now then, if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupt­ed, because the Church says so which is infallible: I would demand again touching this very thing, that there is an infallible Church, seeing it is not of it self evident, how shall I be assured of it? And what can he answer, but that the Scripture says so in these and these places? Hereupon I would ask him, how shall I be assured, that the Scriptures [Page 174]are incorrupted in those places? seeing it is possible, and not altogether improbable, that these men, which desire to be thought infallible, when they had the government of all things in their own hands, may have altered them for their purpose. If to this he answer again, that the Church is infallible, and therefore cannot do so. I hope it would be apparent, that he runs round in a circle, and proves the Scriptures incorruption, by the Churches infallibility, and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorrupti­on, and that is in effect the Churches infallibility, by the Churches infallibility, and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption.

28. Now for your observation, that some Books, which were not always known to be Canonical, have been afterwards received for such. But never any book or syllable defined for Canonical, was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal: I demand, touching the first sort, whether they were com­mended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonical or not? If not, seeing the whole Faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church, and seeing after the Apostles, the Church pretends to no new Revelations, how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canonical? And how can you pretend, that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith, is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine Truth which is not revealed by God? If they were, how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture, which hath suffered some Books of Canonical Scripture, to be lost? and others to lose for a long time their being Canonical, at least, the necessity of being so esteemed, and afterwards, as it were by the law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalness unto them? If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church, the point was sufficiently discus­sed, and therefore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages, as an article of faith, nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith, and putting it among disputa­ble problems, was surely not very laudable. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to the Church, then can it be no Revelation, and there­fore [Page 175]her presumption in proposing it as such, is inex­cusable.

29. And then for the other part of it, that never any book or syllable defined for Canonical, was afterwards questi­oned or rejected for Apocryphal: Certainly it is a bold asseve­ration, but extreamly false. For I demand; The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, the Epistle of S. James, and to the Hebrews, were they by the Apostles approved for Canoni­cal, or no? If not, with what face dare you approve them, and yet pretend that all your doctrin is Apostolical? Espe­cially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational discourse from any other defined by them. If they were approved by them, this I hope was a sufficient definition: and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard, and say, that these Books were never questioned. But if you do so, then I shall be bold to ask you, what Books you meant in saying before, Some Books which were not always known to be Canonical, have been afterwards re­ceived? Then for the Book of Macchabes, I hope you will say, it was defined for Canonical before S. Gregories time: and yet he, lib. 19. Moral, c. 13. citing a testimo­ny out of it, prefaceth to it after this matter, Concerning which matter we do not amiss if we produce a testimony out of Books although not Canonical, yet set forth, for the edification of the Church. For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees, &c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonical, is without question, at least to question it. Moreover, be­cause you are so punctual, as to talk of words and syllables, I would know whether before Sixtus Quintus his time, your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture, or not? If not, then was your Church surely a most vigilant keeper of Scripture, that for 1500. years had not defined what was Scripture, and what was not. If it had, then I de­mand, was it that, set forth by Sixtus, or that, set forth by Clement, or a third different from both? If it were that set forth by Sixtus, then is it now condemned by Clement: if that of Clement, it was condemned I say, but sure you will say contradicted and questioned by Sixtus; If diffe­rent from both, then was it questioned and condemned [Page 176]by both, and still lies under the condemnation. But then lastly, suppose it had been true, That both some Book not known to be Canonical had been received, and that never any after receiving had been questioned: How had this been a sign that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost? In what mood or figure, would this conclusion follow out of these Premises? Certainly your flying to such poor signs, as these are, is to me a great sign, that you labour with penury of better arguments: and that, thus to catch at shadows and bulrushes, is a shrewd sign of a sinking cause.

30. Ad §. 13. We are told here, That the general pro­mises of Infallibility to the Church, must not be restrained only to points fundamental: Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained.

Ans. This also may be done, but if it be done, may easi­ly be confuted. It is done to our hand in this very Para­graph, by five words taken out of Scripture, All Scripture is divinely inspired. Shew but as much for the Church: Shew where it is written, That all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired; and the Controversie will be at an end. Besides, there is not the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility, as for the Apostles and Scriptures. For if the Church fall into error, it may be reformed by com­paring it with the rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scri­pture. But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the do­ctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we have recourse, for the discovering and correcting their error? Again, there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation: and if but wise men have the ordering of the building, they will make it much a surer thing, that the foundation shall not fail the building, than that the building shall not fall from the foundation. And though the building be to be of Brick or Stone, and perhaps of Wood, yet if it may be possibly, they will have a Rock for their foundation, whose stability is a much more indubi­table thing, than the adherence of the structure to it. Now the Apostles and Prophets, and Canonical Writers, are the foundation of the Church, according to that of S. Paul, [Page 177]built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets; therefore their stability, in reason ought to be greater than the Chur­ches, which is built upon them. Again, a dependent In­fallibility (especially if the dependence be voluntary) can­not be so certain, as that on which it depends: But the In­fallibility of the Church, depends upon the Infallibility of the Apostles, and the streightness of the thing regulated, upon the streightness of the Rule: and besides this depen­dence is voluntary, for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule; being nothing else but an aggre­gation of men, of which every one has free will, and is subject to passions and error: Therefore the Churehes in­fallibility, is not so certain as that of the Apostles.

31. Lastly, Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? If you be so infallible as the Apostles were, shew it as the A­postles did; They went forth (saith S. Mark) and Preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming their words with Signs following. It is impossible that God should lie, and that the eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falshood, or of such Do­ctrin as is partly true and partly false. The Apostles Do­ctrin was thus confirmed, therefore it was intirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain divine Truth, and which had the Attestation of Divine Mira­cles. For that the Apostles themselves, even after the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and through inadver­tence or prejudice, continued for a time in an error, re­pugnant to a revealed Truth, it is as I have already noted unanswerably evident, from the story of the Acts of the A­postles. For notwithstanding our Saviours express warrant and injunction, to go and preach to all Nations, yet until S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven, and by the conversion of Cornelius, both he and the rest of the Church, held it unlawful for them, to go or preach the Gospel to any but the Jews.

32. And for those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of human reason and prudence, and not as divine Revelations, why we should take them to be divine [Page 178]revelations, I see no reason; nor how we can do so, and not contradict the Apostles, and God himself. Therefore when S. Paul says, in the first Epistle to the Corinth. 7.12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord; And again, concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I deliver my Judgment: If we will pretend, that the Lord did certain­ly speak, what S. Paul spake, and that his judgment was Gods commandment, shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul, and that spirit by which he wrote? which moved him to Write, as in other places divine Revelations, which he certainly knew to be such, so in this place, his own judgment, touching some things which God had not par­ticularly revealed unto him.

34. Obj. But if the Apostles were Infallible, in all things proposed by them as divine Truths, the like must be affirmed of the Church, because Protestants teach the promise (of leading into all Truth) to be verified in the Church.

Ans. It's true that to the Apostles the promise was made, and to them only, yet the words are true also of the Church. But they agree to the Apostles in a higher, to the Church in a lower sense: to the Apostles in more absolute, to the Church in a more limited sense. To the Apostles ab­solutely, for the Churches direction: to the Church Conditio­nally by adherence to that direction, and so far as she doth ad­here to it. In a word, the Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit, efficaciter: The Church is led also into all Truth by the Apostles writings, sufficienter. So that the Apostles and the Church, may be fitly compared to the Star and the Wisemen. The Star was directed by the finger of God, and could not but go right to the place where Christ was: But the Wisemen were led by the Star to Christ; led by it, I say, not efficaciter, or irresistibiliter, but sufficienter, so that if they would they might follow it, if they would not, they might choose. So was it between the Apostles writing Scriptures, and the Church. They in their writing were infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine Truth, but what was so. The Church is also led into all Truth, but it is by the intervening of the A­postles writings: But it is, as the Wisemen were led by the [Page 179]Star, or as a Traveller is directed by a Mercurial Statue, or as a Pilot by his Card and Compass: led sufficient­ly, but not irresistibly: led so that she may follow, not so that she must. For seeing the Church is a so­ciety of men, whereof every one (according to the Doctrine of the Romish Church) hath free-will in be­lieving, it follows, that the whole aggregate has free­will in believing. And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible, that of so many whereof all may believe aright, not any should do so: I answer, It is true, if they did all give themselves any liberty of judgment. But if all (as the case is here) captivate their understandings to one of them, all are as likely to err as that one. And he more likely to err than any other, because he may err and thinks he cannot, and because he conceives the Spi­rit absolutely promised to the succession of Bishops, of which many have been notoriously and confessedly wicked men, Men of the World: whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because he seeth him not, neither knoweth him.

38. Ad §. 16. To this Paragraph, which pretends to shew, that if the Catholick Church be fallible in some points, it follows, that no true Protestant can with assurance believe the Universal Church in any one point of Doctrin.

I Answer. Though the Church being not Infallible, I cannot believe her in every thing she says, yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves, either by Scripture, Reason, or Universal Tradition, be it Funda­mental, or be it not Fundamental. This you say, we can­not, in points not Fundamental, because in such we believe she may err. But this I know, we can: because though she may err in some things, yet she does not err in what she proves, though it be not Fundamental. Again you say, we cannot do it in Fundamentals, because we must know what points be Fundamental, before we go to learn of her. Not so, but I must learn of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamen­tal or not Fundamental. For how can I come to know, that there was such a Man as Christ, that he taught such [Page 180]Doctrin, that he and his Apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it, that the Scripture is Gods Word, un­less I be taught it. So then the Church is, though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith, yet a necessary intro­duction to it.

39. But the Churches infallible direction, extending only to Fundamentals, unless I know them before I go to learn of her, I may be rather deluded than instructed by her. The reason and connexion of this consequence, I fear neither I nor you do well understand. And besides I must tell you, you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you, that the Church is an infallible directer in Fundamentals. For if she were so, then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her, but also learn of her what is fundamental, and take all for fun­damental which she delivers to be such. In the performance whereof, if I knew any one Church to be infallible, I would quickly be of that Church. But good Sir, you must needs do us this favor, to be so acute, as to distinguish between, being infallible in fundamentals, and being an infallible guide in fun­damentals. That there shall be always a Church infallible in fundamentals, we easily grant; for it comes to no more but this, that there shall be always a Church. But that there shall be always such a Church, which is an infallible Guide in fundamentals, this we deny. For this cannot be without setling a known infallibility in some one known society of Christians, (as the Greek or the Roman, or some other Church) by adhering to which Guide, men might be gui­ded to believe aright in all Fundamentals. A man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet in himself, and to himself be infallible, but he could not be a Guide to others. A man or a Church that were invisible, so that none could know how to repair to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, and yet he might be in himself infallible. You see then there is a wide difference between these two, and therefore I must beseech you not to confound them, nor to take the one for the other.

40. But they that know what points are Fundamental, otherwise than by the Churches authority, learn not of the Church: [Page 181]Yes, they may learn of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God, and from the Scripture, that such points are fundamental, others are not so; and consequently learn, even of the Church, even of your Church, that all is not fundamental, nay all is not true, which the Church teacheth to be so. Neither do I see what hinders, but a man may learn of a Church, how to confute the Errors of that Church which taught him: as well as of my Master in Physick, or the Mathematicks, I may learn those rules and principles, by which I may confute my Masters erroneous conclusions.

41. But you ask, If the Church be not an infallible teacher, why are we commanded to hear, to seek, to obey the Church? I Answer. For commands to seek the Church, I have not yet met with any, and I believe you, if you were to shew them, would be your self to seek. But yet if you could produce some such, we might seek the Church to many good purposes, without supposing her a Guide infallible. And then for hearing and obeying the Church, I would fain know, whether none may be heard and obeyed, but those that are infallible? Whether particular Churches, Go­vernors, Pastors, Parents, be not to be heard and obeyed? Or whether all these be Infallible? I wonder you will thrust upon us so often, these worn-out Objections, without taking notice of their Answers.

42. Your Argument from S. Austine's first place, is a fallacy, A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. If the whole Church practise any of these things (matters of or­der and decency, for such only there he speaks of,) to dispute whether that ought to be done, is insolent madness. And from hence you infer, If the whole Church practise any thing, to dispute whether it ought to be done, is insolent madness. As if there were no difference between any thing, and any of these things? Or as if I might not esteem it pride and folly, to contradict and disturb the Church for matter of order, pertaining to the time and place, and other circumstances of Gods worship; and yet account it neither pride nor folly, to go about to reform some errors, which the Church hath suffered to come in, and to vitiate the very [Page 182]substance of Gods worship. It was a practice of the whole Church in Saint Austines time, and esteemed an Aposto­lick Tradition, even by Saint Austine himself, That the Eucharist should be administred to Infants: Tell me Sir, I beseech you; Had it been insolent madness to dispute against this practice, or had it not? If it had, how inso­lent and mad are you, that have not only disputed against it, but utterly abolished it? If it had not, then as I say, you must understand Saint Austines words, not simply of all things, but (as indeed he himself restrained them) of these things, of matter of Order, Decency, and Uni­formity.

44. Obj. But the Doctrines, that Infants are to be bap­tized, and those that are baptized by Hereticks, are not to be re­baptized, are neither of them to be proved by Scripture: And yet according to S. Austine they are true Doctrins, and we may be certain of them upon the Authority of the Church, which we could not be, unless the Church were Infallible; therefore the Clurch is Infallible. I answer, that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough, of the Universal Tradi­tions of the ancient Church, such as in S. Austin's ac­count, these were which here are spoken of, and yet not be certain enough, of the definitions of the present Church. Unless you can shew (which I am sure you can never do) that the Infallibility of the present Church, was always a Tradition of the ancient Church. Now your main bu­siness is to prove the present Church Infallible, not so much in consigning ancient Traditions, as in defining emergent controversies. Again, it follows not, because the Churches Authority, is warrant enough for us to be­lieve some Doctrin, touching which the Scripture is si­lent, therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these, to which the Scripture seems repugnant. Now the Doctrins which S. Austin received upon the Churches Authority, were of the first sort; the Doctrins for which we deny your Churches Infallibility are of the second. And there­fore though the Churches Authority, might be strong enough, to bear the weight which S. Austin laid upon it, yet happily it may not be strong enough, to bear that [Page 183]which you lay upon it. Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture, yet surely not against it. And last of all, to deal ingeniously with you and the world, I am not such an Idolater of S. Austin, as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he says it, nor that all his sen­tences are Oracles; and particularly in this thing, that whatsoever was practised or held by the Universal Church of his time, must needs have come from the Apostles. Though considering the nearness of his time to the Apo­stles, I think it a good probable way, and therefore am apt enough to follow it, when I see no reason to the con­trary. Yet I profess I must have better satisfaction, before I can induce my self to hold it certain and infallible. And this, not because Popery would come in at this door, as some have vainly feared, but because by the Church U­niversal of some time, and the Church Universal of other times, I see plain contradictions held and practised. Both which could not come from the Apostles, for then the Apostles had been teachers of falsehood. And there­fore the belief or practice of the present Universal Church, can be no infallible proof, that the Doctrin so believed, or the custom so practised came from the Apostles. I in­stance in the Doctrine of the Millenaries, and the Eucha­rists necessity for Infants: both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages, without any opposition from any of their Contem­poraries: and were delivered by them, not as Doctors, but as Witnesses, not as their own Opinions, but as Apo­stolick Traditions. And therefore measuring the Doctrin of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinal Perron gives us for that purpose, both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the Doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age, or ages; And that the contrary Doctrines were Catholick at some other time, I be­lieve you will not think it needful for me to prove. So that either I must say, the Apostles were fountains of contradictious Doctrines, or that being the Univer­sal Doctrine of the present Church, is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles. Be­sides, [Page 184]who can warrant us, that the Universal Traditi­ons of the Church were all Apostolical? seeing in that famous place for Traditions, in Tertullian, De Corona Militis, c 3. & 4. Where having recoun­ted sundry un­written Tradi­tions then ob­served by Chri­stians, many whereof, by the way, (notwithstanding the Council of Trents profession, to receive them and the written Word with the like affection of Piety) are now rejected and neglect­ed by the Church of Rome: For example Immersion in Baptism; Tasting a mixture of Milk and Honey presently after; Abstaining from Bathes for a week after; Account­ing it an impiety to pray kneeling on the Lords day, or between Easter and Pentecost: I say, having reckoned up these and other Traditions in the 3. chap. He adds another in the fourth, of the Veiling of Women; And then adds, Since I find no law for this, it follows that Tradition must have given this observation to custom, which shall gain in time, Apostolick authority by the interpretation of the reason of it. By these ex­amples therefore it is declared, that the observing of unwritten Tradition, being con­firmed by custom, may be defended. The perseverance of the observation being a good testimony of the goodnest of the Tradition. Now custom even in civil affairs where a law is wanting, passes for a law. Neither is it material whether it be grounded on Scripture, or reason; seeing reason is commendation enough for a law. Moreover if law be grounded on reason, all that must be law, which is so grounded.—A quocunque productum— Whosoever is the producer of it. Do ye think it is not lawful, Omni fide­li, for every faithful man to conceive and constitute? Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will, what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation? seeing the Lord says, why even of our selves, judge ye not what is right? And a little after, This reason now demand, saving the respect of the Tradition,—A quocunque Traditore censetur, nec auctorem respiciens sed Auctoritatem; From whatsoever Traditor it comes; neither regard the Author but the Authority. Quicunque traditor, any Author whatsoever is founder good enough for them. And who can secure us, that Humane inven­tions, and such as came à quocunque Traditore, might not in a short time, gain the reputation of Apostolick! Seeing the direction then was, Hier. Precepta majorum Apostolicas Traditi­ones quisque existimat.

46. But let us see what S. Chrysostom says, They (the A­postles) delivered not all things in writing (who denies it?) but many things also without writing, (who doubts of it?) and these also are worthy of belief. Yes, if we knew what they were. But many things are worthy of belief, which are not necessary to be believed: As that Julius Caesar was Emperor of Rome is a thing worthy of belief, being so well testified as it is, but yet it is not necessary to be belie­ved; a man may be saved without it. Those many works which our Saviour did (which S. John supposes, would not [Page 185]have been contained in a World of Books) if they had been written, or if God by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them, had been as worthy to be be­lieved, and as necessary as those that are written. But to shew you how much a more faithful keeper Records are than report, those few that were written are preserved and believed, those infinity more that were not written, are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men. And seeing God in his providence, hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them, he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them: for every obligation ceases, when it becomes impossible. Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians, to whom the Epistles of the Apo­stles were written, either of themselves understood, or were instructed by the Apostles, touching the sense of the obscure places of them? These Traditive interpre­tations, had they been written and dispersed, as the Scri­ptures were, had without question been preserved, as the Scriptures are. But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition, the Church of Rome hath been, or even the Catholick Church, for want of writing they are all lost, nay were all lost, within a few Ages after Christ. So that if we consult the Ancient Interpreters, we shall hard­ly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them. Cardinal Perron, in his discourse of Tra­ditions, having alledged this place for them, Hold the Traditions, &c. tell us we must not answer, that S. Paul speaks here, only of such Traditions, which (though not in this Epist. to the Thessalonians) yet were afterwards witten, and in other Books of Scripture: because it is upon occasion of Tradi­tion (touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist,) which was never written, that he lays this in­junction upon them, to hold the Traditions. Well, let us grant this Argument good, and concluding; and that the Church of the Thessalonians, or the Catholick Church (for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all,) were to hold some unwritten Traditions, and among the rest, what was the cause of the hinderance of the com­ing of Antichrist. But what if they did not perform [Page 186]their duty in this point, but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church? Shall we not conclude, that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to Salvation to be lost, and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost, therefore the knowledge or belief of it, though it were a profitable thing, yet it was not necessary? I hope you will not challenge such authority over us, as to oblige us to impossibilities, to do that which you cannot do your selves. It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed, before you require obedience unto it. Are you able then to in­struct us so well, as to be fit to say unto us, Now ye know what withholdeth? Or do you your selves know that ye may instruct us? Can ye, or dare you say, this or this was this hindrance which S. Paul here meant, and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it? Or if you can­not, (as I am certain you cannot) go then, and Vaunt your Church, for the only Watchful, Faithful, Infallible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions; when here this very Tradition, which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Premitive Church, you have utter­ly lost it, so that there is no Footstep or print of it re­maining, which with Divine Faith we may rely upon. Blessed therefore be the goodness of God, who seeing that what was not written, was in such danger to be lost, took order, that what was necessary should be written! S. Chrysostoms counsel therefore, of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief, we are willing to obey: And if you can of any thing make it appear, that it is Tradi­tion, we will seek no farther. But this we say withal, that we are persuaded we cannot make this appear in any thing, but only the Canon of Scripture, and that there is nothing now extant, and to be known by us, which can put in so good Plea, to be the unwritten Word of God, as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture, to be the written Word of God.

47. You conclude this Paragraph with a sentence of S. Austin's who says, The Church doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do these things which are against Faith [Page 187]or good Life: and from hence you conclude, that it never hath done so, nor never can do so. But though the argu­ment hold in Logick à non posse, ad non esse, yet I never heard, that it would hold back again, à non esse, ad non posse. The Church cannot do this, therefore it does it not, follows with good consequence: but the Church does not this, therefore it shall never do it, nor can never do it, this I believe will hardly follow. In the Epistle next before to the same Januarius, writing of the same matter, he hath these words, It remains that the thing you inquire of, must be of that third kind of things, which are different in divers places. Let every one therefore do, that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes, for none of them is against Faith or good manners. And why do you not in­fer from hence, that no particular Church can bring up any Custom that is against Faith or good manners? Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former. If a man say of the Church of England, (what S. Austin of the Church) that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor does any thing against Faith or good manners, would you collect presently, that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible? Furthermore, it is observable out of this, and the former Epistle, that this Church which did not (as S. Austin according to you, thought) approve or dissemble, or do any thing against Faith or good Life, did yet tolerate and dissemble vain supersti­tions, and humane presumptions, and suffer all places to be full of them, and to be exacted, as, nay more severely than the commandments of God himself. This S. Austin himself professeth in this very Epistle. This (saith he) I do infinitely grieve at, that many most wholesom precepts of the Divine Scripture, are little regarded; and in the mean time, all is so full of so many presumptions, that he is more grievously found fault with, who during his octaves, toucheth the Earth with his naked Foot, than he that shall bury his Soul in Drunkenness. Of these he says, that they were neither contained in Scripture, decreed by Councils, nor corroborated by the Custom of the Universal Church. And though not against Faith, yet unprofitable burdens of Christian Liberty, which [Page 188]made the condition of the Jews more tolerable than that of Christians. And therefore he professes of them, Approbare non possum, I cannot approve them. And ubi facultas tribuitur, resecanda existimo, I think they are to be cut off, wheresoever we have power. Yet so deeply were they rooted, and spread so far, through the indiscreet devotion of the Peo­ple, always more prone to superstion than true Piety, and through the connivence of the Governors, who should have strangled them at their Birth, that himself, though he grieved at them, and could not allow them, yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them, multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulenta­rum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo. Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, I dare not freely disallow. Nay, the Catholick Church it self, did see and dissemble, and tolerate them; for these are the things of which he presently says after, the Church of God (and you will have him speak of the true Catho­lick Church) placed between Chaffe and Tares, tolerates ma­ny things. Which was directly against the command of the Holy Spirit, given the Church by S. Paul; To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free, and not to suffer her self to be brought in bondage to these survile burdens. Our Saviour tells the Scribes and Pharisees, that in vain they Worshiped God, teaching for Doctrines mens Commandments: For that laying aside the Commandments of God, they held the Traditions of men, as the washing of Pots, and Cups, and many other such like things. Certainly that which S. Austin complains of, as the general fault of Christians of his time, was parallel to this: Multa (saith he) quae in divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt, minus curantur; This I suppose I may very well render in our Saviours Words, The commandments of God are laid aside; and then; tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia, all things, or all places, are so full of so many presumptions, and those exacted with such severity, nay with Tyranny, that he was more severely censured, who in the time of his Octaves touched the Earth with his naked Feet, than he which drown­ed [Page 189]and buried his Soul in Drink. Certainly, if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandments, I know not what is. And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said, to Worship God in vain, as well as Scribes and Pharisees. And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind, were then already spread over the Church, being different in divers place. This is plain from these Words of S. Austin of them, diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur; and apparent, because the stream of them was grown so violent, that he durst not oppose it, liberiùs improbare non audeo, I dare not freely speak against them. So that to say, the Catholick Church tolerated all this, and for fear of offence, durst not abrogate or con­demn it, is to say (if we Judge rightly of it) that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain. Now how this tolera­ting of Universal superstition in the Church, can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition, and with the accom­plishment of that pretended Prophesie of the Church, I have set Watchmen upon thy Walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace Day nor Night; besides how these superstitions being thus nourished, cherished, and strength­ned by the practice of the most, and urged with great violence upon others as the commandments of God, and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any, might in time take such deep Root, and spread their Branches so far, as to pass for Universal Customs of the Church, he that does not see, sees nothing. Especially, consi­dering the catching and contagious nature of this sin, and how fast ill Weeds spread, and how true and expe­rimented that rule is of the Historian, Exempla non con­fistunt ubi incipiunt, sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. Examples do not stay where they begin, but tho at first pent up in a nar­row Tract, they make themselves room for extravagant wandrings. Nay that some such superstition had not al­ready even in S. Austins time, prevailed so far, as to be Consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum, confirmed by the [Page 190]Custom of the Universal Church, who can doubt that considers, that the practice of Commiunicating Infants, had even then got the credit, and authority, not only of an Universal Custom, but also of an Apostolick Tra­dition.

49. But now after all this ado, what if S. Austin says not this which is pretended of the Church, viz. That she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor practises any thing against Faith or good Life, but only of good men in the Church? Certainly, though some Copies read as you would have it, yet you should not have dissembled, that others read the place otherwise, vix. Ecclesia multa tolerat, & tamen, quae sunt contra Fidem & bonam vitam, nec bonus approbat, &c. The Church tolerates many things; and yet what is against Faith or good Life, a good man will neither approve, nor dis­semble, nor practise.

50. Ad §. 17. That Abraham begat Isaacc, is a point very far from being Fundamental; and yet I hope you will grant, that Protestants believing Scripture to be the Word of God, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say that the Catholick Church, and much more themselves may possibly Err in some unfundamental points, it is therefore consequent, they can be certain of none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle, may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconse­quence, conceive my self certain that I understand him in some plain places, which carry their sense before them? And then for points Fundamental, to what purpose do you say, That we must first know what they be, before we can be assured that we cannot Err in understanding the Scripture; when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot Err, but only to a sufficient certainty, that we do not Err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether Fundamental or not Fundamental? That God is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him: That there is no Salvation but by Faith in Christ: That by repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sins may be obtained: That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body: These we conceive both [Page 191]true, because the Scripture says so, and Truths Funda­mental; because they are necessary parts of the Gospel, whereof our Saviour saies, Qui non crediderit, damnabitur. All which we either learn from Scripture immediately, or learn of those that learn it of Scripture, so that neither Learned nor Unlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture. And therefore in imputing this to us, you cannot excuse your self from having done us a palpable injury.

52. Ad §. 19.] To that which is here urged of the dif­ferences amongst Protestants concerning many points: I answer, that those differences between Protestants concern­ing Errors damnable and not damnable, Truths Funda­mental and not Fundamental, may be easily reconciled. For either the Error they speak of may be purely and sim­ply involuntary, or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary. If the cause of it be some voluntary and a­voidable fault, the Error is it self sinful, and consequent­ly in its own nature damnable; As if by negligence in seeking the Truth, by unwillingness to find it, by Pride, by obstinacy, by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends, by fear of mens ill opi­nion, or any other worldly fear, or any other worldly hope, I betray my self to any Error contrary to any Di­vine revealed Truth, that Error may be justly stiled a sin, and consequently of it self to such a one damnable. But if I be guilty of none of these faults, but be desirous to know the Truth, and diligent in seeking it, and advise not at all with Flesh and Blood about the choice of my opi­ons, but only with God, and that Reason that he hath given me, if I be thus qualified, and yet through human infirmity fall into Error, that Error cannot be damnable. Again, the party erring may be conceived either to die with contrition for all his sins known and unknown, or without it; If he die without it, this Error in it self damnable, will be likewise so unto him: If he die with contrition (as his Error can be no impediment but he may) his Error though in it self damnable, to him according to your Doctrine, will not prove so. And therefore some [Page 192]of those Authors whom you quote, speaking of Errors whereunto men were betrayed, or wherein they were kept by their Fault, or Vice, or Passion (as for the most part men are:) Others speaking of them, as Errors simply and purely involuntary, and the effects of human infir­mity; some as they were retracted by Contrition (to use your own phrase) others, as they were not; no marvel though they have past upon them, some a heavier, and some a milder, some an absolving, and some a condemn­ing sentence. The least of all these Errors, which here you mention, having malice enough too frequently mix­ed with it, to sink a man deep enough into Hell: and the greatest of them all, being according to your Prin­ciples, either no fault at all, or very Venial, where there is no malice of the will conjoyned with it. And if it be, yet as the most malignant poyson, will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerful Antidote: so I am confident your own Doctrine will force you to confess, that whosoever dies with Faith in Christ, and Contriti­on for all sins known and unknown (in which heap all his sinful Errors must be comprized,) can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent Error, than S. Paul by the Viper which he shook off into the fire. Now touching the necessity of Repentance from Dead works, and Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the World, they all agree; and therefore you cannot deny, but they agree about all that is simply necessary. More­over, though, if they should go about to choose out of Scripture all these Propositions and Doctrines which in­tegrate and make up the Body of Christian Religion, per­adventure there would not be so exact agreement amongst them, as some say there was between the 70. Interpreters, in Translating the Old Testament; yet thus far without Controversie they do all agree, that in the Bible all these things are contained, and therefore, that whosoever does truly and sincerely believe the Scripture, must of necessity either in Hypothesi, or at least in thesi, either formally, or at least virtually, either explicitely, or at least implicitely, either in Act or at least in preparation of mind, believe [Page 193]all things Fundamental: It being not Fundamental, nor required of Almighty God, to believe the true sense of Scripture in all places, but only that we should endeavour to do so, and be prepared in mind to do so, whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us. Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a Medicine consisting of twenty ingredients, and he advising with Physitians, should find them differing in Opinion about it, some of them telling him, that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary; some, that only some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse, last­ly some, that some only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest superfluous, yet not hurtful; Yet all with one accord agreeing in this, That the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health, and that if he made use of it, he should infallibly find it success­ful: what wise man would not think they agreed suffici­ently for his direction to the recovery of his health? Just so, these Protestant Doctors, with whose discords you make such Tragedies, agreeing in Thesi thus far, that the Scripture evidently contains all things necessary to Salvation, both for matter of Faith and of practice, and that who­soever believes it, and endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to conform his Life unto it, shall certainly per­form all things necessary to Salvation, and undoubtedly be saved; agreeing I say thus far, what matters it for the direction of men to Salvation, though they differ in opi­nion, touching what points are absolutely necessary, and what not? What Errors absolutely repugnant to Salvati­on, and what not? Especially considering that although they differ about the Question of the necessity of these Truths, yet for the most part they agree in this that Truths they are, and profitable at least, though not simply ne­cessary. And though they differ in the Question, whe­ther the contrary Errors be destructive of Salvation, or no, yet in this they consent, that Errors they are, and hurtful to Religion, though not destructive of Salvation. Now that which God requires of us is this; That we should believe the Doctrines of the Gospel to be Truths, [Page 194]not all, necessary Truths, for all are not so, and conse­quently, the repugnant Errors to be falshoods; yet not all such falshoods, as unavoidably draw with them dam­nation upon all that hold them, for all do not so.

53. Yea but you say, it is very requisite we should agree upon a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points, for without such a Catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no, he hath Faith sufficient to Salvation. This I utterly deny as a thing evidently false, and I wonder you should content your self magisterially to say so, without offering any proof of it. I might much more justly, think it enough barely to deny it, without refutation, but I will not. Thus therefore I argue against it. Without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I may be assured of the Truth of this Assertion, if it be true, That the Scripture contains all necessary points of Faith, and know that I believe explicitely all that is exprest in Scripture, and implicitely all that is contained in them: Now he that believes all this, must of necessity believe all things necessary; There­fore without being able to make a Catalogue of Funda­mentals, I may be assured that I believe all things neces­sary, and consequently that my Faith is sufficient. I said, of the truth of this Assertion, if it be true: Because I will not here enter into the Question of the truth of it, it being sufficient for my present purpose, that it may be true, and may be believed without any dependence upon a Catalogue of Fundamentals. And therefore if this be all your reason, to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals, we cannot but think your demand unrea­sonable. Especially having your self expressed the cause of the difficulty of it, and that is, Because Scripture doth deliver Divine Truths, but seldom qualifies them, or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to Salvation. Yet not so seldom, but that out of it I could give you an abstract of the Essential parts of Christianity, if it were necessary, but I have shewed it not so, by confuting your reason, pretended for the necessity of it, and at this time I have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so trou­blesom to my self. Yet thus much I will promise, that [Page 195]when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Pro­posals with one hand, you shall receive a particular Ca­talogue of what I conceive Fundamental, with the other. For as yet, I see no such fair proceeding as you talk of, nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours. For as for the Ca­talogue which here you have given us, in saying. You are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholick visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Al­mighty God, it is like a covey of one Patridg, or a flock of one sheep, or a Fleet composed of one Ship, or an Army of one man. The Author of Charity Mistaken, demands a particular Cataloge of Fundamental points; And We (say you) again and again demand such a Catalogue. And sure­ly, if this one Proposition, which here you think to stop our mouths with, be a Catalogue, yet at least such a Ca­talogue it is not, and therefore as yet you have not per­formed what you require. For if to set down such a Proposition, wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to Salvation, will serve you instead of a Catalogue, you shall have Catalogues enough. As, we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe. There's one Catalogue. We are obliged under pain of damnation, to believe all, whereof we may be sufficiently assured, that Christ taught it his Apostles, his Apostles the Church. There's another. We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word, and all contained in it to be true. There's a third. If these generalities will not satisfie you, but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular, what they are which Christ taught his Apostles, and his Apostles the Church, what points are contained in Gods Word; Then I beseech you do us reason, and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposals, without leaving out, or adding any, such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to, and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Banckrupts.

54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue (as you call it,) another main fault we find with it, that it is extreamly ambiguous; and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds, give me leave to propose some Questi­ons to you concerning it. I would know therefore, whe­ther by believing, you mean explicitely or implicitely? If you mean implicitely, I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely, or no? Whether any one point or points besides this, be under the same penalty, to be believed explicitely, or no? And if any, what they be? I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholick Visible Church? In particular, whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra, that is, with an in­tent to oblige all Christians by it, be a sufficient and an obliging proposal? Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree, and if they think they have just cause, refuse to obey it? Whether the Decree of a Council, without the Popes confirmation, be such an obliging Proposal, or no? Whether it be so in case there be no Pope, or in case it be doubtful who is Pope? Whether the Decree of a general Council confirmed by the Pope, be such a Proposal, and whether he be an Heretick that thinks otherwise? Whether the Decree of a particular Council confirmed by the Pope, be such a Proposal? Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a suffici­ent Proposition? Whether the consent of the most emi­nent Fathers of any Age, agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrine, not contradicted by any of their Contem­poraries, be a sufficient Proposition? Whether the Fa­thers testifying such or such a Doctrine or Practice to be Tradition, or to be the Doctrine or Practice of the Church, be a sufficient assurance that it is so? Whether we be bound under pain of damnation, to believe every Text of the Vulgar Bible, now Authorized by the Roman Church, to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets, and Evangelists, and Apostles, without any the least alteration? Whether they that lived when the [Page 197]Bible of Sixtus was set forth, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that? And if not of that, of what Bible they were bound to believe it? Whether the Catholick Visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome? Whether every Christian, that hath ability and opportunity, be not bound to endeavour to know Expli­citely the Proposals of the Church? Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity, will not save him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some Doctrine of the Church, not knowing it to be so; and Actually believes some damnable Heresie, as that God has the shape of a man? Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church, when his Priest or Ghost­ly Father assures him it is so? Whether his Ghostly Fa­ther may not Err in telling him so, and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation, to believe an Error? Whether he be bound to believe such a thing de­fined, when a number of Priests, perhaps Ten or Twen­ty tell him it is so? And what assurance he can have, that they neither Err, nor deceive him in this matter? Why Implicite Faith in Christ, or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation, as well as implicite Faith in the Church? Whether when you say, Whatsoe­ver the Church proposeth, you mean all that ever she pro­posed, or that only which she now proposeth; and whe­ther she now proposeth all that ever she did propose? Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were suf­ficiently declared to the Church to be so, and proposed as such by the Apostles? And if not, from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards? If so, whether all men ever since the Apostles time, were bound un­der pain of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical; at least, not to disbelieve it, and believe the contrary? Lastly, why it is not sufficient for any mans Salvation to use the best means he can to inform his Conscience, and to fol­low the direction of it? To all these demands when you have given fair and ingenious answers, you shall hear further from me.

55. Ad §. 20.] At the first entrance into this Parag. from our own Doctrine, That the Church cannot Err in Points neces­sary, it is concluded if we are wise, we must forsake it in nothing, least we should forsake it in something necessary. To which I an­swer, First, that the supposition as you understand it, is falsly imposed upon us, and as we understand it will do you no service. For when we say, that there shall be a Church alwaies, somewhere or other, unerring in Fundamentals, our meaning is but this, that there shall be alwaies a Church, to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should Err in Fundamentals; for if it should do so, it would want the very essence of a Church, and therefore cease to be a Church. But we never annexed this priviledg to any one Church of any one Denomination, as the Greek or the Roman Church: which if we had done, and set up some setled certain Society of Christians, distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in Fundamentals, then indeed, and then only might you with some colour, though with no certainty, have concluded that we could not in Wisdom, forsake this Church in any point, for fear of forsaking it in a necessa­ry point. But now that we say not this of any one de­terminate Church, which alone can perform the Office of Guide or Director, but indefinitely of the Church, meaning no more but this, That there shall be alwaies in some place or other, some Church that Errs not in Fundamen­tals; will you conclude from hence, that we cannot in Wisdom forsake this or that, the Roman or the Greek Church, for fear of Erring in Fundamentals?

56. Yea, but you may say (for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments,) That this Church thus un­erring in Fundamentals, when Luther arose, was by our con­fession the Roman; and therefore we ought not in Wisdom to have departed from it in any thing. I answer: First, that we confess no such thing, that the Church of Rome was then this Church, but only a Part of it, and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible. Secondly, that if by adhering to the Church, we could have been thus far secured, this Argument had some shew of reason. But [Page 199]seeing we are not warranted thus much by any priviledg of that Church, that she cannot Err Fundamentally, but only from Scripture, which assures us that she doth Err very heinously, collect our hope, that the Truths she retains and the practice of them, may prove an Anti­dote to her, against the Errors which she maintains in such Persons, as in simplicity of Heart follow this Absa­lom; we should then do against the light of our Consci­ence, and so sin damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errors though not Fundamental. Nei­ther can we thus conclude, we may safely hold with the Church of Rome in all her points, for she cannot Err damnably; For this is false, she may, though perhaps she does not: But rather thus, These points of Christianity, which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the Poyson of all Sins and Errors, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains; there­fore we hope she Errs not Fundamentally, but still re­mains a Part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: seeing the very same Scripture, which puts us in hope she Errs not Fun­damentally, assures us that in many things, and those of great moment she Errs very greviously. And these Errors though to them that believe them, we hope they will not be pernitious, yet the professing of them against Conscience, could not but bring us to certain damnation. As for the fear of departing from some Fundamental Truths withal, while we depart from her Errors, Happily it might work upon us, if adhering to her might secure us from it, and if nothing else could: But both these are false. For first, adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals: Because though de facto we hope she does not Err, yet we know no priviledges she has, but she may Err in them her self: and there­fore we had need have better security hereof than her bare Authority. Then secondly, without dependence on her at all, we may be secured that we do not Err Fun­damentally; I mean by believing all those things plainly set down in Scripture, wherein all things necessary, and [Page 200]most things profitable are plainly delivered. Suppose I were Travelling to London, and knew two ways thither, the one very safe and convenient, the other very in­convenient, and dangerous, but yet a way to London: and that I overtook a Passenger on the way, who him­self believed, and would fain perswade me, there was no other way but the worse, and would perswade me to accompany him in it, because I confessed his way, though very inconvenient, yet a way; so that going that way we could not fail of our Journies end, by the consent of both Parties: but he believed, my way to be none at all; and therefore I might justly fear, lest out of a desire of leaving the worst way, I left the true, and the only way: If now I should not be more secure upon my own know­ledge, than frighted by this fallacity, would you not beg me for a Fool? Just so might you think of us, if we would be frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbear. For the only and the main reason why we be­lieve you not to Err in Fundamentals, is your holding the Doctrines of Faith in Christ and Repentance: which know­ing we hold as well as you, notwithstanding our depar­ture from you, we must needs know that we not Err in Fundamentals, as well as we know that you do not Err in some Fundamentals, and therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary. Yet let us be more liberal to you, and grant that which can never be proved, that God had said in plain terms, The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foundation, but withal had said, that it might and would lay much Hay and Stubble upon it; That you should never hold any Error destructive of Salvation, but yet many that were prejudicial to Edification: I demand, might we have dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errors in regard of the smalness of them? Or had it not been a damnable sin to do so, though the Errors in themselves were not damnable? Had we not had as plain Direction to depart from you in some things profitable, as to adhere to you in things necessary? In the beginning of your Book, when it was for your purpose to have it so, the greatness or smalness of [Page 201]the matter was not considerable, the Evidence of the Re­velation was all in all. But here we must err with you in small things, for fear of loosing your direction in greater: and for fear of departing too far from you, not go from you at all, even where we see plainly that you have de­parted from the Truth.

57. Beyond all this, I say, that this which you say in wisdom we are to do, is not only unlawful, but, if we will proceed according to reason, impossible. I mean to adhere to you in all things, having no other ground for it, but be­cause you are (as we will now suppose) Infallible in some things, that is, in Fundamentals. For, whether by skill in Architecture a large structure may be supported by a nar­row foundation, I know not; but sure I am, in reason, no conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded. And therefore if I consider what I do, and be perswaded, that your infallibility, is but limited, and particular, and partial, my adherence upon this ground, cannot possibly be Absolute and Universal and Total. I am confident, that should I meet with such a man amongst you (as I am well assur'd there be many) that would grant your Church Infallible only in Fundamentals, which what they are he knows not, and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things: I say that I am confi­dent, that it may be demonstrated, that such a man ad­heres to you, with a fiducial and certain assent in no­thing. To make this clear (because at the first hearing it may seem strange) give me leave, good Sir, to sup­pose you the man, and to propose to you a few questions, and to give for you such answers to them, as upon this ground you must of necessity give, were you present with me. First, supposing you hold your Church Infallible in Fundamentals, obnoxious to Error in other things, and that you know not what points are Fundamental, I de­mand, C. Why do you believe the Doctrin of Transub­stantiation? K. because the Church hath taught it, which is Infallible. C. What? Infallible in all things, or only in Fundamentals? K. in Fundamentals only. C. Then in other points she may err? K. she may. C. and do you know [Page 202]what Points are Fundamental, what not? K. No, and there­fore I believe her in all things, least I should disbelieve her in fundamentals. C. How know you then, whether this be a fundamental point or no? K. I know not. C. It may be then (for ought you know) an unfundamental point? K. yes, it may be so. C. And in these you said the Church may err? K. yes I did so. C. Then possibly it may err in this? K. It may do so. C. Then what certain­ty have you, that it does not err in it? K. None at all, but upon this supposition, that this is a Fundamental. C. And this supposition you are uncertain of? K. Yes, I told you so before. C. And therefore, you can have no certainty of that, which depends upon this uncertainty, saving only a suppositive certainty, if it be a Fundamental truth, which is in plain English to say, you are certain it is true, if it be both true and necessary. Verily Sir, if you have no bet­ter Faith than this, you are no Catholick. K. good words I pray! I am so, and God willing will be so. C. You mean, in outward profession and practice, but in belief you are not, no more than a Protestant is a Catholick. For every Protestant yields such a kind of assent to all the pro­posals of the Church, for surely they believe them true, if they be Fundamental Truths. And therefore you must either believe the Church Infallible in all her proposals, be they foundations, or be they superstructions, or else you must believe all Fundamental which she proposes, or else you are no Catholick. K. But I have been taught, that seeing I believed the Church Infallible in points necessary, in wisdom I was to believe her in every thing. C. That was a pretty plausible inducement, to bring you hither, but now you are here, you must go farther, and believe her Infal­lible in all things, or else you were as good go back again, which will be a great disparagement to you, and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our part, and even with your own, the imputation of rash­ness and levity. You see, I hope, by this time, that though a man did believe your Church Infallible in Funda­mentals, yet he has no reason to do you the courtesie, of believing all her proposals; nay if he be ignorant what [Page 203]these Fundamentals are, he has no certain ground to believe her, upon her Authority in any thing. And whereas you say, it can be no imprudence to err with the Church; I say, it may be very great imprudence, if the question be, Whe­ther we should err with the present Church, or hold true with God Almighty.

60. Whereas you add, That that visible Church which cannot err in Fundamental, propounds all her definitions without distinction to be believed under Anathema's: Ans. Again you beg the question, supposing untruly, that there is, any that Visible Church, I mean any Visible Church of one De­nomination, which cannot err in points Fundamental. Se­condly, proposing definitions to be believed under Ana­thema's, is no good argument, that the Propounders con­ceive themselves infallible; but only, that they conceive the Doctrine they condemn is evidently damnable. A plain proof hereof is this, that particular Councils, nay particular men, have been very liberal of their Anathema's, which yet were never conceived infallible, either by others or themselves. If any man should now deny Christ to be the Saviour of the world, or deny the Resurrection, I should make no great scruple of Anathematizing his Doctrine, and yet am very far from dreaming of Infalli­bility.

62. The effect of the next Argument is this, I cannot without grievous sin disobey the Church, unless I know she commands those things which are not in her power to com­mand: and how far this power extends, none can better inform me than the Church. Therefore I am to obey, so far as the Church requires my obedience. I Answer, First, That neither hath the Catholick Church, but only a corrupt part of it decla­red her self, nor required our obedience, in the points contested among us. This therefore is falsely, and vainly supposed here by you, being one of the greatest questions amongst us. Then Secondly, That God can better in­form us, what are the limits of the Churches power, than the Church her self, that is, than the Roman Clergy, who being men subject to the same passions with other men, why they should be thought the best Judges in their own [Page 204]cause, I do not well understand! But yet we oppose a­gainst them, no human decisive Judges, not any Sect or Person, but only God and his Word. And therefore it is in vain to say, That in following her, you shall be sooner excused, than in following any Sect or Man applying Scriptures against her Doctrine: In as much as we never went about to arrogate to our selves that Infallibility or absolute Authority, which we take away from you. But if you would have spoken to the purpose, you should have said, that in following her you should sooner have been excused, than in cleaving to the Scripture, and to God himself.

63. Whereas you say, The fearful examples of innumerable persons, who forsaking the Church, upon pretence of her errors, have failed even in fundamental points, ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practice; This is, just as if you should say, divers men have fallen into Scylla, with going too far from Charybdis, be sure therefore ye keep close to Charybdis: divers leaving pro­digality, have fallen into covetousness, therefore be you constant to prodigality; many have fallen from worship­ping God perversely and foolishly, not to worship him at all, from worshipping many Gods, to worship none; this therefore ought to deter men, from leaving Supersti­tion or Idolatry, for fear of falling into Atheism and Im­piety. This is your counsel and Sophistry: but God says clean contrary; Take heed you swerve not, either to the right hand or to the left: you must not do evil that good may come thereon; therefore neither that you may avoid a greater evil, you must not be obstinate in a certain error, for fear of an uncertain. 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 mean, the narrow way is hard to be found, and hard to be kept; hard, but not impossible: hard, but yet you must not please your self out of it, though you err on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part, for this is [Page 205]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 perswade any man to leave it. But we protest and proclaim the contrary, and that we have very little hope of their Salvation, who either out of negli­gence in seeking the truth, or unwillingness to find it, live and die in the errors and impieties of that Church: and therefore cannot but conceive those fears to be most foolish and ridiculous, which perswade men to be constant in one way to hell, lest happily if they leave it, they should fall in­to another.

64. Obj. Some Protestants, pretending to reform the Church, are come to affirm that she perished for many Ages, which others cannot deny to be a Fundamental Error against the Article of the Creed, I believe the Catholick Church, and affirm the Donatists erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa.

To this I Answer, First, that the error of the Donatists was not, that they held it possible that some, or many, or most parts of Christendom, might fall away from Christia­nity, and that the Church may loose much of her ampli­tude, and be contracted to a narrow compass in compari­son of her former extent; which is proved not only pos­sible but certain, by irrefragable experience. For who knows not, that Gentilism, and Mahumetism, mans wick­edness deserving it, and Gods providence permitting it, have prevailed to the utter extirpation of Christianity, upon far the greater part of the world? And S. Austin when he was out of the heat of Disputation, confesses the Militant Church to be like the Moon, sometimes increasing, and sometimes decreasing. This therefore was no error in the Donatists, that they held it possible, that the Church, from a larger extent, might be contradicted to a lesser: or that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa; (For why not to Africk then, as well as within these few ages, you pretend it was to Europe?) But their error was, that they held de facto, this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so; and so upon a vain pretence which they could not justify, separated themselves from the communion of [Page 206]all other parts of the Church: and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church, that he should be of their Communion, and divide himself from all other Communions from which they were divided: which was a condition both unnecessary and un­lawful to be required, and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicism; in the ve­ry same nature with their Errors who required Circumcisi­on, and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation. For whosoever requires harder or heavier condi­tions of men, than God requires of them, he it is that is pro­perly an Enemy of the Churches Universality, by hindring either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it; which, were it not for these unnecessary and therefore un­lawful conditions, in probability would have made them members of it. And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good (for any hope of Salva­tion they have) not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholicks, believe nothing at all, as not to believe all which they impose upon them: Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion, as be out of their Communion, or be in any other, whether they be not guilty of the same crime, with the Donatists and those Zelots of the Mosaical Law, I leave it to the judgment of those that understand reason! This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argu­ment. But I add moreover, that you neither have named those Protestants who held the Church to have perished for many ages; who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the Church; not that the true Church, but that the pure Church perished: or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence, but from its puri­ty and integrity, or perhaps from its splendor and visibility. Neither have you proved by any one reason, but only af­firmed it, to be a fundamental Error, to hold that the Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world, and abolished for a time from the face of the earth.

69. Ad §. 23. In all these Texts of Scripture, which are here alledged in this last Section of this Chapter, or in any one of them, or in any other, doth God say clearly and [Page 207]plainly, The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall be ever the infallible guide of Faith? You will confess, I presume, he doth not, and will pre­tend, it was not necessary. Yet if the King should tell us the Lord-Keeper should judge such and such causes, but should either not tell us at all, or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord-Keeper, should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions? Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is, increase con­tentions, rather than end them? Just so it would have been, if God had appointed a Church to be Judge of Con­troversies, and had not told us which was that Church. Seeing therefore God does nothing in vain, and seeing it had been in vain, to appoint a Judge of Controversies, and not to tell us plainly who it is, and seeing lastly, he hath not told us plainly, no not at all who it is, is it not evident he hath appointed none? Obj. But (you will say perhaps) if it be granted once, that some Church of one denomination, is the Infallible guide of Faith, it will be no difficult thing to prove, that yours is the Church, seeing no other Church pretends to be so. Ans. Yes, the Primitive and the Apostolick Church pretends to be so. That assures us, that the spirit was pro­mised, and given to them, to lead them into all saving truth, that they might lead others. Obj. But that Church is not now in the world, and how then can it pretend to be the guide of Faith? Ans. It is now in the world sufficiently, to be our guide: not by the persons of those men that were mem­bers of it, but by their Writings which do plainly teach us, what truth they were led into, and so lead us into the same truth. Obj. But these Writings, were the Writings of some particular men, and not of the Church of those times: how then doth that Church guide us by these Writings? Now these pla­ces shew that a Church is to be our guide, therefore they cannot be so avoided. Ans. If you regard the conception and pro­duction of these Writings, they were the Writings of par­ticular men: But if you regard the reception, and appro­bation of them, they may be well called the Writings of the Church, as having the attestation of the Church, to have been written by those that were inspired, and [Page 208]directed by God. As a Statute, though penned by some one man, yet being ratified by the Parliament, is called the Act, not of that man, but of the Parliament. Obj. But the words seem clearly enough to prove, that the Church, the present Church of every Age, is Universally infallible. Ans. For my part, I know I am as willing and desirous, that the Bishop or Church of Rome should be Infallible, (provided I might know it) as they are to be so esteem­ed. But he that would not be deceived must take heed, that he take not his desire that a thing should be so, for a reason that it is so. For if you look upon Scripture, through such Spectacles as these, they will appear to you, of what colour pleases your fancies best: and will seem to say, not what they do say, but what you would have them. As some say the Manna, wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wilderness, had in every mans mouth, that very tast which was most agreeable to his palate. For my part I profess, I have considered them a thou­sand times, and have looked upon them (as they say,) on both sides, and yet to me they seem to say no such matter.

70. Not the First, Mat. 16.18.) For the Church may err, and yet the gates of Hell not prevail against her. It may err, and yet continue still a true Church, and bring forth Chil­dren unto God, and send Souls to Heaven. And there­fore this can do you no service, without the plain begging of the point in Question. Viz. That every Error is one of the gates of Hell. Which we absolutely deny, and therefore, you are not to suppose, but to prove it. Neither is our denial without reason. For seeing you do, and must grant, that a particular Church may hold some error, and yet be still a true member of the Church: why may not the Universal Church, hold the same error, and yet remain the true Universal?

71. Not the Second or Third. ( John 14.16, 17. John 16.13.) For the spirit of Truth, may be with a Man, or a Church for ever, and teach him all Truth: And yet he may fall into some error, if this, all, be not simply all, but all of some kind.

Secondly, he may fall into some Error, even contra­ry to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently, and not irresistibly, so that he may learn it if he will, not so that he must and shall, whether he will or no. Now who can assertain me, that the Spirits teaching is not of this nature? Or how can you possibly reconcile it, with your Doctrine of free-will in believing, if it be not of this nature? Besides, the word in the Original is [...], which signifies, to be a guide and director only, not to compel or necessitate. Who knows not, that a guide may set you in the right way, and you may either negligently mistake, or willingly leave it? And to what purpose doth God conplain so often, and so earnestly of some, that had eyes to see and would not see, that stopped their Ears, and closed their Eyes, lest they should hear and see? Of others that would not understand, lest they should do good: that the Light shined, and the Darkness comprehended it not: That he came unto his own, and his own received him not: That light came into the World, and Men loved Darkness more than Light: To what purpose should he wonder, so few believed his re­port, and that to so few his Arm was revealed: And that when he comes, he should find no Faith upon Earth; If his outward teaching were not of this nature, that it might be followed, and might be resisted? And if it be, then God may teach, and the Church not learn: God may lead, and the Church be refractory and not follow. And in­deed, who can doubt, that hath not his Eyes vailed with prejudice, that God hath taught the Church of Rome plain enough in the Epistle to the Corinthians, that all things in the Church are to be done for edification, and that, in any publick Prayers, or Thanks-givings, or Hymns, or Lessons of instruction, to use a Language, which the assistants generally understand not, is not for edification? Though the Church of Rome will not learn this, for fear of confessing an Error, and so overthrowing her Authority, yet the time will come, when it shall appear, that not only by scripture, they were taught this suffici­ently, and commanded to believe, but by reason and [Page 210]common sense. And so for the Communion, in both kinds, who can deny but they are taught it by our Sa­viour John 6. in these Words, according to most of your own expositions, Unless you Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink his Blood, you have no Life in you. (If our Saviour speak there of the Sacrament, as to them he does, because they conceive he does so) Though they may pretend, that receiving in one kind, they receive the Blood together with the Body, yet they can with no Face pretend that they drink it: And so obey not our Saviours injunction according to the letter, which yet they profess it literally, always to be obeyed, unless some impiety, or some absurdity force us to the contrary: and they are not yet arrived to that impudence to pretend, that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the Com­munion in both kinds. This therefore they if not others, are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place. But by S. Paul all without exception, when he says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him Eat of this Bread and Drink of this Chalice. This (a Man) that is to examine him­self, is every man, that can do it: as is confessed on all hands. And therefore it is all one, as if he had said, let every man examine himself, and so let him Eat of this Bread, and Drink of this Cup. They which acknowledg Saint Pauls Epistes, and Saint Johns Gospel to be the Word of God, one would think should not deny, but that they are taught these two Doctrines plain enough. Yet we see they neither do, nor will learn them. I con­clude therefore, that the Spirit may very well teach the Church, and yet the Church fall into and continue in Error, by not regarding what she is taught by the Spirit.

72. But all this I have spoken upon a supposition only, and shewed unto you, that though these promises, had been made unto the present Church of every Age (I might have said though they had been to the Church of Rome by name,) yet no certainty of her Uni­versal Infallibility could be built upon them. But the plain truth is, that these Promises are vainly arrogated by you, and were never made to you, but to the Apo­stles [Page 211]only. I pray deal ingenuously and tell me, who were they of whom our Saviour says, These things have I spoken unto you, being present with you. c. 14.25. But the comforter, shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have told you v. 26? Who are they to whom he says, I go away and come again unto you; and I have told you before it come to pass: v. 28.29. You have been with me from the beginning: c. 15. v. 27? And again, these things I have told you, that when the time shall come, you may remember that I told you of them: and these things I said not to you at the beginning, because I was with you, c. 16.4. And because I said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your Hearts, v. 6? Lastly, who are they of whom he saith, v. 12. I have yet many things to say un­to you, but ye cannot bear them now? Do not all these cir­cumstances appropriate this whole discourse of our Sa­viour to his Disciples, that were then with him, and con­sequently, restrain the Promises of the Spirit of truth, which was to lead them into all truth, to their Persons on­ly? And seeing it is so, is it not an impertinent arrogance and presumption, for you to lay claim unto them, in the behalf of your Church? Had Christ been present with your Church? Did the Comforter bring these things to the Remembrance of your Church, which Christ had before taught and she had forgotten? Was Christ then departing from your Church? And did he tell of his departure before it came to pass? Was your Church with him from the beginning? Was your Church filled with sorrow, upon the mentioning of Christs departure? Or lastly, did he, or could he have said to your Church, which then was not extant, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? as he speaks in the 13. vers. immediately before the words by you quoted. And then goes on, Howbeit when the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth. Is it not the same You he speaks to, in the 13. vers. and that he speaks to in the 14? And is it not apparent to any one that has but half an Eye, that in the 13. he speaks only to them that then were with him? Besides in the very Text by you [Page 212]alledged, there are things promised, which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to. For there it is said, the Spirit of Truth, not only will guide you into all Truth, but also will shew you things to come. Now your Church (for ought I could ever understand) does not so much as pretend to the Spirit of Prophesie, and knowledge of future events: And therefore hath as little cause to pre­tend to the former promise, of being led by the Spirit in­to all truth. And this is the Reason, why both You in this place, and generally, your writers of Controversies, when they entreat of this Argument, cite this Text per­petually by halfs, there being in the latter part of it, a clear, and convincing Demonstration, that you have no­thing to do with the former. Unless you will say, which which is most ridiculous, that when our Saviour said, He will teach you, &c. and he will shew you, &c. He meant one You in the former clause, and another You in the latter.

73. Obj. But this is to confine Gods Spirit to the Apostles only, or to the Disciples, that then were present with him: which is directly contrary to many places of Scripture. Ans. I confess, that to confine the Spirit of God to those that were then present with Christ is against Scripture. But I hope it is easie to conceive a difference, between con­fining the Spirit of God to them: and confining the Pro­mises made in this place to them. God may do many things which he does not Promise at all: much more, which he does not promise in such or such a place.

74. Obj. But it is promised in the 14. Chap. that this Spirit shall abide with them for ever: Now they in their persons were not to abide for ever; and therefore the Spirit could not abide with them, in their Persons for ever, seeing the coexistence of two things, supposes of necessity, the existence of either. There­fore the promise was not made to them only in their Persons, but by them to the Church, which was to abide for ever. Ans. Your Conclusion is, not to them only, but your Rea­son concludes, either nothing at all, or that this Promise of abiding with them for ever, was not made to their Persons at all; or if it were, that it was not performed. Or if you will not say (as I hope you will not) that it was [Page 213]not performed, nor that it was not made to their Persons at all; then must you grant, that the Word for ever, is here used in a sense restrained, and accommodated to the subject here entreated of; and that it signifies, not Eternal­ly, without end of time, but perpetually without interrup­tion, for the time of their lives. So that the force, and sense of the Words is, that they should never want the Spirits assistance, in the performance of their function: And that the Spirit would not (as Chirst was to do,) stay with them for a time, and afterwards leave them, but would abide with them, if they kept their station, unto the ve­ry end of their lives, which is mans for ever. Neither is this use of the word, for ever, any thing strange, either in our ordinary speech, wherein we use to say, this is mine for ever, this shall be yours for ever, without ever dreaming of the Eternity, either of the thing or Persons. And then in Scripture, it not only will bear, but requires this sense very frequently, as Exod. 21.6. Deut. 15.17. his Master shall bore his Ear through with an Awl, and he shall serve him for ever. Psal. 52.9. I will praise thee for ever. Psal. 61.4. I will abide in thy Tahernacle for ever. Psal. 119.111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as mine Heritage for ever: and lastly in the Epistle to Philemon, He therefore departed from thee for a time, that thou shouldest receive him for ever.

75. And thus, I presume, I have shewed sufficiently, that this for ever, hinders not, but that the promise may be appropriated to the Apostles, as by many other circum­stances I have evinced it must be. But what now, if the place produced by you, as a main pillar of your Churches Infallibility, prove upon Tryal, an Engine to batter and overthrow it, at least, (which is all one to my purpose) to take away all possibility of our assurance of it? This will seem strange news to you at first hearing, and not far from a prodigy. And I confess, as you here in this place, and generally all your Writers of Contro­versie, by whom this Text is urged, order the matter, it is very much disabled, to do any service against you in this question. For with a bold sacriledg, and horrible im­piety, [Page 214]somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty, you perpetu­ally cut off the Head and Foot, the beginning and end of it; and presenting to your confidents, who usually read no more of the Bible, than is alledged by you, on­ly these words, I will ask my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, conceal in the mean time, the words before, and the words after; that so, the promise of Gods Spirit, may seem to be absolute, whereas it is indeed most clearly and expresly conditional: being both in the words before, restrained to those only, that love God and keep his commandments: and in the words after, flatly de­nied to all, whom the Scriptures stile by the name of the World, that is, as the very Antithesis give us plainly to understand, to all wicked and worldly men. Behold the place entire, as it is set down in your own Bible. If ye love me keep my Commandments, and I will ask my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of the Truth, whom the. World cannot receive. Now from the place there restor­ed and vindicated from your mutilation, thus I argue against your pretence. We can have no certainty of the Infallibility of your Church, but upon this supositi­on, that your Popes are infallible in confirming the De­crees of General Councils: we can have no certainty hereof, but upon this supposition, that the Spirit of truth is promised to him, for his direction in this work. And of this again we can have no certainty, but upon sup­posal, that he performs the condition, whereunto the promise of the Spirit of truth is expresly limited, viz. That he love God and keep his Commandments; and of this finally, not knowing the Popes Heart, we can have no certainty at all; therefore from the first to the last, we can have no certainty at all of your Churches Infallibi­bility. This is my first Argument: From this place ano­ther follows, which will charge you as home as the for­mer. If many of the Roman See, were such men as could not receive the Spirit of Truth, even men of the World, that is Worldly, Wicked, Carnal, Diabolical men, then [Page 215]the Spirit of Truth, is not here promised, but flatly de­nied them: and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the Decrees of Councils, which these Popes confirm, nor of the Churches Infallibility, which is guid­ed by these Decrees: But many of the Roman See, even by the confession of the most zealous Defenders of it, were such men: therefore the Spirit of truth is not here promised but denyed them, and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the Decrees which they confirm, nor of the Churches Infallibility, which guides her self by these Decrees.

76. You may take as much time as you think fit, to answer these Arguments. In the mean while I proceed to the consideration of the next Text alledged for this purpose by you: out of S. Paul 1. Epistle to Timothy: cap. 3.15. where he saith, as you say the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth, But the truth is you are somewhat to bold with S. Paul. For he says not in formal terms, what you make him say, the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, neither is it certain that he means so: for it is neither impessible nor improbable, that the words the Pillar and Gonnd of truth, may have reference not to the Church, but to Timothy, the sense of the place that thou maiest know how to behave thy self, as a Pillar and ground of truth, in the Church of God, which is the house of the living God, which exposition offers no violence at all to the words, but on­ly supposes an Ellipsis of the Particle [...], in the Greek very ordinary. Neither wants it some likelihood, that S. Paul comparing the Church to a House, should here exhort Timothy, to carry himself, as a Pillar in that House should do, according as he had given other Principal men in the Church, the name of Pillars; rather than, having called the Church a House, to call it presently a Pillar; which may seem somewhat heterogeneous. Yet if you will needs have S. Paul refer this not to Timothy but the Church, I will not contend about it any farther, than to say, possibly it may be otherwise. But then se­condly, I am to put you in mind, that the Church which S. Paul here speaks of, was that in which Timothy con­versed, [Page 216]and that was a Particular Church, and not the Roman; and such you will not have to be Universally Infallible.

77. Thirdly, if we grant you out of Courtesie (for nothing can enforce us to it) that he both speaks of the Universal Church, and says this of it, then I am to re­member you, that many Attributes in Scripture are not Notes of Performance but of Duty, and teach us not what the thing or Person is of necessity, but what it should be. Ye are the Salt of the Earth, said our Saviour to his Disciples: not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons, but because it was their Office to be so. For if they must have been so of necessity, and could not have been otherwise, in vain had he put them in fear of that which follows, If the Salt hath lost his savour, wherewith shall it be Salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast forth, and to be trodden under Foot. So the Church may be by Duty, the Pillar and Ground, that is, the Teacher of Truth, of all truth, not only necessa­ry but profitable to Salvation; and yet she may neglect and violate this Duty, and be in fact, the teacher of some Error.

78. Fourthly and lastly, if we deal most liberally with you, and grant that the Apostle here speaks of the Ca­tholick Church, calls it the Pillar and ground of Truth, and that not only because it should, but because it always shall and will be so, yet after all this, you have done nothing; your Bridge is too short, to bring you to the Bank where you would be, unless you can shew that by truth here, is certainly meant, not only all necessary to Salvation, but all that is profitable, absolutely and simply All. For that the true Church alwaies shall be the main­tainer and teacher of all necessary truth, you know 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. But as a Man may be still a Man, though he want a Hand or an Eye, which yet are profitable parts, so the Church may be still a [Page 217]Church, though it be defective in some profitable truth. And as a Man may be a Man, that has some Boyls and Botches on his Body, so the Church may be the Church, though it have many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice.

79. And thus you see we are at liberty from the former places; having shewed that the sense of them, either must or may be such as will do your Cause no service. But the last you suppose, will be a Gordian knot, and ties us fast enough: The words are, Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, &c. to the consummation of Saints, to the work of the Ministry, &c. Until we all meet into the U­nity of Faith, &c. That we be not hereafter Children, waver­ing and carried up and down with every wind of Doctrine. Out of which words, this is the only argument which you collect, or I can collect for you. There is no means to conserve unity of Faith, against every wind of Doctrine, unless it be a Church universally Infallible. But it is im­pious to say there is no means to conserve unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrine: Therefore there must be a Church universally Infallible. Whereunto I answer, that your major is so far from being confirmed, that it is plainly confuted, by the place alledged. For that tells us of another means for this purpose, to wit, the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Doctors, which Christ gave upon his Ascension, and that their consumma­ting the Saints, doing the work of the Ministry, and Edifying the body of Christ, was the means to bring those (which are there spoken of, be they who they will,) to the unity of Faith, and to perfection in Christ, that they might not be wavering, and carried about, with every wind of false Doctrine. Now the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Doctors, are not the present Church; therefore the Church is not the only means for this end, nor that which is here spoken of.

80. Peradventure by, he gave, you conceive, is to be un­derstood, he promised that he would give unto the worlds end. But what reason have you for this conceit? Can you shew that the word, [...], hath this signification in other [Page 218]places, and that it must have it in this place? Or will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that God hath not performed his promise? Un­less you will say, which for shame I think you will not, that you have now, and in all Ages since Christ have had Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists: for as for Pa­stors, and Doctors alone, they will not serve the turn. For if God promised to give all these, then you must say he hath given all, or else that he hath broke his promise. Neither may you pretend, that the Pastors and Doctors were the same with the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and therefore having Pastors and Doctors, you have all. For it is apparent, that by these names, are denoted several O [...]ders of men, clearly distinguished and diversified by the Original Text; but much more plainly by your own Translations, for so you read it, some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors: and yet more plainly in the parallel place, 1 Cor. 12. to which we are referred by your Vulgar Tran­slation, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secon­darily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you. Obj. But how can they, which di­ed in the first Age, keep us in Unity, and guard us from Error, that live now, perhaps in the last? This seems to be all one, as if a Man should say, that Alexander, or Julius Caesar should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spains Army. Ans. I hope you will grant, that Hippocrates, and Galen, and Euclid, and A­ristotle, and Salust, and Caesar, and Livie, were dead ma­ny Ages since; and yet that we are now preserved from Error by them, in a great part of Physick, of Geometry, of Logick, of the Roman story. But what if these men had writ by divine Inspiration, and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they professed, and writ them plainly and perspicuously? You would then have granted, I believe, that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error, and from dissention in these matters. And why then should it be incongruous to say, that the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Doctors, which Christ gave upon his Ascension, by their writings, [Page 219]which some of them writ but all approved, are even now sufficient means, to conserve us in Unity of Faith, and guard us from Error? Especially seeing these writings are, by the confession of all parts, true and divine, and as we pretend and are ready to prove, contain a plain and per­fect Rule of Faith; and as the Perron. Chiefest of you acknow­ledge, contain immediatly, all the Principal and Fundamental points of Christianity, referring us to the Church and Tradition only for some minute particularities. But tell me I pray, the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and the Pope that confirmed them, are they means to conserve you in Unity, and keep you from Error, or are they not? Peradventure you will say, their Decrees are, but not their Persons: but you will not deny I hope, that you owe your unity, and freedom from Error, to the Persons that made these Decrees: neither will you deny, that the writings which they have left behind them, are sufficient for this purpose. And why may not then the Apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose, as the Decrees of your Doctors? Surely their intent in writ­ing was to conserve us in unity of Faith, and to keep us from Error, and we are sure God spake in them; but your Doctors from whence they are, we are not so cer­tain. Was the Holy Ghost then unwilling, or unable to direct them so, that their writings should be fit and suffici­ent to attain that end they aimed at in writing? For if he were both able and willing to do so, then certainly he did do so. And then their writings may be very sufficient means, if we would use them as we should do, to preserve us in unity, in all necessary points of Faith, and to guard us from all pernitious Error.

81. If yet you be not satisfied, but will still pretend that, all these words by you cited, seem clearly enough to prove, that the Church is Universally infallible, without which Uni­ty of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrin: I Ans. That to you, which will not understand, that there can be any means to conserve the unity of Faith, but only that which conserves your authority over the Faithful, it is no marvel that these words seem to prove, that the [Page 220]Church, nay that your Church is universally Infallible. But we that have no such end, no such desires, but are willing to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others, we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit, he gave at his Ascension, and he promised to the Worlds end. Besides, though you whom it concerns, may happily flatter your selves, that you have not only Pastors, and Doctors, but Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and those distinct from the former still in your Church; yet we that are disinteressed persons, cannot but smile at these strange ima­ginations. Lastly, though you are apt to think your selves such necessary instruments for all good purposes, and that nothing can be well done unless you do it; that no unity or constancy in Religion can be maintained, but inevitably Christendom must fall to ruin, and confusion, unless you support it: yet we that are indifferent and im­partial, and well content, that God should give us his own favours, by means of his own appointment, not of our choosing, can easily collect out of these very words, that not the Infallibility of your, or of any Church, but the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, &c. which Christ gave upon his Ascension, were designed by him, for the compassing all these excellent purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by their writings for ever. And if they fail hereof, the Reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the means, but the voluntary perversness of the Subjects they have to deal with: who, if they would be themselves, and be content that others should be, in the choice of their Religion the servants of God and not of men; if they would allow, that the way to Heaven is no narrower now, than Christ left it, his yoak no heavier than he made it; that the belief of no more difficulties, is required now to Salvation, than was in the Primitive Church; that no Error is in it self destructive, and exclusive from Salvation now, which was not then; if instead of being zealous Papists, earnest Calvinists, ri­gid Lutherans, they would become themselves, and be content that others should be plain and honest Christians; [Page 221]if all men would believe the Scripture, and freeing them­selves from prejudice and passion, would sincerely endea­vour to find the true sense of it, and live according to it, and require no more of others, but to do so; nor denying their Communion to any that do so, would so order their publick service of God, that all which do so may without scruple, or hypocrisie, or protestation against any part of it, joyn with them in it: who does not see that (seeing as we suppose here, and shall prove hereafter,) all necessary Truths, are plainly and evidently set down in Scripture, there would of necessity be among all men, in all things necessary, unity of Opinion? And notwithstand­ing any other differences that are or could be, unity of Communion and Charity and mutual Toleration? By which means, all Schism and Heresie, would be banish­ed the World, and those wretched contentions which now rend and tear in pieces, not the Coat, but the Members and Bowels of Christ, which mutual pride and Tyranny, and cursing, and killing, and damning, would fain make immortal, should speedily receive a most blessed Ca­tastrophe. But of this hereafter, when we shall come to the question of Schism, wherein I perswade my self, that I shall plainly shew, that the most vehe­ment accusers, are the greatest offenders, and that they are indeed at this time, the greatest Schisma­ticks, who make the way to Heaven narrower, the yoak of Christ heavier, the differences of Faith greater, the con­ditions of Ecclesiastical Communion harder, and stricter, than they were made at the beginning by Christ and his Apostles: they who talk of Unity, but aim at Tyranny, and will have peace with none, but with Slaves and Vassals. In the mean while, though I have shewed how Unity of Faith, and Unity of Charity too, may be preserved with­out your Churches Infallibility, yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence, not that your Church is, but only seems to be universally Infallible, meaning to your self, of which you are a better judge than I: Therefore I willing­ly grant your conclusion, and proceed.

86. As for your pretence, That to find the meaning of those places, you confer divers Texts, you consult Originals, you examin Translations, and use all the means by Protestants ap­pointed, I have told you before, that all this is vain and hy­pocritical, if (as your manner and your doctrin is) you give not your self liberty of judgment in the use of these means; if you make not your selves Judges of, but only Ad­vocates for the doctrin of your Church, refusing to see what these means shew you, if it any way make against the do­ctrin of your Church, though it be as clear as the light at noon. Remove prejudice, even the ballance, and hold it even, make it indifferent to you which way you go to heaven, so you go the true, which Religion be true so you be of it, then use the means and pray for Gods assistance, and as sure as God is true, you shall be lead into all ne­cessary Truth.

88. Whereas you say, that it were great impiety to imagin that God, the lover of Souls, hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion: I desire you to take heed, you commit not an impiety in making more impieties than Gods Commandments make. Certainly God is no way obliged either by his promise or his love to give us all things, that we may imagine would be convenient for us, as formerly I have proved at large. It is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to Sal­vation. Deus non deficit in necessariis, nec redundat in superflu­is: So D. Stapleton. But that the ending of all Controver­sies, or having a certain means of ending them, is neces­sary to Salvation, that you have often said and supposed, but never proved, though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse. So little care you take how slight your foundations are, so your building make a fair show. And as little care, how you commit those faults your self, which you condem in others. For you here charge them with great impiety, who imagine that God the lover of Souls hath left no infallible means to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion: And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter, why the Que­stions [Page 223]between the Jesuits and Dominicans remain undetermi­ned? You return him this cross interrogatory, Who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ, is a revealed Truth, or capable of definition, or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable, or by any Rule of Faith? So then when you say, it were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible means to decide all differences; I may an­swer, It seems you do not believe your self. For in this controversie, which is of as high consequence as any can be, you seem to be doubtful whether there be any means to determin it. On the other side, when you ask D. Pot­ter, who assured him that there is any means to determine this Controversie? I answer for him, that you have, in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible means to decide this and all other differences arising about the Inter­pretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion. For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference, between the Dominicans and Jesuits, which includes a difference about the sense of many Texts of Scripture, and many other matters of moment, was not included under this and all other differences, I cannot imagine. Yet if you can find out any, thus much at least we shall gain by it, that gene­ral speeches are not always to be understood generally, but some­times with exceptions and limitations.

89. But if there be any infallible means to decide all differences, I beseech you name them. You say it is to con­sult and hear Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledg­ment of her Infallibility. But suppose the difference be (as here it is) whether your Church be Infallible, what shall de­cide that? If you would say (as you should do) Scripture and Reason, then you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit means to decide this Contro­versie, and therefore may be as fit to decide others. There­fore to avoid this, you run into a most ridiculous absurdi­ty, and tell us that this difference also, whether the Church be Infallible, as well as others, must be agreed by a sub­missive acknowledgment of the Churches Infallibility. As if you should have said, My Brethren, I perceive this is a great contention amongst you, whether the Roman Church [Page 224]be Infallible? If you will follow my advice, I will shew you a ready means to end it; you must first agree that the Roman Church is Infallible, and then your contention whether the Roman Church be Infallible, will quickly be at an end. Verily a most excellent advice, and most compendious way of ending all Controversies, even with­out troubling the Church to determine them! For why may not you say in all other differences, as you have done in this? Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church: That the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the body, and blood of Christ: That the Communion is to be given to Lay-men but in one kind: That Pictures may be worshipped: That Saints are to be invocated; and so in the rest, and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy, Transubstantiation, and all the rest will speedily be ended. If you say, the advice is good in this, but not in other cases, I must request you not to expect always, to be believed upon your word, but to shew us some reason, why any one thing, namely the Churches Infallibility, is fit to prove it self; and any other thing, by name the Popes Supremacy, or Transubstantia­tion is not as fit? Or if for shame you will at length con­fess, that the Churches Infallibility is not fit to decide this difference, whether the Church be infallible, then you must confess it is not fit to decide all: Unless you will say, it may be fit to decide all, and yet not fit to decide this, or pretend that this is not comprehended under all. Be­sides if you grant that your Churches infallibility can­not possibly be well grounded upon, or decided by it self, then having professed before, that there is no possible means besides this, for us to agree hereupon, I hope you will give me leave to conclude, that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is Infallible. For certainly light it self, is not more clear than the evidence of this syllogism: If there be no other means to make men agree upon your Churches Infallibility, but only this, and this be no means, then it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is In­fallible: But there is (as you have granted) no other pos­sible [Page 225]means to make men agree hereupon, but only a submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility, And this is apparently no means; Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is Infallible.

90. Lastly to the place of S. Austin, wherein we are ad­vised to follow the way of Catholick Discipline, which from Christ himself by the Apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity: I answer, That the way which S. Austin speaks of, and the way which you commend, being divers ways, and in many things clean contrary, we cannot possibly follow them both; and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vain equivocation. Shew us any way, and do not say, but prove it to have come from Christ and his Apostles down to us; and we are ready to follow it. Neither do we expect demonstration hereof, but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary. But if you bring in things into your now Catholick Discipline, which Christians in S. Austins time held abominable, (as the Picturing of God,) and which you must confess to have come into the Church Seven Hundred Years after Christ: if you will bring in things, as you have done the half Communion, with a non obstante, notwith­standing Christ Institution, and the practice of the Primitive Church were to the contrary: If you will do such things as these, and yet would have us believe, that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles, this we con­ceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make, or for wise Men to grant.

CHAP. IV. The ANSWER to the Fourth CHAPTER.

AD §. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.] Concerning the Creeds con­taining the Fundamentals of Christiany, this is D. Potters assertion, delivered in the 207. p. of his Book. The Creed of the Apostles (as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholick Church) is esteemed a sufficient sum­mary or Catalogue of Fundamentals, by the best learned Ro­manists and by Antiquity.

2. By Fundamentals he understands not the Fundamental rules of good Life and Action, (though every one of these is to be believed to come from God, and therefore vir­tually includes an Article of Faith;) but the Fundamen­tal Doctrines of Faith; such, as though they have influence upon our lives, as every essential Doctrine of Christiani­nity hath, yet we are commanded to believe them, and not to do them. The assent of our understandings is required to them, but no obedience from our wills.

3. But these speculative Doctrines again he distingui­shes out of Aquinas, Occham, and Canus and others, in­to two kinds: of the first are those which are the Objects of Faith, in, and for themselves, which by their own na­ture and Gods prime intention, are essential parts of that Gospel: such as the Teachers in the Church, cannot with­out Mortal sin omit to teach the Learners: such as are in­trinsecal to the Covenant between God and Man; and not only plainly revealed by God, and so certain truths, but also commanded to be preacht to all men, and to be believed distinctly by all, and so necessary truths. Of the second sort are Accidental, Circumstantial, Occasional ob­jects of Faith; Millions whereof there are in Holy Scri­pture; such as are to be believed, not for themselves, [Page 227]but because they are joyned with others, that are neces­sary to be believed, and delivered by the same Authori­ty which delivered these. Such as we are not bound to know to be Divine Revelations, (for without any fault we may be Ignorant hereof, nay believe the contrary;) such as we are not bound to examine, whether or no they be Divine Revelations: such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock, nor their Flock bound to know and remember: no nor the Pastors themselves to know them, or believe them, or not to disbelieve them absolutely and always; but then only when they do see, and know them to be delivered in Scripture, as Divine Revelati­ons.

4. I say when they do so, and not only when they may do. For to lay an obligation upon us of believing, or not disbelieving any Verity, sufficient Revelation on Gods part, is not sufficient: For then seeing all the ex­press Verities of Scripture are either to all men, or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God, it should be a damnable sin, in any learned men actually to disbelieve any one particular Historical verity contained in Scripture, or to believe the contradiction of it, though he knew it not to be there contained. For though he did not, yet he might have known it; it being plainly reveal­ed by God, and this revelation being extant in such a Book, wherein he might have found it recorded, if with dilligence he had perused it. To make therefore any points necessary to be believed, it is requisite, that either we actually know them to be Divine Revelations: and these though they be not Articles of Faith, nor necessa­ry to be believed, in and for themselves, yet indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence, they are so: The necessity of believing them, being inforced upon us, by a necessity of believing this Essential, and Fun­damental Article of Faith, That all Divine Revelations are true, which to disbelieve, or not to believe, is for any Christian not only impious, but impossible. Or else it is requisite that they be, First actually revealed by God. Secondly, commanded under pain of damnation, to be [Page 228]particularly known (I mean known to be Divine Revela­tions,) and distinctly to be believed. And of this latter sort of speculative Divine Verities, D. Potter affirmed, that the Apostles Creed was a sufficient summary: yet he affirmed it, not as his own opinion, but as the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers, and your own Doctors. And besides, he affirmed it not as absolutely certain, but very probable.

5. In brief, all that he says is this: It is very probable, that according to the judgment of the Roman Doctors, and the Ancient Fathers, the Apostles Creed is to be esteemed a sufficient summary of all those Doctrines which being meerly Cre­denda, and not Agenda, all men are ordinarily, under pain of Damnation, bound particularly to believe.

6. Now this assertion (you say) is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in it self true. Your Reasons to prove it impertinent, put into form and divested of impertinencies are these. 1. Because the question was not, what points were necessary to be explicitely believed, but what points were ne­cessary not to be disbelieeved after sufficient proposal. And there­fore to give a Catalogue of points, necessary to be explicitely be­lieved is impertinent.

7. Secondly, because Errors may be damnable, though the contrary truths be not of themselves Fundamental; as that Pontius Pilate was our Saviours Judge, is not in it self a Fundamental truth, yet to believe the contrary were a dam­nable Error. And therefore to give a Catalogue of Truths in themselves Fundamental, is no pertinent satisfaction to this demand, what Errors are damnable?

8. Thirdly, because if the Church be not Universally infal­lible, we cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed, which we must receive upon the Credit of the Church: and if the Church be Universally Infallible, it is damnable to oppose her declaration in any thing, though not contained in the Creed.

9. Fourthly, Because not to believe the Articles of the Creed in the true sense is damnable, therefore it is frivolous to say the Creed contains all Fundamentals, without specifying in what sense the Articles of it are Fundamental.

10. Fifthly, because the Apostles Creed ( as D. Potter himself confesses) was not a sufficient Catalogue, till it was explained [Page 229]by the first Council; nor then until it was declared in the second, &c. by occasion of emergent Heresies: Therefore now also as new Heresies may arise, it will need particular expla­nation, and so is not yet, nor ever will be a compleat Catalogue of Fundamentals.

11. Now to the first of these objections I say: First, that your distinction between points necessary to be be­lieved, and necessary not to be disbelieved, is more sub­til than sound, a distinction without a difference: There being no point necessary to be believed, which is not necessary not to be disbelieved: Nor no point to any man, at any time, in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same time, in the same circumstances, necessary to be believed. Yet that which (I believe) you would have said, I ac­knowledge true, that many points which are not neces­sary to be believed absolutely, are yet necessary to be be­lieved upon a supposition, that they are known to be re­vealed by God: that is, become then necessary to be be­lieved, when they are known to be Divine Revelations. But then I must needs say, you do very strangly, in saying, that the question was, what points might lawfully be disbelie­ved, after sufficient Proposition that they are Divine Revela­tions. You affirm, that none may, and so does D. Potter, and with him all Protestants, and all Christians. And how then is this the question? Who ever said or thought, that of Divine Revelations, known to be so, some might safely and lawfully be rejected, and disbelieved, under pretence that they are not Fundamental? which of us ever taught, that it was not damnable, either to deny, or so much as doubt of the Truth of any thing, whereof we either know, or believe that God hath revealed it? What Protestant ever taught that it was not damnable, either to give God the lie, or to call his Veracity into question? Yet you say, The demand of Charity mistaken was, and it was most reasonable, that a list of Fundamentals, should be given, the denial whereof destroys Salvation, whereas the denial of other points may stand with Salvation, although both kinds be equally proposed, as revealed by God.

12. Let the reader peruse Charity Mistaken, and he shall find that this qualification, although both kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God, is your ad­dition, a [...]d no part of the demand. And if it had, it had been most unreasonable, seeing he and you know well enough, that (though we do not presently without examination, fall down and worship all your Churches proposals, as Divine Revelations) yet, we make no such distinction of known Divine Revelations, as if some on­ly of them were necessary to be believed, and the rest might safely be rejected. So that to demand a particu­lar minute Catalogue of all points that may not be disbe­lieved after sufficient Proposition, is indeed to demand a Catalogue of all points that are or may be, in as much as none may be disbelieved, after sufficient Proposition, that it is a Divine Revelation. At least it is to desire us, Frst, to Transcribe into this Catalogue, every Text of the whole Bible. Secondly, to set down distinctly, those innumerous Millions of negative and positive con­sequences, which may be evidently deduced from it: For these we say, God hath revealed. And indeed you are not ashamed in plain terms to require this of us. For having first told us, that the demand was, what points were necessary not to be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition that they are Divine Truths: you come to say, Certainly the Creed contains not all these. And this you prove by ask­ing, how many Truths are there in Holy Scripture, not con­tained in the Creed, which we are not bound to know and be­lieve, but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject, as scon as we come to know that they are found in Holy Scri­pture? So that in requiring a particular Catalogue of all points, not to be disbelieved, after sufficient Proposal, you require us to set you down all points contained in Scripture, or evidently deducible from it. And yet this you are pleased to call a reasonable, nay, a most reasonable Demand: whereas having ingaged your self to give a Ca­talogue of your Fundamentals, you conceive your engage­ment very well satisfied by saying, all is Fundamental which the Church proposes, without going about, to give us [Page 231]an endless Inventory of her Proposals. And therefore from us, instead of a perfect particular of Divine Reve­lations of all sorts, (of which with a less hyperbole than S. John useth, we might say, If they were to be written, the World would not hold the Books that must be written;) me­thinks you should accept of this general, All Divine Re­velations are true, and to be believed.

13. The very truth is, the main Question in this busi­ness is not, what Divine Revelations are necessary to be be­lieved, or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed: for all without exception, all without question are so; But what Revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the belief of Christians, so that that Society, which does propose, and indeed believe them, hath for matter of Faith, the essence of a true Church; that which does not, has not. Now to this question, though not to yours, D. Potter's assertion (if it be true) is apparently very pertinent. And though not a full and total satisfaction to it, yet very effectual, and of great moment towards it. For the main question being, what points are necessary to Salvation: and points necessary to Salvation, being of two sorts, some of sim­ple belief, some of Practice and Obedience, he that gives you a sufficient summary, of the first sort of necessary points, hath brought you half way towards your Journies end. And therefore that which he does, is no more to be slighted, as vain and impertinent, than an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a House, because he does it not all himself. Sure I am, if his assertion be true, as I believe it is, a Corollary may presently be deduced from it, which if it were im­braced, cannot in all reason, but do infinite service, both to the truth of Christ, and the peace of Christendom. For seeing falshood and Error could not long stand a­gainst the power of truth, were they not supported by Tyranny and worldly advantages, he that could assert Christians to that liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them, must need do Truth a most Heroical service. And seeing the overvaluing of the differences among Christians, is one of the greatest maintainers of the [Page 232]Schism of Christendom, he that could demonstrate that only these points of Belief, are simply necessary to Sal­vation, wherein Christians generally agree, should he not lay a very fair and firm Foundation of the peace of Christendom? Now the Corollary which I conceive would produce these good effects, and which flowes na­turally from D. Potters Assertion, is this, That what Man or Church soever believes the Creed, and all the evident conse­quences of it sincerely and heartily, cannot possibly (if also he believe the Scripture) be in any Error of simple belief which is offenfive to God; nor therefore deserve for any such Error to be deprived of his Life, or to be cut off from the Churches Communion, and the hope of Salvation. And the produ­ction of this again would be this (which highly concerns the Church of Rome to think of,) That whatsoever Man or Church does for any Error of simple belief, deprive any man so quallified as above, either of his temporal life, or live­lyhood or liberty, or of the Churches Communion, and hope of Salvation, is for the first unjust, cruel, and Tyrannous: Schis­matical, presumptuous, and uncharitable for the second.

14. Neither yet is this (as you pretend) to take away the necessity of believing those Verities of Scripture, which are not contained in the Creed, when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture, but rather to lay a necessity upon men of believing all things written in Scripture, when once they know them to be there written. For he that believes not all known Divine Revelations to be true, how does he believe in God? Unless you will say, that the same man, at the same time may not believe God, and yet believe in him. The greater difficulty is, how it will not take away the necessity of believing Scripture to be the Word of God? But that it will not neither. For though the Creed be granted a sufficient summary of Articles of meer Faith, yet no man pretends that it contains the Rules of Obedi­ence, but for them, all men are referred to Scripture. Be­sides, he that pretends to believe in God, obligeth himself to believe it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the Will of God. Now reason will assure [Page 233]him that believes the Creed, that it is the Will of God he should believe the Scripture: even the very same Reason which moves him to believe the Creed: Universal, and never failing Tradition, having given this Testimony both to Creed and Scripture, that they both by the works of God were sealed, and testified to be the words of God. And thus much be spoken in Answer to your first Argument; the length whereof will be the more excusable, If I oblige my self to say but little to the rest.

15. I come then to your second. And in Answer to it, deny flatly, as a thing destructive of it self, that any Error can be damnable, unless it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly, directly or indirectly, of it self or by accident, to some Truth for the matter of it fundamental. And to your example of Pontius Pilat's being Judge of Christ, I say the denial of it in him that knows it to be revealed by God, is manifestly destructive of this Fundamental truth, that all Divine Revelations are true. Neither will you find any Error so much as by accident damnable, but the reje­cting of it will be necessarily laid upon us, by a real belief of all Fundamentals, and simply necessary Truths. And I desire you would reconcile with this, that which you have said §. 15. Every Fundamental Error must have a contrary Fun­damental Truth, because of two Contradictory propositions in the same degree, the one is false, the other must be true, &c.

16. To the Third I Answer; That the certainty I have of the Creed, That it was from the Apostles, and con­tains the principles of Faith, I ground it not upon Scripture, and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present, much less of your Church, but upon the Authority of the An­cient Church, and written Tradition, which (as D. Potter hath proved) gave this constant Testimony unto it. Be­sides I tell you, it is guilty of the same fault which D. Pot­ter's Assertion is here accused of: having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false, but none at all to shew it impertinent.

17. To the Fourth, I Answer plainly thus, That you find fault with D. Potter for his Vertues: you are offended with him for not usurping the Authority which he hath not; in [Page 234]a word for not playing the Pope. Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter, it is for doing it too much, and not too little. This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God, the special senses of men up­on the general words of God, and laying them upon mens consciences together, under the equal penalty of death, and damnation; this vain conceit that we can speak of the things of God, better than in the word of God: This Deifying our own Interpretations, and Tyrannous infor­cing them upon others; This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality, and the under­standings of men from that liberty, wherein Christ and the Apostles left them, This perswa­sion is no sin­gularity of mine but the Doctrin which I have learnt from Divines of great learning and judgment. Let the Reader be pleased to peruse the sea­venth book of Acontius de Stratag. Sata­nae. And Zan­chius his last Oration deli­vered by him after the com­posing of the discord be­tween him and Amerbachius, and he shall confess as much. is, and hath been the only foun­tain of all the Schisms of the Church, and that which makes them immortal: the common incendiary of Chri­stendom, and that which (as I said before) tears into pieces, not the coat, but the bowels, and members of Christ: Ridente Turcâ nec dolente Judaeo. Take away these Walls of separation, and all will quickly be one. Take away this Persecuting, Burning, Cursing, Damning of men for not subscribing to the words of Men, as the words of God; Re­quire of Christians only to believe Christ, and to call no man master but him only: Let those leave claiming Infal­libility that have no title to it, and let them that in their words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their actions; In a word, take away Tyranny, which is the Devils in­strument to support errors, and superstitions, and impieties, in the several parts of the World, which could not other­wise long withstand the power of Truth, I say take away Tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and full li­berty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only, and as Rivers when they have a free passage, run all to the Ocean, so it may well be hoped by Gods blessing, that Universal Liberty thus moderated, may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Unity. These thoughts of peace (I am perswaded) may come from the God of peace, and to his blessing I commend them, and proceed.

18. Your fifth and last objection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition: That new Heresies may arise. For [Page 235]an Heresie being in it self nothing else but a Doctrine Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith, to say that new Heresies may arise, is to say, that new Articles of Faith may arise: and so some great ones among you stick not to profess in plain terms, who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrin is Catholick and Apostolick. So Salmeron: Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus, ut quaelibet aetas suis gaudeat verita­tibus, quas prior aetas ignoravit. God hath not given all things to All: So that every age hath its proper Verities, which the former age was ignorant of: Disp. 57. In Ep. ad Rom. And again in the Margent: Habet Unumquod (que) sae­culum peculiares Revelationes Divinas, Every age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations. Where that he speaks of such Revelations as are, or may by the Church be made mat­ters of Faith, no man can doubt that reads him; an ex­ample whereof, he gives us a little before in these words. Unius Augustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit. The Doctrin of Augustin only, hath brought in to the Church the Worship of the Assumption of the Mother of God, &c. Others again mince and pal­liate the matter with this pretence, that your Church un­dertakes not to coyn new Articles of Faith, but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration. But if suffi­cient declaration be necessary to make any Doctrin an Article of Faith, then this Doctrin which before wanted it, was not before an Article of Faith; and your Church by giving it the Essential form, and last complement of an Article of Faith, makes it, though not a Truth, yet cer­tainly an Article of Faith. But I would fain know, whe­ther Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrin, which you pretend hath the matter, but wants the form of an Arti­cle of Faith, that is, sufficient declaration, whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the Faith, or no! If they knew it not to be so: then either they taught what they knew not, which were very strange; or else they taught it not: and if not, I would gladly be informed, seeing you pretend to no new Revelations from whom you learnt it? If they knew it, then either they concealed or decla­red [Page 236]it. To say they concealed any necessary part of the Gospel, is to charge them with far greater Sacriledg, than what was punished in Ananias and Saphira. It is to charge these glorious Stewards, and dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ, with want of the great vertue requisite in a Ste­ward, which is Fidelity. It is to charge them with presum­ption for denouncing Anathema's, even to Angels, in case they should teach any other doctrin, than what they had received from them, which sure could not merit an Ana­thema, if they left any necessary part of the Gospel un­taught. It is in a word, in plain terms to give them the lie, seeing they profess plainly and frequently, that they taught Christians the whole Doctrin of Christ. If they did know and declare it, then was it a full and formal Article of Faith; and the contrary a full and formal Heresie, without any need of further declaration: and then their Successors either continued the declaration of it, or discon­tinued: If they did the latter, how are they such faithful depositaries of Apostolick Doctrin as you pretend? Or what assurance can you give us, that they might not bring in new and false Articles, as well as suffer the old and true ones to be lost? If they did continue the declaration of it, and deliver it to their Successors, and they to theirs, and so on perpetually, then continued it still a full and formal Article of faith, and the repugnant doctrin a full and formal Heresie, without and before the definition or declaration of a Council. So that Councils, as they cannot make that a truth or falshood, which before was not so: so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith, or an Heresie, which before was not so. The supposition therefore on which this argument stands, being false and ruinous, whatsoever is built upon it, must together with it fall to the ground. This explication therefore, and restricti­on of this doctrin, (whereof you make your advantage) was to my understanding unnecessary. The Fathers of the Church in after times might have just cause to declare their judgment, touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed: but to oblige others to receive their declarati­ons under pain of damnation, what warrant they had I [Page 237]know not. He that can shew, either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority; or that it continued in the Church for some Ages, and then expired: He that can shew either of these things let him: for my part I cannot. Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council, though not infallible, is yet so far directive and obliging that with­out apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford it an outward submission for pub­lick peace sake.

20. Ad §. 7.8, 9. I come now to shew that you also have requited D. Potter with a mutual courteous acknow­ledgment of his assertion, That the Creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary Articles of Faith, which are meerly Credenda.

21. First then, §. 8. You have these words, That it can­not be denied that the Creed is most full and compleat to that pur­pose, for which the holy Apostles, inspired by God, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intend it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of Faith, but such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the Faith of Christ, to Jews and Gentiles, and might be briefly, and compendiously set down, and easily learnt and remembred. These words I say, being fairly examined, without putting them on the rack, will amount, to a full acknowledgment of D. Potters Assertion. But before I put them to the que­stion, I must crave thus much right of you, to grant me this most reasonable postulate, that the doctrin of repentance from dead works, which S. Paul saith, was one of the two only things which he preacht, and the doctrin of Charity, without which (the same S. Paul assures us that) the know­ledge of all mysteries, and all faith is nothing, were doctrins more necessary and requisite, and therefore more fit to be preacht to Jews and Gentiles, than these, under what judge our Saviour suffered, that he was buried, and what time he rose again: which you have taught us cap. 3. §. 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be Fundamental.

22. And upon this grant, I will ask no leave to conclude, that, whereas you say, the Apostles Creed was intended for a comprehension, of such heads of faith, as were most befitting [Page 238]and requisite, for preaching the faith of Christ, &c. You are now, for fear of too much debasing those high doctrines as Repentance and Charity, to restrain your assertion, as D. Potter does his, (and though you speak indefinitely) to say you meant it, only of those heads of faith, which are meerly Credenda. And then the meaning of it, (if it have any,) must be this, That the Creed is full for the Apostles intent, which was to comprehend all such general heads of faith, which being points of simple belief, were most fit and requisite, to be preached to Jews and Gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembred. Neither I nor you, I believe, can make any other sence of your words than this. And upon this ground thus I subsume. But all the points of be­lief, which were necessary, under pain of damnation, for the Apostles to preach, and for those to whom the Gospel was preached, particularly to know and believe, were most fit and requisite, nay more than so, necessary to be preach­ed to all both Jews and Gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easie learn'd and remembred: therefore the Apostles intent by your confession, was in this Creed, to comprehend all such points. And you say, the Creed is most full and complete, for the purpose which they in­tended. The Major of this Syllogism is your own. The Minor I should think needs no proof, yet because all men may not be of my mind, I will prove it by its parts; and the first part thus, There is the same necessity, for the doing of these things, which are commanded to be done, by the same Authority, under the same penalty: But the same Authority, viz. Divine, under the same penalty, to wit, of damnation, commanded the Apostles, to preach all these Doctrines which we speak of, and those to whom they were preached, particularly to know and believe them: For we speak of those only, which were so com­manded, to be preached and believed: Therefore all these points were alike necessary to be preached to all both Jews and Gentiles. Now that all these doctrines we speak of, may be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembred, he that remembers, that we spake [Page 239]only of such Doctrines as are necessary to be taught and learned, will require hereof no farther demonstration. For, (not to put you in mind of what the Poet says, Non sunt longa quibus nihil est quod demere possis,) who sees not, that seeing the greatest part of men are of very mean ca­pacities, that it is necessary that that may be learnt easily, which is to be learn'd of all? What then can hinder me from concluding thus, all the Articles of simple belief, which are fit and requisite to be preached, and may easily be remembred, are by your confession comprized in the Creed: but all the necessary Articles of Faith are requisite to be preached, and easie to be remembred; therefore they are all comprized in the Creed? Secondly, from grounds granted by you, I argue thus, Points of belief in themselves fundamental, are more requisite to be preached than those which are not so: (this is evident.) But the Apostles have put into their Creed some points that are not in them­selves fundamental: (so you confess, ubi supra.) There­fore if they have put in all, most requisite to be preached, they have put in all, that in themselves are fundamental. Thirdly and lastly, from your own words Sect. 26. thus I conclude my purpose, The Apostles intention was, particu­larly to deliver in the Creed such Articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the Deity, Trinity, and Messias; (thus you, now I subsume,) but all points simply necessary, by vertue of Gods command, to be preached and believed in particular, were as fit for those times as these here men­tioned; therefore their intention was, to deliver in it par­ticularly all the necessary points of belief.

23. And certainly he that considers the matter advised­ly, either must say that the Apostles were not the Authors of it, or that this was their design in composing it, or that they had none at all. For whereas you say, their intent was, to comprehend in it such general heads as were most besitting and requisite for preaching the faith; and elsewhere, Particu­larly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times; Every wise man may easily see that your desire here was, to escape away in a cloud of indefinite terms. For other­wise, instead of such general heads, and such Articles, [Page 240]why did not you say plainly, all such, or some such? This had been plain dealing, but I fear, cross to your design: which yet you have failed of. For that which you have spoken (though you are loath to speak out,) ei­ther signifies nothing at all; or that which I and D. Pot­ter affirm: viz. That the Apostles Creed contains all those points of belief, which were by Gods command, of necessity to be preached to all, and believed by all. Nei­ther when I say so, would I be so mistaken, as if I said, that all points in the Creed are thus necessary: For Pu­nies in Logick, know that universal affirmatives, are not simply converted. And therefore it may be true, that all such necessary points, are in the Creed; though it be not true, that all points in the Creed are thus necessary: which I willingly grant, of the points by you mention­ed. But this rather confirms, than any way invalidates my assertion. For how could it stand with the Apostles wisdom, to put in any points circumstantial and not ne­cessary, and at the same time, to leave out any that were essential and necessary for that end, which you say they proposed to themselves, in making the Creed, that is, The preaching of the Faith, to Jews and Gentiles?

31. Ad §. 11.12, 13, 14, 15. Obj. Summaries and Abstracts are not intended to specifie all the particulars of the science or sub­ject to which they belong.

Ans. Yes if they be intended for perfect Summaries, they must not omit any necessary doctrin of that Science whereof they are Summaries; though the Illustration and Reasons of it they may omit. If this were not so, a man might set down forty or fifty of the Principal definitions and divisions, and rules of Logick, and call it a Summary or Abstract of Logick. But sure, this were no more a Summary, than that were the picture of a man in little, that wanted any of the parts of a man; or that a total sum wherein all the particulars were not cast up. Now the Apostles Creed you here intimate that it was intended for a Summary: otherwise why talk you here of Sūmaries, and tell us that they need not contain all the particulars of their Science? And of what I pray may it be a [Page 241]Summary, but of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith? Now you have already told us, That it is most full and com­pleat to that purpose for which it was intended. Lay all this together, and I believe the product will be; That the Apostles Creed is a perfect Summary of the Funda­mentals of the Christian Faith: and what the duty of a perfect Summary is, I have already told you.

32. Whereas therefore to disprove this Assertion, in divers particles of this Chapter, but especially the Four­teenth, you muster up whole Armies of Doctrines, which you pretend are necessary, and not contained in the Creed; I answer very briefly thus: That the Doctrines you men­tion, are either concerning matters of practice, and not simple belief; or else they are such Doctrines wherein God has not so plainly revealed himself, but that honest and good men, true Lovers of God and of Truth, those that desire above all things to know his will and do it, may Err, and yet commit no sin at all, or only a sin of infirmity, and not destructive of Salvation; or lastly, they are such Doctrines which God hath plainly revealed, and so are necessary to be believed when they are known to be Divine, but not necessary to be known and belie­ved, not necessary to be known for Divine, that they may be believed. Now all these sorts of Doctrines are impertinent to the present Question.

33. First, the Questions touching the Conditions to be performed by us to obtain remission of sins; the Sacra­ments; the Commandments, and the possibility of keep­ing them, the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them: how far obedience is due to the Church: Prayer for the Dead: The cessation of the Old Law: are all about Agenda, and so cut off upon the first consideration.

34. Secondly, the Question touching Fundamentals, is profitable but not Fundamental. He that believes all Fundamentals, cannot be damned for any Error in Faith, though he believe more or less to be Fundamental than is so. That also of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son: of Purgatory: of the Churches [Page 242]Visibility: of the Books of the New Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitive Church: (until I see better reason for the contrary than the bare authority of men,) I shall esteem of the same condition.

35. Thirdly, These Doctrines that Adam and the An­gels sinned: that there are Angels good and bad: that those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church, are the word of God: that S. Peter had no such primacy as you pretend: that the Scripture is a perfect rule of Faith, aad conse­quently that no necessary Doctrine is unwritten: that there is no one Society or succession of Christians absolutely Infallible: These to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by God, and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so. But not so necessary, that eve­ry Man and Woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be Divine Revelations, and explicitely to believe them. And for this reason, these with innumerable other points, are to be referred to the third sort of Doctrines above mentioned, which were never pretended to have place in the Creed. There re­mains one only point of all that Army you Mustred to­gether, reducible to none of these Heads, and that is, that God is, and is a Remunerator, which you say is question­ed by the denial of merit. But if there were such a ne­cessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the Doctrine of merit, methinks with as much reason, and more charity you might conclude, That we hold merit, because we hold this point; Then that we deny this point, because we deny merit. Beside, when Protestants deny the Doctrine of Merits, you know right well, for so they have declared themselves a thousand times, that they mean nothing else, but with David, that their well doing extendeth not, is not truly beneficial to God: with our Savi­our, when they have done all which they are commanded, they have done their duty only, and no courtesie: And lastly, with S. Paul, that all which they can suffer for God (and yet suffering is more than doing) is not worthy to be com­pared [Page 243]to the glory that shall be revealed. So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit, or you must discharge their Doctrine of this odious conse­quence, or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himself. Nay you must either grant their denial of true Merit just and reasonable, or you must say, that our good actions are really profitable to God: that they are not debts already due to him, but voluntary and undeserved Favours: and that they are equal unto and well worthy of Eternal Glory which is prepared for them. As for the inconvenience which you so much fear, That the denial of Merit makes God a giver only, and not a re­warder; I tell you, good Sir, you fear where no fear is, and that it is both most true on the one side, that you in holding good Works meritorious of Eternal Glory make God a rewarder only and not a giver, contrary to plain Scripture, affirming that The gift of God is Eternal Life; And that it is most false on the other side, that the Do­ctrine of Protestants makes God a giver only and not a rewarder: In as much as their Doctrine is, That God gives not Heaven but to those which do something for it, and so his gift is also a Reward; but withal that what­soever they do is due unto God beforehand, and worth nothing to God, and worth nothing in respect of Heaven, and so Mans work is no Merit, and Gods reward is still a Gift.

36. Put the case the Pope, for a reward of your Ser­vice done him in writing this Book, had given you the Honour and means of a Cardinal, would you not, not only in humility but in sincerity have professed, that you had not merited such a reward? And yet the Pope is nei­ther your Creator nor Redeemer, nor Preserver, nor perhaps your very great Benefactor, sure I am, not so great as God Almighty, and therefore hath no such right and title to your Service as God hath in respect of pre­cedent obligations. Besides, the work you have done him hath been really advantagious to him: and lastly, not altogether unproportionable to the forementioned reward. And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you have or hope to have deserved immortal [Page 244]Happiness, I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinals Cap, than a Crown of immortal Glory, and with that Cardinal to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise.

37. As for your distinction, between Heresies that have been, and Heresies that are, and Heresies that may be, I have already proved it vain; and that whatsoever may be an Heresie, that is so; and whatsoever is so, that always hath been so, ever since the publication of the Gospel of Christ. The Doctrine of your Church may like a Snow-ball increase with rouling, and again if you please melt away and decrease: But as Christ Jesus, so his Gos­pel, is yesterday and to day, and the same for ever.

38. Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach, gave them no other Commission than this: Go teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. These were the bounds of their Commission. If your Church have any larger, or if she have a Commission at large, to teach what she pleases, and call it the Gospel of Christ, let her produce her Letters patents, from Heaven for it. But if this be all you have, then must you give me leave to esteem it both great sacriledg in you to forbid any thing, be it never so small or ceremonious, which Christ hath command­ed: as the receiving of the Communion in both kinds: and as high a degree of presumption, to enjoyn men to believe, that there are or can be any other Fundamen­tal Articles of the Gospel of Christ, than what Christ himself commanded his Apostles to teach all men; or any damnable Heresies, but such as are plainly repug­nant to these prime Verities.

39. Ad §. 16, 17.] The saying of the most Learned Prelate and excellent man the Arch-Bishop of Armach (which shall be set down at the end of N. 43.) is as great and as good a Truth, and as necessary for these miserable times as can possibly be uttered: For this is most certain, and I believe you will easily grant it, that to reduce Christi­ans to Unity of Communion, there are but two ways [Page 245]that may be conceived probable: The one, by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion: The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions, which is among the several Sects of Christians, ought to be no hindrance to their Unity in Communion.

40. Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle, unless that could be done, which is impossible to be performed, though it be often pre­tended; that is, unless it could be made evident to all men, that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies, to whose judgment all men are to sub­mit themselves. What then remains, but that the other way must be taken, and Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high points of Faith and obedience wherein they agree, than upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ, and understand that a­greement in those, ought to be more effectual to joyn them in one Communion, than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them? When I say, in one Communion, I mean, in a common Profession of those articles of Faith, wherein all consent: A joynt worship of God, after such a way as all esteem lawful; and a mutual performance of all those works of Charity, which Christians owe one to another. And to such a Communi­on what better inducement could be thought of, than to demonstrate that what was Universally believed of all Christians, if it were joyned with a love of truth, and with holy obedience, was sufficient to bring men to Hea­ven? For why should men be more rigid than God? Why should any Error exclude any man from the Churches Communion, which will not deprive him of Eternal Sal­vation? Now that Christians do generally agree in all those points of Doctrine, which are necessary to Salvati­on, it is apparent, because they agree with one accord, in believing all those Books of the Old and New Testa­ment, which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted Word of God. And it is so certain that in all these Books, all necessary Doctrines are evident­ly contained, that of all the four Evangelists this is ve­ry [Page 246]probable, but of S. Luke most apparent, that in every one of their Books they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospel of Christ. For what reason can be imagined, that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary, and yet (as apparently all of them have done) put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not neces­sary? What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospel of Christ, would do so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion? Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospel of Christ for the Indians, think you he would have left out any Fundamental Doctrine of it? If not, I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Matthew, and S. Mark, and S. Luke, and S. John, as you do of Xaverius. Besides, if every one of them have not in them all necessary Doctrines, how have they complied with their own design, which was, as the Ti­tles of their Books shew, to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how have they not deceived us, in giving them such Titles? By the whole Gospel of Christ, I understand not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes up the Covenant between God and Man. Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospel of Saint Mark and Saint John, I believe every consider­ing man will be inclinable to believe that then with­out doubt, it is contained, with the advantage of ma­ny other very profitable things, in the larger Gospels of Saint Matthew, and Saint Luke. And that Saint Marks Gospel wants no necessary Article of this Co­venant, I presume you will not deny, if you believe Ire­naeus when he says, Matthew to the Hebrews in their Tongue published the Scripture of the Gospel: When Peter and Paul did Preach the Gospel, and found the Church or a Church at Rome, or of Rome, and after their departure Mark the Scholar of Peter, delivered to us in writing those things which had been Preached by Peter; and Luke, the follower of Paul, compiled in a Book the Gospel which was Preached by him: And afterwards John, residing in Asia, in the City of Ephseus, did himself also set forth a Gospel.

41. In which words of Irenaeus, it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Hereticks, Lib. 3. c. 2. that pretended (as you know who do now adaies) that some ne­cessary Doctrines of the Gospel were unwritten, and that out of the Scriptures, truth (he must mean sufficient truth,) cannot be found by those which know not Tradition. Against whom to say, that part of the Gospel which was Preach­ed by S Peter was written by S Mark, and so other necessary parts of it omitted, had been to speak imper­tinently, and rather to confirm than confute their Error. It is plain therefore, that he must mean, as I pretend, that all the necessary Doctrine of the Gospel, which was Preached by Saint Peter, was written by Saint Mark. Now you will not deny, I presume, that Saint Peter, Preach­ed all, therefore you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all.

42. Our next inquiry let it be touching S. Johns intent in writing his Gospel, whether it were to deliver so much truth, as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to Eternal Life, or only part of it, and to leave part unwritten? A great man there is, but much less than the Apostle, who saith, that writing last, he purpos­ed to supply the defects of the other Evangelists, that had wrote before him: which (if it were true) would suffici­ently justifie what I have undertaken, that at least all the four Evangelists have in them, all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ. Neither will I deny, but S. Johns secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels, in some things very profitable. But he that pretends, that any necessary Doctrine is in S. John which is in none of the other Evangelists, hath not so well considered them as he should do, before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter. And for his prime intent in writing his Gospel, what that was, certainly no Father in the World understood it better than himself. Therefore let us hear him speak: Many other signs (saith he) also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book: But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God, and that believing you may have Life in his name. [Page 248]By (these are written) may be understood, either these things are written, or these signs are written. Take it which way you will, this conclusion will certainly follow, That either all that which S. John wrote in his Gospel, or less than all, and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with live­ly Faith, would certainly bring them to Eternal Life.

43. This which hath been spoken (I hope) is enough to justifie my undertaking to the full, that it is very pro­bable that every one of the four Evangelists has in his Book the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ. But for Saint Luke, that he hath written such a perfect Gospel, in my judgment it ought to be with them that believe him, no manner of questi­on. Consider first the introduction to his Gospel, where he declares what he intends to write, in these Words, For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of those things, which are most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect un­derstanding of things from the first, to write to thee in or­der, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty, of those things wherein thou hast heen instru­cted. Add to this place, the entrance to his History of the Acts of the Apostles: The former Treatise have I made, O The­ophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up. Weigh well these two places, and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands. 1. Whether S. Luke does not undertake the very same thing which he says, many had taken in hand? 2. Whether this were not to set forth in order, a Decla­ration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians? 3. Whether the whole Gospel of Christ, and every necessary Doctrine of it, were not surely be­lieved among Christians? 4. Whether they which were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word from the begin­ning, delivered not the whole Gospel of Christ? 5. Whe­ther he does not undertake to write in order these [Page 249]things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first? 6. Whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole Gospel of Christ? 7. Whether he doth not undertake to write to Theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed? 8. And whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ? 9. Whe­ther in the other Text, All things which Jesus began to do and teach, must not at least imply, all the principal and necessary things? 10. Whether this be not the very in­terpretation of your Rhemish Doctors, in their Annotation upon this place? 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith, without the belief whereof, no man can be saved, be not the principal and most necessary things which Jesus taught? 12. And lastly, whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospel, be not less principal, and less necessary than all and every one of these? When you have well considered these proposals, I believe you will be very apt to think (if S. Luke be of cre­dit with you) That all things necessary to salvation, are certainly contained in his writings alone. And from hence you will not choose but conclude, that seeing all the Christians in the world, agree in the belief of what S. Luke hath written, and not only so, but in all other Books of Canonical Scripture, which were never doubted of in and by the Church, the Learned Arch-Bishop had very just, and certain ground to say, That in these Propositi­ons, which without Controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world, so much truth is contained, as being joyned with holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Salvation; and that we have no cause to doubt, but that as many as walk according to this rule, neither over­throwing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable Heresie thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation, peace shall be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

44. Against this, you object two things. The one, that by this Rule, seeing the Doctrin of the Trinity is not recei­ved universally among Christians, the denial of it shall not ex­clude Salvation. The other, that the Bishop contradicts him­self, [Page 250]in supposing a man may believe all necessary Truths, and yet superinduce some damnable Heresies.

45. To the first I answer, what I conceive he would, whose words I here justify, that he hath declared plainly in this very place, that he meant, not an absolute, but a limited Universality, and speaks not of propositions uni­versally believed by all Professions of Christianity that are, but only, by all those several Professions of Christianity, that have any large spread in any part of the world. By which words he excludes from the universality here spoken of, the denyers of the Doctrin of the Trinity, as being but a handful of men, in respect of all, nay in respect of any of these professions which maintain it. And there­fore it was a great fault in you, either willingly to conceal these words, which evacuate your objection, or else negli­gently to oversee them.

46. Now for the foul Contradiction, wherein I pray does it lie? In supposing (say you) a man may believe all Truths necessary to salvation, and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie. I answer, It is not certain that his words do suppose this: neither if they do, does he contradict himself. I say it is not certain that his words import any such matter. For ordinarily men use to speak and write so as here he does, when they intend not to limit or restrain, but only to re­peat and press and illustrate what they have said before.

S. Athanasius in his Creed tells us, The Catholick Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance; and why now do you not tell him that he contradicts him­self, and supposes that we may worship a Trinity of Per­sons, and one God in substance, and yet confound the Persons, or divide the Substance; which yet is impossible, because Three remaining Three, cannot be confounded, and One remaining One cannot be divided? If a man should say unto you, he that keeps all the Commandments of God, committing no sin either against the love of God, or the love of his neighbour, is a perfect man: Or thus, he that will live in constant health had need be exact in his diet, neither eating too much, nor too little: Or thus, he [Page 251]that will come to London must go on straight forward in such a way, und neither turn to the right hand or to the left; I verily believe you would not find any contradiction in his words, but confess them as coherent and consonant as any in your Book. And certainly if you would look upon this saying of the Bishop with any indifference, you would easily perceive it to be of the very same kind, and capable of the very same construction. And therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain; Nei­ther can you assure us, that the Bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend. Neither if he did suppose this (as perhaps he did) were this to contradict himself. For though there can be no damnable Heresie, unless it contra­dict some necessary Truth, yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once believe this Heresie and this Truth; because there is no contradiction that the same man, at the same time, should believe contradictions. For, first, whatsoever a man believes true, that he may and must believe; but there have been some who have belie­ved and taught that contradictions might be true, against whom Aristotle disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks; Therefore it is not impossible that a man may believe con­tradictions. Secondly, they which believe there is no cer­tainty in Reason, must believe that contradictions may be true: For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason; This contradicts Truth, therefore it is false. But there be now divers in the world who believe there is no certainty in reason, (and whether you be of their mind or no, I de­sire to be informed;) Therefore there be divers in the world who believe contradictions may be true. Thirdly, They which do captivate their understandings to the be­lief of those things which to their understanding seem ir­reconcileable contradictions, may as well believe real contradictions: (For the difficulty of believing ari­ses not from their being repugnant, but from their seeming to be so:) But you do captivate your understand­ings to the belief of those things which seem to your un­derstandings irreconcileable contradictions; therefore it is as possible and easie for you to believe those that indeed [Page 252]are so. Fourthly, some men may be confuted in their Errors, and perswaded out of them; but no mans Error can be confuted, who together with his Error doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his Error: for nothing can be proved to him who grants no­thing, neither can there be (as all men know) any ratio­nal discourse but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts. Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certain, that the same man at the same time may believe contradi­ctions. Fifthly, It is evident, neither can you without ex­tream madness and uncharitableness, deny, that we believe the Bible, those Books I mean which we believe Canoni­cal: Otherwise why dispute you with us out of them, as out of a common Principle? Either therefore you must re­tract your opinion, and acknowledge that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions, or else you will run into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to con­fess, that no part of our Doctrin contradicts the Bible. Sixthly, I desire you to vindicate from contradiction these following Assertions: That there should be Length, and nothing long: Breadth, and nothing broad: Thickness, and nothing thick: Whiteness, and nothing white: Round­ness, and nothing round: Weight, and nothing heavy: Sweetness, and nothing sweet: Moisture, and nothing moist: Fluidness, and nothing flowing: many Actions, and no Agent: many Passions, and no Patient: That is, that there should be a long, broad, thick, white, round, heavy, sweet, moist, flowing, active, passive, nothing! That Bread should be turned into the substance of Christ, and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ; neither the matter, nor the form, nor the Ac­cidents of Bread, be made either the matter or the Form, or the Accidents of Christ. That Bread should be turned into nothing, and at the same time with the same action turned into Christ, and yet Christ should not be nothing. That the same thing at the same time should have its just dimensions, and just distance of its parts, one from another, and at the same time not have it, but all its parts together in one and the self same point. That the body of [Page 253]Christ, which is much greater, should be contained whol­ly and in its full dimensions without any alteration, in that which is lesser, and that not once only, but as many times over as there are several points in the bread and wine. That the same thing at the same time should be wholly above it self, and wholly below it self, within it self, and without it self, on the right hand, and on the left hand, and round about it self. That the same thing at the same time should move to and from it self, and lie still: Or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space, and yet not move. That it should be brought from Heaven to Earth, and yet not come out of Heaven, nor be at all in any of the middle space between Heaven and Earth. That to be one, should be to be undivided from it self, and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it self. That a thing may be, and yet be no where. That a Finite thing may be in all places at once. That a Body may be in a place, and have there its dimen­sions, and colour, and all other qualities, and yet that it is not in the power of God to make it visible, and tangi­ble there, nor capable of doing or suffering any thing. That there should be no certainty in our senses, and yet that we should know something certainly, and yet know nothing but by our senses. That that which is, and was long ago, should now begin to be. That that is now to be made of nothing, which is not nothing but something. That the same thing should be before and after it self. That it should be truly and really in a place, and yet without Lo­cality. Nay, that He which is Omnipotent should not be able to give it Locality in this place, where it is, as some of you hold: or if he can, as others say he can, that it should be possible, that the same man, for example You or I, may at the same time, be awake at London, & not awake but asleep at Rome: There run or walk, here not run or walk, but stand still, sit, or lie along: There study or write, here do neither, but dine or sup: There speak, here be silent. That he may in one place freez for cold, in another burn with heat. That he may be drunk in one place, and sober in another: Valiant in one place, and a Coward in another: [Page 254]A thief in one place, honest in another. That he may be a Papist and go to Mass in Rome; A Protestant and go to Church in England. That he may die in Rome, and live in England: or dying in both places may go to Hell from Rome, and to Heaven from England. That the Body and Soul of Christ should cease to be where it was, and yet not go to another place, nor be destroyed. All these, and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable, and most of them the acknowledged consequences of your do­ct [...]in of Transubstantiation, as is explained one where or other by your School-men. Now I beseech you, Sir, to try your skill, and if you can compose their repugnance, and make peace between them; Certainly, none but you shall be Catholick Moderator. But if you cannot do it, and that after an intelligible manner, then you must give me leave to believe, that either you do not believe Transubstantiati­on, or else that it is no contradiction, that men should subju­gate their understandings to the belief of contradictions.

48. Ad §. 18. This Paragraph consists of two immo­dest untruths, obtruded upon us without shew, or shadow of reason: and an evident sophism grounded upon an af­fected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamental.

49. The first untruth is, that some Protestants make a Church, of men scarcely agreeing in one point of faith; of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief, and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory: agreeing only in this one Article, that Christ is our Saviour; &c.

Ans. This is a shameless Calumny; because even these men to the constituting of the very essence of a Church, in the lowest degree, require not only Faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the World, but also sub­mission to his Doctrin in mind and will. Now I beseech you Sir, tell me ingenuously, whether the Doctrin of Christ may be called without blasphemy, scarcely one point of Faith? Or whether it consists only, of some-one or few Articles of belief? Or whether there be nothing in it, but only this Article, That Christ is our Saviour? Is it not manifest to all the world, that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent, in the belief of all those Books of Scripture, [Page 255]which were not doubted of in the ancient Church, with­out danger of damnation? Nay is it not apparent, that no man at this time, can without hypocrisie, pretend to be­lieve in Christ, but of necessity he must do so? Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ, but he must have the same to believe the Scripture. I pray then read over the Scripture once more, or if that be too much labour, the New Testament only: and then say whether there be nothing there, but scarcely one point of Faith? But some one or two Articles of belief? Nothing but this Article only, that Christ is our Saviour? Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities, Divine pre­cepts, Divine promises, and those so plainly and undoubt­edly delivered, that if any sees them not, it cannot be be­cause he cannot, but because he will not! So plainly, that whosoever submits sincerely to the Doctrin of Christ, in mind and will, cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance. And in the rest, which it hath pleas­ed God, for reasons best known to himself, to deliver obscurely or ambiguously, yet thus far at least they agree, that the sense of them intended by God, is certainly true, and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavor to find it out: The difference only is, which is that true sense which God intended. Neither would this long con­tinue, if the walls of separation, whereby the Divel hopes to make their Divisions eternal, were pulled down; and Error were not supported against Truth, by human ad­vantages. But for the present, God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it! For whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement, through I know not what strange glasses, have made the first innu­merable, and the other scarce a number: the Truth is clean contrary; that those divine Verities, Speculative and Pra­ctical, wherein they universally agree (which you will have to be but a few, or but one, or scarcely one) amount to many millions, [...] if an exact account were taken of them:) And on the other side, the Points in variance, are in comparison but few, and those not of such a quali­ty, but the Error in them may well consist with the belief [Page 256]and obedience of the entire Covenant, ratified by Christ between God and man. Yet I would not be so mistaken, as if I thought the Errors even of some Protestants un­considerable things, and matters of no moment. For the truth is, I am very fearful, that some of their opini­nions, either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistak­en, (though not of themselves so damnable, but that good and holy men may be saved with them, yet) are too fre­quent occasions of our remissness, and slackness, in run­ning the race of Christian Perfection, of our deferring Repentance, and conversion to God, of our frequent relapses into sin, and not seldom of security in sinning; and consequently, though not certain causes, yet too fre­quent occasions of many mens damnation: and such I conceive all these Doctrines which either directly or ob­liquely, put men in hope of Eternal happiness, by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and Universal obedience, grounded upon a true and lively Faith. These Errors therefore, I do not elevate or extenuate: and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed, do heartily wish, that the cement were made of my dearest Blood, and only not to be an Anathema from Christ! Only this I say, that neither are their points of agreement so few, nor their differences so many, as you make them, nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being members of one Church Militant, and Joynt Heirs of the Glory of the Church Triumphant.

50. Your other palpable untruth is, that Protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith, than Ca­tholick Divines (you mean your own,] in Questions meerly Philosophical, or not determined by the Church. For neither do they differ at all, in matters of Faith, if you take the word in the highest sense, and mean by matters of Faith, such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to Salvation, to be believed or not to be disbelieved. And then in those wherein they do differ, with what col [...]r or shadow of Argument, can you make good, that they are more bold to disagree, than you are in Questions meerly Philosophical, or not determined by the Church? For is there not as great re­pugnancy [Page 257]between your assent and dissent, your affirma­tion and negation, your Est Est, Non Non, as there is between theirs? You follow your Reason, in those things which are not determined by your Church; and they theirs, in things not plainly determined in Scripture. And wherein then consists their greater, their far greater boldness? And what if they in their contradictory opini­nions, pretend both to rely upon the truth of God, doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more re­pugnant? I had always thought, that all contradictions had been equally contradictions, and equally repugnant; because the least of them are as far asunder, as Est and Non Est can make them, and the greatest are no farther. But then you in your differences, (by name, about Pre­determination, the Immaculate Conception, the Popes In­fallibility,) upon what other motive do you rely? Do not you cite Scripture, or Tradition, or both, on both sides? And do you not pretend, that both these are the infal­lible Truths of Almighty God?

51. You close up this Section with a fallacy, proving forsooth, that we destroy, by our confession, the Church which is the House of God, because we stand only upon Fundamental Articles, which cannot make up the whole Fabrick of the Faith, no more than the Foundation of a House alone can be a House.

52. But I hope, Sir, you will not be difficult in granting, that that is a House which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a House: now by Fundamental Articles, we mean all those which are necessary; and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect Salvation in a Church, which hath all things Fundamental to Salvati­on; Unless you will say, that more is necessary, than that which is necessary.

53. Ad §. 19.] This long discourse is to shew that Pro­testants give unavoidable occasion of desperation to poor Souls, and brings in a Man desirous to save his Soul, asking Questions of D. P. and makes answers for him. As first, if he required, whose directions he might rely upon? He says, the Doctor's Answer would be, upon the truly Catholick Church.

But I suppose upon better reason, because I know his mind, that he would advise him to call no man Master up­on Earth, but according to Christs command, to rely up­on the direction of God himself. If he ask, where he should find this direction? he would answer him, In his Word contained in Scripture. If he should inquire what assurance he might have that the Scripture is the Word of God? He would answer him, that the Doctrine it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God, (nec vox hominem sonat) and that they which wrote and delivered it, confirmed it to be the Word of God, by doing such works as could not be done, but by Power from God himself. For assurance of the Truth hereof, he would advise him to rely upon that which all Wise Men, in all matters of belief rely upon; and that is, the consent of Ancient records, and Universal Tradition. No Wise Man doubts but there was such a man as Julius Caesar, or Cicero, that there are such Cities as Rome or Constantinople, though he have no other assurance for the one or the other, but only the speech of People. This Tradition therefore he would counsel him to rely upon, and to believe that the Book which we call Scripture, was confirmed abundant­ly by the Works of God, to be the Word of God. Be­lieving it the Word of God, he must of necessity believe it true: and if he believe it true, he must believe it con­tains all necessary directions unto Eternal Happiness, be­cause it affirms it self to do so. Nay he might tell him, that so far is the whole Book, from wanting any neces­sary direction to his Eternal Salvation, that one only Author, that hath writ but two little Books of it, Saint Luke by name in the beginning of his Gospel, and in the beginning of his Story, shews plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary. And what they wrote, they wrote by Gods direction, for the direction fo the World, not only for the Learned, but for all that would do their true endeavour to know the will of God, and to do it; therefore you cannot but conceive, that writing to all and for all, they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all. Besides that, [Page 259]here he should find, that God himself has engaged him­self by promise, that if he would love him, and keep his Commandments, and pray earnestly for his Spirit, and be willing to be directed by it, he should undoubt­edly receive it, even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all Truth; that is certainly, into all necessary Truths, and suffer him to fall into no pernitious Error. The sum of his whole direction to him briefly would be this, Believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, use your true endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it, and then you may rest se­curely that you are in the true way to Eternal Happiness. This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case; and this is a way so plain, that Fools, unless they will, cannot Err from it. Because not knowing absolutely all truth, nay not all profitable truth, and not being free from Error; but en­deavouring to know the truth and obey it, and endea­vouring to be free from Error, is by this way made the only condition of Salvation.

56. Neither is this to drive any man to desparation; unless it be such a one as hath such a strong affection to this word, Church, that he will not go to Heaven, un­less he hath a Church to lead him thither. For what though a Council may Err, and the whole Church cannot be consulted with, yet this is not to send you on the Fools Pilgrimage for Faith, and bid you go and confer with eve­ry Christian Soul, Man and Woman, by Sea and [...] Land, close Prisoner, or at Liberty, as you dilate the ma [...] [...]: But to tell you very briefly, that Universal Tradition directs you to the Word of God, and the Word of God directs you to Heaven.

57. To the next demand, How stall I know whether he hold all Fundamental points or no? When Protestants answer, If he truly believe the undoubted Books of Canonical Scripture, he cannot but believe all Fundamentals, and that it is very proba­ble that the Creed contains all the Fundamentals of simple be­lief: The Jesuite takes no notice of the former, but takes occasion from the latter to ask. Shall I hazard my Soul [Page 260]on Probabilities, or even Wagers? As if whatsoever is but probable, though in the highest degree of Probability, were as likely to be false as true! or because it is but Mo­rally, not Mathematically certain, that there was such a Woman as Q. Elizabeth, such a man as Hen. the 8th. that is in the highest degree probable, therefore it were an even Wager there were none such! By this Reason seeing the truth of your whole Religion depends finally upon Prudential motives, which you do but pretend to be very credible, it will be an even Wager that your Religion is false. And by the same Reason, or rather infinitely greater, seeing it is impossible for any man (according to the grounds of your Religion) to know himself, much less another to be a true Pope, or a true Priest; nay to have a Moral cer­tainty of it, because these things are obnoxious to innume­rable secret and undiscernable nullities, it will be an even Wager, nay (if we proportion things indifferently, a hun­dred to one, that every Consecration and Absolution of yours is void, and that whensoever you adore the Host, you and your Assistants commit Idolatry: That there is a nullity in any decree that a Pope shall make, or any Decree of a Council which he shall confirm: Particular­ly it will be at least an even Wager, that all the decrees of the Council of Trent are void, because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope.

62. Obj. But unless this Question be answered, (what points of the [...]ed are, and what are not Fundamentals?) the Prote [...]e [...]t Doctrine serves only either to make men despare, or else to have recourse to those called Papists.

Answ. It seems a little thing will make you despair, if you be so sullen as to do so, because men will not trou­ble themselves to satisfie your curious questions. And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it, be­cause as before I told you, if you will believe all the points of the Creed, you cannot choose but believe all the points of it that are Fundamental, though you be igno­rant which are so, and which are not so. Now I believe your desire to know which are Fundamentals, proceeds [Page 261]only from a desire to be assured that you do believe them; which seeing you may be assured of, without knowing which they be, what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it? Neither may you think to mend your self herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists; for they are as far to seek as we in this point, which of the Articles of the Creed are, for their nature and mat­ter, Fundamental, and which are not. Particularly, you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors, so ad­venturous, as to tell you for a certain, whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost, his being born of a Virgin, his Burial, his descent into Hell, and the Communion of Saints, be points of their own nature and matter Fundamental. Such I mean, as without the di­stinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved.

63. Obj. We give this certain Rule, that all points defined by Christs Visible Church, belong to the Foundation of Faith, in this sense, that to deny any such, cannot stand with Salva­tion.

Answ. So also Protestants give you this more certain rule, That whosoever believes heartily those Books of Scripture, which all the Christian Churches in the World acknow­ledge to be Canonical, and submits himself indeed to this, as to the rule of his belief, must of necessity believe all things Fundamental, and if he live according to his Faith, cannot fail of Salvation. But besides, what certainty have you, that that rule of Papists is so certain? By the visible Church it is plain, they mean only their own: and why their own only should be the Visible Church, I do not understand: and as little, why all points defined by this Church should belong to the Foundation of Faith. These things you had need see well and substantially pro­ved, before you rely upon them, otherwise you expose your self to danger of imbracing damnable Errors instead of Fundamental Truths.

67. Ad §. 23, 24, 25.] D. P. demands, How it can be necessary for any Christian, to have more in his Creed than the Apostles bad. And this he enforces with many Argu­ments [Page 262]thus. May the Church of after Ages make the nar­row way to heaven, narrower than our Saviour left it? Shall it be a fault to straiten and encomber the Kings high way with publick nuisances; and is it lawful by adding new Arti­cles to the Faith, to retrench any thing from the Latitude of the King of Heavens high way to Eternal happiness? The Yoak of Christ, which he said was easie, may it be justly made hea­vier by the Governors of the Church in after Ages? The Apo­stles profess they revealed to the Church the whole Counsel of God, keeping back nothing needful for our Salvation. What Tyranny then to impose any new unnecessary matters on the Faith of Christians, especially ( as the late Popes have done) under the high commanding form, Qui non crediderit, dam­nabitur? He that believeth not, shall be damned. If this may be done, why then did our Saviour reprehend the Phari­sees so sharply, for binding heavy burdens, and laying them on mens shoulders? And why did he teach them, that in vain they worshiped God, teaching for Doctrines mens Traditions? And why did the Apostles call it tempting of God, to lay those things upon the Necks of Christians, that were not necessary?

68. All which interrogations seem to me to contain so many plain and convincing Arguments of the premi­sed Assertion; and if you can devise no fair and satisfying answer to them, then be so ingenuous as to grant the Conclusion, That no more can be necessary for Christians to believe now, than was in the Apostles time. A conclusion of great importance, for the deciding of many Contro­versies, and the disburdening of the Faith of Christ from many incumbrances.

70. The Doctor to make good this conclusion argues further thus, S. Paul declared to the Ephesians the whole Counsel of God touching their Salvation. Therefore that which S. Paul did not declare, can be no part of the Counsel of God, and therefore not necessary. And a­gain; S. Paul kept back nothing from the Ephesians that was profitable; Therefore he taught them all things ne­cessary to Salvation.

71. Neither is it material, that these words were par­ticularly directed by S. Paul, to the Pastours of the Church: [Page 263]For (to say nothing that the point here issuable, is not, Whom he taught, whether Priests or Laymen? But how much he taught, and whether all things necessary?) it appears plainly out of the Text, and I wonder you should read it so negligently as not to observe it, that though he speaks now to the Pastors, yet he speaks of what he taught not only them, but also the Laity as well as them. I have kept back nothing (says S. Paul) that was profitable, but have shewed, and have taught you publickly, and from House to House; Testifying (I pray observe) both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. And a little after, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone Preaching the King­dom of God, shall see my Face no more: Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am Innocent from the Blood of all men; for I have kept nothing back, but have shewed you all the Counsel of God. And again, Remember that by the space of three Years I ceased not to warn every one Night and Day with Tears. Certainly though he did all these things to the Pastors among the rest, nay above the rest, yet without Controversie, they whom he taught publickly, and from House to House: The Jews and Greeks to whom he Testified (i. e.) Preached Faith and Re­pentance: Those all, amongst whom he went preaching the Kingdom of God: Those, Every one, whom for three Years together he warned, were not Bishops and Pastors only.

72. Neither is this to say, that the Apostles taught Chri­stians nothing but their Creed, nothing of the Sacraments, Commandments, &c. for that is not here the point to be proved: but only, that they taught them all things ne­cessary, so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them. But how much of this they put into their Creed, whether all the necessary points of simple belief, as we pretend, or only as you say, I know not what, is another Question now to be examined.

73. We urge against you, That if all necessary points of simple belief be not comprized in the Creed, it can no way de­serve the name of the Apostles Creed, as not being their Creed in any sense, but only a part of it.

To this you say, That the Faith of the Apostles is of larg­er extent, than their Creed. Answer, It is very true that their whole Faith was of a larger extent, but that was not the Question; but whether all points of simple belief which they taught as necessary to be explicitely believed, be not contained in it? And if thus much at least of Christian Religion be not comprized in it, I again de­sire you to inform me how it could be called the Apo­stles Creed?

74. To other Reasons grounded upon the practice of the Ancient Church; appointing her Infants to be instructed (for matters of simple belief,) only in the Creed: From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptism: and of Stran­gers unto her Communion, upon their only profession of the Creed, you have not, that I perceive, thought fit to make any kind of answer.

75. Ad §. 26.] In this Section you practise that trick of a Caviller, which is to answer Objections by other Objections; an excellent way to make Controversies endless! D. Potter desires to be resolved, Why amongst many things of equal ne­cessity to be believed, the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed, and be altogether silent of others? Instead of resolv­ing him in this difficulty, you put another to him, and that is, Why are some points not Fundamental expressed in it, rather than others of the same quality? Which demand is so far from satisfying the former doubt, that it makes it more intri­cate. For upon this ground it may be demanded, How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Arti­cles simply necessary, and put in others not necessary, e­specially if their intention were (as you say it was) to de­liver in it such Articles as were fittest for those times? Un­less (which were wondrous strange) unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times, than necessary. But now to your Question, the Answer is obvious: These unnecessary things might be put in, because they were circumstances of the necessary, Pontius Pilate of Christs passion, The third day of the Resurrection; neither doth the adding of them make the Creed ever a whit the less probable, the less fit [Page 265]to be understood, and remembred. And for the contrary reasons, other unnecessary things might be left out. Be­sides, who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided with­out affection! And therefore not so great a fault, nor deserving such a censure, as the omission of any thing essential to the work undertaken, and necessary to the end proposed in it.

76. You demand again (as it is no hard matter to multi­ply demands,) why our Saviours descent into Hell, and Burial was expressed, and not his circumcision, his manifestation to the three Kings, and working of Miracles? I answer: His Resurrection, Ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God, are very great Miracles, and they are expressed. Be­sides, S. John assures us, That the Miracles which Christ did, were done and written not for themselves that they might be be­lieved, but for a further end, that we might believe that Je­sus was the Christ, and believing have eternal life. He therefore that believes this may be saved, though he have no explicite and distinct Faith of any Miracle that our Sa­viour did. His Circumcision and Manifestation to the Wise men (for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings) are neither things simply necessary to be known, nor have any near relation to those that are so. As for his Descent into Hell, it may (for ought you know) be put in as a thing necessary of it self to be known. If you ask why more than his Circumcision, I refer you to the Apostles for an answer, who put that in, and left this out of their Creed: and yet sure, were not so forgetful af­ter the receiving of the Holy Ghost, as to leave out any prime and principal foundation of the faith, which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus, Cont. 2. c. 10. num. 10. Likewise his Burial was put in perhaps as necessary of it self to be known. But though it were not, yet hath it ma­nifestly so neer relation to these that are necessary, (his Passion and Resurrection, being the Consequent of the one, and the Antecedent of the other,) that it is no mar­vel if for their sakes it was put in. For though I verily be­lieve that there is no necessary point of this nature, but [Page 266]what is in the Creed, yet I do not affirm, because I can­not prove it, that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary. You demand thirdly, Why did they not express Scriptures, Sacraments, and all Fundamental points of faith tending to practice, as well as those which rest in Belief? I answer; Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary points which rest in belief: which appears, because of practical points there is not in it so much as one.

77. We affirm, That if your Doctrin were true, this short Creed, viz. I believe the Roman Church to be Infallible, would have been better, that is, more effectual to keep the believers of it from Heresie, and in the true Faith, than this Creed which now we have. A proposition so evident, that I cannot see how either you, or any of your Religi­on, or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it. Yet because you make a shew of doing so, or else, which I rather hope, do not rightly apprehend the force of the Reason, I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it, by comparing the effects of these seve­ral supposed Creeds.

78. The former Creed therefore would certainly pro­duce these effects in the believers of it: An impossibility of being in any formal Heresie: A necessity of being pre­pared in mind to come out of all Error in Faith, or ma­terial Heresie; which certainly you will not deny, or if you do, you pull down the only pillar of your Church and Re­ligion, and deny that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole Book.

79. The latter Creed which now we have, is so uneffe­ctual for these good purposes, that you your self tell us of innumerable, gross, damnable Heresies, that have been, are, and may be, whose contrary Truths are neither ex­plicitly, nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed: So that no man by the belief of this Creed without the former, can be possibly guarded from falling into them, and continuing obstinate in them. Nay, so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefs, that it is more likely to ensnare them into them, by seeming and [Page 267]yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of Faith: which is apt (as experience shews,) to misguide men into this pernitious error, That believing the Creed, they believe all necessary points of faith, whereas indeed they do not so. Now upon these grounds I thus conclude: That Creed which hath great commodities and no dan­ger, would certainly be better then that which hath great danger, and wants many of these great commodities; But the former short Creed proposed by me, I believe the Roman Church to be Infallible, (if your doctrin be true,) is of the former condition, and the latter, that is, the Apostles Creed, is of the latter, Therefore the former (if your doctrin be true) would without controversie be better than the latter.

83. Whereas you say, If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholick Church, she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds, or other means: This is very true, but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows, that the Apostles (if your do­ctrin be true) had done better service to the Church, though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we have, if instead thereof, they had commanded in plain terms that for mens perpetual direction in the faith, this short Creed should be taught all men, I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever Infallible. Yet you must not so mistake me, as if I meant, that they had done better not to have taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion; for then the Church not having learnt it of them, could not have taught it us. This therefore I do not say: but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they have written, wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered, and preached that Doctrin which they did preach, and done all other things as they have done, besides the composing their Symbol: I say, if your doctrin were true, they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the Church of Christ, if they had never composed their Symbol, which is but an imperfect com­prehension of the necessary points of simple belief, and no distinctive mark (as a Symbole should be) between those that are good Christians, and those that are not so; but [Page 268]instead thereof, had delivered this one Proposition, which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes, The Roman Church shall be for­ever Infallible in all things, which she proposes as matters of Faith.

84. Whereas you say, If we will believe we have all in the Creed, when we have not all, it is not the Apostles fault but our own: I tell you plainly, if it be a fault, I know not whose it should be but theirs. For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether soever they lead me: Now I say, they have led me into this perswasion, because they have given me great reason to believe it, and none to the contrary. The reason they have given me to believe it, is, because it is apparent and confest, they did propose to themselves in composing it, some good end or ends: As that Christians might have a form, by which (for matter of Faith) they might profess themselves Catholicks, So Putean out of Thomas Aquinas: That the faithful might know, what the Christian people is to believe explicitly, So Vincent Filiu­cius: That being separated into divers parts of the world, they might preach the same thing: And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels, So Cardinal Richlieu. Now for all these and for any other good intent, I say, it will be plainly uneffectual, unless it contain at least all points of simple belief, which are in ordinary course, necessary to be explicitly known by all men. So that if it be a fault in me to believe this, it must be my fault to be­lieve the Apostles, wise and good men: which I cannot do if I believe not this. And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore says of God himself, I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles, and to say, Si error est quod cre­do, à vobis deceptus sum: If it be an Error which I believe, it is you, and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it. For as for your suspicion, That we are led into this perswasion, out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own, It is plainly un­charitable. I know no opinion I have, which I would not as willingly forsake as keep, if I could see sufficient reason to induce me to believe, that it is the will of God I [Page 269]should forsake it. Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome, but I have more evident grounds than this whereupon to build it. For let but these Truths be granted: That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church, and dependent only in re­spect of us upon universal Tradition; That Scripture is the only Rule of Faith: That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture: Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations, and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them; and I am confident Peace would be restored, and Truth maintained against you, though the Apostles Creed were not in the world.

CHAP. V. The ANSWER to the Fifth CHAPTER.

1. AD §. 1.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. In the seven first Sections of this Chapter, there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue, and deserve a censure. As

2. First, That Schism could not be a Division from the Church, or that a Division from the Church could not happen, unless there always had been and should be a visible Church. Which Assertion is a manifest falsehood: For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age, nor should be ever after, yet this could not hinder, but that a Schism might now be, and be a Division from the present Visible Church. As though in France there never had been until now a lawful Monarch, nor after him ever should be, yet this hinders not, but that now there might be a Rebellion, and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Sovereign Authority.

3. That it is a point to be granted by all Christians, that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithful peo­ple. Which Proposition howsoever you understand it, is not absolutely certain. But if you mean by Faithful, (as it is plain you do) free from all error in faith, then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to be false; and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question.

4. That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schism, it is certainly consequent, that all who persist in this division must be so like­wise. Which is not so certain as you pretend. For they which alter without necessary cause the present govern­ment of any state Civil or Ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault; whereof notwithstanding they may be inno­cent who continue this alteration, and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state, when continuance of time hath once setled the present. Thus have I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-country-men who first revolted from the King of Spain, of the sin of Rebellion, yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there, are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the King of Spain.

5. That all those which a Christian is to esteem neighbors do concur to make one company, which is the Church. Which is false: for a Christian is to esteem those his neighbors, who are not members of the true Church.

6. That all the members of the Visible Church, are by charity united into one Mystical body. Which is manifestly untrue; for many of them have no Charity.

7. That the Catholick Church, signifies one company of faith­ful people, which is repugnant to your own grounds. For you require not true faith, but only the Profession of it, to make men members of the Visible Church.

8. That every Heretick is a Schismatick. Which you must acknowledge false in those, who though they deny, or doubt of some point professed by your Church, and so are Here­ticks: yet continue still in the Communion of the Church.

9. That all the members of the Catholick Church, must of necessity be united in external Communion. Which though it were much to be desired it were so, yet certainly cannot be perpetually true. For a man unjustly excommunicated, is not in the Churches Communion, yet he is still a mem­ber of the Church: and divers times it hath happened, as in the case of Chrisostom and Epiphanius, that particular men, and particular Churches, have upon an overvalued difference, either renounced Communion mutually, or one of them separated from the other, and yet both have continued members of the Catholick Church. These things are in those seven Sections, either said or supposed by you untruly, without all shew, or pretence of proof. The rest is an impertinent common place, wherein Protestants and the cause in hand, are absolutely unconcerned. And therefore I pass to the eighth Section.

10. Ad. §. 8.] Here you obtrude upon us, a double fal­lacy; One, in supposing and taking for granted, that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers, must be true; whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood, which yet are maintained, by more than thrice three Fathers. Another, in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely, which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases. Thus the words of S. Austin (cap. 11. lib. 2. cont. Parm.) That there is no ne­cessity to divide Unity; are not spoken absolutely, that there never is, nor can be any necessity to divide Unity (which only were for your purpose) but only in such a special case as he there sets down: That is, When good men tolerate bad men, which can do them no spiritual hurt, to the intent they may not be separated from those, who are spiritually good: Then (saith he) there is no necessity to divide Unity. Which very words do clearly give us to understand, that it may fall out (as it doth in our case) that we cannot keep Unity with bad men, without spiritual hurt, i. e. without partak­ing with them in their impieties, and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them: I mean, to break off conjunction with them in their impieties. Which that it was S. Austins mind, it is most evident out of the 21. c. of [Page 272]the same book: where to Parmenian demanding, how can a man remain pure, being joyned with those that are corrupted? He answers, Very true, this is not possible, if he be joyned with them, that is, if he commit any evil with them, or favour them which do commit it. But if he do neither of these, he is not joyn­ed with them. And presently after, these two things retained, will keep such men pure and uncorrupted; that is, neither doing ill, nor approving it. And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion, a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawful, certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing U­nity, either with you, or with God; and whether of these is rather to be done, be ye judges.

11. Iraeneus also says not simply (which only would do you service, (there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation, as to justifie a Separation from them who will not reform: But only, they cannot make any corruption so great, as is the pernitiousness of a Schism: Now, They, here is a relative, and hath an antecedent expressed in Iraeneus, which if you had been pleased to take notice of, you would easily have seen, that what Irenaeus says, falls heavy upon the Church of Rome, but toucheth Protestants nothing at all. For the men he speaks of, are such as Propter modicas & quaslibet causas, for trifling or small causes, divide the body of Christ; such as speak of peace and make war; such as strain at Gnats, and swallow Camels. And these saith he, can make no reformation of any such importance, as to countervail the danger of a division. Now seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome, are (as we pretend, and are ready to justify,) because we will not be partakers with her in Su­perstition, Idolatry, Impiety, and most cruel Tyranny, both upon the bodies and souls of men. Who can say, that the causes of our separation, may be justly esteemed Modi­cae & quaelibet causae? On the other side, seeing the Bishop of Rome, who was contemporary to Irenaeus, did as much (as in him lay) cut off from the Churches unity, many great Churches, for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter, upon a difference, Non de Catholico dogmate, sed de Ritu, vel Ritus potiùs tempore, not about any Catholick Doctrin, [Page 273]but only a Ceremony, or rather about the time of observing it; so Petavius values it: which was just all one, as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England, for not keeping Christmas up­on the same day with them: And seeing he was repre­hended sharply and bitterly for it, by most of the Bishops of the World, as Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 24. Per­ron. Replic. l. 3. c. 2. Eusebius testifies, and (as Cardinal Perron though mincing the matter, yet confesseth) by this very Irenaeus himself in particular admonished, that for so small a cause (propter tam modicam causam,) he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the Body of the Church: and lastly, seeing the Eccesiastical story of those times, mentions no other notable example of any such Schismatical presumption, but this of Victor: certainly we have great inducement to imagin, that Irenaeus in this place by you quoted, had a special aim at the Bishop and Church of Rome. Once, this I am sure of, that the place fits him, and many of his successors, as well as if it had been made purposely for them. And this also, that he which finds fault with them who separate upon small causes, implies clearly, that he conceived, their might be such causes as were great and sufficient: And that then a Re­formation was to be made, notwithstanding any danger of division that might insue upon it.

12. Lastly, S. Denis of Alexandria, says indeed and ve­ry well, that all things should be rather indured, than we should consent to the division of the Church: I would add, Rather than consent to the continuation of the division, if it might be remedied. But then, I am to tell you, that he says not All things should rather be done, but only, All things should rather be indured or suffered: wherein he speaks not of the evil of Sin, but of Pain and Misery: Not of tolerating either Error or Sin in others (though that may be lawful,) much less of joyning with others for quietness sake, (which only were to your purpose) in the profession of Error and practice of sin: but of suffering any affliction, nay even Martyrdom in our own persons, rather than consent to the division of the Church. Om­nia incommoda, so your own Christophorson, enforced by [Page 274]the circumstances of the place, translates Dionysius his words, All miseries should rather be endured, then we should consent to the Churches division.

13. Ad §. 9.] In this Paragraph you tell us first, that the Doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible Church, main­tained by many chief Protestants implies in it vast absurdity, or rather sacrilegious Blasphemy.

Answ. But neither do the Protestants alledged by you, maintain the deficiency of the Visible Church, but only of the Churches Visibility, or of the Church as it is visible; neither do they hold that the Visible Church hath failed totally from its essence, but only from its purity; and that it fell into many corruptions, but yet not to nothing. You say secondly, that the Reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity, because they were resolved not to acknowledge the Ro­man to be the true Church, and were convinced by all manner of evidence, that for diverse Ages before Luther there was no other. But this is not to dispute but to Divine, and take upon you the property of God which is to know the Hearts of Men. For why I pray, might not the Rea­son hereof rather be, because they were convinced by all manner of evidence, as Scripture, Reason, Antiquity, that all the Visible Churches in the World, but above all the Roman, had degenerated from the purity of the Gospel of Christ, and thereupon did conclude there was no Visi­ble Church, meaning by no Church, none free from corrup­tion, and conformable in all things to the Doctrine of Christ.

14. Ad §. 10. Neither is there any repugnance (but in words only) between these (as you are pleased to stile them) exterminating Spirits, and those other, whom out of cour­tesie you intitle, in your 10. §. more moderate Protestants. For these affirming the Perpetual Visibility of the Church, yet neither deny, nor doubt of her being subject to ma­nifold and grievous corruptions, and those of such a na­ture, as were they not mitigated by invincible, or at least a very probable ignorance, none subject to them could be saved. And they on the other side, denying the Churches [Page 275]Visibility, yet plainly affirm, that they conceive very good hope of the Salvation of many, of their ignorant and honest Fore-fathers. Thus declaring plainly, though in words they denied the Visibility of the true Church, yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity, but the perpe­tual purity and incorruption of the Visible Church.

17. Ad §. 11.] You ask, To what Congregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of his Soul; if upon Earth there be no visible Church of Christ?

Answ. If some one Christian lived alone among Pa­gans in some Country, remote from Christendom, shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved, be­cause he cannot have recourse to any Congregation for the affairs of his Soul? Will it not be sufficient, for such a ones Salvation, to know the Doctrine of Christ, and live according to it?

18. Obj. To imagine a company of Men believing one thing in their Heart, and with their Mouth professing the con­trary (as they must be supposed to do, for if they had professed what they believed, they would have become visible) is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants, but not to conceive aright of the Church of Christ. Answ. What is this to the Visibility of the Church? May not the Church be Invisible, and yet these that are of it profess their Faith? No, say you: Their profession will make them visible. Very true, visible in the places where, and in the times when they live, and to those persons, unto whom they have necessary occasion, to make their profession: But not visible to all, or any great, or considerable part of the World while they live, much less conspicuous to all Ages after them. Now it is a Church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require: by whose splendour, all men may be directed and drawn to repair to her, for the affairs of their Souls: Neither is it the Vi­sibility of the Church absolutely, but this degree of it, which the most rigid Protestants deny: which is plain enough out of the places of Napper, cited by you in your 9. Part. of this chapt. Where his words are, God hath withdrawn his visible Church from open Assemblies, to the Hearts of par­ticular [Page 276]godly men. And this Church which had not open Assemblies, he calls The latent and Invisible Church. Now I hope Papists in England will be very apt to grant, men may be so far Latent and Invisible, as not to profess their Faith in open Assemblies, nor to proclaim it to all the World, and yet not deny, nor dissemble it; nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants.

Obj. But Preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments, cannot but make a Church Visible: and these are inseparable Notes of the Church. I answer, they are so far inseparable, that wheresoever they are, there a Church is: But not so, but that in some cases there may be a Church, where these Notes are not. Again, these Notes will make the Church visible: But to whom? certainly not to all men, nor to most men: But to them only to whom the Word is Preached, and the Sacraments are ad­ministred. They make the Church Visible to whom them­selves are visible, but not to others. As where your Sa­craments are administred, and your Doctrine Preached, it is visible, that there is a Popish Church. But this may perhaps be visible to them only, who are present at these performances, and to others, as secret, as if they had ne­ver been performed.

20. Obj. But S. Austin saith, it is an impudent, abominable, detestible speech, &c. to say the Church hath Perished. Answ. 1. All that S. Austin says is not true. 2. Though this were true, it were nothing to your purpose, unless you will conceive it all one not to be, and not to be conspicu­ously visible. 3. This very speech that the Church Pe­rished, might be false and impudent in the Donatists, and yet not so in the Protestants. For there is no incongruity, that what hath lived 500. Years, may perish in 1600.

21. Obj. While Protestants deny the perpetuity of a visible Church, they destroy their own present Church. Answ. I do not see, how the Truth of any present Church depends upon the perpetual Visibility, nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is past or future. For what sense is there, that it should not be in the power of God Almighty, to restore to a flourishing Estate, a Church which oppres­sion [Page 277]hath made Invisible? to repair that which is ruined; to reform that which was corrupted, or to revive that which was dead? Nay what reason is there, but that by ordinary means this may be done, so long as the Scriptures by Divine Providence are preserved in their integrity and Authority? As a Common-wealth though never so far collapsed and overrun with disorders, is yet in possibili­ty of being reduced unto its Original State, so long as the Ancient Laws, and Fundamental Constitutions are extant, and remain inviolate, from whence men may be directed how to make such a Reformation. But S. Austin urges this very Argument against the Donatists, and there­fore it is good. I answer, that I doubt much of the Con­sequence, and my Reason is, because you your selves ac­knowledge, that even general Councils (and therefore much more particular Doctors) though Infallible in their deter­minations, are yet in their Reasons and Arguments, whereupon they ground them, subject to like Passions and Errors with other men.

22. Obj. Lastly whereas you say, That all Divines define Schism a Division from the true Church, and from thence collect, That there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart. Answer, I might very justly question your Antecedent, and desire you to consider, whether Schism be not rather, or at least be not as well a division of the Church, as from it? A separation not of a part from the whole, but of some parts from the other. And if you liked not this definition, I might desire you to in­form me in those many Schisms, which have happened in the Church of Rome, which of the parts was the Church, and which was divided from it. But to let this pass, cer­tainly your consequence is most unreasonable. For though whensoever there is a Schism, it must necessarily suppose a Church existent there, yet sure we may define a Schism, that is, declare what the word signifies (for Defining is no more) though at this present there were neither Schism nor Church in the World. Unless you will say, that we cannot tell wat a Rose is, or what the word Rose signi­fies, but only in the Summer when we have Roses: or [Page 278]that in the World to come, when men shall not Marry, it is impossible to know, what it is to Marry: or that the Plague is not a Disease, but only when some Body is in­fected: or that Adultery is not a sin, unless there be A­dulterers: or that before Adam had a Child, he knew not, and God could not have told him, what it was to be a Father. Certainly Sir, you have forgot your Metaphy­sicks, which you so much glory in, if you know not, that the connexions of essentiall predicates with their subjects, are Eternal, and depend not at all upon the actu­al existence in the thing defined. This Definition there­fore of Schism, concludes not the existence of a Church, even when it is defined: much less the perpetual conti­nuance of it, and least of all the continuance of it in perpetual visibility and purity, which is the only thing that we deny, and you are to prove.

23. Ad §. 12.47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. The re­mainder of this Chapter, offers Arguments to convince Luther and all that follow him to be Schismaticks.

24. First then to prove us Schismaticks, you urge from the nature of Schism thus.

Whosoever leave the external Communion of the visible Church, are Schismaticks: But Luther and his followers left the external Communion of the visible Church of Christ: There­fore they are Schismaticks.

The Minor or second Proposition of this Argument, you prove by two other. The first is this.

They which forsook the external Communion of all Visible Churches, must needs forsake the external Communion of the true visible Church of Christ. But Luther and his followers forsook the external Communion of all Visible Churches: There­fore they forsook the external Communion of the true visible Church.

The Second Argument stands thus.

The Roman Church, when the separation was made by Lu­ther, &c. was the true Visible Church of Christ.

But Luther, &c. forsook the external Communion of the Roman Church. Therefore they forsook the external Commu­nion of the true Visible Church of Christ.

The Proposition you confirm by these Reasons.

1. The Roman Church had the Notes of the Church assign­ed by Protestants, viz. The true Preaching of the Word, and due administration of Sacraments: Therefore she was the true Church.

2. Either the Roman Church was the true visible Church, or Protestants can name and prove some other disagreeing from the Roman, and agreeing with Protestants, in their particular Doctrine: or else they must say there was no vi­sible Church: But they will not say, there was no Church: They cannot name and prove any other disagreeing from the Roman, and agreeing with the Protestants in their particu­lar Doctrines; because this cannot be the Greek Church, nor that of the Waldenses, Wicklifites, Hussites, nor that of the Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Aethiopians, (which you confirm by several Arguments:) Therefore they must grant, that the Roman Church was the true Visible Church.

25. Now to all this I briefly answer thus: That you have played the unwise builder, and erected a stately structure upon a false Foundation. For whereas you take for granted as an undoubted Truth, That whosoever leave the external Communion of the visible Church, are Schis­matical, I tell you Sir, you presume too much upon us, and would have us grant, that which is the main point in Question. For either you suppose the external Com­munion of the Church corrupted, and that there was a necessity for them, that would Communicate with this Church, to Communicate in her corruptions: Or you suppose her Communion uncorrupted. If the former, and yet will take for granted, that all are Schismaticks, that leave her Communion though it be corrupted, you beg the Question in your proposition. If the latter, you beg the Question in your supposition, for Protestants, you know, are Peremptory and Unanimous in the Deni­al of both these things: Both that the Communion of the Visible Church, was then uncorrupted; And that they are truly Schismaticks, who leave the Communion of the Visi­ble Church, if corrupted; especially, if the case be so (and Luthers was so) that they must either leave her Communion [Page 280]or of necessity Communicate with her in her corruptions.

26. Besides although it were granted Schism, to leave the external Communion of the Visible Church in what state or case so ever it be, and that Luther and his follow­ers were Schismaticks, for leaving the external Communi­on of all Visible Churches: yet you fail exceedingly of clearing the other necessary point undertaken by you, That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church. For nei­ther do Protestants (as you mistake) make the true preaching of the Word, and due administration of the Sacraments, the notes of the Visible Church, but only of a Visible Church: now these you know are very different things, the former signi­fying the Church Catholick, or the whole Church: the lat­ter a Particular Church, or a part of the Catholick. And therefore suppose out of courtesie, we should grant, what by argument you can never evince, that your Church had these notes, yet would it by no means follow, that your Church were the Visible Church, but only a Visible Church: not the whole Catholick, but only a part of it.

27. Lastly, whereas you say, that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the Visible Church, or name some other, disagreeing from yours and agreeing with Prote­stants in their particular doctrin, or acknowledge there was no Visible Church. It is all one as if (to use S. Pauls similitude) the head should say to the foot, either you must grant that I am the whole body, or name some other member that is so, or confess that there is no body. To which the foot might answer; I acknowledge there is a body: and yet, that no member beside you is this body: nor yet that you are it, but only a part of it. And in like manner say we. We acknowledge a Church there was, corrupted indeed universally, but yet such a one as we hope by Gods graci­ous acceptance, was still a Church. We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church, and yet we see no reason, that can enforce us to confess that yours was the Church but only a part of it, and that one of the worst then extant in the World. In vain therefore have you troubled your self in proving, that we cannot pretend, that either the Greeks, Waldenses, Wickliffites, Hussites, Muscovites, Armenians, [Page 281]Georgians, Abyssines, were then the Visible Church. For all this di­scourse proceeds from a false & vain supposition, and begs another point in Question between us, which is, that some Church of one denomination and one Communion (as the Ro­man, the Greek, &c.) must be always, exclusively to all other Communions, the whole Visible Church. And though per­haps some weak Protestant having this false principle set­led in him, that there was to be always some Visible Church of one denomination, pure from all error in doctrin, might be wrought upon, and prevailed with by it, to for­sake the Church of Protestants: yet why it should induce him to go to yours, rather than the Greek Church, or any other, which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours, that I do not understand; unless it be for the rea­son which Aeneas Sylvius gave, why more held the Pope above a Council, than a Council above the Pope: which was because Popes did give Bishopricks, and Archbishopricks, but Councils gave none, and therefore suing in Forma Paupe­ris,, were not like to have their cause very well maintain­ed. For put the case, I should grant of meer favour, that there must be always some Church of one Denomination and Communion, free from all errors in doctrin, and that Protestants had not always such a Church: it would fol­low indeed from thence, that I must not be a Protestant: But that I must be a Papist, certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this; if you will leave Eng­land, you must of necessity go to Rome. And yet with this wretched fallacy, have I been sometimes abused my self, and known many other poor souls seduced, not only from their own Church and Religion, but unto yours. I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth, that they may not always be held captive, under such mise­rable delusions.

28. Let us come now to the Arguments which you build upon D. Potters own words, out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schism.

29. But these reasons will easily be answered, if the Rea­der will take along with him these three short Memoran­dums.

30. First, That not every separation, but only a cause­less separation from the external Communion of any Church, is the Sin of Schism.

31. Secondly, That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known er­rors, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation, and that this is the cause the Protestants alledge to justifie their separation from which Church of Rome.

32. Thirdly, That to leave the Church, and to leave the external Communion of a Church, is not the same thing: That being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it, as faith and obedience: This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and pub­lick worship of God. This Armour if it be rightly placed, will repel all those Batteries which you threaten us with all.

33. Ad §. 13.14, 15.] The first is a sentence of S. Au­stin against Donatus, applied to Luther thus. If the Church perished, what Church brought forth Donatus, ( you say Lu­ther?) If she could not perish, what madness moved the sect of Donatus to separate, upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men? Whereunto, one fair answer (to let pass many others) is obvious out of the second observation: That this sentence though it were Gospel, as it is not, is imper­tinently applied to Luther and Lutherans. Whose pretence of separation (be it true or be it false, was not (as that of the Donatists,) only to avoid the Communion of bad men: but to free themselves from a necessity (which but by sepa­rating was unavoidable,) of joyning with bad men in their impieties.

34. Ad §. 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants, who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages. Which Doctrin (if by the true Church be understood, the pure Church, as you do understand it) is a certain truth, & it is easier for you to declaim (as you do) than to dispute against it. But these men you say must be Hereticks because they separated from the Communion of the Visible Church: and [Page 283]therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible: In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible.

35. Ans. I might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted: That, there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the days of our Fore-fathers, but only such as dissembled their opinions, and lived in your Communion. And truly if I should say there were many of this condition, I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more proba­ble, than you can make your Negative. We read in Scri­pture, that Elias conceived there was none left besides him­self in the whole Kingdom of Israel, who had not revolted from God: and yet God himself assures us that he was de­ceived. And if such a man, a Prophet, and one of the greatest, erred in his judgment touching his own time, and his own Country, why may not you, who are certainly but a man, and subject to the same passions as Elias was, mistake in thinking, that in former ages, in some Countrey or other, there were not always some good Christians, which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal? But this answer I am content you shall take no no­tice of, and think it sufficient to tell you, that if it be true, that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically com­municate with the visible Church, in her corruptions, then Protestants had cause, nay necessity, to forsake their Com­munion also, for otherwise they must have joyned with them in the practice of impieties: and seeing they had such cause to separate, they presume their separation cannot be Schismatical.

36. Yes, you reply, to forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith, is the most formal and proper sin of Schism. Answ. Very true, but I would fain know wherein. I would gladly be informed, whether I be bound for fear of Schism, to communicate with those that believe as I do, only in lawful things, or absolutely in every thing; whether I am to joyn with them in Supersti­tion and Idolatry, and not only in a common profession of the Faith wherein we agree, but in a common dissimula­tion [Page 284]or abjuration of it. This is that which you would have them do, or else, forsooth, they must be Schismaticks. But hereafter I pray remember, that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Believers in wicked acti­ons. Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them. And then I dare say, even you being their judge, the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall, accord­ing to my first observation, justifie their separation from being Schismatical.

37. Arg. But the property of Schism according to D. Pot­ter is to cut off from the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates: And these Protestants have this property, therefore they are Schismaticks.

38. Ans. I deny the Syllogism, it is no better than this: One Smptom of the Plague is a Feaver, but such a man hath a Feaver, therefore he hath the Plague. The true conclusion which issues out of these Premisses, should be this. Therefore he hath one Symptom of the plague. And so likewise in the former, therefore they have one property or one quality of Schismaticks. And as in the former instance, The man that hath one sign of the plague, may by reason of the absence of other requisites, not have the plague: So these Protestants may have something of Schis­maticks, and yet not be Schismaticks. A Tyrant senten­cing a man to death for his pleasure, and a just judge that condemns a malefactor, do both sentence a man to death, and so for the matter do both the same thing: yet the one does wickedly, the other justly. What's the rea­son? because the one hath cause, the other hath not. In like manner Schismaticks, either always or generally de­nounce damnation to them from whom they separate. The same do these Protestants, & yet are not Schismaticks. The Reason: because Schismaticks do it, and do it without cause, and Protestants have cause for what they do. The impieties of your Church, being, generally speaking, dam­nable, unless where they are excused by ignorance, and ex­piated at least by a general repentance. In fine, though perhaps it may be true, that all Schismaticks do so yet universal affirmatives are not converted, and therefore it [Page 285]follows not by any good Logick, that all that do so, when there is just cause for it, must be Schismaticks. The cause in this matter of separation is all in all, and that for ought I see, you never think of. But if these rigid Protestants have just cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvati­on: How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church? Ans. Distinguish the quality of the Persons censured, and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing. For your Church may be considered either in regard of those, in whom, either negligence, or pride, or worldly fear, or hopes, or some other voluntary sin, is the cause of their ignorance, which I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you: or in regard of those who owe their Errors from Truth, to want of capacity, or default of instruction; either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not, or of those who would know the truth but (all things consi­dered) cannot: In respect of those that have eyes to see, and will not see, or those that would gladly see, but want eyes, or light. Consider the former sort of men, (which your more rigid censures seem especially to reflect upon,) and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy. Consider the latter, and the mildest will not be too mild. So that here is no difference but in words only, neither are you flat­tered by the one, nor uncharitably censured by the other.

39. Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants, who you say involve themselves in the sin of Schism by communicating with those (as you call them) ex­terminating Spirits, whom you conceive your self to have pro­ved Schismaticks: And now load them further with the crime of Heresie. For, say you, if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation, to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors, which yet you confess were not fundamental: shall it not be much more dam­nable, to live in confraternity with these, who defend an Error of the failing of the Church, which in the Donatists you con­fess to have been properly Heretical?

40. Ans. You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you, only or [Page 286]principally by reason of your Errors and Corruption. For the true reason according to my third observation, is not so much because you maintain Errors and Corruptions, as because you impose them: and will allow your Communi­on to none but to those that will hold them with you; and have so ordered your Communion, that either we must communicate with you in these things, or nothing. And for this very reason, though it were granted, that these Protestants held this Doctrin which you impute to them; And though this Error were as damnable and as much against the Creed as you pretend: Yet after all this, this disparity between you and them, might make it more lawful for us to communicate with them than you: because what they hold, they hold to themselves, and re­fuse not (as you do) to communicate with them that hold the contrary.

41. Thus we may answer your Argument, though both your former Suppositions were granted, But then for a second answer, I am to tell you that there is no necessity of granting either of them. For neither do these Prote­stants hold the failing of the Church from its being, but only from its visibility: which if you conceive all one, then must you conceive that the Stars fail every day, and the Sun every night. Neither is it certain that the Doctrin of the Churches failing is repugnant to the Creed. For as the truth of the Article of the Remission of sins, depends not upon the actual remission of any mans sins, but up­on Gods readiness and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent; so that, although unbelief or impenitence should be universal, and the Faithful should absolutely fail from the children of men, and the son of man should find no faith on the earth, yet should the Article still continue true, that God would forgive the sins of all that repent: In like manner, it is not certain that the truth of the Article of the Catholick Church depends upon the actual existence of a Catholick Church, but rather upon the right, that the Church of Christ, or rather (to speak properly) the Gospel of Christ hath to be universally believed. And therefore the Article may be true, though [Page 287]there were no Church in the world. In regard, this not­withstanding, it remains still true that there ought to be a Church, and this Church ought to be Catholick. For as, of these two Propositions, There is a Church in America, and, There should be a Church in America, The truth of the latter depends not upon the truth of the former, so nei­ther does it in these two: There is a Church diffused all the world over, and, There should be a Church diffused all the world over.

44. Ad §. 17. The next Section in three long leaves delivers us this short sense. That those Protestants which say they have not left the Churches external Communion, but only her corruptions pretend to do that which is impossible. Because these corruptions were inherent in the Churches external Commu­nion: and therefore he that forsakes them cannot but forsake this.

45. Ans. But who are they that pretend, they forsook the Churches corruptions, and not her external communi­on? Some there be that say, they have not left the Church, that is, not ceased to be members of the Church, but only left her corruptions: some, that they have not left the communion, but the corruptions of it; meaning the in­ternal communion of it, and conjunction with it by faith and obedience: which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking: for he that is in the Church, is in this kind of communion with it: and he that is not in this internal communion, is not in the Church. Some perhaps, that they left not your external communion in all things; meaning, that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati, Casaubon in Ep. ad Card. Perron. as being willing to joyn with you in any act of piety; but were by you necessitated & constrain­ed to do so, because you would not suffer them to do well with you, unless they would do ill with you. Now to do ill that you may do well, is against the will of God, which to every good man is a high degree of necessity. But for such Protestants, as pretend that de facto, they forsook your cor­ruptions only and not your external communion, that is, such as pretend to communicate with you in your Confessions and Liturgies, and participation of Sacraments, I cannot [Page 288]but doubt very much, that neither you nor I have ever met with any of this condition. And if perhaps you were led into error, by thinking that to leave the Church, and to leave the external communion of it, was all one in sense and signification, I hope by this time you are disabu­sed, and begin to understand, that as a man may leave a­ny fashion or custom of a Colledge, and yet remain still a member of the Colledge; so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practice of a Church formerly common to himself and others, and continue still a member of that Church: Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church consists. Whereas peradventure this practice may be so involved with the external communion of this Church, that it may be simply impossible, for him to leave this practice, and not to leave the Churches external communion.

46. You will reply perhaps, That the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church: as against those who say, they forsook the Churches corruptions, and not her external communion. And that the reason is still the same: because these supposed corrupti­ons, were inherent in the whole Church, and therefore by like reason with the former, could not be forsaken, but if the whole Church were forsaken.

47. Ans. A pretty Sophism, and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them, to forsake any Error they hold, or any Vice they are subject to, either peculiar to themselves, or in common with others: Because forsooth, they cannot forsake themselves, and Vices and Errors are things inherent in themselves. The deceit lies, in not di­stinguishing between a Local and a Moral forsaking of any thing. For as it were an absurdity, fit for the maintain­ers of Transubstantiation to defend, that a man may locally and properly depart from the accidents of a subject, and not from the subject it self: So is it also against reason to de­ny, that a man may (by an usual phrase of speech) for­sake any custom, or quality, good or bad, either proper to himself, or common to himself with any company, and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or [Page 289]himself. Thus if all the Jesuites in the Society, were given to write Sophistically, yet you might leave this ill custome, and yet not leave your Society. If all the Ci­tizens of a City, were addicted to any vanity, they might either, all, or some of them forsake it, and yet not for­sake the City. If all the parts of a mans Body were dirty or filthy, nothing hinders but that all or some of them might cleanse themselves, and yet continue parts of the Body. And what reason then in the World is there, if the whole visible Church were overcome with Tares and Weeds of superstitions; and corruptions, but that some members of it might reform themselves, and yet continue still true members of the Body of the Church, and not be made no members, but the better by their Reformati­on?

50. We acknowledge, that we cannot (as matters now stand) Separate from your corruptions, but we must depart from your External Communion. For you have so ordered things, that whosoever will Communicate with you at all, must Communicate with you, in your corruptions. But it is you that will not perceive the difference, between, being a part of the Church, and being in external Com­munion with all the other parts of it: taking for grant­ed, that which is certainly false, that no two men or Churches, divided in external Communion, can be both true parts of the Catholick Church.

51. We are not to learn the difference between Schism and Heresie, for Heresie we conceive, an obstinate defence of any Error, against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith: And Schism, a causless separation of one part of the Church from another. But this we say, That if we convince you of Errors and corruptions, professed and practised in your Communion, then we cannot be Schis­maticks, for refusing to joyn with you in the profession of these Errors, and the practice of these corruptions. And therefore you must free your selves from Error, or us from Schism.

52. Lastly, whereas you say, That you have demonstra­ted against us, that Protestants divided themselves from the [Page 290]external Communion of the Visible Church, add, which exter­nal communion was corrupted, and we shall confess the accu­sation, and glory in it. But this is not that Quod erat de­monstrandum, but that we divided our selves from the Church, that is, made our selves Out-laws from it, and no members of it. And moreover, in the Reason of your separation from the external Communion of your Church you are mistaken: for it was not so much because she, your Church, as because your Churches external Commu­nion was corrupted, and needed Reformation.

53. That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schism, we grant very willingly, and therefore say, that it concerns every man who separates from any Churches Communion, even as much as his Salvation is worth, to look most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary: For unless it be necessary, it can very hardly be sufficient. But whether a true Reforma­tion of our selves from Errors, superstitions and impieties, will not justifie our separation in these things; our separa­tion, I say, from them who will not reform themselves, and as much as in them lies, hinder others from doing so: This is the point you should have spoken to, but have not. As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you refer us, for the determination of this Question, I suppose by what I have said above, the Reader understands, by alledging them you have gained little credit to your cause or person. And that, if they were competent Judges of this Controversie, their sentence is against you much ra­ther than for you.

56. But your Argument you conceive, will be more convincing, if we consider that when Luther appeared, there were not two distinct Visible true Churches, one Pure, the other Corrupted, but one Church only. Ans. The ground of this is no way certain, nor here sufficiently proved. For, where­as you say, Histories are silent of any such matter: I an­swer, there is no necessity, that you or I should have read all Histories, that may be extant of this matter; nor that all should be extant that were written, much less extant uncorrupted: especially considering your Church, which [Page 291]had latly all power in her hands, hath been so pernitiously industrious, in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her; nor that all Records should re­main which were written; nor that all should be record­ed which was done.

Lastly, whereas you say, that supposing a visible pure Church, Luther must be a Schismatick, who separated from all visible Churches: I tell you, if you will sup­pose a Visible Church extant before and when Luther arose, conformable to him in all points of Doctrine, necessary and profitable, then Luther separated not from this Church, but adjoyned himself to it: Not indeed in place, which was not necessary, not in external Com­munion which was impossible, but by the Union of Faith and Charity. Upon these grounds I say, that the ground of this Argument is no way made certain, yet because it is not manifestly false, I am content to let it pass. And for ought I see, it is very safe for me to do so: for you build nothing upon it, which I may not fairly grant. For what do you conclude from hence, but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted, Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church, could not but forsake the external Communion of the Catho­lick Church? Well, let this also be granted, what will come of it? What, that Luther must be a Schismatick? By no means: For not every separation, but only a cause­less separation from the Communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismatical. Hereunto may be added, that though the whole Church were corrupted, yet pro­perly speaking, it is not true, that Luther and his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church, or the external Communion of it: But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted, and still would be so, and forsook not, but only reformed another Part, which Part they themselves were, and I suppose you will not go about to persuade us, that they forsook themselves or their own Communion. And if you urge that they joyned them­selves to no other part, therefore they separated from the whole: I say it follows not, in as much as themselves were [Page 292]a part of it, and still continued so: and therefore could no more separate from the whole than from themselves. Thus though there were no part of the People of Rome, to whom the Plebeians joyned themselves, when they made their Secession into the Aventine Hill, yet they divided themselves from the Patricians only, and not from the whole People, because themselves were a part of this People, and they divided not from themselves.

57. Ad §. 18.] Here you prove that which no man de­nies, that corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the Church: yet sure it yields sufficient cause to cast them out of the Church, that are after the Churches publick admonition obstinate in notorious impieties. Nei­ther doth the cutting off such men from the Church, lay any necessity upon us, either to go out of the World, or out of the Church, but rather puts these men out of the Church into the World, where we may converse with them freely, without scandal to the Church, Our Blessed Saviour foretold, you say, that there should be in the Church Tares with choice Corn. Look again I pray, and you shall see, that the field he speaks of, is not the Church, but the World; and therefore neither doe You obey our Savi­ours command, Let both grow up till the Harvest, who teach it to be lawful to root these Tears (such are Here­ticks) out of the World: neither do Protestants disobey it, if they eject manifest Heresies and notorious sinners out of the Church.

58. Ad §. 19.] In the 19. you are so courteous as to sup­pose corruptions in your Doctrine, and yet undertake to prove that, neither could they afford us any sufficient cause, or colour­able necessity to depart from them. Your reason is, because damnable Errors there were none in your Church, by D. Pot­ters confession, neither can it be damnable in respect of Error, to remain in any Churches Communion, whose Errors are not damnable. For if the Error be not damnable, the belief there­of cannot. Answ. 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 [Page 293]of Truth, and amongst the number of their un­known sins, repented daily of their unknown Errors. The truth is, he thinks as ill of your Errors and their de­sert, as you do of ours: only he is not so peremptory and presumptuous in judging your persons, as you are in judg­ing ours, but leaves them to stand or fall to their own Master, who is infinitely merciful, and therefore will not damn them for meer Errors, who desire to find the truth and cannot: and withal infinitely just, and therefore (is it to be feared) will not pardon them, who might easily have come to the knowledge of the truth, and either through Pride, or obstinacy, or neligence would not.

59. To your minor also, I answer almost in your own Words, §. 42. of this Chap. I thank you for your cour­teous supposal, that your Church may Err, and in recom­pence thereof, will do you a Charity, by putting you in mind, into what Labyrinths you cast your self, by sup­posing that the Church may Err in some of her Propo­sals, and yet denying it lawful for any man though he know this, which you suppose, to oppose her judgment, or leave her communion. Will you have such a man dis­semble against his Conscience, or externally deny that which he knows true? No, that you will not, for them that do so, you your self have pronounced A damned Crew of dissembling Sycophants. Or would you have him continue in your Communion, and yet profess your Church to Err? This you your selves have made to him impossible. Or would you have him believe those things true, which together with him you have supposed to be Errors? This in such a one, as is assured or persuaded of that, which you here suppose, that your Church doth Err, (and such only we say, are obliged to forsake your Communion,) is, as Schoolmen speak, Implicatio in termi­nis, a contradiction so plain, that one word destroyeth another; as if one should say, a living dead man. For it is to require that they which believe some part of your Doctrine false, should withal believe it all true. Seeing therefore, for any man to believe your Church in Error, and profess the contrary, is damnable Hypocrisie; to be­lieve [Page 294]it and not believe it, a manifest repugnancy; and thirdly, to profess it and to continue in your Communion (as matters now stand) a plain impossibility; what remains, but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to dis­believe any Doctrine of your Church, must of necessity forsake her Communion? Unless you would remit so far from your present rigour, as to allow them your Churches Communion, who publickly profess that they do not believe every Article of her established Doctrine. Indeed, if you would do so, you might with some cohe­rence suppose your Church in Error, and yet find fault with men for abandoning her Communion, because they might continue in it, and suppose her in Error. But to suppose your Church in Error, and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition, and then to complain that they continue not in your Communion, is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined. And therefore though your corruptions in Doctrine, in themselves (which yet is false) did not, yet your oblig­ing us, to profess your Doctrine uncorrupted against know­ledge and Conscience, may induce an obligation to de­part from your Communion. As if there were any So­ciety of Christians, that held there were no Antipodes; notwithstanding this Error I might communicate with them. But if I could not do so, without professing my self of their belief in this matter, then I suppose I should be excused from Schism, if I should forsake their Commu­nion, rather than profess my self to believe that which I do not believe. Neither is there any contradiction, or shadow of contradiction, that it may be necessary for my Salvation to depart from this Churches Communion: And that this Church (though Erring in this matter) wants nothing necessary to Salvation.

60. That there might be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrine and practices, though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation as Dr. Potter holds, and you call a contradiction, will appear by setting down his Words, which are these; To forsake the Errors of that Church, and not to joyn with her in those practices which we [Page 295]account erroneous, we are enforced by necessity. For though in the issue they are not damnable to them which believe as they profess, yet for us to profess and avow by Oath ( as the Church of Rome enjoyns) 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 Hypocrisie and dissimulation (he might have added, and Perjury) stould certainly be condemned to Hell.

61. Ad §. 20.] Obj. But a Church not Erring in Funda­mentals, though Erring in other matters, doth what our Sa­viour exacts at her hands, doth as much as lies in her pow­er to do: Therefore the Communion of such a Church is not upon pretence of Error to be forsaken. The consequence is manifest. The Antecedent is proved, because God, by D. Potters confession, hath promised his assistance no [...] further, Pag. 151.155. nor is it in her power to do more than God doth assist her to do. Answ. The promise of Divine Assistance is twofold: Absolute, or Conditional. That there shall be by Divine providence preserved in the World to the Worlds end, such a company of Christians, who hold all things pre­cisely and indispensably necessary to Salvation, and nothing inevitably destructive of it: This and no more the Doctor affirms that God hath promised absolutely. Yet he nei­ther doubts nor denys, but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us, even such an assistance as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and our selves, into all not only necessary, but very profitable truth, and guard us from all not only destructive, but also hurtful Er­rors. This, I say, he neither denies nor questions. And should he have done so, he might have been confuted by evident and express Texts of Scripture. When therefore you say, That a Church not Erring in Fundamentals, doth as much as by Gods assistance lies in her power to do; This is manifest­ly untrue. For Gods assistance is alwaies ready to pro­mote her farther. It is ready, I say, but on condition the Church does implore it: on condition, that when it is of­ferred in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason, the Church be not negligent to follow it. If therefore there be any Church, which retaining the foundation, [Page 296]builds Hay and Stubble upon it: which believing what is precisely necessary, Errors shamefully and dangerously in other things very profitable: This by no means argues defect of Divine assistance in God, but neglect of this assistance in the Church. Neither is there any reason, why such a Church should please her self too much, for retaining Fundamental truths, while 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 pernitious and pestilent, and undermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and Piety? Lastly, who can say that she hath sufficiently discharged 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 plainly destroy Salvation, yet obscure and hinder, and only not block up the way to it? Which though of themselves and immediately they damn no man, yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of Christian Piety more remisly than they should, many defer their repentance, many go on securely in their sins, and so at length are damned by means and occasion of these Errors, though not for them. Such Errors as these (though those of the Roman Church be much worse, even in themselves damnable, and by accident only pardonable) yet I say such Errors as these, if any Church should tole­rate, dissemble and suffer them to reign, and neglect to reform them, and not permit them to be freely, yet peace­ably, opposed and impugned; will any wise man say, that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man? That she hath with due fidelity dispensed the Gospel of Christ? That she hath done what she could, and what she ought? What shall we say then, if these Errors be taught by her, and commanded to be taught? What if she thun­der [Page 297]out her curses against those that will not believe them? What if she rave and rage against them, and persecute them with Fire and Sword, and all kinds of most exqui­site torments? Truly I do much fear, that from such a Church (though it hold no Error absolutely unconsistent with Salvation,) the Candlestick of God, either is alrea­dy removed, or will be very shortly, and because she is negligent of profitable truths, that she will lose those that are Necessary, and because she will not be led into all truths, that in short time she shall be led into none. And although this should not happen, yet what mortal man can secure us, that not only a probable unaffected ignorance, nor only a meer neglect of profitable truths, but also a wretchless supine negligence, manifest contempt, Dissimulation, Opposition, Oppression of them, may con­sist with Salvation? I truly for my part, though I hope very well of all such as seeking all truth, find that which is necessary; who endeavouring to free themselves from all Errors, any way contrary to the purity of Christiani­ty, yet fail of performance and remain in some: yet if I did not find in my self a love and desire of all profitable truth; If I did not put away idleness, and 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 soever 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.

62. Obj. But to oblige any man under pain of damnation to forsake a Church by reason of such Errors, against which Christ thought it superfluous to promise his assistance, and for which he neither denies his grace here, nor his glory hereafter, what is it but to make the narrow way to Heaven, narrower than Christ left it? Answ. It is not: for Christ himself hath obliged us hereunto: He hath forbidden us under pain of damnation to profess what we believe not, and conse­quently under the same penalty, to leave that Communi­on, in which we cannot remain without this hypocritical profession of those things, which we are convinced to be [Page 298]erroneous. But then besides, it is here falsely supposed, (as hath been shewed already) that Christ hath not pro­mised assistance to those that seek it, but only in matters simply necessary. Neither is there any reason, why any Church, even in this World, should despair of Victory over all Errors pernitious or noxious; provided she hum­bly and earnestly implore Divine assistance, depend whol­ly upon it, and be not wanting to it. Though a Tri­umph over all sin and Error, that is, security that she nei­ther doth nor can Err, be rather to be desired than hoped for on Earth, being a felicity reserved for Heaven.

63. Ad §. 21.] Obj. But at least the Roman Church is as infallible as Protestants, and Protestants as fallible as the Roman Church: therefore to forsake the Roman Church for Errors, what is it but to flit from one Erring Society to another? Ans. The inconsequence of this Argument is too apparent: Protestants may Err as well as the Church of Rome, therefore they did so! Boys in the Schools know, that à Posse ad Esse, the Argument follows not. He is equally fallible that believes twise two to be four, as he that believes them to be twenty: yet in this, he is not equally deceived, and he may be certain that he is not so. One Architect is no more infallible than another, and yet he is more secure that his work is right and streight who hath made it by the level, than he which hath made it by guess and by chance. So he that forsakes the Er­rors of the Church of Rome, and therefore renounceth her Communion, that he may renounce the profession of her Errors, though he knows himself fallible, as well as those whom he hath forsaken, yet he may be certain (as certain as the nature of the thing will bear) that he is not herein deceived: because he may see the Doctrine forsaken by him repugnant to Scripture, and the Doctrine embraced by him consonant to it. At least, this he may know, that the Doctrine which he hath chosen to him seems true, and the contrary which he hath forsaken, seems false: And therefore without remorse of Conscience, he may profess that, but this he cannot.

64. Obj. But we are to remember, that according to Doctor Potter the Visible Church hath a blessing not to Err in Funda­mentals, in which any private Reformer may fail, therefore there was no necessity of forsaking the Church, out of whose Communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more, and even into damnable Errors. Answ. The Visible Church is free indeed from all Errors absolutely destru­ctive and unpardonable, but not from all Error which in it self is damnable: not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them, that keep themselves in them, by their own voluntary and avoidable fault.

Besides, any private man who truly believes the Scri­pture, and seriously endeavours to know the will of God, and to do it, is as secure as the Visible Church, more se­cure than your Church from the danger of Erring in Fun­damentals: for it is impossible, that any man so quallified should fall into any Error which to him will prove dam­nable. For God requires no more of any man to his Salvation, but his true endeavour to be saved. Lastly, abiding in your Churches Communion is so far from se­curing me or any man from damnable Error, that if I should abide in it, I am certain I could not be saved. For abide in it I cannot, without professing to believe your en­tire Doctrine true: profess this I cannot, but I must lie per­petually, and exulcerate my Conscience. And though your Errors were not in themselves damnable, yet to resist the known Truth, and to continue in the profession of known Errors were not in themselves damnable, yet to resist the known Truth, and to continue in the profession of known Errors and falshoods, is certainly a capital sin, and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven.

65. Obj. But neither is the Protestant Church free from corruptions ond Errors: And what man of Judgment will be a Protestant, since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one?

Answ. And yet you your self make large discourses in this very Chapter, to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome, though supposed to have some cor­ruptions. And why I pray, may not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly cor­rupted, as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted? Especially when this Church supposed to be corrupted, re­quires [Page 300]the belief and profession of her supposed corruptions, as the condition of her Communion: which this Church confessedly corrupted, doth not. What man of judgment will think it any disparagement, to his judgment, to pre­fer the better, though not simply the best, before that which is stark naught? To prefer indifferrent good health, before a diseased and corrupted state of Body? To pre­fer a field not perfectly weeded, before a field that is quite over-run with Weeds and Thorns? and therefore 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 it any disparagement to his judgment, to change your Communion for theirs, though confessed to have some corruptions, it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgment.

66. Ad §. 22.] Obj. But Protestants say, it is comfort enough for the Church to be secured from all capital dangers (which can only arise from Error in Fundamental points) and not hope to Triumph over all sin and Error, till she be in Hea­ven; why therefore were not the first Reformers content with enough, but would dismember the Church, out of greediness of more than enough?

Answ. I have already shewed sufficiently, how capital danger may arise from Errors, though not Fundamental. I add now, that what may be enough for men in igno­rance, may be to knowing men not enough: according to that of the Gospel, to whom much is given, of him much shall be required: That the same Error may be not capital to those who want means of finding the truth, and capital to others who have means, and neglect to use them: That to continue in the profession of Error discovered to be so, may be damnable, though the Error be not so. These I presume are reasons enough, and enough why the first Reformers might think, and justly, that not enough for themselves, which yet to some of their Predecessors they hope might be enough. This very Ar­gument was objected to S. Cyprian: Ep. 63. In these words. Siquis de antecessori­bus nostris, vel igneranter vel simplíciter non hoc observavit, & tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & Magisterio suo docuit, po­test simplicita­ti ejus de in­dulgentia Do­mini, venia concedi: nobis verò non potest ignosci, qui nunc à Domino admoniti & instructi sumus. S. Cyprian upon another occa­sion, [Page 301]and also by the Wilfridus, to Abbat Colman alledging that he followed the example of his predecessors fa­mous for Holiness, and famous for Miracles, in these Words, De Patre Vestro Columba & sequacibus ejus, quorum santitatem vos imitari & regulam ac praecepta coelestibus signis confirmata sequi perhibetis, possum respondere; Quia multis in judicio dicenti­bus Domino Quòd in nomine ejus prophetaverint & daemonia ejecerint, & virtutes multas fecerint, responsurus sit Dominus, quia nunquam eos noverit. Sed absit ut de patribus vestris hoc dicam, quia justius multo est de incognitis bonum credere quam malum. Ʋnde & illos Dei famulos & Deo dilectos esse non nego, qui simplicitate ructi­câ, sed intentione piâ Deum dilexerunt: Neque illis multum obesse Paschae talem reor observantiam, quandiu nullus advenerat qui eis instituti perfectioris decreta quae se­querentur, ostenderet. Quos utique credo, si qui tunc ad eos Catholicus calculator ad­veniret, sic ejus monita fuisse secuturos, quomodo ea quae noverant ac didicerunt Dei mandata, probantur fuisse secuti. Tu autem & socii tui si audita decreta sedis Apostolicae, imo universalis Ecclesiae & haec literis sacris confirmata contemnitis, ab­sque ulla dubietate peccatis. Brittish Quartodecimans, to the main­tainers of the Doctrine of your Church; and Beda: lib. 3. Eccl. Hist. c. 25. by both this very answer was returned; and therefore I cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it.

67. Obj. But if no Church may hope to Triumph over Er­ror, till she be in Heaven, then we must either grant, that Er­rors not Fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Church, or affirm that all communities may and ought to be forsaken.

Answ. We do not say, that no Church may hope to be free from all Error, either pernitious or any way noxi­ous: But that no Church may hope to be secure from all Er­ror simply, for this were indeed truly to triumph over all. But then we say not, that the Communion of any Church is to be forsaken for Errors unfundamental, unless it ex­act with all either a dissimulation of them being noxious; or a Profession of them against the dictate of Conscience, if they be meer Errors. This if the Church does (as cer­tainly yours doth,) then her Communion is to be forsak­en, rather than the sin of Hypocrisie to be committed. Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such Errors, there is no necessity, because they Err to them­selves, and do not under pain of Excommunication ex­act the profession of their Errors.

68. Obj. But the Church may not be left by reason of sin, therefore neither by reason of Errors not Fundamental: in as [Page 302]much as both sin and Error are impossible to be avoided till she be in Heaven. Answ. The reason of the consequence does not appear to me: But I answer to the Antecedent: Neither for sin or Errors, ought a Church to be forsaken, if she does not impose and joyn them: but if she do, (as the Roman does,) then we must forsake men rather than God; leave the Churches Communion rather than commit sin, or profess known Errors, to be Divine truths. For the Prophet Ezekiel hath assured us, that to say, the Lord hath said so, when the Lord hath not said so, is a great sin and a high presumption, be the matter never so small.

69. Ad §. 23.] Obj. But neither the Quality nor the num­ber of your Churches Errors, could warrant our forsaking of it. Not the Quality, because we suppose them not Fundamen­tal. Not the number because the Foundation is strong enough to support them. Answ. Here again you vainly suppose, that we conceive your Errors in themselves not damnable: Though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable: but to say they are pardonable, is indeed to suppose them damnable. Secondly, though the Errors of your Church did not warrant our departure, yet your Tyrannous im­position of them, would be our sufficient justification. For this lays necessity on us, either to forsake your company, or to profess what we know to be false.

70. Obj. Our Blessed Saviour hath declared his Will, that we forgive a private offender Seventy Seven times, that is, with­out limitation of quantity of time, or quality of Trespasses; and then how dare we alledge his command, that we must not par­don his Church for Errors acknowledged to be not Fundamen­tal? Answ. He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often, will not allow us for his sake to sin with him, so much as once. He will have us do any thing but sin, rather than offend any man. But his will is also, that we offend all the World, rather than sin in the least matter. And therefore though his will were, and it were in our power (which yet is false) to pardon the Errors of an Erring Church; yet certainly it is not his will, that we should Err with the Church, or if we do [Page 303]not, that we should against Conscience profess the Errors of it.

71. Ad §. 24.] Obj. But Schismaticks from the Church of England or any other Church, with this very Answer, that they forsake not the Church but the Errors of it, may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schism. Answ. True, they may make the same Answer, and the same defence as we do, as a Murtherer can cry not guilty, as well as an In­nocent person, but not so truly nor so justly. The que­stion is, not what may be pretended, but what can be proved by Schismaticks. They may object Errors to o­ther Churches, as well as we do to yours, but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can, that ap­pears not. To the Priests and Elders of the Jews, im­posing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, S. Peter and S. John answered they must obey God rather than men. The three Children to the King of Ba­bylon, gave in effect the same answer. Give me now any factious Hypocrite, who makes Religion the pretence and Cloke of his Rebellion, and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself, in those very formal words, which the Holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of. And yet I presume no Christian will deny, but this answer was good, in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs, though it were obnoxious to be used, by Traitors and Rebels. Certainly therefore, it is no good consequence to say, Schismaticks may make use of this Answer, therefore all that do make use of it are Schismaticks. But moreover, it is to be ob­served, that the cheif part of our defence, that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your Doctrine, cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants: who grant their Communion to all who hold with them, not all things, but things necessary, that is, such as are in Scripture plainly delivered.

72. Obj. But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schisms, and therefore it must not be forsaken. Answ. We must not do evil to avoid evil: neither are all courses presently lawful, by which incon­veniencies may be avoided. If all men would submit [Page 304]themselves to the chief Mufty of the Turks, it is apparent, there would be no divisions; yet Unity is not to be purchas­ed at so dear a rate. It were a thing much to be desired, that there were no divisions: yet difference of opinions touching points controverted, is rather to be chosen, than unanimous concord in damned Errors: As it is better for men to go to Heaven by diverse ways, or rather by divers Paths of the same way, than in the same path to go on peace­ably to Hell. Amica Pax, magis amica Veritas! Peace is dear to me, but Truth is dearer.

74. Ad §. 26.27.] Here you make D. Potter to say, that Protestants did well to forsake the Church of Rome, be­cause they judged she retained all means necessary to Salvation. Answ. Who was ever so stupid as to give this ridiculous reason? D. Potter Vindicates Protestants for Schism two ways: The one is, because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate, which Schismaticks never have; because they that have it are no Schismaticks: For Schism is always a causeless separation. The other is, because they did not joyn with their separation, an uncharitable damn­ing of all those from whom they did divide themselves, as the manner of Schismaticks is. Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation, you make him make the cause of it, and the motive to it. And whereas he says, though we separate from you in some things, yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the Body of Christ, and therefore are not Schismaticks: You make him say most absurdly, we did well to forsake you, because we judged you a member of the Body of Christ. Just as if a Brother should leave his Brothers com­pany in some ill courses, and should say to him, Herein I forsake you, yet I leave you not absolutely, for I acknow­ledge you still to be my Brother, and shall use you as a Brother: And you perverting his speech, should pretend that he had said, I leave your company in these ill courses, and I do well to do so, because you are my Brother: so making that the cause of his leaving him, which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther.

75. Obj. But you say, The very reason for which he acquitteth himself for Schism, is because he holds that the [Page 305]Church which they forsook, is not cut off from the Body of Christ.

Ans. This is true: But can you not perceive a dif­ference between justifying his separation from Schism by this reason, and making this the reason of his separati­on? If a man denying obedience in some unlawful mat­ter to his lawful Sovereign, should say to him, herein I disobey you, but yet I am no Rebel, because I acknow­ledge you my Sovereign Lord, and am ready to obey you in all things lawful, should not he be an egregious Syco­phant, that should accuse him as if he had said, I do well to disobey you, because I acknowledge you my lawful Soveraign? Certainly he that joyns this acknow­ledgment with his necessitated disobedience, does well; but he that makes this consideration the reason of his dis­obedience, doth ill.

76. Obj. It is an unspeakable comfort to Catholicks (you say) that we cannot clear our selves from Schism otherwise, than by acknowledging that we do not, nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation.

Ans. I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too dear. For why this good opinion of God Almighty, that he will not damn men for error, who were without their own fault ignorant of the truth, should be any consolation to them, who having the key of know­ledge, will neither use it themselves, nor permit others to use it; who have eyes to see and will not see, who have ears to hear and will not hear! this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend. Neither is this to make our sal­vation depend on yours, but only ours and yours not despe­ratly inconsistent. Nor to say we must be damned unless you may be saved; but that we assure our selves, if our lives be answerable, we shall be saved by our knowledge. And that we hope (and I tell you again Spes est rei incer­tae nomen,) that some of you may possibly be the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance.

80. Ad §. 28.29. Whereas D. Potter says, There is a great difference between a Schism from them, and a Reformati­on of our selves: this you say is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and sin may be as well excused.

Ans. It seems then in your judgment, that Thieves and Adulterers, and Murtherers, and Traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants, that they did no hurt to others, but only reform themselves. But then methinks it is very strange, that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the impu­tation of Schism: and that to this day, never any Thief or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apology! And then for Schismaticks I would know, whe­ther Victor Bishop of Rome, who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter; whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius, upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome, when indeed he was not; whether Felicissimus and his Crew, that went out of the Church of Carthage, and set up altar against altar, because having fallen in perse­cution, they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently, upon the intercession of the Confessors; whether the Donatists, who divided from, and damned all the world, because all the world would not excommuni­cate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the sacred Books; whether they which for the slips and infirmity of others, which they might and ought to tolerate, or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony, or for some error in Do­ctrin, neither pernitious nor hurtful to faith or piety, sepa­rate themselves from others, or others from themselves; or lastly, whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience, because their opinions are not appro­ved there, but reprehended and confuted, or because be­ing of impious conversation, they are impatient of their Churches censure: I would know I say, whether all, or any of these, may with any face or without extream im­pudency, put in this plea of Protestants, and pretend with as much likelihood as they, that they did not separate from others, but only reform themselves? But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely, doth it follow by any good Logick, that therefore this A­pology is not to be imployed by Protestants, who may say [Page 307]so truly? We make (say they) no Schism from you, but only a reformation of our selves: This, you reply, is no good justi­fication, because it may be pretended by any Schismatick. Ve­ry true, any Schismatick that can speak may say the same words, (as any Rebel that makes conscience the cloak of his impious disobedience, may say with S. Peter and S. John, we must obey God rather than men;) But then the question is, whether any Schismatick may say so truly? And to this question you say just nothing: but conclude, because this defence may be abused by some, it must be used by none. As if you should have said, S. Peter and S. John did ill to make such an answer as they made, be­cause impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their disobedience and rebellion against the lawful commands of lawful Authority.

81. Obj. But seeing their pretended Reformation consisted in forsaking the Churches corruptions, their Reformation of themselves, and their division from you, falls out to be one and the same thing.

Ans. Just as if two men having been a long while com­panions in drunkenness, one of them should turn sober; this Reformation of himself, and disertion of his compani­on, in this ill custom, would be one and the same thing, and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all, or his society in other things. So Protestants forsaking their own former corruptions, which were com­mon to them with you, could not choose but withal forsake you in the practice of these corruptions: yet this they might, and would have done without breach of Charity towards you; and without a renunciation of your compa­ny in any act of piety and devotion, confessedly lawful. And therefore though both these were by accident joyned together, yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at, was not a separation from you, but a reformation of themselves.

82. Neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the Reformation, (which yet when you measure it without partiality, you'll find to be far short of infinite) nor their symbolizing in the general of forsaking your corruptions, prove [Page 308]any thing to the contrary, or any way advantage your de­sign or make for your purpose. For it is not any sign at all, much less an evident sign, that they had no setled de­sign, but only to forsake the Church of Rome: for no­thing but malice can deny, that their intent at least was, to reduce Religion to that original purity from which it was fallen. The declination from which, some concei­ving to have begun (though secretly) in the Apostles times, (the mystery of iniquity being then in work;) and af­ter their departure to have shewed it self more openly: o­thers again believing, that the Church continued pure for some Ages after the Apostles, and then declined: And consequently some aiming at an exact conformity with the Apostolick times: Others thinking they should do God and men good service, could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fifth ages: Some taking their direction in this work of Reformation, only from Scripture; others from the Writings of Fathers, and the Decrees of Councils of the first five Ages: certainly it is no great marvel, that there was, as you say, disagreement between them, in the particulars of their Reformation; nay morally speaking, it was impossible it should be other­wise. Yet let me tell you, the difference between them (especially in comparison of your Church and Religion,) is not the difference between good and bad, but between good and better: And they did best that followed Scripture, interpreted by Catholick written Tradition: which rule the Reformers of the Church of England, proposed to themselves to follow.

83. Ad 30.31, 32.] D. Potter, p. 81.82. of his Book, speak thus. If a Monastery should reform it self, and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline, when others would not: In this case could it be charged with Schism from others, or with Apostacy from its rule and order? So in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from it, could they be therefore said to separate from the society? He presumes they could not, and from hence concludes, That neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schism, (that is separating [Page 309]from the Church, and making themselves no members of it) if all they did was (as indeed it was) to reform them­selves.

84. Now instead of these two instances, which plainly shewed it possible in other societies, and consequently in that of the Church, to leave the faults of a Society, and not leave being of it, you disingenuously foist in two other instances, clean cross to the Doctors purpose, of men un­der colour of faults, abandoning the Society wherein they lived.

85. But that no suspicion of tergiversation may be fast­ned upon me, I am content to deal with you a little, at your own weapons. Put the case then, though not just as you would have it, yet with as much favour to you, as in rea­son you can expect, That a Monastery did observe her substantial vows, and all principal statutes, but yet did ge­nerally practise, and also enjoyn the violation of some lesser, yet obliging observances, and had done so time out of mind. And that some inferiour Monks more consci­entious than the rest, discovering this abuse, should first with all earnestness sollicite their Superiors for a ge­neral and orderly reformation of these, though small and venial corruptions, yet corruptions: But finding they ho­ped and laboured in vain to effect this, should reform these faults in themselves, and refuse to joyn in the practice of them, with the rest of their Confraternity, and persisting resolutely in such a refusal, should by their Superiors be cast out of their Monastery, and being not to be re-admit­ted without a promise of remitting from their stiffness in these things, and of condescending to others in the pra­ctice of their small faults, should choose rather to continue exiles, than to re-enter upon such conditions: I would know whether you would condemn such men of Aposta­cy from the Order? Without doubt if you should, you would find the stream of your Casuists against you, and besides, involve S. Paul in the same condemnation, who plainly tells, that we may not do the least evil, that we may do the greatest good. Put case again, you should be part of a Society universally infected with some disease, and disco­vering [Page 310]a certain remedy for this disease, should perswade the whole company to make use of it, but find the great­est part of them so far in love with their disease, that they were reslved to keep it; and besides, should make a de­cree, that whosoever would leave it, should leave their company. Suppose now that your self and some few others, should notwithstanding their injunction to the contrary, free your selves from this disease, and there­upon they should absolutely forsake and reject you: I would know in this case who deserves to be condemned, whether you of uncharitable desertion of your company, or they of a tyrannical peevishness? And if in these cases you will (as I verily believe you will,) acquit the inferi­ors and condemn the superiors, absolve the minor part and condemn the major, then can you with no reason condemn Protestants, for choosing rather to be ejected from the communion of the Roman Church, than with her to persist (as of necessity they were to do, if they would continue in her Communion) in the profession of Errors, though not destructive of salvation, yet hindering edification, and in the practice, or at least approbati­of many, (suppose not mortal) but venial corrupti­ons.

86. Besides, you censure too partially the corrupt estate of your Church in comparing it to a Monastery, which did confessedly observe their substantial Vows, and all principal Sta­tutes of their order; and moreover was secured by an infalli­ble assistance, for the avoiding of all substantial corruptions: for of your Church we confess no such matter, but say plainly, That she not only might fall into substantial cor­ruptions, but did so; that she did not only generally vio­late, but of all the members of her Communion, either in act or approbation, require and exact the violation of many substantial Laws of Christ, both Ceremonial and Moral, which though we hope it was pardonable in them, who had not means to know their error, yet of its own na­ture, and to them who did or might have known their er­ror, was certainly damnable. And that it was not the Ty­thing of Mint and Annise, and Cummin, the neglect whereof [Page 311]we impute unto you, but the neglect of judgment, justice, and the weightier matters of the Law.

87. Again, you compare Protestants to such a Company as acknowledge that themselves, as soon as they were gone out of the Monastery that deferred to reform, must not hope to be free from those or the like Errors and Corruptions for which they left their Brethren. Which is very strange, see­ing this very hope and nothing else, moved them to leave your Communion: and this speech of yours, so far as it concerns the same Errors, plainly destroys it self. For how can they possibly fall into the same Errors by forsak­ing your Communion, which that they may forsake they do forsake your Communion? And then for other errors of the like nature and quality, or more e­normous than yours, though they deny it not possible, but by their negligence and wickedness they may fall into them, yet they are so far from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischief, that they proclaim to all the world, that it is most prone and easie 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 extream impiety.

89. Obj. But when Luther began, he being but one, opposed himself to all, as well Subjects as Superiors.

Ans. If he did so in the cause of God, it was heroically done of him. This had been without hyperbolizing, Mundus contra Athanasium, and Athanasius contra Mundum; the world against Athanasius, and Athanasius against the world: neither is it impossible, that the whole world should so far lie in wickedness (as S. John speaks) that it may be lawful and noble for one man to oppose the world. But yet were we put to our Oaths, we should surely not testi­fie any such thing for you; for how can we say properly and without streining, that he opposed himself to All, unless we could say also, that All opposed themselves to him? And how can we say so, seeing the world can witness, that so many thousands, nay millions followed his stan­dard as soon as it was advanced.

90. But none that lived immediatly before him thought or spake as he did. This first is nothing to the purpose. The Church was then corrupted, and sure it was no dishonour to him to begin the Reformation. In the Christian war­fare, every man ought to strive to be foremost. Second­ly, it is more than you can justifie. For though no man before him lifted up his voice like a Trumpet, as Lu­ther did, yet who can assure us, but that many before him, both thought and spake in lower voice of Petitions and Remonstrances, in many points, as he did?

91. Obj. Many chief learned Protestants, are forced to con­fess the Antiquity of your Doctrin and practice.

Ans. Of many Doctrins and practices of yours this is not true; for I pray inform me, what confessions of Prote­stants have you, for the Antiquity of the Doctrin of the Communion in one kind: the lawfulness and expedience of the Latin Service: For the present use of Indulgences: For the Popes power in Temporalties over Princes: For the picturing of the Trinity: For the lawfulness of the worship of Pictures: For your Beads and Rosary, and Ladies Psalter; and in a word, for your whole worship of the Blessed Virgin: For your oblations by way of consum­ption, and therefore in the quality of Sacrifices to the Vir­gin Mary and other Saints: For your saying of Pater no­sters, and Creeds to the honour of Saints, and of Ave-Maries to the honour of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin: For infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome: For your prohibiting the Scripture to be read publickly in the Church, in such Languages as all may understand: For your Doctrin of the Blessed Virgins immunity from actual sin; and for your doctrin and worship of her Ima­culate conception: For the necessity of Auricular Confes­sion: For the necessity of the Priests intention to obtain benefit by any of your Sacraments: And lastly (not to trouble my self with finding out more) for this very do­ctrin of Licentiousness, That though a man live and die without the practice of Christian vertues, and with the habits of many damnable sins unmortified, yet if he in the last moment of life, have any sorrow for his sins, and joyn [Page 313]confession with it, certainly he shall be saved? Besides, though some Protestants confess some of your Doctrine to be Ancient, yet this is nothing, so long as it is evident, even by the confession of all sides, that many Errors, I instance in that of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, were more Ancient. Not any antiquity there­of, unless it be absolute and primitive, is a certain sight of true Doctrine. For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption (as we pretend it was,) who can possible war­rant us that part of this corruption, might not get in and prevail in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. Age? Especially seeing the Apostles assure us that the mystery of iniquity was work­ing, though more secretly even in their times. If any man ask how could it become Universal in so short a time? Let him tell me how the Error of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, became so soon U­niversal, and then he shall acknowledge, what was done in some, was possible in others. Lastly, to cry quittance with you: As there are Protestants who confess the Anti­quity, but always post-nate to Apostolick, of some points of your Doctrine: so there want not Papists who acknow­ledge as freely, the novelty of many of them, and the Antiquity of ours. A collection of whose Testimony, we have (without thanks to you) in your Indices expurga­toris: The Divine Providence, blessedly abusing for the rea­dier manifestation of the Truth this Engine intended by you for the subversion and suppression of it. Here is no place to stand upon particulars: only one general inge­nuous confession of that great Erasmus, may not be passed over in silence. Non desunt magni Theologi, Erasm. Ep. lib. 15. Ep. ad Gode­schalcum. Ros. qui non veren­tur affirmare, nihil esse in Luthero, quin per probatos autho­res defendi possit. There want not great Divines, which stick not to affirm, that there is nothing in Luther, which may not be defended by good and allowed authors.

92. After this you compose a heap of vain suppositions, pretended to be grounded on our confessions. As first, that your Deseases which we forsook, neither were nor could be mortal: whereas we assure our selves, and are ready to justifie, that they are and were mortal in themselves, [Page 314]and would have been so to us, if when light came to us we had loved Darkness more than Light. Secondly, that we had no hope to avoid other Diseases like those for which we forsook your company, nor to be secure out of it from damnable Errors: whereas, in truth, the hope hereof was the only motive of our departure; and we assure our selves that the means to be secured from damnable Error, is not to be secure as you are, but carefully to use those means of avoiding it, to which God hath promised, and will never fail to give a blessing. Thirdly, that those innumerable mis­chiefs which followed upon the departure of Protestants, were caused by it as by a proper cause: whereas their Doctrine was no otherwise the occasion of them, than the Gospel of Christ was of the division of the World. The only Fountain of all these mischiefs, being indeed no other than your pouring out a Flood of persecutions against Protestants, only because they would not sin & be damned with you for company. Unless we may add the impati­ence of some Protestants, who not enduring to be Torn in peeces like Sheep by a company of Wolves without re­sistance, chose rather to die like Soldiers than Martyrs.

96. Obj. But-they endeavoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were; and if it refused, they did, when they had power drive them away, even their superiours both Spiritual and Temporal as is notorious. The proofs hereof are wanting and therefore I might de­fer my answer until they were produced; yet take this beforehand: If they did so, then herein, in my opinion, they did amiss; for I have learnt from the Ancient Fa­thers of the Church, that nothing is more against Religion than to force Religion, and of S. Paul, the Weapons of the Christian Warfare are not carnal. And great reason: For humane violence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them believe, and is therefore fit for nothing but to breed form without, and Atheism within. Besides, if this means of bringing men to embrace any Religion were generally used (as if it may be justly used in any place by those that have power, and think they have truth, certainly they can­not with reason deny but that it may be used in every [Page 315]place, by those that have powe [...] as well as they, and think they have truth as well as they,) what could fol­low but the maintainance perhaps of truth, but perhaps only of the profession of it in one place, and the oppres­sion of it in a hundred? What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of Unity, but peradventure on­ly of uniformity in particular States and Churches; but the immortallizing the greater and more lamentable di­visions of Christendom and the World? And therefore what can follow from it, but perhaps in the judgment of carnal policy, the temporal benefit and tranquillity of temporal States and kingdoms, but the infinit pre­judice, if not the desolation of the kingdom of Christ? And therefore it well becomes them who have their por­tions in this life, who serve no higher State than that of England, or Spain, or France, nor this neither any further than they may serve themselves by it; who think of no other happiness but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this World; who think of no other means to preserve States, but humane power and Machi­avillian policy; and believe no other Creed but this, Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil injustum, quod utile! that to a King or City that has Ruling Power, nothing that is profitable is unjust. Such men as these it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their State-in­strument, Religion. For if all be vain and false, (as in their judgment it is) the present whatsoever, is better than any, because it is already setled: and alteration of it may draw with it change of States, and the change of State the subversion of their fortune. But they that are in­deed Servants and lovers of Christ, of Truth, of the Church, and of Man-kind, ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it, as a common Enemy of all these. They that know there is a King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdoms stand and fall, they know, that to no King or State any thing can be profitable which is unjust; and that nothing can be more evidently unjust, than to force weak men by the profession of a Religion which they believe not, [Page 316]to lose their own Eternal Happiness, out of a vain and needless fear, lest they may possibly disturb their tempo­ral quietness. There is no danger to any state from any mans opinion; unless it be such an opinion by which dis­obedience to authority, or impiety is taught or licenced, which sort, I confess may justly be punished as well as other faults; or unless this sanguinary Doctrine be joyned with it, that it is lawful for him by humane violence to enforce others to it. Therefore if Protestants did offer vi­olence to other Mens Consciences and compel them to embrace their Reformation, I excuse them not: much less if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings, and those that were in authority over them, who ought to be so secured from violence, that even thier unjust and Tyrannous violence, though it may be avoided (according to that of our Saviour, When they persecute you in one Citty fly into another,) yet may it not be resisted by opposing vio­lence against it. Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime, are not to be excused, and blessed had they been, had they chosen rather to be Martyrs than Mur­therers, and to die for their Religion rather than to fight for it. But of all the men in the World you are the most unfit to accuse them hereof, against whom the Souls of Martyrs from under the Altar cry much louder than against all their other Persecutors together: Who for these ma­ny Ages together have daily sacrificed Hecatombs of In­nocent Christians, under the name of Hereticks, to your blind zeal and furious superstition. Who teach plainly, that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you have power by deposing of Kings and Invasion of King­doms, and think when you kill the Adversaries of it, you do God good service. But for their departing corporally from them, whom mentally they had forsaken: For their forsaking the external Communion and company of that part of the unreformed part of the Church, in their super­stitions and impieties: thus much of your accusation we embrace and glory in it; And say though some Protestants might offend in the manner or the degree of their separa­tion, yet certainly their separation it self was not Schismati­cal, but Innocent, and not only so, but just and necessary.

99. Ad §. 36.] What you cite out of Optatus ( l. 2. cont. Parm. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest, that in the City of Rome there was first an Episcopal Chair placed for Peter wherein Peter the head of the Apostles sate, whereof also he was called Cephas; in which one Chair Unity was to be kept by all, lest the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair; and that he should be a Schismatick and sinner, who against that one single Chair should erect another. All this is impertinent, if it be well lookt into. The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction: not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in parti­cular. Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians ground of one Bishop in one Church, proves them Schismatick for so doing, by this Argument: S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome, nei­ther did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair, (viz. in that City, for in other places o­thers I hope had Chairs besides S. Peter) and therefore he is a Schismatick, who against that one single Chair erects another (viz. in that place) making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it.

100. Obj. But he stiles S. Peter Head of the Apostles, and says that from thence he was called Cephas.

Answ. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion, by thinking Cephas derived from the Greek word [...] a head: whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a Stone. Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles, that is first in order and honour among them, and not have supream Authority over them. And indeed that S. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles, and yet ex­ercise no one Act of Authority over any one of them, and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection, methinks is as strange, as that a King of England for twenty five years should do no Act of Regality, nor re­ceive any one acknowledgment of it. As strange me­thinks it is, that you so many Ages after, should know this so certainly, as you pretend to do, and that the Apostles (after that those words were spoken in their hearing, by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to [Page 318]have been made their Head,) should still be so igno­rant of it, as to question which of them should be the greatest? yet more strange, that our Saviour should not bring them out of their Error, by telling them S. Peter was the man, but rather confirm it by saying, the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them, but it should not be so among them. No less a wonder was it that S. Paul should so far forget S. Peter and himself, as that first men­tioning him often, he should do it without any Title of Honour. Secondly, speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church, he should not give S. Peter the highest, but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles, and say, God hath appointed (not first Peter, then the rest of the Apostles, but) first Apostles, secondly Prophets. Certainly if the Apostles were all first, to me it is very probable, that no one of them was before the rest. For by First, all men understand either that which is before all, or that before which is nothing. Now in the former sense, the Apostles could not be all first, for then every one of them must have been before eve­ry one of the rest. And therefore they must be First in the other sense. And therefore, No man, and therefore not S. Peter, must be before any of them. Thirdly and Lastly, that speaking of himself in particular, and perhaps comparing himself with S. Peter in particular, rather than any other, he should say in plain terms, I am in nothing inferior to the very Chiefest Apostles. But besides all this, though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more, that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles, not in our but in your sense, and that S. Peter indeed was so; yet still you are very far from shewing, that in the judgment of Optatus, the Bishop of Rome, was to be at all, much less by Divine right, successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority. For what incongruity is there, if we say, that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care, the Government of that particular Church, (as sure he did even while S. Peter was living,) and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship, nor in his Government [Page 319]of the Church Universal? Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles, by laying the Foundations of the Church, were to be the Foundations of it, and accor­dingly are so called in Scripture. And therefore as in a building it is incongruous that Foundations should suc­ceed Foundations: So it may be in the Church, that any other Apostle should succeed the first.

101. Ad §. 37.] Obj. What you here cite out of S. Austin; if it be applied to Luther's Separation, is imper­tinent. For it is one thing to separate from the Communi­on of the whole World, another to separate from all the Communions in the World: One thing to divide from them who are United among themselves, another to divide from them who are divided among themselves. Now the Dona­tists separated from the whole World of Christians, Unit­ed in one Communion, professing the same Faith, serving God after the same manner, which was a very great Argu­ment, that they could not have just cause to leave them: ac­cording to that of Tertullian, Variasse debuerat error Ecclesia­rum, quod autem apud multos unum est, non est Erratum sed Traditum. But Luther and his followers did not so. The World, I mean of Christians and Catholicks, was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it; and by their divisions had much weakened their own Authority, and taken away from you this Plea of S. Austin, which stands upon no other Foundation, but the Unity of the whole Worlds Communion.

102. Ad §. 38.] Obj. If Luther were in the right, most cer­tain those Protestants that differed from him were in the wrong.

Answ. But that either he or they were Schismaticks, it follows not. Or if it does, then either the Jesuits are Schismaticks from the Dominicans, or they from the Jesu­ites; The Canonists from the Jesuits, or the Jesuits from the Canonists: The Scotists from the Thomists, or they from the Scotists: The Franciscans from the Dominicans, or the Domini­cans from the Franciscans. For between all these the World knows, that in point of Doctrine, there is plain and ir­reconcileable contradiction, and therefore one Part must be in Error, at least not Fundamental. Thus your Ar­gument [Page 320]returns upon your self, and if it be good, proves the Roman Church in a manner to be made up of Schis­maticks. But the answer to it is, that it begs this very false and vain supposition; That whosoever Errs in any point of Doctrine is a Schismatick.

103. Ad §. 39.] In the next place you number up your Victories, and tell us, that out of these premises, this conclu­sion follows, That Luther and his followers were Schismaticks from the Visible Church, the Pope, the Diocess wherein they were baptized, from the Bishop under whom they lived, from the Country to which they belonged, from their Religious order, wherein they were professed, from one another, and lastly, from a mans self: Because the self same Protestant is con­victed to day, that his yesterdays opinion was an Error. To which I answer, that Luther and his followers separated from many of these, in some opinions and practices: But that they did it without cause, which only can make them Schismaticks, that was the only thing you should have proved, and to that you have not urged one rea­son of any moment. All of them for weight and strength, were cousin-germans to this pretty device, wherewith you will prove them Schismaticks from themselves, because the self same Protestant to day is convicted in Conscience, that his yesterdays opinion was an Error. It seems then that they that hold Errors, must hold them fast, and take especial care of being convicted in Conscience, that they are in Error, for fear of being Schismaticks! Protestants must continue Protestants, and Puritans Puritans, and Papists Pa­pists, nay Jews, and Turks, and Pagans, must remain Jews, and Turks, and Pagans, and go on constantly to the Devil, or else forsooth they must be Schismaticks, and that from themselves. And this perhaps is the cause that makes Pa­pists so obstinate, not only in their common superstition, but also in adhering to the proper fancies of their several Sects, so that it is a miracle to hear of any Jesuit, that hath forsaken the opinion of the Jesuits: or any Domini­can that hath changed his or the Jesuits.

But sure the forsaking of error cannot be a sin, unless to be in error be a vertue. And therefore, to do as you [Page 321]do, to damn men for false opinions, and to call them Schismaticks for leaving them; to make pertinacy in er­ror, that is, an unwillingness to be convicted, or a resolu­tion not to be convicted, the form of Heresies, and to find fault with men, for being convicted in conscience that they are in error, is the most incoherent and contradi­ctious injustice that ever was heard of. But Sir, if this be a strange matter to you, that which I shall tell you will be much stranger. I know a man that of a moderate Prote­stant turned a Papist, and the day that he did so, (as all things that are done are perfected some day or other,) was convicted in conscience, that his yesterdays opinion was an error, and yet thinks he was no Schismatick for doing so, and desires to be informed by you, whether or no he was mistaken? The same man afterwards upon better consideration, became a doubting Papist, and of a doubt­ing Papist, a confirmed Protestant. And yet this man thinks himself no more to blame for all these changes, than a Traveller, who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote City, where he never had been, (as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven,) did yet mi­stake it, and after find his error, and amend it. Nay he stands upon his justification so far, as to maintain that his alterations, not only to you, but also from you by Gods mer­cy, were the most satisfactory actions to himself, that ever he did, and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himself, and his affections to those things which in this world are most precious; as wherein for Gods sake and (as he was verily perswaded,) out of love to the Truth, he went upon a certain expectation of those inconvenien­ces, which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible. So that though there were much weakness in some of these al­terations, yet certainly there was no wickedness. Neither does he yield his weakness altogether without apology, see­ing his deductions were rational, and out of Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists, and which by his education had got possession of his under­standing.

107. Ad §. 41.] Obj. Though the first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true, yet they might and ought to have doubted, whether they were certain; since they affirm, that Infallibility was not promised to particular persons or Churches.

Ans. This is to say, that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture, which in formal and express terms, contains many of these opinions. And your rea­son is vain; for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them, yet may they be of some things infalli­bly certain. As Euclide sure was not infallible, yet he was certain enough, that twice two were four, and that every whole was greater than a part of that whole. And so though Calvin and Melancton were not infallible in all things, yet they might and did know well enough, that your Latin-Service was condemned by S. Paul, and that the Commu­nion in both kinds was taught by our Saviour.

Obj. But your Church was in peaceable possession (you must mean of her Doctrin and the Professors of it) and enjoyed prescription for many Ages.

Ans. The possession which the Governors of your Church held for some ages, of the party governed, was not peaceable, but got by fraud and held by violence.

108. Obj. You say that a pretence of Conscience will not serve to justifie separation from being Schismatical.

Ans. This is very true but little to the purpose, seeing it is not an erroneous perswasion, much less an hypocriti­cal pretence, but a true and well grounded conviction of Conscience, which we alledge to justifie Protestants from being Schismatical. And therefore though Seditious men in Church and State, may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion: yet this I hope hinders not, but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience, rather than the unjust commands of his Tyrannous Superiors. Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the Oaths of Allegi­ance and Supremacy? Or the ancient Martyrs, and A­postles, and Prophets, who oftentimes disobeyed the com­mands of men in authority, and for their disobedience [Page 323]made no other but this Apology, We must obey God rather than men? It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent: seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets, and even against your selves, as well as against Protestants. To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed Luther, seeing they pretend and are ready to justifie, that they forsook not, with the Doctors, the faith, but only the corruption of the Church. As vain altogether is that which follows: That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superior, or cast off his obedience, nor publickly op­pose his decrees. From whence it will follow very evidently, that seeing it is not a matter of faith, but a disputed que­stion among you, whether the Oath of Allegiance be law­ful: that either you acknowledge not the King your Su­perior, or do against conscience, in opposing his and the kingdoms decree, requiring the taking of this Oath. This good use, I say, may very fairly be made of it, and is by men of your own Religion.

109 Ad §. 42.] Obj. It is not fit, you say, for any pri­vate man to oppose his judgment to the publick.

Ans. Not his own judgment and bare authority; but occasions may happen, wherein it may be very warranta­ble, to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it: and is not then to be esteemed to oppose his own judg­ment to the publick, but the judgment of God to the judg­ment of men.

Neither will Mr. Hookers words you cite do you any ser­vice. For though he says ( Pref. to Eccles. polit. see 6. pag. 28.) that men are bound to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine; as it is plain men are bound to yield such an obedience to all Courts of civil judicature: yet he says not, they are bound to think that de­termination lawful and that sentence just. Nay it is plain he says, that they must do according to the Judges sentence, though in their private opinion it seem unjust. As if I be wrongfully cast in a suit at Law, and sentenced to pay an hundred pound, I am bound to pay the money, yet I know no Law of God or man, that binds me in conscience [Page 243]to acquit the Judge of error in his sentence. Neither is there any necessity, as you say, that he must either acknow­ledge the Universal Infallibility of the Church, or drive men into dissembling against their Conscience; seeing nothing hinders, but I may obey the sentence of a Judge, paying the mony he awards me to pay, or forgoing the house or land which he hath judged from me, and yet withal plainly profess, that in my Conscience I conceive his Judgment errone­ous. To which purpose they have a saying in France, that whosoever is cast in any cause, hath liberty for ten days after, to rail at his Judges.

110. But observe, I pray, that Mr. Hooker says not ab­solutely and in all their causes; but onely in litigious causes, of the quality of those whereof he there treats; In such mat­ters as have plain Scripture or reason neither for them nor against them, and wherein men are perswaded this or that way, upon their own only probable collection; in such cases, This perswasion (saith he) ought to be fully setled in mens hearts, that the will of God is, that they should not disobey the certain commands of their lawful Superiors, upon uncertain grounds: But do that which the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determin. For the purpose, a Question there is, whether a Surplice may be worn in Divine Service: The authority of Superiors injoyns this Ceremony, and neither Scripture nor reason plainly forbids it. Sempronius notwithstanding, is by some inducements, which he con­fesses to be onely probable, lead to this perswasion that the thing is unlawful. The quaere is, whether he ought for matter of practice follow the injunction of authority, or his own private and only probable perswasion? M. Hooker resolves for the former, upon this ground, that the cer­tain commands of the Church we live in, are to be obeyed in all things, not certainly unlawful.

As for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience, to Ecclesiastical decisions universally and in all cases, even when plain Text or reason seems to controul them, M. Hooker is as far from making such an Idol of Ecclesia­stical Authority, as the Puritans whom he writes against. I grant (saith he,) that proof derived from the authority of [Page 325]mans judgment, is not able to work that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proof. And therefore although ten thousand General Councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence, concerning any point of Religion whatsoever, yet one demonstrative reason alledged, or one manifest testimony cited from the word of God himself, to the contrary, could not choose but over-weigh them all: in as much as for them to be deceived it is not impossible, it is that Demonstrative Reason, or Divine Testimony should deceive. And again, Whereas it is thought, that especially with the Church, and those that are called, mans authority ought not to prevail: It must and doth prevail even with them, yea with them especially, as far as equity requireth, and farther we maintain it not. For men to be tied and led by authority, as it were with a kind of captivity of judgment, and though there be reason to the contrary, not to listen to it, but to follow like beasts, the first in the Herd, this were brutish. A­gain, that authority of men should prevail with men either a­gainst or above reason, is no part of our belief. Companies of learned men, be they never so great and reverend, are to yield unto reason, the weight whereof, is no whit prejudiced by the simplicity of his person which doth alledge it, but being found to be sound and good, the bare opinion of men to the contrary, must of necessity stoop and give place. Thus M. Hooker in his Seventh Section of his Second Book.

112. Ad §. 43.] The next Section hath in it some ob­jections against Luthers person, but none against his cause, which alone I have undertaken to justifie, and therefore I pass it over. Yet this I promise, that when you, or any of your side, shall publish a good defence, of all that your Popes have said and done, especially of them whom Bel­larmine believes, in such a long train to have gone to the De­vil: then you shall receive an ample Apology for all the actions and words of Luther. In the mean time, I hope all reasonable and equitable Judges, will esteem it not un­pardonable in the great and Heroical spirit of Luther, if being oposed, and perpetually baited with a world of Fu­ries, he were transported sometimes, and made somewhat furious. As for you, I desire you to be quiet, and to de­mand no more, whether God be wont to send such Fu­ries [Page 326]to preach the Gospel? Unless you desire to hear of your killing of Kings: Massacring of Peoples; Blowing up of Parliaments: and have a mind to be ask't, whether it be probable, that that should be Gods cause, which needs to be maintained by such Devilish means?

CHAP. VI. The ANSWER to the Sixth CHAPTER.

Ad §. 1. HE that will accuse any one man, much more any great multitude of men of any great and horrible crime, should in all reason and justice take care that the greatness of his evidence do equal, if not exceed the quality of the crime. And such an accusation you would here make shew of, by pretending, first, to lay such grounds of it, as are either already proved, or else yielded on all sides: and after to raise a firm and stable structure of con­vincing arguments upon them. But both these I find to be meer and vain pretences, and having considered this Chapter also without prejudice or passion, as I did the for­mer, I am enforced by the light of Truth, to pronounce your whole discourse, a painted and ruinous Building upon a weak and sandy foundation.

2. Ad §. 2, 3. First for your grounds, a great part of them, is falsely said to be either proved or granted. It is true indeed that Man by his natural wit and industry could never have attained to the knowledge of Gods will to give him a supernatural and eternal happiness, nor of the means by which his pleasure was to bestow this happiness upon him. And therefore your first ground is good, That it was re­quisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and means by a knowledge supernatural. I say this is good, if you mean by knowledge, an apprehension or belief.

3. But then whereas you add, that if a such a knowledge were no more than probable, it could not be able sufficiently to overbear our will, and encounter with human probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood, and therefore conclude, that it was farther necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible: To this I answer, that I do heartily acknowledge and believe the Articles of our Faith be in themselves Truths; as certain and infallible as the very common Principles of Geome­try and Metaphysicks. But that there is required of us a knowledge of them, and an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science, that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, so that no man can hope to be in the state of salvation, but he that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence: This I have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernitious consequence. And because I am more and more confirmed in my perswasion that the Truth which I there delivered, is of great and singular use, I will here confirm it with more reasons. And to satisfie you that this is no singularity of my own my Margent pre­sents you with a M. Hooker in his answer to Travers his supplication. — I have taught that the assurance of things which we believe by the word, is not so certain as of that we perceive by sence. And is it as certain? Yea I taught, that the things which God doth promise in his word are surer unto us than any thing we touch, handle or see. But are we so sure and certain of them? If we be, why doth God so often prove his pro­mises unto us, as he doth by arguments taken from our sensible experience? We must be surer of the proof than the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof. How is it that if ten men do all look upon the Moon, every one of them knows it as certainly to be the Moon as another: but many believing one and the same promises all have not one and the same fulness of perswasion? How falleth it out that men being assured of any thing by sence, can be no surer of it than they are? whereas the strongest in faith that liveth upon the earth, had always need to labour, and strive, and pray, that his assurance con­cerning heavenly and spiritual things may grow, increase, and be augmented. Protestant Divine of great authority, and no way singular in his opinions, who hath long since preached and justified the same doctrin.

4. I say that every Text of Scripture which makes men­tion of any that were weak, or of any that were strong in faith: of any that were of little, or any that were of great faith: [Page 328]of any that abounded, or any that were rich in saith: of encreasing, growing, rooting, grounding, establishing, confirming in faith: Every such Text, is a demonstrative refutation of this vain fancy: proving that faith, even true and saving faith, is not a thing consisting in such an indivisible point of perfection as you make it, but capable of augmentation and diminution. Every Prayer you make to God to en­crease your faith (or if you conceive such a prayer dero­gatory from the perfection of your faith, ( The Apostles pray­ing to Christ to encrease their Faith, is a convincing argu­ment of the same conclusion. Moreover if this doctrin of yours were true, then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty, it will follow that every least doubting in any matter of faith, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, of all true and saving faith: which you are so far from granting, that you make it no sin at all, but only an occasion of merit: and if you should esteem it a sin, then must you acknowledge, contrary to your own Principles, that there are Actual sins meerly involuntary. The same is furthermore invincibly confirmed by every deliberate sin that any Christian commits; by any progress in Cha­rity that he makes. For seeing, as S. John assures us, our faith is the victory which overcomes the world, certainly if the faith of all true Believers were perfect, (and if true faith be capable of no imperfection, if all faith be a know­ledge most certain and infallible, all faith must be perfect, for the most imperfect that is, according to your doctrin, if it be true, must be most certain, and sure the most per­fect that is, cannot be more than most certain,) then cer­tainly their victory over the World, and therefore over the flesh, and therefore over sin, must of necessity be perfect, and so it should be impossible for any true believer to com­mit any deliberate sin, and therefore he that commits any sin, must not think himself a true believer. Besides seeing Faith worketh by Charity, and Charity is the effect of Faith: certainly if the cause were perfect, the effect would be perfect, and consequently as you make no degrees in Faith, so there would be none in Charity, and so no [Page 329]man could possibly make any progress in it, but all true believers should be equally in Charity, as in Faith you make them equal: and from thence it would follow una­voidably, that whosoever finds in himself any true Faith, must presently persuade himself that he is perfect in Cha­rity: and whosoever on the other side, discovers in his Charity any imperfection, must not believe that he hath any true Faith. These you see are strange and portentous consequences, and yet the deduction of them from your Doctrine is clear and apparent; which shews this Doctrine of yours, which you would fain have true, that there might be some necessity of your Churches Infallibility, to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but even to all Religion and Piety, and fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any Progress in Faith or Cha­rity.

5. As for that one single reason which you produce to confirm it, it will appear upon examination to be resol­ved finally into a groundless Assertion of your own, con­trary to all Truth and experience, and that is, That no degree of Faith, less than a most certain and infallible know­ledge, can be able sufficiently to overbear our will and encoun­ter with humane probabilities, being backt with the strength of Flesh and Blood. For who sees not that many Millions in the World forgoe many times their present ease and pleasure, undergo great and toilsom labours, encounter great difficulties, adventure upon great dangers, and all this not upon any certain expectation, but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity, and that not infinite and Eternal, but finite and temporal? Who sees not that many men abstain from many things they exceed­ingly desire, not upon any certain assurance, but a proba­ble fear of danger that may come after? What man ever was there so madly in love with a present penny, but that he would willingly spend it upon any little hope, that by doing so he might gain an hundred thousand pound? And I would fain know what gay probabilities you could devise to dissuade him from this Resolution. And if you can devise none, what reason then, or sense is there, but that [Page 330]a probable hope of infinite and Eternal Happiness, pro­vided for all those that obey Christ Jesus, and much more a firm Faith, though not so certain, in some sort, as sense or science, may be able to sway our will to obedience, and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Blood can suggest to avert us from it? Men may therefore talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty, but did they generally believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity, but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a City as Constantinople, nay but as much as Caesars Commentaries, or the History of Salust, I believe the lives of most men, both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are. Thus therefore out of your own Words I argue against you: He that requires to true Faith, an absolute and in­fallible certainty, for this only Reason, because any less degree could not be able to overbear our will, &c. imports, that if a less degree of Faith were able to do this, then a less de­gree of Faith may be true and Divine and saving Faith: But experience shews, and reason confirms, that a firm Faith, though not so certain as sense or science, may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affecti­ons: And therefore it follows from your own reason, that Faith which is not a most certain and infallible know­ledge may be true and Divine and saving Faith.

6. All these Reasons I have imployed to shew that such a most certain and infallible Faith as here you talk of, is not so necessary, but that without such a high degree of it, it is possible to please God. And therefore the Doctrines delivered by you §. 25. are most presumptuous and uncha­ritable: viz. That such a most certain and Infallible Faith is necessary to Salvation, necessitate Finis, or Medii, so necessa­ry, that after a man is come to the use of reason, no man ever was or can be saved without it. Wherein you boldly intrude into the judgment seat of God, and damn men for break­ing Laws, not of Gods, but your own making. But withal, you clearly contradict your self, not only where you af­firm, That your Faith depends finally upon the Tradition of Age to Age, of Father to Son, which cannot be a fit ground, [Page 331]but only for a Moral Assurance; nor only, where you pretend, that not alone Hearing and Seeing, but also Histo­ries, Letters, Relations of many (which certainly are things not certain and infallible,) are yet Foundations good enough to support your Faith; Which Doctrine, if it were good and allowable, Protestants might then hope that their Histories and Letters and Relations might also pass for means suffici­ent of a sufficient Certainty, and that they should not be excluded from Salvation for want of such a Certainty. But indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compelled you to speak here, what I believe you will not justifie, and with a pretty tergiversation to shew D. Potter your means of moral certainty; whereas the Objection was that you had no means or possibility of infallible certain­ty, for which you are plainly at as great a loss and as far to seek as any of your Adversaries. And therefore it con­cerns you highly not to damn others for want of it, lest you involve your selves in the same condemnation; ac­cording to those terrible Words of S. Paul, Inexcusabilis es, &c. In this therefore you plainly contradict your self. And lastly most plainly, in saying as you do here, you con­tradict and retract your pretence of Charity to Protestants in the beginning of your Book: For there you make pro­fession, that you have no assurance but that Protestants dy­ing Protestants, may possibly die with contrition, and be sa­ved: And here you are very Peremptory, that they can­not but want a means absolutely necessary to Salvation, and wanting that cannot but be damned.

7. The third Condition you require to Faith, is, that our assent to Divine Truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely al­so it should be obscure in it self, and ordinarily speaking, be void even of supernatural evidence. Which words must have a very favourable construction, or else they will not be sense. For who can make any thing of these words taken properly, that Faith must be an unknown unevident assent, or an assent absolutely obscure? I had always thought that known and unknown, obscure and evident had been af­fections, not of our Assent, but the Object of it, not of [Page 332]our belief, but the thing believed. For well may we as­sent to a thing unknown, obscure, or unevident; but that our assent it self should be called therefore unknown or obscure, seems to me as great an impropriety, as if I should say, your sight were green or blew, because you see something that is so. In other places therefore I an­swer your words, but here I must answer your mean­ing: which I conceive to be, That it is necessary to Faith that the Objects of it, the points which we believe should not be so evidently certain, as to necessitate our under­standings to an Assent, that so their might be some me­rit in Faith, as you love to speak (who will not receive no not from God himself, but a penny-worth for a pen­ny,) but as we, some obedience in it, which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience, as there is not where the understanding does all, and the will nothing. Now seeing the Religion of Protestants, though it be much more credible than yours, yet is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or de­monstration; therefore I might let this Doctrine pass without exception, for any prejudice that can redound to us by it. But yet I must not forbear to tell you, that your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to the merit, but yet not to the essence of Faith: without it Faith were not an act of obedience, but yet Faith may be Faith without it; and this you must confess, unless you will say either the Apostles believed not the whole Gos­pel which they preached, or that they were not eye-wit­nesses of a great part of it: unless you will question S. John for saying that which we have seen with our Eyes, and which our hands have handled, &c. declare we unto you: nay our Saviour himself for saying, Thomas because thou seest thou believest, Blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed. Yet if you will say that in respect of the things which they saw, the Apostles assent was not pure and proper and meer Faith, but somewhat more; an assent containing Faith but superadding to it, I will not contend with you, for it will be a contention about words. But then again I must crave leave to tell you, [Page 333]that the requiring this condition, is in my judgment a plain revocation of the former. For had you made the matter of Faith either naturally or supernaturally evident, it might have been a fitly attempered and duly propor­tioned object for an absolute certainty natural or superna­tural: But requiring as you do, that Faith should be an ab­solute knowledge of a thing not absolutely known, an infallible certainty of a thing which though it is in it self, yet is it not made appear to us to be infallibly certain, to my understand­ing you speak impossibilities. And truly for one of your Religion to do so, is but a good Decorum. For the mat­ter and object of your Faith being so full of contradicti­ons, a contradictious Faith may very well become a con­tradictious Religion. Your Faith therefore, if you please to have it so, let it be a free, necessitated, certain, uncer­tain, evident, obscure, prudent and foolish, natural and supernatural unnatural assent. But they which are unwil­ling to believe nonsense themselves, or to persuade others to do so, it is but reason they should make the Faith wherewith they believe, an intelligible, compossible, con­sistent thing, and not define it by repugnances. Now nothing is more repugnant, than that a man should be required to give most certain credit unto that which can­not be made apppear most certainly credible: and if it appear to him to be so, then is it not obscure that it is so. For if you speak of an acquired, rational, discursive Faith, certainly these Reasons which make the object seem cre­dible, must be the cause of it, and consequently the strength and firmity of my assent must rise and fall to­gether with the apparent credibility of the object. If you speak of a supernatural infused Faith, then you ei­ther suppose it infused by the former means, and then that which was said before must be said again: for what­soever effect is wrought meerly by means, must bear proportion to, and cannot exceed the vertue of the means, by which it is wrought: As nothing by water can be made more cold than water, nor by fire more hot than fire, nor by honey more sweet than honey, nor by gall more bitter than gall: Or if you will suppose it infused with­out [Page 334]means, then that power which infuseth into the un­derstanding assent which bears Analogy to sight in the eye, must also infuse evidence, that is, Visibility into the Ob­ject: and look what degree of assent is infused into the understanding, at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the Object. And for you to require a strength of credit beyond the appearance of the Objects credibility, is all one as if you should require me to go Ten Miles an hour upon a Horse that will go but five: to discern a man certainly through a mist or cloud that makes him not certainly discernable; To hear a sound more clearly than it is audible; to understand a thing more fully than it is intelligible: and he that doth so, I may well expect that his next injunction will be, that I must see something that is invisible, hear something in­audible, understand something that is wholly unintelligi­ble. For he that demands ten of me, knowing I have but five, does in effect, as if he demanded five, knowing that I have none: and by like reason, you requiring that I should see things farther than they are visible, require I should see something invisible, and in requiring that I believe something more firmly than it is made to me evidently credible, you require in effect that I believe something which appears to me incredible, and while it does so. I deny not but that I am bound to believe the truth of many Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure and the Truth of many Ar­ticles of Faith the manner whereof is obscure, and to humane understandings incomprehensible; But then it is to be observed, that not the sense of such Texts, not the manner of these things is that which I am bound to believe, but the truth of them. But that I should believe the Truth of any thing, the truth whereof can­not be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me, this I say for any man to be bound to, is unjust and unreasonable, be­cause to do it is impossible.

8. Ad §. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.] Yet though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, [Page 335]infallibly certain of the truth of the things which we be­lieve, for this were to know and not believe, neither is it possible unless our evidence of it, be it natural or su­pernatural, were of the highest degree; yet I deny not but that we are to believe the Religion of Christ, we are and may be infallibly certain. For first, this is most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wis­dom and reason rather than against it. Secondly, this is as certain, That wisdom and reason require that we should believe these things which are by many degrees more cre­dible and probable than the contrary. Thirdly, this is as certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of Christiani­ty, and what poor things they are which may be said against it, either for any other Religion or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that Christian Religion, is true than the contrary. And from all these premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion.

9. Your discourse therefore touching the fourth requi­site to Faith which is Prudence, I admit so far as to grant. 1. That if we were required to believe with certainty (I mean a Moral certainty,) things no way represented as in­fallible and certain, (I mean Morally,) an unreasonable obedience were required of us. And so likewise were it, were we required to believe as absolutely certain, that which is no way represented to us as absolutely certain. 2. That whom God obligeth to believe any thing, he will not fail to furnish their understandings with such inducements, as are suffici­ent (it they be not negligent or perverse) to persuade them to believe. 3. That there is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the Truth of Christianity: I say so credibile, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true Wisdom and Prudence, the Articles of it deserve credit, and ought to be accepted as things re­vealed by God. 4. That without such reasons and induce­ments, our choice even of the true Faith, is not to be com­mended [Page 336]as prudent, but to be condemned of rashness and levity.

10. But then for your making Prudence, not only a commendation of a believer, and a justification of his Faith, but also essential to it, and part of the definition of it, in that, questionless you were mistaken, and have done as if being to say what a man is, you should define him, A Rea­sonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy. For as all Astronomers are men, but all men are not Astronomers, and therefore Astronomy ought not to be put into the de­finition of men, where nothing should have place, but what agrees to all men: So though all that are truly wise (that is, wise for Eternity,) will believe aright, yet many may be­lieve aright which are not wise. I could wish with all my Heart as Moses did, that all the Lords People could Prophesie: That all that believe the true Religion were able (according to S. Peters injunction) to give a reason of the hope that is in them, a reason why they hope for Eternal Happiness by this way rather than any other! neither do I think it any great difficulty that men of ordinary capacities, if they would give their mind to it, might quickly be enabled to do so. But should I affirm that all true believers can do so, I suppose it would be as much against experience and modesty, as it is against Truth and Charity, to say as you do, that they which cannot do so, either are not at all, or to no purpose true believers. And thus we see that the foundations you build upon, are ruinous and deceitful, and so unfit to support your Fabrick that they destroy one another. I come now to shew that your Arguments to prove Protestants Hereticks are all of the same quality with your former grounds: which I will do by opposing clear and satisfying Answers in order to them.

11. Ad §. 13.) To the first then, delivered by you §. 13. That Protestants must be Hereticks, because they opposed divers Truths propounded for Divine by the Visible Church: I Answer, It is not Heresie to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church, but only such a Truth as is an essential part of the Gospel of Christ. 2. The Doctrines which Protestants opposed, were not Truths, but [Page 337]plain and impious falshoods: Neither thirdly, were they propounded as Truths by the Visible Church, but only by a Part of it, and that a corrupted Part.

12. Ad §. 14. The next Argument, in the next Particle tells us, That every error against any doctrin revealed by God is damnable Heresie: Now either Protestants or the Roman Church must err against the word of God: But the Roman Church we grant (perforce) doth not err damnably, neither can she, because she is the Catholick Church, which we (you say) confess cannot err damnably: Therefore Protestants must err a­gainst Gods word, and consequently are guilty of formal Heresie. Whereunto I answer plainly, that there be in this argu­ment almost as many falshoods as assertions. For neither is every error against any Doctrin revealed by God a damnable Heresie, unless it be revealed publickly, and plainly with a command that all should believe it. 2. D. Pot­ter no where grants, that the Errors of the Roman Church are not in themselves damnable, though he hopes by accident they may not actually damn some men amongst you: and this you your self confess in divers places of your book, where you tell us, that he allows no hope of Salvation to those amongst you, whom ignorance cannot excuse. 3. You beg the Question twice in taking for granted, First that the Ro­man Church is the truly Catholick Church; which with­out much favour can hardly pass for a part of it: And again, that the Catholick Church cannot fall into any error of it self damnable: for it may do so, and still be the Catholick Church, if it retain those Truths which may be an anti­dote against the malignity of this error, to those that held it out of a simple un-affected ignorance. Lastly, though the thing be true, yet I might well require some proof of it from you, that either Protestants or the Roman Church must err against Gods word. For if their con­tradiction be your only reason, then also you or the Do­minicans must be Hereticks, because you contradict one a­nother as much as Protestants and Papists.

13. Ad §. 15. The third Argument pretends that you have shewed already, that the Visible Church is Judge of Con­troversies, and therefore Infallible; from whence you suppose that [Page 338]it follows, that to oppose her, is to oppose God. To which I answer, that you have said onely, and not shewed that the Visible Church is Judge of Controversies. And in­deed how can she be judge of them if she cannot decide them? And how can she decide them, if it be a question whether she be judge of them? That which is questioned it self, cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide other questions; and much less this questi­on, whether it have Authority to judge and decide all que­stions? 2. If she were judge, it would not follow that she were infallible, for we have many Judges in our Courts of Judicature, yet none infallible. Nay you can­not with any modesty deny, that every man in the world ought to judge for himself, what Religion is truest, and yet you will not say that every man is infallible. 3. If the Church were supposed Infallible, yet it would not follow at all, much less manifestly, that to oppose her declaration is to oppose God: unless you suppose also that as she is in­fallible, so by her opposers, she is known or believed to be so. Lastly, If all this were true (as it is all most false) yet were it to little purpose, seeing you have omitted to prove that the Visible Church is the Roman.

14. Ad §. 16. Instead of a fourth Argument this is presented to us, That if Luther were an Heretick, then they that agreed with him must be so. And that Luther was a for­mal Heretick, you endeavor to prove by this most formal Syllogism; To say the Visible Church is not Universal, is pro­perly an Heresie: but Luthers Reformation was not Universal, Therefore it cannot be excused from formal Heresie. Where­unto I Answer, first to the first part, that it is no way im­possible that Luther, had he been the inventer and first broacher of a false Doctrin, (as he was not) might have been a formal Heretick, and yet that those who follow him may be only so materially and improperly, and indeed no Hereticks. Your own men out of S. Augustin distin­guish between Haeretici & Haereticorum sequaces: And you your self though you pronounce the leaders among the Ar­rians formal Hereticks, yet confess that Salvian was at least doubtful whether these Arrians, who in simplicity follow­ed [Page 339]their Teachers, might not be excused by ignorance. And about this suspension of his you also seem suspended, for you neither approve nor condemn it. Secondly, to the second part I say, that had you not presumed upon our ignorance in Logick as well as Metaphysicks and School Divinity, you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of sand for a formal Syllogism. It is even Cousin-German to this, To deny the Resurrection is properly an Heresie, But Luthers Reformation was not Universal, Therefore it cannot be excused from formal Heresie! Or to this, To say the Visible Church is not Universal is pro­perly an Heresie: But the preaching of the Gospel at the beginning was not Universal; therefore it cannot be excu­sed from formal Heresie. For as he whose Reformation is but particular, may yet not deny the Resurrection, so may he also not deny the Churches Universality. And as the Apostles who preached the Gospel in the beginning, did believe the Church Universal, though their preaching at the beginning was not so: So Luther also might and did believe the Church Universal, though his Reformation were but particular. I say he did believe it Universal, even in your own sense, that is, Universal de jure, though not de facto. And as for universality in fact, he believed the Church much more Universal than his Reformation: For he did conceive (as appears by your own Allegations out of him) that only the Part reformed was the true Church, but also that they were Part of it who needed reformation. Neither did he ever pretend to make a new Church but to reform the old one. Thirdly and lastly, to the first proposition of this unsyllogistical syllogism, I answer, That to say the true Church is not always de facto universal, is so far from being an Heresie, that it is a certain Truth known to all those that know the world, and what Reli­gions possess far the greater part of it. Donatus therefore was not to blame, for saying, that the Church might pos­sibly be confined to Africk; but for saying without ground, that then it was so. And S. Austin, as he was in the right, in thinking that the Church was then extended farther than Africk; so was he in the wrong if he thought that [Page 340]of necessity it always must be so; but most palpably mi­staken in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth, and known to all nations, which if passion did not trouble you, and make you forget how lately al­most half the world was discovered, and in what estate it was then found, you would very easily see and con­fess.

16. The Donatists might do ill in calling the Chair of Rome the Chair of Pestilence, and the Roman Church an Harlot, and yet the state of the Church being altered, Protestants might do well to do so, and therefore though, S. Austin might perhaps have reason to persecute the Donatists for detra­cting from the Church, and calling her Harlot, when she was not so; yet you may have none to threaten D. Potter that you would persecute him (as the Application of this place intimates you would,) if it were in your power: plainly shewing that you are a curst Cow though your horns be short, seeing the Roman Church is not now what it was in S. Austins time. And hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony: where you tell us out of Saint Austin, that one grand im­pediment, which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communi­on, was a visible calumny raised against the Catholicks, that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar. To how many (saith Saint Austin) did the reports of ill Tongues shut up the way to enter, who said, that we put, I know not what upon the Altar? Out of detestation of the calumny, and just indignation against it, he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged, and therefore by a Rhetorical figure calls it, I know not what. But compare with him Optatus, writing of the same mat­ter, and you shall plainly perceive that this (I know not what) pretended to be set upon the Altar, was indeed a picture, which the Donatists (knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time, to set up any pi­ctures in a Church to worship them, as your new fashion is) bruited abroad to be done in the Churches of the Ca­tholick Church. But what answer do S. Austin and Optatus [Page 341]make to this accusation? Do they confess and maintain it? Do they say, as you would now, It is true we do set Pictures upon our Altar, and that not only for ornament or memory, but for worship also; but we do well to do so, and this ought not to trouble you, or affright you from our Communion? What other answer your Church could now make to such an objection, is very hard to imagine: And therefore were your Doctrin the same with the Doctrin of the Fathers in this point, they must have answered so likewise. But they to the contrary not only deny the crime, but abhor and detest it. To little purpose therefore do you hunt after these poor shadows of resemblances between us and the Donatists: unless you could shew an exact re­semblance between the present Church of Rome and the Ancient: which seeing by this, and many other particulars it is demonstrated to be impossible; that Church which was then a Virgin may be now a Harlot, and that which was detraction in the Donatists, may be in Protestants a just accu­sation.

18. But the main point you say is, that since Luthers Re­formed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Lu­ther, and yet was in the Apostles time, they must of necessity affirm heretically with the Donatists, that the true unspotted Church of Christ perished, and that she which remained on earth, was (O Blasphemy!) an Harlot. By which words it seems you are resolute perpetually to confound True and Unspot­ted; and to put no difference between a corrupted Church and none at all. But what is this, but to make no diffe­rence between a diseased and a dead man? Nay what is it but to contradict your selves, who cannot deny but that sins are as great stains and spots and deformities in the sight of God, as errors; and confess your Church to be a Congregation of men, whereof every particular, not one excepted, (and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them) is polluted and defiled with sin?

19. You ask, How can the Church more truly be said to perish, than when she is permitted to maintain a damnable Here­sie? I Answer, she may be more truly said to perish, when [Page 342]she is not only permitted to do so, but de facto doth main­tain a damnable Heresie. Again, she may be more truly said to perish, when she falls into an Heresie, which is not only damnable in it self, and ex natura rei, as you speak, but such an Heresie, the belief of whose contrary Truth is necessary, not only necessitate praecepti but medii, and therefore the Heresie so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation, that no ignorance can excuse it, nor any general repentance, without a dereliction of it, can beg a pardon for it. Such an heresie if the Church should fall into, it might be more truly said to perish, than if it fell only into some heresie of its own nature damna­ble. For in that state all the members of it, without ex­ception, all without mercy must needs perish for ever: In this, although those that might see the truth and would not, cannot upon any good ground hope for salvation, yet without question, it might send many souls to heaven, who would gladly have embraced the Truth, but that they wan­ted means to discover it. Thirdly and lastly, she may yet more truly be said to perish when she Apostates from Christ absolutely, or rejects even those Truths out of which her Heresies may be reformed; as if she should directly de­ny Jesus to be the Christ, or the Scripture to be the Word of God. Towards which state of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth somewhat incline, by her superinducing upon the rest of her Errors the Doctrin of her own Infallibility, whereby her errors are made in­curable; and by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrin, and not her doctrin to be judged of by Scripture, whereby she makes the Scrip­ture uneffectuall for her Reformation.

20. Ad §. 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and ancient Fathers do assign Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie: for I was in good hope, that no Christian would so belie the Scripture, as to say so of it, unless he could have produced some one Text at least, wherein this was plainly affirmed, or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected. For assure your self, good Sir, it is a very heinous crime [Page 343]to say, thus saith the Lord, when the Lord doth not say so. I expected therefore some Scripture should have been al­ledged, wherein it should have been said, whosoever sepa­rates from the Roman Church is an Heretick: or the Roman Church is infallible, or the guide of Faith: or at least, There shall be always some Visible Church infallible in matters of Faith. Some such direction as this I hoped for: And I pray con­sider whether I had not reason! The Evangelists and A­postles who wrote the New Testament, we all suppose were good men, and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to Heaven; we suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian Faith, and therefore cer­tainly not ignorant of this Unum Necessarium, this most ne­cessary point of all others, without which as you pretend and teach, all faith is no Faith, that is, that the Church of Rome was designed by God the guide of Faith. We suppose them lastly wise men, especially being assisted by the spirit of wis­dom, and such as knew that a doubtful and questionable guide was for mens direction as good as none at all. And after all these suppositions, which I presume no good Christian will call into question, is it possible that any Christian heart can believe, that not one amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrin plainly so much as once? Certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this, though they had writ nothing else. Methinks the E­vangelists undertaking to write the Gospel of Christ, could not possibly have omitted, any one of them, this most ne­cessary point of faith, had they known it necessary, (S. Luke especially, who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary.) Methinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them! Methinks instead of saying, Your Faith is spoken of all the world over (which you have no reason to be very proud of, for he says the very same thing to the Thessalonians,) he could not have failed to have told them once at least in plain terms, that their Faith was the Rule for all the World for ever. But then sure he would have forborn to put them [Page 344]in fear of an impossibility, as he doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing, might fall away to infidelity as the Jews had done. Methinks in all his other Epistles, at least in some, at least in one of them, he could not have failed to have given the world this direction, had he known it to be a true one, that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome, and none to separate from it under pain of damnation. Methinks writing so often of Hereticks and Antichrist, he should have given the world this (as you pretend) only sure preservative from them. How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholick Epistles, mentioning his own departure, writing to preserve Chri­stians in the Faith, should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successors, the Bi­shops of Rome? How was it possible that S. James, and S. Jude in their Catholick Epistles should not give this Ca­tholick direction? Methinks S. John instead of saying, he that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God, (The force of which direction, your glosses do quite enervate, and make unavailable to discern who are the sons of God,) should have said, He that adheres to the doctrin of the Ro­man Church, and lives according to it, he is a good Christi­an, and by this Mark ye shall know him! What man not quite out of his wits, if he consider as he should, the pretended necessity of this doctrin, that without the belief hereof no man ordinarily can be saved, can possibly force himself to conceive that all these good and holy men, so desirous of mens salvation, and so well assured of it (as it is pretended,) should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it, and not one say it plainly so much as once, but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles, by many more uncertain conse­quences? Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them, it is no marvel if he censure other inferior servants of Christ as Atheists, and Hypocrites, and what he pleases. Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for, when I heard you say, the holy Scripture assigns Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie. But instead hereof what [Page 345]have you brought us, but meer impertinences? S. John saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so, and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Pro­fession, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. Of some, who before the decree of the Council to the con­trary, were persuaded and accordingly taught, that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses, it is said in the Acts, Some who went out from us. And again S. Paul in the same Book forewarns the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things. And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have, you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie. Which is certainly a strange and unheard of strain of Logick. Unless you will say that every Text wherein it is said, that some Body goes out from some Body, affords an Argument for this pur­pose! For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Hereticks, but, no Christians, of Antichrists, of such as de­nied Jesus to be the Christ: See the place and you shall con­fess as much. The second place, it is certain, you must not say it speaks of Hereticks, for it speaks only of some who believed and taught an Error, while it was yet a question and not evident, and therefore according to your Doctrine, no formal Heresie. The third says indeed, that of the Professors of Christianity, some shall arise that shall teach Heresie: But not one of them all that says or inti­mates, that whosoever separates from the Visible Church, in what state soever, is certainly an Heretick. Hereticks I confess do always do so; But they that do so are not always Hereticks, for perhaps the State of the Church may make it necessary for them to do so; as Rebels always disobey the command of their King, yet they which disobey a Kings Command (which perhaps may be unjust) are not presently Rebels.

22. In the 19. §. We have the Authority of eight Fa­thers urged to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter (I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church) is the mark of Heresie. Which kind of Argument I might well refuse to answer, [Page 346]unless you would first promise me, that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences, of as great a number of Fa­thers, as Ancient, for any Doctrine whatsoever, that you will subscribe to it, though it fall out to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church. For I conceive nothing in the World more unequal or unreasonable, than that you should press us with such Authorities as these, and think your selves at liberty from them; and that you should ac­count them Fathers when they are for you, and Children when they are against you. Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance, that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the Tribunal of the Fathers, nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alledged. Let us consider them in order, and I doubt not to make it appear that far the greater part of them, nay all of them that are nay way considerable fall short of your purpose.

23. Obj. S. Hierome (you say Ep. 57. ad Damasum) pro­fesses, I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter, &c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus: and this will much weaken the Authority, with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters. Consider again, that he says only, that he was then in Communion with the Chair of Peter, Not that he always would, or of necessity must be so: for his resolu­tion to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elsewhere which shall be produced hereafter. He says that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock; but not that only, Nor that alwaies. Nay his judg­ment as shall appear is express to the contrary. And so likewise the rest of his expressions (if we mean to re­concile Hierome with Hierome) must be conceived as in­tended by him, of that Bishop and Sea of Rome, at that present time, and in the present State, and in respect of that Doctrine which he there intreats of. For otherwise had he conceived it necessary for him and all men to con­form their judgements in matters of Faith, to the judg­ment of the Bishop and Church of Rome, how came it to pass that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the [Page 347] Hebrews Canonical, upon the Authority of the Eastern Church, than to reject it from the Canon upon the An­thority of the Roman? How comes it to pass that he dis­sented from the Authority of that Church, touching the Canon of the Old Testament? For if you say, that the Church, then consented with S. Hierome, I fear you will lose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works, and by avoiding this, run into a greater danger of being forced to confess the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient. How was it possible, Hierom. de scrip. Eccle. tit. Fortuna­tianus. that he should ever believe that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could have been wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatia­nus Bishop of Aquileia, and brought after two Years Banishment to subscribe Heresie? Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question, being so vain as to expect we should ra­ther believe them that lived but yesterday, thirteen hun­dred Years almost after the thing is said to be done, and speaking for themselves in their own Cause, rather than the dis-interessed time-fellows or immediate Successors of Liberius himself: yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty, as once to question whether S. Hierome though so. And if this cannot be denied, I de­mand then if he had lived in Liberius his time, could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Da­masus? would he have said to him, I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter, I know that the Church is built upon this Rock, Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth. Would he then have said, the Roman Faith and the Catholick were the same: or, that the Roman Faith received no delusions, no not from an Angel? I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own belief; and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus, he said it (though perhaps he strained too high) only of Damasus, and never conceived that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors.

24. Obj. S. Ambrose (de obitu Satyri fratris) saith of his Brother Satyrus, that inquiring for a Church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from Shipwreck, he called to him the [Page 348]Bishop, and he asked him whether he agreed with the Catholick Bishops, that is, with the Roman Church? And when he understood that he was a Schismatick, that is, Separated from the Roman Church, he abstained from Communicating with him.

Answ. No more can be certainly concluded from it, but that the Catholick Bishops and the Roman Church were then at Unity; so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former. But that this Rule was perpetual, and that no man could ever agree with the Catholick Bishops, but he must agree with the Roman Church, this he says not, nor gives you any ground to conclude from him. Athanasius when he was excom­municated by Liberius, agreed very ill with the Roman Church, and yet you will not gainsay, but he agreed well enough with the Catholick Bishops.

24. Obj. S. Cyprian saith ( Epist. 55. ad Cornel.) They are bold to Sail to the Chair of S. Peter, and to the principal Church, from whence Priestly Unity hath sprung. Neither do they consider that they are Romans, whose Faith was commend­ed by the Preaching of the Apostle, to whom falshood cannot have access.

Answ. For S. Cyprian all the World knows that he It is confes­sed by Baroni­us Anno. 238. N. 41. By Bel­larm. l. 4. de R. Pont. c. 7. §. Tertia ratio. resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop, and all that adhered to him in the point of Re-baptizing, which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary traditi­on. So necessary, that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilia­nus and other Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia and Galatia, and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion, Confessed by Baronius An, 258. N. 14. & 15. By Card. Perron. Repl. l. 1. c. 25. Ibid. were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion, (which excommunication could not but involve S. Cypri­an, who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmi­lianus, though Cardinal Perren magisterially and without all colour of proof affirm the contrary,) and Cyprian in particular so far cast off, as for it to be pronounced by Stephen a false Christ. Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome, were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference: But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority, were commanded by him not only to deny them [Page 349]the Churches peace and Communion, but even lodging and entertainment: manifestly declaring, that they reck­oned them among those whom S. John forbids to receive to house, or to say God speed to them. All these terrors not­withstanding S. Cyprian holds still his former opinion, and though out of respect to the Churches peace Ʋide Con. Carth. apud sur. To. 1. he judged no man, nor cut off any man from the right of Communion, for thinking otherwise than he held, yet he conceived Stephen and his adherents, Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. Aug. ep. 48. & lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. to hold a pernitious Error. And S. Austin, (though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversation in the point,) yet confesseth elsewhere, that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion. And so far was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so, in submitting to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome, that he plainly professeth that no other Bishop, but our Lord Jesus only, had power to Judge (with Authori­ty) of his Judgment, and as plainly intimates that Stephen, for usurping such a power, and making himself a Judge over Bishops, was little better than a Tyrant: and as heavily almost he censures him, and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in Error, in that very place where he deli­vers that famous saying, How can he have God for his Fa­ther, who hath not the Church for his Mother? little doubt­ing it seems but a man might have the Church for his Mother, who stood in opposition to the Church of Rome, and far from thinking what you fondly obtrude upon him, that to be United to the Roman Church, and to the Church was all one, and that separation from S. Peters Chair was a mark, I mean a certain mark, either of Schism or Heresie.

26. But you have given a false or at least a strained Tran­slation of S. Cyprians forecited Words; for Cyprian saith not to whom falshood cannot have access, as if he had ex­empted the Roman Church from a possibility of Error, but to whom perfidiousness cannot have access, meaning those perfidious Schismaticks, whom he there complains of; and of these by a Rhetorical insinuation, he says that with such good Christians as the Romans were, it was not possible they should find favourable entertainment. As for his joyning the Principal Church and the Chair of Peter, how that will [Page 350]serve to prove separation from the Roman Church to be a mark of Heresie, it is hard to understand. Though we do not altogether deny, but that the Church of Rome might be called the Chair of S. Peter, in regard he is said to have Preached the Gospel there; and the princi­pal Church, because the City was the principal and impe­rial City, which prerogative of the City, if we believe the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, was the ground and occasion, why the Fathers of former times (I pray observe) conferred upon this Church this prerogative above other Churches.

27. Obj. But in another place (Epist. 52.) S. Cyprian makes Communicating with Cornelius (the Bishop of Rome) and with the Catholick Church to be the same.

Answ. This does not prove that to Communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome, and to Communicate with the Catholick Church, is always (for that you assume) one and the same thing. S. Cyprian speaks not of the Church of Rome at all, but of the Bishop only, who when he doth Communicate with the Catholick Church, as Cornelius at that time did, then whosoever Communicates with him, cannot but Communicate with the Catholick Church: and then by accident one may truely say, such a one Com­municates with you, that is, with the Catholick Church, and that to Communicate with him is to Communicate with the Catholick Church. As if Titius and Sempronius be together, he that is in company with Titius, cannot but be at that time in company with Sempronius. As if a General be marching to some place with an Army, he that then is with the General must at that time be with the Army: And a man may say without absurdity, such a time I was with the General, that is, with the Army, and that to be with the General is to be with the Army. Or as if a mans hand be joyned to his Body, the finger which is joyned to the hand is joyned to the Body, and a man may say truly of it, this finger is joyned to the hand, that is, to the Body, and to be joyned to the hand is to be joyned to the Body; because all these things are by accident true. And yet I hope you would not deny, [Page 351]but the finger might possibly be joyned to the hand, and yet not to the Body, the hand being cut off from the Bo­dy; and a man might another time, be with his General and not with his Army, he being absent from the Army. And therefore by like Reason your collection is Sophisti­cal, being in effect but this, to communicate with such a Bishop of Rome, who did Communicate with the Catho­lick Church, was to Communicate with the Catholick Church, therefore absolutely and always it must be true, that to Communicate with him, is by consequent to Com­municate with the Catholick Church, and to be divided from the Communion, is to be an Heretick.

28. Obj. S. Irenaeus saith, (lib. 3. cont. haer: c. 3.) Be­cause it were long to number the successions of all Churches, we declaring the Tradition of the most great most Ancient and known Church, founded by the two glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, which Tradition it hath from the Apostles, coming to us by succession of Bishops, we confound all those who any way either by vain Glory, Blindness, or ill Opinion do gather otherwise than they ought. For to this Church for a more pow­erful Principality, it is necessary that all Churches resort, that is, all faithful People (undique) of what place soever: In which (Roman Church) the Tradition from the Apostles hath always been conserved from those who are (undique) every where.

Answ. Though at the first, hearing the Glorious At­tributes here given (and that justly) to the Church of Rome, the confounding Hereticks with her Tradition, and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her, may sound like Ar­guments for you: yet he that is attentive I hope will easi­ly discover, that it might be good and rational in Irenaeus having to do with Hereticks, who, somewhat like those who would be the only Catholicks, declining a tryal by Scripture as not containing the Truth of Christ perfectly, and not fit to decide Controversies without recourse to Tradition: I say he will easily perceive that it might be rational in Irenaeus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit than their own, especially a Tradition conso­nant to Scripture, and even contained in it; and yet that [Page 352]it may be irrational in you to urge us, who do not de­cline Scripture but appeal to it as a perfect rule of Faith, with a Tradition which we pretend is many ways repug­nant to Scripture, and repugnant to a Tradition far more general than it self, which gives testimony to Scripture, and lastly repugnant to it self as giving attestation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture. Secondly, that the Authority of the Roman Church was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradi­tion when it was United with all other Apostolick Church­es, than now when it is divided from them, according to that of Tertullian, Had the Churches Erred they would have varied, but that which is the same in all, cannot be Error but Tradition; and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable, yet yours may be worth nothing. Third­ly, that fourteen hundred years may have made a great deal of alteration in the Roman Church: as Rivers, though near the Fountain they may retain their native and unmixt sincerity, yet in long Progress cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the Fountain. And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure, may now be corrupt and impure: and so this Argument (being one of those things which are the worse for wearing) might in Irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous, and after declin­ing and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing. Especially considering that Irenaeus plays the Historian on­ly and not the Prophet, and says only, that the Apostolick Tradition had been always there as in other Apostolick Churches conserved or observed, choose you whether, but that it should be always so he says not, neither had he any warrant. He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Antichrist: that the Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles, might fall if they look not to their standing: and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever, he had no reason, nor Autho­rity. Fourthly, that it appears manifestly out of this Book of Irenaeus quoted by you, that the Doctrine of the Chi­liasts was in his Judgment Apostolick Tradition, as also [Page 353]it was esteemed (for ought appears to the contrary) by all the Doctors, and Saints, and Martyrs of or about his time, for all that speak of it, or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded, are for it: and Justin Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it, and those that did not, he reckons amongst Hereticks. Now I demand, was this Tradition one of those that was conserved, and observed in the Church of Rome, or was it not? If not, had Iraeneus known so much, he must have retracted this commendation of that Church. If it was, then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient, and accounts it Heretical, and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to de­part from them, who have departed from themselves, and prove themselves subject unto error by holding contradi­ctions. Fifthly and lastly, that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noon, that though Iraeneus did esteem the Roman Tradition, a great Argument of the Doctrin which he there delivers and defends against the Hereticks of his time, viz. that there was one God, yet he was very far from thinking that Church was, and ever should be a safe keeper, and an infallible witness of Tra­dition in general: Inasmuch as in his own life, his action proclaimed the contrary. For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunica­tion, and damnation, Iraeneus, and all the other Western Bishops, though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing, plainly shewing, that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrin and a sufficient ground of excommunication, which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of: For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them, had they conceived the cause of his excommunica­tion just and sufficient? And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie, seeing they esteemed not them Hereticks though separated and cut off from the Roman Church.

31. Obj. S. Austin saith (in Psalm cont. partem Donati) It grieves us to see you so to lie cut off. Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter; and consider in that order of Fathers who succeeded; to whom she is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell do not overcome: Where he seems to say, that the Succession in the Sea of Peter, was the Rock which our Saviour means when he said, upon this Rock will I build my Church.

Ans. I answer, First, We have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof, because S. Austin himself was not, but retracts it as uncertain, and leaves to the Reader whether he will think that, or another more probable. Retr. l. 1. c. 26. Secondly, what he says of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place, he says it elsewhere, of all the Suc­cessions in all other Apostolick Churches. Thirdly, that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church, as an argument of their Error: So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolick Churches, nay more from these than from that, because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop, though not a perpetual Succession of them, but in other Apostolick Churches they wanted both. These scattered men (saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165.) read in the holy Books the Churches to which the Apostles wrote, and have no Bishop in them: But what is more perverse and mad, than to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say, Peace with you, and to separate from the peace of these Churches, to which these Epi­stles were written? So Optatus having done you (as it might seem) great service, in upbraiding the Donatists as Schis­maticks, because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome, overthrows and undoes it all again, and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you, by adding after, that they were Schismaticks, because they bad not the fellowship of Communion with the seven Churches of Asia, to which S. John writes: whereof he pronounces confidently, (though I know not upon what ground) Ex­tra septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est, alienum est. Now I pray tell me, do you esteem the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance, that separation from these other [Page 355]Apostolick Churches, was a certain mark of Heresie, or not? If so, then your Church hath been for many Ages heretical. If not, how is their authority, a greater argu­ment for the Roman, than for the other Churches? If you say, they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schism, only when they were united to the Roman: so also they might conceive of the Roman, only when it was united to them. If you say, they urged this only as a probable, and not as a certain Argument, so also they might do that. In a word, whatsoever answer you can devise to shew, that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresie, apply that to your own Argument, and it will be satisfied.

33. You see S. Austins words make very little, or in­deed nothing for you. But now his Action, (which ac­cording to Cardinal Perrons rule, is much more to be re­garded than his words, as not being so obnoxious to mis­interpretation) You do ill to translate it, the Principality of the Sea Apo­stolick, as if there were but one: whereas S. Austin pre­sently after speaks of Apo­stolical Chur­ches, in the plural number, and makes the Bishops of them, joynt Commission­ers for the judging of Ec­clesiastical causes. I mean his famous opposition of three Bi­shops of Rome in Succession, touching the great question of Appeals, wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so far in the first or second Milevitan Council, as to The words of the Decree (which also Bellarmine l. 1. de Matrim. c. 17. assures us to have been formed by S. Austin) are these. Si qui (Africani,) ab Episcopis provocandum putaverint, non nisi ad Africana provocent Concilia, vel ad Primates pro­vinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina antem, qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in Communionem suscipiatur. This Decree is by Gratian most impudently corrupted. For whereas the Fathers of that Council intended it particularly against the Church of Rome, he tells us they forbad Appeals to all, excepting only the Church of Rome. decree any African Excommunicate, that should appeal to any man out of Africk, and therein continued resolute unto death: I say this famous Action of his, makes clearly and evidently and infinitely against you. For had Boniface, and the rest of the African Bishops, a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs, believed as an Article of Faith, that Union and Conformity with the Doctrin of the Roman Church, in all things which she held necessary, was a certain note of a good Catholick, and by Gods com­mand necessary to Salvation, how was it possible they should have opposed it in this? Unless you will say they [Page 356]were all so foolish as to believe at once direct contradicti­ons, viz. that conformity to the Roman Church was neces­sary in all points, and not necessary in this: or else so hor­ribly impious, as believing this doctrin of the Roman Church true, and her power to receive Appeals derived from divine Authority, notwithstanding to oppose and condemn it, and to Anathematize all those Africans, of what condition soever, that should appeal unto it. I say of what condition soever: For it is evident, that they conclu­ded in their determination, Bishops as well as the inferior Clergy and Laity: And Cardinal Perrons pretence of the contrary, is a shameless falshood, repugnant to the plain The words are these, Prae­fato debito sa­lutationis officio, impendio deprecamur; ut deinceps ad aures vestras hinc venientes, non faciliùs admittatis; nec à nobis excommunicates ultra in Communionem velitis recipere, quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio definitum facile advertet venerabilitas tua. Nam si de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur id praecavert, quanto magis hoc de E­piscopis voluit observari. words of the Remonstrance of the African Bishops to Ce­lestine Bishop of Rome.

34. Obj. Tertullian saith (Praescrip. cap. 36.) If thou be near Italy, thou bast Rome, whose Authority is near at hand to us: a happy Church, into which the Apostles have poured all Doctrin, together with their blood.

Ans. Your allegation of Tertullian is a manifest convicti­on of your want of sincerity: For you produce with great ostentation what he says of the Church of Rome, but you and your fellows always conceal and dissemble, that im­mediately before these words he attributes as much for point of direction to any other Apostolick Church, and that as he sends them to Rome who lived near Italy, so those near Achaia he sends to Corinth, those about Macedonia to Philippi, and Thessalonica, those of Asia to Ephesus. His words are, Go to now thou that wilt better imploy thy curiosi­ty in the business of thy salvation, run over the Apostolical Churches, wherein the Chairs of the Apostles are yet sate upon in their places, wherein their Authentick Epistles are recited, sounding out the voyce, and representing the face of eve­ry one! Is Achaia near thee? there thou hast Corinth: If thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi, [Page 357] thou hast Thessalonica: If thou canst go into Asia, there thou hast Ephesus: If thou be adjacent to Italy, thou hast Rome, whose Authority is near at hand to us (in Africk;) A happy Church, into which the Apostles poured forth all their Doctrine together with their Blood, &c. Now I pray Sirtell me, if you can for blushing, why this place might not have been urged by a Corinthian, or Philippian, or Thessalonian, or an Ephesian, to shew that in the Judgment of Tertullian, separation from any of their Churches is a certain mark of Heresie, as justly and rationally as you alledge it to vin­dicate this priviledge to the Roman Church only? Cer­tainly if you will stand to Tertullians judgment, you must either grant the authority of the Roman Church (though at that time a good Topical Argument, and perhaps a bet­ter than any the Hereticks had, especially in conjunction with other Apostolick Churches:) yet, I say you must grant it perforce but a Fallible Guide as well as that of Ephesus, and Thessalonica, and Philippi, and Corinth: or you must maintain the authority of every one of these infal­lible, as well as the Roman. For though he make a Pa­negyrick of the Roman Church in particular, and of the rest only in general, yet as I have said, for point of di­rection he makes them all equal; and therefore makes them (choose you whether) either all fallible, or all in­fallible: Now you will and must acknowledge that he ne­ver intended to attribute infallibility to the Churches of Ephesus, or Corinth, or if he did, that (as experience shews) he Erred in doing so; and what can hinder, but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibili­ty to the Roman Church, or if he did that he Erred in doing so?

38. Ad §. 20, 21, 22, 23.] The sum of your discourse in these Sections, if it be pertinent to the Question, must be this. Want of Succession of Bishops and Pastors holding al­ways the same Doctrine, and of the forms of ordaining Bishops and Priests which are in use in the Roman Church, is a certain mark of Heresie: But Protestants want all these things: There­fore they are Hereticks. To which I answer, That nothing but wnat of truth and holding Error, can make or prove [Page 358]any man or Church Heretical. For if he be a true Aristo­telian, or Platonist, or Pyrrhonian, or Epicurean, who holds the Doctrine of Aristotle, or Plato, or Pirrho, or Epicurus, although he cannot assign any that held it before him for many Ages together, why should I not be made a true and Orthodox Christian, by believing all the Doctrine of Christ, though I cannot derive my descent from a perpetual Suc­cession that believed it before me? By this reason you should say as well, that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastor, or King or Magistrate, or Father that succeeds a bad one. For if I may conform my will and actions to the Com­mandments of God, why may I not embrace his Doctrine with my understanding, although my predecessor do not so? You have above in this Chapter defined Faith a free Infallible, obscure, supernatural assent to Divine Truths, because they are revealed by God and sufficiently propounded: This de­finition is very phantastical; but for the present I will let it pass, and desire you to give me some piece of shadow or reason, why I may not do all this without a perpetual Succession of Bishops and Pastors that have done so before me? You may judge as uncharitably, and speak as malici­ously of me, as your blind zeal to your Superstition shall direct you, but certainly I know, (and with all your So­phistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know,) that I do believe the Gospel of Christ (as it is delivered in the un­doubted Books of Canonical Scripture, as verily as that it is now day, that I see the light, that I am now writing: and I believe it upon this Motive, because I conceive it sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly proved to be Di­vine Revelation: And yet in this, I do not depend upon any Succession of men that have always believed it with­out any mixture of Error; nay I am fully persuaded, there hath been no such Succession, and yet do not find my self any way weakned in my Faith by the want of it; but so fully assured of the truth of it, that not only, though your Devils at Lowden do tricks against it, but though an An­gel from Heaven should gainsay it or any part of it, I persuade my self that I should not be moved. This I say, and this I am sure is true: and if you will be so Hyper­sceptical [Page 359]as to persuade me, that I am not sure that I be­lieve all this, I desire you to tell me, how are you sure that you believe the Church of Rome? For if a man may persuade himself he doth believe what he doth not believe, then may you think you believe the Church of Rome, and yet not believe it. But if no man can Err concerning what he believes, then you must give me leave to assure my self that I do believe, and consequently that any man may believe the aforesaid truths upon the aforesaid motives, without any dependence upon any Succession that hath believed it always. And as from your definition of Faith, so from your definition of Heresie, this fancy may be re­futed. For questionless no man can be an Heretick but he that holds an Heresie, and an Heresie you say is a Vo­luntary Error; therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretick whether he will or no, by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have: But that there should have been a perpetual Succession of Believers in all points Orthodox, is not a thing which is in your power, there­fore our being or not being Hereticks depends not on it. Besides, what is more certain, than that he may make a streight line, who hath a Rule to make it by, though ne­ver man in the World had made any before: and why then may not he that believes the Scripture to be the Word of God, and the Rule of Faith, regulate his Faith by it, and consequently believe aright without much regarding what other men either will do or have done? It is true in­deed there is a necessity that if God will have his Words believed, he by his Providence must take order, that either by Succession of men, or by some other means natural or supernatural, it be preserved and delivered, and sufficiently notified to be his Word; but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no Error against it, certain­ly there is no more necessity, than that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sin against it. For if men may preserve the Records of a Law, and yet transgress it, certainly they may also preserve directions for their Faith, and yet not follow them. I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barr do find by frequent experience, [Page 360]that many men preserve and produce evidences, which being examined oftimes make against themselves. This they do ignorantly, it being in their power to suppress, or perhaps to alter them. And why then should any man conceive it strange, that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted, when indeed for many reasons which I have formally al­leged, it was impossible for them to corrupt them? Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a per­petual Succession of men Orthodox in all points, certain­ly there is no necessity at all of any such, neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Heretical.

39. When therefore you have produced some proof of this, (which was your Major in your former Syllogism,) That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresie, you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor. We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any re­ality, or whether it be a Creature of your own making, a fancy of your own imagination? And if it be a thing, and not only a Word, whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours; and whether some mens persuasion that there is no such thing, can hinder them from having it, or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing? (Any more than a mans persuasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson, will make him not to have taken it if he has, or hinder the operation of it?) And whether Tertul­lian in the place quoted by you, speak of a Priest made a Lay-man, by a just deposition or degradation, and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order? And whether in the same place he set not some mark upon Hereticks that will agree to your Church? Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation, was confer­red on them by the Pope? And if it were, whether it were the Popes right, or an Usurpation? If it were his right, whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiastical? And if by Ec­clesiastical only, whether he might possibly so abuse his power, as to deserve to lose it? Whether de facto he had done so? Whether supposing he had deserved to lose it, those that deprived him of it had power to take it from [Page 361]him? Or if not, whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it, until good caution were put in, and good assurance given, that if he had it again, he would not abuse it as he had formerly done? Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him, it may not (things being now setled, and the present Go­vernment established) be as unlawful to go about to re­store it? whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude, because we believe the Pope hath no power in England, now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him up­on just grounds of it, therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation? Whether without Schism, a man may not withdraw obedience from an Usurped Au­thority commanding unlawful things? Whether the Roman Church might not give Authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her Errors, as well as a King gives Authority to a Judge to judge against him, if his cause be bad; as well as Trajan gave his Sword to his Prefect, with this com­mission, that if he Governed well, he should use it for him, if ill against. Whether the Roman Church gave not Autho­rity to her Bishops and Priests to Preach against her cor­ruptions in manners? And if so, why not against her Errors in Doctrine, if she had any? Whether she gave them not Authority to Preach the whole Gospel of Christ, and consequently against her Doctrine, if it should con­tradict any part of the Gospel of Christ? Whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the Church of Rome, for any Lay-man or Woman that has ability to persuade others by Word or by Writing from Error, and unto truth? And why this Liberty may not be practised against their Religion, if it be false, as well as for it if it be true? Whether any man need any other Commission or Vocation than that of a Christian, to do a work of Charity? And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity (if it be done after a peaceable manner, and without any unnecessary disturbance of order,) to persuade men out of a false, unto a true way of Eternal happiness? Especially the Apostle having assured us, that he, (whosoever he is) who convert­eth a sinner from the Error of his way, shall save a Soul from [Page 362]Death, and shall hide a multitude of Sins? Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once, so that there were not enough to ordain others in the places that were va­cant? Whether the Bishops of England may not Conse­crate a Metropolitan of England, as well as the Cardinals do the Pope? whether the King or Queen of England, or they that have the Government in their Hands, in the minority of the Prince, may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated, against whom there is no Ca­nonical exception? Whether the Doctrine, that the King is supream head of the Church of England, (as the Kings of Judah, and the first Christian Emperors were of the Jewish and Christian Church,) be any new found Do­ctrine? Whether it be not true, that Bishops being made Bishops, have their Authority immediately from Christ, though this or that man be not made Bishop with­out the Kings Authority; as well as you say, the Pope be­ing Pope, has Authority immediately from Christ, and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the Autho­rity of the Cardinals? Whether you do well to suppose, that Christian Kings have no more Authority in order­ing the affairs of the Church, than the great Turk, or the Pagan Emperors? Whether the King may not give Autho­rity to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdom, and yet not be capable of doing it himself: as well as a Bishop may give Authority to a Physician, to practice Physick in his Diocess, which the Bishop cannot do himself? Whether if Nero the Emperor would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to Preach the Gospel of Christ, and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome, whether they would have questioned his Authority to do so? Whether there were any Law of God or man, that prohibited K. JAMES to give Commission to Bishops, nay to lay his injunction upon them, to do any thing that is lawful? Whether a casual irregularity may not be lawfully dispenced with? Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incur any, be indispensable? And if not, who is he, or who are they, whom the Pope is so subject unto, that they may dispense with him? Whether [Page 363]that be certain which you take for granted; That your Ordination imprints a Character and ours doth not? Whether the power of Consecrating and Ordaining by imposition of hands, may not reside in the Bishops, and be derived unto them, not from the King but God; and yet the King have Authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person, whom he shall commend unto them: As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of Ar­chitecture, and had it immediately by infusion from God himself, yet, if they were the Kings Subjects, he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use, or a fortress for his service: Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests him­self, yet I hope, you will not deny him power to com­mand any of his Subjects that has this power, to ordain any fit person Priest, whom he shall desire to be ordained? Whether it do not follow, that whensoever the King com­mands an House to be Built, a Message to be delivered, or a Murtherer to be Executed, that all these things are pre­sently done without intervention of the Architect, Mes­senger, or Executioner: As well as, that they are ipso facto Ordained and Consecrated, who by the Kings. Au­thority are commended to the Bishops to be Ordained and Consecrated: Especially seeing the King will not deny, but that these Bishops may refuse to do what he requires to be done, lawfully if the person be unworthy, if wor­thy, unlawfully indeed, but yet de facto they may refuse: and in case they should do so, whether justly or unjustly; neither the King himself, nor any Body else, would esteem the person Bishop upon the Kings designation? Whether many Popes, though they were not Consecrated Bishops by any temporal Prince, yet might not, or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercise their Episcopal function in this or that place? And whether the Empe­rors had not authority, upon their desert, to deprive them of their jurisdiction, by imprisonment or banishment? Whe­ther Protestants do indeed pretend that their Reformation is Universal? Whether in saying, the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa, you do not forget your self, and con­tradict [Page 364]what you said above, in §. 17. of this Chapter, where you tell us, they had some of their Sect residing in Rome? Whether it be certain, that none can admit of Bishops willingly, but those that hold them of Divine in­stitution? Whether they may not be willing to have them, conceiving that way of Government the best, though not absolutely necessary? Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops, not to be of Divine institution, be Schismatical and Hereti­cal for thinking so? Whether your form of ordaining Bishops and Priests, be essential to the constitution of a true Church? Whether the forms of the Church of England differ essen­tially from your forms? Whether in saying, that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests, you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church: wherein I have proved it plainly impossible, that any man should be so much as morally certain, either of his own Priesthood or any other mans? Lastly, whether any one kind of these external Forms and Orders, and Govern­ment be so necessary to the being of a Church, but that they may not be diverse in diverse places, and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit him­self to the Government of the place where he lives what­soever it be? All these Questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the Minor pro­position of your former Syllogism, and your proofs of it: and I will promise to debate them fairly with you, if first you will bring some better proof of the Major, That want of Succession is a certain note of Heresie, which for the present remains both unproved and unprobable.

40. Obj. You say, The Fathers assign Succession as one mark of the true Church.

Answ. I confess they did urge Tradition as an Argu­ment of the Truth of their Doctrine and of the falshood of the contrary; and thus far they agree with you. But now see the difference: They urged it not against all Here­ticks that ever should be, but against them who rejected a great part of the Scripture, for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their Doctrine, and corrupted other parts [Page 365]with their additions and detractions, and perverted the remain­der with divers absurd interpretations: So Tertullian not a leaf before the words by you cited. Nay they urged it against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture, fell to accuse the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right, and came not from good authority, as if they were various one from another, and as if truth could not be found out of them, by those who know not Tradition, for that it was not delivered in wri­ting, (they did mean wholly,) but by word of mouth: And that thereupon Paul also said, we speak wisdom amongst the perfect. So Irenaeus in the very next Chapter before that which you alledge. Against these men being thus neces­sitated to do so, they did urge Tradition, but what or whose Tradition was it? Certainly no other but the joynt Tra­dition of all the Apostolick Churches, with one Mouth and one Voice teaching the same Doctrine. Or if for brevity sake they produce the Tradition of any one Church, yet is it apparent, that that one was then in conjunction with all the rest; Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, testifie as much in the words cited, and S. Austin, in the place before alledged by me. This Tradition they did urge against these men, and in a time, in comparison of ours, almost contiguous to the Apostles: So near, that one them, Irenae­us, was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. John the Apostle. Tertullian and Origen were not an Age removed from him: and the last of them all, little more than an Age from them. Yet after all this they urged it not as a demonstration, but only as a very probable argument, far greater than any their Adversaries could oppose against it. So Tertullian in the place above quoted, §. 5. How is it like­ly that so many and so great Churches should Err in one Faith? (it should be, should have Erred into one Faith.) And this was the condition of this Argument as the Fathers urged it. Now if you having to deal with us, who question no Book of Scripture, which was not Anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholicks; nay who refuse not to be tried by your own Canons, your own. Translations, who in interpreting Scriptures are con­tent to allow of all those rules which you propose, only [Page 366]except that we will not allow you to be our Judges; if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles, a fair time for the purest Church to gather much dross and corruptions, and for the mystery af iniquity to bring its work to some perfection, which in the Apostles time be­gan to work, If (I say) you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Church­es, being now Catholick to it self alone, and Heretical to all the rest: nay not only with her Ancient Original Tra­ditions, but also with her post-nate and introduced Defi­nitions, and these as we pretend, repugnant to Scripture, and Ancient Tradition, and all this to decline an indif­ferent Trial by Scripture, under pretence (wherein also you agree with the calumny of the Old Hereticks) that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition: If, I say, notwithstanding all these differences, you will still be urging us with this argument, as the ve­ry same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urged the Old Hereticks, certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have, not only that we have no School-Divinity, nor Metaphysicks, but no Logick or common sense, that we are but Pictures of men, and have the definition of rational creatures giv­en us in vain.

41. But now suppose I should be liberal to you, and grant what you cannot prove, that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetual mark of the true Church; I beseech you what will come of it? What, that want of Succession is a certain sign of an Heretical company? Tru­ly if you say so, either you want Logick, which is a cer­tain sign of an ill disputer; or are not pleased to use it, which is a worse. For speech is a certain sign of a living man, yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead, for he may be dumb and yet living still, and we may have other evident tokens that he is so, as Eating, Drinking, Breathing, Moving: So, though the constant and Universal delivery of any Doctrine by the Aposto­lick Churches ever since the Apostles, be a very great ar­gument of the truth of it, yet there is no certainty, but [Page 367]that truth, even Divine truth, may through mens wicked­ness, be contracted from its universality, and interrupted in its perpetuity, and so lose this argument, and yet not want others to justifie and support it self. For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens Hearts, or a conclusion evidently arising from them: It may be either contained in Scripture in express terms, or deducible from it by apparent consequence. If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetual Succession of Pro­fessors a certain note of Heresie, you must not content your self to shew, that having it is one sign of truth; but you must shew it to be the only sign of it and inseparable from it. But this, if you be well advised, you will never un­dertake. First because it is an impossible attempt: and then because if you do it you will marr all: for by pro­ving this an inseparable sign of Catholick Doctrine, you will prove your own, which apparently wants it in many points, not to be Catholick. For whereas you say this Succession requires two things, agreement with the Apostles Do­ctrine, and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it: It will be proved against you that you fail in both points; and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwaies, as your condemning the Doctrine of the Chiliasts, and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants; and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many Ages after. For example; In mutilation of the Com­munion, in having your Service in such a Language as the Assistants generally understand not, your offering to Saints, your Picturing of God, your worshiping of Pictures.

42. Ad §. 24.] Obj. The true Church must have Univer­sality of place which Protestants wanting cannot avoid the just note of Heresie.

Answ. You have not set down clearly and univocally what you mean by it, whether Universality of fact or of right: and if of fact, whether absolute or compara­tive: and if comparative, whether of the Church in com­parison of any other Religion, or only of Heretical Chri­stians: or if in comparison of these, whether in comparison [Page 368]of all other Sects conjoyned, or in comparison only of any one of them. Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of Here­sie: For those places of S. Austin do not deserve the name. And truly in my judgment you have done advi­sedly in proving it no better. For as for Universality of right, or a right to Universality, all Religions claim it, but only the true has it, and which has it cannot be de­termined, unless it first be determined which is the true. An absolute Universality, and diffusion through all the World if you should pretend to, all the World would laugh at you. If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion, Mahumetism would carry the Victory from you. If you should oppose your selves against all other Chri­stians besides you, it is certain you would be cast in this suit also. If lastly, being hard driven you should please your selves with being more than any one Sect of Chri­stians, it would presently be replied, that it is uncertain whether now you are so, but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so. Then when the Hierom. Cont. Luciferianos. whole World wondered that it was become Arrian: then when Athanasius opposed the World, and the World Athanasius: then when In Theodoret. Hist. 16. c. l. 2. your Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of Error, answered for himself, There was a time when there were but three op­posed the decree of the King, and yet those three were in the right, and the rest in the wrong: then when the Professors of Error surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in propor­tion, as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of the Heaven. (As In ep. 48. ad Vincentium. S. Austin acknowledgeth:) then when Commenito­rii. lib. 1. c. 4. Vincentius con­fesseth, that the Poyson of the Arrians had contaminated, not now some certain portion, but almost the whole World: then when the Author of Nazianzens Life testifies, That In vita Na­zianz. the Heresie of Arrius, had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the World; and when Nazianzen found cause to cry out, In Orat. Arian. & pro seipso. Where are they who reproach us with our poverty, who define the Church by the multitude, and despise the little flock? They have the People, but we the Faith. And lastly when Athanasius was so overborn with Sholes and Floods of [Page 369] Arrians, that he was enforced to write a Treatise on pur­pose Tom. 2. against those, who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents. So that if you had proved want of Unive­sality even thus restrained, to be an infallible note of He­resie, there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed, that the time was when you were Here­ticks. And besides, I see not how you would have avoid­ed this great inconvenience, of laying grounds and store­ing up arguments for Antichrist, against he comes, by which he may prove his Company the true Church. For it is evident out of Scripture, and confessed by you, that though his time be not long, his dominion shall be very large; and that the true Church shall be then, the woman driven into the wilderness.

45. Ad §. 25.26.] You endeavor to prove that the Faith of Protestants is no Faith, being destitute of its due quali­fications.

Obj. First, you say, their belief wanteth certainty, because they denying the Universal Infallibility of the Church, can have no certain ground to know what Objects are revealed or testified by God.

Ans. But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility, upon what certain ground do you know that your Church is infallible? Upon what certain ground do you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your Church is infal­lible? As that there is a God: that God hath promised his assistance to your Church in all her Decrees: that the Scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of God: that those Texts of Scripture which you alledge for your infallibility are incorrupted: that that which you pre­tend is the true sense of them? When you have produ­ced certain grounds for all these things, I doubt not but it will appear, that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion, which is nothing else but the Bible, without dependence on the Churches infallibi­lity. Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present, believes neither Church, nor Scripture, nor God, but is ready and willing to believe them all, if you can [Page 370]shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon; will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds, by which he may be converted; or there are? If you say the first, you make all Religion an uncertain thing: If the second, then either you must ridiculously perswade, that your Church is infallible, because it is infallible, or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibi­lity.

46. Obj. The Holy Scripture is in it self most true and in­fallible, but without the direction and declaration of the Church, we can neither have certain means to know what Scripture is Canonical, nor what Translations be faithful, nor what is the true meaning of Scripture.

Ans. But all these things must be known, before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible, for no other proof of it can be pretended, but only some Texts of Canonical Scripture, truly interpreted: There­fore either you are mistaken, in thinking there is no other means to know these things, but your Churches infallible direction, or we are excluded from all means of knowing her direction to be infallible.

47. Obj. But Protestants, though they are perswaded their own opinions are true, and that they have used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture, as Prayer, conferring of Texts, &c. Yet by their disagreement shew, that some of them are deceived. Now they hold all the Articles of their faith, upon this only ground of Scripture, interpreted by these rules, and therefore it is clear, that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all.

Ans. The first of these suppositions must needs be true, but the second is apparently false: I mean, that every Pro­testant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture. But that which you collect from these suppositions is clearly incon­sequent: and by as good Logick you might conclude, that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds, that the rules of the one, and the principles of the other do sometimes fail, because the disagreement of Logici­ans and Geometricians shew, that some of them are de­ceived. [Page 371]Might not a Jew conclude as well against all Christians, that they have no certain ground whereon to relie in their understanding of Scripture, because their disagreements shew that some are deceived; because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church, and others no such matter? So likewise a Turk might use the same ar­gument against both Jews and Christians, and an Atheist against all Religions, and a Sceptick against all reason. Might not the one say, Mens disagreement in Religion, shews that there is no certainty in any; and the other, that experience of their contradictions teacheth, that the rules of reason do sometimes fail? Do not you see and feel how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is? And how transported with zeal against Protestants, you urge arguments against them, which if they could not be answered, would overthrow not only your own, but all Religion? But God be thanked, the answer is easie and obvious! For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men, and then it will easily ap­pear, that there may be sufficient certainty in reason, in Religion, in the rules of interpreting Scripture, though men through their faults, take not care to make use of them, and so run into divers errors and dissentions.

48. Obj. But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamental, and therefore must remain uncertain, whether or no they be not in some fundamental error.

Ans. By like reason since you acknowledge, that every error in points defined and declared by your Church de­stroys the substance of Faith, and yet cannot determine what points be defined, it followeth that you must remain uncertain, whether or no you be not in some fundamen­tal error, and so want the substance of Faith, without which there can be no hope of Salvation.

But though we cannot perhaps say in particular, thus much, and no more is fundamental, yet believing all the Bible, we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental. As he that in a receipt, takes twenty ingre­dients whereof ten only are necessary, though he know not which those ten are, yet taking the whole twenty [Page 372]he is sure enough that he has taken all that are neces­sary.

49. Ad §. 29. Obj. It is generally delivered by Catholick Divines that he who erreth against any one revealed truth, t [...] ­seth all Divine Faith. Now certainly some Protestants must do so, because they hold contradictions, which cannot all be true. Therefore some of them at least, have no divine faith.

Ans. I pass by your weakness in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines. Yet if the Authority of your Divines were even Canonical, certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter, there being not one of them, who delivers for true doctrin this position of yours, thus nakedly set down, That any error against any one revealed truth destroys all divine faith. For they all require (not your self excepted) that this truth must not only be revealed, but revealed publickly, and (all things consi­dered) sufficiently propounded to the erring party, to be one of those, which God under pain of damnation com­mands all men to believe.

But if the Reader will be at the pains he may see this vain fancy confuted, out of one of the most rational and profound Doctors of your own Church, I mean Estius, upon the third Book of the Sententes, the 23. Distinct. and the 13. Section, beginning thus. It is disputed whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our Faith, and disbe­lieves others, or perhaps some one, there be faith properly so cal­led in respect of that which he does believe?

50. But if Protestants have certainty, they want obscurity, and so have not that faith, which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing. This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph; but I can find nothing in it, to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much cer­tainty as is required to faith, of an object not so evident as to beget science. If obscurity will not consist with certain­ty in the highest degree, then you are to blame for requi­ring to faith contradicting conditions. If certainty and obscurity will stand together, what reason can be imagin­ed that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist? Your bodies and souls, your understandings and [Page 373]wills are, I think, of the same condition with ours. And why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you?

51. But then besides, I am to tell you, that you are here, every where, extreamly, if not affectedly mistaken in the Doctrin of Protestants; who though they acknowledge, that the things which they believe are in themselves as cer­tain as any demonstrable or sensible verities, yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute, but such as may be perfected and increased as long as they walk by faith and not by sight. And conso­nant hereunto is their doctrin touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere. For you abuse the world and them, if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles, That these particular Books are the word of God, (for so I think you mean) either to be in it self evidently certain, or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility, evidently credible: For they are not so fond as to be ignorant, nor so vain as to pretend, that all men do assent to it, which they would if it were evi­dently certain, nor so ridiculous as to imagine, that if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture, should by chance find a Bible in his own Language, and were able to read it, that upon the reading it he would certainly with­out a miracle believe it to be the word of God: which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible. What then do they affirm of it? Certainly no more than this, that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind, shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation, those great mo­ments of reason which may incline him to believe the Divine authority of Scripture, and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made against it, he shall not chuse but find sufficient nay abundant induce­ments to yield unto it firm faith and sincere obedience. Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speak for all the rest, in his Book of the Truth of Christian Religion; which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependence upon your Church for any part of it: and that your Re­ligion [Page 374]is no foundation of, but rather a scandal and an objection against Christianity. He then in the last Chap­ter of his second Book hath these excellent words, ‘If any be not satisfied with these arguments abovesaid, but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the ex­cellency of Christian Religion, let such know that as there are variety of things which be true, so are there di­vers ways of proving or manifesting the truth. Thus is there one way in Mathematicks, another in Physicks, a third in Ethicks, and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question: wherein verily we must rest con­tent with such Testimonies as are free from all suspicion of untruth; otherwise down goes all the frame and use of History, and a great part of the art of Physick, toge­ther with all dutifulness that ought to be between parents and children: for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such Testimonies. Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to believe (so that the very belief thereof may be im­puted to us for obedience) should not so evidently ap­pear, as those things which are apprehended by sense and plain demonstration, but only be so far forth reveal­ed as may beget faith, and a perswasion thereof, in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate: That so the Gospel may be as a touchstone for tryal of mens judgments, whether they be sound or unsound. For see­ing these arguments, whereof we have spoken, have in­duced so many honest, godly, and wise men to approve of this Religion, it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testi­mony, but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilful desires; it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours, and set at naught other commodities; which thing they know they ought to do, if they admit of Christs Doctrin and obey what he hath commanded. And this is the rather to be noted of them, for that ma­ny other historical narrations are approved by them to be true, which notwithstanding are only manifest by autho­rity, [Page 375]and not by any such strong proofs, and perswasi­ons, or tokens, as do declare the history of Christ to be true; which are evident, partly by the confession of those Jews that are yet alive; and partly in those compa­nies and congregations of Christians which are any where to be found; whereof doubtless there was some cause. Lastly, seeing the long duration or continuance of Chri­stian Religion, and the large extent thereof can be ascri­bed to no human power, therefore the same must be at­tributed to miracles: or if any deny that it came to pass through a miraculous manner; this very getting so great strength and power without a miracle, may be thought to surpass any miracle.’

52. And now you see I hope that Protestants neither do nor need to pretend to any such evidence in the doctrin they believe, as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith. Let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants, and that it is want of prudence. Touching which point, as I have already demonstrated, that wisdom is not essential to faith, but that a man may truly believe truth, though upon insufficient motives; So I doubt not but I shall make good, that if prudence were necessary to faith, we have better title to it than you; and that if a wiser than Solomon were here, he should have better reason to believe the Re­ligion of Protestants than Papists, the Bible rather than the Council of Trent. But let us hear what you can say!

53. Ad §. 31. You demand then first of all, What wis­dom was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient, and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth? I answer: Against God and truth there lies no prescription, and therefore certainly it might be great wisdom to forsake ancient Errors for more anci­ent Truths. One God is rather to be followed than innu­merable worlds of men: And therefore it might be great wisdom either for the whole Visible Church, nay for all the men in the world, having wandred from the way of Truth, to return unto it; or for a part of it, nay for one man to do so, although all the world besides were madly [Page 376]resolute to do the contrary. It might be great wisdom to forsake the Errors though of the only Visible Church, much more the Roman, which in conceiving her self the whole Visible Church, does somewhat like the Frog in the Fable, which thought the Ditch he lived in to be all the World.

54. You demand again, What wisdom was it to forsake a Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation, indued with Succession of Bishops, &c. us (que) ad Election or Choice? I answer: Yet might it be great wisdom to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation, but accused and convicted of many damnable errors: certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them, had they still persisted in them after their convicti­on; though perhaps pardonable (which is all that is ac­knowledged) to such as ignorantly continued in them. A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetual Succession of Bishops, holding always the same doctrine; and with a ridiculous impudence pretending per­petual possession of all the world: whereas the world knows, that a little before Luthers arising, your Church was confined to a part of a part of it. Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependence of other Churches upon her, which yet she supports no more than those crouching Anticks which seem in great buildings to labour under the weight they bear, do indeed support the Fa­brick. For a corrupted and false Church may give autho­rity to preach the Truth, and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions. Besides, a false Church may preserve the Scripture true, (as now the Old Testa­ment is preserved by the Jews,) either not being arrived to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it, or not able to effect it, or not perceiving, or not re­garding the opposition of it to her corruptions. And so we might receive from you lawful Ordination and true Scriptures, though you were a false Church; and receiving the Scriptures from you (though not from you alone, I hope you cannot hinder us, neither need we ask your leave to believe and obey them. And this, though you be a false [Page 377]Church; and receiving the Scriptures from you (though not from you alone,) I hope you cannot hinder us, nei­ther need we ask your leave, to believe and obey them. And this, though you be a false Church, is enough to make us a true one. As for a Succession of men that held with us in all points of Doctrine, it is a thing we need not, and you have as little as we. So that if we acknowledge that your Church before Luther was a true Church, it is not for any ends, for any dependence that we have up­on you; but because we conceive that in a charitable con­struction, you may pass for a true Church. Such a Church (and no better) as you do sometimes acknowledge Prote­stants to be, that is, a Company of men, wherein some ignorant Souls may be saved. So that in this ballancing of Religion against Religion, and Church against Church, it seems you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your Scale; nothing but Smoak and Wind, vain sha­dows and phantastical pretences. Yet if Protestants on the other side, had nothing to put in their Seal but those negative commendations which you are pleased to af­ford them; nothing but, no Unity, nor means to procure it; no farther extent when Luther arose than Luthers Body; no Universality of time or place; no visibility or being, except only in your Church; no Succession of Persons or Doctrine; no leader but Luther, in a quarrel begun upon no ground but passion; no Church, no Ordination, no Scriptures but such as they received from you; if all this were true, and this were all that could be pleaded for Protestants, possibly with an allowance of three grains of partiality your Scale might seem to turn. But then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsly made against them, the rest vainly; that whatso­ever of truth is in these imputations, is impertinent to this Tryal, and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue; and be­sides, that plenty of good matter may be alledged for Protestants which is here dissembled: then I hope, our Cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences.

55. I say then, that want of Universality of time and place, The invisibility or not existence of the professors of [Page 378]Protestant Doctrine before Luther, Luthers being alone when he first opposed your Church, Our having our Church, Ordinations, Scriptures, personal and yet not Doctrinal Succession from you, are vain and impertinent allegations, against the truth of our Doctrine and Church. That the entire truth of Christ without any mixture of Error should be professed or believed in all places at any time, or in any place at all times, is not a thing evident in reason, neither have we any Revelation for it. And therefore in relying so confidently on it, you build your House upon the Sand. And what obligation we had ei­ther to be so peevish, as to take nothing of yours, or so foolish as to take all, I do not understand. For whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore Hereticks, I tell you that though all Hereticks are choosers, yet all choosers are not Hereticks, otherwise they also, which choose your Religion must be Hereticks. As for our want­ing Unity and Means of proving it, Luthers opposing your Church upon meer passion, our following private men rather than the Catholick Church; the first and last are meer untruths, for we want not Unity, nor means to pro­cure it in things necessary. Plain places of Scripture, and such as need no interpreter are our means to ob­tain it. Neither do we follow any private men, but only the Scripture, the Word of God as our rule, and reason, which is also the gift of God given to direct us in all our actions, in the use of this rule. And then for Lu­thers opposing your Church upon meer passion, it is a thing I will not deny because I know not his Heart, and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it. Sure I am, whether he opposed your Church upon reason or no, he had reason enough to oppose it. And therefore if he did it upon passion, we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion, in his opposition, not in the manner of it; and then I presume you will have no reason to condemn us, unless you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason, because some Body before us hath done it upon passion. You see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments, [Page 379]to prove Protestants unwise in the choice of their Religion.

56. It remains now, that I should shew that many rea­sons of moment may be alledged for the justification of Protestants, which are dissembled by you, and not put into the Balance. Know then, Sir, that when I say, the Reli­gion of Protestants, is in prudence to be preferred before yours: as on the one side I do not understand by your Re­ligion, the Doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, or any other private man amongst you, nor the Doctrine of the Sorbon, or of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other particular Company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to agree, the Doctrine of the Council of Trent: so accordingly on the other side, by the Re­ligion of Protestants, I do not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin, or Melancthon; nor the Confession of Augusta, or Geneva, nor the Catechism of Heidelburg, nor the Articles of the Church of England, no nor the Har­mony of Protestant Confessions; but that wherein they all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater Har­mony, as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions, that is, The Bible. The Bible, I say, The Bible only is the Re­ligion of Protestants! Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion; but as matter of Faith and Religion, neither can they with co­herence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most Schismatical presumption. I for my part after a long (and as I verily believe and hope,) impartial search of the true way to Eternal Happiness, do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my Foot, but upon this Rock only. I see plainly and with mine own eyes, that there are Popes against Popes, Councils against Councils, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves, a Consent of Fathers of one Age against a Consent of Fathers of another Age, the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. Traditive in­terpretations of Scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found: No Tradition but only of [Page 380]Scripture, can derive it self from the Fountain, but may be plainly proved, either to have been brought in, in such an Age after Christ; or that in such an Age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only, for any considering man to build up­on. This therefore, and this only I have reason to be­lieve: This I will profess, according to this I will live, and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willing­ly, but even gladly lose my life, though I should be sor­ry that Christians should take it from me. Propose me any thing out of this Book, and require whether I be­lieve it or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to humane reason, I will subscribe it with Hand and Heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so; therefore, it is true. In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him; neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse Christian: I will love no man the less, for differing in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others I expect from them again. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this, To believe the Scripture to be Gods word, to en­deavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it.

57. This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation, and I am verily persuaded that I have chosen wisely, much more wisely than if I had guided my self according to your Churches authority. For the Scripture being all true, I am secured by believing nothing else, that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith. And if I mistake the sense of Scripture, and so fall into Error, yet am I secure from any danger thereby, if but your grounds be true: because endeavouring to find the true sense of Scripture, I cannot but hold my Error with­out pertinacy, and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me. And then all necessary truth being as I have proved, plainly set down in Scripture, I am certain by believing Scripture, to believe [Page 381]all necessary Truth: And he that does so, if his life be an­swerable to his Faith, how is it possible he should fail of Salvation?

58. Besides, whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide, all that and much more may be said for the Scripture. Hath your Church been Ancient? The Scripture is more Ancient. Is your Church a means to keep men at Unity? So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and will obey it, in Unity of belief, in matters necessary or very profitable, and in Unity of Charity in points unnecessary. Is your Church Univer­sal for time or place? Certainly the Scripture is more U­niversal. For all the Christians in the World (those I mean that in truth deserve this name,) do now, and al­ways have believed the Scripture to be the Word of God: whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God, and all Christians besides you deny it.

59. Thirdly, following the Scripture, I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility, (whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have, or what notion could we have?) and by so doing tacitely confess, that your selves are surer of the Truth of the Scri­pture than of your Churches authority. For we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof.

60. Fourthly, following the Scripture, I follow that which must be true if your Church be true: for your Church gives attestation to it. Whereas if I follow your Church, I must follow that which, though Scripture be true, may be false; nay which if Scripture be true must be false, because the Scripture testifies against it.

61. Fifthly, to follow the Scripture I have Gods express warrant and command, and no colour of any prohibition: But to believe your Church infallible, I have no command at all, much less an express command. Nay I have rea­son to fear that I am prohibited to do so in these Words: call no man Master on Earth: They fell by infidelity, Thou standest by Faith, Be not high minded but fear: The Spirit of truth The World cannot receive.

62. Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it, if any thing be against it: whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many myste­ries but no impossibilities; many things above reason, but nothing against it; many things which had they not been revealed, reason could never have discovered, but nothing which by true reason may be confuted: many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be, but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be. Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that I ought to believe it: For reason will convince any man, unless he be of a perverse mind, that the Scripture is the Word of God: And then no reason can be greater than this, God says so, therefore it is true.

63. Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgment that will give himself the li­berty of judgment, will seem much more plainly contradi­cted by Scripture, than the infallibility of your Church ap­pears to be confirmed by it; and consequently must be so foolish as to believe your Church exempted from Error up­on less evidence, rather than subject to the common condi­tion of mankind upon greater evidence. Now if I take the Scripture only for my Guide, I shall not need to do any thing so unreasonable.

64. If I will follow your Church I must believe impossi­bilities, and that with an absolute certainty, upon motives which are confessed to be but only Prudential and probable: That is, with a weak Foundation I must firmly support a hea­vy, a monstrous heavy building: Now following the Scrip­ture I shall have no necessity to undergo any such difficulties.

65. Following your Church I must be servant of Christ and a Subject of the King, but only Ad placitum Papae. I must be prepared in mind to renounce my allegiance to the King, when the Pope shall declare him an Heretick and command me not to obey him: And I must be prepared in mind to esteem Vertue Vice, and Vice Vertue, if the Pope shall so determine. Indeed you say it is impossible he should do the latter; but that you know is a great question, neither is it fit my obedience to God and the King should depend [Page 383]upon a questionable Foundation. And howsoever, you must grant that if by an impossible supposition the Popes com­mands should be contrary to the law of Christ, that they of your Religion must resolve to obey rather the commands of the Pope than the law of Christ. Whereas if I follow the Scri­pture, I may, nay I must obey my Sovereign in lawful things, though an Heretick, though a Tyrant, and though, I do not say the Pope, but the Apostles themselves, nay an Angel from Heaven should teach any thing against the Gospel of Christ, I may, nay I must denounce Anathema to him.

66. Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion, which being contrary to Flesh and Blood, without any assistance from worldly power, wit or policy; nay against all the power and policy of the World prevailed and en­larged it self in a very short time all the World over. Where­as it is too too apparent, that your Church hath got and still maintains her authority over mens Consciences, by counterfeiting false miracles, forging false stories, by ob­truding on the World suppositious writings, by corrupting the monuments of former times, and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you, by Wars, by persecu­tions, by Massacres, by Treasons, by Rebellions; in short, by all manner of Carnal means whether violent or fraudu­lent.

67. Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion, the first Preachers of Professors whereof, it is most certain they could have no worldly ends upon the World, that they could not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this World, but rather were to expect the contrary, even all the miseries which the World could lay upon them. On the other side, the Head of your Church, the pretended Successor of the Apo­stles, and Guide of Faith, it is even palpable, that he makes your Religion the instrument of his ambition, and by it seeks to entitle himself directly or indirectly to the Monarchy of the World. And besides, it is evident to any man that has but half an eye, that most of those Doctrines which you add to the Scripture do make one way or other, for the honour or temporal profit of the Teachers of them.

68. Following the Scripture only, I shall embrace a Religion of admirable simplicity, consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of God in Spirit and Truth. Where­as your Church and Doctrine is even loaded with an in­finity of weak, childish, ridiculous, unsavoury supersti­tions and ceremonies, and full of that righteousness for which Christ shall Judge the World.

69. Following the Scripture, I shall believe that which Universal, never-failing Tradition assures me, that it was by the admirable supernatural Work of God confirmed to be the Word of God: whereas never any miracle was wrought, never so much as a lame Horse cured in confirmation of your Churches authority and infallibility. And if any strange things have been done, which may seem to give attestation to some parts of your Doctrine, yet this proves nothing but the truth of the Scripture, which foretold that (Gods providence permitting it, and the wickedness of the World deserving it) strange signs and wonders should be wrought to confirm false Doctrine, that they which love not the Truth, may be given over to strange delusions. Neither does it seem to me any strange thing, that God should permit some true wonders to be done to delude them who have forged so many to deceive the World.

70. If I follow the Scripture, I must not promise my self Salvation without effectual dereliction and mortifi­cation of all Vices, and the effectual Practice of all Christian Vertues: But your Church opens an easier and a broader way to Heaven, and though I continue all my life long in a course of sin, and without the Pra­ctice of any Vertue, yet gives me assurance that I may be let into Heaven, at a Postern-gate, even by any Act of Attrition at the hour of Death, if it be joyned with con­fession, or by an Act of Contrition without confession.

71. Admirable are the Precepts of piety and humility, of innocence and patience, of liberality, frugality, temper­ance, sobriety, justice, meekness, fortitude, constancy and gravity, contempt of the World, love of God and the love of mankind; In a Word, of all Vertues, and [Page 385]against all vice, which the Scriptures impose upon us, to be obeyed under pain of damnation: The sum whereof is in manner comprised in our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount, recorded in the 5, 6, and 7. of S. Matthew, which if they were generally obeyed, could not but make the world generally happy, and the goodness of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this Religion rather than any other, came from God the fountain of all goodness. And that they may be generally obeyed, our Saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his Sermon, with these universal Sanctions, Not every one that saith Lord Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom, but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven: and again, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them not, shall be likned unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand, and the rain descended, and the flood came, and the winds blew, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. Now your Church, notwithstanding all this, enervates and in a manner dis­solves and abrogates many of these precepts, teaching men that they are not Laws for all Christians, but Counsels of perfection and matters of Supererrogation: that a man shall do well if he do observe them, but he shall not sin if he observe them not; that they are for them who aim at high places in heaven, who aspire with the two sons of Zebede, to the right hand or to the left hand of Christ: But if a man will be content barely to go to heaven, and to be a door­keeper in the house of God, especially if he will be con­tent to tast of Purgatory in the way, he may obtain it at any easier purchase. Therefore the Religion of your Church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrin of Christ delivered in Scripture, and therefore not so like­ly to come from the Fountain of holiness and good­ness.

72. Lastly, if I follow your Church for my Guide, I shall do all one, as if I should follow a Company of blind men in a judgment of colours, or in the choice of a way. For every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider. Now what is your Church but a Compa­ny of unconsidering men, who comfort themselves be­cause [Page 386]they are a great company together, but all of them, either out of idleness refuse the trouble of a severe tryal of their Religion, (as if heaven were not worth it,) or out of superstition fear the event of such a tryal, that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it; and therefore, for the most part do it not all. Or if they do it, they do it negligently and hypocritically, and perfunctorily, rather for the satisfaction of others than themselves: but certainly without indifference, without liberty of judgment, without a resolution 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 in this imputation I do you no injury: but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking, doubting of any part of your Doctrin, among mortal sins. For from hence it follows, that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortal sin, that he must never examine the grounds of it at all, for fear he should be moved to doubt: or if he do, he must resolve that no motives, be they never so strong shall move him to doubt, but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himself in a firm belief of your Religion, though his reason and his understanding fail him. And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholicks, who can deny, but you are a Company of men unwilling and a­fraid to understand, lest you should do good! That have eyes to see and will not see, that have not the love of truth (which is only to be known by an indifferent tryal,) and therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions; men that love darkness more than light: in a word, that you are the blind leading the blind, and what prudence there can be, in following such Guides, our Saviour hath taught us in saying, If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

74. Ad §. 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is, because wanting certainty and prudence, it must also want the fourth condition, Supernaturality. For that being a humane perswasion, it is not in the essence of it Su­pernatural: and being imprudent and rash, it cannot proceed [Page 387]from Divine motion, and so is not supernatural in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth.

Ans. This little discourse stands wholly upon what went before, and therefore must fall together with it. I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain, and as prudent as the faith of Papists; and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality, our faith may have it as well as yours. I would here furthermore be informed how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion (for you make them all one,) that your Churches doctrine is true? Or if you grant it your perswasion, why is it not the perswasion of men, and in respect of the subject of it, an humane perswasion? I desire also to know, what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is, not in regard of the object only and cause of it, but in nature or essence of it supernatural? Lastly, whereas you say, that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion: cer­tainly by this reason all they that believe your own Reli­gion, and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it, (as millions amongst you cannot) must be condemned to have no supernatural faith: or if not, then without question nothing can hinder, but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion, as well as the imprudent faith of Papists.

75. And thus having weighed your whole discourse, and found it altogether lighter than vanity, why should I not invert your conclusion, and say, Seeing you have not proved that whosoever errs against any one point of Faith loseth all divine Faith: nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be e­steemed a matter of faith is a grievous sin, it follows not at all, that when two men hold different doctrines con­cerning Religion, that but one can be saved? Not that I deny, but that the sentence of S. Chrysost. with which you conclude this Chapter may in a good sense be true: for oftimes by the faith is meant only that Doctrin which is necessary to salvation, and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing which is necessary to salvation, implies a repugnance and destroys it self. Besides, not to [Page 388]believe all necessary points, and to believe none at all, is for the purpose of salvation all one; and therefore he that does so, may justly be said to destroy the Gospel of Christ, seeing he makes it uneffectual to the end for which it was intended, the Salvation of mens souls. But why you should conceive that all differences about Religion are concerning matters of faith, in this high notion of the word, for that I conceive no reason.

CHAP. VII. The ANSWER to the Seventh CHAPTER.

6. Ad §. 2.] WHereas you say, it is directly against Charity to our selves, to adventure the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, this is true: But so is this also, that it is directly against the same Charity, to adventure the omitting any thing, that may any way help or conduce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure or less dangerous. And therefore if the errors of the Roman Church do but hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, I am in Charity to my self bound to forsake them, though they be not destructive of it. Again, whereas you conclude, That if by living out of the Roman Church we put our selves in hazard to want something necessary to Salvation, we commit a grievous sin a­gainst the vertue of Charity as it respects our selves: This con­sequence may be good in those which are thus perswaded of the Roman Church, and yet live out of it. But the sup­position is certainly false. We may live and die out of the Roman Church, without putting our selves in any such hazard: Nay to live and die in it is as dangerous as to shoot a gulf, which though some good ignorant souls may do [Page 389]and escape, yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries.

7. Ad §. 5.] In this Section I observe, first, this ac­knowledgment of yours, That in things necessary only because commanded, a probableignorance of the commandment excuses the party from all fault, and doth not exclude Salvation. From which Doctrin it seems to me to follow, that seeing obedi­ence to the Roman Church cannot be pretended to be neces­sary, but only because it is commanded, therefore not only an invincible, but even a probable ignorance of this preten­ded command, must excuse us from all faulty breach of it, and cannot exclude Salvation. Now seeing this command is not pretended to be expresly delivered, but only to be deduced from the word of God, and that not by the most clear and evident consequences that may be; and seeing an infinity of great objections lies against it, which seem strongly to prove that there is no such command; with what Charity can you suppose that our ignorance of this comand, is not at the least probable, if not all things consider'd, plain­ly invincible? Sure I am, for my part, that I have done my true endeavour to find it true, and am still willing to do so; but the more I seek, the farther I am from finding, and therefore if it be true, certainly my not finding it is very excusable, and you have reason to be very charitable in your censures of me. 2. Whereas you say, That be­sides these things necessary because commanded, there are other things, which are commanded because necessary: of which number you make Divine infallible faith, Baptism in Act for Children, and in desire for those who are come to the use of Rea­son, and the Sacrament of Confession, for those who have com­mitted mortal sin: In these words you seem to me to deli­ver a strange Paradox, viz. That Faith, and Baptism, and Confession are not therefore necessary for us, because God appointed them, but are therefore appointed by God because they were necessary for us, antecedently to his appointment; which if it were true, I wonder what it was beside God that made them necessary, and made it neces­sary for God to command them! Besides, in making faith one of these necessary means, you seem to exclude Infants [Page 390]from Salvation: For Faith comes by hearing, and they have not heard. In requiring that this Faith should be divine and infallible, you cast your Credentes into infinite perplex­ity, who cannot possibly by any sure mark discern whe­ther their Faith be Divine or human, or if you have any certain sign, whereby they may discern, whether they be­lieve your Churches infallibility with Divine or only with humane faith, I pray produce it, for perhaps it may serve us to shew, that our Faith is Divine as well as yours. More­over in affirming that Baptism in act is necessary for Infants, and for men only in desire, You seem to me in the latter to destroy the foundation of the former. For if a desire of Baptism will serve men in stead of Baptism, then those words of our Saviour, Unless a man be born again of water, &c. are not to be understood literally and rigidly of exter­nal Baptism; for a desire of Baptism is not Baptism, and so your foundation of the absolute necessity of Baptism is destroyed. And if you may gloss the Text so far, as that men may be saved by the desire, without Baptism it self, because they cannot have it, why should you not gloss it a little farther, that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptized infants: to whom it was more impossible to have a desire of Baptism, than for the former to have the thing it self? Lastly, for your Sacrament of Confession, we know none such, nor any such absolute necessity of it. They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy, though they confess them to God only and not to men. They that confess them both to God and men, if they do not effectually and in time forsake them, shall not find mercy. 3. Whereas you say, that supposing these means once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them, you must suppose I hope, that we know them to be so appointed, and that it is in our power to procure them: otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to fail of the end, for want of the means, certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them. For the rule of the law is also the dictate of common reason and equity, That no man can be obliged to what is impossible. We can be obliged to nothing but [Page 391]by vertue of some command: now it is impossible that God should command in earnest any thing which he knows to be impossible. For to command in earnest, is to com­mand with an intent to be obeyed; which is not possible he should do, when he knows the thing commanded to be impossible. Lastly, whosoever is obliged to do any thing, and does it not, commits a fault; but Infants com­mit no fault in not procuring to have Baptism, therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it. 4. Whereas you say, that if Protestants dissent from you in the point of the necessity of Baptism for Infants, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point fundamental; If you mean a point esteemed so by you, this indeed cannot be denied: But if you mean a point that indeed is fundamental, this may certainly be denied, for I deny it, and say, that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to Salvation to hold the truth, or not to hold an error, touching the condition of these Infants. This is certain, and we must believe that God will not deal unjustly with them, but how in particu­lar he will deal with them concerns not us, and therefore we need not much regard it. 5. Whereas you say the like of your Sacrament of Pennance, you only say so, but your proofs are wanting. Lastly, whereas you say, This rigour ought not to seem strange or unjust in God, but that we are rather to bless him for ordaining us to Salvation by any means: I answer, that it is true, we are not to question the known will of God of injustice; yet whether that which you pretend to be Gods will, be so indeed, or only your pre­sumption, this I hope may be questioned lawfully and without presumption; and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of Ezekiel's commination, against all those who say, thus saith the Lord, when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to do so.

8. Ad §. 4. In the fourth Paragraph you deliver this false and wicked Doctrin, that for the procuring our own salvation we are always bound under pain of mortal sin, to take the safest way, but for avoiding sin we are not bound to do so, but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors, though the contrary may be certainly free from sin, and theirs be [Page 292]doubtful. Which doctrin in the former part of it is apparently false: For though wisdom and Charity to our selves would perswade us always to do so, yet many times, that way which to our selves and our salvation is more full of hazard, is notwithstanding not only lawful, but more Charitable and more noble. For example, to flie from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it, may be the safer way for a mans own salvation; yet I presume no man ought to condemn him of impiety, who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter; but for Gods greater glory, the greater honour of truth, and the greater confirmation of his brethren in the faith, choose to stand out the storm and endure the fiery tryal, rather than avoid it; rather to put his own soul to the hazard of a temptation, in hope of Gods assistance to go through with it, than to baulk the opportunity of doing God and his brethren so great a ser­vice. This part therefore of this Doctrin is manifestly un­true. The other not only false but impious; for therein you plainly give us to understand, that in your judgment, a resolution to avoid sin, to the uttermost of our power, is no necessary means of Salvation, nay that a man may resolve not to do so, without any danger of damnation. Therein you teach us, that we are to do more for the love of our selves, and our own happiness than for the love of God; and in so doing contradict our Saviour, who expresly commands us, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our strength; and hath taught us that the love of God consists in avoiding sin and keeping his commandments. Therein you directly cross S. Pauls Do­ctrin, who though he were a very probable Doctor, and had delivered his judgment for the lawfulness of eating meats offered to Idols; yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so, and forbear upon his scruple, should not sin, but only be a weak brother; whereas he, who should do it with a doubtful conscience, (though the action were by S. Paul warranted lawful, yet) should sin and be condemned for so doing. You pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of [Page 393]good works; but the truth is, you speak lies in Hypocrisie, and when the matter is well examined, will appear to make your selves and your own functions necessary, but obedience to God unnecessary: Which will appear to any man who considers what strict necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men, of effectual mortification of the habits of all Vices, and effectual Conversion to newness of Life, and Universal obedience, and withal remembers that an act of Attrition, which you say with Priestly absolution is sufficient to Salvation, is not mortification, which be­ing a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an instant. But for the present, it appears sufficient­ly out of this impious assertion, which makes it absolutely necessary for men, either in Act if it be possible, or if not, in Desire, to be Baptized and Absolved by you, and that with Intention: and in the mean time warrants them that for avoiding of sin, they may safely follow the un­certain guidance of a vain man, who you cannot deny may either be deceived himself, or out of malice deceive them, and neglect the certain direction of God himself, and their own Consciences. What wicked use is made of this Doctrine, your own long experience can better inform you, than it is possible for me to do: yet my own little conversation with you affords me one memorable example to this purpose. For upon this ground I knew a young Scholar in Doway, licensed by a great Casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain knowledge, whereof he had yet no knowledge but only a great presumption, because (forsooth) it was the opinion of one Doctor that he might do so. And upon the same ground, whensoever you shall come to have a prevailing party in this King­dom, and power sufficient to restore your Religion, you may do it by deposing or killing the King, by blowing up of Parliaments, and by rooting out all others of a dif­ferent Eaith from you. Nay this you may do, though in your own opinion it be unlawful, because Bellar. Contr. Barcl. c. 7. In 7. c. refutare conatur Barcl. verba illa Ro­muli. Veteres illos Impera­tores Constan­tium Valentem & Caeteros non ideo tole­ravit Ecclesia quod legitime successissent, sed quod illos sine populi de­trimento coer­cere non pote­rat. Et mira­tur hcc idem scripfisse Bel­larminum. l. 5. de Pontif. c. 7. Sed ut magis miretur, sciat hoc idem sen­sisse S. Tho­mam. 2. 2. q. 12. art. 2. ad 1. Ʋbi dicit Ec­clesiam tole­rasse ut fideles obedirent Ju­liano Aposta­tae, quia in sui novitate non­dum habebant vires compescendi Principes terrenos. Et postea, Sanctus Gregorius dicit, nullum adversus Juliani persecutionem fuisse remedium praeter lacrymas, quo­niam non habebat Ecclesia vires quibus illus tyrannidi resistere posset. Bellarmine, a [Page 394]man with you of approved Vertue, Learning and Judg­ment, hath declared his opinion for the lawfulness of it, in saying, that want of power to maintain a Rebellion, was the only reason that the Primitive Christians did not Rebel against the persecuting Emperors. By the same rule, seeing the Priests and Scribes and Pharisees, men of greatest re­pute among the Jews for Vertue, Learning and Wisdom, held it a lawful and a pious work to persecute Christ and his Apostles, it was lawful for the People to follow their Leaders: for herein, according to your Doctrine, they proceeded prudently, and according to the conduct of opinion, maturoly weighed and approved by men as it seemed to them of Vertue, Learning and Wisdom; nay by such as sate in Moses Chair, and of whom it was said, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: which Universal you pretend is to be understood Uni­versally, and without any restriction or limitation. And as lawful was it for the Pagans to persecute the Primi­mitive Christians, because Trajan and Pliny, men of great Vertue and Wisdom were of this opinion. Lastly, that most impious and detestable Doctrine, (which by a foul calumny you impute to me, who abhor and detest it,) that men may be saved in any Religion, follows from this ground unavoidably. For certainly Religion is one of those things which is necessary only because it is 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. For neither are men saved by good luck, but only by obedience; neither are they damned for their ill Fortune but for sin and disobedi­ence. Death is the wages of nothing but sin: and S. James sure intended to deliver the adequate cause of sin and Death in those words, Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth Death. Seeing therefore in such things, according to your Doctrine, it is sufficient for avoiding of sin, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some pro­bable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of [Page 395]Learning, Vertue and Wisdom: and seeing neither Jews want their Gamaliels, nor Pagans their Antoninus's nor any Sect of Christians such professors and maintainers of their several Sects, as are esteemed by the People, which know no better (and that very reasonably) men of Vertue, Learning, and Wisdom, it follows evidently that the embracing their Religion proceeds upon such reason as may warrant their action to be prudent, and this is suffici­ent for avoiding of sin, and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation, for that in humane affairs, & discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. I have stood the longer upon the refutation of this Doctrine, not on­ly because it is impious, and because bad use is made of it, and worse may be, but only because the contrary po­sition, That men are bound for avoiding sin always to take the safest way, is a fair and sure Foundation, for a clear con­futation of the main conclusion, which in this Chapter you labour in vain to prove, and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones self, and of obedience to God, Papists (unless ignorance ex­cuse them) are in state of sin as long as they remain in subjection to the Roman Church.

9. for 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 but into your consideration these ensuing Controversies: Whether it be lawful to worship Pictures? to Picture the Trinity? to invocate Saints and Angels? to deny Lay-men the Cup in the Sacrament? to adore the Sacraments? to prohibit certain Orders of Men and Women to Marry? to Celebrate the publick ser­vice of God in a language which 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. [Page 396]We pretend, and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us, that in all these things, you violate the manifest commandments of God; and alledge such Texts of Scripture against you, as, if you would weigh them with any indifference, would put the matter out of question, but certainly you cannot with any mo­desty deny, but that at least they make it questionable. On the other side, you cannot with any face pretend, and if you should, know not how to go about to prove, that there is any necessity of doing any of these things; that it is unlawful not to worship Pictures, not to Picture the Trinity, not to invocate Saints and Angels, not to give all men the entire Sacrament, not to adore the Eu­charist, not to prohibit Marriage, not to Celebrate Divine Service in an unknown Tongue: I say you neither do nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoyns us, no nor so much as an Evangelical Council that advises us to do any of these things. Now where no law is there can be no sin, for sin is the transgression of the Law; It remains therefore that our forbearing to do these things, must be free from all danger and suspicion of sin; whereas your acting of them, must be, if not certainly impious, without all contradiction questionable and dangerous. I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded, that if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also (as most certainly it is,) the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly the way of Protestants must be more safe, and the Roman way more dangerous.

12. Ad §. 5.] Here you begin to make some shew of arguing; and the first Argument put into form stands thus, Every least Error in Faith destroys the nature of Faith; It is certain that some Protestants do Err, and therefore they want the substance of Faith. The Major of which Syllo­gism I have formerly confuted by unanswerable Argu­ments out of one of your own best Authors, who shews plainly that he hath amongst you, as strange as you make it, many other Abettors. Besides, if it were true, it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans have no Faith, in as much as you oppose one another as much as Armi­nians and Calvinists.

13. The Second Argument stands thus, Since all Prote­stants pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all: Which Argument if it were good, then what can hinder but this must also be so, Since Protestants and Papists pretend the like certainty; it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all! And this too: Since all Christians pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all! And thirdly this: Since men of all Religions pretend a like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any at all! And lastly this: Since oft-times they which are abu­sed with a specious Paralogism, pretend the like certain­ty with them which demonstrate, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all! Certainly Sir, Zeal and the Devil did strangely blind you, if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequen­ces of your positions, if you did see it, and yet would set them down, you deserve worse censure. Yet such as these, are all the Arguments wherewith you conceive your self to have proved undoubtedly, that Protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand.

14. Your third and fourth Argument may be thus put into one; Protestants cannot tell what points in particular be Fundamental; therefore they cannot tell whether they or their Brethren do not Err Fundamentally, and whether their difference be not Fundamental. Both which deductions I have formerly shewed to be most inconsequent; for know­ing the Scripture to contain all Fundamentals, (though many more points besides, which makes it difficult to say precisely what is Fundamental and what not,) know­ing this I say and believing it, what can hinder but that I may be well assured, that I believe all Fundamen­tals, and that all who believe the Scripture sincerely as well as I, do not differ from me in any thing Fundamental?

15. In the close of this Section, you say, that you omit to add that we want the Sacrament of Repentance institut­ed for the remission of sins, or at least we must confess that we hold it not necessary: and yet our own Brethren the Cen­tury writers acknowledge that in the times of Cyprian [Page 398] and Tertullian, private Confession even of thoughts was used, and that it was then commanded and thought necessary; and then our Ordination, you say, is very doubtful and all that depends upon it. Answer, I also omit to answer, 1. That your Brother Rhenanus, acknowledges the contrary, and assures us that the Confession then required and in use, was publick, and before the Church, and that your auricular Confession was not then in the World; for which his Mouth is stopped by your Index Expurgatorius. 2. That your Brother Arcudius acknowledges, that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to Infants, and e­steemed necessary, or at least profitable for them, and the giving it shews no less; and now I would know whether you will acknowledg your Church bound to give it, and to esteem so of it? 3. That it might be then commanded, and being commanded be thought necessary, and yet be but a Church Constitution. Nei­ther will I deny, if the present Church could, and would so order it, that the abuses of it might be prevented, and conceiving it profitable, should enjoyn the use of it, but that being commanded it would be necessary. 4. Concerning our Ordinations, besides that I have pro­ved it impossible that they should be so doubtful as yours▪ according to your own principles; I answer, that expe­rience shews them certainly sufficient to bring men to Faith and Repentance, and consequently to Salvation; and that if there were any secret defect of any thing ne­cessary, which we cannot help, God will certainly supply it.

19. It is remarkable against what you say, §. 7. That any small Error in Faith destroys all Faith, that S. Austin, whose authority is here stood upon, thought otherwise: He conceived the Donatists to hold some Error in Faith and yet not to have no Faith. His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident, you are with us (saith he to the Donatist. Ep. 48.) in Baptism, in the Creed, in the other Sacraments: And again. Super gestis cum eme­rit: Thou hast proved to me that thou hast Faith; prove to me likewise that thou hast Charity. Lib. 5. prope initium. Parallel to which words are these of Optatus, Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiastical con­versation, [Page 399]common lessons, the same Faith, the same Sacraments. Where by the way we may observe, that in the judg­ments of these Fathers, even the Donatists, though He­reticks and Schismaticks, gave true Ordination, the true Sacrament of Matrimony, true Sacramental Absolution, Confirmation, the true Sacrament of the Eucharist, true extream Unction; or else (choose you whether) some of these were not then esteemed Sacraments. But for Or­dination, whether he held it a Sacrament or no, cer­tainly he held that it remained with them entire: for so he says in express terms, in his Book against Par­menianus his Epistle. Which Doctrine if you can re­concile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church, Eris mihi magnus Apollo.

20. Ad §. 8.] Obj. You say there is un inevitable ne­cessity for us, either to grant Salvation to your Church, or to entail certain damnation upon our own, because ours can have no being till Luther, unless yours be supposed to have been the true Church. I answer, this cause is no cause: For first, as Luther had no being before Luther, and yet he was when he was, though he was not before; so there is no repugnance in the terms, but that there might be a true Church after Luther, though there were none for some Ages before; as since Columbus his time, there have been Christians in America, though before there were none for many Ages. For neither do you shew, neither does it appear, that the generation of Churches is Univocal, that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church: nor that the present being of a true Church, depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all Ages; any more than the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetual pedigree of them. For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity, yet I see no­thing in your Book to make me understand, that the truth of the present depends upon it, nor any thing that can hinder, but that a false Church, (Gods providence over­watching and over-ruling it,) may preserve the means of confuting their own Heresies, and reducing men to truth, and so raising a true Church, I mean the integrity [Page 400]and the Authority of the word of God with men. Thus the Jews preserve means to make men Christians, and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants, and Pro­testants (which you say are a false Church) do, as you pretend, preserve means to make men Papists; that is, their own Bibles, out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists. Secondly, you shew not, nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours. For though you talk vainly, as if you were the only men in the World be­fore Luther, yet the World knows that this is but talk, and that there were other Christians besides you, which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not been. Lastly, you shew not, neither doth it appear, that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church, doth necessarily import, that we must grant Salvation to it, unless by it you understand the ignorant members of it, which is a very unusual Synechdoche.

21. Whereas you say, that Catholicks never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved. I answ. S. Austin himself granted that those among them, who sought the Truth, being ready when they found it to cor­rect their Error were not Hereticks, and therefore notwith­standing their Error might be saved. And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists.

Therefore the Argument of the Donatists, is as good as that of the Papists against Protestants. For the Dona­tists argued thus, speaking to the Catholicks, Your selves confess our Baptism, Sacraments and Faith good and avail­able. We deny yours to be so, and say there is no Church, no Salvation amongst you; Therefore it is safest for all to joyn with us.

22. S. Austins words are (cont. lit. petil. l. 2. c. 108.) Pe­tilianus dixit, venite ad Ecclesiam populi & aufugite Tradi­tores, Cont. lit. Pe­til. l. 2. c. 108. si perire non vultis: Petilian saith, come to the Church ye People, and fly from the Traditours, if ye will not be damned; for that ye may know that they being guilty, esteem well of our Faith, behold I Baptize these whom they have in­fected, but they receive those whom we have Baptized. Where [Page 401]it is plain, that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church, and excludes the Catholicks from salvation absolutely. And whereas you say, the Catholicks never yielded that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation, I say it appears by what I have alledged out of S. Austin, that they yielded both these were among the Donatists, as much as we yield them to be among the Papists. As for D. Potters acknowledgment, that they maintained an error in the matter and nature of it Heretical: This proves them but material Hereticks, whom you do not exclude from possibility of Salvation. So that all things considered, this argument must be much more for­cible from the Donatists against the Catholicks, than from Papists against Protestants, in regard Protestants grant Pa­pists no more hope of salvation than Papists grant Prote­stants: whereas the Donatists excluded absolutely all but their own part from hope of Salvation, so far as to account them no Christians that were not of it: the Catholicks mean while accounting them Brethren, and freeing those among them, from the imputation of Heresie, who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cùm invenerint; sought for truth carefully, being ready when they found it to correct their errors.

23. Whereas you say, That the Argument for the certainty of their Baptism (because it was confessed good by Catholicks, whereas the Baptism of Catholicks was not confessed by them to be good,) is not so good as yours, touching the certainty of your Salvation grounded on the confession of Protestants, because we confess there is no damnable error in the doctrin or practice of the Roman Church: I Answer, no: we confess no such matter, and though you say so a hundred times, no repeti­tion will make it true. We profess plainly, that many dam­nable errors plainly repugnant to the precepts of Christ both Ceremonial and Moral, more plainly than this of Rebaptization, and therefore more damnable, are believ­ed and professed by you. And therefore seeing this is the only disparity you can devise, and this is vanished, it re­mains that as good an answer as the Catholicks made touching the certainty of their Baptism, as good may we [Page 402]make, and with much more evidence of Reason, touch­ing the security and certainty of our Salvation.

24. By the way I desire to be informed, seeing you affirm that Rebaptizing those whom Hereticks had baptized was a sacriledge, and a profession of a damnable Heresie, when it began to be so? If from the beginning it were so, then was Cyprian a sacrilegious professor of a damnable heresie, and yet a Saint and a Martyr. If it were not so, then did your Church excommunicate Firmilian and others, and separate from them without sufficient ground of Excom­munication or Separation, which is Schismatical. You see what difficulties you run into on both sides; choose whether you will, but certainly both can hardly be a­voided.

27. What S. Austin answers to the Donatists argument, fits us in answer to yours, as if it had been made for it; for as S. Austin says, that Catholicks approve the Doctrin of Donatists, but abhor their Heresie of Re-baptization: So we say, that we approve those fundamental and simple neces­sary Truths which you retain, by which some good souls among you may be saved, but abhor your many Supersti­tions and Heresies. And as he says, that as gold is good, yet ought not to be sought for among a company of thieves, and Baptism good but not to be sought for in the Conven­ticles of Donatists: so say we, that the Truths you retain are good, and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you to salvation, yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists, who hold with them a mixture of many vanities, and many impieties.

30. Obj. But Protestants do either exclude Hope by Despair, with the Doctrin that our Saviour died not for all, and that such want grace sufficient to salvation; or else by vain presum­ption grounded upon a fantastical perswasion that they are pre­destinate, which Faith must exclude all fear and trembling; and you add, though some Protestants may relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrin, yet none of them can have true hope while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those, who defend such Doctrins.

Ans. See numb. 4. in the fol. edit. All this may be as forcibly returned upon Papists, as it is urged against Protestants; in as much as all Pa­pists either hold the Doctrine of Predetermination and absolute Election, or Communicate with those that do hold it. Now from this Doctrin what is more prone and obvious, than for every natural man (without Gods espe­cial preventing grace) to make this practical collection; either I am elected, or not elected; if I be, no impiety possible can ever damn me: If not, no possible industry can ever save me? Now whether this disjunctive perswa­sion be not as likely (as any doctrin of Protestants) to ex­tinguish Christian Hope and filial fear, and to lead some men to despair, others to presumption, all to a wretchless and impious life, I desire you ingenuously to inform me; and if you deny it, assure your self, you shall be contra­dicted and confuted, by men of your own Religion and your own society; and taught at length this charitable do­ctrin, that though mens opinions may be charged with the absurd consequences which naturally flow from them, yet the men themselves are not; I mean, if they perceive not the consequence of these absurdities, nor do not own and acknowledge, but disclaim and detest them.

I add 1. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the truth of this proposition, Christ died for all, nor to subscribe to that sense of it, which your Dominicans put upon it; neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society, deny that they as well as the Calvi­nists, take away the distinction of sufficient and effectual grace, and indeed hold none to be sufficient, but only that which is effectual. 2. Whereas you say, They cannot make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly be­lieve that before any good works they are justified, and justifi­ed by faith alone, and by that faith whereby they certainly be­lieve they are justified: I answer, There is no Protestant but believes that Faith, Repentance, and universal Obe­dience, are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternal happiness. This being granted, the rest is but a speculative Controversie, a Question about words which would quickly vanish, but that men affect not to under­stand [Page 404]one another. As if a company of Physicians were in consultation, and should all agree, that three Medicins and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Pati­ents health, this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health; though concerning the proper and specifical effects of these three Medicins, there should be amongst them as many differences as men: So likewise being generally at accord that these three things, Faith, Hope, and Charity, are necessary to salvation, so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it, and he which hath them all cannot fail of it, is it not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternal Salvation? And seeing Charity is a full compre­hension of all good works, they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved, what sense is there in saying, they cannot make their calling certain by good works? They know what salvation is as well as you, and you have as much reason to desire it: They believe it as heartily as you, that there is no good work but shall have its proper reward, and that there is no possibility of ob­taining the eternal reward without good works: and why then may not this Doctrin be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good works?

31. You say, that they certainly believe that before any good works they are justified: But this is a calumny. There is no Protestant but requires to Justification, Remission of sins, and to Remission of sins they all require Repentance, and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good work, being indeed, if it be rightly understood, and according to the sense of the word in Scripture, an effectual conversion from all sin to all holiness. But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sins past, and a bare purpose of amendment, yet even this is a good work, and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sins, and Remission of sins to justification, cannot with candor be pretended to believe, that they are justified before any good work.

32. Obj. You say, They believe themselves justified by faith alone, and that by that faith whereby they believe them­selves justified:

Answ. Some peradventure do so, but withal they believe that that faith which is alone, and unaccompanied with sincere and universal obedience, is to be esteemed not faith but presumption, and is at no hand sufficient to justifica­fication: that though Charity be not imputed unto justifi­cation, yet it is required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified, and that though in regard of the imperfection of it, no man can be justified by it, yet that on the other side, no man can be justified without it. So that upon the whole matter, a man may truly and safely say, that the Doctrin of these Protestants taken altoge­ther, is not a Doctrin of Liberty, not a Doctrin that turns hope into presumption, and carnal security, though it may justly be feared, that many licentious persons, taking it by halves, have made this wicked use of it. For my part, I do heartily wish, that by publick Authority it were so ordered, that no man should ever Preach or Print this Doctrin that Faith alone justifies, unless he joyns this to­gether with it, that universal obedience is necessary to sal­vation. And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith, without the works of the Law, were never read in the Church, but when the thir­teenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians con­cerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be, to prevent misprision, read together with them.

33. Obj. Whereas you say, that some Protestants do ex­presly affirm the former point to be the soul of the Church, &c. and that therefore they must want the Theological vertue of Hope, and that none can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in their Communion.

I Answer, They have great reason to believe the Doctrin of Justification by faith only, a point of great weight and importance, if it be rightly understood: that is, they have reason to esteem it a principal and necessary duty of a Christian, to place his hope of justification and salvation, not in the perfection of his own righteousness (which if it be imperfect will not justifie,) but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction: and yet notwith­standing this, nay the rather for this, may preserve them­selves [Page 406]in the right temper of good Christians, which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear. If this Doctrin be otherwise expounded than I have here expounded, I will not undertake the justification of it, only I will say (that which I may do truly) that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian, but that he did believe these divine Truths; That he must make his cal­ling certain by good works: That he must work out his salva­tion with fear and trembling, and that while he does not so, he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation: I say I ne­ver met with any who did not believe these divine Truths, and that with a more firm, and a more unshaken assent, than he does that himself is predestinate, and that he is justified by believing himself justified. I never met with any such, who if he saw there were a necessity to do either, would not rather forgo his belief of these Doctrins than the former: these which he sees disputed and contradict­ed and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Ar­guments; then those, which being the express words of Scripture, whosoever should call into question, could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe, that their full assurance of the former Doctrins doth very well qua­lifie their perswasion of the latter, and that the former (as also the lives of many of them do sufficiently testifie) are more effectual to temper their hope, and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of Gods favor, built upon the conscience of his love and fear, than the latter can be to swell and puff them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption. This reason, joyned with our experience of the honest and religious conversati­on of many men of this opinion, is a sufficient ground for Charity, to hope well of their hope: and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive, but rather most accepta­ble to God, if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion, we embrace each ether with the strict embraces of love and Communion. To you and your Church we leave it, to separate Christians from the Church, and to prescribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes: As for [Page 407]our selves, we conceive a charitable judgment of our Bre­thren and their errors, though untrue, much more plea­sing to God than a true judgment, if it be uncharitable; and therefore shall always chuse (if we do err) to err on the milder and more merciful part, and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected, than eject those that deserve to be retained.

34. Lastly, whereas you say, that seeing Protestants dif­fer about the point of Justification, you must needs infer that they want unity in faith, and consequently all faith, and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamental: I Answer, to the first of these inferences, that as well might you infer it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Policrates; upon Ste­phen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian: inasmuch as it is un­deniably evident, that what one of those esteemed necessa­ry to salvation the other esteemed not so. But points of Doctrin (as all other things) are as they are, and not as they are esteemed: neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted, nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued. But as the ancient Philosophers, (whose different opinions about the soul of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima, and Ci­cero's Tusculan Questions,) notwithstanding their divers opi­nions touching the nature of the soul, yet all of them had souls, and souls of the same nature: Or as those Physici­ans who dispute whether the brain or heart be the princi­pal part of a man, yet all of them have brains and have hearts, and herein agree sufficiently: So likewise, though some Protestants esteem that Doctrin the soul of the Church, which others do not so highly value, yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soul of the Church may be in both sorts of them; and though one account that a necessary truth which others account neither neces­sary nor perhaps true, yet this notwithstanding, in those Truths which are truly and really necessary they may all agree. For no Argument can be more sophistical than this: They differ in some points which they esteem ne­cessary; Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so.

35. Now as concerning the other inference, That they cannot agree what points are fundamental: I have said and proved formerly that there is no such necessity as you ima­gin or pretend, that men should certainly know what is, and what is not fundamental. They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture, believe all things fundamental, and are at sufficient Unity in matters of Faith, though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamental and what is profitable: nay though by error they mistake some vain, or perhaps hurt­ful opinions for necessary and fundamental Truths. Cap. 3. §. 53. & alibt. Be­sides, I have shewed above, that as Protestants do not agree (for you over-reach in saying they cannot) touching what points are fundamental; so neither do you agree what points are defined and so to be accounted, and what are not: nay, nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended Authority of defining: some of you setling it in the Pope himself, though alone without a Council: Others in a Council, though divided from the Pope: Others only in the conjunction of Council and Pope: Others not in this neither, but in the acceptation of the present Church Universal: Lastly, others not at­tributing it to this neither, but only to the perpetual Suc­cession of the Church of all Ages: of which divided Com­pany it is very evident and undeniable, that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defined and therefore necessary, which the latter, according to their own grounds, have no obligation to do, nay cannot do so upon any firm and sure and infallible foundation.