-r-<. 
 
 III- 
 
 L 
 
 ilii!!i;! 
 
 -'•^1 
 
 ;ii;iii; 
 
 ^'•iiti 
 
 :/^ 
 
 ;i 
 
 ,( 
 
 7 
 
f  DANIELS  &  SMITH'S  -^ 
 ^  Cheap  Book  Store,  ^ 
 I  No.  36  North  Sixth  St.  * 
 
 {.      PHILADELPHIA,     f 
 
 6  -  6  .  '<D  2_ 
 
 Stem  f^e  feifitatij  of 
 
 (ptofcBBox  TJJifftctm  ^enrg  (Preen 
 
 (jSequeaf^eb  6^  ^i^n  to 
 t^e  £i6tari?  of 
 
 (Princeton  Cfeofogtcaf  ^emindrg 
 
 BX  4809  .C455  1846 
 Chillingworth,  William,  1602 
 -1644. 
 
O^r^  r^  /^((j 
 
THE 
 
 RELIGION  OF  PROTESTANTS 
 
 SAFE  WAY  TO  SALVATION. 
 
 ■^ 
 
 / 
 WILLIAM  CHILLINGWORTH,  M.A. 
 
 A  NEW  AND  COMPLETE  EDITION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 HENRY  G.  BOHN,  YORK  STREET,  COVENT  GARDEN. 
 
 1846 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 FAGS 
 
 The  Preface  to  the  Author  of  Charity  Maintained  ;  with  an  An- 
 swer to  his  pamphlet,  entitled,  A  Direction  to  N.  N.      .         .1 
 The  Author  of  Charity  Maintained,  his  Preface  to  the  Reader         24 
 The  Answer  to  the  Preface        ...         ^         ...     S3 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 The  state  of  the  question ;  with  a  summary  of  the  reasons  for 
 which,  amongst  men  of  different  religions,  one  side  only  can  be 
 saved  53 
 
 ANSWER  I. 
 
 Shewing,  that  the  adversary  grants  the  former  question,  and  pro- 
 poseth  a  new  one ;  and  that  there  is  no  reason  why,  among 
 men  of  different  opinions  and  communions,  one  side  only  can 
 be  saved  ..........     59 
 
 CHAPTER  II. 
 
 What  is  that  means  whereby  the  revealed  truths  of  God  are  con- 
 veyed to  our  understanding,  and  which  must  determine  con- 
 troversies in  faith  and  religion         ......     72 
 
 ANSWER  II. 
 
 Concerning  the  means  whereby  the  revealed  truths  of  God  are 
 conveyed  to  our  understanding,  and  which  must  determine 
 controversies  in  faith  and  religion  90 
 
 CHAPTER  III. 
 
 That  the  distinction  of  points  fundamental  and  not  fundamental 
 is  neither  pertinent  nor  true  in  our  present  controversy  ;  and 
 tliat  the  Catholic  visible  Church  cannot  err  in  either  kind  of 
 the  said  points 157 
 
 ANSWER  III. 
 
 Wherein  it  is  maintained,  that  the  distinction  of  points  funda- 
 mental and  not  fundamental  is  in  this  present  controversy  good 
 and  pertinent ;  and  that  the  catholic  church  may  err  in  the 
 latter  kind  of  the  said  points 174 
 
IV  COyTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 To  say  that  the  Creed  contains  all  points  necessarily  to  be 
 believed,  is  neither  pertinent  to  tlie  question  in  Imnd,  nor  in 
 itself  true 229 
 
 ANSWER  IV. 
 
 Wherein  is  shewed  that  the  Creed  contains  all  necessary  points 
 of  mere  belief 245 
 
 CHAPTER  V. 
 
 That  Luther,  Calvin,  their  associates,  and  all  wlio  began  or  con- 
 tinue the  separation  from  the  external  communion  of  the 
 Roman  Church,  are  guilty  of  the  proper  and  formal  sin  of 
 schism 290 
 
 ANSWER  V. 
 
 The  separation  of  Protestants  from  the  Roman  Church,  being 
 upon  just  and  necessary  causes,  is  not  any  way  guilty  of  schism  328 
 
 CHAPTER  VI. 
 
 That  Luther  and  the  rest  of  Protestants  have  added  heresy  unto 
 schism  389 
 
 ANSWER  VI. 
 
 That  Protestants  are  not  heretics         .         .         •         •         .         .412 
 
 CHAPTER  VIL 
 
 In  regard  of  the  precept  of  charity  towards  one's  self,  Protestants 
 are  in  a  state  of  sin  as  long  as  they  remain  separated  from  the 
 Roman  Church 470 
 
 ANSWER  VIL 
 
 That  Protestants  are  not  bound  by  the  charity  which  they  owe  to 
 themselves  to  re-unite  themselves  to  the  Roman  Church  .  479 
 
 The  Conclusion 501 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO   THE    AUTHOa    OP 
 
 CHAEITY    MAINTAINED; 
 
 WITH   AX 
 
 ANSWER  TO  HIS  PAMPHLET, 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 A    DIR'ECTION    TO     N.    N. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Upon  the  first  news  of  the  publication  of  your  book,  I  used  all 
 diligence  udth  speed  to  procure  it ;  and  came  wiih  such  a  mind  to 
 the  reading  of  it,  as  St.  Austin,  before  he  was  a  settled  catholic, 
 brought  to  liis  conference  with  Faustus  the  Manichee.  For  as  he 
 thought  that  if  anything  more  than  ordinary  might  be  said  in  defence 
 of  the  Manichean  doctrine,  Faustus  was  the  man  from,  whom  it 
 was  to  be  expected ;  so  my  persuasion  concerning  you  was.  Si 
 Pergama  dextra  defcndi  possunt,  certe  hac  defensa  videbo.  For  I 
 conceived,  that  among  the  champions  of  the  Roman  church,  the 
 English  in  reason  must  be  the  best,  or  equal  to  the  best,  as  being 
 by  most  expert  masters  trained  up  purposely  for  this  war,  and  per- 
 petually practised  in  it.  Among  the  English,  I  saw  the  Jesuits  would 
 yield  the  first  place  to  none  ;  and  men  so  wise  in  their  generation 
 as  the  Jesuits  were,  if  they  had  any  Achilles  among  them,  I  pre- 
 sumed, would  make  choice  of  him  for  this  service.  And  besides, 
 I  had  good  assurance,  that  in  the  framing  of  this  building,  though 
 you  were  the  only  architect,  yet  you  wanted  not  the  assistance  of 
 many  diligent  hands  to  bring  you  in  choice  materials  towards  it ; 
 nor  of  many  careful  and  watchful  eyes  to  correct  the  errors  of  your 
 work,  if  any  should  chance  to  escape  you.  Great  reason,  therefore, 
 had  I  to  expect  great  matters  from  you,  and  that  your  book  should 
 have  in  it  the  spirit  and  elixir  of  all  that  can  be  said  in  defence  of 
 your  church  and  doctrine  ;  and  to  assure  myself,  that  if  my  resolu- 
 tion not  to  believe  it  were  not  built  upon  the  rock  of  evident 
 grounds  and  reasons,  but  only  upon  some  sandy  and  deceitful 
 appearances,  now  the  wind,  and  storm,  and  lloods  were  coming 
 ■which  would  undoubtedly  overthrow  it. 
 
 E 
 
2  PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED. 
 
 2.    IS  either  truly  were  you  more  willing  to  effect  such  au  altera- 
 tion m  me,  than  I  was  to  have  it  etfected.     For  my  desire  is  to  go 
 the  right  way  to  eternal  hapiuess.    But  whether  this  way  lay  on  the 
 right   hand,   or  the  left,  or  straight  forward  ;   whether  it  be  by 
 following  a  living  guide,  or  by  seeking  my  direction  in  a  book, 
 or  by  hearkening  to  the  secret  whisper  of  some  private  spirit ;   to 
 me  it  is  indifferent.     And  he  that  is  otherwise  affected,  and  hath 
 not   a  traveller's  indifference,  which  Epictetus  requn-es  in  all  that 
 would  find  the  truth,  but  much  desires,  in  respect  of  his  ease,  or 
 pleasure,  or  profit,  or  advancement,   or  satisfaction  of  friends,  or 
 any  human  consideration,  that  one  way  should  be  true  rather  than 
 another  ;  it  is  odds  but  he  will  take  his  desire  that  it  should  be  so, 
 for  an  assurance  that  it  is  so.     But  I,  for  my  part,  unless  I  deceive 
 myself,  was,  and  still  am,  so  affected,   as   I  have  made  profession ; 
 not  willing,  I  confess,  to  take  any  thing  upon  trust,  and  to  believe 
 it  without   asking  myself  why  ;  no,  nor  able  to  command  myself 
 (were   I  never   so  willing)  to  follow,  hke  a  sheep,  every  shepherd 
 that  should  take  upon  him  to  guide  me,  or  every  Hock  that  should 
 chance  to  go  before  me  ;   but  most  apt  and  most  willing  to  be  led 
 by  reason  to  any  way,  or  from  it,  and  always  submitting  all  other 
 reasons  to  this  one — God  hath  said  so,  therefore  it  is  true.    Nor  yet 
 was  I  so   unreasonable   as  to  expect  mathematical  demonstrations 
 from  you  in  matters  plainly  incapable  of  them,  such  as  are  to  be 
 believed,  and  if  we  speak  properly,  cannot  be  known  ;  such,  there- 
 fore, I  expected  not.     For  as  he  is  an  unreasonable  master,  who 
 requires  a  stronger  assent  to  his  conclusions  than  his  arguments 
 deserve  ;   so  I  conceive  him  a  froward  and  undisciplined  scholar, 
 who  desires  stronger  arguments  for  a  conclusion  than  the  matter 
 will    bear.     But  had  you  represented  to  my  understanding  such 
 reasons  of  your  doctrine,  as,  being  weighed  in  an  even  balance, 
 held  by  an  even  hand,  with  those  on  the  other  side,  would  have 
 turned  the  scale,  and  have  made  your  religion  more  credible  than 
 the  contrary  :   certainly   I   should  have  despised  the  shame  of  one 
 more  alteration,  and  with  both  mine  arms,  and  with  all  my  heart, 
 most  readily  have  embraced  it  :   such  was  my  expectation  from  you, 
 and  such  my  preparation,  which  I  brought  with  me  to  the  reading 
 of  your  book 
 
 .■i  Would  you  know  now  what  the  event  was,  what  effect  was 
 wrought  in  me,  by  the  perusal  and  consideration  of  it  ?  To  deal 
 truly  and  ingenuously  with  you,  I  fell  somewhat  in  my  good  opinion 
 both  of  your  sufficiency  and  sincerity,  but  was  exceedingly  con- 
 firmed in  my  ill  opinion  of  the  cause  maintained  by  you.  I  found 
 ■every  where  snares  that  might  entrap,  and  colours  that  might 
 <leceive  the  simple  ;  but  nothing  that  might  persuade  and  very  httle 
 that  might  move  an  understanding  man,  and  one  that  can  discern 
 between  discourse  and  sophistry  :  in  short,  I  was  verily  per- 
 suaded, that  1  plainly  saw,  and  could  make  it  appear  to  all 
 dispassionate  and  unprejudicate  judges,  that  a  vein  of  sophistry 
 an.l  calumny  did  run  clean  through  it  from  the  beginning  to  the 
 end.  And  letting  some  friends  understand  so  much,  I  suffered 
 myself  to  be  persuaded  by  them,  that  it  would  not  be  either  unproper 
 for  me,  or  unacceptable  to  God,  nor  peradventure  altogether  un- 
 
WITH  AN  ANSWER  TO  HIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  3 
 
 serviceable  to  bis  churcb,  nor  justly  oifensive  to  3^011  (if  yoa  indeed 
 ■were  a  lover  of  trutb,  and  not  a  maintainer  of  a  faction),  if  setting 
 aside  tbe  second  part,  which  was  in  a  manner  wholly  employed  in 
 particular  disputes,  repetitions,  and  references,  and  in  v/ranglings 
 with  Dr.  Potter  about  the  sense  of  some  supernumerary  quotations, 
 and  whereon  the  main  question  no  way  depends,  I  would  make  a 
 fair  and  ingenuous  answer  to  the  first,  wherein  the  substance  of  the 
 present  controversy  is  confessedly  contained  ;  and  which,  if  it  were 
 clearly  answered,  no  man  would  desire  any  other  answer  to  the 
 second.  This,  therefore,  I  undertook,  with  a  full  resolution  to  be 
 an  adversary  to  your  errors,  but  a  friend  and  servant  to  your 
 person  :  and  so  much  the  more  a  friend  to  your  ])erson,  by  how 
 much  the  severer  and  more  rigid  adversar}'  I  was  to  your  errors. 
 
 4.  In  this  work  my  conscience  bears  me  witness,  that  I  have, 
 according  to  your  advice,  "  proceeded  always  vvith  this  cousideration, 
 that  I  am  to  give  a  most  strict  account  of  every  line  and  Vv'ord  that 
 passeth  under  my  pen  ;"  and  therefore  have  been  precisely  careful, 
 for  the  matter  of  my  book,  to  defend  truth  only,  and  only  by  truth ; 
 and  then  scrupulously  fearful  of  scandalizing  you  or  any  man  with 
 the  manner  of  handling  it.  From  this  rule,  sure  I  am,  I  have 
 not  willingly  swerved  in  either  part  of  it ;  and,  that  I  might  not  do 
 it  ignorantiy,  I  have  not  only  myself  examined  mine  own  work 
 (perhaps  with  more  severity  than  I  have  done  yours),  as  conceiving 
 it  a  bas.e  and  unchristian  thing  to  go  about  to  satisfy  others  with 
 what  I  myself  am  not  fully  satisfied],  but  have  also  made  it  pass  the 
 fiery  trial  of  the  exact  censures  of  many  understanding  judges, 
 always  heartily  wishing  that  you  yourself  had  been  of  the  quorian. 
 But  they  who  did  undergo  this  burden,  as  they  wanted  not  a  suffi- 
 ciency to  discover  any  heterodox  doctrine,  so  I  am  sure  they  have 
 been  veiy  careful  to  let  nothing  slip  dissonant  from  truth,  or  from 
 the  authorized  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England  :  and,  therefore, 
 wdiatsoever  causeless  and  groundless  jealousy  any  man  may  entertain 
 concerning  my  person,  yet  my  book.,  I  presume,  in  reason  and 
 common  equity,  should  be  free  from  them  ;  wherein  I  hope  that 
 little  or  nothing  hath  escaped  so  many  eyes  which,  being  w^eighed 
 in  the  balance  of  the  sanctuary,  will  be  found  too  light  :  and  in 
 this  hope  T  am  much  confirmed  by  3'our  strange  carriage  of  yourself 
 in  this  whole  business.  For  though,  b}'  some  crooked^^^:  sinister 
 arts,  you  have  got  my  answer  into  your  hands,  now  a^^ar  since 
 and  upwards,  as  I  have  been  assured  by  some  that  profess  to  know^ 
 it,*  and  those  of  your  own  party ;  though  you  could  not  want 
 every  day  fan-  opportunities  of  sending  to  me,  and  acquainting  me 
 with  any  exceptions  which  you  conceived  might  be  justly  taken  to 
 it,  or  any  part  of  it  (than  which  nothing  could  have  been  more 
 welcome  to  me)  ;  yet  hitherto  you  have  not  been  pleased  to  acquaint 
 me  with  any  one  :  nay  more,  though  you  have  been  at  sundry  times, 
 and  by  several  ways,  entreated  and  solicited,  nay,  pressed  and  im- 
 portuned by  me,  to  join  with  me  in  a  private  discussion  of  the 
 controversy  between  us,  before  the  publication  of  my  answer  (be- 
 cause I  was  extremely  unwilling  to  publish  anything  which  had  not 
 passed  all  manner  of  trials  ;  as  desiring,  no;  that  I,  or  my  side,  but 
 *  Some  that  know  it. — Oxf, 
 
 b2 
 
4  PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED, 
 
 that  truth  might  overcome,  on  which  side  soever  it  was) ;  though 
 I  have  protested  to  you,  and  set  it  under  my  hand  (which  protesta- 
 tion, by  God's  help,  I  would  have  made  good),  if  you,  or  any  other, 
 who  would  undertake  your  cause,  would  give  me  a  fair  meeting,  and 
 choose  out  of  your  whole  book  any  one  argument  whereof  you  was 
 most  confident,  and  by  which  you  would  be  content  the  rest  should 
 be  judged  of,  and  make  it  appear  that  I  had  not,  or  could  not, 
 answer  it,  that  I  would  desist  from  the  work  which  I  had  undertaken, 
 and  answer  none  at  all ;  though  by  all  the  arts  which  possibly  I 
 could  devise,  I  have  provoked  you  to  such  a  trial ;  and  in  particular 
 by  assuring  you,  that  if  you  refused  it,  the  world  should  be  informed 
 of  your  tergiversation ;  notwithstanding  all  this,  you  have  per- 
 petually and  obstinately  dechned  it !  which  to  my  understanding  is 
 a  very  evident  sign,  that  there  is  not  any  truth  in  your  cause,  nor 
 (which  is  impossible  there  should  be)  strength  in  your  arguments  ! 
 especially  considering  what  our  Saviour  hath  told  us,  Every  one 
 that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his 
 deeds  should  be  reproved ;  hut  he  that  doeth  truth  cometh  to  the 
 light,  that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest,  that  they  are  lorought 
 in  God. 
 
 5.  In  the  mean  w-hile,  though  you  despaired  of  compassing  your 
 desire  this  honest  way,  yet  you  have  not  omitted  to  tempt  me,  bj'' 
 base  and  unworthy  considerations,  to  desert  the  cause  which  I  had 
 undertaken;  letting  me  understand  from  you,  by  an  acquaintance' 
 common  to  us  both,  how  that  "  in  case  my  work  should  come  to 
 light,  my  inconstancy  in  religion"  (so  you  miscall  my  constancy  in 
 following  that  way  to  heaven,  which  for  the  present  seems  to  me 
 the  most  probable)  "  should  be  to  my  great  shame  painted  to  the 
 life  ;"  that  "  my  own  writings  should  be  produced  against  myself; 
 that  T  should  be  urged  to  answer  my  own  motives  against  pro- 
 testantism ;  and  that  such  things  should  be  published  to  the  world 
 touching  my  belief"  (for  my  painter  I  must  expect  should  have  great 
 skill  in  perspective)  "  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of  our 
 Saviour,  and  all  supernatural  verities  as  should  endanger  all  my 
 benefices,  present  and  future  :"  that  "  this  warning  was  given 
 me  not  out  of  fear  what  I  could  say  (for  that  catholics,  if  they  might 
 wish  any  ill,  would  beg  the  publication  of  my  book,  for  respects 
 obvious  enough),  but  out  of  a  mere  charitable  desire  of  my  good  and 
 reputation ;"  and  that  "  all  this  was  said  upon  a  supposition  that 
 I  was  answering,  or  had  a  mind  to  answer.  Charity  Maintained  ;  if 
 not,  no  harm  was  done."  To  which  courteous  premonition,  as  I 
 remember,  I  desired  the  gentleman  who  dealt  between  us  to  return 
 this  answer,  or  to  this  effect :  That  I  believed  the  doctrine  of  the 
 Trinity,  the  Deity  of  our  Saviour,  and  all  other  supernatural  verities 
 revealed  in  Scripture,  as  truly  and  as  heartily  as  yourself,  or  any 
 man  ;  and,  therefore,  herein  your  charity  was  very  much  mistaken  ; 
 but  much  more,  and  more  uncharitably,  in  concei^^ng  me  a  man 
 that  was  to  be  wrought  upon  with  these  terrihiles  visuformce,  those 
 carnal  and  base  fears  which  you  presented  to  me,  which  were  very 
 proper  motives  for  the  devil  and  his  instruments  to  tempt  poor- 
 spirited  men  out  of  the  way  of  conscience  and  honesty,  but  very 
 incongruous,  either  for  teachers  of  truth  to  make  use  of,  or  for 
 
WITH  AN  ANSWER  TO  HIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  5 
 
 lovers  of  trutli  (in  which  company  I  had  been  long  agone  matricu- 
 lated) to  hearken  to  witli  any  regard.  But  if  you  were  indeed 
 desirous  that  I  shoukl  not  answer  Charity  Maintained,  one  way 
 there  was,  and  but  one,  whereby  you  might  obtain  your  desire ;  and 
 that  was,  by  letting  me  know  when  and  where  I  might  attend  you  ; 
 and,  by  a  fair  conference,  to  be  written  down  on  both  sides, 
 convincing  mine  understanding  (who  was  resolved  not  to  be  a 
 recusant  if  I  were  convicted)  that  any  one  part  of  it,  any  one  argu- 
 ment in  it,  Avhich  was  of  moment  and  consequence,  and  whereon  the 
 cause  depends,  was  indeed  unanswerable.  This  was  the  effect  or 
 my  answer,  which  I  am  well  assured  was  delivered ;  but  reply  from 
 you  I  received  none  but  this,  that  you  would  have  no  conference 
 but  in  print ;  and  soon  after  finding  me  of  proof  against  ail  these 
 batteries,  and  thereby,  I  fear,  very  much  enraged,  you  took  u[)  the 
 resolution  of  the  furious  goddess,  in  the  poet,  madded  with  the 
 unsuccessfulness  of  her  malice, 
 
 Flectere  si  nequeo  superos,  Acheronta  movebo  .' 
 
 G.  For  certainly  those  indign  contumelies,  that  mass  of  por- 
 tentous and  execrable  calumnies,  wherewith  in  your  pamphlet  of 
 Directions  to  N.  N.  you  have  loaded  not  only  my  person  in  par- 
 ticular, but  all  the  leai-ned  and  moderate  divines  of  the  church  of 
 England,  and  all  protestants  in  general,  nay,  all  wise  men  of  all 
 religions  bvit  your  own,  could  not  proceed  from  any  other  fountain. 
 
 7.  To  begin  with  the  last ;  you  stick  not,  in  the  beginning  of  your 
 first  chapter,  to  fasten  the  imputation  of  atheism  and  irreligion  upon 
 all  wise  and  gallant  men  that  are  not  of  your  own  religion ;  in 
 which  uncharitable  and  unchristian  judgment,  void  of  all  colour  or 
 shadow  of  probability,  I  know  yet  by  experience,  that  very  many  of 
 the  bigots  of  your  faction  are  partakers  with  you.  God  forbid  I 
 should  think  the  like  of  you  !  yet  if  I  should  say  that  in  your 
 religion  there  want  not  some  temptations  unto,  and  some  principles 
 of,  irreligion  and  atheism,  I  am  sure  I  could  make  my  assertion 
 much  more  probable  than  you  have  done  or  can  make  this  horrible 
 imputation. 
 
 8.  For  to  pass  by,  first,  that  which  experience  justifies,  that 
 where  and  when  your  religion  hath  most  absolutely  commanded, 
 there  and  then  atheism  hath  most  abounded.  To  say  nothing, 
 secondly,  of  your  notorious  and  confessed  forging  of  so  many  false 
 miracles,  and  so  mam'  lying  legends,  which  is  not  unlikely  to  make 
 suspicious  men  to  question  the  truth  of  all ;  nor  to  object  to  you, 
 thirdl)',  the  abundance  of  your  weak  and  silly  ceremonies,  and 
 ridiculous  observances  in  your  religion,  which,  in  all  probability, 
 cannot  but  beget  secret  contempt  and  scorn  of  it  in  wise  and  con- 
 sidering men  ;  and  consequently  atheism  and  impiety,  if  they  have 
 this  persuasion  settled  in  them  (which  is  too  rife  among  you,  and 
 which  you  account  a  piece  of  wisdom  and  gallantry),  that  if  they  be 
 not  of  your  religion,  they  were  as  good  be  of  none  at  all ;  nor  to 
 trouble  you,  fourthly,  with  this,  that  a  great  part  of  your  doctrine, 
 especially  in  the  points  contested,  makes  appareptly  for  the  tem- 
 poral ends  of  the  teachers  of  it,  which  yet,  I  fear,  is  a  great  scandal 
 to  many  beau  esprit s  among  you  j  only  I  should  desire  you  to  con- 
 
6  PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED. 
 
 sider  attentively,  wlien  you  conclude  so  often  from  the  differences  of 
 protestants,  that  they  have  no  certainty  of  any  part  of  their  religion, 
 no,  not  of  those  points  wherein  they  agree,  whether  }'ou  do  not  that 
 that  which  so  magisterially  you  direct  me  not  to  do,  that  is,  proceed 
 "  a  destructive  way,  and  object  arguments  against  your  adversaries, 
 ■which  tend  to  the  overthrow  of  all  religion  ?"  And  whether,  as  you 
 argue  thus,  "  Protestants  differ  in  many  things,  therefore  they  have 
 no  certainty  of  anything  ;"  so  an  atheist  or  sceptic  may  not  conclude 
 as  well.  Christians  and  the  professors  of  all  rehgions  differ  in  many 
 things,  therefore  they  have  no  certainty  in  anything  ?  Again,  I 
 should  desire  you  to  tell  me  ingenuously,  whether  it  be  not 
 too  probable,  that  your  portentous  doctiine  of  transubstantiation, 
 joined  with  your  forementioned  persuasion  of  "  No  Papists,  no 
 Christians  "  hath  brought  a  great  many  others,  as  well  as  himself,  to 
 Averroes  his  resolution,  Quandoquidem  Christiani  adorant  quod 
 comedunt,  sit  anima  mea  cum  philosophis  f  Whether  yom*  requiring 
 men,  upon  only  probable  and  prudential  motives,  to  yield  a  most 
 certain  assent  unto  things  in  human  reason  impossible,  and  telling- 
 them,  as  you  do  too  often,  that  they  were  as  good  not  beheve  at  all, 
 as  believe  vdth  any  lower  degree  of  faith ;  be  not  a  likely  v/ay  to 
 make  considering  men  scorn  yoiu*  rehgion  (and  consequently  all,  if 
 they  know  no  other),  as  requii'ing  things  contradictoiy,  and  impos- 
 sible to  be  performed  ?  Lastly,  whether  your  pretence,  that  there  is 
 no  good  ground  to  beheve  Scripture,  but  yom-  Church's  mfallibihty, 
 joined  with  your  pretending  no  ground  for  this  but  some  texts  of 
 Scripture,  be  not  a  fair  way  to  make  them  that  understand  them- 
 selves beheve  neither  church  nor  Scripture  ? 
 
 9.  Your  calumnies  against  protestants  in  general  are  set  dov\Ti  in 
 these  words,  chap.  ii.  §  2,  "  The  very  doctrine  of  protestants,  if  it 
 be  followed  closely,  and  vv-ith  coherence  to  itself,  must  of  necessity 
 induce  Socinianism.  This  I  say  confidently,  and  evidently  prove, 
 by  instancing  in  one  error,  \^hich  may  well  })e  termed  the  capital 
 and  mother  heresy,  from  which  all  other  must  follow  at.  ease ;  I 
 mean  tlieir  heresy  in  affirming  that  the  perpetual  visible  chm-ck 
 of  Christ,  descended  by  a  never-interrupted  succession  fi'om  our 
 Saviour  to  this  day,  is  not  infallible  in  all  that  it  proposeth  to  be 
 beheved  as  revealed  truths.  For  if  the  infallibihty  of  such  a  pubhc 
 authority  be  once  impeached,  what  remains  but  that  every  man  is 
 given  over  to  his  Gwn  wit  and  discourse  ?  And  talk  not  here  of 
 Holy  Scriptm-e  ;  for  if  the  true  churcli  may  err  in  defining  what 
 scriptures  be  canonical,  or  in  delivering  the  sense  and  meaning 
 thereof,  we  are  still  devolved,  either  upon  the  private  spirit  (a  foolery 
 now  exploded  out  of  England,  which  finally  leaA-ing  eveiy  man  to  his 
 own  conceits,  ends  in  Socinianism),  or  else  upon  natural  wit  and 
 judgment,  for  examining  and  determining  what  scriptures  contain 
 true  or  false  doctrine,  and  in  that  respect,  ought  to  be  received  or 
 rejected.  And,  indeed,  take  away  the  authority  of  God's  church, 
 no  man  can  be  assured  that  any  one  book,  or  parcel  of  Scripture, 
 was  WTitten  by  Divine  inspiration,  or  that  all  the  contents  are  in- 
 fallibly true,  wiiich  are  the  direct  errors  of  Socinians.  If  it  were  but 
 for  this  reason  alone,  no  man,  who  regards  the  eternal  salvation  of  his 
 soul,  would  hve  or  die  in  protestancv.  from  which  so  vast  absiu-dities 
 
WITH  AN  ANSWER  TO  HIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  / 
 
 as  these  of  the  Socinians  must  inentably  follow.  And  it  ought  to 
 be  an  luispeakable  comfort  to  all  us  catholics,  while  \xe  consider  that 
 none  can  deny  the  infallible  authority  of  our  church,  but  jointly  he 
 must  be  left  to  his  own  ^\'it  and  ways  ;  must  abandon  all  infu^od 
 faith  and  true  religion,  if  he  do  but  understand  himself  aright."  In 
 all  which  discom*se,  the  only  true  word  you  speak  is,  "  This  I  say 
 confidently ;"  as  for  "  proving  evidently,"  that  I  beheve  you  re- 
 served for  some  other  opportimity ;  for  the  present,  I  am  sure  you 
 have  been  veiy  sparing  of  it. 
 
 10.  You  say,  indeed,  confidently  enough,  that  "  the  denial  of  the 
 chm-ch's  infallibihty  is  the  mother  heresy,  from  ^^liich  all  other  must 
 follow  at  ease  ;"  which  is  so  far  from  being  a  necessary  truth,  as  you 
 make  it,  that  it  is  indeed  a  manifest  falsehood.  Neither  is  it  possible 
 for  the  -tvit  of  man,  by  any  good,  or  so  much  has  probable  conse- 
 quence, from  the  denial  of  the  chiu-ch's  infalhbility,  to  deduce  any 
 one  of  the  ancient  heresies,  or  any  one  en-or  of  the  Socinians,  which 
 are  the  heresies  here  entreated  of.  For  who  v.'ould  not  laugh  at  him 
 that  should  argue  thus  :  Neither  the  church  of  Rome  nor  any  other 
 chm*ch  is  infallible  ;  ergo,  the  doctrine  of  Arius,  Pelagius,  Eut}'ches, 
 Nestorius,  Photinus,  Manichseus,  was  true  doctrine  ?  On  the  other 
 side  it  may  be  truly  said,  and  justified  by  veiy  good  and  eifectual 
 reason,  that  he  that  afiirms  %\ith  you  the  pope's  infaUibdit}*,  puts 
 himself  into  his  hands  and  power,  to  be  led  by  him,  at  his  ease  and 
 pleasure,  into  all  heresy,  and  even  to  hell  itself ;  and  cannot  v^dth 
 reason  say  (so  long  as  he  is  constant  to  his  grounds),  Domine,  cur 
 ita  facis  ?  but  must  believe  white  to  be  black,  and  black  to  be 
 white  ;  virtue  to  be  vice,  and  xiCQ  to  be  virtue ;  nay  (which  is  an 
 horrible,  but  a  most  certain  truth),  Christ  to  be  antichrist,  and 
 antichrist  to  be  Christ,  if  it  be  possible  for  the  pope  to  say  so  : 
 which,  I  say,  and  will  maintain,  however  you  daub  and  disguise  it, 
 is  indeed  to  make  men  apostatize  from  Christ  to  his  pretended  vicar, 
 but  real  enemy.  For  that  name,  and  no  better  (if  Ave  may  speak 
 truth  without  offence),  I  presume  he  deserves,  who  under  pretence 
 of  interpreting  the  law  of  Christ  (which  authority,  without  any  word 
 of  express  warrant,  he  has  taken  upon  himself)  doth  in  many  parts 
 evacuate  and  chssolve  it  :  so  dethroning  Christ  from  his  dominion 
 over  men's  consciences,  and  instead  of  Christ,  setting  up  himself ; 
 inasmuch  as  he  that  requires  that  his  interpretations  of  any  lav/ 
 should  be  obeyed  as  true  and  genuine,  seem  they  to  men's  under- 
 standings never  so  dissonant  and  discordant  from  it  (as  the  bishop 
 of  Rome  does),  requires  indeed  that  his  interpretations  should  be 
 the  laws ;  and  he  that  is  firmly  prepared  in  mind  to  beheve  and 
 receive  all  such  interpretations  without  judging  of  them,  and  though 
 to  his  private  judgment  they  seem  unreasonable,  is  indeed  con- 
 gruously disposed  to  hold  adultery  a  venial  sin,  and  fornication  no 
 sin,  whensoever  the  pope  and  his  adherents  shall  so  declare.  And 
 whatsoever  he  may  plead  yet  either  wittingly  or  ignorantly,  he  makes 
 the  law  and  the  lawmaker  both  stales,  and  obeys  only  the  interpreter. 
 As  if  I  should  pretend  that  I  should  submit  to  the  laws  of  the  King 
 of  England,  but  should  indeed  resolve  to  obey  them  in  that  sense 
 which  the  King  of  France  should  put  upon  them,  whatsoever  it  were ; 
 I  presume  ever\'  understanding  man  would  say,  that  I  did  indeed 
 
8  PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED, 
 
 obey  the  King  of  France,  and  not  the  King  of  England.  If  I  should 
 pretend  to  believe  the  Bible,  but  that  I  would  understand  it  accord- 
 ing to  the  sense  which  the  chief  mufti  should  put  upon  it,  who  would 
 not  say  that  I  were  a  Christian  in  pretence  only,  but  indeed  a 
 J.Iahumetan  ? 
 
 11.  Nor  \\ili  it  be  to  purjjose  for  you  to  pretend  that  the 
 precepts  of  Christ  are  so  plain,  that  it  cannot  be  feared  that  any 
 pope  should  ever  go  about  to  dissolve  them,  and  pretend  to  be  a 
 Christian  :  for  not  to  say  that  you  now  pretend  the  contrary  ;  to  -wit, 
 "  that  the  law  of  Christ  is  obscine  even  in  things  necessary  to  be 
 l^eheved  and  done ;"  and  by  sapng  so,  have  made  a  fair  way  for 
 any  foul  interpretation  of  any  part  of  it  :  certainly,  that  %^hich  the 
 church  of  Rome  hath  already  done  in  this  kind  is  an  e^ident  argu- 
 ment, that  (if  once  she  had  this  power  unquestioned,  and  made 
 expedite  and  ready  for  use,  by  being  contracted  to  the  pope)  she  may 
 do  what  she  pleaseth  with  it.  Who  that  had  lived  in  the  primitive 
 church  would  not  have  thought  it  as  utterly  improbable,  that  ever 
 they  should  have  brought  in  the  worship  of  images,  and  picturing  of 
 God,  as  now  it  is  that  they  should  legitimate  fornication  ?  Why  may 
 wc  not  think  they  may  in  time  take  away  the  whole  communion 
 from  the  laity,  as  well  as  they  have  taken  away  half  of  it  ?  W^hy 
 may  we  not  think  that  any  text  and  any  sense  may  not  Ije  accorded,  as 
 well  as  the  whole  fourteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to 
 the  Corinthians  is  reconciled  to  the  Latin  ser\ice  ?  How  is  it  possible 
 •iny  thing  should  be  plainer  forbidden  than  the  worship  of  angels  in 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  ?  than  the  teaching  for  doctrines  men's 
 commands  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  ?  And  tlierefore  seeing  we  see 
 these  things  done,  which  hardly  any  man  would  have  believed  that 
 had  not  seen  them,  why  should  we  not  fear  that  this  unlimited  power 
 may  not  be  used  hereafter  ^^■ith  as  little  moderation,  seeing  devices 
 have  been  invented  how  men  may  worship  images  ^^dthout  idolatry, 
 and  kill  innocent  men,  under  pretence  of  heresy,  without  murder  ? 
 Who  knows  not  that  some  tricks  may  not  be  hereafter  devised,  by 
 which  l}^ng  viith  other  men's  mves  shall  be  no  adultery,  taking  away 
 other  men's  goods  no  theft  ?  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  if  Solomon 
 himself  were  here,  and  were  to  determine  the  difference,  which  is 
 more  likely  to  be  mother  of  all  heresy,  the  denial  of  the  church's,  or 
 the  affirming  of  the  pope's  infallibility,  that  he  would  certainly  say. 
 This  is  the  mother,  give  her  the  child. 
 
 12.  You  say  again  confidently,  that  "  if  this  infalhbihty  be  once 
 impeached,  ever}^  man  is  given  over  to  his  own  wit  and  discourse  ;" 
 which,  if  you  mean  discourse  not  guiding  itself  by  Scrijiture,  but  only 
 by  principles  of  natm-e,  or  perhaps  by  prejudices  and  popular  errors, 
 and  dravdng  consequences  not  by  rule,  but  chance,  is  by  no  means 
 true  ;  if  you  mean  by  discourse,  right  reason  grounded  on  Divine 
 revelation,  and  common  notions  written  by  God  in  the  hearts  of  all 
 men,  and  deducing,  according  to  the  never-failing  rules  of  logic,  con- 
 sequent deductions  from  them ;  if  this  be  it  which  you  mean  by 
 discourse,  it  is  very  meet  and  reasonable  and  necessary,  that  men,  as 
 in  all  their  actions,  so  especially  in  that  of  greatest  importance,  the 
 choice  of  their  way  to  happiness,  should  be  left  unto  it ;  and  he  that 
 follows  this  in  all  his  opinions  and  actions,  and  does  not  only  seem  to 
 
WITH  AN  ANSWER  TO  HIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  9 
 
 do  so,  follows  always  God  ;  whereas  he  that  foUoweth  a  company  of 
 men,  may  ofttimes  follow  a  company  of  beasts  :  and  in  sa}ino'  this,  I 
 say  no  more  than  St.  John  to  all  Christians  in  these  words  :  Dearlu 
 beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit ;  but  try  the  spirits,  whether  they  be 
 of  God,  or  no.  And  the  rule  he  gives  them  to  make  this  trial  by,  is, 
 to  consider  whether  they  confess  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  ;  that  is,  the 
 guide  of  their  faith,  and  Lord  of  their  actions ;  not,  whether  they 
 acknowledge  the  pope  to  be  his  vicar  ;  I  say  no  more  than  St.  Paul, 
 in  exhorting  all  Christians  to  try  all  things,  and  holdfast  that  which 
 is  good  J  than  St.  Peter,  in  commanding  all  Christians  to  be  ready  to 
 give  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  them  :  than  our  Saviour  himself, 
 in  forewarning  all  his  followers,  that  if  they  blindly  follow  blind  guides, 
 both  leaders  and  followers  should  fall  into  the  ditch  .-  and  again,  in 
 saying  even  to  the  people,  Yea,  and  lohy  of  yourselves  judge  ye  not 
 what  is  right  ?  And  though  by  passion,  or  precipitation,  or  i)rejU(hce, 
 by  want  of  reason,  or  not  using  what  they  have,  men  may  be,  and  are 
 oftentimes,  led  into  en-or  and  mischief ;  yet,  that  they  cannot  be  mis- 
 guided by  discourse,  truly  so  called,  such  as  I  have  descriljed,  you 
 yourself  have  given  them  security.  For  what  is  discourse,  but  draw- 
 ing conclusions  out  of  premises  by  good  consequence  ?  Now,  the 
 principles  which  we  have  settled,  to  v^dt,  the  Scriptures,  are  on  all 
 sides  agreed  to  be  infalhbly  true.  And  you  have  told  us  in  the  fourth 
 chapter  of  this  pamphlet,  that  "  from  truth  no  ma,n  can,  by  good  con- 
 sequence, infer  falsehood ;  therefore,  by  discourse  no  man  can 
 possibly  be  led  to  error  ;  but  if  he  err  in  his  conclusions,  he  must  of 
 necessity  either  err  in  his  principles  (which  here  cannot  have  place), 
 or  commit  some  error  in  his  discourse  ;  that  is  indeed,  not  discourse, 
 but  seem  to  do  so. 
 
 13.  You  say,  thirdly,  with  sufficient  confidence,  "that  if  the  true 
 church  may  err  in  defining  what  scriptm-es  be  canonical,  or  in  the 
 delivering  the  sense  thereof,  then  we  must  follow  either  the  private 
 S])irit,  or  else  natural  wit  and  judgment ;  and  by  them  examine  what 
 scriptures  contain  true  or  false  doctrine,  and  in  that  respect  ought  to 
 be  received  or  rejected."  All  which  is  apparently  untrue  ;  neither 
 can  any  proof  of  it  be  pretended.  For  though  the  present  chm-cli 
 may  possibly  err  in  her  judgment  touching  this  matter,  yet  have  we 
 other  directions  in  it  besides  the  private  spirit  and  the  examination  of 
 the  contents  (which  latter  way  may  conclude  the  negative  very 
 strongly,  to  wit,  that  such  or  such  a  book  cannot  come  from  God, 
 because  it  contains  irreconcilable  contradictions  ;  but  the  affirmative 
 it  cannot  conclude,  because  the  contents  of  a  book  may  be  all  true, 
 and  yet  the  book  not  ^\Titten  by  Divine  inspiration) ;  other  direction 
 therefore  I  say  we  have  besides  either  of  these  three,  and  that  is,  the 
 testimony  of  the  primitive  Christians. 
 
 14.  You  say,  fourthly,  with  convenient  boldness,  that  "this  infallible 
 authority  of  yoiu-  church  being  denied  no  man  can  be  assm-ed  that 
 any  parcel  of  Scripture  was  ^^Titten  by  Divine  inspiration  :"  which  is 
 an  untruth,  for  which  no  proof  is  pretended ;  and  besides,  void  of 
 modest)',  and  full  of  impiety  :  the  first,  because  the  experience  of 
 innumerable  Christians  is  against  it,  who  are  sufficiently  assured  that 
 the  Scripture  is  divinely  inspired,  and  yet  deny  the  infallible  authority 
 of  your  church  or  any  other  :  the  second,  because  if  I  cannot  have 
 
10  PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED, 
 
 ground  to  be  assured  of  the  Di\dne  authority  of  Scriptiu'e,  unless  I 
 first  beh'eve  your  church  infaUible,  then  I  can  have  no  ground  at  all 
 to  believe  it ;  because  there  is  no  ground,  nor  can  any  he  pretended, 
 why  I  should  beheve  your  chiu-ch  infaUibie,  unless  I  first  beheve  the 
 Scripture  Divine. 
 
 15.  Fifthly  and  lastly,  you  say,  with  confidence  in  abundance,  that 
 "  none  can  deny  the  infallible  authority  of  your  chiu'ch,  but  he  must 
 abandon  all  infused  faith  and  true  religion,  if  he  do  but  understand 
 himself ;"  which  is  to  say,  agreeable  to  \^  hat  you  had  said  before,  and 
 what  out  of  the  abundance  of  your  heart  you  speak  xevy  often,  "  that 
 all  Christians  besides  you  are  open  fools  or  concealed  atheists."  All 
 this  you  say  vrith  notable  confidence  (as  the  manner  of  sophisters  is 
 to  place  their  confidence  of  prevailing  in  their  confident  manner  of 
 speaking) ;  but  then  for  the  evidence  you  promised  to  maintain  this 
 confidence  that  is  quite  vanished  and  become  invisible. 
 
 16.  Had  I  a  mind  to  recriminate  now,  and  to  charge  papists  (as 
 you  do  protestants)  that  they  lead  men  to  Socinianism,  I  could  cer- 
 tainly make  a  mucli  fairer  show  of  e'",ddence  than  you  have  done  :  for 
 I  woidd  not  tell  you.  You  deny  the  infalli'oihty  of  the  church  of 
 England ;  ergo,  you  lead  to  Socinianism  ;  which  yet  is  altogether  as 
 good  an  argument  as  this — Protestants  deny  the  infallibility  of  the 
 Roman  chm-ch  ;  ergo,  they  induce  Socinianism  :  nor  would  I  resume 
 my  fomier  argument,  and  urge  you,  that  by  holding  the  pope's  in- 
 falhbihty  you  submit  yom-self  to  that  cajntal  and  mother  heresy,  by 
 advantage  whereof  he  may  lead  you  at  ease  to  believe  virtue  vice,  and 
 vice  virtue  ;  to  believe  Antichristianity  Christianism,  and  Christianity 
 Antichristianism  :  he  may  lead  you  to  Socinianism,  to  Turcism,  nay, 
 to  the  devil  himself,  if  he  have  a  mind  to  it ;  })ut  I  would  sliow  you, 
 that  divers  ways  the  doctors  of  yom-  church  do  the  })rinci})al  and 
 proper  work  of  the  Socinians  for  them,  undermining  the  doctrine  of 
 the  Trinit}',  by  denying  it  to  be  supported  by  those  pillars  of  the  faith 
 which  alone  are  fit  and  able  to  sup})ort  it — I  mean  Scripture,  and  the 
 consent  of  the  ancient  doctors. 
 
 17.  For  Scripture,  your  men  deny  very  ])lainly  and  frequently  that 
 this  doctrine  can  be  proved  by  it.  See,  if  you  please,  this  plainly 
 taught,  and  urged  very  earnestly  by  Cardinal  Hosius,  de  Author. 
 Sac.  1.  3.  p.  53;  by  Gordonius  Huntlffius,  torn.  l.Controv.  1.  de 
 Verbo  Dei,  c.  19  :  by  Gretserus  and  Tannerus,  m  Colloquio  Ratis- 
 bon  ;  and  also  by  Vega,  Possevin,  Wickus,  and  others. 
 
 18.  And  then  for  the  consent  of  the  ancients  :  that  that  also 
 delivers  it  not,  by  whom  are  we  taught  but  by  papists  oidy  ?  Who  is 
 it  that  makes  knov.-n  to  all  the  world  that  Eusebius,  that  great  searcher 
 and  devom-er  of  the  Christian  libraries,  was  an  Arian  ?  Is  it  not  your 
 great  Achilles,  Cardinal  Perron,  in  his  third  book  and  second  chapter 
 of  his  reply  to  King  James  ?  Who  is  it  that  informs  us  that  Origen 
 (who  never  was  questioned  for  any  error  in  this  matter  in  or  near  his 
 time)  "  denied  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  V  Is  it 
 not  the  same  great  cardinal,  in  his  book  of  the  Eucharist  against  M. 
 du  Plessis,  1 .  2.  c.  7  ?  Who  is  it  that  pretends  that  "  Irenseus  hath 
 said  those  things  which  he  that  shoiild  now  hold  would  be  esteemed 
 an  Arian  ?  Is  it  not  the  same  person,  in  his  reply  to  King  James,  in 
 the  fifth  chapter  of  the  fourth  observation  ?     Aiid  doth  he  not  m  the 
 
WITH    AX    ANSWER  TO    HIS    DIRECTION    TO    N.    N.  11 
 
 same  place  peach  Tertullian  also,  and  in  a  manner  give  him  a-.vav  to 
 the  Arians;  and  pronounce  generally  of  the  Fathers  before' the 
 Coimcil  of  Nice,  that  Arians  would  gladly  be  tried  bv  them  ?  An(L 
 are  not  your  fellow  Jesuits  also,  even  the  prime  men  "of  yom-  order, 
 
 Srevaricators  in  this  pomt  as  well  as  others  ?     Doth  not  yom-  friend 
 Ir.  Fisher  or  Mr.  Floyd,  in  his  book  of  the  Nine  Questions  proposed 
 to  him  by  King  James,  speak  dangerously  to  the  same  purpose  ;  in 
 his  discourse  of  the  resolution  of  faith,  towards  the  end  ?  giving  us 
 to  understand,  "  that  the  new  reformed  Arians  bring  ver\'  many  testi- 
 monies of  the  ancient  Fathers,  to  prove  that  in  this  point  they  did 
 contradict  themselves,   and  were  contrary'  to  one  another ;    which 
 places  whosoever  shall  read  will  clearly  see  that  to  common  people 
 they  are  unanswerable ;  yea,  that  common  people  are  not  capable  of 
 the  answers  that  learned  men  yield  unto  such  obscure  passages." 
 And  hath  not  your  great  antiquary  Peta\dus,  in  his  notes  upon  Epi- 
 phanius,   in  Haer.  69,  been  veiy  hberal  to  the  adversaries  of  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  in  a  manner  given  them  for  patrons  and 
 advocates,  first  Justin  Martyr,  and  then  almost  all  the  Fathers  before 
 the  Council  of  Nice  ;  whose  speeches,  he  says,  touching  this  point, 
 cum  orthodoxcB  jidea  regula  minime  consentiunt  ?    Hereunto  I  might 
 add,   that  the   Dominicans   and  Jesuits   between  them  in  another 
 matter  of  great  importance,  ^-iz,,  God's  prescience  of  future  contm- 
 gents,  give  the  Socinians  the  premises  out  of  which  their  conclusion 
 doth  unavoidably  follow:  for  the  Dominicans  maintain,  on  the  one  side, 
 that  "  God  can  foresee  nothing  but  what  he  decrees  ;"  the  Jesuits  on 
 the  other  side,  that  "  he  doth  not  decree  all  things  :"   and  from  hence 
 the  Socinians  conclude  (as  it  is  ob^'ious  for  them  to  do)  that  "he doth 
 not  foresee  all  things."     Lastly,  I  might  adjoin  this,  that  you  agree 
 with  one  consent,  and  settle  for  a  rule  imquestionable,  that  no  part 
 of  religion  can  be  repugnant  to  reason  ;  whereupon  you  in  particular 
 subscribe  unawares  in  sapng,    "  From  truth  no  man  can  by  good 
 consequence  infer  falsehood ;"  which  is  to  say,  in  effect,  that  reason 
 can  never  lead  any  man  to  error.     And  after  you  have  done  so,  you 
 proclaim    to     all    the    world    (as    you    in  this  pamphlet   do  very 
 frequently),  that  "  if  men  follow  their  reason  and  chscom'se,"  they 
 will  (if  they  understand  themselves)   be  led  to    Socinianism.     And 
 thus  you  see  with  what  probable  matter  I  might  furnish  out  and 
 justify  my  accusation,  if  I  should  charge  you  with  leading  men  to 
 Socinianism ;  yet  do  I  not  conceive  that  I  have  ground  enough  for 
 this  odious  imputation.     And  much  less  should  you  have  charged 
 protestants  with  it,  whom  you  confess  to  abhor  and  detest  it,  and  who 
 fight  against  it,  not  with  the  broken  reeds  and  out  of  the  paper 
 fortresses  of  an  imaginar\-  infallibility^  which  were  only  to  make  sport 
 for  their  adversaries,  but  with  the  sicord  of  the  Spirit,  the  word  of 
 God ;  of  which  we  may  say  most  tnily,  Avhat  David  said  of  Goliath's 
 sword,  offered  him  by  ^Uiimelech,  Non  est  sicut  iste,  "There  is  none 
 comparable  to  it." 
 
 ly.  Thus  protestants  in  general,  I  hope,  are  sufficiently  vindicated 
 fi'om  your  calumny.  I  proceed  now  to  do  the  same  service  for  the 
 (hvines  of  England ;  whom  you  question  first  in  point  of  learning 
 and  sufficiency,  and  then  in  point  of  conscience  and  honesty,  as  pre- 
 varicating in  the  rehgion  which  they  profess,  and  inclining  to  popery. 
 
12     PREFACE    TO   THE    AUTHOR    OF    CHARITY    MAINTAINED, 
 
 Their  leamirg,  you  say,  consists  only  in  "  some  superficial  talent  of 
 preaching,  languages,  and  elocution,  and  not  in  any  deej)  knowledge 
 of  philosophy,  especially  of  metaphysics ;  and  much  less  of  that 
 most  solid,  profitable,  subtle,  and  (O  rem  ridlculam,  Cato,  et 
 wcosam  !)  succinct  method  of  school  divinity ;"  wherein  you  have 
 discovered  in  yom'self  the  true  genius  and  spirit  of  detraction.  For 
 taking  advantage  from  that  wherein  envy  itself  cannot  deny  but  they 
 are  very  eminent,  and  which  requires  great  sufficiency  of  substantial 
 learning,  you  disparage  them  as  insufficient  in  all  things  else  :  as  if, 
 forsooth,  because  they  dispute  not  eternally — utrum  chimera  bom' 
 hinans  in  vacuo,  jjossit  comedere  secundas  intentiones — whether  a 
 niilhon  of  angels  may  not  sit  upon  a  needle's  point — because  they 
 fill  not  their  brains  with  notions  that  signify  nothing,  to  the  utter 
 extermination  of  all  reason  «and  common  sense,  and  spend  not  an  age 
 m  weaving  and  unweaving  subtle  cobwebs,  fitter  to  catch  flies  than 
 souls,  therefore  they  have  no  deep  knowledge  in  the  acroamatical 
 part  of  learning.  But  I  have  too  much  honomed  the  poorness  of 
 this  detraction  to  take  notice  of  it. 
 
 20.  The  other  part  of  your  accusation  strikes  deeper,  and  is  more 
 considerable  :  and  that  tells  us,  that  "  protestantism  waxeth  wear}^ 
 of  itself ;  that  the  professors  of  it,  they  especially  of  greatest  worth, 
 learning,  and  authority,  love  temper  and  moderation ;  and  are  at 
 this  time  more  unresolved  where  to  fasten,  than  at  the  infancy  of 
 their  church  ;"  that  "  their  churches  begin  to  look  with  a  new  face  ; 
 their  walls  to  speak  a  new  language  ;  their  doctrine  to  be  altered  in 
 many  things,  for  which  their  progenitors  forsook  the  then  visible 
 church  of  Christ  :  for  example — the  pope  not  antichrist :  prayer  for 
 the  dead  :  limbus  patrum :  pictures  :  that  the  church  hath  authority 
 in  determining  controversies  of  faith,  and  to  inter}:>ret  Scrijjture  : 
 about  free  will,  predestination,  universal  grace  :"  that  "  all  oiu* 
 works  are  not  sins  :  merit  of  good  works  :  inherent  justice  :  faith 
 alone  doth  not  justify  :  charity  to  be  preferred  before  knowledge  : 
 traditions  :  commandments  possible  to  be  kept  :"  that  "  their  Thirtj'-- 
 nine  Articles  are  patient,  nay  ambitious,  of  some  sense  wherein  they 
 may  seem  catholic  :"  that  "  to  allege  the  necessity  of  wife  and 
 children  in  these  days,  is  but  a  weak  plea  for  a  married  minister  to 
 compass  a  benefice  :"  that  "Calvinism  is  at  length  accounted  heresy, 
 and  little  less  than  treason :"  that  "  men  in  talk  and  wi-iting  use 
 willingly  the  once  feaiful  names  of  priests  and  altars  :"  that  "  they 
 are  now  put  in  mind,  that  for  exposition  of  Scripture  they  are  by 
 canon  bound  to  follow  the  Fathers  ;  which  if  they  do  vrith  sincerity, 
 it  is  easy  to  tell  what  doom  will  pass  against  pro'testants,  seeing,  by 
 the  confession  of  protestants,  the  Fathers  are  on  the  papists'  side, 
 which  the  answerer  to  some  so  clearly  demonstrated  that  they 
 remained  convinced  :"  in  fine,  as  the  Samaritans  sav.'  in  the  disciples' 
 countenances  that  they  meant  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  so  you  pretend  it 
 is  even  legible  in  the  foreheads  of  these  men  that  they  are  even 
 going,  nay,  making  haste  to  Rome ;  which  scurrilous  libel,  void  of 
 all  truth,  (hscrctiou,  and  honesty,  what  effect  it  may  have  wrought, 
 what  crecht  it  may  have  gained  with  credulous  papists  (who  dream 
 what  they  desire,  and  Ibelieve  their  own  dreams),  or  vrith  ill- 
 affected,  jealous,  and  weak  protestants,  I  cannot  tell :  but  one  thing 
 I  dare  boldly  say,  that  you  yourself  did  never  beheve  it. 
 
WITH  AN  ANSWER  TO   HIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  13^ 
 
 21.  For  did  you  indeed  conceive,  or  had  any  probable  hope,  that 
 such  men  as  you  describe,  men  of  worth,  of  learning,  and  authority 
 too,  were  friends  and  favourers  of  your  religion,  and  inclinable  to 
 your  party ;  can  any  man  imagine  that  you  would  proclaim  it,  and 
 bid  the  world  take  heed  of  them  ?  Sic  notus  Ulysses  ?  Do  we 
 know  the  Jesuits  no  better  than  so  ?  What,  are  they  turned  pre- 
 varicators against  their  o\^ti  faction  ?  Are  they  hkely  men  to  betray 
 and  expose  their  o^^^l  agents  and  instruments,  and  to  awaken  the 
 eyes  of  jealousy,  and  to  raise  the  clamour  of  the  people  against 
 them  ?  Certainly,  your  zeal  to  the  see  of  Rome,  testified  by  yom- 
 fourth  vow  of  special  obechence  to  the  pope,  proper  to  your  order, 
 and  your  cunning  carriage  of  all  affairs  for  the  greater  advantage 
 and  advancement  of  that  see,  are  clear  demonstrations  that  if  you 
 had  thought  thus,  you  would  never  have  said  so.  The  truth  is,  thev 
 that  can  run  to  extremes  in  opposition  against  you  ;  they  that  pull 
 do\Mi  your  infalhbihty,  and  set  up  their  o^\^l ;  they  that  declaim 
 against  your  t^Tanny,  and  exercise  it  themselves  over  others ;  are 
 the  adversaries  that  give  you  greatest  advantage,  and  such  as  you 
 love  to  deal  mth  :  whereas,  upon  men  of  temper  and  moderation, 
 such  as  will  oppose  nothing  because  you  maintain  it,  but  will  draw 
 as  near  to  you,  that  they  may  draw  you  to  them,  as  the  truth  viill 
 suffer  them  ;  such  as  require  of  Christians  to  believe  only  in  Christ, 
 and  \rill  damn  no  man  nor  doctrine  without  express  and  certain  v.aT- 
 rant  from  God's  word ;  upon  such  as  these  you  know  not  how  to 
 fasten:  but  if  you  chance  to  have  conference  ^^ith  any  such  (which  yet, 
 as  much  as  possibly  you  can,  you  avoid  and  decline),  you  are  very 
 speedily  put  to  silence,  and  see  the  indefensible  weakness  of  youi* 
 cause  laid  open  to  all  men.  And  this,  I  verily  believe,  is  the  true 
 reason  that  you  thus  rave  and  rage  against  them  ;  as  foreseein;:: 
 your  time  of  prevaihng,  or  even  of  subsisting,  would  be  short,  if 
 other  adversaries  gave  you  no  more  advantage  than  they  do. 
 
 22.  In  which  persuasion  also  I  am  much  confirmed  by  consideration 
 of  the  silliness  and  poorness  of  those  suggestions,  and  partly  of  thi- 
 apparent  vanity  and  falsehood  of  them,  vv'hich  you  offer  in  justification 
 of  this  -vricked  calumny.  For  what  if  oiu*  devotion  towards  God  on: 
 of  a  desire  that  He  should  be  worshipped  as  in  spirit  and  in  truth  in 
 the  first  place,  so  also  in  the  beauty  of  holiness! — what  if  out  of  fear 
 that  too  much  simplicity  and  nakedness  in  the  pubhc  service  of  God, 
 may  beget  in  the  ordinaiy  sort  of  men  a  dull  and  stupid  in*everence  ; 
 and  out  of  hope  that  the  outward  state  and  glory  of  it,  being  well 
 disposed  and  ^risely  moderated,  may  engender,  quicken,  increase, 
 and  noiu-ish  the  inward  reverence,  respect,  and  devotion,  which  is 
 due  unto  God's  sovereign  majesty  and  power  ? — what  if  out  of  a 
 persuasion  and  desire  that  papists  may  be  won  over  to  us  the  sooner, 
 by  the  removing  of  this  scandal  out  of  their  way ;  and  out  of  an 
 holy  jealousy,  that  the  weaker  sort  of  protestants  might  be  the  easier 
 seduced  to  them  by  the  magnificence  and  pomp  of  their  church 
 servite,  in  case  it  were  not  removed  ? — I  sa}-,  what  if  out  of  these 
 censiderations  the  governors  of  our  church,  more  of  late  than 
 fo^ierly,  have  set  themselves  to  adorn  and  beautify  the  places 
 ichere  God's  honour  dwells,  and  to  make  them  as  *  heaven-like  as 
 they  can  with  earthly  ornaments.  Is  this  a  sign  that  they  are 
 *  Heavenly.— Ox/, 
 
14        PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED 
 
 warping  towards  popery  ?  Is  this  devotion  in  the  church  of  England 
 an  argument  that  she  is  coming  o^er  to  the  chm-ch  of  Rome  ?*  Sir 
 Edmu  Sands,  I  presume,  every  man  will  grant,  had  no  inclination 
 that  way ;  yet  he,  forty  years  since,  highly  commended  this  part  of 
 devotion  in  papists,  and  makes  no  scruple  of  proposing  it  to  the 
 indtation  of  protestants  ;  little  thinking  that  they  who  would  follow 
 his  counsel,  and  endeavom-  to  take  away  this  disparagement  of  pro- 
 testants, and  this  glorying  of  papists,  should  have  been  censured 
 for  it,  as  making  way  and  inclining  to  popery.  His  words  to  this 
 pm'pose  are  excellent  words ;  and  because  they  show  plainly  that 
 what  is  now  practised  was  approved  by  zealous  protestants  so  long 
 ago,  I  will  here  set  them  do^vai. 
 
 23.  "  This  one  thing  I  cannot  but  highly  commend  in  that  sort 
 and  order  :  the)'  spare  nothing  which  either  cost  can  perform  iu 
 enriching,  or  skill  in  adorning,  the  temple  of  God ;  or  to  set  out 
 his  service  with  the  greatest  pomp  and  magnificence  that  can  be 
 devised.  And  although  for  the  most  part  much  baseness  and 
 childishness  is  predominant  in  the  masters  and  contrivers  of  their 
 ceremonies,  )et  this  outward  state  and  glory,  being  well  disposed, 
 doth  engender,  quicken,  increase,  and  nomish  the  inward  reverence, 
 respect,  and  devotion,  which  is  due  unto  sovereign  majesty  and 
 power.  And  although  I  am  not  ignorant  that  many  men  well 
 reputed  have  embraced  the  thrifty  opinion  of  that  disciple,  who 
 thought  all  to  be  wasted  that  was  bestowed  upon  Christ  in  that  sort, 
 and  that  it  were  much  better  bestowed  upon  the  poor)  yet  with 
 an  eye  perhaps  that  themselves  would  be  his  quarter-almoners) ; 
 notwithstanding,  I  must  confess,  it  wll  never  sink  into  my  heart, 
 that  in  proportion  of  reason  the  allowance  for  furnishing  out  of  the 
 service  of  God  should  be  measiued  by  the  scant  and  strict  rule  of 
 mere  necessity  (a  proportion  so  low,  th.at  nature,  to  other  most 
 bountiful,  in  matter  of  necessity  hatli  not  failed,  no,  not  the  most 
 ignoble  creatures  of  the  world) ;  and  that  for  ourselves,  no  measure 
 of  heaping,  but  the  most  we  can  get ;  no  rule  of  expense,  but  to  the 
 utmost  pomp  we  list :  or  that  God  himself  had  so  enriched  the 
 lower  parts  of  the  world  mth  such  wonderful  varieties  of  beauty  and 
 glory,  that  they  might  serve  only  to  the  pampering  of  mortal  man 
 in  his  pride  ;  and  that  in  the  service  of  the  high  Creator,  Lord,  and 
 Giver  (the  outward  glory  of  whose  higher  palace  may  appear  by  the 
 very  lamps  that  we  see  so  far  off  bu)ning  gloriously  in  it),  only  the 
 simpler,  baser,  cheaper,  less  noble,  less  beautiful,  less  glorious  things 
 should  be  employed ;  especially  seeing  as  in  princes'  com-ts,  so  in 
 the  service  of  God  also,  this  outward  sta.te  and  glor}',  being  well 
 disposed,  doth  (as  I  have  said)  engender,  quicken,  increase,  and 
 nomish  the  inward  reverence,  respect,  and  devotion,  which  is  due 
 to  so  sovereign  majesty  and  po\A  er  :  which  those  whom  the  use 
 tiiereof  cannot  persuade  into,  would  easily,  by  the  want  of  it,  be 
 brought  to  confess.  For  which  cause  I  crave  leave  to  be  excused  by 
 them  herein,  if,  in  zeal  to  the  common  Lord  of  all,  I  choose  rather 
 to  commend  the  virtue  of  an  enerny,  than  to  flatter  the  vice  and 
 imbecility  of  a  friend."     And  so  much  for  this  matter. 
 
 24.  Again;  what  if  the  names  of  priests  and  altars,  so   frequent 
 
 *  ^^urvey  of  !>eliiiion,  inil. 
 
WITH  AN  ANSWER  TO  KIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  15 
 
 in  the  ancient  Fathers,  though  not  now  in  the  popish  sense,  be 
 now  resumed  and  more  commonly  used  in  England  than  of  late 
 times  they  were ;  that  so  the  coloiu-able  argument  of  their  con- 
 formity, which  is  but  nominal  with  the  ancient  chiu-ch,  and  our 
 inconformit}^  which  the  governors  of  the  church  would  not  have 
 so  much  as  nominal,  may  be  taken  away  from  them ;  and  the 
 church  of  England  may  be  put  in  a  state,  in  this  regard,  more 
 justifiable  against  the  Roman  than  formerly  it  was,  being  hereby 
 enabled  to  say  to  papists  (whensoever  these  names  are  objected). 
 We  also  use  the  names  of  priests  and  altars,  and  yet  believe  neither 
 the  corporal  presence,  nor  any  proper  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  ? 
 
 25.  What  if  protestants  be  now  put  in  mind,  that  for  exposition 
 of  Scriptm-e  they  are  bound  by  a  canon  to  follow  the  ancient 
 Fathers ;  which  whosoever  doth  mth  sincerity,  it  is  utterly  im- 
 possible he  should  be  a  papist  ?  And  it  is  most  falsely  said  by  you, 
 that  you  know,  that  to  some  protestants  I  clearly  demonstrated,  or 
 ever  so  much  as  imdertook,  or  went  about  to  demonstrate  the  con- 
 trary. What  if  the  Centm-ists  be  censiued  somewhat  roundly  by  a 
 protestant  divine,  for  affirming  that  ''  the  keeping  of  the  Lord's 
 day  was  a  thing  indifferent  for  two  hundred  years  V"  Is  there  in 
 all  this,  or  any  part  of  it,  any  kind  of  proof  of  this  scandalous 
 calumny  ?  Certainly,  if  you  can  make  no  better  arguments  than 
 these,  and  have  so  little  judgment  as  to  think  these  any,  you  have 
 great  reason  to  decline  conferences,  and  signior  Con  to  prohibit  you 
 from  v/riting  books  any  more. 
 
 26.  As  for  the  points  of  doctrine,  wherein  you  pretend  that  these 
 divuies  begin  of  late  to  falter,  and  to  comply  ^^^th  the  clnirch  of 
 Rome ;  upon  a  due  examination  of  particulars,  it  will  presently 
 appear,  first,  that  part  of  them  alwa}'s  have  been,  and  now  are,  held 
 constantly  one  way  by  them  :  as,  the  authority  of  the  chiu-ch  in 
 determining  controversies  of  faith,  though  not  the  infallibility  of  it ; 
 that  there  is  inherent  justice,  though  so  imperfect  that  it  cannot 
 justify ;  that  there  are  traditions,  though  none  necessary ;  that 
 charity  is  to  be  preferred  before  knowledge ;  that  good  works  are 
 not  properly  meritorious ;  and,  lastly,  that  faith  alone  justifies, 
 though  that  faith  justifies  not  which  is  alone.  And,  secondly,  for  the 
 remainder,  that  they  eveiy  one  of  them  have  been  anciently,  without 
 breach  of  charity,  disputed  among  protestants  :  such,  for  example, 
 were  the  questions  about  the  pope's  being  the  antichrist ;  the  law- 
 fulness of  some  kind  of  prayers  for  the  dead ;  the  estate  of  the 
 fathers'  souls  before  Christ's  ascension ;  free  vdW ;  predestination ; 
 universal  grace ;  the  possibility  of  keeping  God's  commandments ; 
 the  use  of  pictures  in  the  chm-ch  :  wherein  that  there  hath  been 
 anciently  diversity  of  opinion  amongst  protestants,  it  is  justified  to  my 
 hand  by  a  witness  with  you  beyond  exception,  even  your  great  friend 
 Mr.  Brerely,  "whose  care,  exactness,  and  fidelity"  (you  say  in  your 
 preface)  "is  so  extraordinaiy  great."  Consult  him  therefore,  tract 
 3,  sect.  7,  of  his  Apology,  and  in  the  9,  10,  11,  14,  24,  26,  27,  37, 
 subdivisions  of  that  section,  you  shall  see,  as  in  a  mirror,  yom'self 
 proved  an  egregious  calumniator,  for  charging  protestants  with  inno- 
 vation, and  inclining  to  popery,  under  pretence,  forsooth,  that  their 
 doctrine  begins  of  late  to  be  altered  in  these  points.     Whereas  Mr. 
 
16  PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF   CHARITY  MAINTAINED, 
 
 Brerely  \vill  inform  you,  they  have  been  anciently,  and  even  from 
 the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  controverted  amongst  them, 
 though  perhaps  the  stream  and  current  of  their  doctors  run  one 
 way,  and  only  some  brook  or  rivulet  of  them  the  others. 
 
 21.  And  thus  my  friends,  I  suppose,  are  clearly  vindicated  from 
 your  scandals  and  calumnies.  It  remains  now,  in' the  last  place,  I 
 bring  myself  fairly  oft'  from  your  foul  aspersions,  that  so  my  person 
 may  not  be  (as  indeed  howsoever  it  should  not  be)  any  disadvan- 
 tage or  disparagement  to  the  cause,  nor  any  scandal  to  weak 
 Christians. 
 
 28.  Your  injuries  then  to  me  (no  way  deserved  by  me,  but  by 
 differing  in  opinion  from  you,  wherein  yet  you  sm-ely  differ  from 
 me  as  much  as  I  from  you)  are  especially  three  :  for,  first,  upon 
 hearsay,  and  refusing  to  give  me  opportunity  of  begetting  in  you  a 
 better  understanding  of  me,  you  chai-ge  me  with  a  great^number  of 
 false  and  impious  doctrines,  which  I  will  not  name  in  particular,  be- 
 cause I  ^vill  not  assist  you  so  far  in  the  spreading  of  my  own  unde- 
 served defamation — but  whosoever  teaches  or  holds  the'ra,  let  1dm  he 
 anathema  !  The  sum  of  them  all,  cast  up  by  yourself  in  your  first 
 chapter,  is  this:  "Nothing  ought  or  can  be  certainly  "^believed, 
 further  than  it  may  be  proved  by  evidence  of  natural  reason  ;" 
 (where,  I  conceive,  natm-al  reason  is  opposed  to  supernatural  revela- 
 tion) ; — and  whosoever  holds  so,  let  him  he  anathema  !  x\nd  more- 
 over, to  clear  myself  once  for  all  from  all  imputations  of  this  nature, 
 which  charge  me  injuriously  with  denial  of  supernatural  verities,  I 
 profess  sincerely  that  I  believe  all  those  books  of  Scripture  which 
 the  church  of  England  accounts  canonical  to  be  the  infallible  word 
 of  God  :  I  believe  all  things  evidently  contained  in  them  ;  all  things 
 evidently,  or  even  probably  deducible  from  them  :  I  acknowledge  all 
 that  to  be  heresy,  which  by  the  act  of  parhament  primo  of  Queen 
 EHzabeth  is  declared  to  be  so,  and  only  to  be  so ;  and  though  in 
 such  points  which  may  be  held  (hversely  of  divers  men  salva  fidei 
 compage,  I  would  not  take  any  man's  liberty  from  him,  and  humbly 
 beseech  all  men  that  they  would  not  take  mine  from  me  ;  yet  this 
 much  I  can  say  (which  I  hope  will  satisfy  any  man  of  reason),  that 
 whatsoever  hath  been  held  necessary  to  salvation,  either  by  the 
 catholic  chiu-ch  of  all  ages,  or  by  the  consent  of  Fathers,  measured 
 by  Vincentius  Lpinensis's  rule,  or  is  held  necessary,  either  by  the 
 cathohc  church  of  this  age,  or  by  the  consent  of  protestants,  or  even 
 by  the  church  of  England,  that,  against  the  Socinians,  and  all  others 
 whatsoever,  I  do  verily  believe  and  embrace. 
 
 29.  Another  great  and  manifest  injury  you  have  done  me,  in 
 charging  me  to  have  forsaken  your  religion,  because  it  conduced  not 
 to  my  temporal  ends,  and  suited  not  with  my  desires  and  designs  ; 
 which  certainly  is  an  horrible  crime,  and  whereof  if  you  could  con- 
 vince me  by  just  and  strong  presumptions  I  should  then  acknowledge 
 myself  to  deserve  that  opinion  which  you  would  fain  induce  your 
 credents  unto,  that  T  changed  not  your  religion  for  any  other,  but  for 
 none  at  all.  But  of  this  great  fault  my  conscience  acquits  me,  and 
 God,  who  only  knows  the  hearts  of  allVen,  knows  that  I  am  inno- 
 cent :  neither  doubt  I,  but  all  they  who  know  me,  and  amongst  them 
 many  persons  of  place  and  quality,  v^ill  say  they  have  reason  in  this 
 
WITH  AN  ANSWER  TO   HIS    DIRECTION  TO    N.    N.  1/ 
 
 matter  to  be  my  compurgators.  And  for  you,  though  you  are  very 
 affirmative  in  your  accusation,  yet  you  neither  do  nor  can  produce 
 any  proof  or  presumption  for  it ;  but  forgetting  yourself  (as  it  is 
 God's  will  ofttimes  that  slanderers  should  do),  have  let  fall  some 
 passages,  Avhich  being  well  weighed,  vv'ill  make  considering  men  apt 
 to  beheve  that  you  chd  not  believe  yourself.  For  how  is  it  possible 
 you  should  believe  that  I  deserted  your  religion  for  ends,  and 
 against  the  light  of  my  conscience,  out  of  a  desira  of  preferment ; 
 and  yet,  out  of  scruple  of  conscience,  should  refuse  (v/hich  also  5^ou 
 impute  to  me)  to  subscribe  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  that  is,  refuse 
 to  enter  at  the  only  common  door  which  here  in  England  leads  to 
 preferment?  Again,  how  incredible  is  it  that  you  should  beheve 
 that  I  forsook  the  profession  of  yom-  religion,  as  not  suiting  with 
 my  desires  and  designs,  which  yet  reconciles  the  enjoying  of  the 
 pleasures  and  profits  of  sin  here,  with  the  hope  of  happiness  here- 
 after, and  proposes  as  great  hope  of  temporal  advancements  to  the 
 capable  servants  of  it,  as  any,  nay,  more  than  any  religion  in  the 
 v»'orld ;  and,  instead  of  this,  should  choose  Socinianism,  a  doctrine, 
 which,  howsoever  erroneous  in  explicating  the  mysteries  of  religion, 
 and  allowing  greater  liberty  of  opinion  in  speculative  matters,  than 
 any  other  company  of  Christians  doth,  or  tiiey  should  do  ;  yet  cer- 
 tainly, which  you,  I  am  sure,  \^^ll  pretend  and  maintain  to  explicate 
 the  laws  of  Christ  with  more  rigour,  and  less  indulgence  and  conde- 
 scendence to  the  desires  of  flesh  and  blood  than  50m'  doctrine  doth  ; 
 and  besides,  such  a  doctrine,  by  which  no  man  in  his  right  mind  can 
 hope  for  any  honour  and  preferment,  either  in  this  chm-ch  or  state, 
 or  any  other  ;  all  which  clearly  demonstrates  that  this  foul  and  false 
 aspersion,  which  you  have  cast  upon  me,  proceeds  from  no  other 
 fountain  but  a  lieart  abounding  with  gall  and  bitterness  of  uncharit- 
 ableness,  and  even  blinded  \'vith  malice  towai-ds  me  ;  or  else  from  a 
 perverse  zeal  to  yom*  superstition,  which  secretly  suggests  this  per- 
 suasion to  you  : — that  for  the  catholic  cause  nothing  is  unlawful, 
 but  that  you  may  make  use  of  such  inchrect  and  crooked  arts  as 
 these  to  blast  my  reputation,  and  to  possess  men's  minds  with 
 disaffection  to  my  person  ;  lest  otherwise,  peradventure,  they  might 
 with  some  indifference  hear  reason  from  me.  God,  I  hope,  which 
 bringeth  light  out  of  darkness,  will  turn  yom*  counsels  to  foolish- 
 ness, and  give  all  good  men  grace  to  perceive  how  weak  and  ruinous 
 that  religion  must  be,  which  needs  supportance  from  such  tricks 
 and  devices  :  so  I  call  them,  because  they  deserve  no  better 
 name.  For  what  are  all  these  personal  matters,  which  hitherto 
 you  spoke  of,  to  the  business  in  hand?  If  it  could  be  proved 
 that  Cardinal  Bellarmine  was  indeed  a  Jew,  or  that  Cardinal 
 PeiTon  was  an  atheist ;  yet  I  presume  you  would  not  accept  of 
 tliis  for  an  anjuer  to  all  their  wiitings  in  defence  of  your  religion. 
 Let  then  my  actions,  intentions,  and  opinions  be  what  they  will, 
 yet  I  hope  truth  is  nevertheless  tmth,  nor  reason  ever  the  less 
 reason,  because  I  speak  it.  And  therefore  the  Christian  reader, 
 knowing  that  his  salvation  or  damnation  depends  upon  his  im- 
 partial and  sincere  judgment  of  these  things,  will  guard  himself 
 I  hope,  from  these  impostures,  and  regard  not  the  person,  but  the 
 cause  and  th^  reasons  of  it :  not  who  speaks,  but  what  is  spoken ; 
 
 c 
 
18  PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED, 
 
 which  is  all  the  favour  I  desire  of  him,  as  knowing  that  I  am 
 desirous  not  to  persuade  him,  unless  it  be  truth  whereunto  I 
 persuade  him. 
 
 30.  The  third  and  last  part  of  my  accusation  was,  that  I  answer 
 out  of  "  principles  which  protestants  themselves  will  profess  to 
 detest ;"  which  indeed  were  to  the  piu-pose,  if  it  could  be  justified. 
 But  besides  that  it  is  confuted  by  my  whole  book,  and  made  ridi- 
 culous by  the  approbations  premised  unto  it,  it  is  very  easy  for  me 
 out  of  yom*  own  mouth  and  words  to  prove  it  a  most  injurious 
 calumny.  For  what  one  conclusion  is  there  in  the  whole  fabric  of 
 my  discourse  that  is  not  naturally  deducible  out  of  this  one  prin- 
 ciple, that  "  all  things  necessary  to  salvation  are  evidently  contained 
 in  scripture  ?"  or  what  one  conclusion  almost  of  importance  is  there 
 in  your  book  which  is  not  by  this  one  cleai'ly  confutable  ? 
 
 .31.  Grant  this,  and  it  will  presently  follow,  in  opposition  to  your 
 first  conclusion,  and  the  argument  of  yom*  first  chapter,  that  amongst 
 men  of  different  opinions,  touching  the  obscure  and  controverted 
 questions  of  religion,  such  as  may  with  probabihty  be  disputed  on 
 both  sides  (and  such  arc  the  disputes  of  protestants j,  good  men  and 
 lovers  of  truth  on  all  sides  may  be  saved ;  because  all  necessary 
 things  being  supposed  evident  concerning  them,  with  men  so  quali- 
 fied, there  \^ill  be  no  difference  :  there  being  no  more  certain  sign 
 that  a  point  is  not  evident,  than  that  honest  and  understanding  and 
 indifferent  men,  and  such  as  give  themselves  hberty  of  judgment 
 after  a  mature  consideration  of  the  matter,  diff'er  about  it. 
 
 32.  Grant  this,  and  it  will  appear,  secondly,  that  the  means 
 vv'hereby  the  revealed  truths  of  God  are  conve3'ed  to  our  imder- 
 standing,  and  which  are  to  determine  all  controversies  in  faith 
 necessary  to  be  determined,  may  be,  for  anything  you  have  said  to 
 the  contrary,  not  a  church,  but  the  Scripture ;  which  contradicts 
 the  doctrine  of  your  second  chapter. 
 
 33.  Grant  this,  and  the  distinction  of  points  fundamental  and  not 
 fundamental  mil  appear  very  good  and  pertinent.  For  those  truths 
 will  be  fundamental  which  are  evidently  delivered  in  Scripture,  and 
 commanded  to  be  preached  to  all  men ;  those  not  fundamental, 
 which  are  obscure.  And  nothing  will  hinder  but  that  the  cathohc 
 chiu-ch  may  err  in  the  latter  kind  of  the  said  points  ;  because  truths 
 not  necessary  to  the  salvation,  cannot  be  necessary  to  the  being  of 
 a  church ;  and  because  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  that  God 
 should  assist  his  church  any  further  than  to  bring  her  to  salva- 
 tion, neither  will  there  be  any  necessity  at  all  of  any  infallible  guide, 
 either  to  consign  unwritten  traditions,  or  to  declare  the  obscurities  of 
 the  faith  :  not  for  the  former  end,  because  this  principle  being- 
 granted  true,  nothing  ummtten  can  be  necessary  to  be  consigned  : 
 nor  for  the  latter,  because  nothing  that  is  obscure  can  be  necessary 
 to  be  understood,  or  not  mistaken.  And  so  the  discom'se  of  yom* 
 whole  third  chapter  ^vill  presently  vanish. 
 
 34.  Fourthly.  For  the  creeds  containing  the  fundamentals  of 
 simple  belief,  though  I  see  not  how  it  may  be  deduced  from  this 
 principle,  yet  the  granting  of  this  plainly  renders  the  whole  dispute 
 couching  the  creed  unnecessary.  For  if  all  necessary  things,  of  all 
 sorts,  whether  of  simple  belief  or  practice,  be  confessed  to  be  clearly 
 
■^VITH  AN  ANSWER  TO  HIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  19 
 
 contained  in  Scripture,  what  imports  it,  whetlier  those  of  one  sort 
 be  contained  in  the  creed  ? 
 
 35.  Fifthly.  Let  this  be  granted,  and  the  immediate  corollary, 
 in  opposition  to  your  fifth  chapter,  will  be  and  must  be,  that  not 
 protestants  for  rejecting,  but  the  church  of  Rome  for  imposing  upon 
 the  faith  of  Christians  docti-ines  unwTitten  and  unnecessary,  and  for 
 distm-bing  the  church's  peace,  and  dividing  unity  for  such  matters, 
 is  in  a  high  degree  presumptuous  and  schismatical. 
 
 36.  Grant  this,  sixthly,  and  it  ■tnll  follow  unavoidably,  that  pro- 
 testants cannot  possibly  be  heretics,  seeing  they  believe  all  things 
 evidently  contained  in  Scripture,  which  are  supposed  to  be  all  that 
 is  necessary  to  be  believed  :  and  so  yoiu*  sixth  chapter  is  clearly 
 confuted. 
 
 Z1 .  Grant  this,  lastl}-,  and  it  ^^ill  be  undoubtedly  consequent,  in 
 contrachction  to  your  seventh  chapter,  that  no  man  can  show  more 
 charity  to  himself  than  by  continuing  a  protestant ;  seeing  pro- 
 testants are  supposed  to  believe,  and  therefore  may  accordingly 
 practise,  at  least  by  their  religion  are  not  hindered  from  practising 
 and  performing,  all  things  necessary  to  salvation. 
 
 38.  So  that  the  position  of  this  one  principle  is  the  direct  over- 
 throw of  yom-  whole  book ;  and  therefore  I  needed  not,  nor  indeed 
 have  I  made  use  of  any  other.  Now  this  principle,  which  is  not 
 only  the  comer-stone,  or  chief  pillar,  but  even  the  basis,  and  the 
 adequate  foundation  of  my  answer,  and  which,  while  it  stands  firm 
 and  unmovable,  cannot  but  be  the  supporter  of  my  book,  and  the 
 certain  ruin  of  yours,  in  so  far  from  being,  according  to  yoiu*  pre- 
 tence, detested  by  all  protestants,  that  all  protestants  whatsoever, 
 as  you  may  see  in  their  harmony  of  confessions,  unanimously 
 profess  and  maintain  it.  xind  you  yourself  (chap.  vi.  §  30), 
 l^lainly  confess  as  much,  in  saying,  "  The  whole  edifice  of  the  faith 
 of  protestants  is  settled  on  these  two  princii)les :  these  par- 
 ticular books  are  canonical  scripture  ;  and  the  sense  and  meaning 
 of  them  is  plain  and  evident,  at  least  in  all  points  necessary  to 
 salvation." 
 
 39.  And  thus  yoiu*  venom  against  me  is  in  a  manner  spent, 
 saving  only  that  there  remains  two  little  impertinencies,  whereby 
 you  would  disable  me  from  being  a  fit  advocate  for  the  cause  of 
 protestants.  The  first,  because  I  refuse  to  subscribe  the  Articles 
 of  the  chm-ch  of  England ;  the  second,  because  I  have  set  do^vn 
 in  WTiting,  Motives  which  sometimes  induced  me  to  forsake  pro- 
 testantism, and  hitherto  have  not  ansv^-ered  them. 
 
 40.  By  the  former  of  which  objections,  it  should  seem,  that 
 either  you  conceive  the  Thhty-nine  Articles  the  common  doctrine  of 
 all  protestants  ;  and  if  they  be,  why  have  you  so  often  upbraided 
 them  vA\X\  their  many  and  great  differences  ;  or  else,  that  it  is  the 
 peculiar  defence  of  the  church  of  England,  and  not  the  common 
 cause  of  all  protestants,  ^^■hich  is  here  undertaken  by  me ;  which 
 are  certainly  very  gross  mistakes.  And  yet  wdiy  he  who  makes 
 scruple  of  subscribing  the  truth  of  one  or  two  propositions,  may 
 not  yet  be  fit  enough  to  maintain  that  those  who  do  subscribe  them 
 are  in  a  savable  condition,  I  do  not  understand.  Now  though  I 
 hold  not  the  doctrine  of  all  protestants  absolutely  true  (which  with. 
 
20   PREFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED, 
 
 reason  cannot  be  required  of  me,  while  they  hold  contradictions),  yet 
 I  hold  it  free  from  all  impiety,  and  from  all  error  destructive  of 
 salvation,  or  in  itself  damnable  :  and  this  I  think  in  reason  may 
 sufficiently  qualify  me  for  a  maintainer  of  this  assertion,  that  pro- 
 testancy  destroys"  not  salvation.  For  the  chm'ch  of  England,  I  am 
 persuaded,  that  the  constant  doctrine  of  it  is  so  pure  and  orthodox, 
 that  whosoever  beheves  it,  and  lives  according  to  it,  undoubtedly 
 he  shall  be  saved ;  and  that  there  is  no  error  in  it  which  may 
 necessitate  or  warrant  any  man  to  disturb  the  peace  or  renounce 
 the  communion  of  it.  This,  in  my  opinion,  is  all  intended  by  sub- 
 scription ;  and  thus  much,  if  you  conceive  me  not  ready  to  subscribe 
 your  charity,  I  assure  you,  is  much  mistaken. 
 
 41.  Your  other  objection  against  me  is  yet  more  impertinent  and 
 frivolous  than  the  former ;  unless  perhaps  it  be  a  just  exception 
 against  a  physician,  that  himself  was  sometimes  in,  and  recovered 
 himself  from,  that  disease  which  he  undertakes  to  cm-e  ;  or  against  a 
 guide  in  a  way,  that  at  first,  before  he  had  experience  himself, 
 mistook  it,  and  afterwards  found  his  error  and  amended  it.  That 
 noble  writer,  IMichael  de  IMontaigne,  was  surely  of  a  fai-  different 
 mind ;  for  he  will  hardly  allow  any  physician  competent,  but  onh^ 
 for  such  diseases  as  himself  had  passed  through  :  and  a  far  greater 
 than  Montaigne,  even  he  that  said,  Tu  conversus  confirma 
 fratres,  gives  us  sufficiently  to  understand,  that  they  which  have 
 themselves  been  in  such  a  state  as  to  need  conversion,  are  not 
 thereby  made  incapable  of,  but  rather  engaged  and  obhged  unto, 
 and  qualified  for,  this  charitable  function. 
 
 42.  Neither  am  I  guilty  of  that  strange  and  preposterous  zeal  (as 
 you  esteem  it)  which  you  impute  to  me,  for  having  been  so  long 
 careless,  in  removing  "this  scandal  against  protestants,  and  answer- 
 ing my  own  Motives,  and  yet  now  sho\Aing  such  fervour  in  writing 
 against  others.  For  neither  are  they  other  motives,  but  the  very 
 same,  for  the  most  part,  \rith  those  that  abused  me,  against  M'hich 
 this  book  which  I  no^v  pubhsh  is  in  a  manner  wholly  employed : 
 and  besides,  though  you  Jesuits  take  upon  you  to  have  such  large 
 and  universal  intelligence  of  all  state  affairs  and  matters  of  im- 
 portance ;  yet  I  hope  such  a  contemptible  matter  as  an  answer  of 
 mine  to  a  little  piece  of  paper,  may  very  probably  have  been  written 
 and  escaped  your  observation.  The  truth  is,  1  made  an  answer  to 
 them  three  years  since  and  better,  which  perhaps  might  have  been 
 published,  but  for  two  reasons  :  one,  because  the  Motives  were 
 ne  er  public  until  you  made  them  so ;  the  other,  because  I  was 
 loth  to  proclaim  to  "all  the  world  so  much  weakness  as  I  showed  in 
 suffering  myself  to  be  abused  by  such  silly  sophisms  :  all  which  pro- 
 ceed upon  mistakes  and  false  suppositions,  which  unadvisedly  I  took 
 for  granted;  as  when  I  have  set  down  the  motives  in  order  by  sub- 
 sequent answers  to  them,  1  shall  quickly  demonstrate,  and  so  make 
 an  end. 
 
 43.  The  motives  then  were  these  : 
 
 1.  "  Because  perpetual  visible  profession,  which  could  never  be 
 wanting  to  the  religion  of  Christ,  or  any  part  of  it,  is  apparently 
 wanting  to  protestant  religion,  so  far  as  concerns  the  points  in 
 contestation. 
 
WITH  AX  ANSWER  TO  HIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  21 
 
 2.  "  Because  Luther  and  his  followers,  separating  from  the 
 church  of  Rome,  separated  also  from  all  churches,  pure  and  impure, 
 true  or  false,  then  being  in  the  world  ;  upon  which  ground  I  con- 
 clude, that  either  God's  promises  did  fail  of  performance,  if  there 
 were  then  no  church  in  the  world  which  held  all  things  necessary, 
 and  nothing  repugnant  to  salvation ;  or  else,  that  Luther  and  his 
 sectaries,  separating  from  all  churches  then  in  the  world,  and  so 
 from  the  true,  if  there  were  any  true,  were  damnable  schismatics. 
 
 3.  "  Because,  if  any  credit  may  be  given  to  as  creditable  records 
 as  any  are  extant,  the  doctrine  of  catholics  hath  been  frequently  con- 
 firmed ;  and  the  opposite  doctrine  of  protestants  confounded  with 
 supernatural  and  Divine  miracles. 
 
 4.  "  Because  many  points  of  protestant  doctrine  are  tlie  damned 
 opinions  of  heretics  condemned  by  the  primitive  church. 
 
 5.  "  Because  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  touching  the 
 conversion  of  kings  and  nations  to  the  true  religion  of  Christ,  have 
 been  accomplished  in  and  by  the  catholic  Roman  religion,  and  the 
 professors  of  it ;  and  not  by  protestant  religion,  and  the  professors 
 of  it. 
 
 6.  "  Because  the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Rome  is  conformable, 
 and  the  doctrine  of  protestants  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
 Fathers  of  the  jirimitive  church,  even  by  the  confession  of  pro- 
 testants themselves ;  I  mean,  those  Fathers  who  lived  within  the 
 compass  of  the  first  600  years ;  to  whom  protestants  themselves  do 
 very  frequently  and  very  confidently  appeal 
 
 7.  "  Because  the  first  pretended  reformers  had  neither  extra- 
 ordmary  commission  from  God,  nor  ordinary  mission  from  the 
 church,  to  preach  protestant  doctrine. 
 
 8.  "  Because  Luther,  to  preach  against  the  mass  (which  contains 
 the  most  material  points  now  in  controversy),  was  persuaded  by 
 reasons  suggested  to  him  by  the  devil  himself,  disputing  with  him. 
 So  himself  professeth,  in  his  book  de  Mlssa  Privata  j  that  all  men 
 might  take  heed  of  following  him,  who  professeth  himself  to  follow 
 the  devil. 
 
 9.  "  Because  the  protestant  cause  is  now,  and  hath  been  from  the 
 beginning,  maintained  with  gross  falsifications  and  calumnies; 
 whereof  their  prime  controversy  wTiters  are  notoriously  and  in 
 high  degree  guilty. 
 
 10.  '•  Because  by  denymg  all  human  authority,  either  of  pope  or 
 council  or  church,  to  determine  controversies  of  faith,  they  have 
 abolished  all  possible  means  of  suppressing  heresy,  or  restormg 
 unity  to  the  church." 
 
 These  are  the  motives.  Now  my  answers  to  them  follow  briefly 
 and  m  order. 
 
 44.  To  the  first.  God  hath  neither  decreed  nor  foretold  that  his 
 true  doctrine  should  de  facto  be  always  visibly  professed,  without 
 any  mixture  of  falsehood. 
 
 To  the  second.  God  hath  neither  decreed  nor  foretold  that  there 
 shall  be  ah.vays  a  visible  company  of  men  free  from  all  error  in 
 itself  dam-nable.  Neither  is  it  always  of  necessity  schismatical  to 
 separate  from  the  external  communion  of  a  church,  though  wanting 
 nothing  necessary ;  for  if  this  church,  supposed  to  want  nothing 
 
22       PKEFACE  TO  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY   MAINTAIX2D, 
 
 necessary,  require  me  to  profess  against  my  conscience  that  I 
 believe  some  error,  though  never  so  small  and  innocent,  Avhich  I  do 
 not  believe,  and  will  not  alloAV  me  her  communion  but  upon  this 
 condition,  in  this  case  the  church  for  requiring  this  condition  is 
 schismatical,  and  not  I  for  separating  from  the  church. 
 
 To  the  third.  If  any  credit  may  be  given  to  records,  far  more 
 creditable  than  these,  the  doctrine  of  protestants,  that  is,  the  Bible, 
 hath  been  confirmed,  and  the  doctrine  of  pa})ists,  which  is  in 
 many  points  jdainly  opposite  to  it,  confounded,  with  supernatural 
 and  Divine  miracles,  which,  for  number  and  glory,  outshine 
 popish  pretended  miracles,  as  much  as  the  sun  doth  an  ignis  fatuus ; 
 those  I  mean,  whicli  were  wrought  by  our  Saviour  Christ  and  his 
 apostles.  Now  this  book,  by  the  confession  of  all  sides,  confirmed 
 by  innumerable  miracles,  foretells  me  plainly  that  in  after-ages  great 
 signs  and  wonders  shall  be  wrought  in  confirmation  of  lalse  doc- 
 trine :  and  that  I  am  not  to  believe  any  doctrine  which  seems  to  my 
 understanding  repugnant  to  the  first,  though  an  angel  from  heaven 
 should  teach  it ;  which  Averc  certainly  as  great  a  miracle  as  any  that 
 was  ever  wrought  in  attestation  of  any  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
 church  of  Home.  But  that  true  doctrine  should  in  all  ages  have  the 
 testimony  of  miracles,  tliat  I  am  nowhere  taught ;  so  that  I  have 
 more  reason  to  suspect  and  be  afraid  of  pretended  miracles,  as  signs 
 of  false  doctrine,  than  much  to  regard  them  as  certain  arguments  of 
 the  truth.  Besides,  setting  aside  the  Bible,  and  the  tradition  of  it, 
 there  is  as  good  stor^'  for  miracles  vrrought  by  those  who  lived  and 
 died  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  church  (as  by  St. 
 Cyprian,  Colmannus,  Columbanus,  Aidanus,  and  others),  as  there 
 is  for  those  that  are  pretended  to  be  wrought  by  the  members  of  that 
 church.  Lastly,  it  seems  to  me  no  strange  thing,  that  God  in  his 
 justice  should  permit  some  true  miracles  to  be  \vrought  to  delude 
 them,  who  have  forged  so  many,  as  aiiparently  the  professors  of  the 
 Roman  doctrine  have,  to  abuse  the  world. 
 
 To  the  fourth.  All  those  were  not  heretics,*  which  by  Philastrius, 
 E])iphanius,  or  St.  Austin  were  put  in  the  catalogue  of  heretics. 
 
 To  the  fifth.  Kings  and  nations  have  been  and  may  be  converted 
 by  men  of  contrary  religions. 
 
 To  the  sixth.  The  doctrine  of  papists  is  confessed  by  papists  con- 
 trary to  the  Fathers  in  many  points. 
 
 To  the  seventh.  The  pastors  of  a  chiu-ch  cannot  but  have  autho- 
 rity from  it  to  ])reach  against  the  abuses  of  it,  whether  in  doctrine  or 
 practice,  if  there  be  any  in  it :  neither  can  any  Christian  want  an 
 ordinary  commission  from  God  to  do  a  nee  ■:  sar  work  of  charity 
 after  a  peaceable  manner,  when  there  is  nobody  else  that  can  or  will 
 do  it.  In  extraordinaiy  cases,  extraordinary  courses  are  not  to  b 
 disallowed.  If  some  Christian  laymen  shoidd  come  into  a  country  of 
 infidels,  and  had  ability  to  persuade  tliem  to  Christianity,  who  would 
 say  he  might  not  use  it  for  want  of  commission  ? 
 
 To  the  eighth.  Luther's  conference  with  the  devi'  might  be,  for 
 aught  I  know,  nothing  but  a  melancholy  (beam.  If  it  w  ere  real,  th^ 
 de\il  might  persuade  Luther  from  the  mass,  hoping  by  doing  so  to 
 
 •  See  this  acknowledged   by    Bellar.    de  Script.    Eccles.    in    rhilastrio  ;    by 
 Petaviua  Animad.  in  Epirh.  de  inscript.  operis     by  St.  Austin  Li      de  ilar.  80. 
 
WITH  AX  ANSWER  TO  HIS  DIRECTION  TO  N.  N.  23 
 
 keep  him  constant  to  it ;  or  that  others  would  make  his  dissuasion 
 from  it  an  argument  for  it  (as  we  see  papists  do),  and  be  afraid  of  fol- 
 lowing Luther,  as  confessing  himself  to  have  been  persuaded  by  the 
 devil. 
 
 To  the  ninth.  JUacos  intra  muros  peccatur  et  extra.  Papists  are 
 more  guilty  of  this  fault  than  protestants.  Even  this  very  author  in 
 this  very  pamphlet  hath  not  so  many  leaves  as  falsifications  and 
 calumnies. 
 
 To  the  tenth.  Let  all  men  believe  the  Scripture,  and  that  only, 
 and  endeavour  to  believe  it  in  the  true  sense,  and  reqim-e  no  more  of 
 others,  and  they  shall  find  this  not  only  a  better,  but  the  only 
 means  to  suppress  heresy  and  restore  unity.  For  he  that  believes 
 the  Scriptiu-e  sincerely,  and  endeavom-s  to  believe  it  in  the  true 
 sense  cannot  possibly  be  an  heretic.  And  if  no  more  than  this  were 
 required  of  any  man  to  make  him  capable  of  the  church's  communion, 
 then  all  men  so  quahfied,  though  they  were  different  in  opinion,  not- 
 withstanding any  such  difference,  must  be  of  necessity  one  in 
 communion. 
 
THE    AUTHOR    OF 
 
 CHAEITY     MAINTAINED, 
 
 HIS  PREFACE  TO  THE  READER. 
 
 ''  Give  me  leave  (good  reader)  to  inform  thee,  by  way  of  prefece,  of 
 three  points  :  the  hrst  concerns  D.  Potter's  Answer  to  Charity  Mis- 
 taken. The  second  relates  to  this  Reply  of  mine.  And  the  third 
 contains  some  premonitions  or  prescriptions,  in  case  D.  Potter,  or 
 any  in  his  behalf,  think  fit  to  rejoin. 
 
 2.  "  For  the  lirst  point,  concerning  D.  Potter's  Answer,  I  say  in 
 general,  reser\'ing  particulars  to  their  proper  places,  that  in  his  whole 
 lx)ok  he  hath  not  so  much  as  once  truly  and  really  fallen  upon  the 
 point  in  question  ;  which  was,  whether  both  catholics  and  protestants 
 can  be  &?..\ed  in  their  several  professions?  and  therefore  Charity 
 Mistaken  juchciously  pressing  those  particulars,  wherein  the  difficulty 
 doth  precisely  consist,  proves  in  general  that  there  is  but  one  true 
 church  ;  that  all  Christians  are  obliged  to  hearken  to  her  ;  that  she 
 must  be  ever  visible  and  infaUible  ;  that  to  separate  one's  self  from 
 her  communion  is  schism  ;  and  to  dissent  from  her  doctrine  is  heresy, 
 though  it  be  in  points  never  so  few,  or  never  so  small  in  their  own 
 nature  ;  and  therefore  that  the  distinction  of  points  fundamental  and 
 not  fundamental  is  wholly  vain,  as  it  is  apphed  by  protestants.  These 
 (I  say)  and  some  other  general  grounds.  Charity  Mistaken  handles  ; 
 and  out  of  them  doth  clearly  evince,  that  any  the  least  difference  in 
 faith  cannot  stand  with  salvation  on  both  sides.  And  therefore, 
 since  it  is  apparent  that  cathohcs  and  protestants  disagree  in  very 
 many  points  of  faith,  they  both  camiot  hope  to  be  saved  without 
 repentance  ;  and,  consequently,  as  we  hold  that  protestancy  un- 
 repented  destro3s  salvation,  so  must  they  also  believe  that  we  cannot 
 be  saved,  if  they  judge  their  own  religion  to  be  true,  and  oiu-s  to  be 
 false.  And  whosoever  disguiseth  this  truth  is  an  enemy  to  souls, 
 ■which  he  deceives  with  ungrounded  false  hope  of  salvation  m  dif- 
 ferent faiths  and  religions.  And  this  Charity  Mistaken  performed 
 exactk,  according  to  that  which  appears  to  have  been  his  design, 
 which  was  not  to  descend  to  particular  disputes,  as  D.  Potter 
 affectedly  does ;  namely,  whether  or  no  the  Roman  church  be  the 
 only  church  of  Christ ;  and  much  less  whether  general  councils  be 
 infaUible  :  whether  the  pope  may  err  in  his  decrees  common  to  the 
 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED.  25 
 
 whole  church  :  whether  he  be  above  a  general  coiincil :  whether  all 
 points  of  faith  be  contained  in  Scripture  :  whether  faith  be  resolved 
 into  the  authority  of  the  church,  as  into  its  last  formal  object  and 
 motive  :  and  least  of  all  did  he  discom-se  of  images,  communion 
 imder  both  kinds,  pubhc  service  in  an  unknown  tongue,  seven  sacra- 
 ments, sacrifice  of  the  mass,  indulgences,  and  index  expurgatorius. 
 All  which  and  divers  other  articles  D.  Potter  (as  I  said)  draws  by- 
 violence  into  his  book  :  and  he  might  as  well  have  brought  in  pope 
 Joan,  or  antichrist,  or  the  Jews  who  are  permitted  to  live  in  Rome  ; 
 which  are  common  themes  for  men  that  want  better  matter,  as  D. 
 Potter  was  forced  to  fetch  in  the  aforesaid  controversies,  that  so  he 
 might  dazzle  the  eyes  and  chstract  the  mind  of  the  reader,  and 
 hinder  him  from  percei^'ing  that  in  his  whole  Answer  he  uttereth 
 nothing  to  the  purpose  and  point  in  question  ;  which  if  he  had  fol- 
 lowed closelv,  I  dare  well  say  he  might  have  despatched  his  whole 
 book  in  tv/o  or  three  sheets  of  papei .  But  the  truth  is,  he  was  loth 
 to  affirm  plainly,  that  generally  both  catliolics  and  protestants  may 
 be  saved.  And  yet  seeing  it  to  be  most  evident  that  protestants 
 cannot  pretend  to  have  any  true  church  before  Luther,  except  the 
 Roman,  and  such  as  agreed  with  her  ;  and,  consequently,  that  they 
 cannot  hope  for  salvation  if  they  deny  it  to  us  ;  he  thought  best  to 
 avoid  this  difficulty  by  confusion  of  language,  and  to  fill  up  his  book 
 with  points  v hich  make  nothing  to  the  purpose  ;  v.herein  he  is  less 
 excusable,  because  he  must  grant  that  those  very  particulars,  to 
 which  he  digresseth,  are  not  fundamental  errors,  though  it  shoidd  be 
 granted  that  they  be  errors,  wliich  indeed  are  catholic  verities ;  for 
 since  they  be  not  fundamental,  nor  destructive  of  salvation,  what 
 imports  it  whether  we  hold  them  or  no,  forasmuch  as  concerns 
 our  possibihty  to  be  saved  ? 
 
 3.  "■  In  one  thing  only  he  mil  perhaps  seem  to  have  touched  the 
 point  in  question  :  to  wit,  in  his  distmction  of  points  fundamental  and 
 not  fundamental ;  because  some  may  think  that  a  difference  in  points 
 which  are  not  fundamental  breaks  not  the  unity  of  faith,   and  hinders 
 not  the  hope  of  salvation  in  persons  so  disagreeing.     And  yet,  in  this 
 very  distinction  he  never  speaks  to  the  purpose  indeed,  but  oidy  says 
 that  there  are  some  points  so  fundamental,  as  that  all  are  obhged  to 
 know  and  believe  them  explicitly  ;    but  never  tells  us  whether  there 
 be  any  other  points  of  faith  which  a  man  may  deny  or  disbeheve, 
 though  they  be  sutncientiy  presented  to  his  understanding  as  truths 
 revealed  or  testified  by  Almighty  God  ;  which  was  the  only  tiling  in 
 question.     For  if  it  be   damnable,  as  certainly  it  is,  to  deny  or  dis- 
 beheve any  one  truth  vatnessed  by  Almighty  God,  though  the  thing 
 be  not  in  itself  of  any  great  consequence  or  moment  -,  and  since,  of 
 two  disagreeing  in  matters  of  faith,  one  must  necessariiv  deny  some 
 such  truth ;  it  clearly  follows   that  amongst  men  of  different  faiths 
 or  religions,  one  only  can  be  saved,  though  then-  difference  consist  of 
 divers,   or   but  even  one  point,  which  is  not  in  its  own  natm-e  funda- 
 mental, as  I  declare  at  large  in  divers  places  of  my  first  part.    So  that 
 it  is  clear  D.  Potter,  even  in  this  his  last  refuge  and  distinction, 
 never  comes  to  the  point  in  question  ;  to  say  nothing  that  he  himself 
 doth  quite  overthrow  it,  and  plainly  contradict  his  whole  design,  as  I 
 show  in  the  third  cliapter  of  my  first  part. 
 
26  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED, 
 
 4.  "  And  as  for  D.  Potter's  manner  of  handling  those  very  points, 
 which  are  utterly  beside  the  purpose,  it  consists  only  in  bringing  vul- 
 gar, mean  objections,  which  have  been  answered  a  thousand  times  ; 
 yea,  and  some  of  them  are  clearly  answered  in  Charity  Mistaken  ;  but 
 he  takes  no  knowledge  at  all  of  any  such  answers,  and  much  less 
 does  he  apply  himself  to  confute  them.  He  allegeth  also  authors 
 with  so  great  corruption  and  fraud,  as  I  would  not  have  believed,  if  I 
 had  not  found  it  by  clear  and  frequent  experience.  In  his  second 
 edition,  he  has  indeed  left  out  one  or  two  gross  corruptions,  amongst 
 many  others  no  less  notorious  ;  having,  as  it  seems,  been  warned  by 
 some  friends  that  they  could  not  stand  \Adth  his  cretht  :  but  even  in 
 this  his  second  edition  he  retracts  them  not  at  all,  nor  declares  that  he 
 was  mistaken  in  the  first ;  and  so  his  reader  of  the  first  edition  shall 
 ever  be  deceived  by  him,  though  withal  he  read  the  second.  For 
 preventing  of  which  inconvenience,  I  have  thought  it  necessary  to 
 take  notice  of  them,  and  discover  them  in  my  Reply. 
 
 5.  "  And  for  conclusion  of  this  point  I  will  only  say,  that  D.  Potter 
 might  ha^^e  well  spared  himself  the  pains,  if  he  had  ingenuously 
 acknowledged  where  the  whole  substance,  yea,  and  sometimes  the 
 very  words  and  phrases  of  his  book,  may  be  found  in  far  briefer 
 manner,  namely,  in  a  sermon  of  D.  Usher's,  preached  before  om*  late 
 sovereign  lord  King  James,  the  20th  of  June,  1624,  at  Wansted  ; 
 containing  A  Declaration  of  the  Universality  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
 and  the  Unity  of  Faith  professed  therein  ;  which  sermon  having  been 
 roundly  and  wittily  confuted  by  a  catholic  divine,  under  the  name  of 
 Paidus  Veridicus,  within  the  compass  of  about  four  sheets  of  paper, 
 D.  Potter's  Answer  to  Charity  Mistaken  was  in  efl'ect  confuted  before 
 it  appeared.  And  this  may  sutfice  for  a  general  censure  of  his 
 Answer  to  Charity  Mistaken. 
 
 6.  "  For  the  second,  touching  my  reply  :  if  you  wonder  at  the 
 bulk  thereof,  compared  either  with  Charity  Mistaken,  or  I).  Potter's 
 Answer,  I  desire  you  to  consider  well  of  what  now  I  am  about  to  say, 
 and  then  I  hope  you  will  see  that  I  was  cast  upon  a  mere  necessity  of 
 not  being  so  short  as  otherwise  might  paradventure  be  desired. 
 Charity  Mistaken  is  short,  I  grant,  and  yet  very  full  and  large,  for 
 as  much  as  concerned  his  design,  which  you  see  was  not  to  treat  of 
 particvdar  controversies  in  religion,  no,  not  so  much  as  to  debate 
 whether  or  no  the  Roman  church  be  the  only  true  church  of  Christ, 
 which  indeed  would  have  required  a  large  volume,  as  I  have  under- 
 stood there  was  one  then  coming  forth,  if  it  had  not  been  prevented 
 by  the  treatise  of  Charity  Mistaken,  which  seemed  to  make  the  other 
 intended  work  a  little  less  seasonable  at  that  time.  But  Charity 
 Mistaken  proves  only  in  general  out  of  some  universal  principles, 
 well  backed  and  made  good  by  choice  and  solid  authorities,  that  of 
 two  disagreeing  in  points  of  faith,  one  only  without  repentance  can 
 be  saved  ;  which  aim  exacted  no  great  bvdk.  And  as  for  D.  Potter's 
 Answer,  even  that  also  is  not  so  short  as  it  may  seem.  For  if  his 
 marginal  notes,  printed  in  a  small  letter,  were  transferred  into  the 
 text,  the  book  would  appear  to  be  of  some  bulk  :  though  indeed  it 
 might  have  been  very  short,  if  he  had  kept  himself  to  the  point 
 treated  by  Charity  Mistaken,  as  shall  be  declared  anon.  But,  con- 
 trarily,  l>ecause  the  question  debated  betwixt  Charitv  Mistaken  and 
 
HIS    PREFACE    TO    THE    READER.  ^/ 
 
 J).  Potter  is  a  point  of  the  highest  consequence  that  can  be  imagined  ; 
 and,  in  regard  that  there  is  not  a  more  pernicious  heresy,  or  rathei 
 indeed  ground  of  atheism,  than  a  persuasion  that  men  of  different 
 rehgions  may  be  saved,  if  otherwise,  forsooth,  they  lead  a  kind  ot 
 civil  and  moral  hfe  ;  I  conceive  that  my  chief  endeavour  was  not  to 
 be  employed  in  answering  D.  Potter  ;  "but  that  it  was  necessary  to 
 handle  the  question  itself  somewhat  at  large,  and  not  only  to  prove 
 in  general  that  both  protectants  and  catholics  cannot  be  saved,  bui 
 to  show  also  that  salvation  cannot  be  hoped  for  out  of  the  cathohc 
 Roman  church  ;  and  yet  wdtiial,  not  to  omit  to  answer  all  the  par- 
 ticulars of  D.  Potter's"  book,  which  may  any  ways  import.  To  this 
 end  I  thought  it  fit  to  divide  my  Reply  into  two  parts  :  in  the  former 
 whereof  the  main  question  is  handled  by  a  continued  discourse,  with- 
 out stepping  aside  to  confute  the  particulars  of  D.  Potter's  Answer  ; 
 though  yet  so,  as  that  even  in  this  first  part  I  omit  not  to  answer 
 such  pa'ssages  of  his  as  I  find  directly  in  my  way,  and  naturally 
 belong  to  the  points  whereof  I  treat ;  and,  in  the  second  part,  I 
 answer  D.  Potter's  treatise  section  by  section,  as  they  lie  in  order. 
 I  here  therefore  entreat  the  reader,  that  if  he  heartily  desire  satis- 
 faction in  this  so  important  question,  he  do  not  content  liimself  ^nth 
 that  which  I  say  to  1),  Potter  in  my  second  part,  but  that  he  take 
 the  first  before  him,  either  all,  or  at  least,  so  much  as  may  serrc 
 most  to  his  purpose  of  being  satisfied  ui  those  doubts  which  press 
 him  most.  For  which  purpose,  I  have  caused  a  table  of  the  chapters 
 of  the  first  part,  together  with  their  titles  and  arguments,  to  be  pre- 
 fixed before  my  Reply. 
 
 7.  "  This  was  then  a  chief  reason  why  I  could  not  be  very  short : 
 but  yet  there  wanted  not  also  divers  other  causes  of  the  same  effect. 
 For  there  are  so  several  kinds  of  piotestants,  through  the  difference 
 of  tenets  which  they  hold,  as  that  if  a  man  convince  but  one  kind 
 of  them,  the  rest  Avill  conceive  themselves  to  be  as  truly  unsatisfied, 
 and  even  unspoken  to,  as  if  nothing  had  been  said  therein  at  all.  As 
 for"  example,  some  hold  a  necessity  of  a  perpetual  visible  church,  and 
 some  hold  no  such  necessity.  Some  of  them  hold  it  necessary  to  be 
 able  to  prove  it  distinct  from  ours  ;  and  others,  that  their  business 
 is  despatched  when  they  have  proved  ours  to  have  been  always 
 visible  ;  for  then  they  will  conceive  that  theirs  hath  been  so  :  and 
 the  hke  may  be  truly  said  of  very  many  other  ])articulars.  Besides, 
 it  is  D.  Potter's  fashion  (wherehi  he  is  very  far  from  being  the  first, 
 so  I  pray  God  he  prove  the  last  of  that  humour)  to  touch  in  a  word 
 many  trivial  old  objections,  which,  if  they  be  not  all  answered,  it; 
 will  and  must  serve  the  turn  to  make  the  ignorant  sort  of  men 
 beheve  and  brag,  as  if  some  main  unanswerable  matter  had  been 
 subtilly  and  purposely  omitted  :  and  everybody  knows  that  some, 
 objection  may  be  very  plausibly  made  in  few  words,  the  clear  and 
 solid  answer  whereof  will  require  more  leaves  of  paper  than  one. 
 And,  in  particular,  D.  Potter  doth  couch  his  corruption  of  authors 
 within  the  compass  of  so  few  lines,  and  with  so  great  confusedness 
 and  fraud,  that  it  requires  much  time,  pains,  and  paper,  to  open 
 them  so  distinctly,  as  that  they  may  appear  to  every  man's  eye.  It 
 was  also  necessary  to  show  what  I).  Potter  omits  in  Charity  Mis- 
 taken, and  the  importance  of  what  is  omitted  5  and  sometimes  to  set 
 
28  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED, 
 
 dovm  the  very  words  themselves  that  are  omitted  :  all  which  could 
 not  but  add  to  the  quantity  of  my  Reply.  And  as  for  the  quality 
 thereof,  I  desire  thee,  good  reader,  to  believe,  that  whereas  nothing 
 is  more  necessary  than  books  for  answering  of  books,  yet  I  was  so 
 ill  furnished  in  this  kind,  that  T  was  forced  to  omit  the  examination 
 of  divers  authors  cited  by  D.  Potter,  merel}'^  upon  necessity  ;  though 
 I  did  very  well  perceive,  by  most  a})parent  circumstances,  that  I 
 must  probably  have  been  sure  enough  to  find  them  plainly  mis- 
 alleged, and  much  wronged  :  and  for  the  few  which  are  examined, 
 there  hath  not  wanted  some  difficulty  to  do  it.  For  the  times  are 
 not  for  all  men  alike  ;  and  D.  Potter  hath  much  advantage  thereiu. 
 But  truth  is  trath,  and  will  ever  be  able  to  justify  itself  in  the 
 midst  of  all  difficulties  which  may  occur.  As  for  me,  when  I  allege 
 protestant  writers,  as  well  domestical  as  foreign,  I  willingly  and 
 thankfully  acknowledge  myself  obliged  for  divers  of  them  to  the 
 author  of  the  book  entitled.  The  Protestant's  Apology  for  the 
 Roman  Church,  who  calls  himself  John  Brerely ;  whose  care, 
 exactness,  and  fidelity,  is  so  extraordinary  great,  as  that  he  doth 
 not  only  cite  the  books,  but  the  editions  also,  with  the  place  and 
 time  of  their  printing,  yea,  and  often  the  very  page  and  line  where 
 the  words  are  to  be  had.  And  if  you  happen  not  to  find  what  he 
 cites,  yet  suspend  your  judgment  till  you  have  read  the  corrections 
 placed  at  the  end  of  his  book  ;  though  it  be  also  true,  that,  after 
 all  diligence  and  faithfulness  on  his  behalf,  it  was  not  in  his  power 
 to  amend  all  the  faults  of  the  prints  :  in  which  prints  we  have  diffi- 
 culty enough  for  many  evident  reasons^  v^hich  must  needs  occur  to 
 any  prudent  man. 
 
 8.  "  And  forasmuch  as  concerns  the  manner  of  my  Reply,  I  have 
 procured  to  do  it  without  all  bitterness  or  gall  of  invective  words, 
 both  forasmuch  as  may  import  either  protestants  in  general,  or  D. 
 Potter's  person  in  particular ;  unless,  for  example,  he  will  call  it 
 bitterness  for  me  to  term  a  gross  impertinency,  a  sleight,  or  a  cor- 
 ruption, by  those  very  names,  without  which  I  do  not  know  how  to 
 express  the  things  :  and  yet  therein  I  can  truly  affirm  that  I  have 
 studied  how  to  deliver  them  in  the  most  moderate  wa)^,  to  the  end 
 I  might  give  as  little  off'ence  as  possibly  I  could,  without  betraying 
 the  cause.  And  if  any  unfit  phrase  may  peradventure  have  escaped 
 my  pen  (as  I  hope  none  hath,  it  was  beside  and  against  my  inten- 
 tion ;  though  I  must  needs  profess,  that  D.  Potter  gives  so  many 
 and  so  just  occasions  of  being  round  with  him,  as  that  perhaps  some 
 wdll  judge  me  to  have  been  rather  remiss  than  moderate.  But  since 
 in  the  very  title  of  my  Reply  I  profess  to  maintain  charity,  I  con- 
 ceive the  excess  will  be  more  excusable  amongst  all  kinds  of  men,  if 
 it  fall  to  be  in  mildness,  than  if  it  had  appeared  in  too  much  zeal. 
 And  if  D.  Potter  have  a  mind  to  charge  me  with  ignorance,  or  any 
 thing  of  that  nature,  I  can  and  will  ease  him  of  that  labour,  by 
 acknowledging  in  myself  as  many  and  more  personal  defects  than  he 
 can  heap  upon  me.  Truth  only,  and  sincerity-,  I  so  much  value  and 
 profess,  as  that  he  shall  never  be  able  to  prove  the  contrary  in  am'' 
 one  least  passage  or  particle  against  me. 
 
 9.  "  In  the  third  and  last  place,  I  have  thought  fit  to  express 
 myself  thus  : — If  D.  ,Potter  or  any  other  resolve  to  answer  my 
 
HIS    PREFACE    TO    HIS    READET..  29 
 
 Reply,  I  desire  that  he  will  obsen^e  some  things  which  may  tend  to 
 his  o\^Ti  reputation,  the  saving  of  my  unnecessaiy  pains,  "and  espe- 
 cially to  the  greater  advantage  of  truth.  I  wish  then  that  he  would 
 be  careful  to  consider  wherein  the  point  of  every  difficulty  consists, 
 and  not  impertinently  to  snoot  at  rovers,  and  affectedly  mistake  one 
 thing  for  another.  As  for  example,  to  what  purpose  (forasmuch  as 
 concerns  the  question  between  D.  Potter  and  Charity  Mistaken)  dotli 
 he  so  often  and  seriously  labour  to  prove  that  faith  is  not  resolved  into 
 the  authority  of  the  chm-ch,  as  into  the  fonnal  object  and  motive 
 thereof  ?  or  that  all  points  of  faith  are  contained  in  Scripture  ?  or 
 that  the  church  cannot  make  new  articles  of  faith  ?  or  that  the 
 church  of  Rome,  as  it  signifies  that  particular  church  or  diocese,  is 
 not  all  one  with  the  universal  church  ?  or  that  the  pope  as  a  private 
 doctor  may  err  ?  with  many  other  such  points  as  will  easily  appear 
 in  their  proper  places.  It  mil  also  be  necessary  for  him  not  to  put 
 certain  doctrines  upon  us,  from  v/hich  he  knows  we  disclaim  as  much 
 as  himself. 
 
 10.  "I  must,  in  like  manner,  entreat  him  not  to  recite  my  rea- 
 sons and  discom-ses  by  halves,  but  to  set  them  down  faithfully  and 
 entirely,  for  as  much  as  in  very  deed  concerns  the  whole  substance 
 of  the  thing  in  question  ;  because  the  want  sometime  of  one  word 
 may  chance  to  make  void  or  lessen  the  force  of  the  whole  argument. 
 And  I  am  the  more  solicitous  about  giving  this  particular  caveat, 
 because  I  find  how  ill  he  hath  complied  with  the  promise  which  he 
 made  in  his  Preface  to  the  Reader,  not  to  omit  without  answer  any 
 one  thing  of  moment  in  all  the  discourse  of  Charity  Mistaken. 
 Neither  will  this  course  be  a  cause  that  his  rejoinder  grow  too  large, 
 but  it  Avill  be  occasion  of  brevity  to  him,  and  free  me  also  from  the 
 pains  of  setting  do\^Ti  all  the  words  which  he  omits,  and  himself  of 
 demonstrating  that  what  he  omitted  was  not  material.  Nay,  I  will 
 assure  him,  that  if  he  keep  himself  to  the  point  of  every  difficulty, 
 and  not  weary  the  reader,  and  overcharge  his  margent  with  unne- 
 cessary quotations  of  authors  in  Greek  and  Latin,  and  sometime  also 
 in  Italian  and  French,  together  with  proverbs,  sentences  of  poets, 
 and  such  grammatical  stuff,  nor  affect  to  cite  a  multitude  of 
 our  catholic  school  divines  to  no  pur]3ose  at  all,  his  book 
 will  not  exceed  a  competent  size,  nor  will  any  man  in  reason 
 be  offended  with  that  length  which  is  regulated  by  necessity.  Again, 
 before  he  come  to  set  down  his  answ'er,  or  propose  his  arguments, 
 let  him  consider  veiy  well  what  may  be  replied,  and  whether  his 
 own  objections  may  not  be  retorted  against  himself,  as  the  reader 
 will  perceive  to  have  happened  often  to  his  disadvantage  in  my  Reply 
 against  him.  But  especially  I  expect,  and  truth  itself  exacts  at  his 
 hand,  that  he  speak  clearly  and  distinctly,  and  not  seek  to  walk  in 
 darkness,  so  to  delude  and  deceive  his  reader,  now  sa}ing,  and  then 
 denying,  and  always  speaking  with  such  ambiguity,  as  that  his 
 greatest  care  may  seem  to  consist  in  a  certain  art  to  find  a  shift,  as 
 his  occasions  might  chance  either  now  or  hereafter  to  require,  and 
 as  he  might  fall  out  to  be  urged  by  diversity  of  several  arguments. 
 And  to  the  end  it  may  appear  that  I  deal  plainly,  as  I  would  have 
 him  also  do,  I  desu-e  that  he  declare  himself  concerning  these 
 points. 
 
30  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAIXTAINED, 
 
 11.  "First.  Whether  our  Saviour  Christ  have  not  always  had, 
 and  be  not  ever  to  have,  a  visible  true  chiu-ch  on  earth  ?  And 
 whether  the  contrary  doctrine  be  not  a  damnable  heresy. 
 
 12.  "  Secondly.  What  visible  church  there  was  before  Luther, 
 disagreeing  from  the  Roman  chm-ch,  and  agreeing  with  the  pretended 
 church  of  protestants  ? 
 
 13.  "  Thirdly.  Since  he  mil  be  forced  to  grant  that  there  can  be 
 assigned  no  visible  true  church  of  Christ,  distinct  from  the  church  of 
 "Rome,  and  such  churches  as  agreed  with  her  when  Luther  first 
 appeared,  whether  it  doth  not  follow  that  she  hath  not  erred  funda- 
 mentally ;  because  every  such  eiTor  destroys  the  nature  and  being  of 
 the  chiirch,  and  so  our  Saviour  Christ  should  have  had  no  visible 
 church  on  earth. 
 
 14.  "  Fom-thly.  If  the  Roman  church  did  not  fall  into  any  fun- 
 damental error,  let  him  tell  us  how  it  can  be  damnable  to  hve  in  her 
 communion,  or  to  maintain  errors  which  are  kno'v'V'u  and  confessed 
 not  to  be  fundamental  or  damnable. 
 
 15.  '•'  Fifthly.  If  her  errors  were  not  damnable,  nor  did  exclude 
 salvation,  how^  can  they  be  excused  from  schism  who  forsook  her 
 communion  upon  pretence  of  errors  which  were  not  damnable  ? 
 
 16.  "  Sixthly.  If  D.  Potter  have  a  mind  to  say  that  her  errors 
 are  damnable  or  fundamental,  let  him  do  us  so  much  charity  as  to 
 tell  us  in  particular  what  those  fundamental  errors  be.  But  he  must 
 still  remember  (and  myself  must  be  excused  for  repeating  it),  that  it 
 he  say  the  Roman  church  erred  fundamentally,  he  will  not  be  able  to 
 show  that  Christ  our  Lord  had  any  visible  chm-ch  on  earth  when 
 Luther  appeared  :  and  let  him  tell  us  how  protestants  had,  or  can 
 have,  any  church  which  was  universal,  and  extended  herself  to  all 
 ages,  if  once  he  grant  that  the  Roman  church  ceased  to  be  the  true 
 church  of  Christ,  and,  consequently,  how  they  can  hope  for  salvation 
 if  they  deny  it  to  us. 
 
 1/.  "  Seventhly.  l\liether  any  one  error  maintained  against  any 
 one  truth,  though  never  so  small  in  itself,  yet  sufficiently  propounded 
 as  testified  or  revealed  by  Almighty  God,  do  not  destroy  the  natm-e 
 and  unity  of  faith,  or  at  least  is  not  a  grievous  offence  excluding 
 salvation? 
 
 18.  "  Eighthly.  If  this  be  so,  how  can  Lutherans,  Calvinists, 
 Zuinglians,  and  all  the  rest  of  disagreeing  protestants,  hope  for  sal- 
 vation, since  it  is  manifest  that  some  of  them  must  needs  err  against 
 some  such  truth  as  is  testified  by  Almighty  God,  either  fundamental 
 or  at  least  not  fundamental  ? 
 
 19.  "^'inthly.  We  constantly  urge  and  require  to  have  a  parti- 
 cular catalogue  of  such  points  as*  he  calls  fundamental :  a  catalogue, 
 I  say,  in  particular,  and  not  only  some  general  definition  or  descrip- 
 tion, wherein  protestants  may  perhaps  agree,  though  we  see  that 
 they  differ  when  they  come  to  assign  what  points  in  particular  be 
 fundamental ;  and  yet  upon  such  a  particular  catalogue  much  de- 
 pends :  as  for  example,  in  particular,  whether  or  no  a  man  doth  not 
 err  in  some  points  fundamental  or  necessary  to  salvation?  and 
 whether  or  no  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  and  the  rest,  do  disagree  in 
 fundamentals  ?  which  if  they  do  the  same  heaven  cannot  receive 
 them  all. 
 
HIS  PREFACE  TO  THE  READER.  31 
 
 *^  20.  "  Tenthly  and  lastly.  I  desire  that  in  answering  to  these 
 points  he  would  let  us  know  distinctly  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
 protestant  English  church  concerning  them,  and  what  he  utters 
 only  as  his  own  private  opinion. 
 
 21.  "  These  are  the  questions  which  for  the  present  I  find  it  fit 
 and  necessary  for  me  to  ask  of  J).  Potter,  or  any  other  who  will 
 defend  his  cause  or  impugn  ours.  And  it  will  be  in  vain  to  speak 
 vainl}',  and  to  tell  me  that  a  fool  may  ask  more  questions  in  an 
 hour  than  a  wise  man  can  answer  in  a  year,  with  such  idle  proverbs 
 as  that  :  for  I  ask  but  such  questions  as  for  which  he  gives  occasion 
 in  his  book,  and  where  he  declares  not  himself  but  after  so  ambigu- 
 ous and  confused  a  manner,  as  that  truth  itself  can  scarce  tell  how  to 
 convince  him  so,  but  that  Avith  ignorant  and  ill-judging  men  he  will 
 seem  to  have  somewhat  left  to  say  for  himself,  though  papists  (as 
 he  calls  them)  and  puritans  should  press  him  contrary  ways  at  the 
 same  time  :  and  these  questions  concern  thincrs  also  of  high  im- 
 portance, as  whereupon  the  knowledge  of  God's  church,  and  true 
 religion,  and  consequently  salvation  of  the  soul,  depends.  And  now, 
 because  he  shall  not  tax  me  with  being  like  those  men  in  the  gospel, 
 whom  our  blessed  Lord  and  Saviour  charged  with  laying  heavy 
 burdens  upon  other  men's  shoulders,  who  yet  would  not  touch  them 
 with  their  finger,  I  oblige  myself  to  answer,  upon  any  demand  of 
 his,  both  to  all  these  questions,  if  he  find  that  I  have  not  done  it 
 already,  and  to  any  other,  concerning  matter  of  faith,  that  he  shall 
 ask.  And  I  will  tell  him  very  plainly  what  is  catholic  doctrine  and 
 what  is  not,  that  is,  what  is  defined  or  what  is  not  defined,  and  rests 
 but  in  discussion  among  divines. 
 
 22.  "  And  it  will  be  here  expected  that  he  perform  these  things 
 as  a  man  who  professeth  learning  should  do ;  not  flying  from 
 questions  which  concern  things  as  they  are  considered  in  their  own 
 nature,  to  accidental  or  rare  circumstances  of  ignorance,  incapacity, 
 want  of  means  to  be  instructed,  erroneous  conscience,  and  the  like  ; 
 Avhich  being  very  various  and  diff'erent,  cannot  be  well  comprehended 
 imder  any  general  rule.  But  in  delivering  general  doctrines,  we 
 must  consider  things  as  they  be  ex  natura  rei,  or  per  se  loquendo 
 (as  divines  speak),  that  is,  according  to  their  natures,  if  all  circum- 
 stances concur  proportionable  thereunto.  As  for  example,  some 
 may  for  a  time  have  invincible  ignorance  even  of  some  fundamental 
 article  of  faith,  through  want  of  capacity,  instruction,  or  the  like  ; 
 and  so  not  off'end  either  in  such  ignorance  or  error ;  and  yet  we 
 must  absolutely  say  that  error  in  any  one  fundamental  point  is 
 damnable ;  because  so  it  is,  if  we  consider  things  in  themselves 
 abstracting  from  accidental  circumstances  in  particular  persons  :  as 
 contrarily  if  some  man  judge  some  act  of  virtue  or  some  indifferent 
 action  to  be  a  sin,  in  him  it  is  a  sin  indeed,  by  reason  of  his  erroneous 
 conscience  ;  and  yet  we  ought  not  to  say  absokitely  that  virtuous  or 
 indifferent  actions  are  sins  ;  and  in  all  sciences  we  must  distinguish 
 the  general  rules  from  their  particular  exceptions.  And  therefore 
 when,  for  example,  he  answers  to  our  demand,  whether  he  hold 
 that  catholics  may  be  saved,  or  whether  their  pretended  errors  be 
 fundamental  and  damnable  ?  he  is  not  to  change  the  state  of  the 
 question,  and  have  recourse  to  ignorance,  and  the  hke;  but  to 
 
32  THE    AUTHOR    OF    CHARITY    MAINTAINED. 
 
 answer  concerning  the  errors  being  considered  what  they  are  apt  to 
 be  in  themselves,  and  as  they  are  neither  increased  nor  diminished  by 
 accidental  circumstances. 
 
 23.  "  And  the  hke  I  say  of  all  the  other  points,  to  which  I  once 
 again  desire  an  answer  without  any  of  these  or  the  like  ambiguous 
 terms,  in  some  sort,  in  some  sense,  in  some  degree,  which  may  be 
 explicated  afterward  as  strictly  or  largely  as  may  best  ser^■e  his  turn  : 
 but  let  him  tell  us  roundly  and  particularly  in  what  sort,  in  what 
 sense,  in  what  degree  he  understands  those  and  the  like  obscure 
 mincing  phrases.  If  he  proceed  solidly  after  this  manner,  and  not 
 by  way  of  mere  words,  more  like  a  preacher  to  a  vulgar  auditory 
 than  like  a  learned  man  with  a  pen  in  his  hand,  thy  patience  shall 
 be  less  abused,  and  truth  will  also  receive  more  right.  And  since  we 
 have  already  laid  the  grounds  of  the  question,  much  may  be  said 
 hereafter  in  few  words,  if  (as  I  said)  be  keep  close  to  the  real  point 
 of  everv  difficulty,  without  wandering  into  impertinent  disputes,  or 
 multiplying  vulgar  aud  threadbare  objections  and  arguments,  or 
 labouring  to  prove  what  no  man  denies,  or  making  a  vain  ostentation 
 by  citing  a  number  of  schoolmen,  which  every  puny  brought  up  in 
 schools  is  able  to  do ;  and  if  he  cite  his  authors  with  such  sincerity, 
 as  no  tim.e  need  be  spent  in  opening  his  corruptions  ;  and  finally,  if 
 he  set  himself  at  work  with  this  consideration,  that  we  are  to  give  a 
 most  strict  account  to  a  most  just  and  impartial  Judge,  of  every 
 period,  line,  and  word  that  passeth  under  our  pen.  For  if  at  the 
 latter  day  we  shall  ])e  arraigned  for  ever  idle  word  which  is  spoken, 
 so  much  more  ^^ill  that  be  done  for  every  idle  word  which  is  WTitten, 
 as  the  deliberation  wherewith  it  passeth  makes  a  man  guilty  of 
 more  malice  ;  and  as  the  importance  of  the  matter  which  is  treated 
 of  in  books  concerning  true  faith  and  religion,  without  which  no 
 soul  can  be  saved,  makes  a  man's  eiTors  more  material  than  they 
 would  be  if  the  question  were  but  of  toys." 
 
:iIE 
 
 ANSWER    TO  THE  PHEFACE. 
 
 Ad  §  1  and  2.  If  beginnings  be  ominous  (as  they  say  they  are),  D. 
 Potter  liath  cause  to  look  for  great  store  of  uningenuous  deahng  from 
 you  ;  the  very  first  words  you  speak  of  him,  viz.,  that  he  hath  not 
 so  much  as  once  truly  and  really  fallen  upon  the  point  in  question, 
 being  a  most  unjust  and  immodest  imputation. 
 
 2.  For,  first,  the  point  in  question  Avas  not  that  which  you  pre- 
 tend, Whether  both  papists  and  protestants  can  be  saved  in  then- 
 several  professions  ?  but.  Whether  you  may  \nthout  uncharitableness 
 affirm  that  protestancy  unrepented  destroys  salvation  ?  And  that 
 this  is  the  very  question  is  most  apparent  and  unquestionable,  both 
 from  the  title  of  Charity  iklistaken,  and  from  the  arguments  of  the 
 three  first  chapters  of  it,  and  from  the  title  of  your  own  Reply. 
 And  therefore  if  D.  Potter  had  joined  issue  witli  his  adversary  only 
 thus  far,  and,  not  meddling  at  all  with  papists,  but  leaving  them  to 
 stand  or  fall  to  their  own  Master,  had  ])roved  protestants  living  and 
 d^^ing  so  capable  of  salvation,  I  cannot  see  how  it  could  justly  be 
 charged  upon  him,  that  he  had  not  once  truly  and  really  fallen 
 i^pon  the  point  in  question.  Neither  may  it  be  said  that  your 
 question  here  and  mine  are  in  eft'ect  the  same,  seeing  it  is  very 
 possible  that  the  true  answer  to  the  one  might  have  been  affirmative, 
 and  to  the  other  negative.  For  there  is  no  incongruity,  but  it  may 
 be  true,  that  you  and  we  cannot  both  be  saved ;  and  yet  as  true, 
 that  without  uncharitableness  you  cannot  pronounce  us  damned. 
 For  all  ungrounded  and  unwarrantable  sentencing  men  to  damna- 
 tion is  either  in  a  propriety  of  speech  uncharitable,  or  else  (which 
 for  my  purpose  is  all  one)  it  is  that  Avhich  i)rotestants  mean,  when 
 they  say  pa])ists  for  damning  them  are  uncharitable.  And,  there- 
 fore, though  the  author  of  C.  M.  had  proved  as  strongly  as  he  hath 
 done  weakly,  that  one  heaven  could  not  receive  protestants  and 
 pa})ists  both  ;  yet  certainly,  it  was  ver\'  hastily  and  miwarrantably, 
 and  therefore  uncharitabh'  concluded,  that  protestants  were  the  part 
 that  was  to  be  excluded.  As,  though  Jews  and  Christians  cannot 
 both  be  saved,  yet  a  Jew  cannot  justly,  and  therefore  not  chai-itabiy, 
 pronounce  a  Christian  damned. 
 
 D 
 
34  ANSWER  TO  THE  PREFACE  OF 
 
 3.  But,  then,  secondly  to  show  your  deahng  with  him  very  inju- 
 rious ;  I  say,  he  doth  speak  to  this  very  question  very  largely  and 
 very  effectually  ;  as  by  confronting  his  work  and  Charity  M. 
 together  will  presently  appear.  Charity  M.  proves,  you  say,  in 
 general,  that  "  there  is  but  one  church."  D.  Potter  tells  him  his 
 labour  is  lost  in  proving  the  unity  of  the  catholic  church,  v\hereof 
 there  is  no  doubt  of  controversy  :  and  herein,  I  hope,  you  will  grant 
 he  answers  right  and  to  the  ])urpose.  C,  M.  proves,  you  say, 
 secondly,  that  "  all  Christians  are  obliged  to  hearken  to  the  church." 
 D,  Potter  answers,  "  It  is  true  ;  yet  not  absolutely  in  all  things,  but 
 only  when  she  commands  those  things  which  God  doth  not  counter- 
 mand." And  this  also,  I  hope,  is  to  his  purpose,  though  not  to 
 yours.  C.  M.  proves,  you  say,  thirdly,  that  "  the  church  must  be 
 ever  visible  and  infallible."  For  her  visibility,  D.  Potter  denies  it 
 not ;  and  as  for  hes"  infallibility,  he  grants  it  in  fundamentals,  but  not 
 in  superstructures.  C.  M.  proves,  you  say,  fourthly,  that  "  to  sepa- 
 rate one's  self  from  the  church's  communion  is  schism."  D.  Potter 
 grants  it,  with  this  exception,  unless  there  be  necessary  cause  to  do 
 so  ;  unless  the  conditions  of  her  communion  be  apparently  unlawful. 
 C.  M.  proves,  you  say,  lastly,  that  "  to  dissent  from  her  doctrine  is 
 heresy,  though  it  be  in  points  never  so  few  and  never  so  small ;  and 
 therefore,  that  the  distinction  of  points  fundamental  and  unfunda- 
 mental,  as  it  is  applied  by  protestants,  is  wholly  vain."  This  D. 
 Potter  denies  ;  shows  the  reasons  brought  for  it  weak  and  uncon- 
 cluding  ;  proves  the  contrary  by  reasons  unanswerable  :  and  there- 
 fore, that  the  distinction  of  points  into  fundamental  and  not 
 fundamental,  as  it  is  applied  by  protestants,  is  very  good.  Upon 
 these  grounds,  you  say,  C.  M.  clearly  evinces,  that  "  any  least 
 difference  in  faith  cannot  stand  with  salvation ;  and  therefore  seeing 
 catholics  and  protestants  disagree  m  very  many  points  in  faith,  they 
 both  cannot  hope  to  be  saved  without  repentance  ;"  you  must  mean, 
 without  an  explicit  and  particular  repentance,  and  dereliction  of 
 their  errors;  for  so  C.  M.  hath  declared  himself  (p.  14),  where  he 
 hatli  these  words  :  "  We  may  safely  say,  that  a  man  who  hves  in 
 protestancy,  and  is  so  far  from  repenting  it,  as  that  he  will  not  so 
 much  as  acknowledge  it  to  be  a  sin,  though  he  be  sufficiently  in- 
 formed thereof,"  &c.  From  whence  it  is  evident,  that  in  his 
 judgm.ent  there  can  be  no  repentance  of  an  error  without  acknov/- 
 ledging  it  to  be  a  sin.  And  to  this  D.  Potter  justly  opposes  :  that 
 "  both  sides,  by  the  confession  of  both  sides,  agree  in  more  points 
 than  are  sim.ply  and  indispensably  necessary  to  salvation,  and  diifer 
 only  in  such  as  are  not  precisely  necessary  :  that  it  is  very  possible 
 a  man  may  die  in  error,  and  yet  die  with  repentance,  as  for  all  his 
 sins  of  ignorance,  so,  in  that  number,  for  the  errors  in  winch  he 
 dies  :  with  a  repentance  though  not  explicit  and  particular,^  which 
 IS  not  simply  required,  yet  implicit  and  general,  which  is  sufficient  : 
 so  that  he  cannot  but  hope,  considering  the  goodness  of  God,  that 
 the  truths  retained  on  both  sides,  especially  those  of  the  necessity 
 of  repentance  from  dead  works  and  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  if  they  be 
 put  in  practice,  may  be  an  antidote  against  the  errors  held  on  either 
 side  :  to  such  he  m'eans,  and  says,  as  being  diligent  in  seeking  truth 
 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  »f  AINTAINED.  35 
 
 •and  desirous  to  find  it,  yet  miss  of  it  through  human  frailt}^,  and  die 
 in  error."  If  you  will  but  attentively  consider  and  coraj)are  the 
 undertaking  of  C.  M.  and  D.  Potter's  performance  in  all  these 
 points,  I  hope  you  vnW  be  so  ingenuous  as  to  acknowledge  that  you 
 have  injured  him  much,  in  imputing  tergiversation  to  him,  and  pre 
 tending,  that  through  his  whole  book  he  hath  not  once  truly  and 
 really  fallen  upon  the  point  in  question.  Neither  may  you  or  C.  M. 
 conclude  him  from  hence  (as  covertly  you  do)  an  enemy  to  souls,  by 
 deceiving  them  vath  ungrounded  false  hopes  of  salvation;  seeing  the 
 hope  of  salvation  cannot  be  ungrounded,  which  requires  and  sup- 
 poses belief  and  practice  of  all  things  absolutely  necessary  imto  sal- 
 vation, and  repentance  of  those  sins  and  errors  which  we  fall  into  by 
 human  frailty  ;  nor  a  friend  to  indifferency  in  religion  seeing  he 
 gives  them  only  hope  of  pai-don  of  errors  who  are  desirous,  and, 
 according  to  the  proportion  of  their  opportunities  and  abilities,  in- 
 dustrious to  find  the  truth  ;  or  at  least  truly  repentant  that  they 
 have  not  been  so.  Which  doctrine  is  very  fit  to  excite  men  to  "a 
 •constant  and  impartial  search  of  truth,  and  very  far  from  teaching 
 them  that  it  is  indifferent  what  religion  they  are  of ;  and,  without 
 all  controversy,  very  honourable  to  the  goodness  of  God,  with  which 
 how  it  can  consist,  not  to  be  satisfied  with  his  servants'  true  endea- 
 vours to  knov,'  his  will,  and  do  it,  without  full  and  exact  performance, 
 I  leave  it  to  you  and  all  good  men  to  judge. 
 
 4.  As  httle  justice  methinks  you  show,  in  quaiTelling  with  him  for 
 descending  to  the  particular  (hsputes  here  mentioned  by  you.  For 
 to  say  nothing  that  many  of  these  questions  are  immediately  and 
 directly  pertinent  to  tlie  business  in  hand,  ai  the  1,  2,  H,  5.  6,  and 
 all  of  them  fall  in  of  themselves  into  the  stream  of  his  discourse,  and 
 are  not  drawn  in  by  him ;  and  besides  are  touched  for  the  most  part 
 rather  than  handleii :  to  say  nothing  of  ail  this,  you  know  right  well, 
 if  he  conclude  you  erroneous  in  any  one  of  all  these,  be  it  but  in  the 
 communion  in  one  kind,  or  the  language  of  j^our  service,  the  infalli- 
 Irility  of  your  church  is  evidently  overthrown  :  and  this  being  done, 
 I  hope  there  Vv^ill  be  "  no  such  necessity  of  hearkening  to  her  in  all 
 things  :  it  will  be  verj'  possible  to  separate  from  her  communion  in 
 some  things  without  schism  ;  and  from  her  doctrine,  so  far  as  it  is 
 eiToneous,  without  heresy  :  then  all  that  she  proposes  will  not  be, 
 eo  ipso,  fundamental,  because  she  proposes  it ;"  and  so  presently 
 all  Charity  Mistaken  will  vanish  into  smoke  and  clouds  and  nothing. 
 
 5.  You  say  he  was  loth  to  affirm  plainly,  that  generally  both 
 catholics  and  protestants  may  be  saved  :  which  yet  is  manifest  he 
 doth  affirm  plainly  of  protestants  throughout  his  book ;  and  of 
 erring  papists,  that  '*  have  sincerely  sought  the  truth,  and  failed  of 
 it,  and  die  with  a  general  repentance"  (p.  77,  78).  And  yet  you 
 deceive  yourself  if  you  conceive  he  had  any  other  necessity  to  do  so, 
 but  only  that  he  thought  it  true.  T^or  we  may  and  do  pretend,  that 
 before  Luther  there  were  many  true  churches  beside  the  Roman, 
 which  agreed  not  with  her  :  in  paii  icular,  the  Greek  church.  So 
 that  what  you  say  is  evidently  true,  is>.indeed  evidently  false.  Besides, 
 if  he  had  any  necessity  to  make  use  of  you  in  this  matter,  he  needed 
 not  for  this  end  to  sa}',  that  now  in  your  church  salvation  may  be 
 had,  but  onl}',  that  before  Luther's    time  it  might  be ;  then  wlien 
 
36  ANSWEP  TO  THE  PREFACE  OF 
 
 3'our  means  of  knowng  tlie  truth  were  not  so  great,  and  when  your 
 ignorance  might  be  more  invincible,  and  therefore  excusable.  So 
 that  you  may  see,  if  you  please,  it  is  not  for  ends,  but  for  the  love 
 of  truth,  that  we  are  thus  charitable  to  }0u. 
 
 6.  Neither  is  it  material  that  these  particulars  he  speaks 
 against  are  not  fimdamental  errors  ;  for  though  they  be  not  destruc- 
 tive of  salvation,  yet  the  conviction  of  them  may  be,  and  is, 
 destructive  enough  of  his  adversaries'  assertion ;  and  if  you  be  the 
 man  I  take  you  for,  you  will  not  deny  they  are  so.  For  certainly 
 no  consequence  can  be  more  palpable  than  this  :  The  church  of 
 Konie  doth  err  in  this  or  that,  therefore  it  is  not  infalhble.  And  this 
 perhaps  you  perceived  yourself,  and  therefore  demanded  not,  since 
 they  be  not  fundamental,  what  imports  it  whether  we  hold  them  or 
 no,  simply  ;  but,  for  as  much  as  concerns  our  possibility  to  be 
 saved.  As  if  we  were  not  bound  by  the  love  of  God  and  the  love  of 
 truth  to  be  zealous  in  the  defence  of  all  truths  that  are  any  way  pro- 
 fitable, though  not  simply  necessary  to  salvation  !  or  as  if  any  good 
 man  could  satisfy  his  conscience  without  being  so  affected  and  re- 
 solved '  our  Saviour  himself  having  assured  us,  that  he  that  shall 
 break  one  of  his  least  commandments  (some  whereof  you  pretend  are 
 concerning  venial  sins,  and  consequently  the  keei)ing  of  them  not 
 necessary  to  salvation),  and  shall  so  teach  men,  shall  be  called  the 
 least  in  the  klncjdom  of  heaven  J^ 
 
 7.  But  then  it  imi)orts  very  much,  though  not  for  the  possibility 
 that  you  may  be  saved,  yet  for  the  probability  that  you  wdl  be  so  ; 
 because  the  holding  of  these  errors,  though  it  did  not  merit,  might 
 yet  occasion  damnation  :  as  the  doctrine  of  indulgences  may  take 
 a\^■ay  the  fear  of  purgatory,  and  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  the  fear  of 
 hell ;  as  you  well  kno\^'  it  does  too  frequently.  So  that  though  a 
 godly  man  might  be  saved  with  these  errors,  yet  by  means  of  them 
 many  are  made  vicious,  and  so  damned.  By  them,  I  say,  though 
 not  for  them.  No  godly  layman,  Avho  is  verily  persuaded  that  there 
 is  neither  impiety  nor  superstition  in  the  use  of  your  Latin  sendee, 
 shall  be  damned,  I  hope,  for  being  present  at  it ;  yet  the  want  of 
 that  devoti(m  which  the  frequent  hearing  the  offices  understood 
 might  hai)pily  beget  in  them,  the  want  of  that  instruction  and 
 edification  which  it  might  afford  them,  may  veiy  probably  hinder  the 
 salvation  of  many  which  might  otherwise  have  been  saved.  Besides, 
 though  the  matter  of  an  error  may  be  only  something  profitable,  not 
 necessary,  yet  the  neglect  of  it  may  be  a  damnal)le  sin  ;  as,  not  to 
 regard  venial  sins  is  in  the  doctrine  of  your  schools  mortal.  I-astly, 
 as  venial  sins,  you  say,  dispose  men  to  mortal ;  so  the  erring  from 
 some  profitable,  though  lesser  truth,  may  dispose  a  man  to  error  in 
 greater  matters  :  as  for  example,  the  behef  of  the  pope's  infallibility 
 is,  I  hope,  not  unpardonably  damnable  to  every  one  that  holds  it ; 
 yet  if  it  be  a  falsehood  (as  most  certainly  it  is),  it  puts  a  man  into 
 a  very  congruous  disposition  to  beheve  antichrist,  if  he  should 
 chance  to  get  into  that  see. 
 
 8.  Ad  §  3.     In  his   distinc;  ions  of  points  fundamental  and  not 
 fundamental,  he  may  seem,  }  ou  say,  to  have  touched  the  point,  bvit 
 does  not  so  indeed ;  because,  though  he  says  there  arc  some  points 
 *  Matt.  V.  J 9. 
 
THE    AUTHOR   OF  CHARITY    MAINTAINED.  3/ 
 
 SO  fimdaraental  as  that  all  are  obliged  to  believe  them  explicitly, 
 }et  he  tells  you  not  whether  a  man  may  disbelieve  any  other  points 
 of  faith,  which  are  sufficiently  presented  to  his  understanding  as 
 truths  revealed  by  Almighty  God.  Touching  \A'hicli  matter  of  suffi- 
 cient proposal,  I  beseech  you  to  come  out  of  the  clouds,  and  tell  us 
 roundly  and  plainly  what  you  mean  by  *'  points  of  faith  suffi- 
 ciently propounded  to  a  man's  understanding,  as  truths  revealed 
 by  God."  Perhaps  you  mean  such  as  the  person  to  whom  they  are 
 proposed  understands  sufficiently  to  be  truths  revealed  by  God.' But 
 how  then  can  he  possibly  choose  but  believe  them  ?  or  how  is  it  not 
 an  apparent  contradiction,  that  a  man  should  disbelieve  what  him- 
 self understands  to  be  a  truth,  or  any  Christian  what  he  understands 
 or  but  believes  to  be  testified  by  God  ?  D.  Potter  might  ^vell  think 
 it  superfluous  to  tell  you  this  is  damnable  ;  because  indeed  it  is  im- 
 possible. And  yet  one  may  very  well  think,  by  your  saying,  as  you 
 do  hereafter,  tliat  "  the  impiety  of  heresy  consists  in  calling  God's 
 truth  in  question,"  that  this  should  be  your  meaning.  Or  do  you 
 esteem  all  those  things  sufficiently  presented  to  Jiis  understanding 
 as  Divine  truths,  which  by  you,  or  any  other  man,  or  any  company 
 of  men  whatsoever,  are  declared  to  him  to  be  so  ?  I  hope  vou  will 
 not  say  so  ;  for  this  were  to  oblige  a  man  to  believe  all  the  churches, 
 and  all  the  men  in  the  world,  whensoever  they  i)reteud  to  propose 
 Divine  revelation.  D.  Potter,  I  assm-e  you  from  him,  would  never 
 have  told  you  this  neither.  Or  do  you  mean  by  "sufficiently  pro- 
 pounded as  Divine  truths,"  all  that  yom*  chm'ch  propounds  for  such  ? 
 That  you  may  not  neither ;  for  the  question  between  us  is  this  : 
 Whether  your  church's  proposition  be  a  sufficient  proposition  ?  And 
 therefore  to  suppose  this,  is  to  suppose  the  question,  which  you 
 know  in  reasoning  is  always  a  fault.  Or,  lastly,  do  j'ou  mean  (for 
 I  know  not  else  what  possibly  you  can  mean)  by  "  sufficiently  pre- 
 sented to  his  understanding  as  revealed  by  God,"  that  which,  all 
 things  considered,  is  so  proposed  to  him,  that  he  might,  and  should, 
 and  ^vould  believe  it  to  be  true  and  revealed  by  God,  were  it  not  for 
 some  voluntary  and  avoidable  fault  of  his  own,  that  interposeth 
 itself  between  his  imderstanding  and  the  truth  presented  to  it  ?  This 
 is  the  best  construction  that  I  can  make  of  your  words  ;  and  if  you 
 speak  of  truths  thus  proposed  and  rejected,  let  it  be  as  damnable  as 
 you  please  to  deny  or  disbelieve  them.  But  then  I  cannot  ])ut  be 
 amazed  to  hear  you  say,  that  D.  Potter  never  tells  you  whether  there  be 
 any  other  points  of  faith  besides  those  Avhich  we  are  bound  to  believe 
 explicitly,  which  a  man  may  deny  or  thsbelieve,  though  they  be  suffi- 
 ciently presented  to  his  understanding  as  truths  revealed  or  testified 
 by  Almighty  God  ;  seeing  the  light  itself  is  not  more  clear  than  D. 
 Potter's  declaration  of  himself  for  the  negative  in  this  question,  p. 
 245 — 250  of  his  book  ;  where  he  treats  at  large  of  this  very  argu- 
 ment, beginning  his  discourse  thus  :  "  It  seems  fundamental  to  the 
 faith,  and  for  the  salvation  of  every  member  of  the  church,  that  he 
 acknowledge  and  beheve  all  such  points  of  faith,  as  whereof  he 
 may  be  convinced  that  they  belong  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ." 
 To  this  conviction  he  requires  three  things  :  "  clear  revelation, 
 sufficient  proposition,  and  capacity  and  understanding  in  the  hearer. 
 For  want  of  c'ear  reve^ation,  he  frees  the  church  before  Christ  and 
 
38  ANSWER    TO   THE    PHEFACE    OF 
 
 the  disciples  of  Christ  from  an}^  damnable  error,  though  they  belie\ed 
 not  those  things  which  he  that  should  now  deny  were  no  Christian. 
 To  sufliicient  proposition  he  requires  two  things  :  1 .  That  the  points 
 be  perspicuously  laid  open  in  themselves.  2.  So  forcibly  as  may 
 serve  to  remove  reasonable  doubts  to  the  contraiy,  and  satisfy  a 
 teachable  mind  concerning  it  against  the  principles  in  which  he  hath 
 been  bred  to  the  contrary.  This  proposition/'  he  says,  "  is  not 
 limited  to  the  pope  or  church,  but  extended  to  all  means  whatsoever, 
 by  whicli  a  man  may  be  convinced  in  conscience  that  the  matter 
 proposed  is  Divine  revelation  ;  which  he  professes  to  be  done  suffi- 
 ciently, not  only  when  his  conscience  doth  expressly  bear  v>'itness  to 
 the  truth,  but  ^vhen  it  would  do  so,  if  it  were  not  choked  and  blinded 
 by  some  unruly  and  unmortitied  lust  in  the  will ;  the  difference 
 being  not  great  between  him  that  is  wilfully  blind,  and  him  that 
 knowingly  gainsayeth  the  truth.  The  third  thing  he  requires  is 
 capacity  and  ability  to  apprehend  the  proposal,  and  the  reasons  of  it ; 
 the  want  whereof  excuseth  fools  and  madmen,  &c.  But  where  there 
 is  no  such  impediment,  and  the  will  of  God  is  sufficiently  propounded, 
 there,"  saith  he,  '■'  he  that  opposeth  is  convinced  of  error  ;  and  he 
 who  is  thus  convinced  is  an  heretic  ;  and  heresy  is  a  work  of  i\\e 
 flesh  which  excludeth  from  salvation"  [he  means  Vvithout  repent- 
 ance]. "And  hence  it  foUoweth,  that  it  is  fundamental  to  a 
 Christian's  faith,  and  necessaiy  for  his  salvation,  that  he  believe  all 
 revealed  truths  of  God,  whereof  he  may  be  convinced  that  they  are 
 from  God."  This  is  the  conclusion  of  1).  Potter's  discourse  ;  many 
 passages  whereof  you  take  notice  of  in  your  subsequent  disputations, 
 and  make  your  advantage  of  them.  And  therefore  I  cannot  but  say 
 again,  that  it  amazeth  me  to  hear  you  say  that  he  declines  this  ques- 
 tion, and  never  tells  you  "  whether  or  no  there  be  any  other  points 
 of  faith,  which,  being  sufficiently  propounded  as  Divine  revelations, 
 may  be  denied  and  chsbeheved."  He  tells  you  plainly  there  are  none 
 such  ;  and  therefore  you  cannot  say  that  he  tells  you  not  whether 
 there  be  any  such.  Again,  it  is  almost  as  strange  to  me,  why  you 
 should  say  this  was  the  only  thing  in  question,  "  whether  a  man 
 may  deny  or  disbelieve  any  point  of  faith  sufficiently  presented  to 
 his  understanding  as  a  truth  revealed  by  God."  For  to  say  that 
 anything  is  a  thing  in  question,  methinks,  at  the  first  hearing  of  the 
 words,  imports,  that  it  is  by  some  affirmed,  and  denied  by  others. 
 Now  you  affirm,  I  grant,  but  ^vhat  protestant  ever  denied  that  it  was 
 a  sin  to  give  God  the  lie  ;  which  is  the  tirst  and  most  obvious  sense 
 of  these  words.  Or  which  of  them  ever  doubted  that  to  disbelieve 
 is  then  a  fault,  when  the  matter  is  so  ])roposed  to  a  man,  that  he 
 might  and  should,  and  were  it  not  for  his  own  fault,  would  believe 
 it  ?  Certainly,  he  that  questions  either  of  these,  justly  deserves  to 
 have  his  wits  called  in  question.  Produce  any  one  protestant  that 
 ever  did  so,  and  I  will  give  you  leave  to  say  it  is  the  only  thing  in 
 question.  But  then  I  must  tell  you,  that  your  ensuing  argument 
 — viz.,  To  deny  a  truth  witnessed  by  God  is  damnable  ;  but  of  two 
 that  disagree,  one  must  of  necessity  deny  some  such  truth,  there- 
 fore one  only  can  be  saved — is  built  upon  a  ground  clean  different 
 from  this  postulate.  For  though  it  be  always  a  fault  to  deny  what 
 either  I  do  know  or  should    know  to  be  testified  by   God ;  yet 
 
THE    AUTHOR    OF    CHARITY    MAINTAINED.  39 
 
 that  which  by  a  cleanly  conveyance  you  put  in  the  place  thereof, 
 to  deny  a  truth  witnessed  by  God  simply,  without  the  circumstance 
 of  being  known  or  sufficiently  proposed,  is  so  far  from  beinp-  cer- 
 tainly damnable,  that  it  may  be  many  times  done  without  any  the 
 least  fault  at  all.  As  if  God  should  testify  something  to  a  man  in 
 the  Indies,  I  that  had  no  assurance  of  this  testification  should  not 
 be  cbbged  to  believe  it.  For  in  such  cases  the  rule  of  the  law  hath 
 place,  idem  est  non  esse  et  non  ajiporere  ;  not  to  be  at  all,  and  not  to 
 appear  to  me,  is  to  me  all  one.  If  1  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto 
 you  (saith  our  Saviour),  you  had.  had  no  ski. 
 
 10.  As  little  necessity  is  there  for  that  which  follows:  that  "of 
 two  disagreeing  m  a  matter  of  faith,  one  must  deny  some  such 
 truth  ;"  whether  by  such  you  understand  ''testified  at  all  bv  God," 
 or,  "testified  or  sufficiently  propounded."  For  it  is  very  possible 
 ;he  matter  in  controversy  may  be  buch  a  thing  where  God'  hath  not 
 at  all  declared  himself,  or  not  so  fully  and  clearly  as  to  oblige  all 
 men  to  hold  one  way,  and  yet  be  so  over-valued  by  the  parties  in 
 variance  as  to  be  esteemed  a  matter  of  faith,  and  one  of  those  things 
 of  which  our  Saviour  says,  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned. 
 AYho  sees  not  that  it  is  possible  two  churches  may  excommunicate 
 and  damn  each  other  for  keeping  Christmas  ten  days  sooner  or 
 later,  as  well  as  Victor  excommunicated  the  churches  of  Asia  for 
 differing  from  him  about  Easter-day  ?  and  yet  I  believe  you  will 
 confess  that  God  had  not  then  declared  himself  about  Easter,  nor 
 hath  now  about  Christmas.  Anciently  some  good  cathohc  bishops 
 excommunicated  and  damned  others  for  holding  there  were  anti- 
 podes; and  in  this  question  I  would  fain  know  on  which  side  was 
 the  sufficient  proposal.  The  contra-remonstrants  differ  from  the 
 remonstrants  about  the  point  of  predetermination  as  a  matter  of 
 faith  ;  I  would  know  in  this  thing  also  which  way  God  hath  declared 
 himself,  whether  for  predetermination  or  against  it.  Stephen, 
 bishop  of  Rome,  held  it  as  a  matter  of  faith  and  apostolic  tradition, 
 that  heretics  gave  true  baptism  -,  others  there  were,  and  they  as 
 good  catholics  as  he,  that  held  that  this  was  neither  matter  of  faith 
 nor  matter  of  truth.  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  hehl  the  doctrine 
 of  the  millenaries  as  a  matter  of  faith  :  and  though  Justin  Martyr 
 deny  it,  yet  you,  I  hope,  \Aill  affirm  that  some  good  Christians  held 
 the  contrary.  St.  Augustin,  I  am  sure,  held  the  communicating  of 
 infants  as  much  apostolic  tradition  as  the  baptising  of  them  :  whe- 
 ther the  bishop  and  the  church  of  Rome  of  his  time  held  so  too,  or 
 held  otherwise,  I  desire  you  to  determine.  But  sure  I  am  the 
 church  of  Rome  at  this  present  holds  the  contrary.  The  same  St. 
 Austin  held  in  no  matter  of  faith,  that  the  bishops  of  Rome  were 
 judges  of  appeals  from  all  parts  of  the  church  catholic,  no,  not  in 
 major  causes  and  major  persons  :  whether  the  bishop  or  church  of 
 Rome  did  then  hold  the  contrary,  do  you  resolve  me ;  but  now  I 
 am  resolved  that  they  do  so.  In  all  these  differences,  the  point  in 
 question  is  esteemed  and  proposed  by  one  side  at  least  as  a  matter 
 of  faith,  and  by  the  other  rejected  as  not  so  :  and  either  this  is  to 
 disagree  in  matters  of  faith,  or  you  will  have  no  means  to  show  that 
 we  do  disagree.  Now,  then,  to  show  you  how  weak  and  5andy  the 
 foundation  is   on  which  the  whole  fabric  both  of  vom-  book   and 
 
40  ANS"U-ER   TO    THE    PREFACE    OF 
 
 church  depends,  answer  me  briefly  to  this  dilemma ;  either  in  these 
 oppositions  one  of  the  opposite  parts  erred  damnably,  and  denied 
 God's  truth  sufficiently  propounded,  or  they  did  not.  If  they  did, 
 then  they  which  do  deny  God's  truth  sufficiently  propounded  may  go 
 to  heaven;  and  then  you  are  rash  and  uncharitable  in  excluding  us, 
 though  we  were  guilty  of  this  fault.  If  not,  then  there  is  no  such 
 necessity,  that  of  two  disagreeing  about  a  mattei  of  faith,  one  should 
 deny  God's  truth  sufficiently  propounded  :  and  so  the  major  and  minor 
 of  your  argument  are  proved  false.  Yet,  though  they  were  as  true 
 as  gospel,  and  as  evident  as  mathematical  principles,  the  conclusion 
 (so  impertinent  is  it  to  the  premises)  might  still  be  false.  For  that 
 which  naturally  issues  from  these  propositions  is  not— therefore  one 
 only  can  be  saved;  but — therefore  one  of  them  does  something  that 
 is  damnable.  But  with  what  logic  or  what  charity  you  can  infer 
 either  as  the  immediate  production  of  the  former  premises,  or  as  a 
 corollary  from  this  conclusion — therefore  one  only  can  be  saved — I 
 do  not  understand  ;  imless  you  will  pretend  that  this  consequence  is 
 good — Such  a  one  doth  something  damnable,  therefore  he  shall 
 certainly  be  damned :  which  whether  it  be  not  to  overthrow  the 
 article  of  our  faith,  which  promises  remission  of  sins  upon  repent- 
 ance, and  consequently  to  ruin  the  gospel  of  Christ,  I  leave  it  to  the 
 pope  and  the  cardinals  to  determine.  For  if  against  this  it  be 
 alleged  that  no  man  can  repent  of  the  sin  wherein  he  dies,  this  much 
 I  have  already  stopped,  by  showing,  that  if  it  be  a  sin  of  ignorance, 
 this  is  in  no  way  incongruous. 
 
 11.  Ad  §  4.  You  proceed  in  slighting  and  disgracing  your  adver- 
 sary, pretending  his  objections  are  mean  and  vulgar,  and  such  as 
 have  been  answered  a  thousand  times.  But  if  your  cause  were  good, 
 these  arts  would  be  needless.  For  though  some  of  his  objections  have 
 been  often  shifted,  by  men*  that  make  a  profession  of  devising  shifts 
 and  evasions  to  save  themselves  and  their  religion  from  the  pressure 
 of  truth,  by  men  that  are  resolved  they  will  say  something,  though  they 
 can  say  nothing  to  purpose  ;  yet  I  doubt  not  to  make  it  appear,  that 
 neither  by  others  have  they  been  truly  and  really  satisfied,  and  that  the 
 best  answer  you  give  them  is  to  call  them  mean  and  vulgar  objections. 
 
 12.  Ad  §  5.  "  But  his  pains  might  have  been  spared  :  for  the 
 substance  of  his  discourse  is  in  a  sermon  of  Dr.  Usher's,  and  con- 
 futed four  years  ago  by  Paulus  Veridicus."  It  seems,  then,  the 
 substance  of  your  Reply  is  in  Paulus  Veridicus,  and  so  your  pains 
 also  might  well  have  been  spared.  But  had  there  been  no  necessity 
 to  help  and  piece  out  your  confuting  his  argi  ments  with  disgracing 
 his  person  (which  yet  you  cannot  do),  you  would  have  considered, 
 that  to  them  who  compare  D.  Potter's  book  and  the  archbishop's 
 sermon,  this  aspersion  will  presently  appear  a  poor  detraction,  not 
 to  be  answered,  but  scorned.  To  say  nothing,  that  in  D.  Potter 
 being  to  answer  a  book  by  express  command  from  royal  authority, 
 to  leave  anything  material  imsaid,  because  it  had  been  said  before, 
 
 *  I  mean  the  divines  c{  Doway ;  -whose  profession  we  hare  in  your  Belgric 
 Ex])urgat()riu9,  p.  iv,  it:  cenxuru  Jiertrami,  in  these  words:  "  Seeing  in  <ther 
 ancient  catholics  we  tok-rate,  extenuate,  and  excuse  very  many  errors,  and  de- 
 vising- some  shift  often  deny  them,  and  ]}ut  upon  them  a  convenient  sence  when 
 they  are  objected  to  us  in  disputations  and  conflicts  with  our  adversaries,  we  see 
 110  reason  why  iiertram  may  not  deserve  the  same  equity." 
 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED.  41 
 
 especially  being  spoken  at  large,  and  without  any  relation  to  the 
 discourse  which  he  was  to  answer,  had  been  a  ridiculous  vanity  and 
 fond  prevarication. 
 
 13.  Ad  §  6.  In  your  sixth  parag.  I  let  all  pass  saving  only  this  : 
 **  that  a  persuasion  that  men  of  different  religions"  (you  must  mean, 
 or  else  you  speak  not  to  the  point.  Christians  of  divers  opinions  and 
 communions)  '*  may  be  saved,  is  a  most  pernicious  heresy,  and  even 
 a  ground  of  atheism/'  What  strange  extractions  chemistry  can 
 make,  I  know  not ;  but  sure  I  am,  he  that  by  reason  would  infer 
 this  conclusion — that  there  is  no  God,  from  this  ground — that  God 
 will  save  men  in  different  religions,  must  have  a  higher  strain  in 
 logic  than  you  or  I  have  hitherto  made  show  of.  In  my  apprehen- 
 sion, the  other  part  of  the  contradiction — that  there  is  a  God,  should 
 much  rather  follow  from  it.  And  whether  contradictions  will  flow 
 from  the  same  fountain,  let  the  learned  judge.  Perhaps  you  will 
 say,  you  intended  not  to  deliver  here  a  positive  and  measured  truth, 
 and  which  you  expected  to  be  called  to  account  for ;  Init  onlv  a 
 high  and  tragical  expression  of  your  just  detestation  of  the  wicked 
 doctrine  against  which  you  write  :  if  you  mean  so,  I  let  it  ])ass  : 
 only  I  am  to  advertise  the  less  wary  reader,  that  i)assionate  ex})res- 
 sions  and  vehement  asseverations  are  no  arguments,  unless  it  be  of 
 the  weakness  of  the  cause  that  is  defended  by  them,  or  the  man  that 
 defends  it.  And  to  remember  you  of  what  Boethius  savs  of  some 
 such  things  as  these — Nubila  mens  est,  hac  ubi  remnant.  For  my 
 part,  I  am  not  now  in  a  passion ;  neither  will  1  speak  one  word 
 which  I  think  I  cannot  justify  to  the  full ;  and  I  say,  and  will  main- 
 tain, that  to  say  that  Christians  of  different  opinions  and  com- 
 munions (such,  I  mean,  who  hold  all  those  things  that  are  simply 
 necessary  to  salvation)  may  not  obtain  pardon  for  the  errors  wherein 
 they  die  ignorantly  by  a  general  repentance,  is  so  far  from  being  a 
 groimd  of  atheism,  that  to  say  the  contrary  is  to  cross  in  diameter  a 
 main  article  of  our  creed,  and  to  overthrow  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
 
 14.  §  7  and  8.  To  the  two  next  jjarag.  I  have  but  two  words  to 
 say.  The  one  is,  that  I  know  no  protestants  that  hold  it  necessary 
 to  be  able  to  prove  a  jierpetual  visible  church  distinct  from  yours. 
 Some  perhaps  undertake  to  do  so,  as  a  matter  of  courtesy ;  but  I 
 believe  you  will  be  much  to  seek  for  any  one  that  holds  it  necessary. 
 For  though  you  say  that  Christ  hath  promised  there  shall  be  a  per- 
 petual visible  church,  yet  you  yourselves  do  not  pretend  that  he 
 hath  promised  there  shall  be  histories  and  records  always  extant  of 
 the  professors  of  it  m  all  ages ;  nor  that  he  hath  any  where  enjoined 
 us  to  read  those  histories,  that  we  may  be  able  to  show  them.* 
 
 15.  The  other  is  that  Brerely's  great  exactness,  which  you 
 magnify  so  and  amphfy,  is  no  very  certain  demonstration  of  his 
 fidelity.  A  romance  may  be  told  with  as  much  variety  of  circum- 
 stances as  a  true  story. 
 
 16.  Ad  §  9  and  10.  Your  desires  that  I  would  in  this  rejoinder 
 avoid  impertinences — not  impose  doctrines  upon  you  Avhich  you 
 disclaim — set  down  the  substance  of  your  reasons  faithfully  and 
 entirely — not  weary  the  reader  with  unnecessary  quotations— object 
 nothing  to  you  which  I  can  answer  myself,  or  which  may  be  re- 
 tm-ned  upon  myself — and,  lastly  (which  you  repeat  again  in  the  end 
 
42  ANSWER,  TO  THE  PREFACE  OF 
 
 of  yoiir  preface),  speak  as  clearly  and  distinctly  and  imivocally  as- 
 possibly  I  can — are  all  veiy  reasonable,  and  shall  be  by  me  most 
 punctually  and  fully  satisfied.  Only  I  have  reason  to  complain, 
 that  you  give  us  rules  only,  and  not  good  example  in  keeping  them. 
 For  in  some  of  these  things  I  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  show, 
 that  Medice,  cura  teipsum,  may  very  justly  be  said  unto  you  ; 
 especially  for  objecting  what  might  easily  have  been  answered  by 
 you,  and  may  be  very  justly  returned  upon  you. 
 
 17-  To  your  ensuing  demands,  though  some  of  them  be  very 
 captious  and  insnaring,  yet  I  will  give  you  as  clear  and  plain  and 
 ingenuous  answers  as  possibly  I  can. 
 
 18.  Ad  §  11.  To  the  first,  then,  about  the  perpetuity  of  the 
 visible  church,,  my  ansv/er  is — that  I  believe  our  Saviour,  ever  since 
 his  ascension,  hath  had  in  some  place  or  other  a  visible  true  church 
 on  earth ;  I  mean  a  company  of  men  that  professed  at  least  so 
 much  truth  as  was  absolutely  necessary  for  their  salvation.  And  I 
 believe  that  there  will  be  some  where  cr  other  such  a  church  to  the 
 world's  end.  But  the  contrary  doctrine  I  do  at  no  hand  believe  to 
 be  a  damnable  heresy. 
 
 19.  Ad  §  12.  To  the  second.  What  visible  church  there  was 
 before  Luther  disagreeing  from  the  Roman  ?  I  answer,  that  before 
 Luther  there  were  many  visible  churches  in  many  things  disagreeing 
 from  the  Roman  ;  but  not  that  the  whole  catholic  church  disagreed 
 from  her,  because  she  herself  was  a  part  of  the  whole,  though  much 
 corrupted.  And  to  undertake  to  name  a  catholic  church  disagree- 
 ing from  her,  is  to  make  her  no  part  of  it,  which  we  do  not  nor 
 need  not  pretend.  And  for  men  agreeing  with  protestants  in  all 
 points,  we  will  then  produce  them,  when  you  shall  either  prove  it 
 necessary  to  be  done — which  you  know  we  absohitely  deny — or 
 when  you  shall  produce  a  perpetual  succession  of  professors,  which 
 in  all  points  have  agreed  with  you,  and  disagreed  from  you  in  no- 
 thing. But  this  my  promise,  to  deal  plainly  with  you,  I  conceive 
 and  so  intended  it  to  be  very  like  his,  who  undertook  to  drink  up 
 the  sea,  upon  condition  that  lie  to  whom  the  promise  was  made 
 shovdd  first  stop  the  rivers  from  running  in.  For  this  unreasonable 
 request  which  you  make  to  us  is  to  yourselves  so  impossible,  that 
 in  the  next  age  after  the  apostles  you  will  never  be  able  to  name  a 
 man  whom  you  can  prove  to  have  agreed  with  you  in  all  things,  nay 
 (if  you  speak  of  such  whose  works  are  extant  and  unquestioned), 
 whom  we  cannot  prove  to  have  disagreed  from  you  in  many  things. 
 Which  1  am  so  certain  of,  that  I  will  venture  my  credit  and  mv 
 life  upon  it. 
 
 20  Ad  §  13.  To  the  third.  Whether,  seeing  there  cannot  be 
 assigned  any  visible  true  church  distinct  from  the  Roman,  it  follows 
 not  that  she  erred  not  fundamentally  ?  I  say,  in  our  sense  of  the 
 •woid  fundamental,  it  does  follow.  For  if  it  be  true  that  there  was 
 then  no  church  distinct  from  the  Roman,  then  it  must  be  either 
 because  there  was  no  church  at  ail,  which  we  deny  ;  or  because  the 
 Roman  church  was  the  whole  church,  which  we  also  deny ;  or 
 because  she  was  a  part  of  the  whole,  whicli  we  grant.  And  if  she 
 were  a  true  part  of  the  church,  then  she  retained  those  truths  which 
 were  simply  necessary  to  salvation,   and  held  no  errors  which  were 
 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED.  43 
 
 inevitably  and  unpardoiiably  destructive  of  it.  For  this  is  precisely 
 necessary  to  constitute  any  man  or  any  church  a  member  of  the 
 church  catholic.  In  our  sense  therefore  of  the  word /?«2c?«,7iera/«/, 
 I  hope  she  erred  not  fundamentally,  but  in  your  sense  of  the  word  I 
 fear  she  did  ;  that  is,  she  held  something  to  be  Divine  revelation 
 which  was  not,  something  not  to  be  which  was. 
 
 21.  Ad  §  14.  To  the  fom-th,  How  it  could  be  damnable  to  main- 
 tain her  errors,  if  they  were  not  fundamental  ?  I  answer,  1,  Though 
 it  were  not  damnable,  yet  if  it  were  a  fault,  it  was  not  to  be  done. 
 For  a  venial  sin  with  you  is  not  damnable  ;  yet  you  say  it  is  not  to  be 
 committed  for  the  procuring  any  good  :  Non  est  faciendum  malum 
 vel  minimum,  ut  eveniat  bonum  vel  maximum.  It  is  damnable  to  main- 
 tain an  error  against  conscience,  though  the  error  in  itself,  unto  him 
 that  believes  it,  be  not  damnable.  Nay,  the  profession  not  only  of  an 
 eiTor,  but  even  of  a  truth,  if  not  believed,  when  you  think  on  it  again, 
 I  believe  you  will  confess  to  be  a  mortal  sin  ;  unless  you  will  sav 
 hypocrisy  and  simulation  in  rehgion  is  not  so.  2.  Though  'sve  say  the 
 errors  of  the  Roman  church  were  not  destructive  of  salvation,  but 
 pardonn,bie  even  to  them  that  died  in  them,  upon  a  general  rejient- 
 ance  ;  yet  v.-e  deny  not  but  in  themselves  they  were  damnable.  Nav, 
 the  ver}'  saying  they  vrere  pardonable  implies  they  need  pardon,  and 
 therefore  in  themselves  were  damnable  ;  damnable  meritoriously, 
 though  not  effectually.  As  a  poison  may  be  deadly  in  itself,  and  yet 
 not  kill  him  that  together  with  the  poison  takes  an  antidote  ;  or  as 
 felony  may  deserve  death,  and  yet  not  bring  it  on  him  that  obtains 
 the  king's  pardon. 
 
 22.  Ad  §  15.  To  the  iifth,  How  can  they  be  excused  from 
 schism  who  forsook  her  communion  upon  pretence  of  errors  v.hich 
 were  not  damnable  ?  I  answer,  all  that  v.e  forsake  in  y«u  is  only 
 the  belief  and  practice  and  profession  of  your  errors.  Hereupon 
 you  cast  us  out  of  3-our  communion ;  and  then,  with  a  strange  and 
 contradictious  and  ridiculous  liy])ocrisy,  complain  that  we  forsake  it. 
 As  if  a  man  should  thrust  his  friends  out  of  doors,  and  then  be  of- 
 fended at  his  departm-e.  But  for  us  not  to  forsake  the  belief  of 
 your  errors,  having  discovered  them  to  be  errors,  v.as  impossible  ; 
 and  therefore  to  do  so  could  not  be  damnable,  believing  them  to  be 
 errors.  Not  to  forsake  the  practice  and  profession  of  them,  had 
 been  damnable  hypocrisy ;  supiposing  that  (which  you  vainly  run 
 away  with,  and  take  for  granted)  those  errors  in  themselves  were  not 
 damnable.  Now  to  do  so,  and,  as  matters  now  stand,  not  to  forsake 
 your  communion,  is  apparently  contradictious  ;  seeing  the  condition 
 of  your  communion  is,  that  we  must  profess  to  believe  all  your 
 doctrines,  not  only  not  to  be  damnable  errors  (which  will  not  con- 
 tent you),  but  also  to  be  certain  and  necessary  and  revealed  truths. 
 So  that  to  demand  why  we  forsook  your  communion  upon  pretence 
 of  errors  which  are  not  damnable,  is  in  effect  to  demand  \vhy  we 
 forsook  it  upon  our  forsaking  it  ?  For  to  pretend  that  there  are 
 errors  in  yoiu-  church,  though  not  damnable,  is  ipso  facto  to  forsake 
 your  communion,  and  to  do  that  which  both  in  your  account,  and, 
 as  you  think,  in  God's  account,  puts  him  that  does  so  out  of  your 
 communion.  So  that  either  you  must  free  your  church  from  requir- 
 ing the  belief  of  any  error  whatsoever,  damnable  and  not  damnable. 
 
44  ANSWER  TO  THE  PREFACE  TO 
 
 or,  whether  you  will  or  no,  you  must  free  us  from  schism  ;  for 
 schism  there  cannot  be  in  leaving  your  communion,  unless  we  were 
 obliged  to  continue  in  it.  Man  cannot  be  obliged  by  man,  but  to 
 what  either  formally  or  virtually  he  is  obliged  by  God  ;  for  all  just 
 power  is  from  God.  God,  the  eternal  truth,  neither  can  nor  will 
 oblige  us  to  believe  any  the  least  and  the  most  innocent  falsehood 
 to  be  a  Divine  truth,  that  is,  to  err  :  nor  to  profess  a  known  error, 
 which  is  to  lie.  So  that  if  you  require  the  belief  of  any  error  among 
 the  conditions  of  your  communion,  our  obligation  to  communicate 
 with  you  ceaseth,  and  so  the  imputation  of  schism  to  us  vanisheth 
 into  nothing ;  but  lies  heavy  upon  you  for  making  our  separation 
 from  you  just  and  necessary,  by  requiring  unnecessary  and  unlawful 
 conditions  of  your  comnmnion.  Hereafter,  therefore,  I  entreat  you, 
 let  not  your  demand  be,  how  could  we  forsake  your  conmiunion 
 ■without  schism,  seeing  you  erred  not  damnably  ?  but,  how  could 
 w^e  do  so  without  schism,  seeing  you  en*ed  not  at  all  ?  which  if 
 either  you  do  prove,  or  we  cannot  disprove  it,  we  Avill  (I  at  least  will 
 for  my  part)  return  to  your  communion,  or  subscribe  myself  schis- 
 matic.    In  the  mean  time,  fxiyuftty  onfir^  «r,«iv. 
 
 23.  Yet  notwithstanding  all  your  errors,  we  do  not  renounce  your 
 communion  totally  and  absolutely,  but  only  leave  communicating 
 with  you  in  the  practice  and  ])rofession  of  your  errors.  The  trial 
 whereof  will  be  to  ])ropose  some  form  of  worshipping  God,  taken 
 wholly  out  of  Scriptiu-e  ;  and  herein  if  we  refuse  to  join  with  you, 
 then,  and  not  till  then,  may  you  justly  say  we  have  utterly  and 
 absolutely  abandoned  your  communion. 
 
 24.  Ad  §  16.  Your  sixth  demand  I  have  already  satisfied  in  my 
 answers  to  the  second  and  the  fourth,  and  in  my  reply  ad  §  2, 
 toward  the  end.  And  though  you  say  your  repeating  must  be 
 excused,  yet  I  dare  not  be  so  confident,  and  therefore,  forbear  it. 
 
 25.  Ad  §  17.  To  the  seventh,  "Whether  error  against  any  one 
 truth  sufficiently  propounded  as  testified  by  God,  destroy  not  the 
 nature  and  unity  of  faith,  or  at  least  is  not  a  grievous  offence,  ex- 
 cluding salvation  ?  I  answer,  if  you  suppose,  as  you  seem  to  do,  the 
 ])ro[)Osition  so  sufficient,  that  the  party  to  whom  it  is  made  is  con- 
 vinced, that  it  is  from  God,  so  that  the  denial  of  it  involves 
 also  Avith  it,  the  denial  of  (iod's  veracity,  any  such  error 
 destroys  both  faith  and  salvation.  But  if  the  proposal  be 
 only  so  sufficient,  not  that  the  l)arty  to  whom  it  is  made  is  con- 
 vinced, but  only  that  he  should,  and  but  for  his  own  fault  would 
 have  been  convinced  of  the  Divine  verity  of  the  doctrine  proposed, 
 the  crime  then  is  not  so  great ;  for  the  belief  of  God's  veracity  may 
 still  consist  with  such  an  error.  Yet  a  fault  I  confess  it  is,  and 
 (without  repentance)  damnable,  if,  all  circumstances  considered,  the 
 
 .  proposal  be  sufficient.  But  then  I  must  tell  you,  that  the  proposal 
 of  rhe  present  Roman  church  is  only  pretended  to  be  sufficient  for 
 this  .purpose,  but  is  not  so  ;  especially  all  the  rays  of  the  Divinity, 
 which  they  pretend  to  shine  so  conspicuously  in  her  proposals,  being 
 so  darkened  and  even  extinguished  with  a  cloud  of  contradiction, 
 from  Scripture,  reason,  and  the  ancient  church. 
 
 '2i:j.  Ad  §  18.  To  the  eighth.  How  of  disagreeing  protestants, 
 both  parts  may  hope    for   salvation,  seeing  some   of  them    must 
 
THE    AUTHOR    OF    CHARITY   MAINTAINED.  45 
 
 must  needs  err  against  some  truth  testified  by  God  ?  T  answer,  the 
 most  disagreeing  protestants  that  are,  yet  thus  far  agree  ;  1 .  That 
 those  books  of  Scripture  which  were  never  doubted  of  in  the  church 
 ai'e  the  undoubted  word  of  God,  and  a  perfect  rule  of  faith.  2.  That 
 the  sense  of  them,  which  God  intended,  whatsoever  it  is,  is  certainly 
 true  ;  so  that  they  believe  implicitly  even  those  very  truths  against 
 which  they  err  ;  and  why  an  implicit  faith  in  Christ  and  his  word 
 should  not  suffice  as  well  as  an  impUcit  faith  in  your  church,  I  have 
 deshed  to  be  resolved  by  many  of  yom*  side,  but  never  could.  3, 
 That  they  are  to  use  their  best  endeavours  to  believe  the  Scripture  in 
 the  true  sense,  and  to  live  according  to  it.  This  if  they  perform 
 (as  I  hope  many  on  all  sides  do)  truly  and  sincerely,  it  is  impossible 
 but  that  they  should  beheve  aright  in  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
 tion ;  that  is,  in  all  those  things  which  appertain  to  the  covenant 
 between  God  and  man  in  Christ ;  for  so  much  is  not  only  plainly, 
 but  frequently  contained  in  Scripture.  And  beheving  aright  touch- 
 ing the  covenant,  if  they  for  their  parts  perform  the  condition  re- 
 quired of  them,  which  is  sincere  obedience,  why  should  they  not 
 expect  that  God  will  perform  his  promise,  and  give  them  salvation  ? 
 For,  as  for  other  things,  which  lie  mthout  the  covenant,  and  are 
 therefore  less  necessaiy,  if  by  reason  of  the  seeming  conflict  which 
 is  oftentimes  between  Scriptm-e  and  reason  and  authority  on  the  one 
 side,  and  Scriptiu-e,  reason,  and  authority  on  the  other ;  if  by  reason 
 of  the  variety  of  tempers,  abihties,  educations,  and  unavoidatile  pre- 
 judices, whereby  men's  understandings  are  variously  formed  and 
 fashioned,  they  do  embrace  several  opinions,  whereof  some  must  be 
 erroneous ;  to  say  that  God  ^^ill  damn  them  for  such  errors,  who 
 are  lovers  of  him,  and  lovers  of  truth,  is  to  rob  man  of  his  comfort, 
 and  God  of  his  goodness ;  it  is  to  make  man  desperate  and  God  a 
 tyrant.  But  "  they  deny  truths  testified  by  God,  and  therefore  shall 
 be  damned." — Yes,  if  they  knew  them  to  be  thus  testified  by  him, 
 and  yet  would  deny  them ;  that  were  to  give  God  the  lie,  and  ques- 
 tionless damnable.  But  iJf  you  should  deny  a  truth  which  God  had 
 testified  but  only  to  a  man  in  the  Indies  (as  I  said  before),  and 
 this  testification  you  had  never  heard  of,  or  at  least  had  no  sufficient 
 reason  to  beheve  that  God  had  so  testified,  would  you  not  think  it  u 
 hard  case  to  be  damned  for  such  a  denial  ?  Yet  consider,  I  pray, 
 a  little  more  attentively,  the  difierence  between  them,  and  you  will 
 presently  acknowledge  the  question  between  them  is  not  at  any  time, 
 or  in  any  thing,  whether  God  says  true  or  no  ;  or  whether  he  says 
 this  or  no  ;  but,  supposing  he  says  this,  and  says  true,  whether  he 
 means  this  or  no.  As  for  example  :  between  Lutherans,  Calvinists, 
 and  Zuinghans,  it  is  agreed  that  Christ  spake  these  words,  This  is 
 my  body  j  and  that  whatsoever  he  meant  in  saying  so  is  true  :  but 
 what  he  meant,  and  how  he  is  to  be  understood,  that  is  the  question. 
 So  that  though  some  of  them  deny  a  truth  by  God  intended,  yet 
 you  can  mth  no  reason  or  justice  accuse  them  of  denying  the  truth 
 of  God's  testimony,  unless  you  can  plainly  show  that  God  hath  de- 
 clared, and  that  plainly  and  clearly,  v/hat  was  his  meaning  in  these 
 words  :  I  say  plainly  and  clearly  ;  for  he  that  speaks  obscurely  and 
 ambiguously,  and  no  where  declares  himself  plainly,  sm-e  he  hath  no 
 reason  to  be  much  offended  if  he  be  mistaken.     When,  therefore. 
 
46  ANSWER  TO  THE  PREFACE  OF 
 
 you  can  show,  that  in  this  and  all  other  their  controversies,  God  hath 
 interposed  his  testimony  on  one  side  or  other ;  so  that  either  they 
 do  see  it  and  \^^ll  not ;  or  were  it  not  for  their  o^vn  voluntary  and 
 avoidable  fault,  might  and  should  see  it,  and  do  not :  let  all  such 
 eri'ors  be  as  damnable  as  you  please  to  make  them.     In  the  mean 
 while,  if  they  suffer  themselves  neither  to  be  betrayed  into  their 
 errors,  nor  keep  in  them  by  any  sin  of  their  will ;  if  they  do  their 
 best  endeavom's  to  free  themselves  from  all  errors,  and  yet  fail  of  it 
 through  human  frailty  ;  so  well  am  I  persuaded  of  the  goodness  of 
 God,  that  if  in  me  alone  should  meet  a  confluence  of  all  such  errors 
 of  all  the  protestants  in  the  world  that  were  thus  qualified,  I  should 
 not  be  so  much  afraid  of  them  all,  as  I  should  be  to  ask  pardon  for 
 them.    For  whereas  that  which  you  affright  us  with,  of  calling  God's 
 veracity  in  question,  is  but  a  panic  fear,  a  fault  that  no  man  thus 
 qualified  is  or  can  be  guilty  of ;  to  ask  pardon  of  simple  and  purely 
 involuntaiy  errors  is  tacitly  to  imply  that  God  is  angry  with  us  for 
 them,  and  that  were  to  impute  to  him  the  strange  tyranny  of  re- 
 quiring brick  when  he  gives  no  straw ;  of  expecting  to  gather  where 
 he  strewed  not ;  to  reap,  where  he  sowed  not ;  of  being  oftended 
 with  us  for  not  doing  what  he  knows  we  cannot  do.    This  I  say  upon 
 a  supposition  that  they  do  their  best  endeavours  to  know  God's  will 
 and  do  it ;  which  he  that  denies  to  be  possible  knows  not  what  he 
 says  ;  for  he  says,  in  effect,  that  men  cannot  do  what  they  can  do  ; 
 for  to  do  what  a  man  can  do,  is  to  do  his  best  endeavour.     But 
 because  this  supposition,  though  certainly  possible,  is  veiy  rare  and 
 admirable  ;  I  say,  secondly,  that  I  am  verily  persuaded  that  God  will 
 not  impute  errors  to  them  as  sms,  who  use  such  a  measure  of  in- 
 dustry in  finding  truth,  as  human  prudence  and  ordinary  discretion 
 (their  abilities  and  opportunities,  their  distractions  and  hinderances, 
 and  all  other  things  considered)  shall  advise  them  mito,  in  a  matter 
 of  such  consequence.     But  if  herein  also  we  fail,  then  our  errors 
 begin  to  be  mah^nant,  and  justly  imputable,  as  ofi'ences  against  God, 
 and  that  love  of  his  truth  which  he  requires  in  us.     You  will  say, 
 then,  that  for  those  erring  protestants  which  are  in  this  case,  which 
 evidently  are  far  the  greater  part,  they  sin  damnably  in  erring,  and 
 therefore  there  is  little  hope  of  their  salvation.     To  which  I  answer, 
 that  the  consequence  of  this  reason  is  somewhat  strong  against  a  pro- 
 testant,  but  much  weakened  by  coming  out  of  the  mouth  of  a  papist. 
 For  all  sins  mth  you  are  not  damnable ;  and  therefore  protestant 
 errors  might  be  sins,  and  yet  not  damnable.     But  yet,  out  of  cour- 
 tesy to  you,  we  mil  remove  this  rub  out  of  yom*  way ;  and  for  the 
 present  suppose  them  mortal  sins ;  and  is  there  then  no  hope  of 
 salvation  for  him  that  commits  them  ?     Not,  you  \^ill  say,  if  he  die 
 in  them  without  repentance ;  and  such  protestants  you  speak  of, 
 who  without  repentance  die  in  their  errors.     Yea,  but  what  if  they 
 die  in  their  errors  with  repentance  ?     Then  I  hope  you  will  have 
 charity  enough  to  think  they  may  be  saved.      Charity  Mistaken* 
 takes  it  indeed  for  granted  that  this    supposition  is  destructive  of 
 itself :  and  that  it  is  impossible  and  incongruous  that  a  man  should 
 repent  of  those  errors  wherein  he  dies,  or  die  in  those  whereof  he 
 repents.     But  it  was  v^isely  done  of  him  to  take  it  for  granted ;  for 
 *  In  the  place  above  quoted. 
 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAIXED.  47 
 
 most  certainly  lie  could  not  have  spoken  one  word  of  sense  for  the 
 confirmation  of  it.  For  seeing  protestants  believe,  as  well  as  you, 
 God's  infinite  and  most  admirable  perfections  in  himself,  more  than 
 most  worthy  of  all  possible  love  :  seeing  they  believe,  as  well  as 
 you,  his  infinite  goodness  to  them,  in  creating  them  of  nothing ;  in 
 creating  them  according  to  his  oi^ii  image  ;  in  creating  all  things  for 
 their  use  and  benefit  ;  in  streaming  down  his  favours  on  them  eveiy 
 moment  of  theii*  lives  ;  in  designing  them,  if  they  serve  him,  to  in- 
 finite and  eternal  happiness  ;  in  redeeming  them,  not  with  corruptible 
 things,  but  the  precious  blood  of  his  beloved  Son  :  seeing  they  be- 
 lieve, as  well  as  you,  his  infinite  goodness  and  patience  towards 
 them,  in  expecting  then-  conversion,  in  wooing,  alluring,  leading,  and 
 by  all  means  which  his  wisdom  can  suggest  unto  him,  and  man's 
 natm-e  is  capable  of,  drawing  them  to  repentance  and  salvation ; 
 seeing  they  believe  these  things  as  well  as  you,  and,  for  aught  you 
 know,  consider  them  as  much  as  you  (and  if  they  do  not,  it  is  not 
 their  rehgion,  but  they  that  are  to  blame) — what  can  hinder  but 
 that  the  consideration  of  God's  most  infinite  goodness  to  them,  and 
 their  own  almost  infinite  wickedness  against  him,  God's  Spirit  co- 
 operating ^^ith  them,  may  raise  them  to  a  true  and  sincere  and 
 cordial  love  of  God?  And  seeing  sorrow  for  having  injured  or 
 offended  the  person  beloved,  or  when  vre  fear  we  may  have  offended 
 him,  is  the  most  uatm-al  effect  of  true  love  ;  what  can  hinder  but 
 that  love  which  hath  ofttimes  constrained  them  to  lay  down  their 
 lives  for  God  (which  our  Saviour  assures  us  is  the  noblest  sacrifice  we 
 can  offer),  may  produce  in  them  an  miiversal  sorrow  for  all  their 
 sins,  both  which  they  know  they  have  committed,  and  which  they 
 fear  they  may  have  ?  In  which  number,  their  being  negligent,  or 
 not  dispassionate,  or  not  unprejudicate  enough  in  seeking  the  truth, 
 and  the  effect  thereof,  their  errors,  if  they  be  sins,  cannot  but  be 
 comprised.  In  a  word,  v.hat  should  hinder  but  that  that  praver — 
 Delicta  sua  quis  intelligit  f  Who  can  iinderstand  his  faults  F 
 Lord,  cleanse  thou  me  from  :ny  secret  sins — may  be  heard  and 
 accepted  by  God,  as  well  from  a  jtrotestant  that  dies  in  some  errors, 
 as  from  a  papist  that  dies  in  some  other  sins  of  ignorance,  which 
 perhaps  he  might  more  easily  have  discovered  to  be  sins,  than 
 a  protestant  could  his  error  to  be  errors  ?  As  well  from  a  pro- 
 testant  that  held  some  error,  which  (as  he  conceived)  God's 
 v/ord  and  his  reason  (which  is  also  in  some  sort  God's  word) 
 led  him  unto,  as  from  a  Dominican,  who  perhaps  took  up  his 
 opinion  upon  trust,  not  because  he  had  reason  to  beheve  it  true,  but 
 because  it  was  the  opinion  of  his  order  ;  for  the  same  man,  if  he 
 had  light  upon  another  order,  would  in  all  probability  have  been  of 
 the  other  opmion  :  for  v.hat  else  is  the  cause  that  generally  all  the 
 Dominicans  are  of  one  opinion,  and  all  the  Jesuits  of  the  other  ?  I 
 say,  from  a  Dominican  who  took  up  his  opinion  upon  trust ;  and 
 that  such  an  opinion  (if  we  believe  the  writers  of  your  order)  as,  if 
 it  be  granted  true,  it  \A'ere  not  a  point-matter  what  opinions  any  man 
 held,  or  what  actions  any  man  did  :  for  the  best  would  be  as  bad  as 
 the  worst,  and  the  vrorst  as  good  as  the  best.  And  yet  such  is  the 
 iiart  ality  of  your  hypocrisy,  that,  of  disagreeing  papists,  neither  shall 
 deny  the  tnizh  testified  by  God,  but  both  may  hope  for  salvation  : 
 
48  ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE    OF 
 
 but  of  disagreeing  protestants  (though  they  diiFer  in  the  same 
 thing),  one  side  must  deny  God's  testimony,*  and  be  incapable  of 
 salvation.  That  a  Dominican,  through  culpable  negligence,  living 
 and  dying  in  his  error,  may  repent  of  it,  though  he  knows  it  not ;  or 
 be  saved,  though  he  do  not  :  but  if  a  protestant  do  the  very  same 
 thing,  in  the  very  same  point,  and  die  in  his  error,  his  case  is  despe- 
 rate. The  sura  of  all  that  hath  been  said  to  this  demand,  is  this  : — 
 1.  That  no  erring  protestant  denies  any  truth  testified  by  God, 
 under  this  formality,  as  testified  by  him  ;  nor  which  they  know  or 
 believe  to  be  testified  by  him.  And  therefore  it  is  an  horrible 
 calumny  in  you  to  say — they  call  God's  veracity  in  question  :  for 
 God's  undoubted  and  unquestioned  veracity  is  to  them  the  ground 
 why  they  do  hold  all  they  do  hold  :  neither  do  they  hold  any  o})inion 
 so  stiffly,  but  they  will  forego  it  rather  than  this  one — that  all  which 
 God  says  is  true.  2.  God  hath  not  so  clearly  and  plainly  declared 
 himself  in  most  of  these  things  which  are  in  controversy  between 
 protestants,  but  that  an  honest  man,  whose  heart  is  right  to  God, 
 and  one  that  is  a  true  lover  of  God  and  of  his  truth,  may,  by  reason 
 of  the  conflict  of  contrary  reasons  on  both  sides,  very  easily,  and 
 theref  >re  excusably  mistake,  and  embrace  error  for  truth,  and  reject 
 truth  for  error.  3.  If  any  protestant  or  papist  be  betrayed  into  or 
 kept  in  any  error  by  any  sin  of  his  will  (as  it  is  to  be  feared  mnny 
 millions  are),  such  error  is,  as  the  cause  of  it,  sinful  and  damnable  ; 
 yet  not  exclusive  of  all  hope  of  salvation,  but  pardonable,  if  disco- 
 vered, upon  a  particular  explicit  repentance  :  if  not  discovered,  upon 
 a  general  and  implicit  repentance  for  all  sins,  known  and  unknown  : 
 in  which  number  all  sinful  errors  must  of  necessity  be  contained. 
 
 27.  Ad  §  19.  To  the  ninth,  wherein  you  are  so  urgent  for  a  par- 
 ticular catalogue  of  your  fundamentals ;  I  answer  almost  in  your 
 own  words,  that  we  also  constantly  urge  and  require  to  have  a  par- 
 ticular catalogue  of  your  fundamentals,  whether  they  be  written 
 verities,  or  unwritten  traditions,  or  church  definitions,  all  which, 
 you  say,  integrate  the  material  object  of  your  faith  :  in  a  word,  of 
 all  such  points  as  are  defined  and  sufficiently  proposed ;  so  that 
 whosoever  denies,  or  doubts  of  any  of  them,  is  certainly  in  the  state 
 of  damnation,  A  catalogue,  I  say,  in  particular  of  the  proposals;  and 
 not  only  some  general  definition  or  description,  under  which  you  lurk 
 deceitfully,  of  what  and  w^hat  only  is  sufficiently  proposed  :  wherein 
 yet  you  do  not  very  well  agree.*  For  many  of  you  hold  the  pope's 
 proposal  ex  cathedra  to  be  sufficient  and  obliging ;  some,  a  council 
 without  a  pope  ;  some,  of  neither  of  them  severally,  but  only  both 
 together ;  some,  not  this  neither  in  m.atter  of  manners,  which  Bel- 
 larmine  acknowledges,  and  tells  us  it  is  all  one  in  effect  as  if  they 
 denied  it  sufficient  in  matter  of  faith  ;  some  not  in  matter  of  faith 
 neither  think  this  proposal  infallible,  without  the  acceptation  of  the 
 church  universal ;  some  deny  the  infalhbihty  of  the  present  church, 
 and  only  make  the  tradition  of  all  ages  the  infallible  propounder :  yet  if 
 you  were  agreed  what  and  \Ahat  only  is  the  infalhble  propounder 
 
 •  This  great  diversity  of  oi»iiiions  among  you,  touching-  this  matter,  if  any  man 
 doubt  of  it,  let  him  read  I'rancisci  s  Picus  Miraiiduhi  in  1.  Theorem,  in  Exposit. 
 Theor.  quarti ;  and  Th.  Vv'aldensi:-,  t(  m.  iii.  De  Sacranientalibus,  Doct.  3.  fol.  5, 
 and  he  shall  be  fully  satisfied  that  I  have  done  you  no  injury. 
 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED.  49 
 
 this  would  not  satisfy  us  ;  nor  jet  to  say,  that  all  is  fundamental 
 which  is  propounded  sufficiently  by  him ;  for  though  agreeing  in 
 this,  yet  you  might  still  disagree  whether  such  or  such  a  doctrine 
 were  propounded  or  not :  or,  if  propounded,  whether  sufficiently,  or 
 only  unsufficiently.  And  it  is  so  known  a  thing  that  in  many 
 points  you  do  so,  that  I  assm*e  myself  you  will  not  deny  it.  There- 
 fore we  constantly  urge  and  reqmre  a  particular  and  perfect  inven- 
 tory of  all  those  Divine  revelations  which,  you  say,  are  sufficiently 
 propounded ;  and  that  such  an  one  to  which  all  of  your  chui'ch  will 
 subscribe,  as  neither  redundant  nor  deficient ;  which  when  you  give 
 in  with  one  hand,  you  shall  receive  a  particular  catalogue  of  such 
 points  as  I  call  fundamental  with  the  other.  Neither  may  you 
 think  me  unreasonable  in  this  demand,  seeing  upon  such  a  particu- 
 lar catalogue  of  yom*  sufficient  proposals  as  much  depends  as  upon 
 a  particular  catalogue  of  our  fundamentals.  As  for  example, 
 whether  or  no  a  man  do  not  err  in  some  point  defined  and  suffi- 
 ciently proposed ;  and  whether  or  no  those  that  differ  among  you 
 differ  in  fundamentals  ;  which  if  they  do,  one  heaven  (by  yom-  own 
 rule)  cannot  receive  them  all.  Perhaps  you  will  here  complain,  that 
 this  is  not  to  satisfy  your  demand,  but  to  avoid  it,  and  to  put  you  off, 
 as  the  Ai-eopagites  did  hard  causes,  ad  diem  longissimum,  and  bid 
 you  come  again  a  hundred  years  hence.  To  deal  truly,  I  did  so  in- 
 tend it  should  be.  Neither  can  you  say  my  deaUng  with  you  is  in- 
 jurious, seeing  that  I  reqmre  nothing  of  you,  but  that  what  you  re- 
 quire of  others  you  should  show  it  possible  to  be  done,  and  just  and 
 necessary  to  be  required.  For,  for  my  part,  I  have  great  reason  to 
 suspect  It  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  :  for  whereas  the  verities 
 which  are  dehvered  in  Scriptm-e  may  be  very  fitly  di^^ded  into  such 
 as  were  written  because  they  were  necessary  to  be  beUeved  (of  which 
 rank  are  those  only  which  constitute  and  make  up  the  covenant 
 between  God  and  man  in  Christ) ;  and  then  such  as  are  necessaiy  to 
 be  believed  not  in  themselves,  but  only  by  accident,  because  they  were 
 written ;  of  which  rank  are  many  matters  of  history,  of  prophecy, 
 of  mystery,  of  policy,  of  economy,  and  such  like,  which  are  evi- 
 dently not  intrinsical  to  the  covenant :  now  to  sever  exactly  and 
 punctually  these  verities  one  from  the  other,  what  is  necessary  in  itself, 
 and  antecedently  to  the  writing,  from  what  is  but  only  profitable  in 
 itself,  and  necessary  only  because  written,  is  a  business  of  extreme 
 great  difficulty,  and' extreme  little  necessity.  For,  first,  he  that  will 
 go  about  to  distinguish,  especially  in  the  storj^  of  our  Saviovu-,  what 
 was  written  because  it  was  profitable,  from  what  was  written  because 
 necessary,  shall  find  an  intricate  piece  of  business  of  it,  and  almost 
 impossible  that  he  should  be  certain  he  hath  done  it,  when  he  hath 
 done  it.  And  then  it  is  apparently  unnecessary  to  go  about  it,  see- 
 ing he  that  beheves  all,  certainly  beheves  all  that  is  necessary ;  and 
 he  that  doth  not  believe  all  (I  mean  all  the  undoubted  parts  of  the 
 undoubted  books  of  Scripture),  can  hardly  believe  any ;  neither  have 
 we  reason  to  beheve  he  doth  so.  So  that,  that  protestants  give  you 
 not  a  catalogue  of  fundamentals,  it  is  not  from  tergiversation  (as 
 you  suspect,  who  for  want  of  charit\'  to  them  always  suspect  the 
 worst),  but  from  wisdom  and  necessity  :  for  they  may  very  easily 
 err  in  doing  it;    because,  though  all  which  is  necessary  be  plain  vft 
 
^^  ANSWER   TO    THE    PREFACE    OF 
 
 Scripture,  yet  all  which  is  plain  is  not  therefore  written  because  it 
 was  necessary ;  for  what  greater  necessity  was  there  that  1  should 
 know  St.  Paul  left  his  cloak  at  Troas,  than  those  worlds  of  miracles 
 which  our  Saviour  did,  which  were  never  written  ?  And  when  they 
 had  done  it,  it  had  been  to  no  purpose ;  there  being  as  matters  now 
 stand,  as  great  necessity  of  believing  those  truths  of  Scripture 
 which  are  not  fundamental,  as  those  that  are.  You  see  then  what 
 reason  we  have  to  dechne  this  hard  labour,  which  you,  a  rigid  task- 
 master, have  here  put  upon  us.  Yet  instead  of  giving  you  a  cata- 
 logue of  fundamentals,  with  which  I  dare  say  you  are  resolved,  be- 
 ,  fore  it  come,  never  to  be  satisfied ;  I  will  say  that  to  you,  which,  if 
 you  })lease,  may  do  you  as  much  service ;  and  this  it  is — that  it  is 
 sufficient  for  any  man's  salvation  that  he  believe  the  Scripture ;  that 
 he  endeavour  to  believe  it  in  the  true  sense  of  it,  as  far  as  concerns 
 his  duty ;  and  that  he  conform  his  hfe  unto  it  either  by  obedience 
 or  repentance.  He  that  does  so  (and  all  protestants,  according  to 
 the  dictamen  of  their  religion,  should  do  so)  may  be  secure  that  he 
 cannot  err  fundamentally.  And  they  that  do  so  cannot  differ  in 
 fundamentals.  So  that,  notwithstanding  their  differences,  and  your 
 presumption,  the  same  heaven  may  receive  them  all. 
 
 28.  Ad  §  20.  Your  tenth  and  last  request  is,  to  know  distinctly 
 what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  protestant  English  church  in  these 
 points,  and  what  my  private  opinion  ?  which  shall  be  satisfied  wheu 
 the  church  of  England  hath  expressed  herself  in  them ;  or  when 
 you  have  told  us  what  is  the  doctrine  of  your  church  in  the  question 
 of  predetermination,  or  the  immaculate  conception. 
 
 29.  Ad  §  21  and  22.     These  answers,  I  hope,  in  the  judgment 
 of  indifi"erent  men,  are  satisfactory  to  yoiur  questions,-  though  not 
 to  you :    for  I  have  either  answered  them,  or  given  you  a  reason 
 why  I  have  not.     Neither,  for  aught  I  can  see,  have  I  flitted  from 
 things  considered  in  their  ovm  nature  to  accidental  or  rare  circum- 
 stances ;  but  told  you  my  opinion  plainly  what  I  thought  of  your 
 errors  in  themselves  :  and  what  as  they  v/ere  quahfied  or  mahgnified 
 with  good  or  bad  circumstances.    Though  I  must  tell  you  truly,  that 
 I  see  no  reason,  the  question  being  of  the  damnableness  of  error, 
 why  you  should  esteem  ignorance,  incapacity,  want  of  means  to  be 
 instructed,   accidental  and  rare  circumstances  :    as  if  knowledge, 
 capacity,  ha\ing  means  of  instruction  concerning  the  truth  of  your 
 religion  or  ours,  were  not  as  rare  and  unusual  in  the  adverse  part  of 
 either,  as  ignorance,  incapacity,  and  want  of  means   of  instruction  ; 
 especially  how  erroneous  conscience  can  be  a  rare  thing  in  those  that 
 err,   or  how  unerring  conscience  is  not  much  more  rare,  I  am  not 
 able  to  apprehend.     So  that,   to  consider  men  of  different  religions 
 (the  subject  of  this   controversy)  in  their  own  nature,  and  without 
 circumstances,  must  be  to  consider  them  neither  as  ignorant  nor  as 
 knowing  ;  neither  as  having,  nor  as  wanting  means  of  instruction  ; 
 neither  as  with  capacity,  nor  without  it ;  neither  with  erroneous, 
 nor  yet  with  unerring  conscience.     And  then  what  judgment  can 
 you  pronounce  of  them,  all  the  goodness  and  badness  of  an  action 
 dependmg  on  the  circumstances  ?      Ought  not  a  judge,  being  to 
 give  sentence  of  an  action,  to  consider  all  the  circumstances  of  it  ? 
 Or  is  it  possible  he  should  judge  rightly  that  doth  not  so  ?    Neither 
 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  CHARITY  MAINTAINED.  51 
 
 is  it  to  purpose  that  circumstances  beiug  various  cannot  be  well 
 eomprehencled  under  any  general  rule  :    for   though  under    an}' 
 general  rule  they  cannot,  yet  under  many  general  rules  they  may  be 
 comprehended.     The  question  here  is,   you  say,   whether  men  of 
 different  religions  may  be  saved  ?     Now  the  subject  of  this  question 
 is   an  ambigucas  term,   and  may  be  determined  and  invested  with 
 diverse  and  contrar}'  circumstances ;    and,    accordingly,   contrary 
 judgments  are  to  be  given  of  it.     And  w  ho   can  then   be  offended 
 with  D.    Potter  for  distinguishing  before  he  defines  ?     (the  want 
 whereof  is  the  chief  thing  that  makes  defining  dangerous)    wlio  can 
 find  fault  with  him  for  saying,  "  If,  through  want  of  means   of  in- 
 struction, incapacity,  invincible  or  probable  ignorance,   a  man  die  in 
 error,  he  may  be  saved  ;  but  if  he  be  negligent  in  seeking  the  truth, 
 unwilling  to  lind  it,  either  doth  see  it  and  will  not,  or  might  see  it 
 and   will  not,    that  his  case  is  dangerous,  and  without  repentance 
 desperate  ?"     This  is  all  that  D.  Potter  says,  neither  rashly  damning 
 all  that  are  of  a  different  opinion  from  him,   nor  securing  any  that 
 are  in  matter  of  religion  sinfully,  that  is,  willingly,  erroneous.     The 
 author  of  this  reply  (I  will  abide  by  it)  says  the  very   same  thing  ; 
 neither  can  I  see  wdiat  adversary  he  hath  in  the  main  question  but 
 his  own  shadow ;  and  yet,  I  know  not  out  of  what  frowardness,  finds 
 fault  with  D.  Potter  for  affirming  that  which  himself  affirms  :  and  to 
 cloud  the  matter,   whereas  the  question  is,  whether  men  by  igno- 
 rance, dying  in  error,  may  be  saved  ?  would  have  them  considered 
 neither  as  erring  nor  ignorant.     And  when  the  question  is,  whether 
 the  errors  of  the  papists  be  damnable  ? — to  which  w-e  answer,  that  to 
 them  that  do  or  might  know  them  to  be  errors,  they  are  damnable  ; 
 to  them  that  do  not,  they  are  not — he  tells  us,  "  that  this  is  to  change 
 the  state  of  the  question" — whereas,   indeed,  it  is  to  state  the  ques- 
 tion,  and  free  it  from  ambiguity  before  you  answer  it — and  "  to 
 have  recourse  to  accidental  circumstances  ;"  as  if  ignorance  were 
 accidental  to   error,  or  as  if  a  man  could  be  considered  as  in  error, 
 and  not  be  considered  as  in  ignorance  of  the  truth  from  which  he 
 errs  !     Certainly  error  against  a  truth   must  needs  presuppose  a 
 nescience  of  it  ;  unless  you  will  say  that  a  man  may  at  once  resolve 
 for  a  truth,  and  resolve  against  it ;  assent  to  it,  and  dissent  from  it ; 
 know  it  to  be  true,  and  believe  it  not  to  be  true.     Whether  know- 
 ledge and  opinion  touching  the  same  thing  may  stand  together,  is 
 made  a  question  in  the  schools  :  but  he  that  Avovdd  question  whether 
 knowing  a  thing  and  doubting  of  it,  much  more,  whether  knowing  it 
 to  be  true  and  believing  it  to  be  false,  may  stand  together,  deserves, 
 without  question,  no  other  answer  but  laughter.      Now  if  error  and 
 knowledge  cannot  consist,  then  error  and  ignorance  must  be  insepa- 
 rable.    He  then  that  professeth  your  errors  may  well  be  considered 
 either  as  knowing  or  as  ignorant.     But  him  that  does  err  indeed, 
 you  can  no  more  conceive  without  ignorance,  than  long  without 
 quantity,  virtuous  w^ithout  quality,  a  man  and  not  a  living  creature, 
 to  have  gone  ten  miles  and  not  to  have  gone  five,   to   speak  sense 
 and  not  to  speak.     For  as  the  latter  in  all  these  is  implied  in  the 
 former,  so  is  ignorance  of  a  truth  supposed  in  error  against  it.     Yet 
 such  a  man,  though  not  conceivable  without  ignorance  simply,  may 
 be  very  well  considered  either  as  with  or  without  voluntaiT  and  sin- 
 
62  ANSWER  TO  THE  PREFACE  OF  TIIi:  AUTHOR,  ETC. 
 
 fill  ignorance.  And  lie  that  will  give  a  wise  answer  to  this  question^ 
 — whether  a  papist  dying  a  papist  may  he  saved  according  to  God's 
 ordinary  proceeding  ?  must  distingiiisli  him  according  to  these 
 several  considerations,  and  say,  he  may  l^e  saved,  if  his  ignorance 
 were  either  invincible,  or  at  least  una^tected  and  probable  ;  if  other- 
 wise, without  repentance  he  cannot. 
 
 To  the  rest  of  this  Preface  I  have  notliing  to  say,  saving  what  hath 
 been  said,  but  this  :  that  it  is  no  just  exception  to  an  argument  to 
 call  it  vulgar  and  threadbare  :  truth  can  neither  be  too  common  nor 
 superannuated,  nor  reason  ever  worn  out.  Let  your  ansv.ers  be 
 solid  and  pertinent,  and  we  will  never  find  fault  with  them  for  being 
 old  or  common. 
 
CHAEITY 
 
 MAINTAINED    BY     CATHOLICS. 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 luhe  state  of  the  question  ;  with  a  summary  of  the  reasons  for  wliich 
 amonnst  men  rf  diffeieat  relir/ions,  one  side  only  can  he  saved. 
 
 *'  Never  is  malice  more  indiscreet,  titan  when  it  chavgeth  other.? 
 with  imputation  of  that,  to  which  itself  becomes  more  hable,  even  b)'- 
 that  very  act  of  accusinc^  others  ;  for  though  guiltiness  be  the  effect 
 of  some  error,  yet  usually  it  begets  a  kind  of  moderation,  so  far  forth, 
 as  not  to  let  men  cast  such  aspersions  upon  others,  as  most  appa- 
 rently reflect  upon  themselves.  Thus  cannot  the  poet  endure  that 
 Gracchus,*  who  was  a  factious  and  uurjuiet  man,  should  be  inveigh- 
 ing against  sedition  :  and  the  Roman  orator  rebukes  philosophers, 
 who,  to  wax  glorious,  su'perscribed  their  names  upon  those  very 
 books  wliich  they  entitled.  Of  the  Contempt  of  Glory.  What  then 
 shall  we  say  of  D.  Potter,  who,  in  the  title  and  text  of  his  whole 
 book,  doth  so  tragically  charge  want  of  charity  on  all  such  Romanists 
 as  dare  affii-m  that  protestanc}'  destroyeth  salvation ;  while  he  liim- 
 self  is  in  act  of  pronouncmg  the  like  heavy  doom  against  Roman 
 catholics  ?  For,  not  satisfied  ^vitli  much  uncivil  language,  in  atfirm- 
 ing  the  Roman  cliurchf  many  ways  to  have  ])layed  the  harlot,  and  in 
 that  regard  deserved  a  bill  of  divoi'ce  from  Christ,  and  detestation  of 
 Christians ;  in  styling  her  that  p'-oud."';  and  cursed  dame  of  Rome,  Avhich 
 takes  upon  lier  to  revel  in  the  liouse  of  God  :  in  talking  of  an  idol§  to 
 be  Avorshipped  at  Rome ;  he  comes  at  length  to  thunder  out  his  fearful 
 sentence  against  lier  :  'For  thatjl  mass  of  errors,'  saith  he,  '  in  judg- 
 ment and  practice,  Avhich  is  proper  to  her,  and  wherein  she  differs  from 
 lis,  we  judge  a  reconciliation  im]>oss:ble,  and  to  us  (who  are  con- 
 ^■icted  in  conscience  of  her  corruptions)  damnable.'  And  in  another 
 place  he  saitJi,  ''  For  us  wholi"  are  convinced  in  conscience   that  she 
 
 •  "Quis  talent  (^raccliuni,".ic.  i   Pa-e  U.  i  IbkT.         }  Pa;^e  4,  edit  K 
 
 II  I'ajiC  2-.  "    «;    Pa-re  Si. 
 
54  CHARITY    ^lkiy.TA:NF.D    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 errs  in  many  things,  a  neoessit}'^  lies  upon  iis,  even  nnder  pain  of 
 damnation,  to  forsake  her  in  those  errors.  By  the  aceri^ity  of 
 -which  censure,  he  dorli  not  only  ^nake  himself  guilty  of  rhat  wlncli 
 he  judgeth  to  be  a  lieinous  offence  in  others,  but  freeth  us  from  all 
 coloiu"  of  crime  by  this  his  unadvised  recrimmation.  For  if  JRonian 
 catholics  be  likewise  convicted  in  conscience  of  the  errors  cf  pro- 
 testants,  they  may,  and  must,  in  conformity  to  the  Doctor's  ouii  rule, 
 judge  a  reconciliation  uith  them  to  be  also  damnable.  And  thus, 
 all  the  want  of  cliarity,  so  deeply  charged  on  us,  dissolves  itself  into 
 this  poor  wonder — Roman  catholics  believe  in  their  conscience  that 
 the  religion  they  profess  is  true,  and  the  contrary  false. 
 
 2.  "  Nevertheless,  we  earnestly  desire  and  take  care  that  our 
 doctrine  may  not  be  defamed  by  misinterpretation.  Far  be  it  from 
 lis,  by  way  of  insultation,  to  apply  it  against  prott^stants,  othermse 
 than  as  they  are  comprehended  imder  the  generahty  of  those  who  are 
 ilivided  from  the  only  one  true  church  of  Christ  our  Lord,  within 
 the  communion  whereof  he  hath  confined  salvation.  Neither  do  avo 
 understand  why  our  most  dear  countrymen  should  be  offended  if  the 
 universality  be  particularised  under  the  name  of  protestants  first 
 given*  to  certain  Lutherans,  who,  protesting  that  they  would  stand 
 out  against  the  imperial  decrees,  in  defence  of  the  Confession  exhi- 
 bited at  Augsburg,  were  termed  protestants,  in  regard  of  such  their 
 protesting  ;  which  Confessio  Augustana  disclaiming  from,  and  being 
 disclaimed  by,  Calvinists  and  Zuinglians,  our  naming  or  exempli- 
 fying a  general  doctrine  under  the  particular  name  of  protestautisni 
 ought  not  in  any  particular  manner  to  be  odious  in  England. 
 
 3.  "  Moreover,  our  meaning  is  not,  as  misinformed  persons  may 
 conceive,  that  we  give  ])rotestants  over  to  rej)robation ;  that  we 
 offer  no  prayers  in  hope  of  their  salvation ;  that  we  hold  their  case 
 desperate ;  God  forbid !  We  ho])e,  we  pray  for  their  conversion ; 
 and  sometimes  we  find  hap])y  effects  of  our  charitable  desires. 
 Neither  is  our  censure  immediately  thrected  to  particular  persons. 
 The  tribunal  of  particular  judgments  is  God's  alone ;  when  any 
 man,  esteemed  a  protestant,  leaveth  to  live  in  this  world,  we  do  not 
 instantly  with  precipitation  avouch  that  he  is  lodged  in  liell.  For 
 we  are  not  always  acquainted  with  what  sufficiency  or  means  he  was 
 furnislicd  for  instruction ;  we  do  not  penetrate  his  cai)acity  to  un- 
 derstf'nd  his  catechist ;  we  have  no  revelation  what  light  may  have 
 cleared  his  errors,  or  contrition  retracted  his  sins,  in  the  last  mo- 
 ment before  his  death.  In  such  particular  cases  we  wish  more  ap- 
 ])arpnt  .signs  of  salvation,  but  do  not  give  any  dogmatical  sentence  of 
 ])erdrion.  How  grievous  sins  disobedience,  schism,  and  heresy  are, 
 is  well  known;  but  to  discern  how  far  the  natural  malignity  of 
 ohose  great  offences  might  be  checked  by  ignorance,  or  some  such 
 lessening  circumstance^  is  the  office  rather  of  prudence  than  of 
 i\i\th. 
 
 4  '•  Thus  we  allow  protestants  as  much  charity  as  D.  Potter 
 spaes  us,  for  whom,  in  the  words  above  mentioned,  and  elsewhere, 
 I'.ef  makes  ignorance  the  best  hope  of  salvation.  Much  less  com- 
 fort can  we  exjiect  from  the  fierce  doctrine  of  those  chief  protes- 
 tai  t.^,  who  teach  that  for  many  ages   before   Luther  Christ  had  no 
 
 *  5«ilexdan,  1.  6.  fol.  84.  f  See  page  39. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  55 
 
 visible  church  upon  earth.  Not  these  men  alone,  or  such  as  they, 
 but  even  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  to  wliich  tlie  English  })rotestant 
 clergy  subscribe,  censure  our  belief  so  deeply,  that  ignorance  can 
 scarce,  or  rather  not  at  all,  excuse  us  from  damnation.  Our  doc- 
 trine of  transubstantiation  is  affirmed  to  be  repugnant  to  tbe  plain 
 ^ords  of  Scripture  ;*  our  masses  to  be  blasphemous  fables  ;t  Avith 
 much  more  to  be  seen  in  the  Articles  themselves.  In  a  certain  con- 
 fession of  the  Christian  faith,  at  the  end  of  their  books  of  Psalms 
 collected  into  metre,  and  printed  cum  privUegio  regis  regali,  they 
 call  us  idolaters,  and  limbs  of  antichrist ;  and  having  set  Aovm 
 a  catalogue  of  our  doctrines,  they  conclude  that  for  them  we 
 shall  alter  the  general  resurrection  be  damned  to  unquenchable 
 iire. 
 
 5.  "  But  yet,  lest  any  man  should  flatter  himself  with  onr  charit- 
 able mitigations,  and  thereby  wax  careless  in  search  of  the  true 
 church,  we  desire  him  to  read  the  conclusion  of  the  second  part, 
 where  the  matter  is  more  explained. 
 
 6.  "  And  because  we  cannot  determine  what  judgment  may  be 
 esteemed  rash  or  prudent,  except  by  weighing  tlie  reasons  upon 
 which  it  is  grounded,  we  will  here,  under  one  as])ect,  present  a 
 summary  of  those  principles,  from  which  we  infer,  that  protestancy 
 in  itself  unrepented  destroys  salvation  ;  intending  afterward  to  prove 
 the  truth  of  every  one  of  the  grounds,  till,  by  a  concatenation  of 
 sequels,  we  fall  upon  the  conclusion,  for  which  we  are  charged  with 
 want  of  charity. 
 
 7.  "  Now  this  is  our  gradation  of  reasons  :  Almighty  God  hav- 
 ing ordained  mankind  to  a  supernatural  end  of  eternal  felicity,  hath, 
 in  his  holy  providence,  settled  competent  and  convenient  means 
 whereby  that  end  may  be  attained.  The  universal  grand  origin  of 
 all  sucli  means  is  the  incarnation  and  deatli  of  our  blessed  Saviour, 
 whereby  he  merited  internal  grace  for  us,  and  founded  an  external 
 vL-^ible  church,  provided  and  stored  with  all  those  helps  which 
 might  be  necessary  for  salvation.  From  hence  it  foUoweth, 
 that  in  this  church  among  other  advantages,  there  must  be  some 
 effectual  means  to  beget  and  conserve  faith,  to  maintain  unity,  to 
 discover  and  ccndemn  heresies,  to  appease  and  reduce  schisms,  and 
 to  determine  all  controversies  in  religion.  For  without  such  means 
 the  church  should  not  be  fui-nished  with  helps  sufficient  to  salva- 
 tion, nor  God  afford  sufficient  means  to  attain  that  end  to  which 
 himself  ordained  mankind.  This  means  to  decide  controversies  in 
 faith  and  religion  (whether  it  should  be  the  Holy  Scripture,  or 
 whatsoever  else)  must  be  endued  with  an  universal  infallibihty  in 
 whatsoever  it  propoundeth  for  a  Divine  truth,  that  is,  as  revealed, 
 spoken,  or  testilied  by  Almighty  God,  whether  the  matter  of  its 
 nature  be  great  or  small.  For  if  it  were  subject  to  error  in  any  one 
 tiling,  we  could  not  in  any  other  yield  it  infallible  assent ;  because 
 we  might  wi;h  good  reason  doubt  whether  it  chanced  not  to  err 
 in  that  particular. 
 
 8.  "Thus  far  all  must  agree  to  what  we  have  said,  unless  they 
 have  a  mind  to  reduce  faith  to  opinion.  And  even  out  of  these 
 grounds  alone,  without   further  proceeding,  it  undeniably  follows, 
 
 *  Art.  XXVIII.  t  Art.  XXXI. 
 
6G  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 that  of  two  men  dissenting  in  matters  of  faith,  great  or  small,  few 
 or  many,  the  one  cannot  be  saved  \^ithout  repentance,  unless  ignor- 
 ance accidentally  may  in  some  particular  person  plead  excuse.  For 
 in  that  case  of  contrary  belief,  one  must  of  necessity  be  held  to  op- 
 pose God's  word  of  revelation  sufficiently  represented  to  his  under- 
 standing by  an  infallable  propoundcr  ;  which  opposition  to  the  tes- 
 timony of  God  is  undoubtedl}'  a  damnable  sin,  whether  otherwise  the 
 thing  so  testified  be  in  itself  great  or  small.  And  thus  we  have 
 already  made  good  what  was  promised  in  the  argument  of  this 
 chapter,  that  amongst  men  of  diiferent  religious  one  is  only  capable 
 of  being  saved. 
 
 9.  "  Nevertheless,  to  the  end  that  men  may  know  in  particular 
 what  is  the  said  infallible  means  upon  w  hich  we  are  to  i  ely  in  all 
 things  concerning  faith,  and  accordingly  we  may  judge  in  what 
 safety  or  danger,  more  or  less,  they  live ;  and  because  D.  Potter 
 descendeth  to  divers  particulars  about  Scriptures  and  the  chinch, 
 &c. ;  we  will  go  forward,  and  })rove,  that  although  Scriptm-e  be  in 
 itself  most  sacred,  infallible,  and  Divine,  yet  it  aloae  can  not  be  to 
 us  a  rule  or  judge,  fit  and  able  to  end  all  doubts  and  debates  emer- 
 gent in  matters  of  rehgion ;  but  that  there  must  be  some  external, 
 visible,  public,  living  judge,  to  whom  all  sorts  of  ])ersons,  both 
 learned  and  unlearned,  may  without  danger  of  error  have  recourse, 
 and  in  whose  judgment  they  may  rest  for  the  interpreting  and  [)ro- 
 pounding  of  God's  word  or  revelation.  And  this  living  judge  v.e 
 will  most  evidently  prove  to  be  no  other  but  that  holy  catholic, 
 apostolic,  and  visible  church,  which  our  Saviom-  purchased  vith  the 
 etiusion  of  liis  most  precious  blood. 
 
 10.  "  If  once  therefore  it  be  granted,  that  the  churcli  is  that 
 means  which  God  hath  left  for  deciding  all  controversies  in  faith, 
 it  manifestly  will  follow  that  she  must  be  infallible  in  ail  her  deter- 
 minations, whether  the  matters  of  themselves  be  great  or  small ;  be- 
 cause, as  we  said  above,  it  must  be  agreed  on  all  sides,  that  if  that 
 means  which  God  hath  left  to  determine  controversies  were  not  in- 
 fallible m  all  things  proposed  by  it,  as  truths  revealed  by  .Almighty 
 God,  it  could  not  settle  in  om-  minds  a  fii-m  and  infallible  behef  of 
 aiay  one. 
 
 il.  ''  From  this  universal  infallibility  of  God's  cluuch,  it  fol- 
 loweth,  that  whosoever  wittingly  denieth  any  one  point  proposed  by 
 her,  as  revealed  by  God,  is  injurious  to  his  Divine  Majesty,  as  if  he 
 could  either  deseive  or  be  deceived  in  what  he  testifieth  :  the  aver- 
 ring whereof  were  not  only  a  fundamental  eiror,  but  would 
 overthrow  the  very  foundation  of  all  fundamental  points ;  and, 
 therefore,  without  repentance,  could  not  possibly  stand  with  salva- 
 tion. 
 
 12.  "  Out  of  these  grounds  we  will  show,  that  although  the  dis- 
 tinction of  points  fundamental  and  not  fundamental  be  good  and 
 useful,  as  it  is  delivered  and  applied  by  catholic  divines,  to  teach 
 what  principal  articles  of  faith  Christians  are  obliged  explicitly  to 
 believe  ;  yet  that  it  is  impertinent  to  the  present  purpose  of  ex- 
 cusing any  man  from  grievous  sin,  who  knowingly  chsbelieves,  that 
 is,  beheves  the  contrary  of  that  which  God's  cimrch  proposeth  as 
 ^Divine  truth.     For  it  is  one  thing  not  to  knov>^  explicitly  some- 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  5/ 
 
 thing  testified  by  God,  and  another  positively  to  oppose  what  we 
 know  he  hath  testified.  The  former  may  often  be  excused  from 
 sin,  but  never  the  latter,  which  only  is  in  the  case  in  question. 
 
 13.  "  In  the  same  manner  shall  be  demonstrated,  that  to  allege 
 the  Creed  as  containing  all  aiticles  of  faith  necessary  to  be  explicitly 
 believed,  is  not  pertinent  to  free  from  sin  the  voluntaiy  denial  of 
 any  other  point  known  to  be  defined  by  God's  church.  And  this 
 were  sufficient  to  overthrow  all  that  D.  Potter  allegeth  concerning 
 the  creed ;  though  yet,  by  way  of  supererogation,  we  will  prove, 
 that  there  are  divers  important  matters  of  faith  which  are  not  men- 
 tioned at  all  in  the  Creed. 
 
 14.  "  From  the  aforesaid  main  principle,  that  God  hath  always 
 had,  and  ah.vays  will  have,  on  earth,  a  church  visible,  within  whose 
 communion  salvation  must  be  hoped;  and  infallible,  whose  defini- 
 tions v>'e  ought  to  l)elieve ;  we  will  prove  that  Luther,  Calvin,  and 
 all  other,  who  continue  the  division  in  communion  or  faith  from 
 tliat  visible  church,  which  at  and  before  Luther's  appearance  \A'as 
 spread  over  the  Avorld,  cannot  be  excused  from  schism  and  heresy, 
 although  they  opposed  her  faith  but  in  one  only  point ;  whereas  it 
 IS  manifest  they  dissent  from  her  in  many  and  weighty  matters,  con- 
 cerning as  well  belief  as  practice. 
 
 15.  ""To  these  reasons,  dravai  from  the  virtue  of  faith,  we  will 
 add  one  other  taken  from  charitas  propria,  the  virtue  of  charity,  as 
 it  obligeth  us  not  to  expose  our  soul  to  hazard  of  perdition,  when 
 we  can  put  ourselves  in  a  way  much  more  secure,  as  we  will 
 prove  that  of  the  Roman  catholics  to  be. 
 
 16.  "  We  are  then  to  prove  these  points  :  First,  that  the  infallible 
 means  to  determine  controversies  in  matters  of  faith,  is  the  visible 
 church  of  Christ.  Secondly,  that  the  distinction  of  points  funda- 
 mental and  not  fundamental  maketh  nothmg  to  our  present  question. 
 Thirdly,  that  to  say  the  Creed  contains  all  fundamental  points  of 
 faith,  is  neither  pertinent  nor  true.  Fourthly,  that  both  Luther  and 
 all  they  who  after  him  persist  in  division  from  the  communion  and 
 faith  of  the  Roman  church  cannot  be  excused  from  schism.  Fifthly, 
 nor  from  heresy.  Sixthly  and  lastly,  that  in  regard  of  the  precept  of 
 charity  towards  one's  self,  protestants  be  in  a  state  of  sin  as  long  as 
 they  remain  divided  from  the  Roman  church.  And  these  six  points 
 shall  be  several  arguments  for  so  many  ensuing  chapters. 
 
 17.  "  Oiily  I  ^vill  here  observe,  that  it  seemeth  very  strange  that 
 protestants  should  charge  us  so  deeply  with  want  of  charity,  for  only 
 teaching  that  both  they  and  we  cannot  be  saved,  seeing  themselves 
 must  attirm  the  like  of  whosoever  opposeth  any  least  point  delivered 
 in  Scripture,  Avhich  they  hold  to  be  the  sole  rule  of  faith.  Out  of 
 which  ground  they  must  be  enforced  to  let  all  our  former  inferences 
 pass  for  good  :  for  is  it  not  a  grievous  sin  to  deny  any  one  truth  con- 
 tained in  holy  writ  ? — is  there  in  such  denial  any  distinction  between 
 points  fundamental  and  not  fundamental  sufticient  to  excuse  fron: 
 heresy  ? — is  it  not  impertinent  to  allege  the  Creed  containing  all 
 fundamental  points  of  faith,  as  if,  believing  it  alone,  we  were  at 
 liberty  to  deny  all  other  points  of  Scripture  ?  In  a  word,  according  to 
 protestants,  oppose  not  Scripture,  there  is  no  error  against  faith ; 
 oppose  it  in  any  least  point,  the  error,  if  Scripture  be  sufficiently  pro- 
 
58  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 posed  (which  proposition  is  also  required  before  a  man  can  be 
 obhged  to  beheve  even  fundamental  points),  must  be  damnable. 
 Wliat  is  this,  but  to  say  with  us,  of  persons  contrary  in  whatsoever 
 point  of  belief,  one  party  only  can  be  saved  ?  And  i).  Potter  must 
 not  take  it  ill,  if  cathoHcs  believe  they  may  be  saved  in  that  religion 
 for  which  they  suffer.  And  if  by  occasion  of  this  doctrine  men  will 
 still  be  charging  us  with  want  of  charity,  and  be  resolved  to  take 
 scandal  where  none  is  given,  we  must  comfort  ourselves  with  that 
 grave  and  true  saying  of  St.  Gregory,  '  If  scandal*  be  taken  from 
 declai'ing  a  truth,  it  is  better  to  permit  scandal  than  forsake  the 
 truth.'  But  the  solid  grounds  of  our  assertion,  and  the  sincerity  of 
 our  intention,  in  uttering  what  we  think,  yields  us  confidence,  that 
 all  will  hold  for  most  reasonable  the  saying  of  pope  Gelasius  to 
 Anastasius  the  emperor,  '  Far  be  it  from  the  Roman  emperor,  that 
 he  should  hold  it  for  a  wrong  to  have  truth  declared  to  him  !'  Let 
 us  therefore  begin  with  that  point  which  is  the  first  that  can  be  con- 
 troverted betwixt  protestants  and  us,  forasmuch  as  concerns  the 
 present  question,  and  is  contained  in  the  argument  of  the  next  en- 
 sumg  chr-pter." 
 
 •  St.  Greg.  Horn  7.  in  Ezek. 
 
ANSWER  TO  THE  FIRST  CHAPTER. 
 
 Sheu:ing,  that  the  adversary  grants  the  former  question,  and  pro- 
 poseth  a  new  one  ;  and  that  there  is  no  reason  ichi/,  among  men  of 
 different  opinions  and  communionSf  one  side  only  can  be  saved. 
 
 x\d  §  1.  Your  first  onset  is  veiy  violent :  D.  Potter  is  charged  with 
 mahce  anil  indiscretion  for  being  uncharitable  to  you,  while  he  is 
 accusing  you  of  uucharitableness.  Yerily  a  great  fault  and  folly,  ir 
 the  accusation  be  just  ]  if  unjust,  a  great  calumny.  Let  us  see  then 
 how  you  make  good  your  charge.  The  eftect  of  your  discourse,  if 
 I  mistake  not,  is  this  : — D.  Potter  chargeth  the  Roman  church  with 
 many  and  great  errors  ;  judgeth  reconciliation  between  her  doctiine 
 and  ours  impossible  ;  and  that  for  them  who  are  convicted  in  con 
 science  of  her  errors  not  to  forsake  her  in  them,  or  to  be  reconciled 
 unto  her  is  damnable  :  therefore  if  Roman  catholics  be  convicted  in 
 conscience  of  the  errors  of  protestants,  they  may  and  must  judge  are- 
 conciliation  with  them  damnable ;  and  consequently  to  judge  so,  is  no 
 more  uncharitable  in  them,  than  it  is  in  the  Doctor  to  judge  as  he  doth. 
 — All  this  I  grant ;  nor  would  any  protestant  accuse  you  of  want  Oi 
 charity,  if  you  went  no  fiu-ther ;  if  you  judged  the  religion  of  pro- 
 testants damnable  to  them  only  aa  ho  profess  it,  being  convicted  in 
 conscience  that  it  is  erroneous.  For  if  a  man  judge  some  act  ol 
 virtue  to  be  a  sin,  in  him  it  is  a  sin  indeed  :  so  you  have  taught  us 
 (}).  19).  So,  if  you  be  convinced,  or  rather,  to  speak  properly, 
 persuaded  in  conscience,  that  our  religion  is  erroneous,  the  profes- 
 sion of  it,  though  itself  most  true,  to  you  would  be  damnable.  This 
 therefore  I  subscribe  very  willingly,  and  withal,  that  if  you  said  no 
 more,  D.  Potter  and  myself  should  not  be  to  papists  only,  but  even 
 to  protestants,  as  uncharitable  as  you  are  ;  for  i  shall  always  profess 
 and  glory  in  this  uucharitableness  of  judging  hypocrisy  a  damnable 
 sin.  Let  hypocrites  then  and  dissemblers  on  both  sides  pass.  It  is 
 not  towards  them,  but  good  Christians  :  not  to  protestant  professors, 
 but  believers,  that  we  require  your  charity.  What  think  you  of  those 
 that  iK'lieve  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  ye  of  those  that,  in  the  days  of  oiu- 
 fathers,  laid  do^ni  their  lives  for  it  ?  Are  you  content  that  they 
 should  be  saved,  or  do  you  hope  they  may  be  so  ?  Will  you 
 grant,  that,  notwithstanding  then-  eri'ors,  there  is  good  hope  they 
 might  die  with  repentance  ?  and  if  they  did  so,  certainly  they  are 
 saved.  If  you  will  do  so,  this  controversy  is  ended.  No  man  will 
 hereafter   charge  you  with  want  of  charity.     This  is  as  much  as 
 
60  PAPISTS    UXCPIARITABLE 
 
 either  we  give  you  or  expect  of  3^ou,  while  you  remain  in  your  reli- 
 gion. But  then  you  must  leave  abusing  silly  people  with  telling 
 them  (as  your  fashion  is)  that  protestants  confess  ])apists  may  be 
 saved,  but  papists  confess  not  so  much  of  })rotestants ;  therefore 
 yours  is  the  safer  way,  and  in  wisdom  and  charity  to  our  own  souls 
 Ave  are  bound  to  follow  it.  For,  granting  tliis,  you  grant  as  much 
 hope  of  salvation  to  protestants,  as  jn-otestants  do  to  you.  If  you 
 ■^vili  not,  but  will  still  affirm,  as  Charity  Mistaken  doth,  that  ])rotes- 
 tants,  not  dissemblers,  but  behcvers,  Avithout  a  particular  repentance 
 of  their  religion  cannot  be  saved ;  this,  I  say,  is  a  want  of  charity, 
 into  the  society  whereof  D.  Potter  cannot  be  drawn  but  wth  ]}al- 
 pable  and  transparent  sophistry.  For,  I  pray,  Sir,  what  dependence 
 is  there  betv^  een  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  doth  not 
 doubt  is  damned  also  if  he  cat.  And  therefore  though  your  religion  to 
 us,  and  ours  to  aou,  if  professed  against  conscience,  would  be  tiauHia- 
 ble ;  yet  may  it  well  be  uncharitable  to  define  it  shall  be  so,  to  them 
 that  ])rofess  either  this  or  that  according  to  conscience.  This  re- 
 crimination therefore  upon  D.  Potter,  wherewith  you  begin,  is  a 
 plain  fallacy  ;  and  1  fear  your  proceedings  will  be  ansAA  erable  to  these 
 beginnings. 
 
 2.  Ad  §  2.  In  this  paragraph  protestants  are  thus  far  comforted, 
 that  thev  are  not  sent  to  hell  without  company ;  aa  liich  the  poet 
 tells  us  is  the  miserable  comfort  of  miserable  men.  Then  Ave  ia 
 England  are  requested  not  to  be  offended  Avith  the  name  of  pro- 
 testants. Which  is  a  favour  I  shall  easily  grant,  if  by  it  be  undtl'- 
 stood  those  that  protest,  not  against  imperial  edicts,  but  against  the 
 corruptions  of  tlie  church  of  Rome. 
 
 3.  Ad  §  3 — (i.  That  you  give  us  not  over  to  re[)robation,  that 
 you  pray  and  hope  for  our  salvation — if  it  be  a  charity,  it  is  such  a 
 one  as  is  common  to  Turks  and  Jews  and  pagans  Avith  us.  But 
 that  Avhich  folloA\s  is  extraordinary  ;  neither  do  I  knoAv  any  man 
 that  requires  more  of  you  than  there  you  pretend  to.  For  there 
 you  tell  us,  "  that  Avhen  any  man  esteemed  a  protestant  dies,  you 
 do  not  instantly  avouch  that  he  is  lodged  in  hell." — Where  the 
 ■word  esteemed  is  ambiguous ;  for  it  may  signify  esteemed  truly,  and 
 esteemed  falsely.  He  may  be  esteemed  a  protestant  that  is  so ;  and 
 may  be  esteemed  a  protestant  that  is  not  so.  And  therefore  I 
 should  have  had  just  occasion  to  have  laid  to  your  charge  the  trans- 
 gression of  your  own  chief  prescri}jtion,  which,  you  say,  truth  ex 
 acts  at  our  hands,  that  is,  to  speak  clearly  or  distinctly,  and  not  tc 
 walk  in  darkness ; — but  that  your  folloAving  Avords  to  my  under- 
 standing, declare  sufficiently  that  you  speak  of  both  sorts.  For 
 there  you  tell  us,  that  the  reasons  Avhy  you  damn  not  any  man  tbat 
 dies  Avith  the  esteem  of  a  protestant,  are,  1.  "  Because  you  are  not 
 always  acquainted  with  Avhat  sufficiency  of  means  he  was  furnished 
 for  instruction;'' — you  must  mean  touching  the  falsehood  of  his 
 own  religion  and  the  truth  of  yours  :  which  reason  is  proi)er  to 
 those  that  are  protestants  in  truth,  and  not  only  in  estimation.  2. 
 "  Because  you  do  not  penetrate  his  caj)acity  to  understand  his  cate- 
 
IN    COXDE^TNIXG    PSOTESTAXTS.  61 
 
 chist ;"  whicli  is  also  peculijir  to  those  who,  for  want  of  capacity, 
 (as  you  conceive)  remain  protestants  indeed,  and  are  not  only  so 
 accounted.  3.  *•'  Because  you  have  no  revelation  what  light  might 
 clear  his  errors,"  which  belongs  to  those  which  were  esteemed  pro- 
 testants, but  indeed  were  not  so.  4.  "  Because  you  have  no  revela- 
 tion what  contrition  might  have  retracted  his  sins  :"  vrhich  reason 
 being  distinct  from  the  former,  and  divided  from  it  by  the  disjunc- 
 tive particle  or,  insinuates  unto  us,  that  though  no  light  did  clear 
 the  errors  of  the  dying  protestant,  yet  contrition  might,  for  aught 
 you  know,  retract  his  sins ;  which  appropriates  this  reason  also  to 
 protestants  truly  so  esteemed.  I  wish,  with  all  my  heart,  that  in 
 obedience  to  your  own  prescription,  you  had  expressed  yourself  in 
 this  matter  more  fully  and  plamly.  Yet  that  which  you  say  doth 
 plainly  enough  afford  us  these  corollaries : 
 
 L  That  whatsoever  protestant  wanteth  capacity,  or,  having 
 it,  wanteth  sufficient  means  of  instruction  to  convince  his 
 conscience  of  the  falsehood  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  pro- 
 testant, raav  die  with  contrition  for  all  his  sins. 
 
 3.  That  if  he  do  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  .x^anting,  the  very  point  iu 
 question;  which  was,  as  I  have  already  proved  out  of  C.  M., 
 whether,  without  imcharitableness,  you  may  pronovmce  that  pro- 
 testants, dying  in  the  belief  of  their  religion,  and  without  particular 
 repentance  and  dereliction  of  it,  cannot  possibly  be  saved;  which 
 0.  M.  affirms  universally,  and  without  any  of  your  limitations. 
 But  this  presumption  of  his  you  thus  qualify,  by  saying,  that  this 
 sentence  cannot  be  pronounced  truly,  and  therefore  sure  not  cha- 
 ritably ;  neither  of  those  protestants  that  want  means  sufficient  to 
 instruct  and  convince  them  of  the  truth  of  your  religion,  and  the 
 falsehood  of  their  ov/n  ;  nor  of  those  who,  though  they  hare  neg- 
 lected the  means  they  might  have  had,  died  with  contrition, 
 that  is,  with  a  sorrow  for  all  their  sins,  proceedhig  from  the  love 
 of  God.  So  that,  according  to  your  doctrine,  it  shall  remain  upon 
 such  only  as  either  were,  or  but  for  their  ov.n  fault  might  have  been, 
 sufficiently  convinced  of  the  truth  of  your  religion,  and  the  false- 
 hood 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  contro- 
 versy 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  entreat  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 
 
62  PAPISTS     UNCHARITABLE 
 
 the  other."  Besides  \ou  must  not  abstain  from  damning  any  pro- 
 testant  in  particular,  but  from  affirming  in  general  that  protestants 
 dying  in  their  religion  cannot  be  saved  :  for  you  must  always  re- 
 memberto  add  this  caution — unless  they  were  excusably  ignorant  of 
 the  falsehood  of  it,  or  died  with  contrition.  And  then,  considering 
 that  you  cannot  know  whether  or  no,  all  things  considered,  they  were 
 convinced  sufficiently  of  the  truth  of  your  religion,  and  the  falsehood 
 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  improbal)le  that 
 they  do  so,  and  the  contrar}'  you  cannot  be  certain  of,  you  are  bound 
 in  charity  to  judge  and  hope  they  do  so.  Considermg  thirdly  and 
 lastly  that  if  they  die  not  with  contrition,  yet  it  is  very  probable  they 
 may  (lie  with  attrition  ;  and  that  this  pretence  of  yours,  that  con- 
 trition will  serve  without  actual  confession,  but  attrition  will  not,  is 
 but  a  nicety  or  fancy ;  or,  rather,  to  give  it  the  true  name,  a  de- 
 vice 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  quencheth  not,  the 
 smoking  flax  of  that  repentance  (if  it  be  true  and  eifectual)  which 
 proceeds  from  hope  and  fear  :  these  things,  I  say,  considered  (un- 
 less you  will  have  the  charity  of  your  doctrine  rise  up  in  judg- 
 ment 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  30U  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  charitabty  persuaded  (for  I  believe  you 
 \\ill  never  conceive  so  well  of  protestants,  as  to  assure  yourselves 
 they  go  directly  to  heaven).  These  things  when  you  do,  I  beheve 
 you  think  as  charitably  as  you  speak  ;  but  until  then,  as  he  said  in 
 tlic  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  yom*  charitable  actions  ?  And  as  these 
 things  you  must  do,  if  you  will  stand  to  and  make  good  this  pre- 
 tended charity,  so  must  I  tell  you  again  and  again,  that  one  thmg 
 you  must  not  do :  I  mean,  you  must  not  atiright  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  un- 
 doubtedly damnable  ;  seeing  neither  you  deny  salvation  to  protest- 
 ants 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  ob- 
 tain pardon  for  you ;  neither  do  the  heavy  censures,  which  protest- 
 ants (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  doc- 
 trine, which  God  knows  who  teacheth,  that  Christ  for  many  ages 
 before    Luther  had  no  visible    church   upon    earth,  will  be   mild 
 
IX    CONDEMNING   PROTESTANTS.  63 
 
 enoufjh,  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.  Bat  the  truth  is  tne  corru])tion  of 
 the  church  and  the  destruction  of  it  is  not  all  one.  For  if  a  particular 
 man  or  chiu*ch  may  (as  you  confess  they  may)  hold  some  particular 
 errors  and  yet  be  a  member  of  the  church  universal ;  why  may  not  thcj 
 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  yii-e- 
 seiit  church  should  oppose  itself.  And  then  for  the  Enghsh  pro- 
 testants,  though  they  censure  your  errors  deeply,  yet,  by  j-om-  favour, 
 with  their  deepest  censure  it  may  consist,  that  invuicible  ignorance 
 may  excuse  you  from  damnation  for  them  :  for  you  yourself  con- 
 fess, "  that  ignorance  may  excuse  errors  even  in  fundamental  arti- 
 cles of  faith  :  so  that  a  man  so  erring  shall  not  offend  at  all  in  such 
 his  ignorance  or  error :" — they  are  your  own  words,  prcf.  §  22. 
 And  again,  with  their  heaviest  censure  it  may  well  consist,  that  your 
 errors,  though  in  themselves  damnable,  yet  may  prove  not  damning 
 to  you,  if  you  die  v.ith  true  repentance  for  all  your  sins,  known  and 
 unknown. 
 
 5.  Thus  much  charity,  therefore,  if  you  stand  to  wiiat  you  have 
 said,  is  interchangeably  granted  by  each  side  to  the  other,  that  nei- 
 ther rehgion  is  so  fatally  destructive,  but  that  by  ignorance  or  re- 
 pentence  salvation  may  be  had  on  both  sides ; —  though  with  a  dif- 
 ference that  keeps  i)apists  slill  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  ])enitent,  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  obiain  this 
 purchase  at  so  easy  a  rate  as  papists,  yet  (even  painsts  being 
 judges)  they  may  obtain  it :  and  though  there  is  no  entrance  for 
 them  but  at  the  only  door  of  contrition,  yet  the}"  may  enter  ;  heaven 
 not  inaccessible  them.  Their  errors  are  no  such  impenetrable 
 isthmuses  between  them  and  salvation,  but  that  contrition  may 
 make  a  way  through  them.  All  their  schism  and  heresy  is  no 
 such  fatal  poison,  but  that,  if  a  man  joui  with  it  the  antidote  of 
 a  general  repentance,  he  may  (he  in  it,  and  live  for  ever.  Thus 
 much  then  being  acknowledged,  1  appeal  to  any  indiflerent  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  de- 
 structive of  salvation.  So  that  all  the  controversy  remaining  now, 
 is  not  simply  whether  protestancy  unrepented  destroys  salvation  ? 
 as  it  was  at  first  proposed,  but  whether  protestancy  in  itself  (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  be- 
 longed unto  him ;  so  might  we  justly  take  it  amiss,  that  conceiving, 
 as  you  do,  ignorance  and  repentance  such  necessary  things  for  us. 
 
64  PAPISTS    UXCIIARITABLE 
 
 YOU  ai-e  not  more  willing  to  consider  us  with  them  tlian  without 
 them.  For  my  part,  such  is  my  charity  to  you,  that  considering 
 what  great  necessity  you  have,  as  much  as  any  Christian  society 
 in  the  world,  that  these  sanctuaries  of  ignorance  ai^  repentance 
 should  always  stand  open,  I  can  very  hardly  persuaoe  myself  so 
 much  as  in  my  most  secret  consideration  to  divest  you  of  tliese  so 
 needful  qualihcations  :  but  whensoever  your  errors,  superstitions, 
 and  impieties  come  into  my  mind  (and,  besides  the  general  bonds 
 of  humanity  and  Christianity,  my  owa  particular  obligations  to 
 many  of  you,  such  and  so  great,  that  you  cannot  perish  Vtithoiit  a 
 pait  of  myself),  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  re- 
 fuse either  God's  pardon  or  the  king's. 
 
 6.  But  for  the  present,  protestancy  is  called  to  the  bar,  and 
 though  not  sentenced  by  you  to  death  without  mercy,  yet  arraigned 
 of  so  much  natin-al  malignity  (if  not  corrected  by  ignorance  or  con- 
 trition) as  to  be  in  itself  destnictive  of  salvation.  AYhich  contro- 
 versy I  am  content  to  chspute  ^vith  you,  tying  myself  to  follow  the 
 rules  prescribed  by  you  in  yom-  preface.  Only  I  am  to  remember 
 you,  that  the  adding  of  this  hmitation,  in  itself,  hath  made  this  a 
 new  question ;  and  that  this  is  not  the  conclusion  for  which  you 
 were  charged  \rith  want  of  charity  :  but  that  whereas,  according  to 
 the  grounds  of  yom-  own  religion,  '•  })rotestants  may  die  in  their 
 supposed  errors,  either  with  excusable  ignorance  or  with  contrition, 
 and  if  they  do  so,  may  be  saved,"  you  still  are  preremptory  in  pro- 
 nouncing them  damned.  Which  position,  supposing  your  doctrine 
 true  and  ours  false,  as  it  is  far  from  charity  (whose  essential  character 
 it  is  to  judge  and  hope  the  best),  so  I  believe  that  I  shall  clearly 
 evince  this  new  but  more  moderate  assertion  of  yours  to  be  far  ft-om 
 verity,  and  that  it  is  popeiy,  and  not  protestancy,  which  in  itself 
 destroys  salvation. 
 
 7.  Ad  §  7  and  8.  In  yom-  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  (hscover  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  Epistle  to 
 the  Ephesians)  apostles,  prophets,  evangehsts,  pastors,  and  doctors  ; 
 who  by  word  of  mouth  taught  their  conl;emporaries,  and  by  writings 
 (^^Tote  indeed  by  some,  but  a]i]>roved  by  all  of  them)  taught  their 
 Christian  posterity  to  the  world's  end,  how  all  these  ends,  and  that 
 which  is  the  end  of  all  these  ends,  salvation,  is  to  be  achieved.  And 
 these  means  the  providence  of  God  hath  still  preserved,  and  so 
 preserved,  that  they  are  sufficient  for  all  these  intents.  I  say  suffi- 
 cient, though  through  the  malice  of  men  not  always  effectual, 
 for  that  the  same  means  may  be  sufficient  for  the  compassing  an 
 end,  and  nor  effectual,  you  must  not  deny,  who  hold  that  God  gives 
 to  all  men  sufficient  means  of  sahation,  and  yet  that  all  are  not  saved. 
 
IN    CONDEMNING    PROTESTANTS.  65 
 
 said,  also,  sufficient  to  determine  all  conti'oversies  Avhicli  were  ne- 
 cessary  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  church's  being  furnished  with  effectual 
 means  to  determine  all  controversies  in  religion  be  necessary  to 
 salvation,  the  end  itself  to  which  these  means  are  ordained  being, 
 as  experience  shows,  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 
 necessar}'  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  hors€  to  carry  me  thither  ;  if  I  have 
 no  need  to  fly,  I  have  no  deed  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 
 pope's  indirect  power  in  temporalities,  so  long  undetermined  ?  If 
 not,  what  is  it  but  hypocrisy  to  pretend  such  great  necessity  of  such 
 eflfectual  means  for  the  achieving  that  end  which  is  itself  not  neces- 
 sary? 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  further  with  you, 
 and  grant  that  this  means  to  decide  controversies  in  faith  and 
 religion  must  be  endued  with  an  universal  infallibility  in  whatso- 
 ever it  propoundeth  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  Ijest  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  p.irt,  whatsoever  clamour  you  have  raised 
 against  me,  I  think  no  other\nse  of  the  nature  of  faith,  I  mean  his- 
 torical 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  ahvays  built  upon  less  evidence  than  that  of  sense  or 
 science ;  which  assertion  you  not  only  grant,  but  mainly  contend 
 for,  in  your  sixth  chapter.  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  in- 
 tellectual 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  inquired,  whether  any  certainty  of  faith. 
 
66  PAPISTS   UNCHARITABLE 
 
 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  downweight :  but  God  is  contented  if  the  scale  be  turned  : 
 they  pretend  that  heavenly  things  cannot  be  seen  to  any  piu-pose  but 
 by  the  midday  light ;  but  God  will  be  satisfied  if  we  receive  any  de- 
 gree of  light  which  makes  us  leave  the  ivorks  of  darkness,  and  walk 
 as  children  of  the  light :  they  exact  a  certainty  of  faith  above  that  of 
 sense  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  under- 
 stands 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,   shows  it,  of 
 all  other  religions,  most  hkely  to  come  from  the  Fountain  of  good- 
 ness.    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  metaphysically  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  thar  the 
 fountain  from  which  it  flows.     For  the  conclusion  always  follows 
 the  woTser  part,  if  there  be  any  worse  ;    and  must  be  negative,  parti- 
 cular, contingent,  or  but  morally  certain,  if  any  of  the  propositions 
 from  whenceit  is  derived  be  so  :  neither  can  we  bs  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  of  the  necessary  pillars  thereof  be  infirm  and  instable  ;  or,  as  if  a 
 message  be  brought  me  from  a  man  of  absolute  crecht  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 
 v/hat  God  gives  as  a  reward  to  believers  is  one  thing  ;  and  what  he 
 requires  of  all  men  as  their  duty  is  another  ;  and  what  be  will  accept 
 of,  out  of  grace  and  favour,  is  yet  another.  To  those  that  believe,^ 
 and  hve  according  to  their  faith,  he  gives  by  degrees  the  spirit  of 
 obsignation  and  confirmation,  which  makes  them  know  (though  how 
 
IN    CONDEMNING    PROTESTANTS.  ^J 
 
 tliey  know  not)  what  they  did  but  beheve ;  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)  propor- 
 tionable 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  smoking 
 -jiax,  nor  break  the  bruised  reed.  He  did  not  reject  the  prayer  of 
 that  distressed  man  that  cried  unto  him,  Lord,  I  believe  j  Lord, 
 help  mine  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  which  worketh  by  love  ;  so  any  faitli,  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  cracked  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  is  to  them  undis- 
 cernible,  from  the  belief  they  give  to  the  truth  of  other  stories,  are 
 m  danger  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  perplexi- 
 ties, 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  fancy,  made 
 me  willing  to  insist  somewhat  largely  on  the  refutation  of  it. 
 
 10.  I  return  now  thither  from  whence  I  have  disgressed,  and 
 assure  you,  concerning  the  grounds  aforelaid,  which  were,  that  there 
 is  a  rule  of  faith  v/hereby  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  anything 
 else,  I  may  and  do  believe  them  as  firmly  as  you  pretend  to  do  ;  and 
 therefore  you  may  build  on  in  God's  name ;  for  by  God's  help  I 
 shall  ahvays  embrace  whatsoever  structure  is  naturally  and  ratio- 
 nally laid  upon  them,  wliatsoever  conclusion  may  to  my  understand- 
 ing 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  re})entance  or  ignorance :  I  answer,  by 
 distinction  of  those  terms,  "  two  dissenting  in  a  matter  of  faith  ;" 
 for  it  may  be  either  in  a  thing  \\'hich  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  premises  either  is 
 none  at  all,  or  so  obscure  that  I  can  hardly  discern  it :  or  it  may  be, 
 as  it  often  falls  out,  concernmg  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  itself  e\ident :  for  who 
 ever  heard  of  a  -wilder  collection  than  this — 
 
68  PAPISTS    UNCHARITABLE 
 
 "  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  anything,  which  they  esteem  a 
 matter  of  faith,  one  cannot  be  saved." 
 
 He  that  can  find  any  connexion  between  these  propositions,  I 
 believe  will  be  able  to  find  good  coherence  between  the  deaf 
 plaintiff's  accusation  in  the  Greek  epigrom,  and  the  deaf  defendant's 
 answer,  and  the  deaf  judge's  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  dissen- 
 sion ;  tliis  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  un- 
 reasonable postulates,  that  every  emergent  controversy  of  faith  is 
 plainly  decided  by  the  means  of  decision  which  God  hath  appointed, 
 and  that  of  the  parties  litigant  one  is  always  such  a  convicted  recu- 
 sant 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  ai-e  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  has  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  i)arty,  by  reason  of  some  veil  before 
 his  eyes,  some  excusable  ignorance  or  unavoidable  prejudice,  doth 
 not  see  the  question  to  be  decided  against  him,  and  so  opposeth  not 
 that  Avhich  he  doth  know  to  be  the  work  of  Go  J,  but  only  that  which 
 you  know  to  be  so,  and  which  he  might  know,  were  he  void  of  pre- 
 judice. 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  gigantic 
 disposition  as  you  make  it,  to  fly  directly  upon  God  Almighty,  and 
 to  give  him  the  lie  to  his  face. 
 
 12.  Ad  §  9 — 16.  In  all  this  long  discourse,  you  only  tell  us 
 what  you  will  do,  but  do  nothing.  Many  positions  there  are,  but 
 proofs  of  them  you  offer  none,  but  reserve  them  to  the  chapters  fol- 
 lowing ;  and  there,  in  their  proper  places,  they  shall  be  examined. 
 The  sum  of  all  your  assumpts  collected  by  yourself,  §  16,  is  this  : 
 
 That  "  the  infallible  means  of  determining  controversies  is  the 
 
 visible  clmrch." 
 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  sruiltv  of  schism  and  heresv." 
 
IN   C0NDE2.IXING   PROTESTANTS.  69 
 
 That  "  in  regard  of  the  precept  of  charity  towards  one's  self, 
 protestants  are  in  a  state  of  sin,  while  they  remain  divided  from 
 the  Roman  church." 
 To  all  these  assertions  I  will  content  myself  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  denies  any  point 
 proposed  by  the  church  is  injurious  to  God's  Divine  majesty ;  as  if 
 he  could  deceive,  or  be  deceived.  For  though  your  church  were  in- 
 deed as  infallible  a  profounder  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 
 St.  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  Gosjjel  a 
 fable.  Hereafter,  therefore,  I  must  entreat  you  to  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  Di^dne  verities, 
 therefore  he  that  opposeth  her  calls  God's  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  some- 
 thing which  you  upon  your  knowledge  have  affirmed,  and  yet  never 
 disparage  your  honesty,  if  I  never  knew  that  you  affirmed  it ;  so  I 
 may  be  undoubtedly  certain  of  God's  omniscience  and  veracitv,  and 
 yet  doubt  of  something  \\  liicli  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  God's  revelations,  3'et,  until  you 
 know  that  we  know  she  is  so,  you  cannot  without  foul  calumny  im- 
 pute to  us,  that  we  charge  God  blasphemously  with  deceiving  or 
 being  deceived.  You  will  say,  perhaps,  that  this  is  du-ectly  conse- 
 quent 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  conse- 
 quences of  their  opinions  ?  Such  consequences,  I  mean,  as  they  do 
 not  ouTi,  but  disclaim  :  and  if  there  were  a  necessity  of  domg  either, 
 would  much  rather  forsake  their  opinion  than  embrace  these  conse- 
 quences ?  What  opinion  is  there  that  draws  after  it  such  a  train  of 
 jjortentous  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  those  blasphemies?  If 
 not,  seeing  your  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  a^  erse  from  it,  they  cUd  ever  deny  or  doubt  of  God's  om- 
 niscience or  veracity  ;  whether  they  did  everbeheve.  or  were  taught 
 that  God  did  deceive  them,  or  was  deceived  himself?  Na}',  I  pro- 
 voke to  you  yom-self,  and  desire  you  to  deal  truly,  and  to  tell  us  whe- 
 ther you  do  in  your  heai-t  believe  that  we  do  indeed  not  believe  the 
 
/()  PAPISTS    UNCHARITABLE 
 
 eternal  veracity  of  the  eternal  Verity  ?  And  if  you  judge  so  strangely 
 of  us,  having  no  better  ground  for  it  than  you  hare  or  can  have,  we 
 shall  not  need  any  further  proof  of  your  vmeharitableness  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  pronoimce  us  damnable  heretics,  you  \^ill  cease  to  do  so  :  and 
 hereafter  (as,  if  yom-  ground  be  true,  you  may  do  with  more  truth 
 and  charit}')  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  charit}' 
 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  acknowledge,  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  beheves  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  contrar\'  belief ;  and 
 that  for  these  reasons  :  first,  because  the  contrar}-  behef  may  be 
 touching  a  })oint  not  at  all  mentioned  in  Scripture  :  and  such  ])oints, 
 though  indeed  they  be  not  matters  of  faith,  yet  by  men  in  variance 
 are  often  overvalued,  and  esteemed  to  be  so.  So  that  though  it 
 were  damnable  to  oppose  any  point  contained  in  Scriptvu-e,  yet 
 persons  of  a  contrary  belief  (as  Victor  and  Polycrates,  St.  Cj-jirian 
 and  Stephen)  might  both  be  saved,  because  their  contrary-  belief  was 
 not  touching  any  point  contained  in  Scripture.  Secondly,  because 
 the  contrary  behef  may  be  about  the  sense  of  some  place  of  Scrip- 
 ture which  is  ambiguous,  and  with  probabihty  capable  of  divers 
 senses  ;  and  in  such  cases  it  is  no  marvel,  and  sure  no  sin,  if  several 
 men  go  several  ways.  Thirdly,  because  the  contrary-  behef  may  be 
 concerning  points  wherein  Scripture  may,  with  so  great  probabihtj-, 
 be  alleged  on  both  sides  (which  is  a  sure  note  of  a  point  not  neces- 
 sary), that  men  of  honest  and  upright  hearts,  true  lovers  of  God 
 and  of  truth,  such  as  desire  above  all  things  to  know  God's  will  and 
 to  do  it,  may,  Anthout  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  judgment,  and  expect  some  Elias  to  solve  doubts  and 
 reconcile  repugnancies.  Now  in  all  such  questions,  one  side  or 
 other  (whichsoever  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 
 
IN    CONDEMNING    PROTESTANTS-  71 
 
 not  so  fully  declared,  but  that  they  which  oppose  it  may  verily 
 believe  that  they  indeed  maintain  it,  and  have  great  shon-  of  reason 
 to  induce  them  "to  believe  so ;  and  therefore  are  not  to  be  damned, 
 as  men  opposing  that  -^vhicli  they  either  know  to  be  a  truth  dehvered 
 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  human  frailty. 
 
 This  ground  being  laid,  the  answer  to  yom-  ensuing  interroga- 
 tories, which  you  conceive  impossible,  is  very  obvious  and  easy. 
 
 14.  To  the  "first :  "  Whether  it  be  not  in  any  man  a  grievous  sin 
 to  deny  any  one  truth  contained  in  holy  v.iit  V  I  answer — Yes,  if 
 he  knew  it  to  be  so,  or  have  no  probable  reason  to  doubt  of  it ; 
 othei-wise  not. 
 
 15.  To  the  second  :  "  Whether  there  be  in  such  denial  any  dis- 
 tinction between  fundamental  and  not  fimdamental  sutficient  to  ex- 
 cuse from  heresy  ?  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  e"\adently  contained  in  Scrip- 
 tm'e,  to  him  that  knows  them  to  be  so  :  those  not  fimdamental, 
 which  are  there-hence  deducible,  but  probably  only,  not  e^-idently. 
 
 16.  To  the  third  :  '"'  Whether  it  be  not  impertinent  to  allege  the 
 Creed  as  containing  all  fundamental  points  of  faith,  as  if  beheving  it 
 alone  we  were  at  liberty  to  deny  all  other  points  of  Scripture  ?"  I 
 ansv.er — It  was  never  alleged  to  any  such  pm-pose ;  but  only  as  a 
 sufficient,  or  rather  more  than  a  sufiicient,  summaiy  of  those  points 
 of  faith,  which  were  of  necessity  to  be  believed  actually  and  ex- 
 plicitly ;  and  that  only  of  such  which  were  merely  and  purely 
 credenda,  and  not  agenda. 
 
 17.  To  the  fom-th,  drawn  as  a  corollary  from  the  former  :  "  Whe- 
 ther 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  text  of  Scripture  :  they  may  ditfer 
 about  some  doctrines,  for  and  against  which  scriptures  mav  be 
 alleged  Anth  so  great  probabilitj",  as  may  justly  excuse  either  part 
 from  heresy  and  a  self-condemning  obstinacy.  And,  therefore, 
 though  D.  "Potter  do  not  take  it  ill  that  you  beheve  yourselves  may 
 be  saved  in  yom-  religion,  yet  notwithstanding  ail  that  hath  yet  been 
 pretended  to  the  contrary,  he  may  justly  condemn  you,  and  that  out 
 of  yoiu"  OAvn  principles,  of  uncharitable  presumption,  for  affirming, 
 as  you  do,  that  "  no  man  can  be  saved  out  of  it.'*' 
 
CHAPTER  II. 
 
 What  is  that  means  iclierehy  the  revealed  truths  of  God  are  con- 
 veyed to  our  undtrstandJvg,  and  which  must  determine  controver' 
 sies  in  faith  and  relirjion  t 
 
 "Of  our  estimation,  respect,  and  reverence  to  Holy  Scripture,  even. 
 protestants  themselves  do  in  fact  give  testimony,  while  they  possess 
 it  from  us,  and  take  it  upon  the  integrity  of  our  custody.  No  cause 
 imaginable  could  avert  our  will  from  giving  the  function  of  supreme 
 and  sole  judge  to  holy  writ,  if  both  the  thing  were  not  impossible  ia 
 itself,  and  if  l)oth  reason  and  experience  did  not  convince  our  under- 
 standing, that  by  this  assertion  contentions  are  increased  and  not 
 ended.  We  acknowledge  Holy  Scripture  to  be  a  most  23erfect  rule, 
 for  as  much  as  writing  can  be  a  rule  :  we  only  deny  that  it  excludes 
 either  Divine  tradition,  though  it  be  unwritten,  or  an  external  judge, 
 to  keep,  to  propose,  to  interpret  it  in  a  true,  orthodox,  and  catholic 
 sense.  Every  single  book,  eveiy  chapter,  yea,  every  period  of  Holy 
 Scripture,  is  infallibly  true,  and  wants  no  due  perfection.  But  must 
 we  therefore  infer,  that  all  other  books  of  Scriptm-e  are  to  be  ex- 
 cluded, lest  by  addition  of  them  we  may  seem  to  derogate  from  the 
 perfection  of  the  former?  When  the  first  books  of  the  Old  and 
 New  Testament  were  written,  they  did  not  exclude  umnitten  tradi- 
 tions, nor  the  authority  of  the  chm-ch  to  decide  controversies  :  and 
 who  hath  then  so  altered  their  nature,  and  filled  them  with  such  jea- 
 lousies, as  that  now  they  cannot  agree  for  fear  of  mutual  disparage- 
 ment ?  What  greater  wrong  is  it  for  the  written  word  to  be  corn- 
 partner  now  with  the  unwritten,  than  for  the  unwritten,  which  was 
 once  alone,  to  be  afterward  joined  with  the  written  ?  Who  ever 
 heard,  that  to  commend  the  fidelity  of  a  keeper  were  to  disauthorise 
 the  thing  committed  to  his  custody  ?  Or,  that  to  extol  the  integrity 
 and  knowledge,  and  to  avouch  the  necessit}'  of  a  judge  in  suits  of 
 law,  were  to  deny  perfection  in  the  law  ?  Ai-e  there  not  in  common- 
 wealths, besides  the  laws,  written  and  unwritten  customs,  judges  ap- 
 pointed to  declare  both  the  one  and  the  other,  as  several  occasions 
 may  require  ? 
 
 2.  "  That  the  Scripture  alone  cannot  be  judge  in  controversies  of 
 faith,  we  gather  very  clearly  from  the  quality  of  a  writing  in  gene- 
 ral ;  from  the  nature  of  holy  writ  in  particular,  which  must  be 
 beheved  as  true  and  infallible  ;  from  the  editions  and  translations 
 of  it;  from  the  difficulty  to  understand  it  without  hazard  of  error; 
 from  the  inconveniences  that  must  follow  upon  the  ascribing  of  sole 
 judicature  to  it ;  and,  finally,  from  the  confessions  of  our  adver- 
 saries.    And,  on  the  other  side,  all  these  difficulties  ceasing,  and  all 
 
CHARITY    MAIN'TAIMED    BV    CATHOLICS.  73 
 
 Other  qualities  requisite  to  a  judge  concurring  in  the  visible  church 
 of  Christ  our  Lord,  we  must  conclude,  that  she  it  is  to  whom,  in 
 doubts  concerning  faith  and  rehgion,  all  Christians  ought  to  have 
 recourse. 
 
 3.  "  The  name,  notion,  nature,  and  properties  of  a  judge  cannot  in 
 common  reason  agree  to  any  mere  writing,  which,  be  it  otherwise 
 in  its  kind  never  so  highh'  qualified  with  sanctity  and  infallibility, 
 yet  it  must  ever  be,  as  all  writings  are,  deaf,  dumb,  and  inanimate. 
 By  a  judge,  all  wise  men  understand  a  person  endued  with  hfe  and 
 reason,  able  to  hear,  to  examine,  to  declare  his  mind  to  the  dis- 
 agreeing parties,  in  such  sort,  as  that  each  one  may  know  whether 
 the  sentence  be  in  favour  of  his  cause  or  against  his  pretence  ;  and 
 he  must  be  appliable,  and  able  to  do  all  this,  as  the  diversity  of  con- 
 troversies, persons,  occasions,  and  circumstances  may  require.  There 
 is  a  great  and  plain  distinction  between  a  judge  and  a  rule  :  for  as  in 
 a  kingdom  the  judge  has  his  rule  to  follow,  which  are  the  received 
 laws  and  customs  ;  so  are  ^ev  not  fit  or  able  to  declare  or  be  judges 
 to  themselves,  but  that  office  must  belong  to  a  living  judge.  The 
 Holy  Scripture  may  be  and  is  a  rule,  but  cannot  be  a  judge,  be- 
 cause it  being  always  the  same,  cannot  declare  itself  any  one  time, 
 or  upon  any  one  occasion,  more  particularly  than  upon  any  other  ; 
 and  let  it  be  read  over  an  hundred  times,  it  will  still  be  the  same, 
 and  no  more  fit  alone  to  terminate  controversies  in  faith,  than  the 
 law  would  be  to  end  suits,  if  it  Vi  ere  given  over  to  the  fancy  and 
 gloss  of  every  single  man. 
 
 5.  "  This  difference  betwixt  a  judge  and  a  rule  D.  Potter  per- 
 ceived, when,  more  than  once  having  styled  the  Scripture  a  judge, 
 by  way  of  correcting  that  term,  he  adds,  '  or  rather  a  rule  ;'  because 
 he  knew  that  an  inanimate  writing  could  not  be  a  judge.  From 
 hence  also  it  was,  that  though  protestauts  in  their  beginning  affirmed 
 Scripture  alone  to  be  the  judge  of  controversies,  yet  upon  a  more 
 advised  reflection  they  changed  the  phrase,  and  said,  that  not  Scrip- 
 ture, but  the  Holy  Ghost  speaking  in  Scripture,  is  judge  in  contro- 
 versies ;  a  difference  without  a  disparity.  The  Holy  Ghost  speaking 
 only  in  Scripture  is  no  more  intelligible  to  us  than  the  Scripture  in 
 whichihe  speaks  ;  as  a  man  speaking  only  in  Latin  can  be  no  better 
 understood  than  the  tongue  wherein  he  speaketh.  And  therefore  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.  And  it  were  a  conceit,  equally 
 foolish  and  pernicious,  if  one  should  seek  to  take  away  all  judge's 
 in  the  kingdom  ui)on  this  nicety — that  albeit  laws  cannot  be  judges, 
 yet  the  law-maker  speaking  in  the  law  may  perform  that  office,  as  it 
 the  law-maker  speaking  in  the  law  were  \^  itli  more  perspicuity  under- 
 stood than  the  law  whereby  he  speaketh . 
 
 5.  "  But  though  some  writing  were  granted  to  have  a  privilege  to 
 declare  itself  upon  supposition  that  it  were  maintained  in  being,  and 
 preserved  entire  from  corruptions  ;  yet  it  is  manifest  that  no  writing 
 can  conserve  itself,  nor  can  complain  or  denounce  the  falsifier  of  it ; 
 and  therefore  it  stands  in  need  of  some  watchful  and  not-erring  eye 
 to  guard  it,  by  means  of  whose  assured  vigilancy  we  may  undoubtedly 
 receive  it  sincere  and  oure. 
 
74  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    EY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 6.  "  And  suppose  it  could  defend  itself  from  corruption,  how 
 could  it  assure  us  that  itself  were  canonical,  and  of  infallible  verity  ? 
 By  saying  so  ?  Of  this  very  affirmation  there  -^^ill  remaiu  the  same 
 question  still :  hov.'  can  it  prove  itself  to  be  infallibly  true  ?  Neither 
 can  there  ever  be  an  end  of  the  like  multiphed  demands,  till  v:e  rest 
 in  the  external  authority  of  some  person  or  persons  bearing  witness 
 to  the  world  that  such  or  such  a  book  is  Scripture  ;  and  yet  upon 
 this  point,  according  to  protestants,  all  other  controversies  in  faith 
 depend. 
 
 /.  "That  Scripture  cannot  assure  us  that  itself  is  canonical 
 Scripture,  is  acknowledged  by  some  protestants  in  express  words, 
 and  by  all  of  them  in  deeds.  Mr.  Hooker,  whom  D.  Potter  ranketh"" 
 among  men  of  great  leaxning  and  judgm.ent,  saith,  '  Of  thingsf 
 necessary,  the  very  chiefest  is  to  know  what  books  we  are  to  esteem 
 holy ;  which  point  is  confessed  impossible  for  the  Scripture  itself  to 
 teach.'  And  this  he  proveth  by  the  same  argument  which  we  lately 
 used,  saying  thus  :  "'  It  is  not  J  the  word  o#God  which  doth  or  possibly 
 can  assure  us,  that  we  do  well  to  think  it  his  word.  For  if  any  one 
 book  of  Scrii)ture  did  give  testimony  to  all,  yet  stdl  that  Scripture 
 which  giveth  testimony  to  the  rest  would  require  another  Scripture 
 to  give  credit  unto  it.  Neither  could  we  come  to  any  pause  whereon 
 to  rest,  unless  besides  Scripture  there  were  something  which  might 
 assure  us,'  &c.  And  this  he  acknowledges  to  be  the§  church.  By 
 the  way,  if  of  things  necessary  the  very  chiefest  cannot  possibly  be 
 taught  by  Scripture,  as  this  man  of  so  great  learning  affirmeth,  and 
 demonstratively  proveth,  how  can  the  protestant  clergy  of  England 
 subscribe  to  their  sixth  Article  ?  wherein  it  is  said  of  the  Scriptm-e, 
 *  Whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to 
 be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  beheved  as  an  article  of  the 
 faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation  :'  and  con- 
 cerning their  belief  and  profession  of  this  Aiiicle,  they  are  particularly 
 examined  when  they  are  ordained  priests  and  bishops.  With  Hooker, 
 his  defendant  Covet  doth  punctually  agree.  Whitaker  likewise  con- 
 fesseth,  that  the  question  about  canonical  Scriptures  is  defined  to 
 us,  not  by  '  testimony  of  the  private  spirit,  which,'  saith  he,  '  being 
 private  and  secret,  is]]  unfit  to  teach  and  refel  others ;'  but  (as  he 
 acknowledgeth)  '  by  theH  ecclesiastical  tradition  :  an  argument,' 
 saith  he,  'whereby  may  be  argued  and  convinced  what  books  be 
 canonical  and  what  be  not.'  Luther  saith,  '  This**  indeed  the 
 church  hath,  that  she  can  discern  the  word  of  God  from  the  word  of 
 men  :'  as  Augustine  confesseth  ;  '  that  he  believed  the  gospel,  being 
 moved  by  the  authority  of  the  church,  which  did  preach  this  to  be 
 the  gospel.'  Fulk  teacheth,  that  the  churchft  hath  judgment  to 
 discern  true  writings  from  counterfeit,  and  the  word  of  God  from  the 
 writing  of  men  ;  and  that  this  judgment  she  hath  not  of  herself,  but 
 of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  And  to  the  end  that  you  may  not  be  ignorant 
 from  what  church  you  must  receive  Scriptm-es,  hear  your  first  patri- 
 arch Luther  speaking  against  them,  who  (as  he  saith)  brought  in 
 
 •  P.  131.  t  Eccles.  Polit.  book  I.  ch.  14.  p.  335.  Oxf.  edit,  183*3. 
 
 t  Ibid,  book  2.  ch.  4.  p  371.  vol.  i.  ^Ibid.  book  3.  ch.  8,  p.  459,  &c  toI.  L. 
 
 II  Adv   Stap.  1.  2.  c.  6   p.  270,  357  ^  Ibid.  l.'i.  c.  4.  p.  300. 
 
 #«  L.  de  €2v.  Babyl.  torn.  ii.  Wittemb.  f.  88. 
 
 ♦t  In  his  Answer  to  a  coxiuterfeit  Catholic,  p.  5 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  75 
 
 anabaptism,  that  so  they  might  despite  the  pope.  '  Yerily,'  saith 
 hfc,*  '  these  men  build  upon  a  weak  foundation  :  for  by  this  means 
 they  ought  to  deny  the  whole  Scripture,  and  the  office  of  preaching : 
 for  all  these  we  have  from  the  pope  ;  otherwise  we  must  go  make  a 
 new  Scripture.' 
 
 S.  "  But  now  in  deeds  they  all  make  good,  that  ■without  the 
 church's  authority  no  certainty  can  be  had  what  scriptm-e  is  canon- 
 ical, while  they  cannot  agree  m  assigning  the  canon  of  the  Holy 
 Scripture.     Of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  Luther  had  these  words : 
 
 *  Thef  Epistle  of  James  is  contentious,  swelling,  dry,  stra^^y,  and 
 unworthy  of  an  apostolical  spuit.'  Which  censure  of  Luther,  Ilh- 
 ricus  acknowledgeth  and  maintaineth.  Chemnitius  teacheth,  that 
 the  Second  EpistleJ  of  Peter,  the  Second  and  Third  of  John,  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Epistle  of  James,  the  Epistle  of  Jude, 
 and  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  are  apocryphal,  as  not  having  sufficient 
 testimonysS  of  their  authority,  and  therefore  that  nothing  in  contro- 
 versy can  be  proved  out  of  these  II  books.  The  same  is  taught  by 
 divers  other  Lutherans  :  and  if  some  other  amongst  them  be  of  a 
 contrary  opinion  since  Luther's  time,  I  wonder  what  new  infallible 
 ground  they  can  allege,  why  they  leave  their  master  and  so  many  of 
 his  prime  scholars  ?  I  know  no  better  ground,  than  because  they 
 may  with  as  much  freedom  abandon  him,  as  he  was  bold  to  alter  that 
 canon  of  Scripture  which  he  found  received  in  God's  church. 
 
 9.  "  What  books  of  Scripture  the  protestants  of  England  hold 
 for  canonical  is  not  easy  to  affii'm.     In  their  sixth  Article  they  say, 
 
 *  In  the  name  of  the  Holy  Scripture  we  do  understand  those  canonical 
 books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testamant,  of  whose  authority  was  never 
 any  doubt  in  the  church.'  What  mean  they  by  these  words — that 
 by  the  church's  consent  they  are  assured  what  Scriptures  be  canon- 
 ical ?  This  were  to  make  the  church  judge,  and  not  Scriptures 
 alone.  Do  they  only  understand  the  agreement  of  the  church  to 
 be  a  probable  inducement  ?  Probabihty  is  no  sufficient  ground  for 
 an  infallible  assent  of  faith.  By  this  rule  (of  whose  authority  was 
 never  any  doubt  in  the  church)  the  whole  Book  of  Esther  must  quit 
 the  canon,  because  some  in  the  church  have  excluded  it  from  the 
 canon,  as  ^[Melito  Asianus,  **Athanasius,  and  ffGregory  Nazianzen. 
 And  Luther  (if  protestants  will  be  content  that  he  be  in  the  church) 
 saith,  '  The  Jews  J;};  place  the  Book  of  Esther  in  the  canon  ;  which 
 yet,  if  I  might  be  judge,  doth  rather  deserve  to  be  put  out  of  the 
 canon.'  And  of  Ecclesiastes  he  saith,  '  This  §§book  is  not  full ; 
 there  are  in  it  many  abrupt  things  :  he  wants  boots  and  spurs,  that 
 is,  he  hath  no  perfect  sentence,  he  rides  upon  a  long  reed,  hke  me 
 when  I  was  in  the  monastery.'  And  much  more  is  to  be  read  in 
 him;  who II II  saith  further,  that  the  said  book  was  not  written  by 
 Solomon,  but  by  Syrach,  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  that  it  is 
 
 *  Ep.  con.  Anab.  ad  duos  Paroch.  torn.  ii.  Ger.  Witt. 
 t  Praef.  in  Epist,  Jac.  in  ed,  Jen.  t  In  Enchirid.  p.  65. 
 
 §  In  Exaniin.  Cone  Trid.  par.  1.  p.  55.  ||  Ibid. 
 
 IT  Apnd  Euseb.  1    4.  Hist.  c.  26.  **  In  Synops. 
 
 ■ft  In  Carm.  de  Genuiiiis  Scrip. 
 
 Xi  Lib.  deserv.  arb.  con.  Eras,  torn  ii.  Witt.  fol.  471. 
 ji  Inlat.  serm.  conviv.  Fran,  in  8  impr.  aimo  i571. 
 
 Ill'j  In   Ger.  colloq.  Lutheri  ab  Aurifabro  ed  Fran.  ttt.  de  lib.  Vet.  et  tior 
 Test.  f.  379. 
 
76  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 like  to  the  Talmud  (the  Jews'  Bible),  out  of  many  books  heaped  into 
 one   work,  jjcrhaps  out  of  the  library  of  King   Ptolomeus.     And 
 fiu-ther  he  saith,  that  *he  does  not  believe  all  to  have  been  done  that 
 there  is  set  down.     And  he  teacheth  the  fBook  of  Job  to  be  as  it 
 were  an  argument  for  a  fable  (or  comedy),  to    set  before  us  an 
 example  of  patience.     And  heX  delivers  this  general  censure  of  the 
 pro])hcts'  books — '  The  sermons  of  no  prophet  were  written  whole  and 
 perfect ;  but  their  disciples  and  auditors  snatched  now  one  sentence 
 and  then  another,  and  so  put  them  all  into  one  book,  and  by  this 
 means  the  Bible  was  conserved.'    If  this  were  so,  the  books  of  the  pro- 
 phets, being  not  written  by  themselves,  but  promiscuously  and  casu- 
 ally by  their  disciples,  will  soon  be  called  in  question.     Are  not 
 these  errors  of  Luther  fundamental  ?  and  yet,  if  protestants  deny 
 the  infallibility  of  the  church,  upon  what  certain  ground  can  they 
 disprove  these  Lutheran  and  Luciferiau   blasphemies?     O    godly 
 reformer  of  the   Roman  church  !     But  to  return  to  our  English 
 canon  of  Scripture.     Li  the  New  Testament,  by  the  above-men- 
 tioned rule  (of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt  in  the  church), 
 divers  books  of  the  New  Testament  must  be  discanouized,  to  wit,  all 
 those  of  which  some  ancients  have  doubted,  and  those  which  divers 
 Lutherans  have  of  late  denied.    It  is  worth  the  observation,  how  the 
 beforementioned  sixth  Article  doth  specify  by  name  all  the  books  of 
 the  Old  Testament  which  they  hold  for  canonical ;  but  those  of  the 
 New,  Avithout  naming  any  one,  they  shuffie  over  with  this  generality 
 — 'All  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  they  are  commonly 
 jcceived,  we  do  receive  and  account  them  canonical.     The  mystery 
 is  easy  to  be  unfolded.      If  they  had  descended  to  particulars,  they 
 must  have  contradicted  some  of  their  chiefest  brethren.     '  As  they 
 are  commonly  received,'  &c.     I  ask,  by  whom  V     By  the  church  of 
 Rome  ?     Then  by  the  same  reason  they  must  receive  divers  books 
 of  the  Old  Testament  which  they  reject.     By  Lutherans?     Then 
 with  Lutherans  they  may  deny  some  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
 If  it  be  the  greater  or  less  number  of  voices  that  must  cry  up  or 
 doAvn  the  canon  of  Scripture,  our  Roman  canon  will  prevail  :  and 
 among  })rotestants  the  certainty  of  their  faith  must  be  reduced  to  an 
 imcertam  controversy  of  fact,  whether  the  number  of  those  who 
 reject,  or  of  those  others  m  ho  receive  such  and  such  scriptures,  be 
 greater  :  their  faith  must  alter  according  to  years  and  days.     AVhen 
 Luther  first  ap])eared,  he  and  his  disciples  were  the  greater  number 
 of  that  new  church  ;  and  so  this  claim  (of  being  '  commonly  re- 
 ceived')  stood  for  them,  till   Zuinghus  and  Calvin  grew  to  some 
 equal  or  greater  number  than  that  of  the  Lutherans,  and  then  this 
 rule  of  '  commonly  received '  v,ill  canonise  their  canon  against  the 
 Lutherans.     I  would  gladly  know  why,  in  the  former  part  of  their 
 Article,  they  say  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  "  In  the  name 
 of  the  Holy  Scripture,  we  do  understand  those  canonical  books  of 
 the  Old  and  New  Testament,  of  whose  authority  Avas  never  a-ny 
 doubt  in  the  church  :'  and  in  the  latter  part,  speaking  again  of  the 
 
 N<  
 
 of 
 
 Vew  Testament,  they  give  a  far  diiferent  rule,  saying,  '  All  the  books 
 )f  the  New  Testament,  as  thev  are  commonlv  received,  we  receive. 
 
 •  lb.  tit.  de  Patriarch,  et  Proph.  fol,  282. 
 
 t  Tit.  de  lib.  Vet,  et  Nov.  Test.  :  Fol.  380. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  77 
 
 *nd  account  them  canonical.'  This,  I  say,  is  a  rule  much  different 
 from  the  former  ('  of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt  in  the 
 chiu-ch  ') ;  for  some  books  might  be  said  to  be  '  commonly  received,' 
 although  they  were  sometime  doubted  of  by  some.  If  to  be  '  com- 
 monly received '  pass  for  a  good  rule  to  know  the  canon  of  the 
 New  Testament,  why  not  of  the  Old  ?  Above  all,  we  desire  to 
 know  upon  what  infallible  ground  in  some  books  they  agree  with  us 
 against  Luther  and  divers  principal  Lutherans,  and  in  others  jump 
 with  Luther  against  us  ?  But  seeing  they  disagree  among  them- 
 selves, it  is  evident  that  they  have  no  certain  rule  to  know  the 
 canon  of  Scripture,  in  assigning  whereof  some  of  them  must  of 
 necessity  err ;  because  of  contradictoiy  propositions,  both  cannot 
 be  true. 
 
 10.  "  Moreover,  the  letters,  syllables,  words,  phrase,  or  matter 
 contained  in  Holy  Scriptiu-e,  have  no  necessary  or  natm-al  con- 
 nexion with  Divine  revelation  or  inspiration ;  aiid  therefore  by 
 seeing,  reading,  or  understanding  them,  we  cannot  infer  that  they 
 proceed  from  God,  or  be  confirmed  by  Divine  authority  ;  as  because 
 creatures  involve  a  necessary  relation,  connexion,  and  dependence 
 upon  their  Creator,  philosophers  may,  by  the  light  of  natural  reason, 
 demonstrate  the  existence  of  one  prime  cause  of  all  things.  In  holy 
 writ  there  are  innumerable  truths  not  surpassing  the  sphere  of  human 
 wit,  v.'hich  are,  or  may  be,  delivered  by  ])agan  writers,  in  the  self- 
 same words  and  ])hrases  as  they  are  in  Scripture.  And  as  for  some 
 truths  ])eculiar  to  Christians  (for  example,  the  mystery  of  the 
 blessed  Trinity,  &c.),  the  only  setting  them  down  in  writing  is  not 
 enough  to  be  assured  that  such  a  writing  is  the  undoubted  word  of 
 God ;  otherwise  some  sayings  of  Plato,  Trismegistus,  Sibyls,  Ovid, 
 &c.,  must  be  esteemed  canonical  scripture,  because  they  fall  upon 
 some  truths  proper  to  Christian  religion.  The  internal  light  and 
 inspiration  which  directed  and  moved  the  authors  of  canonical  Scrip- 
 ture, is  a  hidden  quality  infused  into  their  understanding  and  will, 
 and  hath  no  such  particular  sensible  inliueuce  into  the  external 
 "writing,  that  in  it  we  can  discover,  or  from  it  demonstrate,  any  such, 
 secret  light  and  inspiration;  and,  therefore,  to  be  assured  that  such 
 a  writing  is  Divine,  we  cannot  know  from  itself  alone,  but  by  some 
 other  extrinsical  authority. 
 
 11.  "And  here  we  appeal  to  any  man  of  judgment,  whether 
 it  be  not  a  vain  brag  of  some  jn-otestants  to  tell  us,  '  that  they  wot 
 full  well  what  is  Scripture  by  the  light  of  Scripture  itself,'  or  (as  D. 
 Potter  words  it)  *  by*  that  glorious  beam  of  Divine  light  which 
 shines  therein  ;'  even  as  our  eye  distinguisheth  light  from  darkness, 
 without  any  other  help  than  light  itself ;  and  as  our  ear  knows  a 
 roice  by  the  voice  itself  alone.  But  this  vanity  is  refuted  by  what 
 we  said  even  now,  that  the  external  Scripture  hath  no  apparent  or 
 necessary  connexion  with  Divine  inspiration  or  revelation.  Will  D. 
 Potter  hold  all  his  brethren  for  blind  men,  for  not  seeing  that 
 glorious  beam  of  Divine  light  which  shines  in  Scripture,  about 
 which  they  cannot  agree?  Corporal  light  may  be  discerned  by 
 itself  alone,  as  being  evident,  proportionate,  and  connatural  to  our 
 faculty  of  seeing.    That  Scripture  is  Divme,  and  inspired  by  God,  is 
 
 •  P.  141. 
 
78  CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 a  truth  exceeding  the  natural  capacit}^  and  compass  of  man's  under- 
 standing, to  us  obscure,  and  to  be  beheved  by  Divine  faith,  which, 
 according  to  the  apostle,  is  argumentum^  non  apparentium,  an  argu- 
 ment, or  conviction  of  things  not  evident — and  therefore  no  wonder 
 if  Scriptm*e  do  not  manifest  itself  by  itself  alone,  but  must  require 
 some  other  means  for  applying  it  to  our  understanding.  Neverthe- 
 less, their  own  similitudes  and  instances  make  against  themselves  : 
 for  suppose  a  man  had  never  read  or  heard  of  sun  or  moon,  fire, 
 candle,  &c.,  and  should  be  brought  to  behold  a  light,  yet  in  such 
 sort  as  that  the  agent  or  cause  efficient  from  which  it  proceeded  were 
 kept  hidden  from  him ;  could  such  a  one,  by  behokhng  the  light, 
 certainly  know  whether  it  were  produced  by  the  sun  or  moon,  &c.  ? 
 or  if  one  heard  a  voice,  and  had  never  known  the  speaker,  could  he 
 know  from  whom  in  particular  that  voice  proceeded  ?  They  who 
 look  upon  Scripture  may  well  see  that  some  one  wrote  it :  but  that 
 it  was  written  by  Divine  inspiration,  how  shall  they  know  :  Nay, 
 they  cannot  so  much  as  know  who  wrote  it,  unless  they  first  know 
 the  Mi'iter,  and  what  hand  he  writes  ;  as  likewise  I  cannot  know 
 whose  voice  it  is  which  I  hear,  unless  I  first  both  know  the  person  who 
 speaks,  and  with  \^hat  voice  he  useth  to  speak :  and  j'et  even  all 
 this  supposed,  I  may  perhaps  be  deceived.  For  there  may  be  voices 
 so  like,  and  hands  so  counterfeited,  that  men  may  be  deceived  by 
 them,  as  birds  were  by  the  grapes  of  that  skilful  ])ainter.  Now 
 since  protestants  affirm,  knowledge  concerning  God  as  our  super- 
 natural end  must  be  taken  from  Scripture,  they  cannot  in  Scripture 
 alone  discern  that  it  is  his  voice,  or  writing,  because  they  cannot 
 know  from  whom  a  v/riting  or  voice  proceeds,  unless  first  they  know 
 the  person  who  speaketh  or  writeth  :  nay,  I  say  more ;  by  Scrip- 
 ture alone  they  cannot  so  much  as  know  that  any  person  doth  in  it 
 or  by  it  speak  anything  at  all  :  because  one  may  write  without  intent 
 to  signify  or  affirm  anythhig,  but  only  to  set  down,  or,  as  it  were, 
 paint  such  characters,  S3'llables,  and  words,  as  men  are  wont  to  set 
 copies,  not  cai'ing  what  the  signification  of  the  words  imports ;  or 
 as  one  transcribes  a  writing  which  himself  understands  not ;  or  when 
 one  writes  what  another  dictates  ;  and  in  other  such  cases,  wherein 
 it  is  clear  that  the  writer  speaks  nothing  in  such  his  writing  :  and 
 therefore  by  it  we  cannot  hear  or  understand  his  voice.  With  what 
 certainty  then  can  any  man  affirm,  that  by  Scripture  itself  they  can 
 see  that  the  vvriters  did  intend  to  signify  anything  at  all ;  that  they 
 were  apostles,  or  other  canonical  authors;  that  they  wrote  their 
 own  sense,  aiid  not  what  was  dictated  by  some  other  man ;  and 
 finally  and  especially,  that  they  wrote  by  the  infallible  dhection  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost  V 
 
 12.  "  But  let  us  be  liberal,  and  for  the  present  suppose  [not  grant] 
 that  Scripture  is  like  to  corporal  hght,  by  itself  alone  able  to  deter- 
 mine and  move  our  understanding  to  assent ;  yet  the  simihtude 
 proves  against  themselves  :  for  light  is  not  visible  except  to  such  as 
 have  eyes,  which  are  not  made  by  the  light,  but  must  be  presupposed 
 as  produced  by  some  other  cause.  And  therefore  to  hold  the  simi- 
 litude. Scripture  can  be  clear  on  y  to  those  who  are  endued  with  the 
 €ye  of  faith  ;  or,  as  D.  Potter  above  cited  saith,  to  all  that  '  havef 
 •  Heb.  si,  I  t  rage  141. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  79 
 
 eyes  to  discern  the  shining  beams  thereof;'  that  is,  to  the  behever, 
 as  immediately  after  he  speaketh.  Faith  then  must  not  originally 
 proceed  from  Scripture,  but  it  is  to  be  presupposed,  before  we  can 
 see  the  light  thereof ;  and  consequently  there  must  be  some  other 
 means  precedent  to  Scripture  to  beget  faith,  which  can  be  no  other 
 than  the  church. 
 
 13.  "  Others  affirm,  that  they  know  canonical  Scriptures  to  be 
 such  by  the  title  of  the  books.  But  how  shall  we  know  such  in- 
 scriptions or  titles  to  be  infallibly  true  ?  From  this  their  answer 
 oiu*  argument  is  strengthened,  because  divers  apocryphal  writings 
 have  appeai-ed  under  the  titles  and  names  of  sacred  authors  ;  as, 
 the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  mentioned  by  St.  Augustine  ;*  the  Gospel 
 of  Peter,  which  the  Xazarenes  did  use,  as  Theodorett  vvitnesseth  ; 
 with  wliich  Seraphion,  a  catholic  bishop,  was  for  some  time  deceived, 
 as  may  be  read  in  Eusebius,4:  who  also  speaketh  of  the  Apocalypse 
 of  Peter. §  The  like  may  be  said  of  the  Gospels  of  Barnabas,  Bar- 
 tholomew, and  other  such  writings  specified  by  Pope  Gelasius.|| 
 Protestants  reject  likewise  some  part  of  Esther  and  Daniel,  which 
 bear  the  same  titles  with  the  rest  of  those  books,  as  also  both  we 
 and  they  hold  for  apocryphal  the  third  and  fourth  books  which  go 
 under  the  name  of  Esdras,  and  yet  both  of  us  receive  his  first  and 
 second  book  ;  wherefore  titles  are  not  &uflicient  assurance  what  books 
 be  canonical ;  v.hich  D.  Covei*!  acknowledgeth  in  these  words  :  '  It 
 is  not  the  word  of  God  which  doth  or  possibly  can  assure  us,  that  we  do 
 well  to  think  it  is  the  v.ord  of  God  ;  the  fii'st  outward  motion  lead- 
 ing men  so  to  esteem  of  the  Scripture  is  the  authority  of  God's 
 church,  which  teacheth  us  to  receive  Clark's  Gospel,  who  was  not  an 
 apostle,  and  to  refuse  the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  who  was  an  apostle ; 
 and  to  retain  Luke's  Gospel,  who  saw  not  Christ,  and  to  reject  the 
 Gospel  of  Xicodemus,  who  saw  him.' 
 
 14.  "  Another  answer,  or  rather  objection,  they  are  wont  to  bring 
 — that  the  Scripture  being  a  principle,  needs  no  proof  among  Chris- 
 tians. So  D.  Potter.**  But  this  is  cither  a  plain  begging  of 
 the  question,  or  manifestly  untrue,  and  is  directly  against  their  own 
 doctrine  and  practice.  If  they  mean  that  Scriptm-e  is  one  of  those 
 principles  which,  being  the  first  and  most  kno^^Ti  in  all  sciences, 
 cannot  be  demonstrated  by  other  principles,  they  suppose  tnat 
 which  is  in  question,  whether  there  be  not  some  principle  (for 
 example,  the  church)  whereby  we  may  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
 Scripture.  If  they  intend  that  Scripture  is  a  principle,  but  not  the 
 first  and  most  known  in  Christianity,  then  Scripture  may  be  proved. 
 For  principles  that  are  not  the  first,  nor  known  of  themselves,  may 
 and  ought  to  be  proved  before  we  can  yield  assent  either  to  them,  or 
 to  other  verities  depending  on  them.  It  is  repugnant  to  their  own 
 doctrine  and  practice,  inasmuch  as  they  are  wont  to  affii*m  that  one 
 part  of  Scripture  may  be  knovvTi  to  be  canonical,  and  may  be  inter- 
 preted by  another.  And  since  every  scripture  is  a  principle  suffi- 
 cient upon  which  to  ground  Divine  faith,  they  must  grant  that  one 
 principle  may  and  sometimes  must  be  proved  by  another.     Yea,  tliis 
 
 *  Cont,  Adimantum,  c.  11.  t  L.  2.  Hseretic.  Fab. 
 
 t  Lib.  G.  c    10  9  Lib   6.  c.  11. 
 
 II  Dist.  Can.  Sancta  Romana.  V  In  his  Defei^ce,  art.  4,  p.  31. 
 
 •*  Page  23^, 
 
80  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 their  answer,  upon  clue  ponderation,  falls  out  to  prove  what  we 
 affirm,  for  since  all  principles  cannot  be  proved,  we  must  (that  our 
 labour  may  not  be  endless)  come  at  length  to  rest  in  some  principle 
 which  may  not  require  any  other  proof :  such  is  tradition,  which 
 involves  an  evidence  of  fact ;  and  from  hand  to  hand,  and  age  to 
 age,  bringing  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  canon  upon  the  credit  of  God's  church.  St.  Athanasius* 
 saith,  that  only  four  Gospels  arc  to  be  received,  because  the  canons 
 of  the  holy  and  catholic  church  have  so  determined.  The  third 
 council  of  Carthage,t  having  set  down  the  books  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture, gives  the  reason,  because  '  We  have  received  from  our  fathers 
 that  those  are  to  be  read  in  the  church.'  St.  Augustine,J  speaking 
 of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  saith,  '  To  which  book  I  must  give 
 credit;,  if  I  give  credit  to  the  gospel,  because  the  catholic  church  doth 
 alike  recommend  to  me  both  these  books.'  And  in  the  same  place 
 he  hath  also  these  words  :  '  I  would  not  believe  the  gospel,  unless 
 the  authority  of  the  catholic  church  did  move  me.'  A  saying  so 
 plain,  that  Zuinglius  is  forced  to  cry  out,  '  riere§  1  implore  your 
 equity  to  speak  freely,  whether  the  saying  of  Augustine  seems  not 
 over- bold,  or  tlse  unadvisedly  to  have  fallen  from  him.' 
 
 15.  "But  supi)ose  they  were  assured  what  books  were  canonical, 
 this  will  little  avail  .thein,  unless  they  be  likewise  certain  in  wiiat 
 language  they  remain  uncorrupted,  or  what  translations  be  true. 
 Caivnill  acknowledgeth  corruption  in  the  Hebrew  text ;  which  if  it 
 be  taken  without  points,  is  so  ambiguous,  that  scarcely  any  one 
 chapter,  yea  period,  can  be  securely  understood  without  the  help  of 
 some  translation:  if  with  ]wints,  these  were,  after  St.  Hierome^s 
 time,  invented  by  the  perlidious  Jews,  who  either  by  ignorance 
 might  mistake,  o'r  upon  mahce  force  the  text  to  favour  their  im- 
 pieties. And  that  the  Hebrew  text  still  retains  much  ambiguity,  is 
 apparent  by  the  disagreeing  translations  of  Novehsts;  which  also 
 proves  the  Greek,  for  the  New  Testament,  not  to  be  void  of  doubtful- 
 ness, as  Calvinll  confesseth  it  to  be  corrupted.  And  although  both 
 the  Hebrew  and  Greek  were  pure,  what  doth  this  help,  if  only  Scrip- 
 ture be  the  rule  of  faith,  and  so  very  few  be  able  to  examine  the 
 text  in  these  languages  ?  All  then  must  be  reduced  to  the  cer- 
 tainty of  translations  into  other  tongues,  wherein  no  private  man 
 having  any  promise  or  assurance  of  infallibility,  protestants  who  rely 
 upon  Scripture  alone,  will  find  no  certciin  ground  for  their  faith  :  as 
 accordingly  Whitaker  affirmeth,  '  Those  who  understand  not  the 
 Hebrew  and  Greek  do  err  often  and  unavoidably.'** 
 
 16.  "  Now  concerning  the  translations  of  protestants,  it  will  be 
 sufficient  to  set  down  what  the  laborious,  exact,  and  judicious  author 
 of  the  Protestants'  Apology,  &e.,  dedicated  to  our  late  King  James, 
 of  famous  memory,  hath  to  this  purpose  ;tt  '  To  omit,'  saith  he, '  par- 
 
 *  In  Synops.  t  Can.  47. 
 
 +  Cont.  ep.  Fundam.  c.  5  ^  Tom.  i.  tol.  13:>. 
 
 |i    Instit.  c.  6.  sect  11.  If  Ibid,  c.  7,  sect.  12. 
 
 **  Lib.  desanctaScriptura,  p.  523. 
 
 ■ft  Tract.  1,  sect.  10.  subd.  4    joined  v/ith  tract.  2.  c.  2.  sect.  10.  subd.  2. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  SI 
 
 ticiilars,  whose  recital  would  be  infinite,  and  to  touch  this  point 
 but  generally  only,  the  translation  of  the  New  Testament  by  Luther 
 is  condemned  by  Andreas  Osiander,  Keckermannus,  and  Zuinglius, 
 who  saith  hereof  to  Luther — Thou  dost  corrupt  the  word  of  God, 
 thou  art  seen  to  be  a  manifest  and  common  corrupter  of  the  Holy 
 Scriptures  :  how  much  are  we  ashamed  of  thee,  who  have  hitherto 
 esteemed  thee  beyond  all  measure,  and  now  prove  thee  to  be  such  a 
 man  !'  And  in  hke  manner  doth  Luther  reject  the  translation  of  the 
 Zuinghans,  terming  them,  in  matter  of  divinity,  fools,  asses,  anti- 
 christs, deceivers,  and  of  ass-hke  understanding.  Insomuch  that 
 when  Froschoverus,  the  Zuinglian  printer  of  Zmich,  sent  him  a 
 Bible  translated  by  the  di\'ines  there,  Luther  would  not  receive  the 
 same ;  but  sending  it  back,  rejected  it,  as  the  protestant  writers, 
 Hospinianus  and  Lavatherus,  witness.  The  translation  set  forth  by 
 CEcolampadius,  and  the  divines  of  Basil,  is  reproved  by  Beza,  who 
 affirmeth,  that  the  Basil  translation  '  is  in  many  places  wicked,  and 
 altogether  differing  from  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  The  trans- 
 lation of  Castalio  is  condemned  by  Beza,  as  being  sacrilegious, 
 wicked,  and  ethnical.  As  concerning  Calvin's  translation,  that 
 learned  protestant  writer,  Carolus  Molinscus,  saith  thereof,  '  Calvin 
 in  his  harmony  maketh  the  text  of  the  gospel  to  leap  up  and  down  ;' 
 he  uses  violence  to  the  letter  of  the  gospel ;  and,  besides  this,  addeth 
 to  the  text.  xVs  touching  Beza's  translation  (to  omit  the  dislike 
 had  thereof  by  Selneccerus,  the  German  protestant  of  the  imiver- 
 sity  of  Jena),  the  aforesaid  Molinaus  saith  of  him — '  de facto  mutat 
 textum,  he  actually  changeth  the  text' —  and  giveth  further  sundry 
 instances  of  his  corruptions  :  as  also  Castalio,  that  leai'ned  Caivinist, 
 and  most  learned  in  the  tongues,  reprehendeth  Beza  in  a  whole  book 
 of  this  matter,  and  saith,  '  that  to  note  all  his  errors  in  translation 
 would  require  a  great  volume.'  And  M.  Parker  saith,  '  As  for  the 
 Geneva  Bibles,  it  is  to  be  wished  that  either  they  may  be  purged  from 
 those  manifold  errors  which  are  both  in  the  text  and  in  the  margent, 
 or  else  utterly  prohibited  :  all  which  confirmeth  your  majesty's  grave 
 and  learned  censure,  in  your  thinking  the  Geneva  translation  to  be 
 worst  of  all ;  and  that  in  the  marginal  notes  annexed  to  the  Geneva 
 translation  some  are  very  partial,  untrue,  seditious,'  &c.  Lastly, 
 concerning  the  Enghsli  translation  the  puritans  say,  *  Our  translation 
 of  the  Psalms,  comprised  in  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  doth  in 
 addition,  subtraction,  and  alteration,  differ  from  the  truth  of  the 
 Hebrew  in  two  hundred  places  at  the  least :  insomuch  as  they  do 
 therefore  profess  to  rest  doubtful,  whether  a  man  with  a  safe  con- 
 science may  subscribe  thereunto.'  And  Mr.  Carlisle  saith  oi  the 
 English  translators,  that  they  '  have  depraved  the  sense,  obscured 
 the  truth,  and  deceived  the  ignorant ;  that  in  many  places  they  do 
 detort  the  Scriptiu-es  from  the  right  sense ;'  and  that  '  they  show 
 themselves  to  love  darkness  more  than  light,  falsehood  more  than 
 truth.'  And  the  ministers  of  Lincoln  diocese  give  their  public  testi- 
 mony, terming  the  Enghsh  translation  '  a  translation  that  taketh 
 away  from  the  text ;  that  addeth  to  the  text  and  that  sometime  to 
 the  changing  or  obscuring  of  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Ghost/  Not 
 without  cause,  therefore,  did  your  majesty  affirm,  that  you  *  could 
 never  yet  see  a  Bible  well  translated  into  Enghsh.'     Thus  far  the 
 
 G 
 
82  CKARITY    MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS 
 
 author  of  the  Protestants'  Apology,  &c.  And  I  cannot  forbear  to 
 mention,  in  particular,  that  famous  corruption  of  Luther,  who  in  the 
 text  where  it  is  said  (Rom.  iii.  28),  We  account  a  man  to  he  justified 
 hy  faith,  without  the  loorks  of  the  law,  in  favour  of  justification  by 
 faith  alone,  translateth,  justified  by  faith  alone.  As  likewise  the 
 falsification  of  Zuinglius  is  no  less  notorious,  who,  in  the  Gospels  of 
 St,  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  in  St.  Paul,  in  place  of  This  is 
 my  body,  This  is  my  blood,  translates,  This  signifies  my  body.  This 
 signifies  my  blood.  And  here  let  protestants  consider  duly  of  these 
 points :  salvation  cannot  be  hoped  for  without  true  faith :  faith, 
 according  to  them,  relies  upon  Scripture  alone  :  Scripture  must  be 
 dcHvered  to  most  of  them  by  the  translations  :  translations  depend 
 on  the  skill  and  honesty  of  men,  in  whom  nothing  is  more  certain 
 than  a  most  certain  possibility  to  err  ;  and  no  greater  evidence  of 
 truth,  than  that  it  is  evident  some  of  them  embrace  falsehood,  by 
 reason  of  their  contrary  translations.  What  then  remaineth,  but 
 that  truth,  faith,  salvation,  and  all,  must  in  them  rely  upon  a  fallible 
 and  uncertain  ground  ?  How  many  poor  souls  are  lamentably 
 seduced,  while  from  preaching  ministers  they  admire  a  multitude  of 
 texts  of  Divine  Scripture,  but  are  indeed  the  false  translations  and 
 corruptions  of  erring  men !  Let  them  therefore,  if  tliey  will  be 
 assured  of  true  Scriptures,  fly  to  the  always  visible  catholic  church, 
 against  which  the  gates  of  hell  can  never  so  far  prevail,  as  that  she 
 shall  be  permitted  to  deceive  the  Christian  world  with  false  Scrip- 
 tures. And  Luther  himself,  by  unfortunate  experience,  was  at 
 length  forced  to  confess  this  much,  saying  '  If  the  world*  last  longer, 
 it  AATill  be  again  necessary  to  receive  the  decrees  of  councils,  and  to 
 have  recourse  to  them,  by  reason  of  divers  interpretations  of  Scrip- 
 ture which  now  reign.'  On  the  contrary  side,  the  translation 
 approved  by  the  Roman  church  is  commended  even  by  our  adver- 
 saries ;  and  D.  Covel  in  particular  saith,  'that  it  was  used  in  the 
 church  one  thousandf  three  hundred  years  ago,  and  doubteth  not 
 to  prefer  thatj  translation  before  others.'  Insomuch,  that  whereas 
 the  English  translations  be  many,  and  among  themselves  disagreeing, 
 he  concludeth,  that  of  all  those  the  approved  translation  authorised 
 by  the  Church  of  England  is  that  which  cometh  nearest  to  the  vul- 
 gar, and  is  commonly  called  the  Bishops'  Bible.  So  that  the  truth 
 of  that  translation  which  we  use  must  be  the  rule  to  judge  of  the 
 goodness  of  their  Bibles  ;  and  therefore  they  are  obliged  to  maintain 
 our  translation,  if  it  were  but  for  then*  own  sake. 
 
 17.  "  But  doth  indeed  the  source  of  their  manifold  uncertainties 
 stop  here  ?  No  :  the  chiefest  difficulty  remains,  concerning  the  true 
 meaning  of  Scripture ;  for  attaining  whereof  if  protestants  had  any 
 certainty,  they  could  not  disagree  so  hugely  as  they  do.  Hence  Mr. 
 Hooker  saith,  '  We  are§  right  sure  of  this,  that  nature.  Scripture, 
 and  experience,  have  all  taught  the  world  to  seek  for  the  ending  of 
 contentions  by  submitting  itself  unto  some  judicial  and  definite  sen- 
 tence, whereunto  neither  part  that  contendeth  may  under  any  pre- 
 tence or  colour  refuse  to  stand.'  Doctor  Field's  words  are  remarkable 
 
 *  Lib.  cout.  Zuing.  de  verit.  corp  Christ,  in  Eucliar. 
 
 +  In  his  Answer  unto  M.  John  Burges,  page  91  llbid. 
 
 §  In  Lis  preface  to  his  books  of  Ecci.  Folify,  ch.  6,  p.  205.     Oxf.  edit,  133(3. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  83 
 
 to  this  purpose :  *  Seeing,'  saitli  l)e,  '  the  controversies*  of  religion. 
 in  our  times  are  grown  in  number  so  man\%  and  in  nature  so  intri- 
 cate, that  few  h.ave  time  and  leisure,  fewer  strength  of  understanding, 
 to  examine  tliem ;  what  rcmaineth  for  men  desirous  of  satisfaction 
 in  thing?  of  such  consequence,  but  dihgently  to  search  out  which 
 among  all  the  societies  in  the  world  is  that  blessed  company  of  holy 
 ones,  that  household  of  faith,  that  spouse  of  Clu-ist,  and  church  of 
 the  living  God,  which  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth  that  so  they 
 may  embrace  her  communion,  follow  her  directions,  and  rest  in  her 
 j  udgnient  ? ' 
 
 LS.  "And  now  that  the  true  interpretation  of  Scripture  ought 
 to  be  received  from  the  chiu'ch,  it  is  also  proved,  by  what  we  have 
 already  demonstrated,  that  she  it  is  who  must  declare  what  books  be 
 true  Scripture  ;  wherein  if  she  be  assisted  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  why 
 should  we  not  believe  her  to  be  infallibly  directed  concerning  the 
 true  meaning  of  them  ?  Let  protestants,  therefore,  either  bring  some 
 proof  out  of  Scri})ture  that  the  church  is  guided  b}'  the  Holy  Ghost 
 in  discerning  true  Scripture,  and  not  in  delivering  the  true  sense 
 thereof ;  or  else  give  us  leave  to  apjily  against  them  the  argument 
 which  St.  Augustine  opposed  to  the  Manicheans  in  these  words  :  '  I 
 would  not  believet  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  3.[an- 
 icheus  (Luther,  Calvin,  &c.)  ?  Choose  w^hat  thou  pleascst.  If  thou 
 shalt  sa3%  Believe  the  catholics,  they  warn  me  not  to  give  anv  credit 
 to  you.  If  therefore  I  believe  them,  I  cannot  believe  thee.  If  thou 
 say.  Do  not  believe  the  catholics,  thou  shalt  not  do  well  in  forcing  me 
 to  the  faith  of  Manicheus,  because  by  the  preaching  of  cathohcs  I 
 believed  the  gospel  itself.  If  thou  say.  You  did  \\e\\  to  belie^^e  them 
 [catholics]  commending  the  gospel,  but  }ou  did  not  ^vell  to  believe 
 them  discommending  Manicheus  ;  dost  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  ?  '  A.nd  do  not  protestants 
 perfectly  resemble  these  men,  to  whom  St.  Augustine  s])ake,  when 
 they  will  have  men  to  believe  the  Roman  church  delivering  Scri})- 
 tare,  but  not  to  believe  her  condemning  Luther  and  the  rest  ? 
 Against  whom,  when  they  first  opposed  themselves  to  the  Pi-oraan 
 church,  St.  Augustine  may  have  seemed  to  have  spoken  no  less 
 prophetically  than  doctrinally,  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  com- 
 manded any  good  thing  ?  Canst  thou  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  thee  to  me  ?  This  there- 
 fore I  believed  by  fame,  strengthened  ^\ith  celebrity,  consent,  an- 
 tiquity. But  every  one  may  see  tliat  you,  so  few,  so  turbulent,  so 
 new,  can  produce  nothing  deserving  authority.  What  madness  is 
 this  ?  Beheve  them  [catholics]  that  we  ought  to  believe  Christ ;  but 
 learn  of  us  what  Christ  said.  Why,  I  beseech  thee  ?  Surely,  if  thev 
 [catholics]  were  not  at  all,  and  could  not  teach  me  anj'  thing,  I 
 
 •  In  bis  Treatise  of  the  Church,  in  his  Epistle  Dedicatory  to  the  L.  Archbishop, 
 t  Cont.  Ep.  Fuud.  cap.  5.  ;  Lib.  de  Util.  ere   cap.  14, 
 
84  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 would  more  easily  persuade  myself  that  I  were  not  to  believe 
 Christ,  than  that  I  should  learn  any  thing  concerning  him  from  any 
 other  than  them  by  whom  I  believed  him/  If  therefore  we  receive 
 the  knowledge  of  Christ  and  Scriptures  fi'om  the  church,  from  her 
 also  we  take  his  doctrine,  and  the  interpretation  thereof. 
 
 19.  "  But  beside.';  all  this,  the  Scripture  cannot  be  judge  of  con- 
 troversies; who  ought  to  be  such,  as  that  to  him  not  only  the 
 learned  veterans,  b^it  also  the  unlearned  and  novices,  may  have 
 recourse  ;  for  these  being  capable  of  salvation,  and  endued  with  faith 
 of  the  same  nature  with  that  of  the  learned,  there  must  be  some 
 universal  judge,  which  the  ignorant  may  understand,  and  to  whom 
 the  greatest  clerks  must  submit.  Such  is  the  church;  and  the 
 Scripture  is  not  such. 
 
 20.  '•'  Now  the  inconveniences  which  may  follow  by  referrius:  all 
 controversies  to  Scripture  alone  are  ver}-  clear  :  for  by  this  principle 
 all  is  finally  in  very  deed  and  truth  reduced  to  the  internal  private 
 spirit,  because  there  is  really  no  middle  way  betwixt  a  public  external 
 and  a  private  internal  voice  ;  and  whosoever  refuseth  the  one,  must 
 of  necessity  adhere  to  the  other. 
 
 21.  "This  tenet  also  of  protestants,  by  taking  the  office  of  judi- 
 cature from  the  church,  comes  to  confer  it  upon  e^eiy  particular 
 man,  who,  being  driven  from  submission  to  the  church,  cannot  be 
 blamed  if  he  trust  himself  as  far  as  any  other,  his  conscience  dic- 
 tating, that  vrittingly  he  means  not  to  cozen  himself,  as  others 
 maliciously  may  do  :  which  inference  is  so  manifest,  that  it  hath 
 extorted  from  divers  protestants  the  open  confession  of  so  vast  an 
 absurdity.  Hear  Luther  :  '  The  governors  of*  churches,  and  pastors 
 of  Christ's  sheep,  have  indeed  poAver  to  teach,  but  the  sheep  ought 
 to  give  judgment,  whether  they  propound  the  voice  of  Christ  or  of 
 aliens.'  Lubbertus  saith,  '  As  we  havef  demonstrated  that  all  public 
 judges  mxay  be  deceived  in  interi)reting ;  so  we  affirm  that  they  may 
 err  in  judging.  All  faithful  men  are  private  judges,  and  they  also 
 have  jjower  to  judge  of  doctrines  and  interpretations.'  Whitaker, 
 even  of  the  unlearned,  saith,  '  TheyJ  ought  to  have  recourse  unto 
 the  more  learned;  but  in  the  mean  time  we  must  be  careful  not  to 
 attribute  to  them  over-much,  but  so  that  still  we  retain  our  own, 
 freedom.'  Bilson  also  affii-meth,  that  'the  people  must§  be  dis- 
 cerners  and  judges  of  that  which  is  taught.'  This  same  pernicious 
 doctrine  is  delivered  by  Brentius,  Zanchius,  Cartwright,  and  others 
 exactly  cited  by  ||Brerely  :  and  nothing  is  more  common  in  every 
 protestaiit's  mouth,  than  that  he  admits  of  fathers,  councils,  church, 
 &c.,  as  far  as  they  agree  with  Scripture  ;  which  upon  the  matter  is 
 himself.  Thus  heresy  ever  falls  upon  extrem.es  :  it  pretends  to  have 
 Scripture  alone  for  judge  of  controversies  ;  and  in  the  mean  time 
 sets  up  as  many  judges  as  there  are  men  and  women  in  the  Christian 
 world.  What  good  statesmen  would  they  be,  who  should  ideate  or 
 fancy  sixh  a  commonwealth,  as  these  men  have  framed  to  themselves 
 as  a  church  !  They  verify  what  St.  Augustine  objecteth  against 
 certain  heretics :  '  You  see*^  that  you  go  about  to  overthrow  all 
 
 •  Tom.  ii.  Wittemb.  fol.  375. 
 
 t  In  lib.  da  Priucii:)iis  Chribtiixn.  Dogm.  1.  0  c.  3. 
 
 ;  De  baciii  Scriptura,  52y.  ::\n  liis  true  Difference,  Dart  2. 
 
 ij  Tract.  2.  cap.  ].  sect.  i.  %   Lib.  32.  ccut.  Fauist. 
 
CHARITY    ilAIXTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  85 
 
 authority  of  Scripture,  and  that  eveiy  man's  mind  may  he  to  him- 
 self a  rule  v>hat  he  is  to  allow  or  disallow  in  eveiy  scripture.' 
 •  22.  "  Moreover,  what  confusiou  to  the  church,  v.-hat  danger  to  the 
 commonwealth,  this  denial  of  the  authority  of  the  church  may  bring, 
 I  leave  to  the  consideration  of  any  judicious,  inditierent  man.  I 
 •will  only  set  down  some  words  of  D.  Potter,  who,  speaking  of  the 
 proposition  of  revealed  truths,  sufficient  to  prove  him  that  gainsayeth 
 them  to  be  an  heretic,  saith  thus  :  '  This  proposition'"  of  revealed 
 truths  is  not  by  the  infalhble  determination  of  pope  or  church/ 
 [pope  and  church  being  excluded,  let  us  hear  what  more  secm-e 
 rule  he  will  prescribe],  •' but  by  whatsoever  means  a  man  may  be 
 convinced  in  conscience  of  Divine  revelation.  If  a  preacher  do  clear 
 any  point  of  faith  to  liis  hearers  ;  if  a  private  Christian  do  make  it 
 appear  to  his  neighbour  that  any  conclu;iion  or  point  of  faith  is 
 delivered  by  Divine  revelation  of  God's  word ;  if  a  man  himself 
 (without  any  teacher  i  by  reading  the  Scriptures,  or  hearing  them 
 read,  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  any  such  conclusion ;  this  is  a 
 sufficient  proposition  to  prove  him  that  gainsayeth  any  such  proof  to 
 be  an  heretic,  an  obstinate  opposer  of  the  faith.'  Behold  what 
 goodly  safe  propounders  of  faith  arise  in  place  of  God's  universal 
 visible  chiu-ch,  which  must  yield  to  a  single  preacher,  a  neighbour, 
 a  man  himself  if  he  can  read,  or  at  least  have  ears  to  hear  Scriptm-e 
 read !  Verily  I  do  not  see  but  that  every  -vvell-governed  civil 
 commonwealth  ought  to  concur  towards  the  exterminating  of  this 
 doctrine,  whereby  the  interpretation  of  Scriptm-e  is  taken  from  the 
 church  and  conferred  upon  every  man,  who,  whatsoever  is  pretended 
 to  the  contrary,  may  be  a  passionate,  seditious  creature. 
 
 23.  "  Moreover,  there  was  no  Scriptm-e  or  written  words  for  about 
 two  thousand  years  from  Adam  to  ]\Ioses,  whom  all  acknowledge  to 
 have  been  the  first  author  of  canonical  Scripture  :  and  again,  for  about 
 two  thousand  years  more,  from  Moses  to  Christ  om-  Lord,  Holy 
 Scripture  was  only  among  the  people  of  Israel ;  and  yet  there  were 
 Gentiles  endued  in  those  days  with  Divine  faith,  as  appeareth  in  Job 
 and  his  friends.  Wherefore  during  so  many  ages  the  church  alone 
 was  the  decider  of  controversies,  and  instructor  of  the  faithful. 
 Neither  did  the  word  written  by  Moses  deprive  that  church  of  her 
 former  infallibihty,  or  other  qualities  requisite  for  a  judge  :  yea,  D. 
 Potter  acknowledgeth,  that  besides  the  law,  there  was  a  living  judge 
 in  the  Jewish  church,  endued  with  an  absolutely  infallible  du-ectioa 
 in  cases  of  moment,  as  all  points  belonging  to  Divine  faith  are.  Now 
 the  church  of  Christ  our  Lord  was  before  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
 Testament,  which  were  not  written  instantly,  nor  all  at  one  time,  but 
 successively  upon  several  occasions ;  and  some  after  the  decease  ot 
 most  of  the  apostles  ;  and  after  tliey  were  written  they  were  not 
 presently  known  to  all  churches ;  and  of  some  there  was  doubt  in 
 the  church  for  some  ages  after  our  Saviom-.  Shall  we  then  .say,  that 
 according  as  the  chm-ch  by  little  and  little  received  Holy  Scripture, 
 she  was  by  the  like  degrees  divested  of  her  possessed  infallibility  and 
 power  to  decide  controversies  in  religion  ?  that  some  churches  had 
 one  judge  of  controversies,  and  others  another  ?  that  with  months  or 
 years,  as  new  canonical  .scripture  grew  to  be  published,  the  church 
 
 «  Page  247. 
 
86  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 altered  her  whole  rule  of  faith,  or  judge   of  controversies  ?     After 
 the  apostles'  time,  and  after  the  writing  of  scriptures,  heresies  would 
 be  sure  to  rise,  requiring  in  God's  church,   for  their  discovery  and 
 condemnation,  infallibility,  either  to  write  new  canonical  scripture, 
 as  was  done  in  the  apostles'  time  by  occasion  of  emergent  heresies, 
 or  infallibility  to  interpet  scriptures  already  written,   or,  without 
 Scripture,  by  Divine  written  traditions,  and  assistance   of  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  to  determine  all  controversies ;  as  Tertulhan  saith, '  The  soul*  is 
 before  the  letter  ;  and  speech  before  books  ;  and  sense  before  style.' 
 Certainly  such  addition  of  Scripture,  with  derogation  or  subtraction 
 from  the  former  power  and  infallibility  of  the  church,  would  have 
 brought  to  the  world  division  in  matters  of  faith,  and  the  church  had 
 rather  lost  than  gained  by  Holy  Scriptm-e  (which  ought  to  be  fai-  from 
 our  tongues  and  thoughts) ;  it  being  manifest,  that  for  decision  of  con- 
 troversies infalhbihty  settled  in  a  living  judge  is  incomparably  more 
 useful  and  fit,  than  if  it  were  conceived  as  inherent  in  some  inani- 
 mate writing.     Is  there  such  repugnance  betwixt  infalhbihty  in  the 
 church,  and  existence  of  Scripture,  that  the  production  of  the  one 
 must  be  the  destruction  of  the  other  ?     Must   the  chm'ch  wax  dry. 
 by  giving  to  her  children  the  milk  of  sacred  writ  ?     No,  no  :  her  in- 
 fallibility was   and  is  derived  from  an  inexhausted  fountain.       If 
 protestants  will  have  the  Scripture  alone  for  their  judge,  let  them 
 iirst  ])roduce  some  scripture  athrming,  that  by  the  entering  thereof 
 infallibility  went  out  of  the  church,     D.  Potter  may  remember  what 
 himself  teacheth  ;  that  the  church  is  still  endued  with  infalhbility  in 
 points  fundamental ;    and,   consequently,  that  infallibility  in   the 
 church  doth  well  agree  with  the  truth,    the  sanctity,  yea,   with  the 
 sufficiency  of  Scrijjture,  for  all  matters  necessary  to  salvation.     I 
 would  therefore  gladly  know  out  of  what  text  he  imagineth  that  the 
 church,  by  the  coming  of  Scripture,  was  deprived  of  infallibility  in 
 some   points   and  not  in  others?     He  affirmeth,  that  the  Jewish 
 synagogue    retained   infalhbility  in   herself,    notwithstanding    the 
 writing  of  the  Old  Testament :  and  will  he  so  unworthily  and  unjustly 
 deprive  the  church  of  Christ  of  infallibility  by  reason  of  the  New 
 Testament  ?     Especially  if  we  consider  that  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 laws,  ceremonies,  rites,  punishments,  judgments,  sacraments,  sacri- 
 lices,  &c.,  were  more  particularly  and  minutely  dehvered  to  the  Jews, 
 than  in   the  New  Testament  is  done  :   our    Saviour  leaving    the 
 determination  or  declaration  of  particulars  to  his  spouse  the  church, 
 which  therefore  stands  in  need  of  infallibility  more  than  the  Jewish 
 s}-nagogue.     D.   Potter,t   against  this  argument,   drawn  from  the 
 powei-  and  infallibility  of  the  synagogue,  objects,  that  we  might  as 
 well  infer,  that  '  Christians  must  have  one  sovereign  prince  over  all, 
 because  the  Jews  had  one  chief  judge.'     But  the  disparity  is  very 
 clear  :  the  synagogue  was  a  type  and  figure  of  tke  church  of  Christ  ; 
 not  so  theu- civil  government  of  Christian  commonwealths  or  king- 
 doms :  the  church  succeeded  to  the  synagogue,  but  not  Christian 
 princes  to  Jewish  magistrates :  and  the  church  is  compared  to  a 
 house,  or  a  family  -,1  to  an  army,§  to  a  body,||  to  a  kingdom,1T  &c., 
 all  which  requne  one  master,  one  general,  one  head,  one  magistrate, 
 
 •  De  Test.  Anim.  cap.  5.  t  Page  24.  iHeb.  xiii.        i  Cant.  ii. 
 
 Ij'I  Cor.  X..  Eph.  iv.  H  Matt.  xii. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  SJ 
 
 one  spiritual  king;  as  our  blessed  Saviour  with  Jiet  unum  ovile 
 joined  unus  j)0.stor  y*  one  sheepfold,  one  pastor :  but  all  distinct 
 kingdoms  or  coramonwealths  are  not  one  army,  family,  &c.  And, 
 finally,  it  is  necessary  to  salvation  that  all  have  recourse  to  one 
 church  ;  but  for  temporal  weal,  there  is  no  need  that  all  submit  or 
 depend  upon  one  temporal  prince,  kingdom,  or  commonwealth  :  and 
 therefore  our  Saviour  hath  left  to  his  whole  church,  as  being  one, 
 one  law,  one  Scripture,  the  same  sacraments,  &c.  Whereas  king- 
 doms liave  their  several  laws,  different  governments,  diversity  of 
 powers,  magistracy,  &c.  And  so  this  objection  returneth  upon  D. 
 Potter.  For  as  in  the  one  community  of  the  Jews  tliere  was  one 
 power  and  judge  to  end  debates  and  resolve  difficulties ;  so  in  the 
 church  of  Christ,  which  is  one,  there  must  be  some  one  authority  to 
 decide  all  controversies  in  religion. 
 
 24.  "  This  discourse  is  excellently  proved  by  ancient  St.  Trena^usf 
 in  these  words  :  '  What  if  the  apostles  liad  not  left  scriptures,  ought 
 we  not  to  have  followed  the  order  of  tradition  which  tiiey  delivered 
 to  those  to  whom  they  committed  the  churches  ?  To  which  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.  It  is  easy  to  receive  the 
 truth  from  God's  church,  seeing  the  apostles  have  most  fully  de- 
 posited in  her,  as  in  a  rich  storehouse,  all  things  belonging  to  truth. 
 For  what  ?  If  thei-e  should  arise  any  contentioii  of  some  small 
 question,  ought  we  not  to  have  recourse  to  the  most  ancient 
 churches,  and  from  them  to  receive  what  is  certain  and  clear  con- 
 cerning the  present  question  ?' 
 
 2b.  "  Besides  all  this,  the  doctrine  of  pvotestants  is  destructive 
 of  itself  :  for  either  they  have  certain  and  infallible  means  not  to  err 
 in  interpreting  Scripture,  or  they  have  not  :  if  not,  then  the  Scrip- 
 ture (to  them)  cannot  be  a  sufficient  ground  for  infallible  faith,  nor 
 a  meet  judge  of  controversies.  If  they  have  certain  infallible  means, 
 and  so  cannot  err  in  their  interpretations  of  Scriptures,  then  they 
 are  able  with  infallibility  to  hear,  examine,  and  determine  all  con- 
 troversies of  faith;  and  so  they  may  be,  and  are,  judges  of  contro- 
 versies, although  they  use  the  Scriptures  as  a  rule.  And  thus, 
 against  their  own  doctrine,  they  constitute  another  judge  of  contro- 
 versies beside  Scripture  alone. 
 
 26.  "  Lastly,  1  ask  D.  Potter  whether  this  assertion,  '  Scripture 
 alone  is  judge  of  all  controversies  in  faith,'  be  a  fundamental  point  of 
 faith  or  no  ?  He  must  be  well-advised  before  he  say  that  it  is  a 
 fundamental  point ;  for  he  will  ha\  e  against  him  as  many  ])rotestants 
 as  teach  that  by  Scripture  alone  it  is  impossil^le  to  know  what  books 
 be  Scripture ;  which  yet,  to  protestants,  is  the  most  necessary  and 
 chief  ])oint  of  all  other.  D.  Covel  expressly  saith,  '  Doubtiessj  it  is 
 a  tolerable  opinion  in  the  church  of  Rome,  if  they  go  no  further,  as 
 some  of  them  do  not'  [he  should  have  said,  as  none  of  them  do],  'to 
 affirm  that  the  Scriptures  are  holy  and  Divine  in  themselves,  but 
 so  esieemed  by  us,  for  the  authority  of  the  church.'*  He  will  Hke- 
 wise  oppose  himself  to  those  his  brethren,  who  grant  that  contro- 
 
 •  John,  ex.  +  Lib.  v.  c.  4. 
 
 ;  in  his  defence  of  Mr.  Hooker's  Books,  art.  4.     .3!. 
 
OO  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOI-ICS. 
 
 versles  cannot  be  ended  without  some  external  living  authority,  as 
 v.e  noted  before.  Besides,  how  can  it  be  in  us  a  fundamental  error 
 to  say  the  Scripture  alone  is  not  judge  of  controversies,  seeing  (not- 
 withstanding this  our  belief)  we  use  for  interpreting  of  Scripture  all 
 the  means  which  they  prescribe  :  as  prayer,  conferring  of  places, 
 consulting  the  originals,  &c.,  and  to  these  add  the  instruction  and 
 authority  of  God's  church,  which  even  by  liis  confession  cannot  err 
 damnably,  and  may  afford  us  more  help  than  can  be  expected  from 
 the  industry,  learning,  or  wit  of  any  private  person  ?  and  iinall}-,  D. 
 Potter  grants  that  the  church  of  Rome  doth  not  maintain  any 
 fundamental  error  against  faith ;  and  consequently  he  cannot  affirm 
 that  our  docti-ine,  in  tliis  present  controversy,  is  damnable.  If  he 
 answer,  that  their  tenet  about  the  Scriptures  being  the  only  judge  of 
 controversies  is  not  a  fundamental  point  of  faith ;  then,  as  he 
 teacheth  that  the  universal  church  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental, 
 so  I  liope  he  will  not  deny  but  particular  churches  and  private  mea 
 are  mucii  more  obnoxious  to  error  in  such  points;  and  in  particular 
 in  this,  that  Scripture  alone  is  judge  of  controversies  :  and  so  tlie 
 very  principle  upon  which  their  whole  faith  is  grounded  remains  to 
 them  uncertain.  And  on  the  other  side^  for  the  selfsame  reason, 
 they  are  not  certain  but  that  the  church  is  judge  of  controversies ; 
 which  if  she  be,  then  their  case  is  lamentable  who  in  general  deny 
 her  this  authority,  and  in  particular  controversies  oppose  her  defini- 
 tions. Besides,  among  public  conclusions  defended  in  O.xford  in 
 tlie  year  1633,  to  the  questions,  '  Whether  the  church  have  authority 
 to  determine  controversies  in  faith,'  and  'to  'interpret  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture ?'  the  answer  to  both  is  affirmative. 
 
 27.  "  Since  then  the  visible  church  of  Christ  our  Lord  is  that 
 infallible  means  whereby  the  revealed  truths  of  Almighty  God  are 
 conveyed  to  our  understanding,  it  foUoweth,  that  to  oppose  her  de- 
 finitions is  to  resist   God  himself;    which  blessed  St.    Augustine 
 plainly  affirmeth,  when  speaking  of  the  controversy  about  rebaptiza- 
 ticn  of  such  as  were  baptized  by  heretics,  he  saith,  '  This*  is  neither 
 openly  nor  evidently  read,  neither  by  you  nor  by  rae ;  yet  if  there 
 were  any  wise  man,  of  whom  our  Saviour  had  given  testimony,  and 
 that  he  should  be  consulted  in  this  question,   wa  should  make  no 
 doubt  to  perform  what  he  should  say,  lest  we  might  seem  to  gainsay 
 not  him  so  much  as   Christ,  by  whose  testimony  he  was  recom- 
 mended.    Now  Christ  beareth  witness  to  his  church.'     And  a  little 
 after,  '  Whosoever  refuseth  to  follow  the  practice  of  the  church  doth 
 resist  our  Saviour  Jiimself,  who  by  his  testimony  recommends  the 
 church.'      I  conclude  therefore  with  this  argument :    Whosoever 
 reslsteth  that  means  which  infallibly  projioseth  to  us  God's  word  or 
 revelation,    commits    a   sin  which  unrei)ented  excludes   salvation; 
 but  whosoever  resisteth  Christ's  visible  chm-ch,    doth  resist   that 
 means  which  infallibly  {jroposeth  to  us  God's  word  or  revelation; 
 therefore,  whosoever  resisteth   Christ's  visible  church,  commits  a 
 sin  which  unrepented  excludes  salvation.     Now  what  visible  church 
 was  extant  when  Luther  began  his  pretended  reformation,  whether 
 it  were  t)ie   Roman   or  protestant    chiu-ch ;  and  whether  he  and 
 other  protestants   do  not  oppose  that   visible    church,  vvhich  was 
 De  Unit.  Eccles.  c.  22. 
 
CHAIilTY    MAINTAINED    3Y    CATHOLICS.  89 
 
 spread  over  the  world  before  and  m  Luther's  time ;  is  easy  to  be 
 determined,  and  i)nporteth  every  one  most  seriously  to  ponder,  as  a 
 thing  whereon  eternal  salvation  dependeth.  And  because  our 
 adversai'ies  do  here  most  insist  upon  the  distinction  of  points  funda- 
 mental and  not  fundamental,  and  in  particular  teach  that  the 
 chiurch  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental,  it  \Aill  be  necessary  to 
 examine  the  truth  and  weight  of  this  evasion,  which  shall  be  done  in 
 the  next  chapter." 
 
ANS^^7£p,  TO  THE  SECOND  CHAPTER 
 
 Concerning  the  means  icherehy  the  revealed  truths  of  God  are  con- 
 veyedto  our  understanding,  and  ivhich  must  determine  controver- 
 sies in  faith  and  religion. 
 
 Ad  §  1.  He  that  would  usurp  an  absolute  lordship  and  tyranny  over 
 any  people,  need  not  put  himself  to  the  trouble  and  diificulty  of 
 abrogating  and  disannulling  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  ot 
 Rome,  to  establish  her  tyranny  over  men's  consciences,  needed  not 
 either  to  abolish  or  corrupt  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  pillars  and  sup- 
 porters of  Christian  liberty  (which  in  regard  of  the  numerous  multi- 
 tude of  copies  dispersed  through  all  places,  translated  into  almost 
 all  languages,  guarded  with  ail  solicitous  care  and   industry,    had 
 been  an  impossible  attempt) ;  but  the  more  ex])edite  way,  and  there- 
 fore more  likely  to  be  successful,  was  to  gain  the  opinion  and  esteem 
 of  the  public  and  authorised  interi:)reter  of  them,  and  the  authority 
 of  adding  to  them  what  doctrine  she  pleased,  under  the  title  of  tra- 
 ditions or  definitions.     For  by  this  means  she  might  both  serve  her- 
 self of  all  those  clauses  of  Scnpture  which  might  be  drawn  to  cast  a 
 favourable  countenance  upon  her  ambitious  pretences,  Avhich  in  case 
 the  Scripture  had  been  abolished  she  could  not  have  done  ;  and  yet 
 be  secure  enough  of  having  either  her  power  limited,  or  her  corrup- 
 tions and  abuses  reformed  by  them  ;  this  being  once  settled  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  men's 
 reason  and  understanding  to  be  so,  but  that  which  the  church  of 
 Rome  should  declare  to  be  so,  seemed  it  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 
 further  than  you  please),  but  yom-  servants  and  instruments,  always 
 pressed  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  Jeics !  to  pre- 
 tend a  great  deal  of  esteem,  and  respect,  and  reverence  to  them,  as 
 
SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE,    ETC.  91 
 
 here  you  do.  But  to  little  purpose  is  verbal  reverence  \vithout 
 entire  submission  and  sincere  obedience ;  and  as  our  Saviour  said  of 
 some,  so  the  Scripture,  coukl  it  speak,  I  beheve  would  say  to  you. 
 Why  call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  that  which  J  command  you  t 
 Cast  away  the  vain  and  arrogant  pretence  of  infallibility,  which 
 makes  your  errors  incurable.  Leave  picturing  God,  and  worshipping 
 him  by  pictures.  Teach  not  for  doctrine  the  commandments  of  men. 
 Debar  not  the  laity  of  the  testament  of  Christ's  blood.  Let  yom- 
 public  prayers,  and  psalms  and  hymns,  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  worshipping  angels  v<h\c\\  St.  Paul  condemns. 
 Teach  no  more  })roper  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  Christ's  body  and  blood.  Acknowledge  the  gift  of 
 contiuency,  without  marriage,  not  to  be  given  at  all.  Let  not  the 
 weapons  of  your  warfare  be  carnal,  such  as  are  massacres,  treasons, 
 persecutions,  and,  in  a  word,  all  means  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  cus- 
 tody :"  but  upon  universal  tradition,  of  which  you  are  J)ut  a  little 
 part.  Neither,  if  it  were  true  that  })rotestants  acknowledged  the 
 integrity  of  it  to  have  been  guarded  by  your  alone  custody,  ^^  ere  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  poison  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  agamst  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  qualify  them  well  enough 
 ■»vith  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  chm'ch  was. 
 to  judge  of  the  sense  of  Scripture,  not  to  be  judged  by  it." 
 
 3.  For  whereas  you  say,  "  no  cause  imaginable  could  avert  j'our 
 wjU  from  giving  the  function  of  supreme  and  sole  judge  to  holy 
 writ  :  but  that  the  thing  is  impossible,  and  that  by  this  means  con- 
 troversies are  increased,  and  not  ended;"  you  mean,  perhaps,  that 
 you  can  or  will  imagine  no  other  cause  but  these.  But  sure  there  is 
 little  reason  you  should  measure  other  men's  imaginations  by  your 
 own,  who  perhaps  mav  be  so  clouded  and  veiled  with  prejuchce, 
 that  you  cannot,  or  will  not,  see  that  which  is  most  manifest.  For 
 what  indifferent  and  unprejudicate  man  may  not  easily  conceive 
 another  cause  wliich  (I  do  not  say  does,  but  certainly)  may  pervert 
 
92  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 your  wills,  and  avert  your  understandings  from  submitting  your 
 religion  and  church  to  a  trial  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  men's  consciences, 
 and  all  that  depends  uj)on  it.  So  that  though  Diana  of  the  Ephe- 
 sians  be  cried  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 
 hy  this  craft  we  have  our  living  j  by  this  craft,  I  mean  of  keeping 
 your  proselytes  from  an  indifferent  trial  of  your  religion  by  Scripture, 
 and  making  them  yield  up  and  captivate  their  judgment  unto  yours. 
 Yet  had  you  only  said  de  facto,  that  no  other  cause  chd  avert  your 
 own  will  from  this,  but  only  these  which  you  pretend,  out  of  charity 
 I  should  have  believed  you.  But  seeing  you  speak  not  of  yourself, 
 but  of  all  of  your  side,  whose  hearts  you  cannot  know,  and  profess 
 not  onlv  that  there  is  no  other  cause,  but  that  "  no  other  is  imagin- 
 able," i  could  not  let  this  pass  without  a  censure.  As  for  the 
 impossibility  of  Scriptm-es  being  the  sole  judge  of  controversies,  that 
 is,  the  sole  rule  for  men  to  judge  them  by  (for  we  mean  nothing 
 else),  you  only  affirm  it  without  proof,  as  if  the  thing  were  evident 
 of  istelf :  and  therefore  I,  conceiving  the  contrary  to  be  more  evident, 
 might  well  content  myself  to  deny  it  without  refutation  :  yet  I  can- 
 not but  desire  you  to  tell  me,  if  Scripture  cannot  be  the  judge  of  any 
 controversy,  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 
 Scriptm-e  itself  is  the  subject  of  the  question,  which  cannot  be  deter- 
 mined 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  Scrij)ture,  and  that 
 only,  and  would  require  no  more  of  any  man  but  to  do  so,  it  were 
 impossible  but  that  all  controversies  touching  thing  necessaiy  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  boys'  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  :  only  we  deny  that  it  excludes  umM'itten  tradition."  As 
 if  you  should  have  said,"  We  acknowledge  it  to  be  as  perfect  a  rule 
 as  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  you  retraction  of  it;  for  both  cannot  possibly , stand 
 together.  For  if  you  will  stand  to  what  you  have  granted,  that  Scrip- 
 ture is  as  perfect  a  rule  of  faith  as  a  writing  can  be,  you  must  then 
 grant  it  both  so  complete,  that  it  needs  no  addition,  and  so  evident, 
 that  it  needs  no  interpretation  :  for  both  these  properties  are  reqiu- 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  93 
 
 site  to  a  perfect  rule,  and  a  writing  is  capable  of  both  these  pro- 
 perties. 
 
 6.  That  both  these  properties  are  Tequisite  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  itself  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  requsite  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 
 complete  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  ^vl'itten. 
 For  if  such  a  complete  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  com- 
 plete 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  wTiting  all  these,  which  she 
 pretends  to  be  Divine  unwritten  traditions,  and  add  them  to  the  veri- 
 ties already  Amtten  ?  And  whether  she  can  set  us  down  such  inter- 
 pretations of  all  obscurities  in  the  faith  as  shall  need  no  further 
 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  Di\'ine  verities,  if  she  cannot  A'^Tite 
 them  do'^Ti ;  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  complete  as  to  need  no  addition,  and 
 so  e\adent  as  to  need  no  interpretation.  Lastly,  whatsoever  your 
 chm-ch  can  do  or  not  do,  no  man  can,  without  blasphemy,  deny  that 
 Christ  Jesus,  if  he  had  pleased,  could  have  ^yYit  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  intel- 
 ligible. And  if  Christ  could  have  done  this,  then  the  thing  might 
 have  been  done :  a  writing  there  might  have  been  endowed  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. 
 
94  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 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  he  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  read  or  written  in  a  book,  but  only  by 
 tradition,  which  is  a  thing  credible  of  itself;  yet  it  may  be  so  in 
 itself,  and  contain  all  the  material  objects,  all  the  particular  articles 
 of  our  faith,  without  any  dependence  upon  tradition ;  even  this  also 
 not  excepted,  that  this  writing  doth  contain  the  rule  of  faith.  Now 
 when  protestants  affirm  against  papists,  that  Scriptm-e  is  a  perfect 
 rule  of  faith,  their  meaning  is  not,  that  by  Scripture  all  things  ab- 
 solutely 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  becaiise  you  can  show  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  ob- 
 jects of  faith,  is  a  complete  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  tlie  addition  of  other 
 books  of  Scripture  ;  therefore  the  perfection  of  the  whole  Scripture  ex- 
 eludes  not  the  addition  of  unwritten  tradition."  I  answer,  every  text  of 
 Scripture,  though  it  hath  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  'perjat.  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, 
 cousin-german  to  the  former  :  "When  the  lirst  books  of  Scripture 
 were  ^mtten,  they  did  not  exclude  unwritten  traditions ;  therefore 
 now  also,  that  all  the  books  of  Scripture  are  written,  traditions  are 
 not  excluded."  The  sense  of  which  argument  (^if  it  have  any)  niust 
 be  this :  when  only  a  part  of  the  Scripture  was  written,  that  a  part 
 of  the  Divine  doctrine  was  unwritten ;  therefore  now,  when  all  the 
 Scripture  is  written,  yet  some  part  of  the  Divine  doctrine  is  yet  un- 
 written. If  you  say  your  conclusion  is  not,  that  it  is  so,  but  without 
 disparagement  to  Scrijjture  may  be  so  ;  ^\ithout  disparagement  to 
 the  truth  of  Scripture,  I  grant  it ;  but  without  disparagement  to  the 
 Scriptm-e's  being  a  perfect  rule,  I  deny  it.  And  now  the  question 
 is  not  of  the  truth,  but  the  perfection  of  it,  whicli  are  very  different 
 things,  though  you  would  fam  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  God's  word  written 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    COKTROVERSIES.  95 
 
 ^nd  umATitten,  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 
 M'hole  covenant  between  God  and  man,  is  now  ^mtten.  Whereas,  if 
 he  had  pleased,  he  might  so  have  disposed  it,  that  part  might  have 
 been  written,  and  part  imwritten;  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  nnwritten. 
 Y/e  know  no  man  therefore  that  says  it  were  any  injury  to  the 
 written  word  to  be  joined  with  the  unwritten,  if  there  were  any 
 wherewith  it  might  be  joined;  but  that  we  deny.  The  fidelity  of  a 
 keeper  may  very  well  consist  with  the  authority  of  the  thing  com- 
 mitted to  his  custody.  But  we  know  no  one  society  of  Christians 
 that  is  such  a  faithful  keeper  as  you  pretend.  The  Scripture  itself 
 was  not  kept  so  faithfully  by  you,  but  that  you  suffered  infinite 
 variety  of  readings  to  creep  mto  it ;  all  which  could  not  possibly  be 
 Di\'ine ;  and  yet,  in  several  parts  of  your  church,  all  of  them,  until 
 the  last  age,  were  so  esteemed.  The  inter})retations  of  obsciure 
 places  of  Scriptvu-e,  which  without  question  the  apostles  taught  the 
 primitive  Christians,  are  wholly  lost;  there  remains  no  certainty 
 scarce  of  any  one.  Those  worlds  of  miracles  which  our  Saviour  did, 
 which  were  not  ^'iTitten,  for  want  of  writing  are  vanished  out  of  the 
 memory  of  men ;  and  many  ])rotitable  things  which  the  apostles 
 taught  and  writ  not — as  that  which  St.  Paul  glanceth  at  in  his 
 Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  of  the  cause  of  the  hindrance 
 of  the  coming  of  antichrist — are  wholly  lost  and  extmguished;  so 
 unfaithful  or  negUgent  hath  been  this  keeper  of  Divine  verities,  whose 
 eyes,  like  the  Keeper's  of  Israel  (you  say),  have  never  slumbered 
 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  God's 
 appointment.  Had  he  intended  any  such  judge  he  v.ould  have 
 named  him,  lest  otherwise  (as  now  it  is)  our  judge  of  controversies 
 should  be  our  greatest  controversy. 
 
 11.  Ad  §  2 — G.  In  your  second  paragraph,  you  sum  up  those 
 arguments  wherev»ith  you  intend  to  prove  that  "  Scripture  alone 
 cannot  be  judge  in  controversies  :"  wherein  I  profess  unto  you 
 beforehand,  that  you  will  fight  without  an  adversary.  For  though 
 protestants,  being  warranted  by  some  of  the  fathers,  have  called 
 Scripture  the  judge  of  controversy,  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  jiulge  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  thscretion,  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  natm-al  man,  is  reason  ;  if  he  be  already 
 a  Christian,  Scripture  ;  which  we  say  is  a  rule  to  judge  controversies 
 by.     Yet  not  all  simply,  but  all  the  controversies  of  Christians,  of 
 
96  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY   RULE 
 
 those  that  are  already  agreed  upon  this  first  jjrinciple,  that  the 
 Scripture  is  the  word  of  God.  But  that  there  is  any  msm, 
 ov  any  company  of  men,  appointed  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  e\ddence  of  truth  hath  made 
 you  confess  in  plain  terms  in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter ;  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  courtesy  we  will  consider  them, 
 
 12.  Yom'  first  is  this  :  "  A  judge  must  be  a  person  fit  to  end  con- 
 troversies ;  but  the  Scripture  is  not  a  person,  nor  fit  to  end  contro- 
 versies, no  more  than  the  law  would  be  without  the  judges  ;  there- 
 fore, though  it  may  be  a  rule,  it  cannot  be  a  judge."  Which  conclu- 
 sion 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  coidd  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  there- 
 fore Scripture  to  be  such  a  rule,  and  it  will  quickly  take  away  all 
 necessity  of  having  an  infalhble  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  deshous  to  understand  aright,  and  obey  it,  he 
 that  says  it  were  not  fit  to  end  controversies,  must  either  want  under- 
 standing himself,  or  think  this  world  wants  it.  Now  the  Scripture, 
 we  pretend,  in  things  necessary  is  plain  and  perfect ;  and  men,  we 
 say,  are  obliged,  imder  pain  of  damnation,  to  seek  the  true  sense  of 
 it,  and  not  to  wrest  it  to  their  preconceived  fancies.  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.  Yom-  next  encounter  is  with  them  who,  acknowledging  the 
 Scripture  a  rule  only,  and  not  a  judge,  make  the  Holy  Ghost,  speak- 
 ing in  Scriptui-e,  the  judge  of  controversies.  Which  you  disprove  by 
 saying,  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  speaking  only  in  Scripture,  is  no  more 
 intelhgible  to  us  than  the  Scriptm-e  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,  yovi  will  not,  I  hope,  offer  to  pretend  that  their  decrees, 
 the  writings  of  men,  are  more  capalile  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 
 intelhgible  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 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  9^ 
 
 for  the  same  reason.  If  the  pope's  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  wheu 
 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  slrould 
 remain  obscure,  until  he  please  to  declare  them.  Besides,  he  can 
 (which  you  cannot  warrant  me  of  the  pope  or  a  council)  speak  at 
 first  so  plainly,  that  his  words  shall  need  no  further  ex])lanation  ; 
 and  so  in  things  necessary  we  believe  he  hath  done.  And  if  you 
 say,  the  decrees  of  councils,  touching  controversies,  though  they  be 
 not  the  judge,  yet  they  are  the  judge's  sentence  ;  so  I  say,  the 
 Scripture,  though  not  the  judge,  is  the  sentence  of  the  judge.  X^Tien 
 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  : 
 this  I  grant  is  true  ;  but  I  may  not  grant  that  a  judge  (such  an  one 
 as  we  dispute  of)  is  necessary,  eith  er  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  it  in  plain 
 places,  than  to  have  a  judge  to  interpret  the  meaning  of  a  council's 
 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. 
 
 13*The  law-maker  speaking  in  the  law,  I  grant  it,  is  no  more 
 easily  understood  than  the  law  itself,  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  shov/  a  necessity  of  a  visible  judge  in  controversies  of  religion,  I 
 say  is  sophistical ;   and  that  for  many  reasons. 
 
 14.  Fu-st,  Because  the  variety  of  civil  cases  is  infinite,  and  there- 
 fore there  cannot  be  possibly  laws  enough  pro^^ded  for  the  deter- 
 mination of  them  ;  and  therefore  there  must  be  a  judge  to  supply, 
 out  cf  the  principles  of  reason,  the  interpretation  of  the  law  where  it 
 is  defective.  But  the  Scripture  (we  say)  is  a  perfect  rule  cf  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  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 
 
 H 
 
98  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 and  extended  to  all  cases,  there  would  be  little  need  of  judges.  Nott 
 in  matters  of  religion,  when  the  question  is,  whether  every  man  be 
 a  fit  judge  and  chooser  for  liimseif,  we  suppose  men  honest,  and 
 such  as  understand  the  diiierence  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  easy,  and  consequently  every  man 
 in  this  cause  to  be  a  competent  judge  for  himself ;  because  it  con- 
 cerns himself  to  judge  right  as  much  as  eternal  happiness  is  worth. 
 And  if  through  his  o\mi  default  he  judge  amiss,  he  alone  shall  suffer 
 for  it. 
 
 17.  Fourthly,  In  civil  controversies  we  are  obliged  only  to  exter- 
 nal 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  aright.  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  hath  decreed,  to  compel  men  to  obey  his  sentence  ;  otherwise, 
 I  believe,  laws  alone  would  be  to  as  much  purpose  for  the  ending  of 
 diiFerences,  as  laws  and  judges  both.  But  all  the  power  in  the 
 world  is  neither  fit  to  convince  nor  able  to  compel  a  man's  con- 
 science to  consent  to  any  thing.  Worldly  terror  may  prevail  so  far 
 as  to  make  men  profess  a  rehgion  Avhich  they  beheve  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  (if  God  commands  him  to  profess  it),  or  to  profess  what  he 
 does  not  beheve,  all  the  powers  in  the  world  are  too  weak,  with  aU 
 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  judg- 
 ment, 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  plaintiiF  must  injure  the  defendant  by  disquieting  his  possession, 
 or  the  defendant  wrong  the  plaintiff  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  ourselves  no 
 
WHEREBY    TO   JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  99 
 
 lia^m,  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.  Eighthly,  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  ourselves. 
 
 22.  Ninthly  and  lastly,  For  the  ending  of  cinl  controversies,  who 
 does  not  see  it  is  absolutely  necessary,  that  not  only  judges  should 
 be  appointed,  but  that  it  should  be  kno\\"n  and  unquestioned  who 
 they  are  ?  Thus  all  the  judges  of  our  land  are  known  men,  kno^vn. 
 *o  be  judges,  and  no  man  can  doubt  or  question  but  these  are  the 
 men.  Othermse,  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  than  end  them  ? 
 *So  likewise  if  our  Saviour,  the  King  of  Heaven,  had  intended  that 
 all  controversies  in  rehgion  should  be  by  some  visible  judge  finally 
 determined,  who  can  doubt  but  in  plain  terms  he  would  have  ex- 
 pressed himself  about  this  matter?  He  would  have  said  plainly, 
 "  The  bishop  of  Rome  I  have  api)ointed  to  decide  all  emergent  con- 
 troversies ;"  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  tiiat  can  believe  it, 
 let  him. 
 
 23.  All  these  reasons,  I  hope,  will  convince  you,  that  though  we 
 have,  and  have  great  necessity  of,  judges  in  civil  and  criminal 
 causes  ;  jet  you  may  not  conclude  from  thence,  that  there  is  any 
 public  authorised  judge  to  determine  controversies  in  rehgion,  nor 
 any  necessity  there  should  be  any. 
 
 24.  "  But  the  Scripture  stands  in  need  of  some  watchful  and  un- 
 erring eye  to  guard  it,  by  means  of  whose  assured  Wgilanc}-  we  may 
 undoubtedly  receive  it  sincere  and  pure."  Very  true ;  Jjut  this  is  no 
 other  than  the  ^'s-atchful  eye  of  Divine  Providence  ;  the  goodness 
 whereof  will  never  suffer  that  the  Scripture  should  be  depraved  and 
 corrupted,  but  that  in  them  should  be  always  extant  a  cons})icuous 
 and  plain  way  to  eternal  happiness.  Neither  can  anything  be  more 
 palpably  unconsisteut  with  his  goodness,  than  to  suffer  Scripture  to 
 be  undiscernibly  cormpted  in  anv  matter  of  moment,  and  yet  to 
 exact  of  men  the  belief  of  those  verities  which,  without  the  fault,  or 
 knowledge,  or  possibility  of  prevention,  were  defaced  out  of  them. 
 So  that  God  reqmring  of  men  to  believe  Scripture  in  its  purity, 
 engages  himself  to  see  it  preserved  in  sufficient  purity ;  and  you 
 need  not  fear  but  he  will  satisfy  his  engagement.  You  say,  *^we 
 can  have  no  assurance  of  this  but  your  church's  vigilancv."  '  But  if 
 we  had  no  other,  we  were  in  a  hard  case  ;  for  who  could  then  assure 
 
 *  In  the  Oxford  c(liti..n,  IG38,  what  precedes  of  this  paragraph  is  made  the 
 21st:  there  are  also  some  further  trauspositions,  paragraphs  2l,  Tl  23,  in  whick 
 the  second  edition,  printed  m.  I<«ndon   has  been  foUowed 
 
100  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 US  that  your  church  hath  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  the  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  church's  vigilancy  from  having  their  Scriptm*e 
 altered  from  the  purity  of  the  original  in  many  places.  For  of  dif- 
 ferent 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  ascertained  of  it  ? 
 First,  the  thing  is  not  evident  of  itself;  which  is  evident,  because  many 
 do  not  believe  it :  neither  can  anything  be  pretended  to  give  evidence 
 to  it,  but  only  some  ])laces  of  Scripture ;  of  whose  incorruption. 
 more  than  any  other  what  is  it  that  can  secure  me  ?  If  you  say, 
 the  church's  vigilancy,  you  are  are  in  a  circle,  proving  the  Scriptures 
 uncorrupted  by  the  church's  vigilancy,  and  the  church's  vigilancy  by 
 the  incorruption  of  some  places  of  Scri})ture  ;  and  again,  the  incor- 
 ruption of  those  places  by  the  church's  vigilancy.  If  you  name 
 any  other  means,  then  that  means  A^  hich  secures  me  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures' incorruption  in  those  places,  will  also  serve  to  assure  me  of 
 the  same  in  other  places.  For  my  part,  abstracting  from  Divine 
 Providence,  Avhich  w  ill  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  human  assurance  of  that  than  this,  in  regard  of 
 divers  considerations,  which  make  it  more  credible  "  that  the  Scrip- 
 ture hath  been  preserved  from  any  material  alteration ;"  yet  my  as- 
 surance of  both  is  of  the  same  kind  and  condition;  both  moral 
 assurances,  and  neither  physical  nor  mathematical. 
 
 25.  To  the  next  argument  the  reply  is  obvious :  that  though 
 we  do  not  beheve  the  books  of  Scripture  to  be  canonical,  because 
 they  say  so  (for  other  books  that  are  not  canonical  may  say  they  ajre, 
 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  uni- 
 versal tradition,  which  is  a  thing  credible  of  itself,  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  merely  volun- 
 tary. I  might  as  well  rest  upon  the  judgment  of  the  next  man  I 
 meet,  or  upon  the  chance  of  a  lottery  for  it.  For  by  this  means  I 
 onty  know  I  might  err,  but  by  relying  on  you  I  know  I  should  err. 
 But  yet  (to  return  you  one  sup]iose  for  another),  suppose  I  should 
 for  this  and  all  other  things  submit  to  her  direction,  how  could  she 
 assure  me  that  I  shoidd  not  be  misled  by  doing  so  ?  She  pretends 
 indeed  infallibility  herein,  but  how  can  she  assure  us  that  she  hath 
 it  ?  What,  by  Scripture  ?  That,  you  say,  cannot  assure  us  of  its 
 own  infallibihty,  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 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  101 
 
 affirmation  there  will  remain  the  same  question  still — how  can  it 
 prove  itself  to  be  infallibly  true  ?  Neither  can  there  be  an  end  of 
 the  like  multiplied  demands,  till  we  rest  in  something,  evident  of 
 itself,  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  settled  on,  it  must  of  necessity,  like  the  island  of  Delos,  float 
 up  and  down  for  ever.  And  yet  upon  this  point,  according  to 
 papists,  all  other  controversies  in  faith  depend. 
 
 •26.  To  §  7 — 14.  The  sum  and  substance  of  the  ten  next  para- 
 graphs is  this :  That  it  appears  by  the  confessions  of  some  pro- 
 testants,  and  the  contentions  of  others,  that  the  questions  about  the 
 canon  of  Scripture,  what  it  is  ;  and  about  the  various  readings  and 
 translations  of  it,  which  is  true,  and  which  not ;  are  not  to  be  deter- 
 mined by  Scripture,  and  therefore  that  all  controversies  of  religion 
 ai'Q  not  decidable  by  Scripture. 
 
 2/.  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 
 aie  concerning  the  Scripture  itself;  for  as  that  general  saying  of 
 Scripture,  he  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,  is  most  true;  though 
 yet  St.  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 
 itself  Just  as  a  merchant  showing  a  shij)  of  his  own  may  say,  "  All 
 my  substance  is  in  this  ship,"  and  yet  never  intend  to  deny  that  his 
 ship  is  part  of  his  substance,  nor  yet  to  say  that  his  ship  is  in 
 itself.  Or  as  a  man  may  say,  that  a  whole  house  is  su])ported  by 
 the  foundation,  and  yet  never  m^an  to  exclude  the  foundation  from 
 being  a  part  of  the  house,  or  to  say  that  it  is  supported  by  itself. 
 Or,  as  you  yom-selves  use  to  say,  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  is  the  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  con- 
 clusion, tlierefore,  that  these  "  questions  touching  Scripture  are 
 not  decidable  by  Scripture,"  you  needed  not  have  cited  any  authori- 
 ties nor  urged  any  reason  to  prove  it  ;  it  is  evident  of  itself,  and  I 
 grant  it  without  more  ado,  15 nt  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  mere  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  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  anything  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  showmg 
 apparent  and  irreconcileable  contradictions  between  it  and  some 
 
^^^  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 other  book  confessedly  canonical^  yet  affirmatively  it  cannot,  but 
 only  by  the  testimonies  of  the  ancient  clnu'ches  ;  any  book  bemg  to 
 be  received  as  undoubtedly  canonical,  or  to  be  doubted  of  as  uncer- 
 tain, or  rejected  as  apocryphal,  according  as  it  ^vas  received,  or 
 doubted  of,  are  rejected  by  them.  Then  for  the  question,  "  Of 
 various  reading's,  which  is  the  true  ?"  it  is  in  reason  evident,  and  con- 
 fessed 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  satisfy  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  cer- 
 tainty you  have  that  yom-  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  igno- 
 rant 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  comi)are  both  together,  and  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,  there  to  be  prudent  in  the  choice  of  the  guides  they 
 follow.  Which  way  of  proceeding,  if  it  be  subject  to  some  possible 
 error,  yet  it  is  the  best  that  either  we  or  you  have  ;  and  it  is  not  re- 
 quired that  we  use  any  better  than  the  best  we  have. 
 
 28,  You  will  say,  "  dependence  on  your  church's  infallibility  is  a 
 better."  I  answer,  it  would  be  so,  if  we  coidd  be  infallibly  certain 
 that  your  church  is  infallible ;  that  is,  if  it  were  either  evident  of 
 itself,  and  seen  by  its  own  light,  or  could  be  reduced  unto  and  settled 
 upon  some  principle  that  is  so.  But  seeing  you  yourselves  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  3'our  confession,  only  probable  and  prudential  motives  :  certainly 
 it  will  be  to  very  little  piu'pose  to  put  off  yoixr  imcertainty  for  the 
 first  turn,  and  to  fall  upon  it  at  the  second ;  to  please  yourselves  in 
 building  your  house  iqjon  an  imaginary .  rock,  when  }ou  yourselves 
 see  and  confess  that  this  very  rock  stands  itself  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  infal- 
 hble,  and  indeed  hath  not  the  real  prescription  of  this  privilege,  but 
 only  pleaseth  herself  with  her  false  imagination  and  vain  presump- 
 tion of  it ;  as  1  shall  hereafter  demonstrate  by  many  unanswerable 
 arguments. 
 
 2.9.  No>^,  seeing  I  make  no  scruple  or  difficulty  to  grant  the  con- 
 clusion of  this  discourse,  that  "  these  controversies  about  Scripture 
 are  not  decidable  l)y  Scri})ture  ;"  and  have  showed  that  your  deduc- 
 tion from  it,  that  "  therefore  they  are  to  be  determined  by  the  au- 
 thority of  some  present  church,"  is  irrational  and  inconsequent ;  I 
 might  well  for'jcar  to  tire  invself  with  an  exact  and  iiunctuai  exami- 
 
TVHERE3Y    TO    JUl/GE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  103 
 
 nation  of  your  premises  xara  Tri^a.,  which  whether  they  he  true  or 
 false  is  to  the  question  disputed  wholly  impertinent ;  yet  because 
 you  shall  not  complain  of  tergiversation,  I  will  run  over  them,  and 
 let  nothing  that  is  material  and  considerable  pass  without  some  stric- 
 ture or  animadversion. 
 
 30,  You  pretend  that  M.  Hooker  acknowledgeth,   that   "  that 
 whereon  we  must  rest   our  assurance  that  the  Scripture  is  God's 
 ■word,  is  the  church,"   and  for  this  acknowledgment  you  refer  us  to 
 1.  iii.  §  8.*     Let  the  reader  consult  the  place,  and  he  shall  find  that 
 he  and  M.  Hooker  have  been  much  abused,  both  by  you  here,  and 
 by  M.  Brerely  and  others  before  you ;  and  that  M.  Hooker  hath  not 
 not  one  syllable  to  yovu-  pretended  purpose,  but  very  much  directly 
 to  the  contrary.     There  he  tells  us,  indeed,  '"  that  ordinarily  the  first 
 introduction  and  probable  motive  to  the  belief  of  the  verity  is  the 
 authority  of  the  chm*ch  ;"  but  that  it  is  the  last  foundation  whereon 
 our  belief  liereof  is  rationally  grounded,  that,  in  the  same  place,  he 
 plainly  denies.     His  words  are,  "  Scripture  teacheth  us  that  saving 
 truth  which  God  hath  discovered  unto  the  world  by  revelation,  and 
 it  presumeth  us  taught  otherwise  that  itself  is  Divine  and  sacred. 
 The  question  then  being  by  what  means  we  are  taught  this,  fsome 
 answer,   that  to  learn  it  we  have  no  other  wa}'  than  only  tradition ; 
 as  namely,  that   so  we  believe,  because   both  we  from  our  prede- 
 cessors, and  they  from  theirs,  have  so  received.    But  is  this  enough? 
 That  which  all  men's  experience  teacheth  them  may  not  in  any  wise 
 be  denied.     And  by  experience  we  all  know,  Jthat  the  first  outward 
 motive  leading  men  so  to  esteem  of  the  Scriptm-e  is  the  authority  of 
 God's  church.     For  when  we  know  §the  whole  church  of  God  hath 
 that  opinion  of  the  Scripture,  we  judge  it  even  at  the  first  an  impu- 
 dent thing  for  any  man  bred  and  brought  up  in  the  church  to  be  of 
 a  contrary  mind  A^dthout  cause.     Afterwards,  the  more  we   bestow 
 our  labour  in  reading  or  heavhig  the  mysteries  thereof,  ||  the  more  we 
 find  that  the  thing  itself  cloth  answer  our  received  opinion  concerning 
 it ;  so  that  the  former  inducement  prevailing  somewhat^  with  us  be- 
 fore, doth  now  much  more  prevail,  vrhen  the  very  thing  hath  minis- 
 tered further  reason.     If  infidels  or  atheists  chance  at  any  time  to 
 call  it  in  question,  this  giveth  us  occasion  to  sift  what  reason  there 
 is,  whereby  the  testimony  of  the   church  concerning  Scripture,  and 
 our  ovra  persuasion  which  Scripture  itself  hath  confirmed,  may  be 
 proved  a  truth  infallible.**     In  which  case  the  ancient  fathers  being 
 often  constramed  to  show  what  waiTant  they  had  so  much  to  rely  upon 
 
 •  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  boofe  3,  cb.  8,  sect.  13,  14,  vol.  i.  p.  474.  Oif,  edit,  1336' 
 
 +  So?ne  answer  so,  but  he  doth  not. 
 
 1  The  first  outward  motive,  not  the  last  assurance  whereon  r/e  rest. 
 
 5  The  whole  church,  that  he  speaks  of,  seems  to  be  that  particular  church 
 ■wherein  a  man  is  bred  and  brought  up;  and  the  authority  of  this  he  makes  au 
 argument  which  presseth  a  man's  modesty  more  than  his  reason.  And  in  saying-, 
 "  it  seems  impudent  to  be  of  a  contrary  mind  without  cause,"  he  implies,  there 
 may  be  a  just  cause  to  be  of  a  contrary  mind,  and  that  then  it  were  no  impudence 
 to  be  so. 
 
 il  Therefore  the  authority  of  the  church  is  not  the  pause  whereon  we  rest ;  we 
 had  need  of  more  assurance,  and  the  intrinsical  arguments  afford  it. 
 
 ^  Somewhat,  but  not  much,  until  it  be  backed  and  enforced  by  further  reason  ; 
 itself,  therefore,  is  not  the  further  reason,  and  the  last  resolution. 
 
 •*  Observe,  I  pray,  our  persuasion,  and  the  testimony  of  the  church  concern- 
 ing Scripture,  may  be  proved  true;  therefore  neither  of  them  was  in  his  account 
 the  furthest  proof. 
 
104  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 the  Scriptures,  eudeavoiired  still  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the 
 books  of  God  by  arguments  such  as  unbelievers  themselves  must  needs 
 think  reasonable,  if  they  judged  thereof  as  they  should.  Neither  is  it  a 
 thing  impossible,  or  greatly  hard,  even  by  such  kind  of  proofs  so  to 
 manifest  and  clear  that  point,  that  no  man  living  shall  be  able  to 
 deny  it,  without  denying  some  apparent  principle,  such  as  all  men 
 acknowledge  to  be  true."  *  By  this  time  I  hope  the  reader  sees 
 sufficient  proof  of  what  I  said  in  my  reply  to  your  preface,  that  Mr. 
 Brerely's  great  ostentation  of  exactness  is  no  very  certain  argument 
 of  his  fidelity. 
 
 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.  YI.  that  all  things  necessary  are  contained 
 in  Scripture  ?" 
 
 32.  1  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  itself,  but  for  the  matter  contained  in  it. 
 So  that  if  men  did  believe  the  doctrine  contained  in  Scriptiu-e,  it 
 should  no  way  hinder  their  salvation,  not  to  know  whether  there 
 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,  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  sub- 
 scribe to  the  sixth  Article,  you  must  understand,  that  by  "  articles 
 of  faith"  tbey  mean  the  final  and  ultimate  objects  of  it,  and  not  the 
 means  and  instrumxcntal  objects  ;  and  then  there  will  be  no  repug- 
 nance between  what  they  say,  and  that  which  Hooker,  and  D.  Covel, 
 and  D.  Whitaker,  and  Luther  here  say. 
 
 33.  But  "  protestants  agree  not  in  assigning  the  canon  of  Holy 
 Scripture;  Luther  and  Ilhricus  reject  the  epistle  of  St.  James; 
 Chemnitius,  and  other  Lutherans,  the  Second  of  Peter,  the  Second 
 and  Third  of  John,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Epistle  of  James, 
 of  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse.  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  difterence  showed  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  great  harm 
 or  danger  in  not  having  such  a  certainty,  whether  some  books  be 
 canonical  or  not,  as  you  requhe ;  if  they  had,  why  may  not  protes- 
 
 *  Natural  reason,  then,  built  on  principles  common  to  all  men,  is  the  last  reao 
 lution,  unto  which  the  church's  authority  is  but  the  first  inducement. 
 
WHEREBY    TO    jUDGE    OP    CONTROVERSIES.  105 
 
 tants,  notwithstanding  their  differences,  have  sufficient  certainty 
 hereof,  as  well  as  the  ancient  fathers  and  chui'ches,  notvAithstanding 
 theirs  : 
 
 35.  You  proceed :  "  and  whereas  the  protestants  of  England  in 
 the  sixth  Article  have  these  words :  '  In  the  name  of  the  Holy 
 Scripture  we  do  understand  those  books,  of  whose  authority  was 
 never  any  doubt  m  the  church  ;'  "  you  demand,  "  what  they  mean 
 by  them?  Whether  that  by  the  church's  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  controversy  we 
 make  the  church  the  judge  :  but  not  the  present  church,  much  less 
 the  present  Roman  church,  but  the  consent  and  testimony  of  the 
 ancient  and  primitive  church,  which  though  it  be  but  an  highly 
 probable  inducement,  and  no  demonstrative  enforcement,  yet  me- 
 thinka  you  should  not  deny  but  it  may  be  a  sufficient  ground  of 
 faith ;  whose  faith,  even  of  the  foundation  of  all  your  faith,  your 
 church's  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  aught  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  rcharge  him  with  Luci- 
 fc^vian  heresy,  for  doing  that  which  you  in  this  xeiy  place  confess 
 that  saints  in  heaven  before  him  have  done,  are  you  not  partial,  and 
 a  judge  of  ecil  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  heresy.  He  that  condemns  him  for  saying, 
 "  The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  is  not  full,  that  it  hath  many  abrupt 
 things,"  condemns  him,  for  aught  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  ^^Titten  casually  (though  I  hope 
 you  will  not  damn  all  for  heretics  that  say  some  books  of  Scripture 
 were  written  casually).  Neither  is  there  any  reason  they  should 
 the  sooner  be  called  in  question  for  being  wa-itten  by  their  disciples, 
 seeing  being  so  written  they  had  attestation  from  themselves.  Was 
 the  Prophecy  of  Jeremy  the  less  canonical  for  being  written  by 
 Baruch  ?  Or,  because  St.  Peter,  the  master,  dictated  the  Gospel, 
 and  St.  Mark,  the  scholar,  writ  it,  is  it  the  more  likely  to  be  called 
 in  question  ? 
 
 08.  But,  leaving  Luther,  you  return  to  our  English  canon  o^ 
 Scripture  :  and  tells  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  discanonised."     Not  so ;  for  I  may 
 
106  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 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  ques- 
 tioned :  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  justify  or  excuse  such  their  doubting  or  denial. 
 
 39.  You  observe,  in  the  next  place,  that  "  our  sLxth  Article, 
 specifying  by  name  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  shuffles  over 
 those  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  yourself  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  mol  y  pense  j  for  all  the 
 Bibles,  which  since  the  com})Osing  of  the  Ai'ticles  have  ])een  used 
 and  allowed  by  the  church  of  England,  do  testify  and  even  piociaim 
 to  the  world,  that  by  "  commonly  received,"  they  meant  received  by 
 the  church  of  Rome  and  other  churches  before  the  lleformation.  I 
 pray  take  the  pains  to  look  in  them,  and  there  you  shall  tind  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  m  the  end — 
 "  The  end  of  the  Apocrypha."  And  having  told  you  by  name,  and 
 in  particular,  what  books  only  she  esteems  apocryj)hal,  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  jou  w ill  do  as  we  in 
 one  thing,  you  must  in  all  things.  Tf  you  will  pray  to  God  with  us, 
 ye  must  })ray  to  saints  with  us.  If  you  hold  with  us  when  we  have 
 reason  on  our  side,  you  must  do  so  when  we  have  no  reason. 
 
 42.  The  discovn-se  following  is  but  a  vain  declamation.  No  man 
 thinks  that  this  controversy  is  to  be  tried  by  most  voices,  but  by 
 the  judgment  and  testimony  of  the  ancient  fathers  and  churches. 
 
 43.  But  "  with  what  coherence  can  we  say  in  the  former  part  of 
 the  Article,  that  by  '  ScriT)ture  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  ?"  1  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  snnply  no  doubt  at  all  by 
 any  man  in  the  church,  but  such  as  v.  ere  not  at  any  time  doubted  of 
 by  the  whole  church,  or  by  all  churches,  Imt  had  attcj^tation,  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  num- 
 ber and  authority  was  not  so  great  as  to  prevail  against  the  contrary 
 suffrages. 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  107 
 
 ■  44.  But  '•'  if  to  be  '  commonly  received'  passed  for  a  good  rule  to 
 know  the  canon  of  tlie  New  Testament  by,  why  not  of  the  Old?" 
 You  conclude  many  times  very  well ;  but  still  Avhen  you  do  so,  it  is 
 out  of  principles  which  no  man  grants  :  for  v.ho  ever  told  you,  that 
 to  be  ''  commonly  received"  is  a  gooa  rule  to  know  the  canon  of  the 
 New  Testament  by  ?  Have  you  been  trained  up  in  schools  of  sub- 
 tilty,  and  cannot  you  see  a  great  difference  between  these  two — We 
 receive  the  booksof  the  New  Testament  as  they  are  commonly  re- 
 ceived, and  we  receive  those  that  are  commonly  received,  because  tliey 
 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 
 say,  as  you  may.  The  ]x)oks  of  the  New  Testament  we  receive  for 
 canonical,  as  they  ai-e  received  by  the  church  of  England. 
 
 45.  You  demand  "  upon  what  infallible  ground  we  agree  with 
 Luther  against  you  in  some,  and  with  you  agamst  Luther  in  others  ?" 
 And  I  also  demand,  upon  what  infallible  ground  }0U  hold  your  canon, 
 and  agree  neither  with  us  nor  Luther?  For  sure  your  differing  from 
 us  both,  is  of  itself  no  more  apparently  reasonable,  than  cur  agreeing 
 with  you  in  part,  and  in  part  with  Luther.  If  you  say,  your 
 church's  infallibility  is  your  ground,  I  demand  again  some  infalhble 
 ground,  both  for  the  church's  infallibility,  and  for  this,  that  '•'  yours 
 is  the  church;"  and  shall  never  cease  multi})lying  demands  upon  de- 
 mands, until  you  settle  me  upon  a  rock  :  1  mean,  give  such  an 
 answer,  whose  truth  is  so  evident  that  it  needs  no  further  evidence. 
 If  you  sa}-,  "  This  is  universal  tradition,"  I  reply,  Your  church's  in- 
 fallibility is  not  built  upon  it,  and  that  the  canon  of  Scripture,  as  we 
 receive  it,  is:  for  we  do  not  profess  om'selves  so. absolutely  and  un- 
 doubtedly 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  section  is,  that  "the  divinity-  or 
 a  writing  cannot  be  known  from  itself  alone,  but  by  some  extrinsical 
 authorit)^  j"  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  abrdiviaro-j,  that  the  Gospel 
 of  St.  Matthevr  is  the  word  of  God,  as  that  all  which  your  church 
 says  is  true. 
 
 47.  That  behevers  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  Scripture's  Divine  authority  ; 
 and  that  among  other  inducements  and  enforcements  hereunto,  in- 
 ternal argument  have  then-  place  and  force  ;  certainly  no  man  ot 
 understanding  can  deny.  For  my  part,  I  profess,  if  the  doctrine  of 
 the  Scripture  were  not  as  good,  and  as  tit  to  come  from  the  Fountain 
 of  goodness,  as  the  miracles  by  which  it  was  confirmed  were  great, 
 I  should  want  one  main  pillar  of  my  faith ;  and  for  v,aut  of  it,  I 
 iear,  should  be  much  staggered  in  it.  Now  this,  and  nothing  else, 
 did  the  Doctor  mean  in  saying,  "  The  behever  sees,  by  that  glorious 
 beam  of  Divine  light  which  shines  in  Scripture,  and  by  man}'  inter- 
 nal 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  behef  of  it ;  and  bv  this  paitly,  not  wholly  ;  by 
 
108  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 this,  not  alone,  but  with  the  concurrence  of  other  arguments.  He 
 that  will  quarrel  with  him  for  saving  so,  must  find  fault  with  the 
 Master  of  the  Sentences,  and  all  his  scholars  ;  for  they  all  say  the 
 same.  The  rest  of  this  paragraph  I  am  as  willing  it  should  be  true 
 as  you  are  to  have  it ;  and  so  let  it  pass  as  a  discom-se  wherein  we 
 are  wholly  unconcerned.  Yoi'  might  have  met  with  an  answerer 
 that  would  not  have  suffered  vou  to  have  said  so  much  truth  to- 
 gether ;  but  to  me  it  is  sufficient  that  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose. 
 
 48.  In  the  next  division,  out  of  your  liberality,  you  will  suppose 
 -that  Scripture,  like  to  a  corporal  light,  is  by  itself  alone  able  to  deter- 
 mine and  move  our  understanding  to  assent ;  yet  notwithstanding 
 this  supposal,  "faith  still,"  you  say,  "  m.ust  go  before  Scripture ; 
 because  as  the  li^^ht  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  under- 
 standing to  assent,  then  the  Scri})ture,  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 
 understanding's  assent.  And  therefore  (upon  this  supposal)  faith 
 doth  and  must  originally  proceed  from  Scripture,  as  the  effect  from 
 its  proper  cause,  and  the  inlluence  and  cfficac}'  of  Scripture  is  to 
 be  presujjposed  before  the  assent  of  faith,  unto  ^\  hich  it  moves  and 
 determines;  and  consequenth^,  if  this  supposition  of  yours  were 
 true,  there  should  need  no  other  means  precedent  to  Scripture  to 
 beget  faith ;  Scripture  itself  being  able  (as  liere  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  com- 
 parison faith  answers  to  the  eye.  But  if  you  will  not  pervert  it,  the 
 analogy  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  presupposeth  the  eye  winch  it  determines,  as  every  action  doth  the 
 object  on  which  it  is  employed,  yet  itself  is  presupposed  and  ante- 
 cedent to  the  act  of  seeing,  as  the  cause  is  always  to  its  effect :  so,  if 
 5'Ou  will  suppose  that  Scripture,  like  light,  moves  the  vmderstanding 
 
 ..to  assent,  the  understanding  (that  is,  the  eye  and  object  on  which  it 
 works)  must  be  before  this  influence  upon  it ;  but  the  assent,  that 
 is,  the  belief  whereto  Scripture  moves,  and  the  understanding  is 
 .moved,  wiiich  answers  to  the  act  of  seeing,  must  come  after  :  for  if 
 it  did  assent  already,  to  what  purpose  should  the  Scriptui;^  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  a  house  that  is  built  already  ?  or  that 
 this  very  world  can  be  made  again  before  it  be  unmade  ?  Transub- 
 stantiation  indeed  is  fruitful  of  such  monsters  ;  but  they  that  have 
 not  sworn  themselves  to  the  defence  of  error  will  easily  perceive  that 
 ^am  factum  facere,  and  factum  infectum  facere,  are  equally  im.pos- 
 sible.     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  pre- 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  109 
 
 cedent  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  church's  authority  :  and  that  is 
 to  say  that  the  king  and  all  other  protestants,  to  whom  you  writcj 
 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.  Tlie  Scripture  tells  us. 
 The  heart  of  man  hioweth  no  man,  but  the  spirit  of  man  which  is  in 
 him.  And  who  are  you,  to  take  upon  you  to  make  us  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  da 
 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  they  have  no  true  faith, 
 your  church  is  very  full  of  infidels.  Suppose  Xaverius  by  the  holi- 
 ness of  his  life  had  converted  some  Indians  to  Christianity,  who 
 coidd  (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  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  tantalised,  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  beheve  be  not  in  reason 
 sufficient?  Do  they  therefore  not  believe  what  they  do  beheve, 
 because  they  do  it  upon  insufficient  motives  :  they  choose  the  faith 
 imprudently  perhaps,  but  yet  they  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  knov.-  not  why  the  authority  of  one 
 holy  man,  w'hich  a^^parently  hath  no  ends  upon  me,  joined  with  the 
 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  the  fancy  when  you  write  again,  and  sufi'er 
 true  faith  to  be  many  times  where  your  church's  infallibility  hath 
 no  hand  in  the  beginning  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  mani- 
 festly false,  you  should  gain  only  this,  "  not  to  be  believed  when  you. 
 speak  the  truth."     Some  pretty  sophisms  you  may  haply  bring  us. 
 
110  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 to  make  us  believe  we  believe  nothing ;  but  wise  men  know  that 
 reason  against  experience  is  always  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  untie,  yet  I  shoidd 
 cut  them  in  pieces  with  doing  that,  aud  knowing  that  1  do  so,  which 
 you  pretend  I  cannot  do. 
 
 50.  In  the  thirteenth  division  we  have  again  much  ado  about 
 nothing;  a  great  deal  of  stir  you  keep  in  confuting  some  "  that  pretend 
 to  know  canonical  Scripture  to  be  such  by  the  titles  of  the  books." 
 But  these  men  you  do  not  name ;  which  makes  me  suspect  you 
 cannot  :  ^-et  it  is  possible  there  may  be  some  such  men  in  the  world, 
 for  Gusman  de  Alferache  hath  taught  us,  that  the  fools'  hospital  is  a 
 large  place. 
 
 51.  In  the  fourteenth  §  we  have  very  artificial  juggling.  D. 
 Potter  had  said,  "  That  the  Scripture  "  [he  desires  to  be  understood 
 of  those  books  wherein  all  Christians  agree]  "  is  a  principle,  and 
 needs  not  to  be  proved  among  Christians."  His  reason  was,  be- 
 cause "  that  needs  no  further  proof  which  is  believed  already.  "  Now 
 by  this  (you  say)  he  means  either,  that  the  Scripture  is  one  of  these 
 first  principles,  and  most  known  in  all  sciences,  which  cannot  be 
 proved ;  which  is  to  suppose  it  cannot  be  proved  by  the  church ; 
 and  that  is  to  suppose  the  question  ;  or  he  means,  that  it  is  not  the 
 most  known  in  Christianity,  and  then  it  may  be  proved.  Where 
 we  see  plainly,  that  two  most  different  things,  "  most  known  in  all 
 sciences,"  and  '"most  known  in  Christianity,"  ai-e  captiously 
 confomided.  As  if  the  Scripture  might  not  be  the  first  and  most 
 known  jDrinciple  in  Christianity,  and  yet  not  the  most  known  in  aU 
 sciences  ;  or,  as  if  to  be  a  first  principle  "  in  Christianity,"  and  "  in 
 all  sciences,"  were  all  one.  That  Scriptm-e  is  a  principle  among 
 Christians,  that  is,  so  received  by  all  that  it  need  not  be  proved  in 
 any  emergent  controversy  to  any  Christian,  but  may  l)e  taken  for 
 granted,  I  think  few  will  deny  :  you  yourselves  -are  of  this  a  suffi- 
 cient testimony ;  for  urging  against  us  many  texts  of  Scrii)ture,  you 
 oflfer  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  them,  presuming  we  will  not  question 
 it.  Yet  this  is  not  to  deny  that  tradition  is  a  principle  more  known 
 than  Scriptm-e ;  but  to  say,  it  is  a  principle  not  in  Christianity,  but 
 in  reason  ;  not  proper  to  Christians,  but  common  to  all  men. 
 
 ►  •  52.  "  But  "  it  is  repugnant  to  our  practice  to  hold  Scriptm-e  a 
 principle,  because  we  are  wont  to  affirm,  that  one  part  of  Scriptm-e 
 may  be  known  to  be  canonical,  and  may  be  interpreted  by  another." 
 '\^'Tiere  the  former  device  is  again  put  in  practice.  For  to  be  known 
 to  be  "  canonical,"  and  to  be  "  interpreted,"  is  not  all  one.  That 
 Scriptm-e  may  be  interpreted  by  Scripture,  that  protestants  grant, 
 and  papists  do  not  deny;  neither  does  that  any  way  hinder,  but 
 that  this  assertion,  "  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God,  may  be  among 
 Christians  a  common  principle."  But  the  first,  "that  one  part  of 
 Scripture  may  prove  another  part  canonical,  and  need  no  proof  of 
 its  own  being  so ;"  for  that  you  have  produced  divers  protestants 
 that  deny  it ;  bat  ta'Iio  they  are  that  affirm  it,  tiondum  constat. 
 
WHEREBY   TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  lU 
 
 53.  It  is  supei-fluous  for  you  to  prove  out  of  St.  Athanasius  and 
 St.  Austin,  that  "  we  must  receive  the  sacred  canon  upon  the  credit 
 of  God's  chiu-ch :"  understanding  by  church,  as  here  you  explain 
 yourself,  the  credit  of  tradition.  And  that  not  the  tradition  of  the 
 present  chui-ch,  which  we  pretend  may  deviate  from  the  ancient,  but 
 "  such  a  tradition  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,  cometh  to  be  confirmed  by 
 all  these  miracles  and  other  arguments,  whereby  they  convinced  their 
 doctrine  to  be  true."  Thus  you.  Now  pro\T2  the  canon  of  Scrip- 
 ture which  you  receive  by  such  tradition,  and  we  will  allow  it :  prove 
 your  whole  doctrine,  or  the  infallibihty  of  your  church,  by  such  tra- 
 dition, aud  we  will  yield  to  you  in  all  things.  Take  the  alleo-ed 
 places  of  St.  Athanasius  and  St.  Austin  in  this  sense  (which  is  yom' 
 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  cathohc  church  "  [understand  of  ail  ao-es 
 since  the  perfection  of  the  canon]  "  have  so  determined." 
 
 54.  We  \\\\\  subscribe  to  St.  Austin,  and  say,  that  "  we  also  would 
 not  beheve  the  gospel,  unless  the  authority  of  the  catholic  church 
 did  move  us  "  (meaning  by  the  church,  the  church  of  all  ages,  and 
 tliat  succession  of  Christians  which  takes  in  Christ  himself  and  his 
 apostles).  Neither  would  Zuinglius  have  needed  to  cry  out  upon 
 this  saying,  had  he  conceived  as  you  now  do,  that  by  the 
 catholic  church,  the  church  of  all  ages,  since  Christ,  Avas  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  under- 
 stand 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  haply  err,  and  think  that 
 book  received  as  canonical  which  was  only  received  as  profitable  to 
 be  read  ;  and  think  that  book  received  alway,  and  by  all,  which  was 
 rejected  by  some,  and  doubted  of  by  many. 
 
 55.  But  v,e  canuot  be  "  certain  in  what  language  the  Scriptures 
 remain  uncorrupted."  Not  so  certain,  I  grant,  as  of  that  which  we 
 can  demonstrate  ;  but  ^rtain  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  St.  Austin  was,  who,  in 
 his  second  book  of  Baptism,  against  the  Donatists,  c.  3,  plainly  im- 
 plies, "  the  Scripture  might  possibly  be  corrupted."  He  means 
 sure  in  matters  of  little  moment,  such  as  concern  not  the  covenant 
 between  Go<i  and  man.  But  thus  he  saith  ;  the  same  St.  Austin,  in 
 his  forty-eighth  Ei)istle,  clearly  intimates,  *that  "  in  his  judgment 
 
 *  Neque  enim  sic  jotuit  integritas  atque  notitia  literarum  quamlibet  illustrit 
 Episcopi  custodiri,  queraadraodum  scriptura  canonica  tot  linguarum  Uteris  es 
 ordine  et  successioiie  celebrationis  ecclesiasticoe  custoditur  ;  contra  quam  uon 
 defuerunt  tanaen,  qui   sub  nominibus  apostolorum  multa  confingereut.    Frustra 
 
112  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 the  only  preservative  of  the  Scripture's  integrity  v,as  the  translating 
 it  into  so  many  languages,  and  the  general  and  perpetual  use  au3 
 reading  of  it  in  the  church  ;  for  want  whereof  the  works  of  particular 
 doctors  were  more  exposed  to  danger  in  this  kind  :"  but  the  cano- 
 nical Scripture  being  by  this  means  guarded  with  universal  care  and 
 diligence,  was  not  obnoxious  to  such  attempts.  And  this  assurance 
 of  the  Scripture's  incorruption  is  common  to  us  with  him ;  we 
 therefore  are  as  certain  hereof  as  St.  Austin  was,  and  that,  I  hope, 
 was  certain  enough.  Yet  if  this  does  not  satisfy  you,  I  say  further, 
 we  are  as  certain  hereof  as  your  own  pope  Sixtus  Quintus  was.  He 
 in  his  preface  to  his  Bible  tells  us,  *that  "  in  the  pervestigation  of 
 the  true  and  genuine  text,  it  was  })erspicuously  manifest  to  ail  men, 
 that  there  was  no  argument  more  firm  and  certain  to  be  relied  upon 
 than  the  faith  of  raicient  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  grounds  as  his  did. 
 
 56.  This  is  not  all  I  have  to  say  hi  this  matter:  for  I  will  add, 
 moreover,  that  we  are  as  certain  in  vvhat  language  the  Scriptiu'e  is 
 uncorrupted,  as  any  man  in  your  cliurch  was,  until  Clement  the 
 Eighth  set  forth  your  own  approved  edition  of  your  own  translation 
 For  you  do  not,  nor  cannot,  without  extreme  impudence,  deny  that, 
 until  then,  there  v\  ere  great  variety  of  copies  current  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  thera  could  not  possibly  be  true  in  all  things.  Neither 
 were  it  less  impudence  to  pretend,  that  any  man  in  your  church  could 
 until  Clement's  time  have  any  certainty  what  that  one  true  copy  and 
 reading  was  (if  there  were  any  one  perfectly  true).  Some  indeed, 
 tliat  had  got  Sixtus's  Bible,  might,  after  the  edition  of  that,  very 
 likely  think  themselves  cocksure  of  a  perfect,  true,  vmcorrupted 
 translation,  without  being  beholden  to  Clement ;  but  how  foully  they 
 were  abused  and  deceived  that  thought  so,  the  edition  of  Clement 
 differing  from  that  of  Sixtus  in  a  multitude  of  places,  doth  suffi- 
 ciently 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  one  thousand  live  hundred  years 
 together  ?  All  which  time  you  must  confess  she  had  no  such  cer- 
 tainty ;  no  one  man  being  able  truly  and  upon  good  ground  to  sa}', 
 "  This  or  this  copy  of  the  Bible  is  pure  and  perfect  and  uncorrupted 
 in  all  things."  And  now  at  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  authentic  translation,  which  I  suppose  myself  to  have 
 proved  unanswerably  in  divers  places. 
 
 quidem  ;  quia  ilia  sic  commendata,  sic  celebrata,  sic  nota  est.  Veruin  quid  possit 
 adyersus  literas  non  canonic«  authoritate  tundatus  etiam  hii.c  demon strabit 
 impis;  conatusaudaciae,  quod  et  adversus  eos  qute  tanta  notitije  moie  firmata3  sunt, 
 sese  erigere  non  prgetermisit. — Aug.  ep,  48.  ad  ^  incent.  cont.  JJonat.  et  Kogat. 
 
 «  In  hac  germani  textus  perTcstigatione,  satis  perspicue  inter  omnes  constat, 
 nullum  argumentum  esse  aut  certius  aut  tirmius,  r,uain  aiitiquorum  probatorum 
 codicum  Latincrun  iideni,  &c.    Sic  Sixtus  in  Praef. 
 
■WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  113 
 
 58.  In  the  sixteenth  di\-ision,  it  is  objected  to  protestants,  in  a 
 long  discourse  transcribed  out  of  the  Protestants'  Apology,  that  their 
 "  translations  of  the  Scripture  are  veiy  different,  and  by  each  other 
 mutually  condemned.  Luther's  translation  by  Zuinglius,  and 
 others ;  that  of  the  Zuinghans,  by  Luther  ;  the  translation  of  (Eco- 
 lampadius,  by  the  divines  of  Basil ;  that  of  Castalio,  by  Beza ;  that 
 of  Beza,  by  Castaho  ;  that  of  Calvin,  by  Carolus  Molinffius ;  that  of 
 Geneva,  by  M.  Parker,  and  King  James ;  and,  lastly,  one  of  our 
 translations  by  the  puritans." 
 
 59.  All  \^hich  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  Avord,  but  St.  Austin's,  may  be  taken :  '*  They  which  have  trans- 
 lated the  Scriptures  out  of  the  Hebrew  into  Greek  may  be 
 numbered  ;  but  the  Latin  interpreters  are  innumerable  :  for  when- 
 soever 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,  chap.  11.  Of  all  these,  that 
 which  was  called  the  Italian  translation  was  esteemed  best ;  so  we 
 may  learn  from  the  same  St.  Austin,  in  chap.  15,  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  presuming 
 upon  the  absolute  purity  and  perfection  even  of  this  best  translation, 
 that  St.  Hierorn  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  illustrihus) ,  and  to  correct  the  vulgar 
 version  of  the  New  Testament,  according  to  the  truth  of  the  original 
 Greek  :  amending  many  errors  Avhich  had  crept  into  it,  whether  by 
 the  mistake  of  the  author  or  the  neghgence  of  the  transcribers  t 
 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  arbi- 
 trator amongst  them;  and  because  they  vary  among  themselves, 
 should  determine  what  are  those  tilings  [in  them]  which  consent  with 
 the  Greek  verity."  And  after  :  "  Therefore  this  present  preface  pro- 
 mises the  four  Gospels  only,  corrected  by  collation  with  Greek 
 copies.  But,  that  they  might  not  be  very  dissonant  from  the  custom 
 of  the  Latin  reading,  I  have  so  tempered  with  my  style  the  transla- 
 tion of  the  ancients,  that  those  things  amended  which  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. 
 
 60.  The  corruption  that  you  charge  Luther  with,  and  the  falsifi- 
 cation that  you  impute  to  Zumglius,  what  have  we  to  do  with  them  ? 
 or  why  may  not  we  as  justly  lay  to  your  charge  the  errors  which 
 Lyranus,  or  Paulus  Brugensis,  or  Laurentius  Valla,  or  Cajetan,  or 
 Erasmus,  or  Arias  Montanas,  or  Augustus  Nebiensis,  or  Pagniue, 
 have  committed  in  their  translation  ? 
 
 61.  Which  yet  I  s»ay  not,  as  if  these  translations  of  Luther  and 
 
 I 
 
114  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 Zuinglius  were  absolutely  indefensible;  for  what  such  great  dif- 
 ference is  there  between /«/7A  without  theivorks  of  the  law,  and  faith 
 alone  without  the  works  of  the  law  F  or,  why  does  not  without,  alone, 
 signify  all  one  with  alone,  without  f  Consider  the  matter  a  little 
 better,  and  observe  the  use  of  these  phrases  of  speech  in  our  ordinary 
 talk,  and  perhaps,  you  ^^-ill  begin  to  doubt  whether  you  had  suffi- 
 cient ground  for  this  invective.  And  then  for  Zuinglius,  if  it  be 
 true  (as  they  say  it  is)  that  the  language  our  Saviour  spake  in  had 
 no  such  word  as  to  signify,  but  used  always  to  he  instead  of  it,  a?  it 
 is  certain  the  Scripture  does  in  a  hundred  places  ;  then  this  trans- 
 lation, which  you  so  disclaim  against,  will  prove  no  falsification  in 
 Zuinglius,  but  a  calumny  in  you. 
 
 62.  "  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  do  err,  at  least  some  of  them, 
 because  their  translations  are  contrary.  It  seems  then  the  faith,  and 
 consequently  the  salvation  of  protestants,  rehes  upon  fallible  and  un- 
 certain grounds." 
 
 63.  This  objection,  though  it  may  seem  to  do  you  a  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  men's  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 
 penance  truly  administered  unto  them ;  this  again  upon  a  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  cer- 
 tainty all  these  things  that  follow  : 
 
 64.  First,  that  he  was  baptized  \\-ith  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  Moor,  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  he 
 could  intend  to  give  nothing),  nor  a  Samosatenian,  nor  an  Arian, 
 but  one  that  was  capable  of  ha\-ing  due  intention,  from  which  they 
 that  believe  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  are  excluded  by  you. 
 And,  lastly,  that  he  was  neither  drunk  nor  distracted  at  the  adminis- 
 tration of  the  sacrament,  nor  out  of  negligence  or  mahce  omitted  his 
 intention. 
 
 65.  Fourthly,  he  must  undertake  to  know  that  the  bishop  which 
 ordained  him  priest  ordained  hi?n  completely  with  due  matter,  form, 
 and  intention ;  and,  consequently,  that  he  again  was  neither  Jew, 
 nor  Moor,  nor  atheist,  nor  liable  to  any  such  exception  as  is  uncon- 
 sistent  with  due  intention  in  giving  the  sacrament  of  orders. 
 
 6G,  Fifthly,  he  must  undertake  to  know  that  the  bishop  which 
 made  him  priest  was  a  priest  himself  j  for  your  rule  is.  Nihil  dat 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  115 
 
 quod  non  Jiahet ;  and  consequently,  that  there  was  again  none  of  the 
 former  nulhties  in  his  baptism,  which  might  make  hnn  incapable  of 
 ordination,  nor  no  invaliditj'  in  his  ordination,  but  a  true  priest  to 
 ordam  him  again,  the  requisite  matter  and  form,  and  due  intention, 
 all  concurring. 
 
 Q7 •  Lastly,  he  must  pretend  to  know  the  sam-e  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  priest- 
 hood ;  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  name  and  shadow,  can  give  nothing  but  a  name  and 
 shadou- ;  and  so  from  age  to  age,  from  generation  to  generation, 
 being  equivocal  fathers  beget  only  equivocal  sons  ;  no  principle  in 
 geometiy  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  qualify  anything  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-gerraan  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  fabric  of  necessity  falls 
 to  the  ground  :  and  he  that  shall  put  them  together,  and  maturely 
 consider  all  the  possible  ways  of  lapsing,  and  nullifying  a  priest- 
 hood in  the  church  of  Rome,  I  believe  will  be  very  inclinable  to 
 think,  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  make  men's  salvation  fas  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  men's  salvation  depend  upon  fallible  and  uncertain  founda- 
 tions."    And  let  this  be  the  first  retorting  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  com- 
 petent minister  of  the  sacrament  of  penance ;  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  maUce, 
 and  project   to   himself  your   damnation    for   a   complete   Italian 
 
116  SCRIPTURE   THE    ONLY    RT.LE 
 
 rever.ge.  Perhaps  (as  the  tale  is  of  a  priest  that  was  lately  burnt 
 in  France)  he  may  upon  some  conditions  have  compacted  \vith  the 
 devil  to  give  no  sacraments  with  intention.  Lastly,  he  may  be  (for 
 aught  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  ht  laughs  at  all  these  things,  and  thinks  sin  nothing,  and 
 salvation  a  word.  All  these  doubts  you  must  have  clearly  re?olved 
 (which  can  hardly  be  done  but  by  another  revelation)  before  you 
 can  upon  good  grounds  assure  yom-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  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. 
 Verilv,  a  most  comfortable  doctrine  for  a  considering  man  h'ing 
 upon  his  death-bed,  who  either  feels  or  fears  that  his  repentance  is 
 but  attrition  only,  and  not  contrition,  and  consequently  believes,  that 
 if  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  "men's  salvation  depend  upon  no  uncertainties "),  that 
 though  he  verily  believe  that  his  sorrow  for  his  sins  is  a  true  sorrow, 
 and  his  purpose  for  amendment  a  true  purpose,  yet  he  may  deceive 
 himself;  perhaps  it  is  not;  and  if  it  be  not,  he  must  be  damned. 
 You  bid  him  hope  well ;  but  spes  est  rei  incertcB  nomen.  You  tell 
 liira,  secondly,  that  though  the  party  he  confesses  to  seem  to  be 
 a  true  priest,  yet,  for  aught  he  knows,  or  for  aught  himself  knows, 
 by  reason  of  some  secret,  undiscernible  invalithty  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, 
 thu-dly,  that  he  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  is  in  vain.  But  case  a  man  by  these  considerations 
 should  be  cast  into  some  agonies  ;  v,hat  advice,  what  comfort  would 
 you  give  him  ?  Verily,  I  know  not  what  you  could  say  to  him  but 
 th-is  :  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  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  God's  goodness  (which  will  not  suifer 
 him  to  damn  men  for  not  doing  better  than  their  best  (will  supply 
 ail  such  defects  as  to  human  endeavours  v.  ere  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  without 
 intention,  yet  in  doing  so  he  should  hurt  hnnself  only,  and  not  his 
 penitent.  This  were  some  comfort  indeed,  and  this  were  to  settle 
 men's  salvation  upon  reasonable  certain  grounds.  But  this,  I  fear, 
 you  will  never  say ;  for  this  were  to  reverse  many  doctrines  esta- 
 blished by  your  church  ;  and  besides,  to  degrade  your  priesthood 
 from  a  great  part  of  their  honour,  by  lessening  the  strict  necessity 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  117 
 
 of  the  laity's  dependence  upon  them  :  for  it  were  to  sa}'^,  that  •'  the 
 priest's  intention  is  not  necessary  to  the  obtaining  of  absolution  ;'* 
 which  is  to  say,  that  it  is  not  in  the  parson's  power  to  damn  whom 
 he  will  in  his  parish,  because,  by  this  rule,  God  should  supply  the 
 defect  which  his  mahce  had  caused  :  and,  besides,  it  were  to  sav, 
 that  "  infants  dying  without  baptism  might  be  saved  ;"  God  supply- 
 ing 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  layman's  soul  to  perish, 
 merely  for  being  misled  by  an  undiscernible  false  translation,  which 
 yet  was  commended  to  him  by  the  church,  which  (being  of  necessity 
 to  crecht  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 
 ghostly  father  perhaps  was  an  atheist,  and  could  not  give  him ;  or 
 was  a  villain,  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 
 inconvenience  you  must  forbear  :  and  seeing  you  must,  I  hope  you 
 will,  come  down  from  the  pulpit,  and  preach  no  more  against  others 
 for  "making  men's  salvation  depend  upon  fallible  and  uncertain 
 grounds,"  lest  by  judging  others  you  make  yourselves,  and  your 
 own  church,  inexcusable,  who  are  strongly  guilty  of  this  fault  above 
 all  the  men  and  churches  of  the  world ;  Avhereof  I  have  already 
 given  you  two  very  pregnant  demonstrations,  drawn  from  your  pre- 
 sumptuous tying  God  and  salvation  to  your  sacraments ;  and  the 
 efficacy  of  them  to  your  priest's  qualifications  and  intentions. 
 
 G9.  Your  making  the  salvation  of  infants  depend  on  baptism,  a 
 casual  thing,  and  in  the  power  of  man  to  confer  or  not  confer, 
 W"ould  yield  me  a  thu'd  of  the  same  nature.  And  your  suspending 
 the  same  on  the  baptizer's  intention,  a  fourth.  And,  lastly,  your 
 making  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist  depend  ui)on  the 
 casualities  of  the  consecrator's  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  aught 
 they  ca.li  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  fifth  demonstration  of  the  same  conclu- 
 sion, if  •!  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  su])ject  affords  variety. 
 
 70.  Sixthly  ;  therefore,  1  return  it  thus  :  the  faith  of  papists  relies 
 alone  upon  their  church's  infallibility.  That  there  is  any  church  in- 
 fallible, and  that  theirs  is  it,  they  pretend  not  to  believe,  but  only 
 upon  "prudential  motives."  Dependence  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  rehes  upon  the  chm-ch  alone. 
 
118  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 The  doctrine  of  the  church  is  delivered  to  most  of  them  by  their 
 larish  priest,  or  ghostly  father,  or  at  least  by  a  company  of  priests. 
 Avho,  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  ?" 
 
 ']2.  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 
 beheve  it,  because  their  forefathers  did  so,  and  they  w^ere  good 
 people.  Some,  because  they  were  christened  and  brought  up  in  it. 
 Some  because  many  learned  and  religious  men  are  of  it.  Some,  be- 
 cause it  is  the  religion  of  their  country,  where  all  other  rehgions  are 
 persecuted  and  proscribed.  Some,  because  protestants  cannot  show 
 a  perpetual  succession  of  professors  of  all  their  doctrines.  Some,  be- 
 cause the  service  of  your  church  is  more  stately  and  pompous 
 and  magnificent.  Some,  because  they  find  comfort  in  it.  Some, 
 because  your  religion  is  further  spread,  and  hath  more  professors  of 
 it,  than  the  religion  of  protestants.  Some,  because  your  priests 
 compass  sea  and  land  to  gain  ])roselytes  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  whicii  I  say  is  a  most  certain 
 experimented  truth,  and  if  you  will  deal  ingenuously,  you  will  not 
 deny  it.  And,  without  question,  he  that  budds  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 
 allege,  but  that  with  you,  rather  than  Avith  us,  "  truth,  and  faith,  and 
 salvation,  and  all,  rely  ui)on  fallible  and  uncertain  grounds  ?" 
 
 T<^-  Ninthly,  5'Our  Rhemish  and  Doway  translations  are  delivered 
 to  yoiu-  proselytes  (such,  I  mean,  that  are  dispensed  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 
 human  industry  ;  and  that  not  angels,  but  men,  were  the  authors  of 
 them.  Men,  I  %Q.y,  mere  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,  "faith,  and  truth,  and  salvation, 
 and  all,  rely  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  particular 
 of  it,  the  pure  and  uncorrupted  word  of  God ;  yet  others  among 
 you,  and  those  as  good  and  zealous  catholics  as  you,  are  not  so  con- 
 fident hereof. 
 
 75.  First,  for  all  those  who  have  made  translations  of  the  w^hole 
 Bible  or  any  part  of  it  diff'erent  many  times  in  sense  from  the  vulgar, 
 as  Lyranus,  Cajetan,  Pagnine,  Alias,  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 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTIIO VERSIES.  119 
 
 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  the  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  "  comicil  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  de- 
 fence of  that  council,  reports  of  Vega,  and  assents  to  himself. 
 Driedo,  in  his  Book  of  the  Translation  of  Holy  Scripture,  hath 
 these  words,  very  pregnant  and  pertinent  to  the  same  purpose  :'* 
 "  The  see  apostolic  hath  approved  or  accepted  Hierom's  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  Plierom  did  understand  the  true 
 sense  of  the  Scripture ;  but  only  as  an  edition  to  be  preferred  before 
 all  others  then  extant,  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  acknowledges  the  imper- 
 fection of  it  in  these  words  :  "  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  easy  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  autho- 
 rity in  it. 
 
 17 .  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,  though  he  will  not  acknowledge 
 any  imperfection  in  the  vulgar  edition,  yet  he  acknowledges  that  the 
 case  may,  and  does  ofttimes,  so  fall  out,  that  "  t  it  is  impossible  to 
 discern  which  is  the  true  reading  of  the  vulgar  edition,  but  only  by 
 recom-se  unto  the  originals  and  dependence  upon  them." 
 
 79.  From  all  which  it  may  evidently  be  collected,  that  though  some 
 of  you  flatter  yourselves  with  a  vain  imagination  of  the  certain  abso- 
 lute pmity  and  perfection  of  yoiu"  vulgar  edition,  yet  the  matter  is 
 not  so  certain  and  so  resolved,  but  that  the  best  learned  men 
 men  amongst  you  are  often  at  a  stand,  and  very  doubtful  sometime* 
 
 o  Pro  edit.  rulg.  c.  21.  p.  93.  t  Bell,  de  Verbo  Dei   1.  2.  c.  II.  p.  120. 
 
l20  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 whether  ^oiir  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  con- 
 sonant to  the  original,  as  it  was  at  first  delivered.  And  what  then 
 can  be  alleged,  but  that  out  of  your  own  grounds  it  may  be  in- 
 ferred and  enforced  upon  you,  that  not  only  in  your  laymen,  but 
 your  clergymen  and  scholars,  "  faith,  and  truth,  and  salvation,  and 
 ail,  depend  upon  fallible  and  uncertain  grounds  ?"  And  thus,  by 
 ten  several  retortions  of  this  one  argument,  I  have  endeavom-ed  to 
 show  you  how  ill  you  have  complied  Avith  your  own  advice,  which 
 was,  "  to  take  heed  of  urging  arguments  that  might  be  retm-ned 
 upon  5'ou."  I  should  now,  by  a  direct  answer,  show,  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  as- 
 sm-ance  of  true  Scriptures  to  fiy  to  your  church  for  it,"  I  desire  to 
 know  (if  they  should  follow  }our  advice)  hov\'  they  should  be  as- 
 sured 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,  con- 
 fessedly so  negligent,  as  to  sulFer  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  read- 
 ings to  come  into  them,  without  keeping  any  one  perfect  copj-, 
 which  might  have  been  as  the  standard  and  Polycletus's  canon  to 
 correct  the  rest  by.  So  that,  "  which  was  the  true  reading,  and 
 which  the  false,  it  was  utterly  undiscemible,  but  only  by  comparing 
 them  with  the  originals,"  which  also  she  pretends  "to  be  corrupted." 
 
 81.  But  "  Luther  himself,  by  unfortunate  experience,  was  at 
 length  enforced  to  confess  thus  much,  saying,  '  If  the  world  last 
 longer,  it  will  be  again  necessary  to  receive  the  decrees  of  councils, 
 by  reason  of  divers  interpretations  of  Scripture  which  now  reign.'  " 
 
 82.  And  what  if  Luther,  having  a  ])ope  in  his  belly  (as  he  wag 
 wont  to  say  that  most  men  had),  and  desiring  perhaps  to  have  his 
 own  interpretations  pass  without  examining,  spake  such  words  in 
 heat  of  argument?  Do  you  think  it  reasonable  that  we  should 
 subscribe  to  Luther's  divinations  and  angry  speeches  ?  Will  you 
 oblige  yom-self  to  answer  for  all  the  assertions  of  your  private 
 doctors'?  If  not,  why  do  you  trouble  us  w'th  what  Luther  says, 
 and  what  Calvin  says  ?  Yet  this  I  say  not,  as  if  these  words  ot 
 Luther  made  any  thing  at  all  for  your  present  purpose.  For 
 what  if  he  feared,  or  pretended  to  fear,  that  the  infalhbihty  of 
 councils  being  rejected,  some  men  would  fall  into  greater  errors  than 
 were  imposed  upon  them  by  the  councils  ?  Is  this  to  confess  that 
 there  is  any  present  visible  chm'ch  upon  whose  bare  authority 
 we  may  infallibly  receive  the  true  Scriptures,  and  the  true  sense  of 
 them  Let  the"^  reader  judge.  But,  in  my  opinion,  to  fear  a 
 greater  inconvenience  may  follow  from  the  avoiding  of  the  less,  is 
 not  to  confess  that  the  less  is  none  at  all. 
 
 83.  For  Dr.  Covel's  '"  commending  your  translation,"  what  is  it 
 to  the  business  in  hand  ?  Or  how  proves  it  the  perfection  of  it 
 which  is  here  contested,  any  more  than  St.  Augustine's  commending 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  121 
 
 the  Italian  translation  argues  the  perfection  of  that,  or  that  there 
 was  no  necessity  that  St.  Hierom  should  correct  it  ?  Dr.  Covel 
 commends  your  translation,  and  so'  does  the  Bishop  of  Chichester, 
 and  so  does  Dr.  James,  and  so  do  I.  But  I  commend  it  for  a  good 
 translation,  not  for  a  perfect.  Good  may  be  good,  and  deserve  com- 
 mendations ;  and  yet  better  may  be  better.  And  though  he  says 
 that  "  the  then  approved  translation  of  the  chm'ch  of  England  is 
 that  which  comcth  nearest  the  vulgar,"  yet  he  does  not  say  that  it 
 agrees  exactly  with  it.  So  that  whereas  you  infer,  '•  that  the  truth 
 of  your  translation  must  be  the  rule  to  judge  of  the  goodness  of 
 ours;"  this  is' but  a  vain  flourish.  For  to  say  of  our  translations, 
 that  is  the  best  which  comes  nearest  the  vulgar  (and  yet  it  is  but 
 one  man  that  says  so),  is  not  to  say  it  is  therefore  the  best,  because 
 it  does  so ;  for  this  may  be  true  by  accident,  and  yet  the  truth  of 
 our  translation  no  way  depend  upon  the  truth  of  yours ;  for  had 
 that  been  theu*  du'ection,  they  would  not  only  have  made  a  trans- 
 lation that  should  come  near  to  yours,  but  such  a  one  which  should 
 exactly  agree  with  it,  and  be  a  translation  of  your  translation. 
 
 84.  Ad  §  17.  In  this  division  you  charge  us  "with  great  uncer- 
 tainty 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  l^hem  :  but  then  we  say  there  is  no  necessity  we 
 should  be  certain  y  for  if  God's  will  had  been  v.e  should  have  under- 
 stood him  more  certainly,  he  would  have  spoken  more  plainly.  And 
 we  say  besides,  that  as  we  are  uncertain,  so  are  you  too ;  which  he 
 that  doubts  of,  let  him  read  yoiu'  commentators  upon  the  Bible,  and 
 observe  their  various  and  dissonant  interpretations,  and  he  shall  in 
 this  point  need  no  further  satisfaction. 
 
 85.  But  seeing  '*  there  are  contentions  among  us,  we  are  taught 
 by  nature  and  Scripture  and  experience  "  (so  you  tell  us  out  of  Mr. 
 Hooker)  "■  to  seek  for  the  ending  of  them,  by  submitting  unto  some 
 judicial  sentence,  whereuuto  neither  part  may  refuse  to  stand."  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 
 v.orld  a  judicial  definitive  obliging  sentence  in  controversies  of  reli- 
 gion, but  only  such  a  man,  or  such  a  societ}''  of  men,  as  is  authorised 
 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 
 abolished,  yet  we  have  httle  hopes  of  the  one  or  the  other  until 
 the  world  be  ended :  and  in  the  mean  while  think  it  best  to  content 
 ourselves  with,  and  to  persuade  others  unto,  an  unity  of  charity,  and 
 mutual  toleration  ;  seeing  God  hath  authorised  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  contro- 
 versies for  the  whole  world;  therefore  God  hath  appointed  one: 
 but  more  modest  and  more  reasonable  to  collect  thus :  God  hath 
 
122  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 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. 
 
 86.  Dr.  Field's  words  which  follow^,  I  confess,  are  somewhat  more 
 pressing ;  and  if  he  had  been  infalhble,  and  the  words  had  not  slipt 
 unadvisedly  from  him,  they  were  the  best  argument  in  your  book. 
 But  yet  it  is  evident  out  of  his  book,  and  so  acknowledged  by  some 
 of  your  own,  that  he  never  thought  of  any  one  company  of  Chris- 
 tians invested  with  such  authority  from  God,  that  all  men  were 
 bound  to  receive  their  decrees  v^ithout  examination,  though  they 
 seem  contrary  to  Scripture  and  reason,  which  the  church  of  Rome 
 requires.  And  therefore,  if  he  have  in  his  preface  strained  too  high 
 in  commendation  of  the  subject  he  writes  of  (as  writers  very  often 
 do  in  their  prefaces  and  dedicatory  epistles),  what  is  that  to  us  ? 
 Besides,  by  "  all  the  societies  of  the  world,"  it  is  not  impossible, 
 nor  very  improbable,  he  might  mean,  all  that  are  or  have  been  in 
 the  world,  and  so  include  even  the  primitive  church  ;  and  her  com- 
 munion we  shall  embrace,  her  direction  we  shall  follow,  her  judg- 
 ment we  shall  rest  in,  if  we  believe  the  Scriptm-e,  endeavour  to  find 
 the  true  sense  of  it,  and  hve  according  to  it. 
 
 8/.  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  i)rofess  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  "  chm-ch's  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  sptak  of  that  church  which 
 before  you  speak  of  in  the  14th  §,  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  ua,  that  "our  faith  of 
 Scripture  depends  on  a  principle  which  requires  no  other  j)roof ;" 
 and  that  "  such  is  tradition,  which  from  hand  to  hand,  and  age  to 
 age,  bringing  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  chm-ch.  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,  tells  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. 
 
 19.  If  there  be  any  traditive  interpretation  of  Scriptm-e,  produce 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  123 
 
 it,  and  prove  it  to  be  so  :  and  we  embrace  it.  But  the  tradition  of 
 ail  ages  is  one  thing,  and  the  authority  of  the  present  church,  much 
 more  of  the  Roman  chiu-ch,  which  is  but  a  part,  and  a  corrupted  part 
 of  the  cathohc  chm-ch  is  another.  And  therefore,  though  we  are 
 ready  to  receive  both  Scriptm-e  and  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  Scriptures,  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  Maccabees  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  :  the  first  of 
 these  you  held  not  to  be  canonical  in  St.  Gregory's  time,  or  else  he 
 was  no  member  of  your  church  ;  for  it  is  apparent*  he  held  other- 
 wise :  the  second  you  rejected  from  the  canon  in  St.  Hierom's  time, 
 as  it  is  evident  out  off  many  places  of  his  works. 
 
 91.  If  you  say  (which  is  all  you  can  say),  that  "Hierom  spake 
 this  of  the  particular  Roman  church,  not  of  the  Roman  catholic 
 church  ;"  I  answer,  there  was  none  such  in  his  time,  no:i  that  was 
 called  so.  Secondly,  what  he  spake  of  the  Roman  chm'ch  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  catholic 
 doctrine.  Now  then  choose  whether  you  will,  either  that  the  parti- 
 cular Roman  church  was  not  then  believed  to  be  the  mistress  of  all 
 other  churches,  noUYithstanding  ad  Jianc  ecclesiam,  necesse  est  omnem 
 convenire  ecclesiam,  hoc  est,  omnes  qui  sunt  undique  fideles  j  which. 
 Cardinal  Perron  and  his  translatress  so  often  translate  false :  or 
 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  catholic  chm-ch  may  err  in  rejecting  from 
 the  canon  scriptures  truly  canonical. 
 
 Secondly,  How  can  we  receive  the  Scripture  upon  the  authority  of 
 the  Roman  church,  \^hicli  hath  delivered  at  several  times  scriptures 
 in  many  places  different  and  repugnant  for  authentical  and  cano- 
 nical ?  which  is  most  evident  out  of  the  place  of  Malachi,  which  is 
 so  often  quoted  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  that  either  all  the  ancient 
 fathers  had  false  Bibles,  or  yours  is  false  :  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.  And  thus  you  see  what  reason  we  have  to  believe  your  ante- 
 cedent, "  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 
 
 •  See  Greg.  Mor.  1.  19.  c.  13. 
 
 t  Thus  he  testifies,  Com.  in  Isa.  c.  vi.  in  these  words  :  ••  Unde  et  Paulas  Apost. 
 in  Epist.  ad  Heb.  ("quam  Latina  consuetudonon  recipit)."  And  asraJ.n,  ir»  c.  viii. 
 'u  these  :  "  In  Epist.  quae  ad  Hebraeos  scribitur  (licet  earn  Lat^jia  consustudo 
 later  canouicas  scripturas  non  recipiat),"&c. 
 
124  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 this  oblige  him,  or  would  it  follow  from  hence  that  he  had  obhged 
 himself,  to  teach  you,  not  only  sufficiently,  but  etfectualiy  and 
 irresistibly,  the  true  sense  of  Scriptm-e  ?  God  is  not  defective  in 
 thino"s  necessary  ;  neither  will  he  leave  himself  -without  icitness,  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'  undiscernible  corruption  in  those  things 
 which  he  would  have  kuo^^^l ;  otherwise  it  is  apparent  it  had  not 
 been  his  will  that  these  things  should  be  known,  ihe  only  means  of 
 continuing  the  knowledge  of  them  being  perished.  But  now  neither 
 is  God  lavish  in  superfluities  ;  and  therefore  having  given  us  means 
 sufficient  for  om*  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  man  ;  and  that  is,  to  set  life 
 and  death  before  him,  and  leave  him  in  the  hands  of  /us  own  counsel, 
 God  gave  the  wise  men  a  stai*  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  afre  to  lead  them  hy 
 night,  and  a  pillar  of  cloud  by  day ;  but  he  constrained  no  man 
 to  follow  them ;  that  was  left  to  their  liberty.  So  he  gives  the 
 church  the  Scripture;  which,  in  those  things  which  are  to  be 
 believed  or  done,  are  plam  and  easy  to  be  followed,  like  the  wise 
 men's  star.  ISow  that  which  he  desires  of  us  on  our  part  is  the 
 obeihence  of  faith,  and  love  of  the  truth,  and  desire  to  find  the 
 true  sense  of  it,  and  industry  in  searching  it,  and  humihty  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  mere  necessity  they  must  do,  and  cannot  choose.  Besides,  what 
 an  impudence  it  is  to  pretend  that  your  cluu'ch  "is  infalhbly 
 dhected  concerning  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scripture,"  ^vhereas 
 there  are  thousands  of  places  of  Scripture  which  you  do  not  pretend 
 certainly  to  understand,  and  about  the  interpretation  \\  hereof  your 
 own  doctors  thfier  among  themselves  !  If  your  church  be  infallibly 
 directed  concerning  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture,  why  do  not  yoiu- 
 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  Scriptm-e  infallibly  thus 
 long  wrapped  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  ?  It  is  blasphemous  to  say  so.  The  Scripture  itself  tells 
 us,  all  Scripture  is  jjrofitable.  And  the  Scripture  is  not  so  much 
 the  words  as  the  sense.  And  if  it  be  not  profitable,  why  does  she 
 employ  particular  doctors  to  interpret  Scriptures  fallibly  '  unless  we 
 must  think  that  fallible  interpretations  of  Scripture  are  pyofita])ie, 
 and  infallible  interpretations  would  not  be  so ! 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  125 
 
 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  chm-ch  ^^ill  do  it  when  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  move 
 her  to  do  it ;"  I  demand,  whether  the  Holy  Ghost's  mo\ing  of  the 
 church  to  such  works  as  these  be  resistible  by  the  church  or  irresis- 
 tible ;  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  shows  us  plainly  that  it  would  be  for  the  good 
 of  men,  and  honom*  of  God  ;  as  he  that  hath  any  sense  will  acknow- 
 ledge, that  an  infallible  exposition  of  Scripture  could  not  but  be  ; 
 and  their  is  no  conceivable  reason  why  such  a  work  should  be  put 
 off  a  day,  but  only  because  you  are  conscious  to  yourselves  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  them- 
 selves, 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  public  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  ^^Titing  expositions  upon  the  Bible  for  the 
 direction  of  Christians  to  the  true  sense  of  it  ?     If  you  say  he   can- 
 not, you  will   make  yourself  ridicidous  ;  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  presentlv  ?    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  human 
 importunity  and  suggestion,  and  not  upon  the  motion  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost;    and,  consequentlv,  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  ^ve  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  infallibly  assisted  positively  to  give  the  true  sense  of  all  Scrip- 
 ture," 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  Ghost's  assistance  be  pro- 
 mised 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  sense  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  vu-tues;  for  all  these  things  would  be  much  for  the  benefit 
 of  Christians.  If  you  say,  he  cannot  do  this  without  taking  awav 
 their  freewill  in  hving ;  I  say,  neither  can  he  necessitate  men  to 
 
126  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 believe  aright,  without  taking  away  their  freewill  in  believing,  and 
 in  professing  their  belief. 
 
 97.  To  the  place  of  St.  Austin,  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  St.  Austin  to  believe  the 
 gospel,  but  the  perpetual  tradition  of  the  churches  of  all  ages. 
 W  hich  you  yourself  have  taught  us  to  be  the  "  only  principle  by 
 which  the  Scripture  is  proved,  and  which  itself  needs  no  proof ;" 
 and  to  which  you  have  referred  this  very  saying  of  St.  Austin, 
 Ego  vero  evangelio  non  credereniynisi,  &c.  *  chap.  ii.  §  14.  And  in 
 the  next  place  which  you  cite  out  of  this  book,  De  Util.  Creel,  c. 
 14,  he  shows  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  beheve 
 Manichasus,  as  to  be  believe  the  gospel  (the  Christian  tradition 
 being  as  full  against  Manichasus  as  it  was  for  the  gospel),  there- 
 fore he  did  well  to  conclude  upon  these  grounds,  that  he  had  as  much 
 reason  to  disbelieve  Manichacus  as  to  believe  the  gospel.  Now 
 if  you  can  truly  say,  that  the  same  fame,  celebrity,  consent,  anti- 
 quity, 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  pur- 
 pose to  substitute  their  names  instead  of  Manichseus,  unless  you 
 can  show  the  thing  agrees  to  them  as  well  as  him. 
 
 98.  If  you  say,  that  St.  Austin  speaks  here  "  of  the  authority  of 
 the  present  church,  abstracted  from  consent  with  the  ancient;"  and 
 therefore  you,  seeing  you  have  the  present  church  on  your  side 
 against  Luther  and  Calvin,  as  St.  Austin  against  Manichasus,  may 
 urge  the  same  words  against  them  which  St.  Austin  did  against 
 Lim  : 
 
 99.  I  answer,  first.  That  it  is  a  vain  presumption  of  yours,  that 
 the  *'  catholic  church  is  of  your  side."  Secondly,  That  if  St.  Austin 
 speak  here  of  that  present  church  which  moved  him  to  believe  the 
 gospel,  without  consideration  of  the  antiquity  of  it,  and  its  both  per- 
 sonal and  doctrinal  succession  from  the  apostles,  his  argument  will 
 be  like  a  buskin  that  will  serve  any  leg ;  it  will  serve  to  keep  an 
 Arian  or  a  Grecian  from  being  a  Roman  Catholic,  as  well  as  a 
 catholic  from  being  an  Arian  or  a  Grecian ;  inasmuch  as  the  Arians 
 and  Grecians  did  pretend  to  the  title  of  catholics  and  the  church, 
 as  much  as  the  papists  now  do.  If  then  you  should  have  come  to 
 an  ancient  Goth  or  Vandal,  whom  the  Arians  converted  to  Chris- 
 tianity, and  should  have  moved  hira  to  your  religion,  might  he  not 
 say  the  very  same  words  to  you  as  St.  Austin  to  the  Manichseans  : 
 *'  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, 
 Beheve  the  Arians,  they  warn  me  not  to  give  any  credit  to  you.  If 
 therefore  I  believe  them,  I  cannot  beheve  thee.  If  thou  say,  Do  not 
 believe  the  Arians,  thou  shalt  not  do  well  to  force  me  to  the  faith  of 
 the  Homoousians  because  by  the  preaching  of  the  Arians  I  believed 
 
 •  Page  55,  Aud,  &c.-0.if. 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  127 
 
 the  gospel  itself.  If  you  saj^  You  did  well  to  believe  them  com- 
 mending the  gospel,  but  you  did  not  well  to  beheve  them  discom- 
 mending the  Homoousians;  dost  thou  think  me  so  very  foohsh, 
 that  without  any  reason  at  all  I  should  believe  what  thou  wilt,  and 
 not  believe  what  thou  wilt  not  ?"  It  were  easy  to  put  these  words 
 into  the  mouth  of  a  Grecian,  Abyssine,  Georgian,  or  any  other  of 
 any  rehgion.  And  I  pray  bethink  themselves  what  you  would  sav 
 in  such  a  case,  and  imagine  that  we  say  the  very  same  to  you. 
 
 100.  Whereas  you  ask,  *' whether"^  protestants  do  not  perfectly 
 resemble  those  men  to  whom  St.  Austin  spake,  when  they  will  have 
 men  to  believe  the  Roman  church  delivering  Scripture,  but  not  to 
 beheve  her  condemning  Luther  ?"  I  demand  again,  whether  you 
 be  well  in  your  ^^-its  to  say,  that  protestants  would  have  men  beheve 
 the  Roman  church  delivering  Scripture,  whereas  they  accuse  her 
 to  deliver  many  books  for  Scripture  which  are  not  so  ?  and  do  not 
 bid  men  to  receive  any  book  which  she  delivers,  for  that  reason, 
 because  she  dehvers  it  ?  And  if  you  meant  only,  protestants  will 
 have  men  to  believe  some  books  to  be  Scripture  which  the  Roman 
 church  delivers  for  such,  may  we  not  then  ask,  as  you  do.  Do  not 
 papists  perfectly  resemble  these  men,  w^hich  will  have  men  believe 
 the  church  of  England  dehvering  Scripture,  but  not  to  believe  her 
 condemning  the  church  of  Rome  ? 
 
 •101.  And  whereas  you  say,  "  St.  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  1  was  moved  to  believe  that  Christ  com- 
 manded any  good  thing.'  *'     I  answer,  until  you  can  show  that  pro- 
 testants  believe  that  Christ  commanded  any  good  thing,  that  is, 
 that  they  believe  the  truth  of  Christian  religion,  upon  the  authoritv 
 of  the  chm-ch  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  Scriptiures  and  judge  of  controversies. 
 Nay,  rather,  is  it  not  directly  against  your  purpose  ?     For  why  mav 
 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  St.  Austin  here  to  the  Manichees  ?    Why  should  not  I  most 
 diligently  inquire  what  Christ  commanded  of  them  (the  church  of 
 England)  before  all  others  by  whose  authority  I  was  moved  to  be- 
 lieve that  Christ  commanded  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  con- 
 tained evidently  in  the  undoubted  books  of  the  New  Testament)  I 
 beheved  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  every  one  ma}-  see  that  you,  so  few  (in 
 comparison  of  all  those  upon  whose  consent  we  ground  om-  behef  of 
 Scripture),  so  turbulent,  that  you  damn  all  to  the  fire  and  to  hell 
 that  any  ways  differ  from  you  ;  that  you  profess  it  is  lawful  for  you 
 to  use  violence  and  power,  whensoever  you  can  have  it,  for  the 
 
128  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 planting  of  your  otsti  doctrine  and  extirpation  of  the  contrary ;  lastly, 
 so  new  in  many  of  your  doctrines — as  in  the  lawfulness  and  expe- 
 dience of  debarring  the  laity  the  sacramental  cup,  the  lawfulness  and 
 expedience  of  your  Latin  serv^ice,  transubstantiation,  indulgences, 
 purgatory,  the  pope's  infallibility,  his  authority  over  kings,  &c. — so 
 new,  I  say,  in  comparison  of  the  undoubted  books  of  Scripture, 
 •jvhich  evidently  containeth,  or  rather  is,  our  religion,  and  the  sole 
 and  adequate  object  of  our  faith  ;  I  say,  every  one  man  may  see  that 
 you,  so  few,  so  turbulent,  so  new,  can  produce  nothing  deser\-ing 
 authority  (with  wise  and  considerate  men).     ^Y}\at  madness  is  this ! 
 Believe  then  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  conti-adict  and  damn  all  other 
 parts  of  Christendom.     Why,  I  beseech  you  ?     Surely  if  they  were 
 not  at  all,  and  could  not  teach  me  anything,  I  would  more  easily 
 persuade  myself  that  I  were  not  to  believe  in  Christ,  than  that  I 
 should  learn  anything  concerning  him  from  any  other  than  them  by 
 whom  I  beheved  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,  Avhich  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  doctrmes  plainly  and  directly 
 contrary  to  tliat  which  you  confess  to  be  the  word  of  Christ,  and 
 which  for  the  most  part  make  either  for  the  honour  or  profit  of  the 
 teachers  of  them ;  which  (if  there  were  no  difi'erence  between  the 
 Christian  and  the  Roman  church)  would  be  very  apt  to  make  sus- 
 j)icious  men  believe  that  Christian  rehgion  was  a  human  invention, 
 taught  by  some  cimning  impostors  only  to  make  themselves  rich  and 
 powerful ;  Avho  make  a  profession  of  corrupting  all  sorts  of  authors 
 — a  ready  course  to  make  it  justly  questionable  whether  any  remain 
 imcoiTupteck    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  fomitain 
 of  apostohc  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   embryos, 
 yet  hatching,  and  in  the  shell;    as  the   pope's  infallibilit}-,    the 
 blessed  Virgin's  immaculate  conception,  the  pope's  power  over  the 
 temporalities  of  kings,  the  doctrine  of  predetermination,  &c.,  all 
 which  yet  are,  or  in  time  may  be,  imposed  upon  Christians  imder 
 the  title  of  original  and  apostolical  tradition ;  and  that  with  that 
 necessity,  that  they  are  told  they  were  as  good  beheve  nothing  at 
 all,  as  not  beheve  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  hkeiy  way  to  make  men  conclude 
 thus  with  themselves ; — I  am  told  that  I  were  as   good  believe 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  129 
 
 nothing  at  all,  as  believe  some  points  -which  the  church  teacheth  me, 
 and  not  others  ;  and  some  things  which  she  teacheth  to  be  ancient 
 and  certain,  I  plainly  see  to  be  new  and  false  ;  therefore  I  will  be- 
 lieve nothing  at  all ; — whether,  I  say,  the  aforesaid  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  foundation  for  our  behef  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  knowledge 
 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  chm-ch  is  so  :  therefore 
 the  church  is  the  judge,  and  not  the  Scripture." 
 
 103.  To  this  I  answer  :  As  to  be  understandable  is  a  condition 
 requisite  to  a  judge,  so  is  not  that  alone  sufficient  to  make  a 
 judge ;  otherwise  you  might  make  yourself  judge  of  contro- 
 versies 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  chm-ch, 
 I  demand  why  then,  but  to  delude  the  simple  with  sophistry,  did 
 you  say  in  the  close  of  this  §,  "  Such  is  the  church,  and  the  Scrip- 
 ture is  not  such  ?"  but  that  you  would  leave  it  to  them  to  infer  m 
 the  end  (which  indeed  was  more  than  you  undertook  in  the  begin- 
 ning). Therefore  the  church  is  judge,  and  Sciipture  not.  I  say, 
 secondly,  That  you  still  run  upon  a  false  supposition,  that  God  hath 
 appointed  some  judge  of  all  controversies  that  may  happen  anaong 
 Christians  about  the  sense  of  obscure  texts  of  Scripture ;  whereas 
 he  hath  left  every  one  to  his  liberty  herein,  in  those  words  of  St. 
 Paul,  Quisque  abundet  in  sensu  suo.  &c.  I  say,  thirdly.  Whereas 
 some  protestants  make  the  Scriptm-e  judge  of  controversies,  that 
 they  have  the  authority  of  fathers  to  warrant  their  manner  of  speak- 
 ing ;   as  of  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  chm-ch  of  Rome  both  do),  what  they  are  to  believe,  and  what 
 they  are  not  to  beheve.  I  say,  sufficiently  perfect  and  sufficiently 
 intelligible  in  things  necessary,  to  all  that  have  understanding, 
 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  indiffijrent 
 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  human  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 
 
 *  Contra  Parmen.  1.  5,  in  prin. 
 K 
 
330  SCRIPTURE   THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 Pharaoh,  he  gives  no  straw,  and  requu-es  brick ;  that  he  reaps 
 where  he  sows  not ;  that  he  gathers  where  he  strews  not ;  that  he 
 mil  not  be  pleased  with  our  utmost  endeavours  to  please  him, 
 without  full,  and  exact,  and  never-failing  performance ;  that  his 
 will  is  we  should  do  what  he  knoAvs  we  cannot  do  ;  that  he  \\iU.  not 
 accept  of  us  according  to  that  which  we  have,  but  requireth  of  us 
 what  we  have  not.  ^Vhich  v^hether  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,  3'et  not- 
 withstanding meetmg  often  with  such  places  where  the  road  is 
 divided  into  several  aa  ays,  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  am'  man  say  that  I  were  an  impotent, 
 foohsh,  and  unjust  master,  if  I  should  be  offended  with  him  for  so 
 doing  ?  And  shall  we  not  tremble  to  impute  that  to  God  v>  hich  we 
 would  take  in  foul  scorn  if  it  were  imputed  to  ourselves  ?  Certainly, 
 I  for  my  jjart  feai-  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  vmderstand  any 
 Scripture,  or  that  they  cannot  understand  so  much  as  is  sufficient 
 for  their  du-ection  to  heaven.  If  the  first,  I  believe  the  learned  are 
 in  the  same  case.  If  the  second,  every  man's  experience  will  con- 
 fute you  ;  for  who  is  there  that  is  not  capable  of  a  sufficient  under- 
 standing of  the  story,  the  precepts,  the  promises,  and  the  threats  of 
 the  gospel?  If  the  thu-d,  that  they  may  understand  something, 
 but  not  enough  for  their  salvations  :  I  ask  you,  first.  Why  then 
 doth  St.  Paul  say  to  Timothy,  The  Scriptures  are  able  to  make  him 
 wise  unto  salvation  t'  "Why  doth  St.  Austin  say,  Ea  quoe  manifeste 
 jposita  sunt  in  sacris  scripturis,  omnia  contintnt  quce  pertinent  ad 
 Udern,  moresque  vivendi  ?  T\  hy  does  every  one  of  the  fom-  evan- 
 gelists entitle  their  book.  The  Gospel,  if  any  necessary  and  essential 
 pai-t  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,  mahciously  concealed  it? 
 or,  out  of  negligence,  thd  the  work  they  had  imdertaken  by  halves. 
 If  nonp  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  folloA^s,  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  Scriptm-e  but  one  of 
 them  alone,  we  should  not  want  anythmg  necessary  to  salvation. 
 And  what  one  of  them  hath  more  than  another,  it  is  only  profitable, 
 and  not  necessary  :  necessary  indeed  to  be  believed,  because  re- 
 vealed ;  but  not  therefore  revealed,  because  necessary  to  be  beheved. 
 
 106.  Neither  did  they  write  only  for  the  leanaed,  but  for  all  men. 
 This  being  one  special  means  of  the  preaching  of  the  gosj^el,  which 
 was  commanded  to  be  preached,  not  only  to  learned  men,  but  to  all 
 Bjea.    And  therefore,  unless  we  will  imagine  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
 
WHEREBY    TO   JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  131 
 
 tliem  to  liave  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  easy  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  the 
 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  Ave  know,  first,  that  these  are  the  notes 
 of  the  church,  unless  by  Scripture,  which,  you  say,  he  understands 
 not  ?  You  may  say,  ])erhaps,  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  ;  hoAv  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  knowletlge  of 
 the  monuments  of  Christian  antiquity,  which  no  ^unlearned  man  can 
 have,  because  he  that  hath  it  cannot  be  unlearned.  As  for  example, 
 how  shall  he  jjossibly  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 
 doctnne  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  imagme  him  advanced  a  step  further,  and  to  know  which 
 is  the  church  :  how  shall  he  know  what  the  church  hath  decreed, 
 seeing  the  church  hath  not  been  so  careful  in  keeping  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  defide  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,  than  of  plain  texts  of  Scriptiu-e,  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  m  such  languages,  which  the  ignorant  understand  not. 
 and  therefoi-e  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 
 
 »  Un:e?:nGd  can  —Oxf. 
 
132  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 vulgar  languages,  why  the  translators  should  not  be  as  falhble  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  con- 
 firmed 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,  luiless  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  ordainer's  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  human  judgment  can  possibly  be  resolved  in  them.  I  conclude, 
 therefore,  that  not  the  most  learned  man  amongst  you  all,  no,  not 
 the  pope  himself,  can,  according  to  the  grounds  you  go  upon,  have 
 any  certainty  that  any  decree  of  any  council  is  good  and  valid,  and 
 consequently,  not  any  assurance  that  it  is  indeed  the  decree  of  a 
 covmcil. 
 
 110.  Ad  §  20.     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  con- 
 troversies to  Scri])ture,  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  jjossibly  know  to  be  true,  it  being  a  secret 
 thing),  and  between  saying,  "  These  and  these  reasons  1  have  to 
 show  that  this  or  that  is  true  doctrine,  or  that  this  or  that  is  the 
 meaning  of  such  a  scrijjture?"     Reason  being  a  public  and  certain 
 thing,  and  exposed  to  all  men's  trial  and  Examination.     But  now,  if 
 by  "  private  spirit"  you  understand  every  man's  particular  reason, 
 then  your  first  and  second  inconvenience  will  presently  be  reduced 
 to  one,  and  shortly  to  none  at  all. 
 
 111.  Ad  §  21.  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  infalhble,  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  firai,  or  captious 
 and  sophistical?  Or  would  you  have  all  men  believe  all  your  doc- 
 trine upon  the  church's  infalhbility,  and  the  church's  infalhbility 
 they  know  not  why  ? 
 
 112.  Secondly,  Supposing  they  are  to  be  guided  by  the  church, 
 they  must  use  their  own  particular  leason  to  find  out  which  is  the 
 church.  And  to  that  purpose  you  yourselves  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  ;  but 
 you  do  not  so  much  as  pretend,  that  either  of  those  pretences  is 
 evident  of  itself,  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  alleged  for  ;  that  is,  that  these  marks  are  indeed  certain  notes 
 of  the  church  ;  and  then,  that  your  chiuch  hath  them,  and  no  other. 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  133 
 
 113.  One  of  these  notes,  indeed  the  only  note  of  a  true  and 
 Tineorrupted  church,  is  conformity  \\ith  antiquity  ;  I  mean  the  most 
 ancient  church  of  all,  that  is,  the  primitive  and  apostolic.  Now, 
 how  is  it  possible  any  man  should  examine  yom-  church  by  this  note, 
 but  he  must  by  his  own  particular  judgment  find  out  what  was  the 
 doctrine  of  the  primitive  church,  and  wliat  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
 present  church,  and  be  able  to  answer  all  these  arguments  Avhich  are 
 brought  to  prove  repugnance  between  them  ?  Otherwise  he  shall 
 but  pretend  to  make  use  of  this  note  for  the  findhag  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  parti- 
 cular reasons,  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  falsehood.  But 
 it  is  a  pretty  thing  to  consider  how  these  men  can  blow  hot  and  cold 
 out  of  the  same  laouth  to  sen-e  several  purposes.  Is  there  hope  of 
 gaining  a  ])roselyte  I  Then  they  will  tell  you,  God  hath  given 
 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  man's 
 religion,  that  he  was  born  and  Ijrought  up  in  it ;  for  then  a  Turk 
 should  have  as  much  reason  to  be  a  Turk,  as  a  Christian  to  be  a 
 Christian  :  that  eveiy  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  hath  them, 
 and  no  others  but  theirs.  But  then  if  any  of  theirs  be  persuaded 
 to  a  sincere  and  sufficient  trial  of  their  church,  even  by  then*  own 
 notes  of  it,  and  to  try  whether  they  be  indeed  so  conjformable  to 
 antiquity  as  they  pretend,  then  their  note  is  changed.  You  must  not 
 use  yom-  ovv-n  reason  nor  yoiur  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  falsehood ;  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  I  that 
 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  follow  ?  Their  passions  ?  or  pluck  out  their 
 eyes,  and  go  blindfold  ?  No,  you  say,  you  would  have  them 
 follow  authority.  On  God's  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  3'ou  would  have  them  follow,  you  will  let 
 them  see  reason  why  they  should  follow  it.  And  is  not  this  to  go  a 
 httle  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  doth  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  beea 
 
 •  Brerely  a^itl  the  rest,  you  need  not  think  to  have  been  extorted  from, 
 Itttker.    It  catue,  &c.— (Jxf. 
 
134  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 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  agjree  with  Scripture,  which  upon  the 
 matter  is  himself :"  I  say,  you  admit  neither  of  them,  nor  the 
 Scripture  itself,  but  only  so  far  as  it  agrees  with  your  church  ;  and 
 your  chm-ch  you  admit,  because  you  think  you  have  reason  to  do  so  : 
 so  that  by  you  as  well  as  protestants  all  is  finally  resolved  into  your 
 ovm  reason. 
 
 116.  Nor  do  heretics  only,  but  Romish  catholics  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 
 rehgions  ?  O,  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  ovvn 
 reason  teils  them  they  are  to  do  so.  So  that  the  difibrence  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 
 infalhble,  the  other  his  way  to  be  manifest.  "  This  same  per- 
 nicious doctrine  is  taught  by  Brentius,  Zanchius,  CartvM'ight,  and 
 others."  It  is  so  in  very  deed ;  but  it  is  taught  also  by  some 
 others,  whom  you  httle  think  of.  It  is  taught  by  St.  Paul  where 
 he  says.  Try  all  things  j  holdfast  that  ivhich  is  good.  It  is  taught 
 by  St.  John  in  these  words :  Believe  not  every  spirit,  hut  try  the 
 spirits,  ivliether  they  be  of  God  or  no.  It  is  taught  by  St.  Peter  in 
 these  :  Be  ye  ready  to  render  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  you. 
 Lastly,  this  very  pernicious  doctrine  is  taught  by  our  Saviom-  in 
 these  words  :  If  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the 
 ditch  :  and.  Why  of  yourselves  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  myself  to 
 understand  nothing.  Lastly,  not  to  be  infinite,  it  is  taught  by  Mr. 
 Knot  himself,  not  in  one  page  only  or  chapter  of  his  book,  but  all 
 his  book  over ;  the  very  writing  and  publishing  whereof  supposes 
 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 
 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  rehgion,  and  not  to  believe  this  or  that  sense  of 
 Scripture  upon  the  bare  authority  of  any  learned  man  or  men,  when 
 he  conceives  he  hath  reasons  to  the  conti-ary  which  are  of  more 
 weight  than  their  authority ;  I  know  no  reason,  but  notwithstanduag 
 all  this,  they  might  be  as  good  statesmen  as  any  of  the  society. 
 But  what  hath  this  to  do  with  commonwealths,  where  men  are 
 bound  only  to  external  obedience  unto  the  laws  and  judgment  of 
 coruts,  but  not  to  an  internal  approbation  of  them,  no,  nor  to 
 conceal  their  judgment  of  them,  if  thev  disajDprove  them  ?     As,  if  I 
 
WHEREBY   TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  155 
 
 conceived  I  had  reason  to  mislike  the  law  of  punishing  simple  theft 
 with  death,  as  Sir  Thomas  More  did,  I  might  profess  lawfully  my 
 judgment,  and  represent  my  reasons  to  the  king  or  coraraonweaitii 
 in  a  parliament,  as  Sir  Thomas  More  did,  without  committing  any 
 fault,  or  fearing  any  punishment. 
 
 118.  To  the  place  of  St.  Austin  wherewith  this  paragraph  is  con- 
 cluded, 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  1"  whether,  I  say,  for  a  man 
 thus  "  to  allou-  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  contraiy?     For  God's  sake,  sir,  tell  nie 
 plainly  :   in  those  texts  of  Scripture  which  you  allege  for  the  mfalh- 
 bility  of  your  chm'ch,  do  not  you  allow  what  sense  you  think  true, 
 and  disallow  the  contrary?  and  do  ycm  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  follow  none  at  all  ?     If  none  at  all,  this  is  like  dra^'ving 
 lots,  or  throwing  the  dice,  for  the  choice  of  a  religion  :  if  any  other, 
 I  beseech  you  tell  me    what    it  is.     Perhaps   you   Avill    say   th.e 
 "  church's  authority  ;"  and  that  will  be  to  dance  iinely  in  a  round, 
 thus  :  to  believe  the  church's  infallible  authority,  because  the  Scrip- 
 tures avouch  it ;  and  to  believe  that  Scriptures  say  and  mean  so, 
 because  they  are  so  ex-pounded  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  cried  out  at  it,  Ecce  quos 
 gyros,  quos  Mcsandros  !     Antl  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  mere  state,  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  intel- 
 hgent     man,    that     you    are    enforced    of    necessity    to    do  that 
 yom-self  which  so  tragically  you  declaim  against  in  others  ?     The 
 church,  you  say,  is  infalhble  ',  I  am  very  doubtful  of  it ;  how  shall 
 I  know  it  ?     The  Scripture,  you  say,  affirms  it,  as  in  the  59th  of 
 Esay,  My  spirit  that  is  in  thee,  kc.     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  itself.     What  then  remains  but 
 that  you  say,  reasons  drawn  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the  text  viill 
 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 
 
1^^6  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 every  man  or  woman  to  rely  on  that,  in  the  choice  of  their  rehgion 
 and  in  the  interpreting  of  Scni)ture,  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 
 itself  credible  ;  and  that  hath  in  all  ages  taught  the  church's  infalli- 
 bility with  fidl  consent."  If  it  have,  I  am  ready  to  believe  it ;  but 
 that  it  hath,  I  hope  you  would  not  have  me  take  upon  your  word ; 
 for  that  were  to  build  myself  upon  the  church,  and  the  church  upon 
 you.  Let  then  the  tradition  appear;  for  a  secret  tradition  is  some- 
 wliat  like  a  silent  thunder.  You  vnll  perhaps  produce,  for  the  con- 
 lirmation  of  it,  some  sa}  ing  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  perti- 
 nent"); 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  five 
 hundred  years  after  Christ  that  docs  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  this  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  hifallible  :  yea,,  "  but  reason  will  show  this  to  be  the 
 meaning  of  them."  Yes,  if  we  may  use  our  reason,  and  rely  upon 
 it  :  otherwise,  as  light  shows  nothing  to  the  blind,  or  to  him  that 
 uses  not  his  eyes,  so  reason  cannot  jirove  any  thing  to  him  that 
 either  hath  not  or  useth  not  his  reason  to  judge  of  them. 
 
 120.  Thus  you  have  excluded  yourself  from  all  j)roof  of  your 
 church's  infallibility  from  Scripture  or  tradition :  and  if  you  fly, 
 lastly,  to  reason  itself  for  succour,  may  it  not  justly  say  to  you 
 as  Jephthah  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  cer- 
 tainty of  those  which  you  allege  for  this  purpose  ?  Either  I  may 
 judge  of  them,  or  not;  if  not,  why  do  you  propose  them  ?  if  I  may, 
 why  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.  "A  heretic  he  is,"  saith  D.  Potter,  "who  op- 
 posetli  any  truth,  which  to  be  a  Divine  revelation  he  is  convinced  in 
 conscience  by  any  means  whatsover ;  be  it  by  a  preacher  or  layman  ; 
 be  it  by  reading  Scriptures,  or  hearing  them  read."  And  i'rom  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 
 js  Divine  revelation ;  and  yet  though  he  be  a  true  propounder  in 
 this  point,  yet  propound  another  thing  falsel}',  and  without  j)roof, 
 and,  consequently,  not  be  a  safe  propounder  in  every  point  ?  Your 
 preachers  in  their  sermons,  do  they  not  propose  to  men  Divine  reve- 
 
■WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  13/ 
 
 latioTis  ?  and  do  they  not  sometimes  convince  men  in  conscience, 
 by  evident  proof  from  Scriptm-e,  that  the  things  they  speak  are  Divine 
 revelations  ?  And  whosoever,  being  thus  convinced,  should  oppose 
 this  Divine  revelation,  should  he  not  be  a  heretic,  according  to  vour 
 own  grounds,  for  calling  God's  own  truth  into  question  ?  And 
 w^ould  you  think  yourself  well  dealt  with,  if  I  should  collect  from 
 hence,  that  you  make  every  preacher  a  safe,  that  is,  an  infallible 
 propouiider  of  faith?  Be  the  means  of  proposal  what  it  will,  s\ilfi- 
 cient  or  insufficient,  worthy  of  credit  or  not  worthy ;  though  it  were, 
 if  it  were  possiljle,  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  falsely,  that  it  is  a  Divine 
 revelation,  and  shall  deny  to  believe  it,  I  shall  be  a  formal,  though 
 not  a  material  heretic.  For  he  that  believes,  though  falsely,  any 
 thing  to  be  Divine  revelation,  and  3'et  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  a  heretic. 
 
 122.  And  how  it  can  be  any  way  advantageous  to  civil  govern- 
 ment, that  men  without  warrant  from  God  should  usurp  a  tyranny 
 over  other  men's  consciences,  and  prescribe  unto  them,  without 
 reason,  and  sometimes  against  reason,  what  they  shall  ])elieve,  you 
 must  show  us  plainer,  if  you  desire  we  should  believe.  For  to  say, 
 "  Verily,  I  do  not  see  but  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  satisfy  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  traitors, 
 and  thieves,  and  murderers. 
 
 123.  Ad  §  23.  The  next  §  in  the  beginning  argues  thus  :  "'  For 
 many  ages  there  was  no  Scripture  m  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  in- 
 fallible church.  "^  St.  Chi-ysostom  and  Isidorus  Pelusiota  conceived 
 lie  might  use  other  means.  And  St.  Paul  telleth  us,  that  the 
 yvaiffTov  rev  Qsev  m'-ght  be  hioivn  by  his  works,  and  that  they  had  the 
 
 *  See  Chrysost.  Horn.  1.  in  Mat. ;  Isidoiv  Pcius  I.  3.  ep.  105;  and  also  Casil  in 
 Psa.  xx^iii.,  and  then  you  shall  confess,  that  by  other  means  besides  thece  God 
 did  communicate  himself  unto  men,  and  made  them  receive  and  understand  hia 
 laws,     ^ec  also  to  che  same  purpose,  Hec.  i.  1. 
 
138  SCHIPTURE    TPIE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 law  written  in  their  hearts.     Either  of  these  ways  might  make  some 
 faithful  men,  %Yithoiit  either  necessity  of  Scripture  or  "church. 
 
 124.  "But  Dr.  Potter  says,"  you  say,  "In  the  JeA\ish  church 
 there  was  a  hving  judge,  enJowed  Avith  an  ahsohite  infalhhle  direc- 
 tion iu  cases  of  moment ;  as  all  points  belonging  to  Divine  faith 
 are.''  And  where  was  that  infallible  direction  in  the  Jewsh  church, 
 when  they  should  have  received  Christ  for  their  Messias,  and  refused 
 him?  Or  perhaps  this  was  not  a  case  of  moment.  Dr.  Potter 
 indeed  might  say  very  well,  not  that  the  high  priest  was  infal- 
 lible (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  beheved.  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  privilege  v.hich  you  challenge.  But  it  is  that,  not  this,  which 
 the  doctor  attributes  .to  the  Jev.s.  As  a  man  may  truly  say,  the 
 •wise  men  had  an  infallible  chrection  to  Christ,  without  saving  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  wa.^ 
 divested  of  it  upon  the  receiving  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  is  absm'd." 
 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  aught  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  controver- 
 sies, 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  Scriptm-e  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  ])rofitable,  that 
 the  same  thing  should  be  said  divers  times,  and  be  testifled  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 
 pubhshed,  the  chm-ch  altered  her  rule  of  faith  and  judge  of  con- 
 troversies." 
 
 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  infalhhle  :  therefore 
 there  must  be  a  church  infallible."  But  I  pray  tell  me,  why  cannot 
 heresies  be  sufficiently  discovered,  condemned,  and  avoided  by  them 
 'which  beheve  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  teacli  us  what  is  heresy  ;  seeing  heresy  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 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  139 
 
 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  oftend  him ;  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Sou  of  God  and 
 the  Saviour  of  the  Avorld  ;  that  it  is  he  by  obedience  to  Avhom  men 
 must  look  to  be  saved  :  if  any  man  should  deny  either  his  buth,  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  ■'vhom  Gocl  hath  appointed  to  be  judge  of  the  quick  and  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  *  and 
 repent  shall  be  damned  :  if  a  man  should  hold,  that  either  the  keep- 
 ing of  the  3i0saical  law  is  necessary  to  salvation,  or  that  good 
 works  are  not  necessary  to  sahation :  in  a  word,  if  any  man  shotdd 
 obstinately  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  heresy,  v.ithout  any  need  of  an  infallible  guide  ?  If  vou  say, 
 that  "  the  obscure  places  of  Scripture  contain  matters  of  faith,"  I 
 answer,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  faith  to  beheve  that  the  sense  of  them, 
 whatsoever  it  is,  which  was  intended  by  God,  is  true  ;  for  he  that 
 doth  not  so,  calls  God's  truth  into  question.  But  to  believe  this  or 
 that  to  be  the  true  sense  of  them,  or  to  beheve  the  true  sense  of 
 them  and  to  avoid  the  false,  is  not  necessary  either  to  faith  or  salva- 
 tion. For  if  God  would  have  had  his  meaning  in  these  places 
 certainly  kno^^Tl,  how  could  it  stand  with  his  wisdom  to  be  so 
 wanting  to  his  ov.ii  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  outi  absence 
 from  one  of  his  kingdoms  had  \M"itten  laws  for  the  government  of  it, 
 some  ver}-  plainly,  and  some  very  ambiguously  and  obscurely,  and 
 his  subjects  should  keep  those  that  were  plamly  Avritten  with  all 
 exactness,  and  for  those  that  were  obscure  use  their  best  dihgence 
 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  failed  of 
 performance  by  reason  of  their  error  ? 
 
 128.  "But  it  is  more  useful  and  fit,"  you  say,  "for  the  deciding 
 of  controversies,  to  have,  besides  an  infallible  rule  to  go  by,  a  living 
 infallible  judge  to  determine  them  :  and  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  pm-poses, 
 that  all  the  patriai*chs  should  be  infallible,  than  that  the  pope  only 
 should  ?  Another,  that  it  would  be  yet  more  useful  that  all  the 
 archbishops  of  eveiy  province  should  be  so,  than  that  the  patriarchs 
 only  should  be  so.  Another,  that  it  v^ould  be  yet  more  useful,  if  all 
 the  bishops  of  every  diocese  were  so.  Another,  that  it  would  be  yet. 
 more  available,  that  all  the  parsons  of  every  parish  should  be  so. 
 Another,  that  it  would  be  yet  more  excellent,  if  all  the  fathers  of 
 
 *  Or  repent.  -  Oif, 
 
140  BCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 families  were  so.  And,  lastly,  another,  that  it  were  much  more 
 to  be  desired,  that  every  man  and  every  v/oman  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  condemna- 
 tion of  them ;  and  upon  this  ground  conclude,  by  your  ovm  ver}-- 
 consequence,  that  not  only  a  general  council,  nor  only  the  pope,  but 
 ^all  the  patriarchs,  archbishojjs,  bishops,  pastors,  fathers,  nay  ail  the 
 men  in  the  world,  are  infallible  ;  if  you  say  now^  as  I  am  sm'e  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  seeins  always  more  fit  to  Divine  Providence,  which  seems 
 most  fit  to  human  reason. 
 
 ]29.  And  so,  likewise,  that  there  should  men  succeed  the  apostles 
 which  could  show  themselves  to  be  their  successors  by  doing  of 
 miracles,  by  speaking  all  kinds  of  languages,  by  delivering  men  to 
 Satan,  as  St.  Paul  did  Hymenseus  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  successors  of 
 the  apostles  should  have  noue  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  ? 
 
 U^O.  It  were  in  all  reason  very  useful  and  requisite  that  the  pope 
 should,  by  the  assistance  of  God's  Spirit,  be  freed  from  the  vices 
 and  passions  of  men,  lest  otherwise  the  authority  given  him  for  the 
 good  of  the  church  he  might  employ  (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  men's  direction  it  were  much  more 
 benefi-cial  for  the  church  that  infallibility  should  be  settled  in  the 
 pope's  person,  than  in  a  general  council ;  that  so  the  means  of 
 deciding  controversies  might  be  speedy,  easy,  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 
 Sorbonne  doctors  would  not  think  this  a  good  conclusion. 
 
 1.32.  It  had  been  very  commodious  (one  would  think),  that 
 seeing  either  God's  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  his  business,  and  by  this  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 
 Scriptui-e  should  Itave  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  liave  been  preserved  free  from  variety  of 
 readings,  which  makes  men  \eyy  uncertain  in  many  places  which  is 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  141 
 
 the  word  of  God,  and  which  is  the  error  or  presumption  of  man  r- 
 and  yet  we  sec  God  hath  not  thought  fit  so  to  provide  for  us. 
 
 135.  Who  can  conceive,  but  that  an  apostohc  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 
 forseeing  that  the  greatest  part  of  Christians  woidd  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  do^^^^  in  terms,  "  The  bishops  of  Rome  shall  be  always  monarchs 
 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  mllingly  as  to  Christ  himself;  neither  needed 
 you  and  your  fellows  have  troubled  yourself  to  invent  so  many 
 sophisms  for  the  proof  of  it.  There  would  have  been  no  more  doubt 
 of  it  among  Christians,  than  thex'e  is  of  the  nativity,  passion,  resur- 
 rection, 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  whicli  he  hath  not  done, 
 because,  forsooth,  in  our  vain  _;Widgmt3nts,  it  seems  convenient  he 
 should  have  done  so. 
 
 137.  But  you  demand,  "  what'repugaance  there  is  between  infal- 
 libihty  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  Scripture's  existence  and  the  church's 
 infallibility,  therefore  the  church  is  infallible."  Which  consequence 
 will  then  be  good,  when  you  can  show,  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  ; 
 inasmuch  as  there  is  no  more  repugnance  between  the  Scripture's 
 existence  and  our  infallibility,  than  there  is  between  theirs. 
 
 138.  "  But  if  protestants  will  have  the  Scripture  alone  for  their 
 judge,  let  them  first  produce  some  scripture,  affirming,  that  by  the 
 entering  thereof  mfallibility  went  out  of  the  church."  This  argu- 
 ment put  i  .  foi-m  runs  thus  :  No  Scripture  afih-ms  that  by  the 
 entering  thereof  infallibility  went  out  of  the  church ;  therefore  tliere 
 is  an  infallible  church  ;  and  therefore  the  Scripture  alone  \%  not 
 
H2  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 judge,  that  is,  the  rule  to  juclsje  by.  But  as  no  Scriptui'e  affirms 
 that  by  the  entering  of  it  infaUibiUty  went  out  of  the  church  j  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  Hving,  and  then  departed  ;  God  in 
 his  providence  ha\dng  provided  a  plain  and  infallible  rule,  to  supply 
 the  defect  of  living  and  infallible  guides.  Certainly,  if  yom-  cause 
 w^ere  good,  so  great  a  wit  as  30urs  is  would  devise  better  arguments 
 to  maintain  it.  We  can  show  no  scripture  affirming  infallibility  to 
 have  gone  out  of  the  church,  therefore  it  is  infallible.  Somewhat 
 like  his  discourse  that  said,  It  could  not  be  proved  out  of  Scripture 
 that  the  King  of  Sweden  v.^as  dead,  therefore  he  is  still  living. 
 Methinks,  in  all  reason,  you  that  challenge  privileges,  and  exemption 
 from  the  condition  of  men,  which  is  to  be  subject  to  error  ;  you  that 
 by  virtue  of  this  privilege  usm-p  authority  over  men's  consciences  ; 
 should  produce  your  letters  patent  from  the  King  of  Heaven,  and 
 show  some  express  warrant  for  this  authority  you  take  upon  you ; 
 otherwise  you  know  the  rule  is,  Ubi  contrarium  non  manifeste prO' 
 batur,  presumitur  pro  libertate. 
 
 139.  *'But  Dr.  Potter  may  remember  what  himself  teacheth, 
 '  that  the  church  is  still  endued  with  infallibility  in  points  funda- 
 mental,' and  consequently,  that  infallibility  in  the  church  doth  well 
 agree  with  the  truth,  the  sanctity,  yea,  with  the  sufficiency  of  Scrip- 
 ture, for  all  matters  necessary  to  salvation."  Still  your  discom-se  is 
 so  far  fi'om  hitting  the  white,  that  it  roves  quite  besides  the  butt. 
 You  conclude,  that  the  infallibility  of  the  church  may  well  agree 
 with  the  truth,  the  sanctity,  the  sufficiency  of  Scripture.  But  what 
 is  this,  but  to  abuse  your  reader  with  the  proof  of  that  which  no  man 
 denies?  The  question  is  not,  Whether  an  infallible  church  might 
 agree  with  Scriptm-e  ?  but.  Whether  there  be  an  mfalhble  chiuch  ? 
 Jam  die,  Posthume,  de  tribus  capellis.  Besides,  you  must  know 
 there  is  a  wide  difference  between  being  infallible  in  fundamentals, 
 and  being  an  infallible  guide  even  in  fundamentals.  Dr.  Potter  says 
 that  the  church  is  the  former,  that  is,  there  shall  be  some  men  in 
 the  world,  while  the  world  lasts,  which  err  not  in  fundamentals  ; 
 for  otherwise  there  should  be  no  church.  For  to  say.  The  church, 
 while  it  is  the  church,  may  err  in  fundamentals,  implies  a  contra- 
 diction, and  is  all  one  as  to  say.  The  church,  while  it  is  the  church, 
 may  not  be  the  church.  So  that  to  say  that  the  church  is  infallible 
 in  fundamentals  signifies  no  more  but  this,  "There  shall  be  a  church 
 in  the  world  for  ever."  But  we  utterly  deny  the  church  to  be  the 
 latter ;  for  to  say  so,  were  to  oblige  om'selves  to  find  some  certain 
 societ}-  of  men,  of  whom  we  might  be  certain  that  they  neither  do 
 nor  can  err  in  fundamentals,  nor  m  declaring  what  is  fundamental, 
 what  is  not  fundamental :  and,  consequently,  to  make  any  church  an 
 infalhble  guide  in  fimdamentals,  would  be  to  make  it  infallible  in  all 
 things  which  she  proposes  and  requires  to  be  believed.  This  there- 
 fore we  deny  both  to  your  and  all  other  chm-ches  of  any  one  denomi- 
 nation, as  the  Greek,  the  Roman,  the  Abyssine ;  that  is,  indeed,  we 
 deny  it  simply  to  any  church  :  for  no  church  can  possibly  be  fit  to 
 be  a  guide,  but  only  a  church  of  some  certain  denomination  :  for 
 Otherwise  no  mn  can  possibly  know  which  is  the  true  church,  but 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  143 
 
 by  a  pre-examination  of  the  doctrine  controverted ;  and  that  were 
 not  to  be  guided  by  the  church  to  the  true  doctrine,  but  by  the  true 
 doctrine  to  the  church.  Hereafter  therefore,  when  you'hear  pro- 
 testants  say,  the  church  is  infalhble  in  fundamentals,  you  must  not 
 conceive  them  as  if  they  meant  as  you  do,  that  some  society  of 
 Christians,  which  may  be  known  by  adhering  to  some  one  headj  for 
 example,  the  pope,  or  the  bishop  of  Constantinople,  is  infallible  in 
 these  things  ;  but  only  thus,  that  true  religion  shall  never  be  so  far 
 driven  out  of  the  world,  but  that  it  shall  have  always,  somewhere 
 or  other,  some  that  beheve  and  profess  it,  in  all  things  necessary  to 
 salvation. 
 
 140.  But  you  ''  would  therefore  gladly  know  out  of  what  text 
 he  imagmes  that  the  church,  by  the  coming  of  Scripture,  was  deprived 
 of  infalUbility  in  some  points,  and  not  in  others  ?"  And  I  also 
 would  gladly  know,  why  you  do  thus  frame  to  yourself  vain  imagi- 
 nations, and  then  father  them  upon  others?  We  yield  unto  you, 
 that  there  shall  be  a  church  which  never  erretli  in  some  points, 
 because  (as  we  conceive)  God  hath  promised  so  much ;  but  not,  that 
 there  shall  be  such  a  church  which  doth  or  can  eiT  in  no  points, 
 because  we  find  not  that  God  hath  promised  such  a  church,  and 
 therefore  may  not  promise  such  a  one  to  ourselves.  But  for  the 
 church's  being  deprived  by  the  Scriptm-e  of  iufallibihty  in  some 
 points,  and  not  in  others,  that  is  a  wild  notion  of  your  own,  which  we 
 have  nothing  to  do  with. 
 
 141.  But  he  affirmeth,  that  "the  Jewish  church  retained  infalli- 
 bihty  in  herself  j  and  therefore  it  is  unjustly  and  umvorthily  done 
 of  him  to  deprive  the  church  of  Christ  of  it."  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  settling  it  in  the  high  priest,  and  the 
 company  adhering  and  subordinate  unto  him?  And  whether  the 
 high  priest  was  infalhble,  when  he  believed  not  Christ  to  be  the 
 Messias,  but  condemned  and  excommunicated  them  that  so  pro- 
 fessed, and  caused  him  to  be  crucified  for  saying  so,  I  leave  it  to 
 Christians  to  iudge.  But  then  suppose  God  had  been  so  pleased  to 
 do  as  he  did  not,  to  appoint  the  synagogue  an  infalhble  guide ; 
 could  you  by  yom*  rules  of  logic  constrain  him  to  appoint  such  an 
 one  to  Christians  also,  or  say  unto  him,  that  in  msdom  he  could 
 not  do  otheru-ise  ?  Vain  man,  that  mil  be  thus  always  tying  God 
 to  yom*  imaginations  !  It  is  well  for  us  that  he  leaves  us  not 
 without  directions  to  him  ;  but  if  he  will  do  this  sometimes  by 
 living  guides,  sometimes  by  written  rules,  what  is  that  to  you? 
 May  not  he  do  v>  hat  he  will  with  his  own  ? 
 
 142.  And  whereas  you  say,  for  the  further  enforcing  of  this 
 argument,  "  that  there  is  greater  reason  to  think  the  church  should 
 be  infalhble  than  the  synagogue ;  because  to  the  synagogue  all  laws 
 and  ceremonies,  &c.,  were  more  particularly  and  minutely  dehvered 
 than  in  the  New  Testament  is  done,  our  Saviour  leaving  particulars 
 to  the  determination  of  the  church."     But  I  pray  walk  not  thus  in 
 
144  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 generality,  but  tell  us  what  particulars  ?  If  you  moan  particular 
 rites  and  ceremonies,  and  orders  for  government,  we  grant  it,  and' 
 you  know  we  do  so.  Our  Saviour  only  hath  left  a  general  injunction 
 by  St.  Paul,  Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order.  But 
 what  order  is  fittest,  i.  e.  what  time,  what  place,  what  manner,  &c., 
 is  fittest,  that  he  hath  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  governors  of  the 
 church.  But  if  you  mean  that  he  hath  only  concerning  matters  of 
 faith,  the  subject  in  question,  prescribed  in  general  that  we  are  to 
 hear  the  church,  and  left  it  to  the  church  to  determine  what  parti- 
 culars we  are  to  believe,  the  church  being  nothing  else  but  an  aggre- 
 gation of  believers ;  this  in  eftect  is  to  say,  he  hath  left  it  to  all 
 believers  to  determine  what  particulars  they  are  to  believe.  Besides, 
 it  is  so  apparently  false,  that  I  wonder  how  you  could  content  your- 
 self, or  think  we  should  be  contented,  with  a  bare  saying,  without 
 any  show  or  pretence  of  proof. 
 
 143.  As  for  Dr.  Potter's  objection  against  this  argument,  "  That 
 as  well  you  might  infer,  that  Christians  must  have  all  one  king, 
 because  the  Jews  had  so;"  for  auglit  I  can  perceive,  notwith- 
 standing anything  answered  by  you,  it  may  stand  still  in  force ; 
 though  the  truth  is,  it  is  urged  by  him,  not  against  the  infallibility, 
 but  the  monarchy  of  the  church.  For  whereas  you  say,  the  disparity 
 is  very  clear :  he  that  should  urge  this  argument  for  one  monarch 
 over  the  whole  world,  would  say  that  this  is  to  deny  the  conclusion, 
 and  reply  unto  you,  that  there  is  disparity  as  matters  are  now 
 ordered,  but  that  there  shoidd  not  be  so;  for  that  there  was  no 
 more  reason  to  believe  that  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  the 
 Jews  was  a  pattern  for  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  Christians, 
 than  the  civil  of  tlie  Jews  for  the  civil  of  the  Christians.  He 
 would  tell  you,  that  the  church  of  Christ,  and  all  Christian  common- 
 wealths and  kingdoms,  are  one  and  the  same  thing ;  and  therefore 
 he  sees  no  reason  why  the  synagogue  should  be  a  type  and  figure 
 of  the  church,  and  not  of  the  commonwealth.  He  would  tell  you, 
 that  as  the  church  succeeded  the  Jewish  synagogue,  so  Christian 
 princes  should  succeed  the  Jewish  magistrates ;  that  is,  the  tem- 
 poral governors  of  the  church  should  be  Christians.  He  would  tell 
 you,  that  as  the  church  is  compared  to  a  house,  a  kingdom,  an  army, 
 a  body ;  so  all  distinct  kingdt)ms  might  and  should  be  one  army, 
 one  family,  &c.,  and  that  it  is  not  so,  is  the  thing  he  complains  of. 
 And  therefore  you  ought  not  to  think  it  enough  to  say,  it  is  not  so  ; 
 but  you  should  show  Avhy  it  should  not  be  so ;  and  why  this  argu- 
 ment will  not  follow.  The  Jews  had  one  king,  therefore  all  Christians 
 ought  to  have  ;  as  well  as  this.  The  Jews  had  one  high  priest  over 
 them  all,  therefore  all  Christians  also  ought  to  have.  He  might  tell 
 you,  moreover,  that  the  church  may  have  one  Master,  one  General, 
 one  Head,  one  King,  and  yet  he  not  be  the  pope,  but  Christ.  He 
 might  tell  you,  that  you  beg  the  question,  in  saying  without  proof 
 that  it  is  necessary  to  salvation  that  all  (whether  Christians  or 
 churches)  have  recourse  to  one  church,  if  you  mean  by  one  church 
 one  particular  church  which  is  to  govern  and  direct  all  others ;  and 
 that  unless  you  mean  so,  you  say  nothing  to  the  purpose.  And 
 besides,  he  might  tell  yoii,  and  that  very  truly,  that  it  mt^y  seem 
 altogether  as  available  for  the  temporal  good  of  Christians  to  be 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  145 
 
 under  one  temporal  prince,  or  commonwealth,  as  for  their  salvation 
 to  be  subordinate  to  one  visible  head  :  I  say,  as  necessary,  both  for 
 the  prevention  of  the  effusion  of  the  blood  of  Christians  by  Chris- 
 tians, and  for  the  defence  of  Christendom  from  the  hostile  invasions 
 of  Turks  and  pagans.  And  from  all  this  he  might  infer,  that  though 
 now,  by  the  fault  of  men,  there  ivere  in  several  kingdoms  several 
 jaws,  governments,  and  powers  ;  yet  that  it  were  much  more  expe- 
 dient that  there  were  but  one':  nay,  not  only  expeihent,  but 
 n^cessar}^,  if  once  your  ground  be  settled  for  a  general  rule — that 
 what  kind  of  government  the  Jews  had,  that  the  Christians  must 
 have.  And  if  you  limit  the  generality  of  this  proposition,  and  frame 
 the  argument  thus  :  What  kind  of  ecclesiastical  government  the  Jews 
 had,  that  the  Christians  .must  have  ;  but  they  were  governed  by 
 one  high  priest,  therefore  these  must  be  so ;  he  will  say,  that  the 
 Urst  proposition  of  this  syllogism  is  altogether  as  doubtful  as  the 
 conclusion,  and  therefore  neither  lit  nor  sufficient  to  prove  it,  until 
 itself  be  proved.  And  then  besides,  that  there  is  as  great  reason  to 
 beheve  this  :  That  what  kind  of  civil  government  the  Jews  had,  that 
 the  Christians  must  have.  And  so  Dr.  Potter's  objection  remains 
 still  unanswered  :  That  there  is  as  much  reason  to  conclude  a 
 necessity  of  one  king  over  all  Christian  kingdoms,  from  the  Jews 
 having  one  king ;  as  one  bishop  over  all  churches,  from  theii*  being 
 under  one  high  priest. 
 
 144.  Ad  §  24.  Neither  is  this  discourse  confirmed  by  *  Irenaeus- 
 at  all,  whether  by  this  discom-se  you  mean  that  immediately  fore- 
 going, of  the  analogy  ])etween  the  church  and  the  synagogue,  to 
 which  this  speech  of  Irena?us  alleged  here  by  you  is  utterly  and 
 plainly  impertinent ;  or  whether  by  this  discourse  you  mean  (as  I- 
 think  you  do),  not  your  discourse,  but  your  conclusion  which  you 
 discourse  on;  that  is,  that  "your  church  is  the  infallible  judge  in 
 controversies."  For  neither  hath  Ireneeus  one  syllable  to  this  pm*- 
 pose,  neither  can  it  be  deduced  out  of  what  he  says,  with  any 
 coh)ur  of  consequence.  For,  first,  in  saying,  ''  "What  if  the  apostles 
 had  not  left  Scripture,  ought  we  not  to  have  followed  the  order  Oi. 
 tradition  ?"  and  in  saying,  "  That  to  this  order  many  nations  yield 
 assent,  who  beheve  in  Christ,  having  salvation  -vmtten  in  their  hearts 
 by  the  Spririt  of  God,  without  letters  or  ink,  and  dihgently  keeping 
 ancient  tradition  ;"  doth  he  not  plainly  show,  that  the  tradition  he 
 speaks  of  is  nothing  else  but  the  very  same  that  is  written ;  nothing 
 but  to  beheve  in  Christ  ?  To  which,  whether  Scripture  alone,  to 
 them  that  believe  it,  be  not  a  sufficient  guide,  I  leave  it  to  you  to 
 judge.  x\nd  are  not  his  words  just  as  if  a  man  should  say,  if  God 
 anil  not  given  us  the  light  of  the  sun,  we  must  have  made  use  of 
 caudles  and  torches  ;  if  we  had  no  eyes,  we  must  have  felt  out  our 
 ■way  ;  if  v,e  had  no  legs,  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  legs,  we  need  not  crutches  ?  And,  by  like  reason,  Irenseus 
 in  saying,  '••'  If  we  had  no  Scriptm-e,  we  must  have  follcwed  tradition  ; 
 and  they  that  have  none  do  ^vell  to  do  so  :"  doth  he  not  plainly  im- 
 port, that  to  them  that  have  Scripture  and  believe  it,  tradition  is 
 •  IreiiffiUj!,  1.  a  c.  ;j, 
 L 
 
146  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 unnecessary  ?  which  could  not  be,  if  the  Scripture  did  not  contain 
 evidently  the  whole  tradition.  Which  whether  Irena^us  believed  or 
 no,  these  words  of  his  may  inform  50U :  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  iirst  preached,  and  aften^ards  by  the  will  of  God 
 delivered  in  writing  to  us,  to  be  the  pillar  and  foundation  of  our 
 faith."  Upon  which  place  Bellarmine's  two  observations,  and  his 
 acknowledgment  ensuing  upon  them,  are  veiy  considerable,  and,  as 
 I  conceive,  as  home  to  my  purpose  as  I  could  wish  them.  His  first 
 notandum  is,  "  That  in  the  Christian  doctrine  some  things  are  simply 
 necessary  for  the  salvation  of  all  men ;  as  the  knowledge  of  the 
 Articles  of  the  Apostles'  Creed ;  and  besides,  the  knowledge  of  the 
 Ten  Commandments,  and  some  of  the  sacraments.  Other  things 
 are  not  so  necessary  but  that  a  man  may  be  saved  v^ithout  the  ex- 
 plicit knowledge  and  belief  and  profession  of  them."  His  second 
 note  is,  "  Tliat  those  things  which  were  simply  necessary  the  apostles 
 were  wont  to  preach  to  all  men ;  but  of  other  things  not  all  to  all, 
 but  some  things  to  all  ;  to  wit,  those  things  which  vAcre  profitable 
 for  all,  other  things  only  to  prelates  and  priests."  These  things  pre- 
 mised, he  acknowiedgeth,  "  That  all  these  tilings  were  written  by 
 the  apostles  which  are  necessary  for  all,  and  which  they  were  wont 
 to  preach  to  all ;  but  that  other  things  were  not  all  written ;  and 
 therefore,  when  Irenaeus  sa}'S,  that  tlie  apostles  wrote  what  they 
 preached  in  the  world,  it  is  true,"  saith  he,  "  and  not  against  tra- 
 ditions, because  they  preached  not  to  the  people  all  things,  but 
 only  those  things  which  were  necessary  and  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  abso- 
 lute necessity  hereof,  and  to  them  who  have  and  believe  the  Scrip- 
 ture, 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  easy  to  receive 
 the  truth  from  God's  church,"  then  in  the  age  next  after  the  apostles, 
 then  when  all  the  ancient  and  apostolic  churches  were  at  an  agree- 
 ment about  the  fundamentals  of  faith,  will  it  therefore  follow,  that 
 now,  one  thousand  six  hundred  years  after,  when  the  ancient 
 chm-ches  are  divided  almost  into  as  many  religions  as  there  are 
 churches,  every  one  being  the  church  to  itself,  and  heretical  to  all 
 other,  that  it  is  as  easy,  but  extremely  difficult,  or  rather  impossible, 
 to  find  the  church  first  independently  of  the  true  doctrine,  and  then 
 to  find  the  truth  by  the  church  ? 
 
 147.  As  for  the  last  clause  of  the  sentence,  it  will  not  any  whit 
 advantage,  but  rather  prejudice  your  assertion.  Neither  A^dll  I  seek 
 to  avoid  the  pressure  of  it,  by  saying  that  he  speaks  of  "  small 
 questions,"  and  therefore  not  of  questions  touching  things  necessary 
 to  salvation,  which  can  hardly  be  called  small  questions:  but  I  will 
 "favour  you  so  far  as  to  suppose,  that  saying  this  of  small  questions, 
 it  is  probable  he  would  have  said  it  much  more  of  the  great ;  but  I 
 will  answer  that  which  is  most  certain  and  evident,  and  which  I  am 
 confident  you  yourself,   were   you  as  impudent  as  I  beheve  you 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  14^ 
 
 modest,  would  not  deny,  that  the  ancient  apostohc  chm-ches  are  not 
 now  as  they  were  in  Irenoeus's  time ;  then  they  were  all  at  unity 
 about  matters  of  faith,  which  unity  was  a  good  assurance  that  what 
 they  so  agreed  in  came  from  some  one  common  fountain,  and  that 
 no  other  than  of  apostolic  preaching.  And  this  is  the  very  ground 
 of  Tertullian's  so  often  mistaken  Prescription  against  Heretics  : 
 Variasse  debuerat  error  ecclesiarum  j  quod  autem  apud  multos  unum 
 est,  non  est  erratum  sed  traditum :  "  If  the  churches  had  erred, 
 they  could  not  but  have  varied  ;  but  that  which  is  among  so  many 
 came  not  by  error,  but  tradition."  But  now  the  case  is  altered,  and 
 the  mischief  is,  that  these  ancient  churches  are  divided  among 
 themselves  ;  and  if  we  have  recourse  to  them,  one  of  them  will  say, 
 this  is  the  way  to  heaven,  another  that.  So  that  now,  in  place  of 
 receiving  from  them  certain  and  clear  truths,  we  must  expect 
 nothing  but  certain  and  clear  contradictions. 
 
 148.  Neither  will  the  ''  apostles'  depositing  with  the  church  all 
 things  belonging  to  the  truth,"  be  any  proof  that  the  church  shall 
 certainly  keep  this  depositmn  entire  and  sincere,  without  adding  to 
 it  or  taking  from  it ;  for  this  whole  deposit  am  was  committed  to 
 every  particular  church,  nay,  to  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  hira  consigned  to  other  faithful 
 men ;  and  yet  St.  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  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  v>hat  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  falsehood. 
 
 149.  Ad  §  25.  But  you  proceed  and  tell  us,  "that  besides  all  this, 
 the  doctrine  of  protestants  is  destructive  of  itself.  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  inteipreting  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  beside 
 Scripture  alone."  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 
 itself?  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 
 merely  a  fantastical]  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  mems, 
 and  so  cannot  err  in  the  choice  of  their  church,  and  interpreting  her 
 
148  SCRIPTURE   THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 decrees,  then  they  are  able  with  infalUbiUty  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  church's  decrees,  which  very  thing  in  pro- 
 testants  they  so  highly  condemn ;  and  so  in  judging  others  con- 
 demn 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  show 
 unto  you,  that  for  your  sophism  against  oiu"  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 :  Pro- 
 testants have  no  means  to  interpret,  without  error,  obscure  and  am- 
 biguous places  of  Scripture  ;  therefore  ])lain  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  im})ediment,  but  tliat  we  may  have 
 certain  means  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  meaning  of  these  places  ?  J.  ask  you 
 again,  can  you  be  sure  that  you  understand  what  I  or  any  man  else 
 says  ?  They  that  heard  oiu-  Saviour  and  the  apostles  preach,  could 
 they  have  sufficient  assurance  that  tliey  understood  at  any  time  what 
 they  would  have  them  do  ?  If  not,  to  what  end  did  ihey  hear 
 them  ?  If  they  could,  why  may  we  not  be  as  well  assm-ed  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 
 knowledge  of  your  church?  If  you  do  not,  how  know  you  that 
 there  is  any  church  infallible,  and  tiiat  these  are  the  notes  of  it,  and 
 that  this  is  the  church  that  hath  these  notes?  If  you  do,  then  give 
 as  leave  to  have  the  same  means  and  the  same  abilities  to  know 
 other  plain  phices  which  you  have  to  know  these.  For  if  all 
 Scripture  be  obscm-c,  how  come  you  to  know  tlie  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  yourself  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  concluc'e,  because  all  men  have  certam. 
 means  of  salvation,  therefore  all  men  certainly  must  be  saved,  and 
 cannot  do  otherwise  ;  as  if  whosoever  had  a  horse,  m.ust  presently 
 get  up  and  ride ;  whosoever  had  means  to  find  out  a  way,  could  not 
 neglect  those  means,  and  so  misi,ake  it.  God  be  thanked  that  we 
 have  sufficient  means  to  be  certain  enough  of  the  truth  of  our  faith ! 
 But  the  privilege  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 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  149 
 
 eyesight  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  the,  ght 
 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  infalhble,  nor  a 
 certainly  unerring  belief,  unless  he  hath  given  us  certain  means  to 
 avoid  error ;  and  if  we  use  those  which  we  have  he  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  an  absurd  conclusion,  "  that  we  make  our- 
 selves able  to  determine  conti'oversies  of  faith  with  infallibility, 
 and  judges  of  controversies."  For  the  latter  part  of  this  inference, 
 we  acknowledge  and  embrace  it :  we  do  make  om*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  con- 
 ceive, choose  wisely  ;  but  you,  being  wilfully  bhnd,  choose  to  follow 
 those  that  are  so  too,  not  remembering  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  judicatiu-e,  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  yourselves  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.  God's 
 Spirit,  if  he  please,  may  work  more,  a  certainty  of  adherence  beyond 
 a  certainty  of  evidence  :  but  neither  God  doth,  nor  man  may,  require 
 of  us,  as  om-  duty,  to  give  a  greater  assent  to  the  conclusion  than 
 the  premises  deserve  ;  to  build  an  infalhble  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  propor- 
 tionable. 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  chm*ch,  to  be  simply 
 infallible.  Now  how  is  it  possible  for  them  to  give  a  rational  assent 
 to  the  chiu'ch's  infallibilit}^  unless  they  have  some  infallible  means 
 to  know  that  she  is  infallible  ?  Neither  can  they  infalhbly  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  itself,  which  is  not  so 
 much  as  pretended.  But  the  last  resolution  of  all  is  into  motives, 
 which  indeed,  upon  exiimination,  will  scarce  appear  probable,  but 
 are  not  so  much  as  vouched  to  be  any  more  than  very  credible.  For 
 example,  if  I  ask  you.  Why  you  do  beheve  transubstantiation,  what 
 
150  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 can  you  answer,  but.  because  it  is  a  revelation  of  the  prime  verity  ? 
 I  demand  again,  How  can  you  assure  yourself  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*  further,  why  should  I  beheve  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  beheve  the  church's  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  methmks 
 you  should  require  only  a  moral  and  modest  assent  to  them,  and 
 Lot  a  Divine,  as  you  call  it,  and  infallible  faith.     But  then  of  these 
 motives  to  the  church's  infallibility,  I  hope  you  will  give  us  leave  to 
 consider  and  judge  whether  they  be  indeed  motives,  and  sufficient ; 
 or  whether  they  be  not  motives  at  all,  or  not  sufficient ;  or  whether 
 these  motives  or  inducements  to  you  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  vshich  comes  not  vdthin 
 its  cognizance  ?     If  I  may,  then  at  least  I  am  to  be  a  judge  of  all 
 these  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  beneve  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  con- 
 troversies 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  fourteen  or  fifteen.     And  one  of  these  fifteen  contains  iu 
 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  Rom^e's  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,   vvhether  they  be  con- 
 formable, or  if  in  my  judgment  they  seem  not  conformable,  I  am 
 then  to  think  tlie  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  aught  I  can  see,  judges  we  are  and  must  be  of  all  sides,  every  one 
 for  himself,  and  God  for  us  all. 
 
 155.  Ad  §  26.  I  answer  :  This  assertion,  that  "  Scripture  alone 
 
 *  Lastly.— Oa/. 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  151 
 
 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  falsehood.  It  is  not  a  judge  of 
 controversies,  but  a  rule  to  judge  them  by ;  and  that  not  an  abso- 
 lutely perfect  rule,  but  as  perfect  as  a  ^n-itten  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 
 imiversal  tradition.  So  that  universal  tradition  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  apostolic  tradition  as  these  things,  which  by  the  confession 
 of  both,  sides  are  not  so ;  I  mean,  the  doctrine  of  the  millenaries, 
 and  of  the  necessity  of  the  eucharist  for  infants. 
 
 156.  Yet  when  we  say  the  Sc-ripture  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  Scrip- 
 tm-e.  For  if  I  had  a  controversy  with  an  atheist,  whether  there 
 was  a  God  or  no,  I  v.ould  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  controversy  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  till  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  con- 
 troversy, inasmuch  as  that  which  is  doubted  of  itself  is  not  fit  to 
 determine  other  doubts.  So,  likewise,  if  there  were  any  that  be- 
 lieved the  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 
 St.  Austin's  to  contain  nothing  but  the  truth  of  God,  and  yet  not  to 
 have  been  inspired  by  God  himself) ;  against  such  men  therefore 
 there  were  no  disputing  out  of  the  Bible,  because  nothing  in  ques- 
 tion can  be  a  proof  to  itself.  When  therefore  we  say.  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  u])on  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  con- 
 «  believed  Christian  religion. — Oxf  Lond. 
 
152  SCRIPTURE   THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 tained  in  Scripture,  and  what  is  not  there  evidently  contained 
 cannot  be  necessary  to  he  beUeved.  And  our  reason  hereof  is  con- 
 vincing, because  nothing  can  challenge  oiu*  belief  but  what  hath 
 descended  to  us  from  Christ  by  original  and  universal  tradition. 
 jN^ovv  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  ride  Avhereby  they  which  believe  it  to  be 
 God's  word  are  to  judge  all  controversies  in  faith,"  is  no  funda- 
 mental })oint ;  though  not  for  your  reasons :  for  your  first  and 
 strongest  reason,  you  see,  is  plainly  voided  and  cut  oft"  by  my  stating 
 of  the  question  as  I  ha^'e  done,  and  sup})osing  in  it  that  the  parties 
 at  variance  are  agreed  about  this,  that  the  Scrii)ture  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  the}-  be  not  ended,  this  is  not  through 
 defect  of  the  rule,  but  through  the  defavdt  of  men.  And  for  those 
 that  cannot  thus  he  ended,  it  is  not  necessiirv  they  should  be  enned ; 
 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  your  jn-etencc  of  using  these  means  is  l)ut  hypocritical; 
 for  you  use  them  with  prejudice,  and  with  a  settled  resolution  not  to 
 believe  an}-  thing  which  these  means  happily  may  suggest  unto  }0u, 
 if  it  any  way  cross  your  preconceived  persuasion  of  your  church's 
 infallibility.'^  You  give  not  yourselves  liberty  of  judgment  in  the  use 
 of  them,  nor  suffer  yourselves  to  be  led  by  them  to  the  truth,  to 
 which  they  ^vould  lead  you,  would  you  be  but  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  there- 
 fore 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  tliat  he  would  confirm  you  in  your  own.  Y^ou 
 confer  places,  but  it  is  that  you  may  confirm  or  colour  over  with 
 plausible  disguises  your  erroneous  doctrines;  not  that  you  may 
 judge  of  them,  and'  forsake  them,  if  there  be  reason  for  it.  Y'ou 
 consult  the  oi-iginals,  but  you  regard  theru  not  when  they  make 
 against  your  doctrine  or  translation. 
 
 158.  You  add,  not  only  the  authority,  but  the  infallibility,  not  of 
 God's  church,  but  of  the  Roman,  a  very  corrupt  and  degenerous 
 part  of  it ;  whereof  Dr.  Potter  never  confessed,  that  it  cannot  err 
 damnably  :  and  which,  being  a  company  made  u])  of  particular  men, 
 can  aftbrd  you  no  help,  but  the  industiy,  learning,  and  wit  of  private 
 men ;  and,  that  these  helps  may  not  help  you  out  of  your  eiTor, 
 tell  you,  that  you  must  make  use  of  none  of  all  these  to  discover  any 
 error  in  the  church,  but  only  to  maintain  her  impossibility  of  erring. 
 And,  lastly.  Dr.  Potter  assures  himself,  that  yoiu-  doctrine  and  prac- 
 tices are  damnable  enough  in  themselves ;  only  he  hopes  (and  spes- 
 est  rei  incertce  nomen),  he  hopes,  I  say,  that  the  truths  which  you 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  l53 
 
 retain,  especially  the  necessity  of  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ, 
 will  be  as  an  antidote  to  you  against  the  errors  which  you  maintain ; 
 and  that  your  superstruction  may  burn,  yet  they  amongst  you  qui 
 sequuntur  Absalonem  in  simplicitate  cordis  may  be  saved,  yet  so  as 
 hy  fire.  Yet  his  thinking  so  is  no  reason  for  you  or  me  to  thir.k 
 so,  unless  you  suppose  him  infallible ;  and  if  you  do,  Avhy  do  you 
 WTite  against  him  ? 
 
 159.    Notwithstanding,    though  not  for   these   reasons,  yet  for 
 others,  I  conceive  this  doctrine  not  fundamental ;  because  if  a  man 
 should  believe  Christian  rehgion  wholly  and  entirely,  and  live  ac- 
 cording 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  oijinion  is,  he  may  be  saved ;  and  my  reason  is,  because  he  per- 
 forms 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  l)eing  of  the  Christian  doc- 
 trine, as  requisite  to  the  well-being  of  it.     Irenfcus  tells  us  (as  M. 
 K.  acknowledgeth)  of  some  barbarous  nations  that  '"  believed  the 
 doctrines  of  Christ,  and  yet  believed  not  the  Scripture  to  be  the 
 word  of  God ;  for  they  never  heard  of  it,  and  faith  conies  by  hear- 
 ing.*'    But  these  barl)arous  people  might  be  saved :  therefore  men 
 might  be  saved  without  believing  the  Scrijjture  to  be  the  word  of 
 God ;  much  more  without  beheving  it  to  be  a  ride,  and  a  perfect 
 rule  of  faith.     Neither  doubt  I,  but  if  the  ])ooks  of  Scripture  had 
 been  pro})Osed  to  them  by  the  other  parts  of  the  church,  Avhere  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  con- 
 tained.    Not  but  that  it  were  now  very  strange  and  unreasonable,  if 
 a  man  should  believe  the  matter  of  these  books,  and  not  the  au- 
 thority of  the  books  :  and  therefore,  if  a  man  should  profess  the  not- 
 believing  of  these,  I  should  have  reason  to  fear  he  did  not  beheve 
 tliat.     But  there  is  not  always  an  equal  necessity  for  the  behef  of 
 those  things,  for  the  belief  whereof  there  is  an  equal  reason.     We 
 have,  I  beheve,  as  great  reason  to  believe  there  was  such  a  man  as 
 Henry  the  Eighth,  King  of  England,  as  that  Jesus  Christ  suffered 
 under  Pontius  Pdate ;  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  shi  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  satisfy  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  hves  according  to  them,  should  be  saved,  though 
 he  neither  beheved  nor  knew  that  the  Gospels  were  written  by  tlie 
 evangehsts,  or  the  Epistles  by  the  apostles. 
 
154  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 160.  This  discourse,  whether  it  be  rational  and  coiicliiding  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  funda- 
 mental, is  very  inconsequent ;  that  is,  that  we  are  uncertain  of  the 
 truth  of  it,  because  we  say,  the  whole  church,  much  more  particular 
 chm-ches  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  chm-ches  nor  private 
 men  are  infallible  even  in  fundamentals,  that  even  the  fundamentals 
 of  Christianity  remain  to  you  uncertain  ?  A  judge  mav  possibly  err 
 in  judgment ;  can  he  therefore  never  liave  assurance  tliat  he  hath 
 judged  right  ?  A  traveller  may  possibly  mistake  his  way ;  must  1 
 therefore  be  doubtful  whether  I  am  in  the  right  way  from  my  hall  to 
 my  chamber  ?  Or  can  oiu  London  carrier  have  no  certainty,  in  the 
 middle  of  the  da}',  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. 
 
 161.  And  "for  the  selfsame  reason,"  you  say,  "we  are  not 
 certain  that  the  church  is  not  judge  of  controversies."  But  now 
 this  selfsame  appears  to  be  no  reason ;  and  therefore,  for  all  this, 
 we  may  be  certain  enough  that  the  church  is  no  judge  of  contro- 
 versies. The  ground  of  this  so])hisni  is  very  like  the  former,  viz., 
 that  we  can  be  certain  of  the  falsehood  of  no  propositions  but  these 
 only,  which  are  damnable  errors.  But  I  })ray,  good  sir,  give  me 
 your  opinion  of  these  :  the  snow  is  black — the  tire  is  cold — that 
 M.  Knot  is  archbishop  of  Toledo — that  the  whole  is  not  greater  than 
 a  part  of  the  whole — that  twice  two  make  not  four  :  in  your  opinion, 
 good  sir,  are  these  damnable  heresies,  or,  because  they  are  not  so, 
 have  we  no  certainty  of  the  falsehood  of  them  ?  I  beseech  you,  sir, 
 to  consider  seriously  with  what  strange  captions  you  have  gone 
 about  to  delude  your  king  and  your  coimtry ;  and  if  you  be  con- 
 vinced they  are  so,  give  glory  to  God,  and  let  the  world  know  it  by 
 your  deserting  that  religion  which  stands  upon  such  deceitful 
 foundations. 
 
 162.  "  Besides,"  you  say,  "  among  public  conclusions  defended 
 in  Oxford  the  year  1633,  to  the  questions,  '  whether  the  church  have 
 authority  to  determine  controversies  of  faith,'  and  '  to  interpret 
 Holy  Scripture  ? '  the  answer  to  both  is  affirmative."  But  what 
 now,  if  I  should  tell  you,  that  in  the  year  1632,  among  public 
 conclusions  defended  in  Doway,  one  was,  that  God  predeterminates 
 men  to  all  their  actions,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent  ?  will  you  think 
 yourself  obhged  to  be  of  this  opinion  ?  If  you  will,  say  so  :  if  not, 
 do  as  you  would  be  done  by.  Again,  methinks  so  subtile  a  man  as 
 you  are  should  easily  apprehend  a  wide  difference  between  authority 
 to  do  a  thing,  and  infallibility  in  doing  it  ;  and  again,  between  ii 
 conditional  infallibility  and  an  absolute.  Tlie  former,  the  doctor, 
 together  with  the  Article  of  tlie  church  of  England,  attributeth  to 
 the  church,  nay,  to  particular  churches,  and  1  subscribe  to  his 
 opinion  ;  that  is,  an  authority  of  determining  controversies  of  faith 
 
WHEREBY    TO    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES.  155 
 
 according  to  plain  and  evident  Scripture  and  universal  tradition,  and 
 infallibility  while  they  proceed  according  to  this  rule.  As  if  there 
 should  arise  a  heretic  that  should  call  in  question  Christ's  passion 
 and  resm-rection,  the  church  had  authority  to  decide  this  contro- 
 versy, and  infallible  direction  how  to  do  it,  and  to  excommunicate 
 this  man  if  he  should  persist  in  error.  I  hope  you  will  not  deny 
 but  that  the  judges  have  authority  to  determine  criminal  and  civil 
 controversies,  and  yet  I  hope  you  will  not  say  that  they  are  abso- 
 lutely infallible  in  their  determinations  :  infalhble  while  they  ])ro- 
 ceed  according  to  law,  and  if  they  do  so  ;  but  not  infaUibly  certain 
 that  they  sHall  ever  do  so.  But  that  the  church  should  be  infallibly 
 assisted  by  God's  spirit  to  decide  rightly  all  emergent  controversies, 
 even  such  as  might  be  held  diversely  of  divers  men,  salva  compage 
 jidei,  and  that  we  might  be  absolutely  certain  that  the  church 
 should  never  fail  to  decree  the  truth,  whether  she  used  means  or  no, 
 whether  she  proceed  according  to  her  rule  or  not ;  or,  lastly,  that  v/e 
 might  be  absolutely  certain  that  she  should  never  fail  to  proceed 
 according  to  her  rule ;  this  the  defender  of  these  conclusions  said 
 not ;  and  therefore  said  no  more  to  yom*  purpose  than  you  have 
 all  this  while,  that  is,  just  nothing. 
 
 163.  Ad  §  27.  To  the  place  of  St.  Austin  alleged  in  this  para- 
 graph, I  answer,  first,  that  in  many  things  you  will  not  be  tried  by 
 St.  Austin's  judgment,  nor  submit  to  his  authority  ;  not  concerning 
 appeals  to  Rome ;  not  concerning  transubstantiation  ;  not  touching 
 the  use  and  worshipping  of  images ;  not  concerning  the  state  of 
 saints'  souls  before  the  day  of  judgment ;  not  touching  the  Virgin 
 Mary's  freedom  from  actual  and  original  sin  ;  not  touching  the 
 necessity  of  the  eucharist  for  uifants ;  not  touching  the  damning 
 infants  to  hell  that  die  without  baptism  ;  not  touching  the  knowledge 
 of  saints  departed;  not  touching  purgatory;  not  touching  the 
 falhbility  of  councils,  even  general  councils  ;  not  touching  perfection 
 and  perspicuity  in  Scriptvn-es  in  matters  necessaiy  to  salvation  ;  not 
 touching  auricular  confession  ;  not  touching  the  half-communion  ; 
 not  touching  prayers  in  an  unknown  tongue  :  in  these  things,  I  say, 
 you  will  not  stand  to  St.  Austin's  judgment,  and  therefore  can  with 
 no  reason  or  equity  require  us  to  do  so  in  this  matter.  To  St. 
 Austin  in  heat  of  disputation  against  the  Donatists,  and  ransacking 
 all  places  for  arguments  against  them,  we  oppose  St.  Austin  out  of 
 this  heat,  delivering  the  doctrine  of  Christianity  calmly  and  mode- 
 rately, where  he  says,  In  Us  qucB  aperte  posita  sunt  in  sacris  scrip- 
 turis,  omnia  ea  reperiuntur  qucB  continent  Jidem,  moresque  vivendi. 
 3.  We  say,  he  speaks  not  of  the  Roman,  but  the  catholic  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.  5.  He  says  not,  that 
 Christ  hatli  recommended  the  church  to  us  for  *'  an  infallible 
 definer  of  all  emergent  controversies,"  but  for  a  "  credible  wit- 
 ness 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  practices  of  the  church  but  such  as  are  evidently 
 postnate  to  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  plainly  contrary  to  the 
 
156  SCRIPTURE    THE    ONLY    RULE 
 
 practice  of  former  and  purer  times.  Lastly,  it  is  evident,  and 
 even  to  impudence  itself  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  St.  Austin's  time,  and  tliat  by  St.  Austin 
 himself;  and  thei-efore  ^vithout  controversy  this  is  no  certain  ground 
 for  truth,  which  may  support  falsehood  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  God's  revelation  as  is  sufficient  to  bring  men  to  heaven,  for  other- 
 wise 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  it  is  possible, 
 without  sin,  to  resist  in  some  things  the  visible  chm-ch  of  Christ. 
 But  you  press  us  further,  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  persuade  weak  men  that  the  church  of  protestants  canno't  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  jour  church  \^hich  agi-ees  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  splendour. 
 
 165.  Neither  is  it  so  easy  to  be  determined  as  you  pretend, 
 *'  that  Luther  and  other  protestants  opposed  the  whole  visible 
 church  in  matters  of  faith ;  "  neither  is  it  so  evident  that  "  the 
 visible  church  may  not  fall  into  such  a  state  wherein  she  may  be 
 justly  opposed."  And  lastly,  for  calling  the  distinction  of  points 
 into  fundamental  and  not  fundamental  an  evasion,  I  beheve  you  will 
 find  it  easier  to  call  it  so  than  to  prove  it  so.  But  that  shall  be  the 
 issue  of  the  controversy  in  the  next  chapter. 
 
CHAPTER    III. 
 
 That  the  distinction  of  points  fundamental  and  not  fundamental 
 is  neither  pertinent  nor  true  in  our  present  controversy  j  and 
 that  the  catholic  visible  church  cannot  err  in  either  kind  of  the 
 said  points. 
 
 *'  This   distinction  is  abused  bv  protestants  to  many  purposes  of 
 theirs  ;  and  therefore  if  it  be  either  untrue  or  impertinent  (as  they 
 understand  and  apply  it),   the  whole  edifice  built  thereon  must  be 
 ruinous  and  false.     For  if  you   object  their  bitter  and  continued 
 discords  in  matters  of  faith,  ^^ithout  any  means  of  agreement ;  they 
 instantly  tell  you  (as  Charity  Mistaken  plainly  shows),  that  they 
 differ  only  in  points  not  fundamental.     If  you  convince  them,  even 
 by  their  own  confessions,  that  the  ancient  fathers  taught   divers 
 points  held  by  the  Roman  church  against  protestants ;  they  reply, 
 that  those  fathers  may  nevertheless  be  saved,  because  those  errors 
 were  not  fimdamental.     If  you  will  them  to  remember  that  Christ 
 must  alway  have  a  visible  church  on  earth,  with  administration  of 
 sacraments  and  succession   of  pastors,  and  that  when  Luther  ap- 
 peared there  was  no  church  distinct  from  the  Roman,  whose  com- 
 munion and  doctrine  Luther  then  forsook,  and  for  that  cause  must 
 be  guilty  of  schism  and  heresy ;  they  have  an  answer  (such  as  it 
 is),  that  the  catholic  church  cannot  perish,  yet  may  err  in  points  not 
 fundamental,    and  therefore    Luther   and   other   protestants   were 
 obliged  to  forsake  her  for  such  errors  under  pain  of  damnation  : 
 as  if,  forsooth,  it  were  damnable  to  hold  an  error  not  fundamental 
 nor   damnable.       If  you  wonder   how  they  can  teach   that  both 
 catholics  and  protestants  may  be  saved  in  their  several  professions  ; 
 they  salve    this  contradiction    by  saying,  that  we  both  agree  in 
 all  fundamental  points  of  faith,  which  is  enough  for  salvation.     And 
 yet,  which  is  prodigiously  strange,  they  could  never  be  induced  to 
 give  a  catalogue  what  points  in  particular  be  fundamental,  but  only 
 by  some  general  description,  or  by  referring   us  to  the  Apostles' 
 Creed,  mthout  determining  what  points  therein  be  fundamental  or 
 not  fundamental  for  the  matter ;  and  in  what  sense  they  be  or  be 
 not  such :  and  yet  concerning  the  meaning  of  divers  points  con- 
 tained in   or  reduced  to  the  Creed,  they  differ  both  from  us  and 
 among  themselves.     And  indeed  it  being  impossible  for  them  to 
 exhibit  any  such  catalogue,  the  said  distinction  of  points,  although  it 
 were  pertinent  and  true,  cannot  serve  them  to  any  purpose,  but  still 
 they  must  remain  uncertain  whether  or  no  they  disagree  from  one 
 another,  from  the  ancient  fathers,  and  from  the  catholic  church,  in 
 points  fundamental ;  which  is  to  say,  they  have  no  certainty  whether 
 they  enjoy  the  substance  of  Christian  faith,  without  which   they 
 cannot  hope  to  be  saved.     But  of  this  more  hereafter. 
 
 2.  "  And  to  the  end  that  what  shall  be  said  concerning  this  dis- 
 
158  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 tinction  may  be  better  understood,  we  are  to  observe,  that  there  be 
 two  precepts  which  concern  the  virtue  of  ffiith,  or  our  obhgation  to 
 believe  divine  truths.  The  one  is  by  divines  called  affirmative, 
 whereby  we  are  obliged  to  have  a  positive  exphcit  belief  of  some 
 chief  articles  of  Christian  faith  ;  the  other  is  termed  negative, 
 which  strictly  binds  us  not  to  disbeheve,  that  is,  not  to  believe  the 
 contrary  of  any  one  point  sufficiently  represented  to  our  understand- 
 ings, as  revealed  or  spoken  by  Almighty  God.  The  said  affirmative 
 precept  (according  to  the  nature  of  such  commands)  enjoins  some 
 act  to  be  performed,  but  not  at  all  times,  nor  doth  it  equally  bind 
 all  sorts  of  persons  in  respect  of  all  objects  to  be  believed.  For 
 objects;  we  grant  that  some  are  more  necessary  to  be  explicitly  and 
 severally  believed  than  other ;  either  because  they  are  in  themselves 
 more  great  and  weighty,  or  else  in  regard  they  instruct  us  in  some 
 necessary  Christian  duty  towards  God,  ourselves,  or  our  neighbour. 
 For  persons  J  no  doubt  but  some  are  obliged  to  know  distinctly 
 more  than  others,  by  reason  of  their  office,  vocation,  capacity,  or  the 
 like.  For  times  ;  we  are  not  obliged  to  be  still  in  act  of  exercising 
 acts  of  faith,  but  according  as  several  occasions  permit  or  require. 
 The  second  kind  of  precept,  called  negative,  doth  (according  to  the 
 nature  of  all  such  commands)  oblige  universally  all  persons,  in 
 respect  of  all  objects,  and  at  all  times,  semper  et  pro  semper,  as 
 divines  speak.  This  general  doctrine  will  be  more  clear  by  examples  : 
 I  am  not  obliged  to  be  always  helping  my  neighbour,  because  the 
 affirmative  precept  of  charity  bindeth  only  in  some  particular  cases ; 
 hut  I  am  always  bound,  by  a  negative  precept,  never  to  do  him  any 
 hurt  or  m-ong.  I  am  not  always  bound  to  utter  what  I  know  to 
 be, true;  yet  I  am  obliged  never  to  speak  any  one  least  untruth 
 against  my  knowledge.  And  (to  come  to  our  present  purpose) 
 there  is  no  affirmative  precept,  commanding  us  to  be  at  all  times 
 actually  believing  any  one  or  all  articles  of  faith ;  but  we  are  obhged 
 never  to  exercise  any  act  against  any  one  truth  known  to  be  revealed. 
 All  sorts  of  persons  are  not  bound  exphcitly  and  distinctly  to  know 
 all  things  testified  by  God  either  in  Scripture  or  otherwise ;  but 
 eveiy  one  is  obliged  not  to  believe  the  contrary  of  any  one  point 
 known  to  be  testified  by  God.  For  that  were  in  fact  to  affirm,  that 
 God  could  be  deceived,  or  would  deceive ;  which  were  to  overthrow 
 the  whole  certainty  of  our  faith  wherein  the  thing  most  principal  is  not 
 the  point  which  we  believe,  which  divines  call  the  jnaterial  object,  but 
 the  chiefest  is  the  motive  for  which  we  believe,  to  wit.  Almighty 
 God's  infallible  revelation  or  authority,  which  they  term  the  formal 
 object  of  our  faith.  In  two  senses,  therefore,  and  with  a  double 
 relation,  points  of  faith  may  be  called  fundamental,  and  necessary  to 
 salvation ;  the  one  is  taken  with  reference  to  the  affirmative  precept, 
 wdien  the  points  are  of  such  quality  that  there  is  obhgation  to  know 
 and  beheve  them  explicity  and  severally.  In  this  sense  we  grant 
 that  there  is  difference  betwLxt  points  of  faith,  which  Dr.  Potter*  to 
 no  purpose  laboureth  to  prove  against  his  adversary,  who  in  express 
 words  doth  grant  and  explicate  it.f  But  the  doctor  thought  good 
 to  dissemble  the  matter,  and  not  to  say  one  pertinent  word  in  de- 
 fence of  his  distinction,  as  it  was  impugned  by  Charity  Mistaken, 
 
 •  Page  209.  t  Charity  Mistaken,  c.  8.  p.  75 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  159 
 
 and  as  it  is  wont  to  be  applied  by  protestants.  The  other  sense, 
 according  to  which  points  of  faith  may  be  called  fundamental,  and 
 necessary  to  salvation,  mth  reference  to  the  negative  precept  of 
 faith,  is  such,  that  we  cannot,  without  grievous  sin  and  forfeiture  of 
 salvation,  disbelieve  any  one  point,  sufficiently  propounded,  as  re- 
 vealed by  Almighty  God.  And  in  this  sense  we  avouch  that  there  is 
 no  distinction  in  points  of  faith,  as  if  to  reject  some  must  be  dam- 
 nable, and  to  reject  others,  equally  proposed  as  God's  word,  might 
 stand  with  salvation.  Yea,  the  obligation  of  the  negative  precept  is 
 for  more  strict  than  is  that  of  the  affirmative,  which  God  freely  im- 
 posed and  may  freely  release.  But  it  is  impossible  that  he  can  dis- 
 pense, or  give  leave  to  disbelieve  or  deny  what  he  affirmeth  ;  and  in 
 this  sense  sin  and  damnation  are  more  inseparable  from  error  in 
 points  not  fundamental,  than  from  ignorance  in  articles  fundamental. 
 All  this  I  show  by  an  example,  which  I  wish  to  be  particularly  noted 
 for  the  present,  and  for  divers  other  occasions  hereafter.  The  Creed 
 of  the  Apostles  contains  divers  fundamental  points  of  faith,  as  the 
 Deit}^,  trinit}'  of  persons,  the  incarnation,  passion,  and  resurrection 
 of  our  Saviour  Christ,  &c.  It  contains  also  some  points,  for  their 
 matter  and  nature,  in  themselves  not  fundam^ental  :  as  under  what 
 judge  our  Saviour  suffered  ;  that  he  was  buried  ;  the  circumstance  of 
 the  time  of  his  resurrection  the  third  day,  &c.  But  3'et  nevertheless 
 whosoever  once  knows  that  these  points  are  contained  in  the 
 Apostles'  Creed,  the  denial  of  them  is  damnable,  and  is  in  that  sense 
 a  fundamental  error  :  and  this  is  the  precise  point  of  the  present 
 question. 
 
 3.  "And  all  that  hitherto  hath  been  said  is  so  manifestly  true, 
 that  no  protestant  or  Christian,  if  he  do  but  understand  the  terms 
 and  state  of  the  question,  can  possibly  deny  it ;  insomuch,  as  I  am 
 amazed  that  men,  who  otherwise  are  endued  with  excellent  wits, 
 should  so  enslave  themselves  to  their  predecessors  in  protestantism, 
 as  still  to  harp  on  this  distinction,  and  never  regard  how  imperti- 
 nently and  untruly  it  was  employed  by  them  at  first,  to  make  all 
 protestants  seem  to  be  of  one  faith,  because,  forsooth,  they  agree  in 
 fundamental  points.  For  the  difference  amongst  protestants  con- 
 sists not  in  that  some  believe  some  points,  of  which  others  are  igno- 
 rant, or  not  bound  expressly  to  know  (as  the  distinction  ought  to  be 
 applied)  ;  but  that  some  of  them  disbelieve,  and  directly,  wittingly, 
 and  willingly  oppose  what  others  do  believe  to  be  testified  by  the 
 wor  i  of  God,  wherein  there  is  no  difference  between  points  funda- 
 mental and  not  fimdamental ;  because,  till  points  fundamental  be 
 sufficiently  proposed  as  revealed  by  God,  it  is  not  against  faith  to 
 reject  them,  or  rather,  without  sufficient  proposition  it  is  not  pos- 
 sible prudently  to  believe  them  ;  and  the  like  is  of  points  not  fun- 
 damental, which  as  soon  as  they  come  to  be  sufficiently  propounded 
 as  Divine  truths,  they  can  no  more  be  denied  than  points  funda- 
 mental propounded  after  the  same  manner ;  neither  will  it  avail 
 them  to  their  other  end,  that  for  preservation  of  the  church  in  being, 
 it  is  sufficient  that  she  do  not  err  in  points  fundamental.  For  if  in 
 the  mean  time  she  maintain  any  one  error  against  God's  revelation, 
 be  the  thing  in  itself  never  so  small,  her  error  is  damnable,  and 
 destructive  of  salvation. 
 
160  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS, 
 
 4.  "  But  D.  Potter  fcrgetting  to  -what  purpose  protestants  make 
 use  of  their  distinction,  doth  finally  overthrow  it,  and  yields  to  as 
 much  as  we  can  desire.  For,  speaking  of  that  measure*  and  quan- 
 tity of  faith  without  which  none  can  be  saved,  he  saith,  '  it  is  enough 
 to  believe  some  things  by  a  virtual  faith,  or  by  a  general,  and  as  it 
 were  a  negative  faith,  whereby  they  are  not  denied  or  contradicted.' 
 Now  our  question  is,  in  case  that  Divine  truths,  although  not  fun- 
 damental, be  denied  and  contradicted  ;  and  therefore,  even  according 
 to  him,  all  such  denial  excludes  salvation.  Mter,  he  speaks  more 
 plainly.  '  It  is  true,'  saith  he,  *  whatsoeverf  is  revealed  in  Scriptm-e, 
 or  propounded  by  the  church  out  of  Scriptm-e,  is  in  some  sense  fun- 
 damental, in  regard  of  the  Divine  authority  of  God  and  his  word, 
 by  which  it  is  recommended  ;  that  is,  such  as  may  not  be  denied  or 
 contradicted  without  infidelity ;  such  as  every  Christian  is  bounds 
 with  humility  and  reverence,  to  believe,  whensoever  the  knov.ledge 
 thereof  is  offered  to  him.'  And  further,  wherej  the  revealed  will  or 
 word  of  God  is  sufficiently  propounded,  there  he  that  opposeth  is 
 convinced  of  error,  and  he  who  is  thus  convinced  is  a  heretic,  and 
 heresy  is  a  work  of  the  flesh  which  excludeth  from  heaven  [Gal.  v. 
 20,  21 J  :  and  hence  it  followeth,  that  it  is  fundamental  to  a  Chris- 
 tian's faith,  and  necessary  for  his  salvation,  that  he  believe  all  revealed 
 truths  of  God,  whereof  he  may  be  convinced  that  they  are  from 
 God.'  Can  anything  be  spoken  more  clearly  or  directly  for  us, 
 that  it  is  a  fundamental  error  to  deny  any  one  point,  though  never 
 so  small,  if  once  it  be  sufficiently  propounded  as  a  Divine  truth,  and 
 that  there  is  in  this  sense  no  distinction  betwixt  points  fimdamental 
 and  not  fundamental  ?  And  if  any  should  chance  to  imagine  that 
 it  is  against  the  foundation  of  faith  not  to  believe  points  funda- 
 mental, although  they  be  not  sufficiently  propounded,  D.  Potter  doth 
 not  admit  of  this  difFerence§  betwixt  points  fundamental  and  not 
 fimdamental  :  for  he  teacheth,  that  '  sufficient  proposition  of  revealet^ 
 truth  is  required  before  a  man  can  be  convinced;'  and  for  want  of 
 sufficient  conviction,  he  excuseth  the  disciples  from  heresy,  although 
 they  believed  not  our  Saviour's  resurrection,!!  which  is  a  very  funda- 
 mental point  of  faith.  Thus  then  I  argue  out  of  D.  Potter's  own 
 confession  :  No  error  is  damnable,  unless  the  contrary  truth  be  suffi- 
 ciently propounded  as  revealed  by  God  ;  every  error  is  damnable,  if 
 the  contrary  truth  be  sufficiently  propounded  as  revealed  by  God ; 
 therefore  all  errors  are  alike  for  the  general  effect  of  damnation,  if 
 the  difference  arise  not  from  the  manner  of  being  propounded.  And 
 what  now  has  become  of  their  distinction  ? 
 
 5,  "  I  will  tuerefore  conclude  with  this  argument :  according  to 
 all  philosophy  and  divinity,  the  unity  and  distinction  of  every  tlung 
 followeth  the  nature  and  essence  thereof;  and  therefore  if  the 
 nature  and  being  of  faith  be  not  taken  from  the  matter  which  a  man 
 beheves,  but  from  the  motive  for  which  he  beheves  (which  is  God's 
 word  or  revelation),  we  must  likewise  affirm,  that  the  unity  and 
 diversity  of  faith  must  be  measured  by  God's  revelation  (which  is 
 alike  for  all  objects),  and  not  by  the  smallness  or  greatness  of  the 
 matter  which  we  believe.  Now,  that  the  nature  of  faith  is  not 
 taken  from,  the  greatness  or  smallness  of  the  things  believed,  is 
 
 •  Page  211.        +  Page  212.        1  Page  250.        j  Page  24(>,        \\  Ibid. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  IGl 
 
 manifest;  because  othennae  one  who  believes  only  fundamental 
 points,  and  another,  who  together  with  them  doth  also  believe 
 points  not  fundamental,  should  have  faith  of  different  natures  ;  yea, 
 there  should  be  as  many  differences  of  faith,  as  there  are  different 
 points  which  men  believe,  according  to  different  capacities  or 
 instructions,  &c. ;  aD  which  consequences  are  absurd  ;  and  therefore 
 we  must  say,  that  unity  in  faith  doth  not  depend  upon  points 
 fundamental  or  not  fundamental,  but  upon  God's  revelation  equally 
 or  unequally  proposed  ;  and  protestants  pretending  an  unity  only  by 
 reason  of  their  agreement  in  fundamental  points,  do  indeed  induce 
 as  great  a  multiplicity  of  faith  as  there  is  multitude  of  different 
 objects  w^hich  are  believed  by  them  ;  and  since  they  disagree  in 
 things  equally  revealed  by  Almighty  God,  it  is  evident  that  they 
 forsake  the  veiy  formal  motive  of  faith,  which  is  God's  revelation, 
 and  consequently  lose  all  faith  and  unity  therein. 
 
 6.  "  The  first  part  of  the  title  of  this  chapter  {'  that  the  dis- 
 tinction of  points  fundamental  and  not  fundamental,  in  the  sense  of 
 protestants,  is  both  impertinent  and  untrue,')  being  demonstrated, 
 let  us  now  come  to  the  second  ;  '  that  the  church  is  infalhble  in  all 
 her  definitions,  whether  they  concern  points  fundamental  or  not 
 fundamental.'     And  this  I  prove  by  these  reasons  : 
 
 7.  "  It  hath  been  showed  in  the  precedent  chapter,  that  the 
 church  is  judge  of  controversies  in  rehgion  ;  which  she  could  not  be, 
 if  she  could  err  in  any  one  point ;  as  Dr.  Potter  would  not  deny,  if 
 he  were  once  persuaded  that  she  is  judge :  because,  if  she  could  err 
 in  some  points,  we  could  not  rely  upon  her  authority  and  judgment 
 in  any  one  thing. 
 
 8.  "  This  same  is  proved  by  the  reason  we  alleged  before  ;  that 
 seeing  the  church  was  infallible  in  all  her  definitions  ere  Scripture 
 was  written  (unless  we  will  take  away  all  certainty  of  faith  for  that 
 time),  we  cannot  with  any  show  of  reason  affirm,  that  she  hath  been 
 deprived  thereof  by  the  adjoined  comfort  and  help  of  sacred  writ. 
 
 9.  "  Moreover,  to  say  that  the  cathohc  church  may  propose  any 
 false  doctrine,  maketh  her  liable  to  damnable  sin  and  error  ;  and  yet 
 Dr.  Potter  teacheth,  that  the  church  cannot  err  damnably.  For  if 
 in  that  kind  of  oath  which  divines  call  assertorium,  wherein  God  is 
 called  to  witness,  every  falsehood  is  a  deadly  sin  in  any  private 
 person  whatsoever,  although  the  thing  be  of  itself  neither '  material 
 nor  prejudicial  to  any ;  because  the  quantity  or  greatness  of  that 
 sin  is  not  measured  so  much  by  the  thing  which  is  affirmed,  as  by 
 the  manner  and  authority  whereby  it  is  avouched,  and  by  the 
 injury  that  is  offered  to  Almighty  God,  in  applying  his  testimony  to 
 a  falsehood  :  in  which  respect  it  is  the  unanimous  consent  of  all 
 divines,  that  in  such  kinds  of  oaths,  no  levitas  materice,  that  is, 
 smallness  of  matter,  can  excuse  from  a  mortal  sacrilege  against  the 
 moral  virtue  of  religion,  which  respects  worship  due  to  God  :  if,  I 
 say,  every  least  falsehood  be  deadly  sin  in  the  foresaid  kind  of  oath, 
 much  more  pernicious  a  sin  must  it  be  in  the  public  person  of  the 
 catholic  church  to  propound  untrue  articles  of  faith,  thereby  fasten- 
 ing God's  prime  verity  to  falsehood,  and  inducing  and  obliging  the 
 world  to  do  the  same.  Besides,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  all 
 divines,  it  is  not  only  injiuious  to  God's  eternal  verity  to  disbeheve 
 
 M 
 
162  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 things  by  him  revealed,  but  also  to  propose  as  revealed  truths  things 
 not  revealed ;  as  in  commonwealths  it  is  a  heinous  offence  to  coin 
 either  by  counterfeiting  the  metal  or  the  stamp,  or  to  apply  the 
 king's  seal  to  a  writing  counterfeit,  although  the  contents  were 
 supposed  to  be  true.  And  whereas,  to  show  the  detestable  sin  of 
 such  pernicious  fictions,  the  church  doth  most  exemplarily  punish 
 all  broachers  of  feigned  revelations,  visions,  miracles,  prophecies,  &c., 
 as  in  particular  appeareth  in  the  council  of  Lateran,*  excommuni- 
 cating such  persons :  if  the  church  herself  could  propose  false 
 revelations,  she  herself  should  have  been  the  first  and  chiefest  de- 
 server  to  have  been  censured,  and  as  it  were  excommunicated  by 
 herself.  For,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith  in  Job,t  Both  God  need  your 
 lie,  that  for  him  you  may  speak  deceits  ?  And  that  of  the  Apoca- 
 lypse is  most  truly  verified  in  fictitious  revelations  :  %  If  any  shall 
 add  to  these  things,  God  will  add  unto  him  the  plagues  ivhich  are 
 written  in  this  book.  And  Dr.  Potter  saith,  ||  to  Sadd  to  it  (speak- 
 ing of  the  Creed),  is  high  presumption,  almost  as  great  as  to  detract 
 from  it.'  And  therefore  to  say  the  church  may  add  false  revelations, 
 is  to  accuse  her  of  high  presumption  and  of  pernicious  error,  ex- 
 cluding salvation. 
 
 10.  "  Perhaps  some  will  here  reply,  that  although  the  church 
 may  err,  yet  it  is  not  imputed  to  her  for  sin,  by  reason  she  doth  not 
 err  upon  malice  or  wittingly,  but  by  ignorance  or  mistake. 
 
 11.  "  But  it  is  easily  demonstrated  that  this  excuse  cannot  serve ; 
 for  if  the  chm-ch  be  assisted  only  for  points  fundamental,  she  cannot 
 but  know  that  she  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental,  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, 
 wherein  she  can  have  no  certainty,  yea,  which  always  imply  a 
 falsehood  and  error,  and  in  fact  doth  always  err  in  the  manner  in 
 which  she  doth  propound  any  matter  not  fundamental ;  because  she 
 proposeth  it  as  a  point  of  faith  certainly  true,  which  yet  is  always 
 uncertain  if  she  in  such  things  may  be  deceived. 
 
 12.  "  Besides,  if  the  church  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental, 
 she  may  err  in  proposing  some  scripture  for  canonical  which  is  not 
 such ;  or  else  err  in  keeping  and  conserving  from  corruptions  such 
 scriptm-es  as  are  already  believed  to  be  canonical.  For  I  will  sup- 
 pose, that  in  such  apocryphal  scripture  as  she  delivers,  there  is  no 
 fundamental  error  against  faith,  or  that  there  is  no  falsehood  at  all, 
 but  only  want  of  divine  testification  :  in  which  case  Dr.  Potter  must 
 either  grant  that  it  is  a  fundamental  error  to  apply  Divine  revelation 
 to  any  point  not  revealed,  or  else  must  yield  that  the  church  may  err 
 in  her  proposition  or  custody  of  the  canon  of  Scripture  :  and  so  we 
 cannot  be  sure,  whether  she  hath  not  been  deceived  already  in  books 
 recommended  by  her,  and  accepted  by  Christians.  And  thus  we 
 shall  have  no  certainty  of  Scripture,  if  the  church  want  certainty  in 
 all  her  definitions  :  and  it  is  worthy  to  be  observed,  that  some  books 
 of  Scripture,  which  were  not  always  known  to  be  canonical,  have 
 been  afterwards  received  for  such ;    but  never  any  one  book  or 
 
 *  Sub.  Leon.  10.  Sess.  11.  +  Cap.  -siii.  7. 
 
 +  Cap.  ult.  18.  il  Page  222. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  163 
 
 syllable  defined  by  the  chui'ch  to  be  canonical  was  afterward  ques- 
 tioned or  rejected  for  ajjocryphal :  a  sign  that  God's  church  is 
 infallibly  assisted  by  the  Holy  Ghost  never  to  propose  as  Divine 
 truth  any  thing  not  revealed  by  God  ;  and,  that  omission  to  define 
 points  not  sufficiently  discussed  is  laudable  ;  but  commission  in 
 propoimding  things  not  revealed  inexcusable  :  into  which  pre- 
 cipitation oiu-  Saviour  Christ  never  hath,  nor  never  will  permit  his 
 church  to  fall. 
 
 13.  "  Nay,  to  Hmit  the  general  promises  of  our  Saviour  Christ  made 
 to  his  chui'ch  to  points  only  fundamental ;  namely,  that  the  gates  of 
 hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her  j*  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  lead 
 her  into  all  truth,f  &c.,  is  to  destroy  all  faith.  For  we  may,  by 
 that  doctrine  and  manner  of  interpreting  the  Scripture,  limit  the 
 infallibility  of  the  apostles'  words  and  preaching  only  to  points 
 fundamental  :  and  whatsoever  general  texts  of  Scriptiu-e  shall  be 
 alleged  for  their  infalhbihty,  they  may,  by  Dr.  Potter's  example,  be 
 explicated  and  restrained  to  points  fundamental.  By  the  same 
 reason  it  may  be  further  affirmed,  that  the  apostles,  and  other 
 writers  of  canonical  Scripture,  were  endued  with  infallibility  only  in 
 setting  down  points  fundamental.  For  if  it  be  m-ged,  that  "'  all 
 Scripture  is  di\inely  inspired ;'  that  '  it  is  the  word  of  God,'  &c. ; 
 Dr.  Potter  hath  afforded  you  a  ready  answer,  to  say  that  '  Scripture 
 is  inspired,'  &c.,  only  in  those  parts  or  pai'cels  wherein  it  delivereth 
 fundamental  points.  In  this  manner  Dr.  Fotherby  saith,;};  'The 
 apostle  twice  in  one  chapter  professed,  that  this  he  speaJceth,  and  not 
 the  Lord :  he  is  very  well  content  that  where  he  wants  the  warrant 
 of  the  express  word  of  God,  that  part  of  his  writings  should  be 
 esteemed  as  the  word  of  man.'  Dr.  Potter  also  speaks  very  danger- 
 ously tovrards  this  purpose,  §  5,  where  he  endeavoureth  to  prove  that 
 the  infallibility  of  the  church  is  limited  to  points  fundamental, 
 because  '  as  nature,  so  God  is  neither  defective  in  necessaries,  nor 
 lavish  in  superfluities."'§  Which  reason  doth  hkewise  prove,  that 
 the  infalhbility  of  Scripture  and  of  the  apostles  must  be  restrained 
 to  points  necessary  to  salvation,  that  so  God  be  not  accused  '  as 
 defective  in  necessaries,  or  lavish  in  superfluities.'  In  the  same 
 place  he  hath  a  discourse  much  tending  to  this  purpose ;  where, 
 speaking  of  tliese  words.  The  Spirit  shall  lead  you  into  all  truth, 
 and  shall  abide  with  you  for  evpr,\\  he  saith,5r  'Though  that  pro- 
 mise was  directly  and  primarily  made  to  the  apostles  (who  had  the 
 Spirit's  guidance  in  a  more  high  and  absolute  manner  than  any 
 since  them),  yet  it  was  made  to  them  for  the  behoof  of  the  church, 
 and  is  verified  in  the  church  universal.  But  all  truth  is  not  simply 
 all,  but  all  of  some  kind.  To  be  led  into  all  truths  is  to  know  and 
 believe  them.  And  who  is  so  simple,  as  to  be  ignorant  that  there 
 are  many  miUions  of  truths  (in  nature,  history,  divinity)  whereof  the 
 church  is  simply  ignorant  ?  How  many  truths  lie  unrevealed  in  the 
 infinite  treasure  of  God's  wisdom,  wherewith  the  church  is  not  ac- 
 quainted !  &c.  So  then  the  truth  itself  enfcrceth  us  to  understand 
 by  all  truths  not  simply  all,  not  ail  which  God  can  possibly  reveal, 
 bat  all  pertaining  to  the  substance  of  faith,  all  truth  absolutely  necea- 
 
 *  Matt.  xvi.  18.      f  John  xvi.  13.      J  In  his  Sermons.   Serm.  II.  page  50. 
 j  Page  150.        J!  John  xvi.  13.  and  xiv.  16.        %  Page  151,  i52. 
 
164  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS, 
 
 sary  to  salvation/  Mark  what  he  saith  :  *  That  promise  (the  Spirit 
 shallleadyou  into  all  truth)  was  made  directly  to  the  apostles,  and  is 
 verified  in  the  universal  church ;  but  by  all  truth  is  not  understood 
 simply  all,  but  all  appertaining  to  the  substance  of  faith,  and  abso- 
 lutely necessary  to  salvation.'  Doth  it  not  hence  follow,  that  the 
 promise  made  to  the  apostles,  of  being  led  into  all  truth,  is  to  be 
 understood  only  of  all  truth  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation ;  and 
 consequently  their  preaching  and  writing  were  not  infallible  in  points 
 not  fundamental  ?  Or  if  the  apostles  were  infalhble  in  all  things 
 which  they  proposed  as  Divine  truth,  the  like  must  be  affirmed  of 
 the  church,  because  Dr.  Potter  teacheth  the  said  promise  to  be 
 verified  in  the  church.  And  as  he  limits  the  aforesaid  words  to 
 points  fundamental,  so  may  he  restrain  what  other  text  soever  that 
 can  be  brought  for  the  universal  infalhbility  of  the  apostles  or 
 Scriptures ;  so  he  may,  and  so  he  must,  lest  otherwise  he  receive 
 this  answer  of  his  own  from  himself :  '  How  many  truths  lie  unre- 
 vealed  in  the  infinite  treasure  of  God's  wisdom,  wherewith  the 
 church  is  not  acquainted  !'  And  therefore,  to  verify  such  general 
 sayings,  they  must  be  understood  of  truths  absolutely  necessary  to 
 salvation.  Are  not  these  fearful  consequences  ?  And  yet  Dr. 
 Potter  will  never  be  able  to  avoid  them,  till  he  come  to  acknowledge 
 the  infallibihty  of  the  church  in  all  points  by  her  proposed  as  Divine 
 truths  :  and  thus  it  is  universally  true,  that  she  is  led  into  all  truths 
 in  regard  that  our  Saviour  never  permits  her  to  define  or  teach  any 
 falsehood. 
 
 14.  "  All  that  with  any  colour  may  be  replied  to  tliis  argument, 
 is.  That  if  once  we  call  any  one  book  or  parcel  of  Scriptm*e  in 
 question,  although  for  the  matter  it  contains  no  fundamental  error, 
 yet  it  is  of  great  importance,  and  fundamental,  by  reason  of  the 
 consequence ;  because  if  once  we  doubt  of  one  book  received  for 
 canonical,  the  whole  canon  is  made  doubtful  and  uncertain,  and 
 therefore  the  infallibility  of  Scripture  must  be  universal,  and  not 
 confined  within  compass  of  points  fundamental. 
 
 15.  "I  answer  :  for  the  thing  itself  it  is  very  true,  that  if  I  doubt 
 of  any  one  parcel  of  Scripture  received  for  such,  I  may  doubt  of  all : 
 and  thence  by  the  same  parity  I  infer,  that  if  we  doubt  of  the 
 church's  infallibility  in  some  points,  we  could  not  believe  her  in  any 
 one,  and  consequently  not  in  propounding  canonical  books,  or  any 
 other  points  fundamental  or  not  fundamental :  which  thing  being 
 most  absurd,  and  withal  most  impious,  we  must  take  away  the 
 ground  thereof,  and  believe  that  she  cannot  err  in  any  point  great 
 or  small :  and  so  this  reply  doth  much  more  strengthen  what  we 
 intend  to  prove.  Yet  I  add,  that  protestants  cannot  make  use  of 
 this  reply  with  any  good  coherence  to  this  their  distinction  and 
 some  other  doctrines  which  they  defend.  For  if  Dr.  Potter  can  tell 
 what  points  in  particular  be  fundamental  (as  in  his  7th  §  he  pre- 
 tendeth),  then  he  might  be  sure,  that  whensoever  he  meets  with 
 such  points  in  Scripture,  in  them  it  is  infallibly  true,  although  it 
 may  err  in  others  ;  and  not  only  true,  but  clear,  because  protestants 
 teach  that  in  matters  necessary  to  salvation  the  Scripture  is  so  clear, 
 that  all  such  necessary  truths  are  either  manifestly  contained  therein, 
 or  may  be  clearly  deduced  from  it.     Which  doctrines  being  put 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  166 
 
 together,  to  ^vit,  that  Scriptures  cannot  err  in  points  fundamental ; 
 that  they  clearly  contain  all  such  points,  and  that  they  can  tell  what 
 points  in  particular  be  such,  I  mean  fundamental ;  it  is  manifest  that 
 it  is  sufficient  for  salvation,  that  Scriptm-e  be  infallible  only  in  points 
 fundamental :  for  supposing  these  doctrines  of  theirs  to  be  true, 
 they  may  be  sure  to  find  in  Scripture  all  points  necessary  to  salra- 
 tion,  although  it  were  fallible  in  other  points  of  less  moment : 
 neithei*  will  they  be  able  to  avoid  this  impiety  against  Holy  Scripture, 
 till  they  renounce  their  other  doctrines,  and  in  jjirticular,  till  they 
 beUeve  that  Christ's  promises  to  his  church  are  not  hmited  to  points 
 fundamental. 
 
 16.  "Besides,  from  the  fallibility  of  Christ's  catholic  church  in 
 some  points,  it  followeth,  that  no  true  protestant,  learned  or  un- 
 learned, doth  or  can  with  assurance  believe  the  universal  church  in 
 any  one  point  of  doctrine  :  not  in  points  of  lesser  moment,  which 
 they  call  not  fundamental,  because  they  beheve  that  in  such  points 
 she  may  err  :  not  in  fundamental,  because  they  must  know  what 
 points  be  fundamental  before  they  go  to  learn  of  her,  lest  otherwise 
 they  be  rather  deluded  than  instructed,  in  regard  that  her  certain 
 and  infalhble  direction  extends  only  to  points  fundamental.  Now 
 if  before  they  address  themselves  to  the  church  they  must  know 
 what  points  are  fundamental,  they  learn  not  of  her,  but  will  be  as 
 fit  to  teach  as  to  be  taught  by  her  :  how  then  are  all  Christians  so 
 often,  so  seriously,  upon  so  dreadful  menaces,  by  fathers.  Scriptures, 
 and  our  blessed  Saviour  himself,  counselled  and  commanded  to  seek, 
 to  hear,  to  obey  the  church  ?  St.  Austin  was  of  a  very  different 
 mind  from  protestants  :  '  If,'  saith  he,*  '  the  church  through  the 
 whole  world  practise  any  of  these  things,  to  dispute  w^hether  that 
 ought  to  be  so  done  is  a  most  insolent  madness.'  And  in  another 
 place  he  saith,t  *  That  which  the  whole  church  holds,  and  is  not 
 ordained  by  councils,  but  hath  always  been  kept,  is  most  rightly 
 beheved  to  be  delivered  by  apostolical  authority.'  The  same  holy 
 father  teacheth,  that  the  custom  of  baptizing  children  cannot  be 
 proved  by  Scripture  alone,  and  yet  that  it  is  to  be  beheved,  as 
 derived  from  the  apostles.  *  The  custom  of  our  mother  the  church,' 
 saith  he,  J  '  in  baptizing  infants,  is  in  no  wise  to  be  condemned,  nor 
 to  be  accounted  superfluous,  nor  is  it  at  all  to  be  believed,  unless  it 
 were  an  apostohcal  tradition.'  And  elsewhere  :§  '  Christ  is  of  profit 
 to  children  baptized  :  is  he  therefore  of  profit  to  persons  not  be- 
 lieving ?  But  God  forbid  that  I  should  say  infants  do  not  beheve. 
 I  have  already  said,  he  believes  in  another,  who  sinned  in  another. 
 It  is  said  he  believes,  and  it  is  of  force,  and  he  is  reckoned  among 
 the  faithful  that  are  baptized.  This  is  the  authority  our  mother  the 
 thurch  hath;  against  this  strength,  against  this  invincible  wall, 
 ivhosoever  rusheth  shall  be  crushed  in  pieces.'  To  this  argument 
 the  protestants,  in  the  conference  at  Ratisbon,  gave  this  round 
 answer  : — Nos  hab  Augustino  hac  in  parte  libere  dissentimus  :\\  '  In 
 this  we  plainly  disagree  from  Augustin.'  Now  if  this  doctrine  of 
 baptizing  infants  be  not  fundamental  in  Dr.  Potter's  sense,  then, 
 
 *  Epist.  118.  +  Lib.  4.  de  But)t.  c.  24. 
 
 I  Genesi  ad  liter,  cap.  23.        §  Serin.  14.  de  Verbis  Apost.  c.  18. 
 li  See  Protoc.  Monac.  edit.  2.  p.  367. 
 
166  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 according  to  St.  Augustin,  the  infallibility  of  the  church  extends  ta 
 points  not  fundamental.  But  if>  on  the  other  side,  it  be  a  funda- 
 mental point,  then,  according  to  the  same  holy  doctor,  we  must 
 rely  upon  the  authority  of  the  church  for  some  fundamental  point 
 not  contained  in  Scriptm*e,  but  delivered  by  tradition.  The  like 
 argument  I  frame  out  of  the  same  father,  about  the  not  rebaptizing 
 of  those  who  were  baptized  by  heretics,  whereof  he  excellently,  to 
 our  present  purpose,  speaketh  in  this  manner :  *  We  follow,*  indeed, 
 in  this  matter  ev|n  the  most  certain  authority  of  canonical  Scrip- 
 ture.' But  how  T  Consider  his  words  :  '  Although  verily  there  be 
 brought  no  example  for  this  point  out  of  the  canonical  Scriptures, 
 yet  even  in  this  point  the  truth  of  the  same  Scripture  is  held  by  us, 
 while  we  do  that  which  the  authority  of  Scriptures  doth  recommend  ; 
 that  so,  because  the  Holy  Scripture  cannot  deceive  us,  whosoever  is 
 afraid  to  be  deceived  by  the  obscurity  of  this  question,  must  have 
 recourse  to  the  same  church  concerning  it,  which,  without  any  am- 
 biguity, the  Holy  Scripture  doth  demonstrate  to  us.'  Among  many 
 other  points  in  the  aforesaid  words,  we  are  to  observe,  that,  accord- 
 ing to  this  holy  father,  when  we  prove  some  points  not  particularly 
 contained  in  Scripture  by  the  authority  of  the  church,  even  in  that 
 case  we  ought  not  to  be  said  to  beheve  such  points  without  Scrip- 
 tm-e,  because  Scripture  itself  recommends  the  church ;  and  therefore, 
 relying  on  her,  we  rely  on  Scripture,  without  danger  of  being  de- 
 ceived by  the  obscurity  of  any  question  denned  by  the  church.  And 
 elsewhere  he  saith.f  *  Seeing  this  is  written  in  no  Scripture,  we 
 must  believe  the  testimony  of  the  church,  which  Christ  declareth  to 
 speak  the  truth.'  But  it  seems  D.  Potter  is  of  opinion,  that  this 
 doctrine  about  not  rebaptizing  such  as  were  baptized  by  heretics  is  no 
 necessary  point  of  faith,  nor  the  contrary  an  heresy :  wherein  he 
 contradicteth  St.  Augustin,  from  whom  we  have  now  heard,  that  what 
 the  church  teacheth  is  truly  said  to  be  taught  by  Scripture ;  and 
 consequently  to  deny  this  particular  point,  delivered  by  the  church, 
 is  to  oppose  Scripture  itself.  Yet  if  he  will  needs  hold  that  this 
 point  is  not  fundamental,  we  must  conclude  out  of  St.  Augustin  (as 
 we  did  concernmg  the  baptizing  of  children),  that  the  infallibility  of 
 the  church  reacheth  not  to  points  fundamental.  The  same  father, 
 in  another  place,  concerning  this  very  question  of  the  validity  of 
 baptism  conferred  by  heretics,  saith,  J  '  The  apostles  indeed  have 
 prescribed  nothing  of  this  :  but  this  custom  ought  to  be  beheved  to 
 be  originally  taken  from  their  tradition,  as  there  ai-e  many  things 
 that  the  universal  church  observeth,  which  are  therefore  with  good 
 reason  believed  to  have  been  commanded  by  the  apostles,  although 
 they  be  not  written.'  No  less  clear  is  St,  Chrysostom  for  the  iiifal- 
 libihty  of  the  traditions  of  the  church.  For,  treating  on  these  words 
 (2  Thess.  ii.).  Stand,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  you  have  learned, 
 whether  by  speech  or  hy  our  epistle,  he  saith,§  '  Hence  it  is  manifest 
 that  they  delivered  not  all  things  by  letter,  but  many  things  also 
 without  writing  ;  and  these  also  are  worthy  of  belief.  Let  us 
 therefore  account  the  tradition  of  the  church  to  be  worthy  of  belief : 
 it  is  a  tradition :  seek  no  more.     Which  words  ai-e  so  plainly  against 
 
 •  Lib.  l.cont.  Crescon.  cap.  32,  33.  t  De  Unit.  Eccl.  cap.  19. 
 
 X  De  Bapt.  con.  donat.  lib.  5.  c.  23.  ^  Horn.  4. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED   BY    CATHOLICS.  167 
 
 protestaots,  that  Whitaker  is  as  plain  with  St.  Chrysostom,  saying,* 
 '  I  ans^^  er  that  this  is  an  inconsiderable  speech,  and  unworthy  so 
 great  a  father.'  But  let  us  conclude  with  St.  Augustin,  that  the 
 church  cannot  approve  any  error  against  faith  or  good  manners  : 
 *  The  church,'  saith  he,t  *'  being  placed  between  much  chaff  and 
 cockle,  doth  tolerate  many  things ;  but  yet  she  doth  not  approve 
 nor  dissemble,  nor  do  those  things  which  are  against  faith  or  good 
 life.'^ 
 
 17.  "And  as  I  have  proved  that  protestants,  according  to  their 
 grounds,  cannot  yield  infallible  assent  to  the  church  in  any  one  point; 
 so,  by  the  same  reason,  I  prove,  that  they  cannot  rely  upon  Scripture 
 itself  in  any  ens  point  of  faith :  not  in  points  of  lesser  moment 
 (or  not  fundamental),  because  in  such  points  the  catholic  church 
 (according  to  Dr.  Potter),  aiid  much  more  any  protestant,  may  err, 
 and  think  it  is  contained  in  Scripture,  when  it  is  not :  not  in  points 
 fundamental,  because  they  must  tirst  know  what  points  be  funda- 
 mental, before  they  can  be  assured  that  they  cannot  err  in  under- 
 standing the  Scripture  :  and  consequently,  independently  of  Scripture, 
 they  must  foreknow  all  fundamental  points  of  faith,  and  therefore 
 they  do  not  indeed  rely  upon  Scripture,  either  for  fundamental  or 
 not  fundamental  points. 
 
 18.  "Besides,  I  mainly  urge  D.  Potter  and  other  protestants, 
 that  they  tell  us  of  certain  points  which  they  call  fundamental,  and 
 we  cannot  wrest  from  them  a  list  in  particulai-  of  such  points,  with- 
 out which  no  man  can  tell  whether  or  no  he  err  in  points  funda- 
 mental, and  be  capable  of  salvation.  And,  which  is  most  lamentable, 
 instead  of  giving  us  such  a  catalogue,  they  fall  to  wrangle  among 
 themselves  about  the  making  of  it. 
 
 19.  "  Calvin  holds  the  pope's  primacy,  invocation  of  saints, 
 freewill,  and  such  like,  to  be  fundamental  errors,  overthrowing  the 
 gospel.J  Others  are  not  of  his  mind,  as  Melancthon,  who  saith,§ 
 in  the  opinion  of  himself,  and  other  his  brethren,  that  *the  monarchy 
 of  the  bishop  of  Rome  is  of  use  or  profit,  to  this  end,  that  consent 
 of  doctrine  may  be  retained.  An  agreement,  therefore,  may  be 
 easily  established  in  this  article  of  the  pope's  primacy,  if  other 
 articles  could  be  agreed  upon.'  If  the  pope's  primacy  be  a  means, 
 *  that  consent  of  doctrine  may  be  retained,'  first  submit  to  it,  and 
 other  articles  will  be  *  easily  agreed  upon.'  Luther  also  saith  of  the 
 pope's  primacy,  it  maybe  bonie  \^•ithal.|l  And  why  then,  O  Luther, 
 did  you  not  bear  with  it  ?  And  how  can  you  and  your  followers  be 
 excused  from  damnable  schism,  who  chose  rather  to  divide  God's 
 chm-ch,  than  to  bear  with  that  which  you  confess  may  be  borne 
 withal  ?  But  let  us  go  forward.  That  the  doctrine  of  freewill, 
 prayer  for  the  dead,  worshipping  of  images,  worship  and  invocation 
 of  saints,  real  presence,  transubstantiation,  receiving  under  one  kind, 
 satisfaction  and  merit  of  works,  and  the  mass,  be  not  fundamental 
 errors,  is  taught  respective  by  divers  protestants,  carefully  alleged  in. 
 the  Protestant's  Apology,1[  &c.,  as  namely,  by  Perkins,  Cartwright, 
 Frith,  Fulk,  Hemy,   Sparke,  Goad,   Luther,  Reynolds,  Whitaker, 
 
 *  De  sacra  Script,  p.  678.  +  Ep.  119. 
 
 i  Insfet.  1.  4.  0.  2.        55  Cent.  Ep.  Theol.  Ep.  74.        \\  In  Assertionib.  art.  36. 
 U   Tract.  2.  c.  2.  sect.  14.  after  F. 
 
168  CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 Tindal,  Francis  Johnston,  with  others.  Contrary  to  these,  is  the 
 Confession  of  the  Christian  Faith,  so  called  hy  protestants,  which  I 
 mentioned  heretofore,*  wherein  we  ai-e  '  damned  unto  unquenchable 
 lire,'  for  the  doctrine  of  mass,  prayer  to  saints  and  for  the  dead, 
 freewill,  presence  at  idol-service,  man's  merit,  with  such  like.  Jus- 
 tification by  faith  alone  is  by  some  protestants  affirmed  to  be  the 
 soul  of  the  church  ;t  the  only  principal  origin  of  salvation ;  J  of 
 all  other  points  of  doctrine  the  chiefest  and  weightiest. §  Which  yet, 
 as  we  have  seen,  is  contrary  to  other  protestants,  who  teach,  that 
 merit  of  good  works  is  not  a  fundamental  error  j  yea,  divers  pro- 
 testants defend  merit  of  good  works,  as  may  be  seen  in  Brerely.|| 
 One  would  think  that  the  king's  supremacy,  for  which  some  blessed 
 men  lost  their  lives,  was  once  among  protestants  held  for  a  capital 
 point;  but  now.  Dr.  Andrews,  late  of  Winchester,  in  his  book 
 against  Bellarmine,  tells  us,  that  it  is  sufficient  to  reckon  it  among 
 true  doctrines.  And  Wotton  denies  that '  protestants  hold  the  king's 
 supremacy  to  be  an  essential  point  of  faith.'H  O  freedom  of  the 
 new  gospel !  Hold  with  cathohcs  the  pope,  or  with  protestants  the 
 king,  or  with  puritans  neither  pope  nor  king,  to  be  head  of  the 
 church  ;  all  is  one,  you  may  be  saved.  Some,  as  Castalio,**  and 
 the  whole  sect  of  the  academical  protestants,  hold,  that  doctrines 
 about  the  supper — baptism — the  state  and  office  of  Christ — how  he 
 is  one  with,  his  Father — the  trinity — predestination — and  divers 
 other  such  questions,  are  not  necessary  to  salvation.  And  (that 
 you  may  observe  how  ungrounded  and  partial  their  assertions  be) 
 Perkins  teacheth,  that  the  real  presence  of  our  Sa^'iour's  body  in  the 
 sacrament,  as  it  is  believed  by  catholics,  is  a  fundamental  error ;  and 
 yet  affirmeth  the  consubstantiation  of  Lutherans  not  to  be  such, 
 notwithstanding  that  divers  chief  Lutherans  to  their  consubstantia- 
 tion join  the  prodigious  heresy  of  ubiquitation.  Dr.  Usher,  in  his 
 sermon  on  the  Unity  of  the  Catholic  Faith,  grants  salvation  to  the 
 Ethiopians,  who  yet  with  Christian  baptism  join  circumcision.  Dr. 
 Pottertt  cites  the  doctrine  of  some,  whom  he  termeth  men  of  great 
 learning  and  judgment,  that  '  all  who  profess  to  love  and  honour 
 Jesus  Christ  are  in  the  visible  Christian  church,  and  by  catholics  to 
 be  reputed  brethren.'  One  of  these  men  of  great  learning  and 
 judgment  is  Thomas  Morton,  by  Dr.  Potter  cited  in  his  margent, 
 whose  love  and  honour  to  Jesus  Christ  you  may  perceive  by  his 
 saying,  that '  the  churches  of  Arians '  (who  denied  our  Saviour  Christ 
 to  be  God)  *  are  to  be  accounted  the  church  of  God,  because  they  do 
 hold  the  foundation  of  the  gospel,  which  is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  the 
 Son  of  God,  and  Saviour  of  the  world.'  And,  which  is  more,  it 
 seems  by  these  chaiitable  men,  that  for  being  a  member  of  the 
 church,  it  is  not  necessary  to  believe  one  onty  God.  For  Dr. 
 Potter,;]:;!;  among  the  arguments  to  prove  Hooker's  and  Morton's 
 opinion,  brings   this  :  '  The  people  of  the  ten   tribes   after  their 
 
 •    Chap.  1.  par.  4.  p.  96. 
 
 +  Chark  in  the  Tower  Disputation,  the  Four  Days'  Conference. 
 
 J  Fox's  Acts  and  Mon.  p.  402. 
 
 $  The  Confession  of  Bohemia  in  the  Harmony  of  Confessions,  p.  253. 
 
 II  Tract.  3.  sect  7.underM.n   15.    f  In  his  Answer  to  a  Popish  Pamphlet,  p,  68. 
 
 **  Vid.  G.  Reginald.  Calv.  Turcis.  1.  2.  c.  6. 
 
 +f  Page  113, 114.    Morton  in  bis  Treatise  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel,  p.  94. 
 
 tl  Page  121. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  169 
 
 defection,  notwithstanding  their  gross  corruption  and  idolatry,'  re- 
 maineth  still  a  true  chiu'ch.     We  may  also,  as  it  seemeth  by  these 
 men's  reasoning,  deny  the  resurrection,  and  yet  be  members  of  the 
 true  church.     For  a  learned  man  (saith  Dr.  Potter  *  in  behalf  of 
 Hooker's  and  ^Morton's  opinion)  was  anciently  made  a  bishop  of  the 
 catholic  chm-ch,  though  he  did  professedly  doubt  of  the  last  resurrec- 
 tion of  our  bodies.     Dear  Saviour !     What  times  do  we  behold  ?     l£ 
 one  may  be  a  member  of  the  true  church,  and  yet  deny  the  Trinity 
 of  the   Persons,   the    Godhead   of  our   Saviour,   the  necessity   of 
 baptism ;  if  we  may  use  circumcision,  and  with  the  worship  of  God 
 join  idolatry ;   wherein  do  we  differ  from  Turks  and  Jews  ?  or  rather, 
 are  we  not  worse  than   either  of  them  ?      If  they  who  deny  our 
 Saviour's  Divinity  might  be  accounted  the  church  of  God,  how  will 
 they  deny  that  favour  to  those  ancient  heretics,  who  denied  our 
 Saviour's  true  humanity  ?     And  so  the  total  denial  of  Christ  will 
 not  exclude  one  from  being  a  member  of  the  true  church.     St. 
 Hilary  f  makes  it  of  equal  necessity  for  salvation  that  we  believe 
 our  Saviom'  to  l)e  true  God  and  true  man,  saying,  '  This  manner  of 
 confession  we  are  to  hold,  that  we  remember  him  to  be  the  Son  of 
 God  and  the  Son  of  man,  because  the  one  without  the  other  can 
 give  no  hope  of  salvation.'     And  yet  Dr.  Potter  saith  of  the  aforesaid 
 doctrine  of  Hooker  and  Morton,   'The  reader  may  be  pleased  to 
 approve  or  reject  it,  as  he  shall  find  cause. '1    And  in  another  place,§ 
 he  showeth  so  much  good  liking  of  this  doctrine,  that  he  explicateth 
 and  proveth  the  church's  perpetual  visibihty  by  it.      And  m  the 
 second  echtion  of  his  book,  he  is  careful  to  declare  and  illustrate  it 
 more  at  large  than  he  had  done  before  :   howsoever,  this  sufficiently 
 showeth,  that  they  have  no  certainty  what  points  be  fundamental. 
 As  for  the  Arians  in  particular,  the  author  whom  Dr.  Potter  cites  for 
 a  moderate  catholic,  but  is  indeed  a  plain  heretic,  or  rather  atheist, 
 Lucian-like,  jesting  at  all  religion, ||  places  Arianism  among  funda- 
 mental errors  :  but  eontrarily,  an  English  protestant  divine,  masked 
 under  the  name  of  Irenaus  Philalethes,  in  a  little  book  in  Latin, 
 entitled  Dissertalio  de  Pace  et  Concordia  Ecclesice,  endeavoureth  to 
 prove,  that  even  the  denial  of  the  blessed  Trinity  may  stand  with 
 salvation.     Divers  protestants  have  taught,  that  the  Roman  church 
 erreth  in.  fundamental  points  :  but  Dr.  Potter  and  others  teach  the 
 contrary  ;  which  could  not  happen,  if  they  could  agree  ^^■hat  be 
 fundamental  pomts.     You  brand  the  Donatists  with  a  note  of  an 
 error,  '  in  the  matter  %  and  the  nature  of  it  properly  heretical ;' 
 because  they  taught,  that  the  church  remained  only  with  them,  in 
 the  part  of  Donatus.     And  yet  manv  jirotestants  are  so  far  from 
 holding  that  doctrine  to  be  a  fundamental  error,  that  themselves  go 
 further,  and  say,  that  for  divers  ages  before  Luther  there  was  no 
 true  visible  church  at  all.     It  is  then  too  apparent,  that  you  have  no 
 agreement  in  specifying  what  be  fundamental  points  :  neither  have 
 you  any  means  to  determine  what  they  be ;  for  if  you  have  any  such 
 means,  why  do  you  not  agree  ?     You  tell  us  the  Creed  contains  all 
 points  fundamental;  which  although  it  were  true,  yet  you  see  it 
 serves  not  to  bring  you  to  a  particular  knowledge  and  agreement  in 
 
 •  Page  122.        -j-  Comment,  in  Matt,  xvi,        i  Page  123.         §  Page  253. 
 Ij  A  moderate  Examination,  &c  ,  cap.  1.  paulo  post  initium.     IT  Page  I2t>. 
 
170  CHARITY    MAIXTAIXED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 such  points.  And  no  wonder  :  for  (besides  what  I  have  said  ah*eady 
 in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  and  am  to  dehver  more  at  large 
 in  the  next)  after  so  much  hibour  and  pa})er  spent  to  prove  that  the 
 Creed  contains  all  fundamental  points,  you  conclude  ;  '  It  remains 
 very  probable  that  the  Creed  is  the  perfect  summar}^  of  those 
 fundamental  truths  whereof  consists  the  unity  of  faith  and  of  the 
 catholic  chiuch.'*  Very  probable  !  Then,  according  to  all  good 
 logic,  the  contrary  may  '  remain  very  probable/  and  so  all  remain 
 as  full  of  uncertainty  as  before.  The  whole  rule,  you  say,  and  the 
 sole  judge  of  your  faith,  must  be  Scriptm-e.  Scripture  doth  indeed 
 deliver  Divine  truths,  but  seldom  doth  qualify  them,  or  declare 
 whether  they  be  or  be  not  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation.  You 
 fall  heavy  upon  Charity  Mistaken,t  because  he  demands  a  particular 
 catalogue  of  fundamental  points,  which  yet  you  are  obhged  in 
 conscience  to  do,  if  you  be  able.  For  without  such  a  catalogue,  no 
 man  can  be  assured  whether  or  no  he  have  faith  sufficient  to  salva- 
 tion :  and  therefore  take  it  not  in  ill  part,  if  we  again  and  again 
 demand  such  a  catalogue.  And  that  you  may  see  v^-e  proceed  fairly, 
 I  will  perform  on  our  behalf  what  we  request  of  you,  and  do  here 
 dehver  a  catalogue,  wherein  are  comprised  all  points  by  us  taught  to 
 be  necessary  to  salvation,  in  these  words  :  '  We  are  obliged,  under 
 pain  of  damnation,  to  beheve  whatsoever  the  cathohc  visible  church 
 of  Christ  proposeth,  as  revealed  by  Almighty  God.  If  any  be  of 
 another  mind,  all  catholics  denounce  him  to  be  no  catholic'  But 
 enough  of  this.  And  I  go  forward  with  the  iufallibihty  of  the 
 church  in  all  points. 
 
 "  For  even  out  of  your  doctrine.  That  the  church  cannot  err  in 
 points  necessary  to  salvation,  any  wise  man  will  infer,  that  it  behoves 
 all  who  have  care  of  their  souls  not  to  forsake  her  in  any  one  point. 
 First,  because  they  are  assured,  that  although  her  doctrine  proved 
 not  to  be  true  in  some  point,  yet  even,  according  to  Dr.  Potter, 
 the  error  cannot  be  fundamental,  nor  destructive  of  faith  and  salva- 
 tion :  neither  can  they  be  accused  of  any  the  least  imprudence  in 
 erring  (if  it  were  possible)  with  the  universal  church.  Secondly, 
 since  she  is,  under  pain  of  eternal  damnation,  to  be  beheved  and 
 obeyed  in  some  things,  wherein  confessedly  she  is  endued  with  infal- 
 libility, I  cannot  in  wisdom  suspect  her  credit  in  matters  of  less 
 moment ;  for  who  would  trust  another  in  matters  of  highest  conse- 
 quence, and  be  afraid  to  rely  on  him  in  things  of  less  moment  ? 
 Thirdly,  since  (as  I  said)  we  are  undoubtedly  obhged  not  to  forsake 
 her  in  the  chiefest  or  fundamental  points,  aiid  that  there  is  no  rule 
 to  know  precisely  what  and  how  many  those  fundamental  points  be, 
 I  cannot,  without  hazard  of  my  soul,  leave  her  in  any  one  point, 
 lest  perhaps  that  point  or  points,  wherein  I  forsake  her,  prove 
 indeed  to  be  fundamental,  and  necessary  to  salvation.  Foiu-thly, 
 that  visible  church,  which  cannot  err  in  points  fundamental,  doth 
 without  distinction  propound  all  her  definitions  concerning  matters, 
 of  faith  to  be  believed  under  anathemas  or  curses,  esteeming  all 
 those  that  resist  to  be  deser^'edly  cast  out  of  her  communion,  and 
 holding  it  a  point  necessary  to  salvation,  that  we  believe  she  cannot 
 err  :  wherein  if  she  speak  truth,  then  to  deny  any  one  point  in  par- 
 •  Page  241.  t  Page  215. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  l/l 
 
 ticular,  which  she  defineth,  or  to  affirm  in  general  that  she  may  err, 
 puts  a  man  into  a  state  of  damnation :  whereas  to  believe  her  in 
 such  points  as  are  not  necessary  to  salvation  cannot  endanger 
 salvation ;  as  likewise  to  remain  in  her  communion  can  bring  "no 
 great  harm,  because  she  cannot  maintain  any  damnable  error  or 
 practice ;  but  to  be  divided  from  her  (she  being  Christ's  catholic 
 chm-ch)  is  most  certainly  damnable.  Fifthly,  the  true  church  being 
 in  lawful  and  certain  possession  of  superiority  and  power,  to  com- 
 mand and  require  obedience  from  all  Christians  in  some  things,  I 
 cannot  without  grievous  sin  withdi-aw  my  obechence  in  any  one, 
 unless  I  evidently  know  that  the  thing  commanded  comes  not 
 within  the  compass  of  those  things  to  which  her  power  extendeth. 
 And  who  can  better  inform  me  how  far  God's  church  can  proceed, 
 than  God's  church  herself?  or  to  what  doctor  can  the  children  and 
 scholars  with  greater  reason  and  more  secm-ity  fly  for  direction,  than 
 to  the  mother  and  appointed  teacher  of  all  Christians  ?  In  following 
 her,  I  sooner  shall  be  excused,  than  in  cleaving  to  any  particular 
 sect  or  person,  teaching  or  applying  Scriptures  against  her  doctrine 
 or  interpretation.  Sixthly,  the  fearful  examples  of  innumerable 
 persons,  who,  forsaking  the  church  upon  pretence  of  her  errors, 
 have  failed  even  in  fundamental  points,  and  suffered  shipwreck  of 
 their  salvation,  ought  to  deter  all  Christians  from  opposing  her  iu 
 any  one  doctrine  or  practice :  as  (to  omit  other,  both  ancient  and 
 modem  heresies)  we  see  that  divers  chief  protestants,  pretending  to 
 reform  the  corruptions  of  the  church,  are  come  to  affirm,  tliat  for 
 many  ages  she  erred  to  death,  and  wholly  perished ;  which  Dr. 
 Potter  cannot  deny  to  be  a  fundamental  error  against  that  article  of 
 our  Creed,  '  I  believe  the  cathohc  church,'  as  he  affirmeth  it  of  the 
 Donatists,  because  they  conuned  the  universal  church  within  Africa, 
 or  some  other  small  tract  of  soil.  Lest  therefore  I  may  fall  into 
 some  fundamental  error,  it  is  most  safe  for  me  to  beheve  all  the 
 decrees  of  that  church  which  cannot  err  fundamentally ;  especially 
 if  we  add,  that  according  to  the  doctrine  of  catholic  divines,  one 
 error  in  faith,  w^hether  it  be  for  the  matter  itself  great  or  small, 
 destroys  faith,  as  is  show^ed  in  Charity  Mistaken  ;  and  consequently, 
 to  accuse  the  church  of  any  one  error,  is  to  affirm,  that  she  lost  all 
 faith,  and  erred  damnably  ;  which  very  sapng  is  damnable,  because 
 it  leaves  Christ  no  visible  church  on  earth. 
 
 21.  "To  all  these  arguments  I  add  this  demonstration:  Dr. 
 Potter  teacheth,"*  that  'there  neither  was  nor  can  be  any  just  cause 
 to  depart  from  the  church  of  Christ,  no  more  than  from  Christ 
 himself.'  But  if  the  church  of  Christ  can  err  in  some  points  of 
 faith,  men  not  only  may  but  must  forsake  her  in  those  (unless  Dr. 
 Potter  wdll  have  them  believe  one  thing  and  profess  another) ;  and 
 if  such  errors  and  corruptions  should  fall  out  to  be  about  the 
 church's  liturgy,  public  service,  administration  of  sacram.ents,  and 
 the  like,  they  who  perceive  such  errors  must  of  necessity  leave  her 
 external  communion.  And  therefore  if  once  we  grant  the  cbiu*ch  may 
 err,  it  followeth  that  men  may  and  ought  to  forsake  her  (which  is 
 against  Dr.  Potter's  ow^n  words),  or  else  they  are  inexcusable  who 
 left  the  communion  of  the  Roman  church,  under  pretence  of  errors^ 
 
 Pago  75. 
 
172  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 ■which  they  grant  not  to  be  fundamental.  And  if  Dr.  Potter  think 
 good  to  answer  this  argument,  he  must  remember  his  own  doctrine 
 to  be,  that  even  the  cathohc  church  may  err  in  points  not  fun- 
 damentah 
 
 22.  "  Another  argument  for  the  universal  infallibihty  of  the 
 church,  I  take  out  of  Dr.  Potter's  own  words.  '  If,'  saith  he,*  we 
 did  not  dissent  in  some  opinions  from  the  present  Roman  church, 
 we  could  not  agree  with  the  church  truly  catholic."  These  w^ords 
 cannot  be  true,  unless  he  presu})pose  that  '  the  church  truly  cathohc* 
 cannot  err  in  points  not  fundamental  j  for  if  she  may  err  in  such 
 points,  the  Roman  church,  which  he  affirmeth  to  err  only  in  points 
 '  not  fundamental,'  may  agree  with  '  the  church  truly  catholic,'  if  she 
 likewise  may  err  in  points  '  not  fundamental.'  Therefore,  either  he 
 must  acknowledge  a  plain  contradiction  in  his  own  words,  or  else 
 must  grant,  that  '  the  church  truly  cathohc '  cannot  err  in  points 
 '  not  fundamental,'  which  is  what  we  intend  to  prove. 
 
 23.  "  If  words  cannot  persuade  you,  that  in  all  controversies  you 
 must  rely  upon  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  at  least  yield  your 
 assent  to  deeds ;  hitherto  I  have  produced  arguments  drawn  as  it 
 were  ex  natura  rei,  from  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  v^ho 
 cannot  fail  to  have  left  some  infallible  means  to  determine  contro- 
 versies, which,  as  Ave  have  proved,  can  be  no  other  except  a  visible 
 church,  infallible  in  all  her  definitions.  Fsut  because  both  cathohcs 
 and  protectants  receive  Holy  Scripture,  we  may  thence  also  prove 
 the  infallibility  of  the  church  in  all  matters  which  concern  faith  and 
 religion.  Our  Saviour  speaketh  clearly  :  the  gates  oj  hell  shall  not 
 prevail  against  her.f  And,  I  will  ask  my  Father,  and  he  will  give 
 you  another  Paraclete,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  for  ever,  the 
 Spirit  of  truth.X  And,  But  ivhen  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  cometh,  he 
 shall  teach  you  all  tritth.^  The  apostle  saith,  that  the  church  is 
 the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth.\\  And,  He  gave  some,  apostles  j  and 
 some,  prophets,  and  other  some,  evangelists  j  and  other  some,  pastors 
 and  doctors  j  to  the  consummation  of  the  saints,  unto  the  work  of  the 
 ministry,  unto  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ  j  until  toe  meet  all 
 into  the  unity  of  faith,  and  hioivledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  into  a  per- 
 
 Ject  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  age  of  the  fulness  of  Christ :  that 
 now  we  be  not  children,  wavering  and  cairied  about  with  every  wind 
 of  doctrine,  in  the  wickedness  of  men,  in  craftiness,  to  the  circumven- 
 tion of  error.^  All  which  words  seem  clearly  enough  to  prove  that 
 the  church  is  universally  infallible ;  without  which  unity  of  faith 
 could  not  be  conserved  against  every  wind  of  doctrine.  And  yet  Dr. 
 Potter**  limits  these  promises  and  privileges  to  fundamental  points, 
 in  which  he  grants  the  church  cannot  err.  I  urge  the  words  of 
 Scripture,  which  are  universal,  and  do  not  mention  any  such  restraint. 
 I  allege  that  most  reasonable  and  received  rule,  that  Scripture  is  to 
 be  understood  literally,  as  it  soundeth,  unless  some  manifest  absur. 
 
 ■dity  force  us  to  the  contrary.  But  all  will  not  serve  to  accord  our 
 different  interpretation.  In  the  mean  thne,  divers  of  Dr.  Potter's 
 brethren  step  m,  and  reject  his  limitation  as  over-large,  and  some, 
 what  tasting  of  pai)istry  :  and  therefore  they  restrain  the  mentioned 
 
 •  Page  97.  r  >'att.  xvi.  IS.  :  John -siv.  ]6.  §  John  xtI.  13. 
 
 II  1  lim.iii.  15.  "il  £pb.  iv.  11-11.  **  Page  151.  1.  153. 
 
CHARITY  MAINTAIXED    BY    CATHOLICS.  173 
 
 texts,  either  to  the  mfaUibihty  which  the  apostles  and  other  sacred 
 writers  had  in  penning  of  Scripture,  or  else  to  the  invisil)le  church  of 
 the  elect ;  and  to  them  not  absolutely,  but  with  a  double  restriction, 
 that  they  shall  not  fall  damnably  and  finally ;  and  other  men  have 
 as  much  right  as  these  to  interpose  their  opinion  and  interpretation. 
 Behold  we  are  three  at  debate  about  the  selfsame  words  of  Scripture ; 
 we  confer  divers  places  and  texts ;  we  consult  the  originals  ;  we 
 examine  translations ;  we  endeavour  to  pray  heartily ;  we  profess  to 
 speak  sincerely  ;  to  seek  nothing  but  truth,  and  the  salvation  of  our 
 own  souls  and  that  of  our  neighbours  ;  and,  finally,  we  use  all  those 
 means,  which  by  i^rotestants  themselves  are  prescribed  for  finding 
 out  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture :  nevertheless  we  neither  do,  nor 
 have  any  possible  means  to  agree,  as  long  as  we  are  left  to  ourselves ; 
 and  when  we  should  chance  to  be  agreed,  the  doubt  will  still  remain, 
 whether  the  thing  itself  be  a  fvmdamental  point  or  no  ;  and  yet  it 
 were  great  impiety  to  imagine  that  God,  the  lover  of  all  souls,'  hath 
 left  no  certain  infallible  means  to  decide  both  this  and  all  other  dif- 
 ferences arising  about  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  or  upon  any 
 other  occasion.  Our  remedy  therefore  in  these  contentions  must  be, 
 to  consult  and  hear  God's  visible  church,  with  submissive  acknow- 
 ledgment of  her  power  and  infallibility  in  whatsoever  she  proposetli 
 as  a  revealed  truth,  according  to  that  divine  advice  of  St.  Augustin, 
 in  these  words :  '  If  at  length  thou  seem  to  be  sufficiently  tossed, 
 and  hast  a  desire  to  put  an  end  to  thy  pains,  follow  the  way  of  the 
 catholic  disciphne,  which  from  Christ*  himself,  by  the  apostles,  hath 
 come  down  even  to  us,  and  from  us  shall  descend  to  all  posterity.'* 
 And  though  I  conceive  that  the  distinction  of  points  fundamental  "and 
 not  fundamental  hath  now  been  sufficiently  confuted,  yet  that  no 
 shadow  of  difficulty  may  remain,  I  will  particularly  refel  a  common 
 saying  of  protestants.  That  it  is  sufficient  for  salvation  to  baiieve  the 
 Apostles'  Creed,  which  th»y  hold  to  be  a  summary  of  all  funda- 
 mcEUl  points  of  faith." 
 
 •  De  Util.  Cred.  cap.8. 
 
•IHB 
 
 ANSWEE  TO   THE   THIED  CHAPTEE: 
 
 Wherein  if  is  maintained,  that  tlie  distinction  of  points  fundamental 
 and  not  fundamental  is  in  this  present  controversy  good  and  per- 
 
 ■  tinent  j  and  that  the  catholic  church  may  err  in  the  latter  kind 
 of  the  said  points. 
 
 1.  This  distinction  is  employed  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  dis- 
 tinction. 
 
 2.  "  If  you  object  to  them  discords  in  matters  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  salva- 
 tion ;  viz.  their  belief  of  all  those  things  which  are  plainly  and 
 undoubtedly  delivered  in  Scripture,  which  whoso  believes  must  of 
 necessity  believe  all  things  necessary  to  salvation ;  and  their  mutual 
 suffering  one  another  to  "  abound  in  their  several  sense,"  in  matters 
 not  plainly  and  undoubtedly  there  delivered.  And  for  their  agree- 
 ment in  all  controversies  of  religion,  either  they  may  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  sa}^  that  their  fault  is,  that  "  by  remainicg  pro- 
 testants they  exclude  themselves  from  the  means  of  agreement  which 
 you  have,"  and  winch  by  submission  to  your  church  they  might  have 
 also.  But  if  you  have  means  of  agreement,  the  more  shame  for 
 3'ou  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 
 easy  and  expedite  means  to  do  it,  and  yet"^  still  leave  it  undone  ?  Jf 
 you  had  hem  blind  (saith  our  Saviour  to  the  Pharisees),  you  had  had 
 no  sinj  hut  noiv  you  say  you  see,  therefore  your  sin  remalneth. 
 
 4.  If  you  sa}^,  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  ?  iJo  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. 
 
POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTIXGUISIIED,  ETC.  175 
 
 would  do  SO  too.  Sure  I  am  they  have  reason  enough  to  do  so  ; 
 seeing  all  of  them  agree  with  explicit  faith  in  all  those  things  which 
 are  plainly  and  undoubtedly  delivered  in  Scriptm-e  ;  that  Ts,  in  all 
 which  God  hath  plainly  revealed ;  and  with  an  imphcit  faith  in  that 
 sense  of  the  whole  Scripture  which  God  intended,  whatsoever  it 
 was.  Secondly,  that  which  you  pretend  is  false ;  for  else  wliy  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  he  id  of  the 
 church  by  Divine  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  pope's  indirect  power  over  princes  in 
 temporalities  is  de  fide  j  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 
 imity,  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  con- 
 junction are  infalhble  determiners ;  others  again  deny  this.  Lastly, 
 some  among  you  hold  the  acceptation  of  the  decrees  of  councils  by 
 the  imiversal  church  to  be  the  only  way  to  decide  controversies; 
 which  others  deny,  by  denying  the  church  to  be  infalhble.  And, 
 indeed,  what  way  of  ending  controversies  can  this  be,  when  either 
 part  may  pretend  that  they  are  part  of  the  church,  and  they  receive 
 not  the  decree,  therefore  the  whole  chm-ch  hath  not  received  it  ? 
 
 7.  Again,  means  of  agreeing  differences  are  either  rational  and 
 well-grounded,  and  of  God's  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  show  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  yovi  cannot  do  this  (as  I  am 
 sure  you  cannot),  and  yet  will  still  be  obtruding  yom-selves  upon  us 
 for  om-  judges,  who  will  not  cry  out, 
 
 perisse  frontem  de  rebus  ? 
 
 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  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  ^^Titten,*  The  lot  is  cast  into 
 
 ♦  Prov.  xvi.  3."?. 
 
1/6  POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTINGUISHED    INTO 
 
 the  lap  J  but  the  whole  disposition  of  it  is  from  the  Lord.  2.  We 
 could  refer  them  to  the  king,  and  you  know  it  is  written,  A  divine 
 sentence  is  in  the  lips  of  the  Hng:  his  mouth  transgrcsseth  not  in 
 Judgment.'^  The  heart  of  the  king  is  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord.f  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.'l  We 
 may  refer  it  to  any  priest,  because  it  is  written.  The  priest's  lij}s 
 shall  ineserve  knowledge.^  The  scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses^ 
 chair, \\  &c.  To  any  preacher  of  the  gospel,  to  any  pastor  or  doc- 
 tor ;  for  to  every  one  of  them  Christ  hath  j^romised,^  he  will  be 
 with  them  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  j  and  of  ever}-  one  of 
 them  it  is  said,**  He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me,  &c.  To  any 
 bishop  or  prelate ;  for  it  is  A'\Titten,tt  Obey  your  prelates  ;  and 
 again,J:|:  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,  the 
 house  of  God,  the  pdlar  and  ground  of  truth  ;§§  and  seeing  of  any 
 particular  church  it  is  written,  ||||  He  that  heareth  not  the  church,  let 
 him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  or  publican.  We  might  refer  it  to  any 
 man  that  prays  for  God's  Spirit ;  for  it  is  written,1[1[  Every  one 
 that  asketh  recdveth  :  and  again,***  if  any  man  want  wisdom,  let 
 him  ask  of  God,  who  giveth  all  men  liberally  and  upbraideth  not. 
 Lastly,  we  might  refer  it  to  the  Jews,  for  without  all  doubt  of  them 
 it  is  \mtten,ttt  ^J^y  Spirit  that  is  in  thee,  &c.  All  these  means  of 
 agreement,  whereof  not  any  one  but  hath  as  much  probability  from 
 Scripture  as  that  which  you  obtrude  upon  us,  offer  themselves  upon 
 a  sudden  to  me  ;  haply  many  more  might  be  thought  on  if  we  had 
 time,  but  these  are  enough  to  show,  that  would  we  make  use  of 
 voluntary  and  devised  means  to  determine  differences,  we  have 
 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  con- 
 firmed 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  discord,  answer,  that  they  differ  only  in  points  not  funda- 
 mental ; "  I  desire  you  to  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  yourselves  their 
 more  and  greater  differences  from  }'ou  ? 
 
 10.  But  "they  are  convinced  sometimes  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. 
 
 '  •  Prov.  xvi.  10.  +  ProT.  xxi.  1.  +  Matt,  xviii   20. 
 
 §  Mai.  ii.  7.  ||  Matt,  xxiii.  2.  ir  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 
 
 ••Lukex.16.  tf  Heb.  xiii.  J7.  ji  Eph.  ir.  11. 
 
 $9  1  Tim.  iii.  15.  ||||  Matt,  xviii.  17.  f  U  Matt,  vii,  8. 
 
 •#*  James  i.  5.  ftt  Isa,  lix.  21. 
 
FUNDAMENTAL  AND  NOT  FUNDAMENTAL.       177 
 
 also  be  convinced,  by  the  confessions  of  your  o^Yn  men,  that  the 
 fathers  taught  clivers  points  hekl  by  protestants  against  the  church 
 of  Rome,  and  divers  against  protestants  and  the  church  of  Rome  ? 
 Do  not  your  pm-ging  indexes  clip  the  tongues  and  seal  up  the  lips  of 
 a  great  many  for  such  confessions  ;  and  is  not  the  above-cited  con- 
 fession of  your  Doway  divines  plain  and  full  to  the  same  purpose  ? 
 And  do  not  you  also,  as  freely  as  vre,  charge  the  fathers  with  errors, 
 and  yet  say  they  were  saved  ?  Is  ow  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  m-ging  arguments  against  us  which  return 
 more  strongly  u])on  yoiu'selves. 
 
 11.  But  your  will  is,  "we  should  remember  that  Christ  must 
 always  have  a  visible  church."  Ans.  Your  pleasure  shall  be  obeyed, 
 on  condition  you  will  not  forget,  that  there  is  a  difference  between 
 pei-petual  visibility  and  perpetual  purity.  As  for  the  answer  which 
 you  make  for  us,  true  it  is  v.e  l)elieve  the  catholic  church  cannot 
 perish,  yet  that  she  may  and  did  err  in  points  not  fundamental ;  and 
 that  protestants  were  obliged  to  forsake  those  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  chm-ch;"  or  "  to  forsake  the 
 church  in  her  error,"  and  "  simply  to  forsake  the  church ;  "  no 
 more  than  it  is  for  me  to  renounce  my  brother's  or  my  friend's 
 vices  or  errors,  and  to  renounce  my  brother  or  my  friend.  The 
 former  then  was  done  by  protestants,  tlie  latter  was  not  done  :  nay, 
 not  only  not  from  the  catholic,  but  not  so  much  as  from  the 
 Roman,  did  they  separate  per  omnia  j  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  join  with  you  in  this  liturgy,  you  might  have 
 some  colour  ihen  to  say,  they  renounce  your  commimion  absolutely. 
 But  as  things  are  now  ordered,  they  cannot  join  \nt\\  you  in  prayers, 
 but  they  must  ]iartake  with  you  in  unlawful  practices ;  and  for  this 
 reason  they  (not  absolutely,  but  thus  far)  separate  from  your  com- 
 munion. 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  join  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,  viz.  have  professed  to  believe, 
 and  externally  practised  your  errors,  wdiereof  they  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  hypocrisy,  I  leave  it  to  you  to  judge. 
 You  yourself  tell  us,  within  two  pages  after  this,  "  that  you  are 
 obhged  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  catholics  and  protestants,  accordmg  to  the  opinion  of 
 protestants,  may  be   saved  in   their  several  professions,  because, 
 
 N 
 
178  POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTINGUISHED    INTO 
 
 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  justify ;  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  falsehood ;  and  that  they 
 care  not  in  whether  of  these  rehgions  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  eri'ors,  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  desp-erate.  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.  "  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  ?"  And  why,  I 
 pra}^,  is  it  so  "  prodigiously  strange,"  that  we  give  no  answer  to  an 
 unreasonable  demand  ?  God  himself  hath  told  us,*  that  ivhere  much 
 is  given,  much  shall  he  required  j  where  little  is  given,  little  shall  be 
 required.  To  infants,  deaf  men,  madmen,  nothing,  for  aught  we 
 know,  is  given  ;  and  if  it  be  so,  of  them  nothing  sliall  be  required. 
 Others,  perhaps,  may  have  means  only  given  them  to  believe,  that 
 God  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  seek  him  ;t  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  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  where, 
 having  first  said,  that  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  j)lease  God, 
 he  subjoins  as  his  reason,  For  whosoever  cometh  tinto  God  must 
 believe  that  God  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  seek  him. 
 AVhere,  in  my  opinion,  this  is  plainly  intimated,  that  this  is  the 
 minimum  quod  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  falsehood  ;  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 
 Clirist,  and  so  to  salvation.  To  which  belief  the  story  of  Cornelius, 
 in  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  St.  Peter's 
 words  to  him,  are  to  me  a  great  inducement.    For,  first,  it  is  evident 
 
 *  Luke  xii.  48.  t  Heb.  "xi.  6. 
 
FUNDAMENTAL  AND  NOT  FUNDAMENTAL.       179 
 
 he  believed  not  in  Christ,  but  was  a  mere  Gentile,  and  one  that 
 knew  not  but  men  might  be  worshipped ;  and  yet  we  are  assured, 
 that  Ills  prayers  and  alms  (even  while  he  was  in  that  state)  came  up 
 for  a  memorial  before  God  j  that  his  prayer  was  heard,  and  his  alms 
 had  in  remembrance  in  the  sight  of  God,  ver.  4  ;  that  upon  his  then 
 fearing  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  God's  will :  for  so  it  is  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
 verses  ;  Call  for  one  Simon,  whose  surname  is  Peter  ;  he  shah  tell 
 thee  what  thou  oiightest  to  do  :  and  at  ver.  33,  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  for  his 
 present  state  5  yet  if  he  had  continued  in  it,  and  refused  to  beheve 
 in  Christ  after  the  sufficient  revelation  of  the  Gospel  to  him,  and 
 God's  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,  that  light  was  come  unto  him,  and  he  loved  darkness 
 more  than  light.  So  that  (to  proceed  a  step  fm-ther)  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  per- 
 formance of  the  conditions  he  requires ;  among  which  conditions 
 one  is,  that  we  believe  what  he  hath  revealed,  when  it  is  sufficiently 
 declared  to  have  been  revealed  by  him  :  for  by  doing  so  we  set  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  con- 
 sequently, that  may  be  fundamental  and  necessary  to  one,  which  to 
 another  is  not  so.  Which  variety  of  circumstances  makes  it  impos- 
 sible 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  gai-ment  that  will  fit  all  statures  ;  or  to  make  you  a  dial 
 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  one  hundred  thousand  :  and,  therefore, 
 without  setting  dovMi  a  catalogue  of  fundamentals  in  particular 
 (because  none  that  can  be  given  can  universally  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  ourselves  by  a  general 
 description  to  tell  you  what  is  fundamental ;  and  to  warrant  us  in 
 doing  so,  we  have  your  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  disbeheved  under 
 pain  of  damnation,  which  the  church  hath  defined."  As  you  there- 
 fore think  it  enough  to  say  in  general,  "  that  all  is  fundamental 
 which  the  church  hath  defined,"'  without  setting  down  in  particular 
 a  complete  catalogue  of  all  things  which  in  any  age  the  church  hath 
 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 
 
180  POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTINGUISHED    INTO 
 
 any  man's  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 ;  v^^ithout  delivering  any  parti- 
 cular 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  "  necessaiy,  consequently  and  acci- 
 dentally, merely  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  and  ambiguous  texts  of  Scripture,  we  may  be  sure  enough 
 that  v.e  err  not  damnably ;  because  if  we  do  indeed  desire  and  en- 
 deavour 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  endeavours  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  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  falsehood ;  for  it  is  to  say, 
 that  God  affirms  that  to  be  a  truth  which  he  either  knows  to  be  not 
 a  truth,  or  which  he  doth  not  know  to  be  a  truth  :  and  therefore, 
 without  all  controversy,  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  God's 
 most  perfect  and  pure  veracity. 
 
 16.  Ad  §  3,  I  said  purposely  ("  knoAvn  by  himself,  and  beheves  him- 
 self"); for  as,  without  any  disparagement  of  a  man's  honest}',  I  may  be- 
 lieve something  to  be  false  which  he  affirms  of  his  certain  knowledge  to 
 be  true,  provided  I  neither  know  nor  believe  that  he  hath  so  affirmed ; 
 so  without  any  the  least  dishonour  to  God's  eternal,  never-failing  vera- 
 city, I  may  doubt  of  or  deny  some  truth  revealed  by  him,  if  I  neither 
 know  nor  believe  it  to  be  revealed  by  him. 
 
 17.  Seeing  therefore  the  crime  of  calhng  God's  veracity  in  ques- 
 tion, and  consequently  (according  to  your  grounds)  of  erring  funda- 
 mentally, is  chargeable  upon  those  only  that  believe  the  contrary  of 
 any  one  point  known,  not  by  others,  but  themselves,  to  be  testified 
 by  God ;  I  cannot  but  fear  (though  I  hope  otherwise)  that  yoiu- 
 heart  condemned  you  of  a  great  calumny  and  egregious  sophistry  in 
 imputing  fundamental  and  damnable  errors  to  disagreeing  protestants, 
 because,  forsooth,  "  some  of  them  disbelieve,  and  directly,  wittinglj^, 
 and  willingly  oppose,  what  others  do  believe  to  be  testified  by  the 
 word  of  God."  The  sophistry  of  your  discourse  will  be  apparent  if 
 it  be  contrived  into  a  syllogism  :  thus  therefore  in  effect  you  argue. 
 
 Whosoever  disbeheves  any  thing  known  by  himself  to  be  revealed  by 
 God  imputes  falsehood  to  God,  and  therefore  errs  fundamentally : 
 
 But  some  protestants  disbelieve  those  things  which  others  believe 
 to  be  testified  by  God  ; 
 
 Therefore  they  impute  falsehood  to  God,  and  err  fundamentally^ 
 
FUNDAMENTAL  AND  NOT  FUNDAMENTAL.       181 
 
 Neither  can  you  with  any  colour  pretend,  that  in  these  words, 
 ■*'  known  to  be  testified  by  God,"  you  meant,  "  not  by  himself,  but 
 by  any  other  ;  ''  seeing  he  only  in  fact  affirms,  that  God  doth  deceive, 
 or  is  deceived,  who  denies  some  things  which  himself  knows  or 
 believes  to  be  revealed  b}'  God,  as  before  I  have  demonstrated.  For 
 otherwise,  if  I  should  deny  belief  to  some  thing  wliich  God  had 
 revealed  secretly  to  such  a  man  as  I  had  never  heard  of^  I  should  be 
 guilty  of  calling  God's  veracity  into  question,  which  is  evidently 
 false.  Besides,  how  can  it  be  avoided,  but  the  Jesuits  and  Domi- 
 nicans, the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans,  must  upon  this  ground 
 differ  fundamentally,  and  one  of  them  err  damnably,  seeing  the 
 one  of  them  disbelieves  and  willingly  opposes  what  the  otliers  believe 
 to  be  the  word  of  God  ? 
 
 18.  Whereas  you  say,  that  "the  difference  among  protestants 
 consists  not  in  this,  that  some  believe  some  points  of  which  others 
 are  ignorant,  or  not  bound  expressly  to  know  ;  I  would  gladly  know 
 whether  you  speak  of  protestants  differing  in  profession  only,  or  in 
 opinion  also.  If  the  first,  why  do  you  say  jiresently  after,  '*'  that 
 some  disbelieve  what  others  of  them  believe  ?"  If  they  differ  in 
 opinion,  then  sure  they  are  ignorant  of  the  truth  of  each  other's 
 opinions ;  it  being  impossible  and  contradictious,  that  a  man  should 
 know  one  thing  to  be  true  and  believe  the  contrary,  or  know  it  and 
 not  believe  it.  And  if  they  do  not  know  the  truth  of  each  other's 
 opinions,  then  I  liope  you  will  grant  they  are  ignorant  of  it.  If  your 
 meaning  were,  They  were  not  ignorant  that  each  other  held  these 
 opinions,  or  of  the  sense  of  the  opinions  which  they  held ;  I  ansAver, 
 this  is  nothing  to  tlie  convincing  of  their  understandings  of  the  truth 
 of  them ;  and  these  remaining  unconvinced  of  the  truth  of  them, 
 they  are  excusable  if  they  do  not  believe. 
 
 19.  But  "ignorance  of  what  we  are  expressly  bound  to  know,  is 
 itself  a  fault,  and  therefore  cannot  be  an  excuse :"  and  therefore  if 
 you  could  ^hovr  that  protestants  differ  in  those  points  the  truth 
 whereof  (which  can  l^e  but  one)  they  Avere  bound  expressly  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  yourself  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  expressly  to  know  any  Divine  truth  must  arise 
 from  God's  manifest  revealing  of  it,  and  his  revealing  unto  us  that 
 he  hath  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  considers,  that 
 in  all  the  controversies  of  protestants  there  is  a  seeming  conflict  of 
 Scripture  with  Scripture,  reason  v/ith  reason,  authority  with  au- 
 thority ;  v/hich  how  it  can  consist  v/ith  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  appearances  of  the  other  side*  all  easily  answerable  ;  yet  if  we 
 consider  the  strange  power  that  education  and  prejudices  instilled  by 
 
 *  all  ausweiablc. — Oxf. 
 
182  POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTINGUISHED    INTO 
 
 it  Lave  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,  prepossessed  with  contrary  opinions, 
 not  revealed  plainly.  Neither  doubt  I  hut  God,  who  knows  whereof 
 we  are  made,  and  what  passions  we  are  subject  unto,  will  compas- 
 sionate such  infirmities,  and  not  enter  into  judgment  with  us  for 
 those  things  Avhich,  all  things  considered,  were  unavoidable. 
 
 20.  "  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  unfunda- 
 mental  being  thus  sufficiently  proposed  as  Divine  truths,  may  not  be 
 denied :  therefore  you  conclude,  there  is  no  difference  between 
 them."  Artsw.  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  preached  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  ignoran*"  of 
 them." 
 
 21.  You  say,  "not  erring  in  points  fundamental  is  not  sufficient 
 for  the  preservation  of  the  church ;  bec-ause  any  error  maintained  by 
 it  against  God's  revelation  is  destructive."  I  answer,  if  you  mean 
 against  God's  revelation  known  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 
 Saviour's  ascension,  in  these  words  :  Go  and  teach  all  nations  (Matt, 
 xxviii.  19)  :  yet,  through  prejudice  or  inadvertence,  or  some  other 
 cause^  the  church  disbelieved  it,  as  it  is  apparent  out  of  the  eleventk 
 and  twelfth  chapters  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  a  church.  Again,  it  is  a  plain  revelation  of  God,* 
 that  the  sacrament  of  the  eucharist  should  be  administered  in  both 
 kinds  ;  and  f  that  the  public  hymns  and  prayers  of  the  chm'ch  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  church's  supposed  infallibility,  I  hojie  the  denial  of  them 
 shall  not  be  laid  to  their  charge,  no  otherwise  than  as  building  hay 
 and  stubble  on  the  foundation,  not  overthrowing  the  foundation 
 itself. 
 
 22.  Ad  §  4.  In  the  beginning  of  this  paragraph  we  have  this 
 argument  against  this  distinction  :  It  is  enough  (by  Dr.  Potter's 
 confession)  to  believe  some  things  negatively ;  i.  e.  not  to  deny 
 
 •  1  Cor.  X     2S.  t  1  Cor.  xiv.  15, 16,  2G. 
 
FUNDAMEXTAL  AND  NOT  FUNDAMENTAL.        183 
 
 them ;  therefore  all  denial  of  any  Divine  truth  excludes  salvation. 
 As  if  you  should  say.  One  horse  is  enough  for  a  man  to  go  a  journey; 
 therefore  without  a  horse  no  man  can  go  a  journey.  As  if  some 
 Divine  truths,  viz.,  those  which  are  plainly  revealed,  might  not  be 
 such  as  of  necessity  were  not  to  be  denied  ;  and  others,  for  want  of 
 sufficient  declaration,  deniable  without  danger.  Indeed,  if  Dr. 
 Potter  had  said  there  had  been  no  DiAdne  truth,  declared  sufficiently 
 or  not  declared,  but  must  upon  pain  of  damnation  be  believed,  or  at 
 least  not  denied,  then  you  might  justly  have  concluded  as  you  do  ; 
 but  now,  that  some  may  not  be  denied,  and  that  some  may  be  denied 
 without  damnation,  why  they  may  not  both  stand  together,  1  do  not 
 yet  understand. 
 
 23.  In  the  remainder  you  infer  out  of  Dr.  Potter's  words,  '•'  that 
 all  errors  are  alike  damnable,  if  the  manner  of  propounding  the  con- 
 trary truths  be  not  different ;"  which,  for  aught  I  know,  all  pro- 
 testants,  and  all  that  have  sense,  must  grant.  Yet  I  deny  your 
 illation  from  hence,  that  the  distinction  of  points  into  fundamental 
 and  nnfundamental  is  vain  and  unefFectual  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
 testants.  For  though,  being  alike  proposed  as  Divine  truths,  they 
 are  by  accident  alike  necessary  ;  yet  the  real  difference  still  remains 
 between  them,  that  they  are  not  alike  necessary  to  be  proposed. 
 
 24.  Ad  §  5.  The  next  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  God's  revelation.  4.  This  revelation  is 
 alike  for  all  objects.  5.  Protestants  disagree  in  things  equally  re- 
 vealed by  God  ;  therefore  they  forsake  the  formal  motives  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  inconsequent. 
 First,  for  the  second  proposition  ;  who  knows  not  that  the  essence 
 of  all  habits  (and  therefore  of  faith  among  the  rest)  is  taken  from 
 their  act  and  then-  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  extrinsical  to  the  effect  ?  For  the  fourth,  that  God's  revela- 
 tion 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  ai-e  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  fifth,  protestants  disagree  in  things  equally  revealed  by  God  :  in 
 themselves,  perhaps,  but  not  equally  to  them,  whose  understandings. 
 
184  POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTINGUISHED    INTO 
 
 by  reason  of  their  different  educations,  are  fashioned  and  shaped  for 
 the  entertainment  of  various  opinions,  and  consequently  more  in- 
 chned  to  behe\  e  such  a  sense  of  Scripture,  others  to  beheve  another ; 
 ■which  to  say  that  God  will  not  take  it  into  his  consideration  in 
 judging  men's  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,  IVhy  are  they  then 
 baptized  for  the  dead  f  and  this.  He  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire, 
 and  a  thousand  others,  is  equally  revealed  to  you  and  to  another 
 inteqjreter,  that  is  certainly  to  neither.  He  now  conceives  one 
 sense  of  them,  and  you  another  ;  and  would  it  not  Ije  an  excellent 
 inference,  if  I  should  conclude  now^  as  you  do — That  you  "forsake 
 the  formal  motive  of  faith,  -which  is  God's  revelation,  and  con- 
 sequently lose  all  faith  and  unity  therein  ?  "  So  likewise  the  Jesuits 
 and  Dominicans,  and  the  Franciscans  and  Dominicans,  disagree 
 about  things  equally  revealed  by  Almight}^  God  ;  and  seeing  they 
 do  so,  I  beseech  you  let  me  understand,  why  this  reason  will  not 
 exclude  them  as  well  as  protestants  "from  ail  faith  and  unity 
 therein  ?  "  Thus  you  have  failed  of  your  undertaking  in  3-our  first 
 part  of  your  title,  and  that  is  a  very  ill  omen,  especially  in  points  of 
 so  strait  mutual  dependence,  that  we  shall  have  but  slender  per- 
 formance in  your  second  assumpt ;  v.hicli  is,  "  that  the  church  is 
 infallible  in  all  her  definitions,  whether  concerning  points  funda- 
 mental or  not  fundamental." 
 
 25.  Ad  §  7j  8.  The  reasons  in  these  two  paragraphs,  as  they 
 were  alleged  before,  so  they  were  before  answered,  chaj).  2.  And 
 thither  I  remit  the  reader. 
 
 26.  Ad  9,  10,  11.  I  grant  that  the  chm-ch  cannot  without 
 damnable  sin  either  deny  any  thing  to  be  truth  which  she  knows  to 
 be  God's  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  mis- 
 take, 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  fundamental,  she  cannot  but  know  that 
 she  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental."  Answer.  It  does  not 
 follow,  unless  you  suppose  that  the  church  knows  that  she  is  assisted 
 no  further :  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  ajjparently  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."  Answer.  Neither  is  this  deduction  worth  any  thing,  unless 
 it  be  understood  of  such  unfundaraeutal  points  as  she  is  not  war- 
 ranted to  propose  by  evident  text  of  Scripture.  Indeed,  if  she  pro- 
 pose such,  as  matters  of  faith  certainly  true,  she  may  well  be 
 questioned.  Quo  warranto  F  she  builds  without  a  foundation,  and 
 says.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  when  the  Lord  doth  not  say  so :  whJeh 
 cannot  be  excused  from  rashness  and  high  presumption ;  such  a  pre- 
 
FUNDAMENTAL  AND  NOT  FUNDAMENTAL.        185 
 
 sumption  as  an  ambassador  shoiilcl  commit  who  should  say  in  his 
 master's  name  that  for  whicli  he  hath  no  commission ;  of  the  same 
 nature,  I  say,  but  of  a  higiiei*  strain,  as  much  as  the  King  of  Heaven 
 is  greater  than  any  earthh^  king.  But  though  she  may  err  in  some 
 points  not  fundatiiental,  yet  may  she  have  certainty  enough  in  pro- 
 posing otliers  ;  as  for  example,  these  :  that  Abraham  begat  Isaac — 
 that  St.  Paul  had  a  cloke— that  Timothy  was  sick  ;  because  these, 
 though  not  fundamental,  i.e.  not  essential  parts  of  Christianity,  yet 
 arc  evidently  and  undeniably  set  down  in  Scripture,  and  conse- 
 quently 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 
 ahA  ays  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  they  are  certain  enough  "that  they  judge  aright,  and  that  they 
 proceed  according  to  tlie  evidence  that  is  given,  when  they  condemn 
 a  thief  or  a  murderer  to  the  gallows.  A  traveller  is  not  always 
 certain  of  his  way,  but  often  mistaken;  and  doth  it  therefore  follow 
 that  he  can  have  no  assurance  that  Charing-cross  is  his  right  way 
 from  the  Temple  to  Whitehall  ?  The  ground  of  your  error  here  is 
 your  not  distinguishing  between  actual  certainty  and  absolute  in- 
 fallibility. Geometricians  are  not  infallible  in  their  own  science ; 
 3^et  they  are  very  certain  of  those  things  which  they  see  demon- 
 strated :  and  carpenters  are  not  infallible,  yet  certain  of  the  straight- 
 ness  of  those  things  which  agree  with  the  rule  and  square.  So, 
 though  the  church  be  not  infallibly  certain  that  in  all  her  detinitions, 
 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  pro- 
 ceed according  to  it,  she  may  be  certain  of  the  truth  of  some  par- 
 ticular decrees,  and  yet  not  certain  that  she  shall  never  decree  but 
 wdiat  is  true. 
 
 27.  Ad  §  12.  "  But  if  the  clim-ch  may  err  in  points  not  funda- 
 mental, she  may  err  in  proposing  S-cripture,  and  so  \ve  cannot  be 
 assured  whether  she  have  not  been  deceived  already."  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  nny 
 present  church  is  but  a  little  part.  So  that  here  you  fall  into  the 
 fallacy,  a  dido  secundum  quid,  ad  dictum  simpliciter.  For,  in  effect, 
 this  is  the  sense  of  your  argument :  Unless  the  church  be  infallible, 
 w^e  can  have  no  certainty  of  Scripture  from  the  authority  of  the 
 clim-ch ;  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 
 inccrruption  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 
 
186  POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTINGUISHED    INTO 
 
 kind,  though  it  may  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  in- 
 fallibihty  of  the  church,  it  is  so  far  from  being  a  proof  of  the 
 Scripture's  incorruption,  that  no  proof  can  be  pretended  for  it  but 
 controverted  places  of  Scripture ;  which  yet  are  as  subject  to  cor- 
 ruption 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  itself 
 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,  hoAv  shall  I  be  assured  that  the  Scriptures  are  in- 
 corrupted  in  these  places  ;  seeing  it  is  possible,  and  not  altogether 
 improbable,  that  these  men,  which  desire  to  be  thought  infalhble, 
 when  they  had  the  government  of  all  things  in  then*  own  hands, 
 may  have  altered  them  for  their  jmrpose  ?  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  Scripture's  incorruption  by  the  church's  infallibility,  and  the 
 church's  infallibility  by  the  Scripture's  incorruption  ;  and  that  is, 
 in  effect,  the  church's  infaUibility  by  the  church's  infallibility,  and 
 the  Scripture's  incorruption  by  the  Scripture's  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  after  ques- 
 tioned 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 
 'ny  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  the 
 Scriptm'e,  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  aftenvards,  as  it  were 
 by  the  law  oi  'postliminium,  hath  restored  their  authority  and  canoni- 
 calness  unto  them?  If  this  was  delivered  by  the  apostles  to  the 
 church,  the  point  was  sufficiently  discussed  :  and  therefore  your 
 church's  omission  to  teach  it  for  some  ages  as  an  article  of  faith,  nay, 
 degrading  it  from  the  number  of  articles  of  faith,  and  puttmg  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  her  presumption 
 in  proposing  it  as  such  is  inexcusable. 
 
 29.  And  then  for  the  other  part  of  it,  "'  that  never  any  book  or 
 
FUNDAMENTAL  AND  NOT  FUNDAMENTAL.        187 
 
 syllable  defined  for  canonical  was  afterwards  questioned  or  rejected 
 for  apocryphal ;"  certainly  it  is  a  bold  asseveration,  but  extremely 
 false.  For  I  demand,  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom,  the 
 Epistles  of  St.  James  and  to  the  Hebrews,  were  they  by  the  apostles 
 approved  for  canonical  or  no  ?  If  not,  with  what  face  dare  vou 
 approve  them,  and  yet  pretend  that  all  yom-  doctrine  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,  1  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  sa}ing  before,  '"  some  books 
 which  were  not  always  known  to  be  canonical  have  been  afterwards 
 received  V  Then  for  the  Book  of  Maccabees,  I  hope  you  will  say, 
 it  was  defined  for  canonical  before  St.  Gregory's  time  ;  and  yet  he 
 (lib.  19.  Moral,  c.  13),  citing  a  testnnony  out  of  it,  prefacetli  to  it 
 after  this  manner :  "  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  Eleazer,  in  the  Book  of 
 Maccabees,"  &c  :  which,  if  it  be  not  to  reject  it  from  being  canonical, 
 is,  vsithout  question,  at  least  to  question  it.  Moreover,  because  you 
 are  so  punctual  as  to  talk  of  words  and  syllables,  I  would  know  whe- 
 ther before  Sixtus  Quintus's  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  one  thousand  five  hundred 
 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  contra- 
 dicted and  questioned,  by  Sixtus  ;  if  different  from  both,  then  was  it 
 questioned  and  condemned  by  both,  and  still  lies  under  the  con- 
 demnation. 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  figiu-e  would  this  conclusion  follow  out  of  these  pre- 
 mises? Certainly,  your  flying  to  such  poor  signs  as  these  are, 
 is  to  me  a  great  sign  that  you  labom-  with  peniuy  of  better  argu- 
 ments, 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  m- 
 fallibility  to  the  church  must  not  be  restrained  only  to  points  funda- 
 mental, because  then  the  apostles'  words  and  writings  may  also  be 
 restrained."  The  argument  put  in  form,  and  made  complete,  by 
 supply  of  the  concealed  proposition,  runs  thus  : 
 
 The  infallibility  promised  to  the  present  church  of  any  age,  is  as 
 absolute  and  unlimited  as  that  promised  to  the  apostles  in  their 
 preaching  and  writings ; 
 
 But  the  apostles'  infallibihty  is  not  to  be  limited  to  fundamentals  : 
 
 Therefore  neither  is  the  church's  iufalHbility  thus  to  be  hmited. 
 Or  thus  : 
 
188  POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTINGUISHED    INTO 
 
 The  apostles'  infallibility  in  their  preaching  and  writing  may  he 
 limited  to  fundamentals,  as  well  as  the  infallibility  of  the  present 
 church  :  but  that  is  not  to  be  done :  therefore  this  also  is  not 
 to  be  done. 
 Now  to  this  argument,  I  answer,  that,  if  by  ''  may  be  as  well  "  in 
 the  major  proposition,  be  understood  "  may  be  as  possibly,"  it  is 
 tme,  but  impertinent.  If  by  it  we  understand,  "  may  be  as  justly 
 and  rightly,  it  is  very  pertinent,  but  very  false.  So  that  as  Dr. 
 Potter  "  limits  tlie  infallibility  of  the  present  church  unto  funda- 
 mentals, so  another  may  limit  the  apostles  unto  them  also."  He 
 may  do  it  de  facto,  but  de  jure  he  cannot ;  that  may  be  done,  and 
 done  lawfully  ;  this  also  may  be  done,  but  not  lawful!}-.  That  may 
 be  done,  and  if  it  be  done  cannot  be  confuted  :  this  also  may  be  done, 
 but  if  it  be  done  may  easily  be  confuted.  It  is  done  to  our  hand  in 
 this  very  paragraph,  bv  five  words  taken  out  of  Scri})ture  :  All 
 Scripture  is  divinely  inspired.  Show  but  as  much  for  the  church : 
 show  where  it  is  \Aritten,  That  all  the  decrees  of  the  church  are 
 divinely  inspired,  and  the  controversy  will  be  at  an  end.  Besides, 
 there  is  not  the  same  reason  for  the  church's  absolute  infallibility  as 
 for  the  apostles'  and  Scripture's.  For  if  the  church  fall  into  error, 
 it  may  be  reformed  by  comparing  it  with  the  rule  of  the  apostles' 
 doctrme  and  Scri})ture  -,  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,  thc}^  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  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  St. 
 Paul,  built  upon  the  foundation  of  apostles  and  prophets  j  therefore 
 their  stabilit}-,  in  reason,  ought  to  be  greater  than  the  church's  which 
 is  built  upon  them.  Again,  a  de})endeut  infallibility  (especially  if 
 the  dependence  be  voluntary)  cannot  be  so  certain  as  that  on  which 
 it  depends  :  but  the  inialhbility  of  the  church  depends  upon  the  in- 
 falhbility  of  the  apostles,  as  the  straightness  of  the  thing  regulated 
 upon  the  straightness  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  ^^'hich  every 
 one  hath  free-will,  and  is  subject  to  passions  and  error;  therefore 
 the  church's  infallibility  is  not  so  certain  as  that  of  the  apostles. 
 
 31.  Lastly,  quid  verba  audiani,  cum  facta  videam  f  If  you  be 
 so  infallible  as  the  apostles  were,  show  it  as  the  apostles  did  :  They 
 went  forth  (saith  St.  Mark)  and  preached  every  where,  the  Lord- 
 working  icith  them,  and  confirraing  their  words  with  signs  following. 
 It  is  impossible  that  God  should  lie,  and  that  the  Kternal  Truth 
 should  set  his  hand  and  seal  to  the  coulirmation  of  a  falsehood,  or 
 of  such  doctrine  as  is  partly  true  and  partly  false.  The  apostles* 
 doctnne  was  thus  confirmed,  therefore  it  ^^'as  entirely  true,  and  in 
 
FUNDAMENTAL  AND  NOT  FUNDAMENTAL.        139 
 
 no  pai-t  either  false  or  uncertain.  I  sa}^,  in  no  pai-t  of  that  which 
 they  dehvered  constantly  as  a  certain  13ivine  truch,  and  which  had 
 the  attestation  of  Divine  miracles.  For  that  the  apostles  themselves, 
 even  after  the  sending  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were,  and,  through  inad- 
 vertence or  prejudice,  continued  for  a  time  in  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 
 cur  Saviour's  express  warrant  and  injunction,  to  go  and  preach  to  all 
 nations,  yet  until  St.  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  unla^^ful  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  revelations  I  see  no  reason  ; 
 nor  how  we  can  do  so,  and  not  contradict  the  apostles  and  God 
 himself.  Therefore,  when  St.  Paul  says  in  the  1st  Epistle  to  the 
 Corinthians,  vii.  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  St.  Paul  spake,  and  that  his  judgment  was  God's  com- 
 mandment, shall  we  not  plainly  contradict  St.  Paul  and  that  Spirit 
 by  w^hich  he  'RTote  ?  which  moved  him  to  write,  as  in  other  places. 
 Divine  revelations,  which  he  certainly  knew  to  be  such  ;  so,  in  this 
 place,  his  o^^ti  judgment  touching  some  things  which  God  had  not 
 particularly  revealed  unto  him.  And  if  Dr.  Potter  did  speak  to  this 
 purpose,  "  that  the  apostles  were  infallible  only  in  these  things 
 which  they  spake  of  certain  knowledge,"  I  cannot  see  what  danger 
 there  was  in  saying  so  :  yet  the  truth  is,  you  wrong  Dr.  Potter.  It 
 is  not  he,  but  Dr.  Stapleton  in  him,  that  speaks  the  Vt  ords  you  cavil 
 at.  "Dr.  Stapleton,"  saith  he,  p.  140,  "  is  full  and  punctual  to  his 
 purpose  :'*  then  sets  down  the  effect  of  his  discourse,  1.  8.  Princ. 
 Doct.  4.  c.  15,  and  in  that  the  words  you  ca\-il  at :  and  then,  p.  150, 
 he  shuts  up  this  paragraph  with  these  words  :  "  Thus  Dr.  Stapleton." 
 So  that,  if  either  the  doctrine  or  the  reason  be  not  good.  Dr. 
 Stapleton,  not  Dr.  Potter,  is  to  answer  for  it. 
 
 33.  Neither  do  Dr.  Potter's  ensuing  words  "limit  the  apostles' 
 infallibility  to  truths  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation,"  if  you  read 
 them  mth  any  candour ;  for  it  is  evident  he  grants  the  "  church 
 infallible  in  truth  absolutely  necessary  ;"  and  as  evident,  that  he 
 "ascribes  to  the  apostles  the  Sjnrit's  guidance,  and  consequently 
 infallibility,  in  a  more  high  and  absolute  manner  than  any  since 
 them."  From  whence  thus  I  argue :  he  that  grants  the  church 
 infallible  in  fundamentals,  and  ascribes  to  the  apostles  the  infallible 
 guidance  of  the  Spirit  in  a  more  high  and  absolute  manner,  than  to 
 any  since  them,  limits  not  the  apostles'  iufalhbility  to  fundamentals  : 
 but  Dr.  Potter  grants  to  the  church  such  a  limited  infallibility  and 
 ascribes  to  the  apostles  "  the  Spirit's  infalhble  guidance  in  a  more 
 high  and  absolute  manner  ;"  therefore  he  limits  not  the  apostles' 
 infallibility  to  fundamentals.  I  once  knew  a  man  out  of  coiurtesy 
 help  a  lame  dog  over  a  style,  and  he  for  requital  bit  him  by  the 
 fingers  :  just  so  you  serve  Dr.  Potter.     He  out  of  courtesy  grants 
 
190  POINTS    RIGHTLY    DISTINGUISHED    INTO 
 
 you  that  those  words,  The  Spirit  shall  lead  you  into  all  truth,  and 
 shall  abide  with  you  for  ever,  though  hi  then*  high  and  most  absolute 
 sense  they  agree  only  to  the  apostles,  yet  in  a  conditional,  limited, 
 moderate,  secondar}^  sense,  they  may  he  understood  of  the  church  ; 
 but  says,  that  if  they  be  imderstood  of  the  church,  "  all  must  not  be 
 simply  all,"  no,  nor  so  large  an  all  as  the  apostles'  all,  but  "  all 
 necessary  to  salvation."  And  you,  to  requite  his  com'tesy  in  granting 
 you  thus  much,  cavil  at  him,  as  if  he  had  prescribed  these  bounds  to 
 the  apostles  also,  as  well  as  the  present  church.  Whereas  he  hath 
 explained  himself  to  the  contrary,  both  in  the  clause  aforementioned, 
 *' the  apostles  who  had  the  Spirit's  guidance  in  a  more  high  and 
 absolute  manner  than  any  since  them  ;"  and  in  these  words  ensuing 
 "whereof  the  church  is  simply  ignorant ;"  and  again,  "wherewith 
 the  church  is  not  acquainted."  But  most  clearly  in  those,  wdiich, 
 being  most  incompatible  to  the  apostles,  you  ^vith  an  "  &c.,"  I 
 cannot  but  fear  craftily,  have  concealed  :  "  How  many  obscure  texts 
 of  Scripture  which  she  understands  not  ?  How  many  school  ques- 
 tions which  she  hath  not,  haply  cannot  determine  ?  And  for  matters 
 of  fact,  it  is  apparent  that  the  church  may  err  ;"  and  then  concludes, 
 that  "we  must  understand  hy  all  truths,  not  simply  all,  but"  (if  you 
 conceive  the  words  as  spoken  of  the  church)  "  all  truth  absolutely 
 necessary  to  salvation  ;"  and  yet,  beyond  all  this,  the  negative  part 
 of  his  answer  agrees  very  w^ell  to  the  apostles  themselves  ;  for  that 
 all  which  they  were  led  unto,  was  not  simply  all,  othenvise  St.  Paul 
 erred  in  saying.  We  knoiv  in  part  j  but  such  an  all  as  was  requisite 
 to  make  them  the  church's  foundations.  Now  such  they  could  not 
 be,  without  freedom  from  error  in  all  those  things  which  they  deli- 
 vered constantly  as  certain  revealed  truths.  For  if  we  once  suppose 
 they  may  have  erred  in  some  things  of  this  nature,  it  will  be  utterly 
 andiscernible  what  they  have  erred  in,  and  what  they  have  not. 
 Whereas,  though  we  suppose  the  church  hath  erred  in  some  things, 
 yet  we  have  means  to  know  what  she  hath  erred  in,  and  what  she 
 hath  not ;  I  mean,  by  comparing  the  doctrine  of  the  present  church, 
 with  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  church  delivered  in  Scripture, 
 But  then,  last  of  all,  suppose  the  doctor  had  said  (which  I  know  he 
 never  intended)  that  this  promise,  in  this  place  made  to  the  apostles, 
 was  to  be  understood  only  of  truths  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation, 
 is  it  consequent  that  he  makes  their  preaching  and  writing  not  infal- 
 lible in  points  not  fundamental  ?  Do  you  not  blush  for  shame  at 
 this  sophistry  ?  The  Dr.  says,  no  more  was  promised  in  this  place  ; 
 therefore  he  says  no  more  was  promised  !  Are  there  not  other 
 places  besides  this  ?  And  may  not  that  be  promised  in  other  places 
 which  is  not  promised  in  this  ? 
 
 34.  "  But  if  the  apostles  were  infaJible  in  all  things  proposed  by 
 them  as  Divine  truths,  the  like  must  be  affirmed  of  the  church,  be- 
 cause Dr.  Potter  teaclieth  the  said  promise  to  be  verified  in  the 
 church."  True,  he  doth  so,  but  not  in  so  absolute  a  manner.  Now 
 what  is  opposed  to  absolute,  but  limited  or  restrained  f  To  the 
 apostles,  then  it  was  made,  and  to  them  only,  yet  the  words  are  true 
 of  the  church.  And  this  very  promise  might  have  been  made  to  it, 
 though  here  it  is  not.  They  agree  to  the  apostles  in  a  higher,  to  the 
 church  in  a  lower  sense  j    to  the  apostles  in   a  more  absolute. 
 
FUNDAMENTAL  AND  NOT  FUNDAMENTAL.        191 
 
 to  the  church  in  a  more  limited  sense.  To  the  apostles  absolutely 
 for  the  church's  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  truths  by  the  apostles'  writings,  sufficienter  : 
 so  that  the  apostles  and  the  church  may  be  fitly  compared  to  the 
 star  and  the  wise  men.  The  star  was  directed  by  the  finger  of  God, 
 and  could  not  but  go  right  to  the  place  where  Christ  was  :  but  the  M-ise 
 men  were  led  by  the  star  to  Christ,  led  by  it,  I  say,  not  efficaciter  or 
 irresistibiliter,  "but  sufficienter  j  so  that  if  they  would,  they  might 
 follow  it ;  if  they  would  not,  they  might  choose.  So  was  it  between 
 the  apostles'  wi-iting  Scriptm-es  and  the  church.  They  in  their 
 writings  were  infalhbly  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  wise  men 
 were  led  by  the  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  as  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  freewill  in  beheving,  it 
 follows,  that  the  whole  aggregate  hath  freewill  in  believing.  And  if 
 any  man  say,  that  at  least  it  is  morally  impossible,  that  of  so  many, 
 Vi'hereof  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  hkely  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  that  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,  ivhom  the  loorld  cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not, 
 neither  knoweth  him.  Besides,  let  us  suppose  that  neither  in  this 
 nor  in  any  other  place  God  hath  promised  any  more  unto  them,  but 
 to  lead  them  into  all  truth  necessary  for  their  own  and  other  men's 
 salvation  ;  doth  it  therefore  follow  that  they  were,  de  facto,  led  no 
 further  ?  God,  indeed,  is  obliged  by  his  veracity  to  do  all  that  he 
 hath  promised,  but  is  there  any  thing  that  binds  him  to  do  any 
 more  ?  May  not  he  be  better  than  his  word,  but  you  will  quarrel  at 
 him  ?  May  not  his  bounty  exceed  his  promise  ?  And  may  not  we 
 have  certainty  enough  that  ofttimes  it  doth  so  ?  God  at  first  did  not 
 promise  to  Solomon,  in  his  vision  at  Gibeon,  any  more  than  what  he 
 asked,  which  was  wisdom  to  govern  his  people,  and  that  he  gave  him. 
 But  yet,  I  hope,  you  will  not  deny  that  we  have  certainty  enough 
 that  he  gave  him  something  which  "neither  God  had  promised  nor 
 he  had  asked.  If  you  do,  you  contradict  God  himself  :  for.  Behold 
 (saith  God),  because  thou  hast  asked  this  thing,  I  have  done  accord- 
 ing to  thy  word.  Lo,  I  have  given  thee  a  wise  and  an  understanding 
 heart  j  so  that  there  was  none  like  thee  before  thee,  neither  after  thee 
 shall  any  arise  like  unto  thee  .-  and  I  have  also  given  thee  that  which 
 thou  hast  not  asked,  both  riches  and  honour,  so  that  there  shall  not 
 be  any  among  the  kings  like  unto  thee  in  all  thy  days.  God,  for 
 aught  appears,  never  obhged  himself  by  promise  to  show  St.  Paul 
 
192  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 those  unspeakable  mysteries  which  in  the  third  heaven  he  showed 
 unto  him ;  and  yet,  1  hope,  we  have  certainty  enough  that  he  did 
 so.  God  promises  to  those  that  seek  his  kingdom,  and  the  righteous- 
 ness thereof,  that  all  things  necessaiy  shall  be  added  unto  them ; 
 and  in  rigour  by  his  promise  he  is  obliged  to  do  no  more ;  and  if  he 
 give  them  necessaries,  he  hath  discharged  his  obligation :  shall  we 
 therefore  be  so  injurious  to  his  bounty  towards  us,  as  to  say  it  is 
 determined  by  the  narrow  bounds  of  mere  necessity?  So,  though 
 God  hath  obliged  himself  by  promise  to  give  his  apostles  infallibility- 
 only  in  things  necessary  to  salvation ;  nevertheless,  it  is  utterly 
 inconsequent  that  he  gave  them  no  more,  than  by  the  rigour  of  his 
 promise  he  was  engaged  to  do  ;  or  that  we  can  have  no  assurance  of 
 any  further  assistance  than  he  gave  them ;  especially  when  he  him- 
 self, both  by  his  word  and  by  his  works,  hath  assured  us,  that  he  did 
 assist  them  further.  You  see  by  this  time  that  your  chain  of  "  fearful 
 consequences  "  (as  you  call  them)  is  turned  to  a  rope  of  sand,  and 
 may  easily  be  avoided,  without  any  flying  to  yom'  imaginary  in- 
 fallibility of  the  church  in  all  her  proposals. 
 
 i35.  Ad  §  14,  15.  "Doubting  of  a  book  received  for  canonical," 
 may  signify,  either  doubting  whether  it  be  canonical,  or,  supposing 
 it  .to  be  canonical,  whether  it  be  true.  If  the  former  sense  were 
 yours,  I  must  then  again  distinguish  of  the  term  received;  for  it  may 
 signify,  either  received  by  some  particular  church,  or  by  the  present 
 church  universal,  or  the  church  of  all  ages.  If  you  meant  the  word 
 in  either  of  the  former  senses,  that  which  you  say  is  not  true.  A 
 man  may  justly  and  reasonably  doubt  of  some  texts,  or  some  book 
 received  by  some  particular  church,  or  by  the  universal  church  of 
 this  present  time,  whether  it  be  canonical  or  no,  and  yet  have  just 
 reason  to  believe,  and  no  reason  to  doubt,  but  that  other  books  are 
 canonical.  As  Eusebius,  perhaps,  had  reason  to  doubt  of  the 
 Epistle  of  St.  James  ;  the  church  of  Rome,  in  Hierom's  time,  of  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  :  and  yet  they  did  not  doubt  of  all  the  books 
 of  the  canon,  nor  had  reason  to  do  so.  If  by  received  you  mean 
 *'  received  by  the  chm-ch  of  all  ages,"  I  grant,  he  that  doubts  of  any 
 one  such  book  hath  as  much  reason  to  doubt  of  all.  But  yet  here 
 again  I  tell  you,  that  it  is  possible  a  man  may  doubt  of  one  such 
 book,  and  yet  not  of  all ;  because  it  is  possible  men  may  do  not 
 according  to  reason.  If  you  meant  your  words  in  the  latter  sense, 
 then  I  confess  he  that  believes  such  a  book  to  be  canonical,  i.  e., 
 the  word  of  God,  and  yet  (to  make  an  impossible  supposition) 
 believes  it  not  to  be  true,  if  he  will  do  according  to  reason,  nmst 
 doubt  of  all  the  rest,  and  believe  none.  For  there  being  no  greater 
 reason  to  believe  any  thing  true,  than  because  God  hath  said  it,  nor 
 no  other  reason  to  believe  the  Scripture  to  be  true,  but  only  because 
 it  is  God's  word,  he  that  doubts  of  the  truth  of  any  thing  said  by 
 God,  hath  as  much  reason  to  believe  nothing  that  he  says ;  and 
 therefore,  if  he  will  do  according  to  reason,  neither  must  nor  can 
 believe  any  thing  he  says.  And  upon  this  ground  you  conclude 
 rightly,  "  that  the  infalhbility  of  true  Scripture  must  be  imiversal, 
 and  not  confined  to  points  fundamental." 
 
 36,  And  this  reason  why  we  shouJd  not  refuse  to  believe  any  part 
 of  Scripture,  upon  pretence  that  the  matter  of  it  is  not  fundamental. 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  193 
 
 you  confess  to  be  convincing.  "■  But  the  same  reason,"  you  say,  "is 
 as  convincing  for  the  universal  infalUbihty  of  the  church ;  for,"  say 
 you,  "  unless  she  be  infalhble  in  all  things,  we  cannot  believe  her 
 m  any  one."  But  by  this  reason  your  proselytes,  knowing  you  are 
 not  infallible  in  all  things,  must  not  nor  cannot  believe  you  in  any 
 thing ;  nay,  you  yourself  must  not  believe  yourself  m  any  thing, 
 because  you  know  that  you  are  not  infalhble  in  all  things.  Indeed, 
 if  you  had  said,  "  we  could  not  rationally  believe  her  for  her  own 
 sake,  and  upon  her  own  word  and  authority  in  any  thing,"  I  should 
 willingly  grant  the  consequence.  For  an  authority  subject  to  error 
 can  be  no  firm  or  stable  foundation  of  my  belief  in  any  thing  ;  and  if 
 it  were  in  any  thing,  then  this  authority,  being  one  and  the  same  in 
 all  proposals,  I  should  have  the  same  reason  to  believe  all  that  I  have 
 to  believe  one ;  and  therefore  must  cither  do  unreasonably,  in  be- 
 lieving an}'  one  thing,  upon  the  sole  warrant  of  this  authority  ;  or 
 unreasonably^  in  not  believing  all  things  equally  warranted  by  it. 
 Let  this  therefore  be  granted  ;  and  what  will  come  of  it?  "Why 
 then,"  you  say,  "we  cannot  believe  her  in  propounding  canonical 
 books."  If  you  mean  still  (as  you  must  (lo,  unless  you  play  the 
 sophister)  "  not  upon  her  own  authority,"  I  grant  it ;  for  we  beheve 
 canonical  books  not  upon  the  "  authority  of  the  present  church," 
 but  upon  universal  tradition.  If  }ou  mean  not  at  all,  and  that  with 
 reason  we  cannot  believe  these  books  to  be  canonical,  whi';Ii  the 
 chm-ch  proposes,  I  deny  it.  There  is  no  more  consequence  in  the 
 argument  than  in  this :  The  devil  is  not  infalhble ;  therefore,  if  he 
 says  there  is  one  God,  I  cannot  believe  him.  No  geometrician  is 
 infallible  in  all  things,  therefore  not  in  these  things  which  he  de- 
 monstrates. Mr.  Knot  is  not  infallible  in  all  things,  therefore 
 he  may  not  believe  that  he  wrote  a  book,  entitled  "  Charity 
 Maintained." 
 
 37.  But  "though  the  reply  be  good,  protestants  cannot  make  uso 
 of  it,  with  any  good  coherence  to  this  distinction,  and  some  otlier 
 doctrines  of  theirs;  because  they  pretend  to  be  able  to  tell  what 
 points  are  fundamental,  and  what  not ;  and  therefore,  though  they 
 should  believe  Scripture  erroneous  in  others,  yet  they  might  be  sure 
 it  erred  not  in  these."  To  this  I  answer,  That  if,  without  de[)end- 
 ence  on  Scripture,  they  did  knoAv  what  were  fundamental,  and  what; 
 not,  they  might  possibly  believe  the  Scripture  true  in  fundamentals^ 
 and  erroneous  in  other  things.  But  seeing  they  ground  their  belief^ 
 that  "  such  and  such  things  only  are  fundamental,"  only  upon  Scrip- 
 ture, and  go  about  to  prove  their  assertion  true,  only  by  Scri])ture; 
 then  must  they  suppose  the  Scripture  true  absolutely  in  all  things, 
 or  else  the  Scripture  could  not  be  a  sufficient  warrant  to  them  to 
 believe  this  thing,  that  these  only  points  are  fundamental.  For 
 who  would  not  laugh  at  them  if  they  should  argue  thus  :  The  Scriji- 
 ture  is  true  in  something;  the  Scri])ture  says  that  these  points  only 
 are  fundamental;  therefore  this  is  true,  that  these  only  are  so  ?  For 
 every  fresh-man  in  logic  knows,  that  from  mere  particulars  nothing- 
 can  be  certainly  concluded.  But,  on  the  other  side,  this  reason  is 
 firm  and  demonstrative  :  The  Scripture  is  true  in  all  things :  but 
 the  Scripture  says,  that  these  only  points  are  the  fundamentals  of 
 Christian  religion ;  therefore  it  is  true  that  these  only  are  so.     So 
 
 o 
 
194  NO    CHU»ICH    OF    ONE 
 
 that  the  knowledge  of  fundamentals,  being  itself  dra\\Ti  from  Scrip- 
 tui-e,  is  so  far  fi'om  warranting  us  to  believe  the  Scripture  is  or  may 
 be  in  part  true  and  in  part  false,  that  itself  can  have  no  foundation 
 but  the  universal  truth  of  Scripture.  For  to  be  a  fundamental  truth 
 presupposes  to  be  a  truth ;  now  I  cannot  know  any  doctrme  to  be 
 a  Divine  and  supernatural  truth,  or  a  true  part  of  Christianity,  but 
 only  because  tHe  Scripture  says  so,  Avhich  is  all  true  ;  therefore  much 
 more  can  I  not  know  it  to  be  a  fundamental  truth. 
 
 38.  Ad  §  16.  To  this  paragraph  I  answer  :  though,  the  church 
 being  not  infalhble,  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  vmiversal  tradition,  be  it  fundamental  or  be  it 
 not  fundamental.  This,  you  say,  "  we  cannot  in  points  not  funda- 
 mental, 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,  thougli  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*  [seeing  faith  comes  by  hearing,  and  by  hearing  those  who 
 give  testimony  to  it,  which  none  doth  but  the  church,  and  the  parts 
 of  it]  I  must  learn  of  the  church,  or  of  some  partf  of  it,  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  doctrine,  that  he  and  his  apostles  did  such  miracles  in  con- 
 firmation of  it,  that  the  Scripture  is  God's  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  church's  infallible  direction  extending  only  to  fun- 
 damentals, 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  w^hichno 
 man  grants  you,  "  that  the  church  is  an  infallible  director  in  funda- 
 mentals." For  if  she  were  so,  then  must  we  not  only  learn  funda- 
 mentals of  her,  but  also  "  learn  of  her  what  is  fundamental,  and 
 take  all  for  fundamental  which  she  delivers  to  us  as  such."  In  the 
 performance  whereof,  if  I  knew  any  one  chtu-ch  to  be  infallible,  I 
 would  quickly  be  of  that  church.  But,  good  sir,  jou  must  needs 
 do  us  this  favour,  to  be  so  acute  as  to  distinguisli  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  settling  a 
 known  infallibility  in  some  one  known  society  of  Christians  (as  the 
 Greek,  or  the  Roman,  or  some  oiher  church) ;  by  adhermg  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  infal- 
 
 •  What  is  within  the  crotchets  is  not  in  the  Oxford  edition, 
 t  of  the  church.— at/. 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLK.  195 
 
 lible,  hut  he  could  not  be  a  guide  to  others.  A  man  or  a  church 
 that  were  m visible,  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  church's  authority,  learn  not  of  the  church."  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  physic  or  the  mathematics  I 
 may  learn  those  rules  and  principles  by  which  I  may  confute  my 
 master's  erroneous  conclusion. 
 
 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,"  1  have  not  yet  met 
 with  any  ;  and,  I  believe,  you,  if  you  were  to  show  them,  would  be 
 yourself  to  seek.  But  yet  if  you  could  produce  some  such,  we 
 might  seek  the  church  to  many  good  purposes,  without  supposing 
 her  a  guide  infalhble."  And  then  for  hearing  and  obeying  the 
 church,"  I  would  fain  know,  whether  none  be  heard  and  obeyed  but 
 those  that  are  infallible  ;  whether  particular  churches,  governors, 
 pastors,  parents,  be  not  to  be  heard  and  obeyed  ?  or  v/hether  all 
 these  be  infalhble  ?  I  wonder  you  will  thrust  upon  us  so  often 
 these  worn-out  objections,  without  taking  notice  of  their  ansn  ers. 
 
 42.  Your  argument  from  St.  Austin's  first  place  is  a  fallacy,  a 
 dicto  secundum  quid,  ad  dictum  simplicltiir :  if  the  "  whole  church 
 I^ractise  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  "  an}'^  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  chcum- 
 stances  of  God's  worship  ;  and  yet  account  it  neither  pride  nor  folly, 
 to  go  about  to  reform  errors,  which  the  church  has  suffered  to  come 
 in,  and  to  vitiate  the  very  substance  of  God's  worship.  It  was  a 
 practice  of  the  whole  church  in  St.  Austin's  time,  and  esteemed  an 
 apostolic  tradition  even  by  St.  Austin  himself,  "  that  the  eucharist 
 should  be  administered  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  St.  Austin's  words,  not  simj)!}^  of  all 
 things,  but  (as  infleed  he  himself  restrained  them)  of  "  these  things," 
 of  "  matter  of  order,  decency,  and  uniformity." 
 
 43.  In  the  next  place  you  tell  us  out  of  hinij  '^  that  that  which 
 
196  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 hath  been  always  kept,  is  most  rightly  esteemed  to  come  from  the 
 apostles."  Very  right ;  and  what  then  ?  Therefore  the  church 
 cannot  err  in  defining  of  controversies.  Sir,  I  beseech  you,  when 
 you  write  again,  do  us  the  favour  to  write  nothing  but  syllogisms  ; 
 for  I  find  it  still  an  extreme  trouble  to  find  out  the  concealed  propo- 
 sitions which  are  to  connect  the  j^arts  of  your  enthymemes.  As  now, 
 for  example,  I  profess  unto  you  I  am  at  my  wit's  end,  and  have  done 
 my  best  endeavour,  to  find  some  glue,  or  soder,  or  cement,  or  chain, 
 or  thread,  or  any  thing  to  tie  this  antecedent  and  this  consequent 
 too-ether,  and  at  length  am  enforced  to  give  it  over,  and  cannot 
 do  it. 
 
 44.  But  the  doctrines,  "that  infants  are  to  be  baptized,  and  those 
 that  are  baptized  by  heretics,  are  not  to  be  rebajjtized,  are  neither  ot 
 them  to  be  proved*  by  Scripture:  and  yet,  according  to  St.  Austin, 
 they  are  true  doctrines,  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  church  is  infalhblc."  I  answer,  that 
 there  is  no  repugnance,  but  we  may  be  certain  enough  of  the 
 universal  traditions  of  the  ancient  church ;  such  as  in  St.  Austhi's 
 account  these  were  which  are  here  spoken  of,  and  yet  not  be  certain 
 enough  of  the  definitions  of  the  present  church,  unless  you  can  show 
 (which  I  am  sure  you  never  can  do)  that  the  infallibility  of  the  pre- 
 sent 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  tradition,  as  in  defining  emergent  controversies. 
 Again,  it  follows  not,  because  the  church's  authority  is  warrant 
 enough  for  us  to  believe  some  doctrine,  touching  which  the  Scripture 
 is  silent ;  therefore  it  is  warrant  enough  to  believe  these,  to  which 
 the  Scripture  seems  repugnant.  Now  the  doctrines  which  St, 
 Austin  received  upon  the  church's  authority  are  of  the  first  sort,  the 
 doctrines  for  which  we  deny  your  church's  infallibility  are  of  the 
 second.  And  therefore  though  the  church's  authority  might  be 
 strong  enough  to  bear  the  weight  which  St.  Austin  laid  upon  it,  yet 
 haply" it  may  not  be  strong  enough  to  bear  that  which  you  lay  upon 
 it ;  though  it  may  support  some  doctrines  without  Scripture,  yet 
 surely  not  against  it.  And  last  of  all,  to  deal  ingenuously  with  you 
 and  the  world,  I  am  not  such  an  idolater  of  St.  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,  1  must  have  better  satisfaction,  before  I  can  induce  myself 
 to  hold  it  certain  and  infalhble.  And  this,  not  because  popery 
 w^ould  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  doc- 
 trine SO  beUeved,  or  the  custom  so  practised,  came  from  the  apostles. 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  197 
 
 I  instance  in  the  doctrine  of  the  millenaries,  and  the  eucliavisfs 
 necessity  for  infants  ;  both  which  doctrines  have  been  taught  by  the 
 consent  of  the  eminent  fathers  of  some  ages,  Avithout  any  o})position 
 from  any  of  their  contemporaries  ;  and  were  delivered  by  them,  not 
 as  doctors,  but  as  witnesses;  not  as  their  opinions,  but  apostolic 
 traditions.  And  therefore  measuring  the  doctrine  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  doc- 
 trines were  cathohc  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  this  present  church  is  no  sufficient  proof  that  it  came 
 originally  from  the  apostles.  Besides,  who  can  warrant  us  that  the 
 universal  traditions  of  the  church  were  all  apostolical ;  seeing  iu 
 that  famous  ])lace  for  traditions,  in  Tertullian,*  Quicunque  traditor, 
 any  author  whatsoever  is  founder  good  enough  for  them  ?  And  who 
 can  secure  us  that  human  inventions,  and  such  as  came  a  quocunque 
 traditore,  might  not  in  short  time  gain  the  reputation  of  apostolic  ; 
 seeing  the  direction  then  vvas,t  Prcecepta  majorum  apostolicas  tra~ 
 ditiones  quisque  existimat  F 
 
 45.  No  less,  you  say,  is  St.  Chrysostom  "  for  the  infallible  tradi- 
 tions of  the  church."  But  you  were  to  prove  the  church  infallible, 
 not  in  her  traditions — (which  we  willingly  grant,  if  they  be  as 
 miiversal  as  the  trathtion  of  the  undoubted  books  of  Scriptine  is,  to 
 be  as  infallible  as  the  Scripture  is  ;  for  neither  doth  being  written 
 make  the  word  of  God  the  more  infallible,  nor  being  unwritten  make 
 it  the  less  infallible) — not  therefore  in  her  universal  traditions  were 
 you  to  prove  the  church  infallible,  Imt  in  all  her  decrees  and  defini- 
 tions of  controversies.  To  this  point,  Avhen  you  speak,  you  shall 
 have  an  answer  ;  but  hitherto  you  do  but  wander. 
 
 46.  But  let  us  see  what  St.  Chrysostom  says  :  "  They  "  (the 
 apostles)  "delivered  not  all  things  in  writing;"  (who  denies  it?) 
 "  but  many  things  also  without  writing :"  (who  doulats  of  it  ?)  "  and 
 
 *  De  Corona  Milit.  c  3,  &c.  Where  Laying  recounted  sundry  un\vritten  tra- 
 ,  clitions  then  observed  by  Christians,  many  whereof  by  the  way  (notwithstanding- 
 the  council  of  Trent's  profession,  "  to  receive  them  and  the  written  word  with 
 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  pre- 
 sently after— abstaining  from  baths  for  a  week  after— accounting  it  an  impiety  to 
 pray  kneeling  on  the  l-ord's  day,  or  between  Easter  and  Pentecost :  1  say,  having 
 reckoned  up  these  and  other  traditions  in  chap.  3,  he  adds  anotlier  in  the  fourth, 
 of  the  veiling  of  women  ;  and  then  adds,  "  ftince  I  find  no  law  for  tliis,  it  follows, 
 that  tradition  must  have  given  this  observation  to  custom,  which  shall  gain  in 
 time  apostolical  authority  by  the  interpretation  of  the  reason  of  it.  liy  these 
 examples,  therefore,  it  is  declared,  that  the  observing  of  unwritten  tradition, 
 being  confirmed  by  custom,  may  be  defended ;  the  persevei-auce  of  the  observa- 
 tion being  a  good  testimony  of  the  goodness  of  tlie  tradition.  Now  custom,  even 
 in  civil  affairs,  where  a  law  is  wanting,  passeth  for  a  law.  >  either  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  qiiucu7iqiie  productum,  whosoever  is  the  pi-oducer  of  it. 
 3Jo  ye  think  it  is  not  lawful,  omnijideii,  for  every  faithful  man  to  conceive  and 
 constitute,  provided  he  constitute  only  what  is  not  repugnant  to  God's  will, 
 •what  is  conducible  for  discipline,  and  available  to  salvation,  seeing  the  Lord  says, 
 Why  even  of  yourselves  jud^e  ye  not  ukat  is  right  ?"  And  a  little  after,  "  This 
 reason  now  demands  saving-  the  respect  of  the  tradition  a  qtiocunque  traditore 
 censetiir  nee  authorem  resficiens  sed  authoritatem,  '  from  whatsoever  traditiou 
 it  comes,  neither  regard  the  author,  but  the  authority.'  "  t  Hier. 
 
198  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 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 
 beheved ;  as,  that  Julius  Csesar  was  Emperor  of  Rome  is  a  thing 
 worthy  of  belief,  being  so  well  testified  as  it  is,  but  yet  it  is  not  ne- 
 cessary to  be  beheved ;  a  man  may  be  saved  without  it.  Those 
 many  works  which  our  Saviour  did  (which  St.  John  supposes 
 would  not  have  been  contained  in  a  world  of  books),  if  they  had  been 
 written,  or  if  God,  by  some  other  means,  had  preserved  the  know- 
 ledge of  them,  had  been  as  worthy  to  be  beheved,  and  as  necessary, 
 as  those  that  are  written.  But  to  show  you  how  much  a  more 
 faithful  keeper  records  are  than  report,  those  few  that  were  written 
 are  preserved  and  beheved;  those  infinitely  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  beheving 
 them;  for  every  obligation  ceaseth,  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  show  how  excellent  a 
 keeper  of  the  tradition  the  church  of  Rome  hath  been,  or  even  the 
 catholic  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  alleged  this  i)lace  for  them,  Hold  the  traditions, 
 &c.,  tells  us,  "  we  must  not  answer,  that  St.  Paul  speaks  here  only 
 of  such  traditions  which  (though  not  in  this  Ej)istle  to  Thessal.  yet) 
 were  afterwards  written,  and  in  other  books  of  Scripture  :  because 
 it  is  upon  occasion  of  tradition  (touching  the  cause  of  the  hinder- 
 ance  of  the  coming  of  antichrist)  which  was  never  written,  that  he 
 lays  this  injunction  u}.'On  them  to  hold  the  traditions."  Well,  let  us 
 grant  this  argument  good  and  concluding  :  and  that  the  church 
 of  the  Tliessalonians,  or  the  catholic  church  (for  what  St.  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  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  hath  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  yourselves.  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  withkoldeth  ^  Or  do  you  yourselves  know, 
 that  ye  may  instruct  us  ?  Can  ye,  or  dare  you  say,  this  or  this  was 
 this  hinderance  which  St.  Paul  here  meant,  and  all  men  under  pain 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  199 
 
 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  ;  wlien  here  this 
 very  tradition,  whch  here  in  particular  was  deposited  with  the  Thes- 
 salonians  and  the  primitive  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  !  St.  Chrysostom's 
 council  therefore,  of  "  accounting  the  church's  traditions  v/orthy  of 
 behef,"  we  are  willing  to  obey ;  and  if  you  can  of  any  thing  make 
 it  appear  that  it  is  tradition,  we  will  seek  no  further.  But  this  we 
 say  withal,  that  we  are  persuaded  you  cannot  make  this  appear  in 
 any  thing,  but  only  in  the  canon  of  Scripture ;  and  that  there  is 
 nothing  now  extant,  and  to  be  known  by  us,  v»hich  can  put  in  so 
 good  plea  to  be  the  unwritten  word  of  God,  as  the  unquestioned 
 books  of  canonical  Scripture  to  be  the  written  v\'ord  of  God. 
 
 47.  You  conclude  this  paragraph  with  a  sentence  of  St.  xiustin, 
 who  says,   "  The  church   doth  not  approve,  nor  dissemble,  nor  do 
 those  things  which  are  against  faith  or  good  hfe  : "    and  from  hence 
 you  conclude,   "  that  it  never  has  done  so,  nor  ever  can  do  so."     But 
 though    the  argument   hold   in  logic    a   non  posse,    ad   non  esse, 
 yet  1  never  heard  that  it  would  hold  back  agaiu,  a  non  esse,  ad  non 
 posse.     "  The  church  cannot  do  this,  therefore  it  does  not,"  follows 
 with  good  consequence  :  but  "  The  church  doth  not  this,  therefore 
 it  shall  never  do  it,  nor  can  ever  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  diverse  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  hath 
 as  good  reason  for  it  as  the  former.     If  a  man  say  of  the  church  of 
 England  (what  St.  Austin  of  the  church),  that  she  neither  approves 
 nor  dissembles,  nor  doth  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 
 St.  Austin,  according  to  you,  thought)  "  approve  or  dissemble,  or  do 
 any  thing  against  faith  or  good  life,"  did  not  tolerate  and  dissemble 
 vain  superstitions  and  human  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  St.  Austin  himself  professeth 
 in  this  very  epistle.     "  This,"  saith  he,  "  I  do  infinitely  grieve  at, 
 that  many  most  wholesome  precepts  of  the  Divine  Scripture  are 
 httle  regarded  ;  and  in  the  mean  time,  all  is  so  full  of  so  many  pre- 
 sumptions, that  he  is  more  grievously  found  fault  with,  who  during 
 his  octaves  toucheth  the  earth  with  his  nake.i  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 
 
200  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 by  the  custom  of  the  universal  church;  and  though  not  against 
 fdith,  yet  unprofitable  burdens  of  Christian  hberty,  which  made  the 
 condi-^'on  of  the  Jews  more  tolerable  than  that  of  Christians."  And 
 thercxore  he  professeth  of  them,  Approbare  non  possum,  "  I  cani.ot 
 approve  them:"  and,  Uli  faciiltas  iribuitur,  resecanda  exist  imo  s 
 *'  I  think  they  are  to  be  cut  off,  wheresoever  we  have  power."  Yet 
 so  deeply  were  they  l^;Oted,  and  spread  so  far,  through  the  indiscreet 
 devotion  of  the  people,  always  more  prone  to  superstition  than  true 
 
 })iety,  and  through  the   connivance  of  the  governors,  who  should 
 lave  strangled  them  at  their  birth,  that  himself,  though  he  grieved 
 at  them,  and  could  not  allow  them,  yet  for  tear  of  offence  he  durst 
 not  speak  against  them,     Multa  hujusmodi,  propter  nonnullarum 
 vel  sanctarum  vel  turbulentarum  personarum   scandala   devitanduy 
 libcrius   improbare  non  audeo :   "  many  of  these  these  things,  for 
 fear  of  scandalising  many  holy  persons,  or  provoking  those  that  are 
 tm-bulent,   I  dare   not  -"reely  disallow."     Nay,  the  catholic  church 
 itself  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  catholic  church]  "  ph^ced  be- 
 tween chaff  and  tares,  tolerates  many  things."     "Which  was  directly 
 against   the  command  of  ti  e  Holy  Spirit,  given  the  church  by  St. 
 Paul,  to  stand  fast  in  t/iat  liberty  vilierewitk   Christ  hath  made  her 
 free,   and  not  to  suffer  herself  to  be  brought  in  bondage  to  these 
 servile  burdens.     Our  Saviour  tells  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  that 
 in  vain  they  worshipped  God,  teaching  for  doctrines   men's  com- 
 mandments :  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   St.    Augustia 
 complains  of   as  the  general   fault  of  Christians  of  his  time  was 
 parallel  to  this :  Multa  (saith  he)   quce  in  divinis  libris  saluberrime 
 prcBcepta  sunt,  minus  curantur  j    this  I  suppose  I  may  very   well 
 render  in  our  Saviour's  words.  The  commandments  of  God  are  laid 
 aside  j  and  then,  Tam  multis  prcesumptionibus  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  and  buried  his 
 soul  in  drink."    Certainly,  if  this  be  not  to  teach  for  doctrines  men's 
 commandments,  I  know  not  what  is  ;  and  thereiore  these  superstitious 
 Christians  might  be  said  to  worship  God  in  vain,  as  well  as  the 
 scribes  and  Pharisees.     And  yet  great  variety  of  superstitions  of 
 this  kind  were  then  already  spread  over  the  church,  being  diffc^rent 
 in  diverse  places.     This  is  plain  from  these  words   of  St.   Austin 
 *concerning  them,  Diversorum  locorum  diversis  moribus  innumera- 
 biliter  varianturj  and  apparent,  because  the  stream  of  them  was 
 grown  so  violent,  that  he  durst  not  oppose  it ;  Libcrius  improbare 
 non  audeo,  "  I  dare  not  freely  speak  against  them."    So  that  to  say 
 the  catholic  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    connivance,    generally    tolerated 
 Christians  to  worship  God  in  vain.     Now  how  this  tolerating  of 
 •  Of  them.— Oo/. 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  201 
 
 universal  superstition  in  the  church  can  consist  with  the  assistance 
 and  direction  of  God's  omnipotent  Spirit  to  guard  it  from  super- 
 stition, and  with  tlie  accomphshment  of  that  pretended  prophecy  of 
 the  church,  I  have  set  ivatchmen  upon  thy  walls,  O  Jerusalem,  ivhick 
 shall  never  hold  their  peace  day  nor  night ;  hesides,  how  these 
 superstitions,  being  thus  nourished,  cherished,  and  strengthened  by 
 the  practice  of  the  most,  and  urged  with  great  violence  upon  others, 
 as  the  commandments  of  God,  and  but  fearfully  opposed  or  contra- 
 dicted b>  any,  might  m  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  catch- 
 ing and  contagious  nature  of  this  sin,  and  how  fast  ill  weeds  spread, 
 and  how  true  and  experimented  that  rule  is  of  the  historian,  Exempla 
 nou  consistunt  ubi  inciptunt,  sed  guamlibet  in  tenuem  recepta  tramitem 
 latissime  evagandi  sibi  faciunt  potestatem.  Nay,  that  some  such 
 superstition  had  not  already,  even  in  St.  Austin's  time,  prevailed  so 
 far,  as  to  be  consuetudine  universa  ecclesice  roboratum,  who  can  doubt 
 that  considers,  that  the  practice  of  communicating  infants  had  even 
 then  got  the  credit  and  autliority,  not  only  of  an  universal  custom, 
 but  also  of  an  apostolic  tradition  ? 
 
 48.  But  (you  will  say)  notwithstanding  all  this,  "  St.  Austin  here 
 •warrants  us,  that  the  church  can  never  either  approve,  or  dissemble, 
 or  practise  any  thing  against  faith  or  good  life,  and  so  long  you  may 
 rest  securely  u})oii  it."  Yea,  but  the  same  St.  Austin  tells  us,  in  the 
 same  place,  that  "  the  church  may  tolerate  human  presumi)tions  and 
 vain  superstitions,  and  those  urged  more  severely  than  the  com- 
 mandments of  God : "  and  whether  superstition  be  a  sin  or  no,  I 
 appeal  to  our  Saviour's  words  before  cited,  and  to  the  consent  of 
 your  schoolmen.  Besides,  if  we  consider  it  rightly,  we  shall  find 
 that  the  church  is  not  truly  said  only  to  tolerate  these  things,  but 
 rather  tlut  a  part,  and  far  the  lesser,  tolerated  and  dissembled  them 
 in  silence,  and  a  part,  and  far  greater,  publicly  avowed  and  practised 
 them,  and  urged  them  upon  others  with  great  violence,  and  yet  con- 
 tinued still  a  part  of  the  church.  Now,  why  the  whole  church 
 might  not  continue  the  church,  and  yet  do  so,  as  well  as  a  part  of 
 the  cluu'ch  might  continue  a  part  of  it,  and  yet  do  so,  I  desire  you 
 to  inform  me. 
 
 49.  But  now,  after  all  this  ado,  what  if  St.  Austin  says  not 
 this  which  is  pretended  of  the  chiu-ch ;  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  ;  viz,  Ecclesia  multa 
 tolerat  j  et  tamen  qua  sunt  contra  fidem  et  bonam  vitam,  nee  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  Isaac  is  a  point  very  far  from 
 being  fundamental ;  and  yet  I  hope  you  will  grant  that  })rotestants 
 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 
 catholic  church,  and  much  more  themselves,  may  possibly  err  in 
 
202  NO    CHURCH    OF  ONE 
 
 some  unfundamental  points,  is  it  therefore  consequent  they  can  he 
 certain  of  none  such  ?  What  if  a  wiser  man  than  I  may  mistake 
 the  sense  of  some  obscure  place  of  x\ristotle,  may  I  not  therefore, 
 ■without  any  arrogance  or  inconsequence,  conceive  myself  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  under- 
 stand those  things  that  are  plain,  whether  fundamental  or  not 
 fundamental ;  that  God  is,  and  is  a  reward er  of  them  that  seek  him  / 
 that  there  is  no  salvation  but  by  faith  in  Christ ;  that  by  *  repent- 
 ance from  dead  works,  and  faith  in  Christ,  remission  of  sins  may  be 
 obtained  ;  that  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body  :  these  we 
 conceive  both  true,  because  the  Scripture  says  so,  and  truths  funda- 
 mental, because  they  are  necessary  }3arts  of  the  gospel,  whereof  our 
 Saviour  says,  Qui  non  crediderit,  damnabltar.  AH  which  we  either 
 learn  froni  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  yourself  from  having  done  us  a  palpable  injury, 
 
 51.  Ad  §  18.  And  I  urge  you  as  mainly  as  you  urge  Dr.  Potter 
 and  other  protestants,  that  you  tell  us  that  all  the  traditions,  and  all 
 the  definitions  of  the  church,  are  fundamental  points,  and  we  cannot 
 wrest  from  you  "  a  list  in  particular  of  all  such  traditions  and  defi- 
 nitions, without  which  no  man  can  tell  whether  or  no  he  err  in  points 
 fundamental,  and  be  capable  of  salvation  "  (for,  I  ho})e,  erring  in 
 our  fundamentals  is  no  more  exclusive  of  salvation  than  erring  in 
 yours)  ;  "  and,  which  is  most  lamentable,  instead  of  giving  us  such 
 a  catalogue,  you  also  fall  to  wrangle  among  yourselves  about  the 
 making  of  it ;"  some  of  you,  as  I  have  said  above,  holding  some 
 thingsto  be  matters  of  faith,  which  others  deny  to  be  so. 
 
 52.  Ad  §  19.  I  answer.  That  these  differences  between  protestants 
 concerning  errors  damnable  and  not  damnable,  truths  fundamental 
 and  not  fundamental,  may  be  easily  reconcded.  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  itself  sinful,  and  conse- 
 quently 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  suits  best  with  my  ends, 
 by  fear  of  men's  ill  opinion,  or  any  other  worldly  fear,  or  any  other 
 worldly  hope,  I  betray  myself  to  any  error  contrary  to  any  Divine  re- 
 vealed truth,  that  error  may  be  justly  styled  a  sin,  and  consequently 
 of  itself  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 
 opinions,  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 
 
 •  Repentance  and  faith  in  Christ.— Oa./. 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  203 
 
 be  conceived  either  to  die  ^v-ith  contrition,  for  all  his  sins  known  and 
 imlfiiO'iA'u,  or  vdthout  it ;  if  he  die  without  it,  this  error  in  itselT 
 damnable  will  be  likewise  so  unto  him  5  if  he  die  with  contrition  (as 
 his  error  can  be  no  impediment  but  he  may),  his  error,  though  in 
 itself  damnable,  to  him,  according  to  your  doctrine,  will  not  prove 
 so.     And  therefore  some  of  those  authors,  whom  you  quote,  speak- 
 ing of  errors  whereunto  men  were  betrayed,  or  wherein  they  were 
 kept  by  their  fault,  or  vice,  or  passion  (as  for  the  most  pai*t  men 
 are) ;  others,  speaking  of  them  as  errors  simply  and  purely  involun- 
 tary, and  the  effects  of  human  infirmity  ;  some,  as  they  were  '"  re- 
 tracted by  contrition "  (to  use  your  own  pln-ase),  others,  as  they 
 were  not ;  no  marvel  that  they  have  passed  upon  them,   some  a 
 heavier,  and  some  a  milder,  some  an  absolving,  axid  some  a  con- 
 demning 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, 
 acccording  to  your  principles,  either  no  fault  at  all,  or  venial,  where 
 there  is  no  malice  of  the  v.ill  conjoined  with  it.    And  if  it  be,  yet,  as 
 the  most  mahgnant  poison  will  not  poison  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  comprised),  can  no  more  be  hurt  by  any  the 
 most  malignant  and  pestilent  error,  than  St.  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  proposi- 
 tions and  doctrines  which  integrate  and  make  up  the  body  of  Chris- 
 tian religion,  peradventm-e  there  would  not  be  so  exact  agreement 
 amongst  them  as  some  say  there  was  between  the  seventy  inter- 
 preters in  translating  tlie   Old  Testament ;    yet   thus  far  without 
 controversy  they  do  all  agree  that  in  the  Bible  all  these  things  are 
 contained,  and  therefore,  that  whosoever  doth  truly  and  sincerely 
 believe  the  Scripture  must  of  necessity,  either  in  hypothesi  or  at 
 least  in  thesi,  either  formally  or  at  least  virtually,  either  explicitly  or 
 at  least  implicitly,  either  in  act  or  at  least  in  preparation  of  mind, 
 believe   all  things  fundamental  :    it   being  not    fundamental,   nor 
 required  of  Almighty  God,  to  lielieve  the  true  sense  of  Scripture  in 
 all  places,  but  only  that  we  should  euileavour  to  do  so,  and  be  pre- 
 pared 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  physicians, 
 .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  j  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  successfid ;  what  wise  man 
 
204  NO   CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 would  not  think  they  agreed  sufficiently  for  his  direction  to  the 
 recovery  of  health  ?  Just  so  these  j^rotestant  doctors,  with  whose 
 discords  you  make  such  tragedies  ;  agreeing  in  tliesi  thus  far,  that 
 the  "  Scriptui'e  evidently  contains  all  things  necessary  to  salvation," 
 both  for  matter  of  faith  and  of  practice  :  and  that  whosoever  believes 
 it,  and  endeavours  to  find  tlie  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  sa}',  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,  \Yhether  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  doctrine  of  the  gos})el  to  be  truths ;  not 
 all  necessary  truths,  for  all  are  not  so ;  and  consequently,  the  re- 
 pugnant errors  to  be  falsehoods ;  yet  not  all  such  falsehoods  as 
 luiavoidabiy  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  suffi- 
 cient to  salvation."  This  I  utterly  deny,  as  a  thing  evidently  false, 
 and  I  vAonder  you  should  content  yourself  magisterially  to  say  so, 
 without  offering  any  proof  of  it.  I  might  much  more  justly  tlnnk 
 it  enough  barel}'  to  deny  it,  without  refutation,  but  I  will  not :  thus 
 therefore  I  argue  against  it : 
 
 "Without  being  able  to  make  a  catalogue  of  fundamentals,  T  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  ex])licitly  all  that  is  expressed  in  Scripture,  and  im- 
 plicitly 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  necessar}',  and  consequently 
 that  my  faith  is  sufficient. 
 1  said,  of  the  truth  of  this  assertion,  "if  it  be  true  :"  because  I  will 
 not  here  enter  into  the  question  of  the  trutli  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  yourself  expressed  the  cause  of  the  difficulty  of  it, 
 and  that  is,  "because  Scripture  doth  deliver  Divine   truths,   but 
 seldom  quahfies  them,  or  declares  whether  they  be  or  be  not  abso- 
 lutely 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  siiowed  it  not  so  by  confutmg  your 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  205 
 
 reason  pretended  for  the  necessity  of  it,  and  at  this  time  I  have  no 
 leisure  to  do  you  courtesies  that  are  so  troublesome  to  myself.  Yet 
 thus  much  I  will  promise,  that  when  you  deliver  a  "  particular  cata- 
 logue of  your  church's  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  proeeeding;  as  you  talk  of,  nor  any  per- 
 formance 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  beheve- 
 whatsoever  the  catholic  visible  church  of  Christ  proposeth  as  revealed 
 by  Almighty  God,"  it  is  like  a  covey  of  one  partridge,  or  a  flock  or 
 one  sheep,  or  a  fleet  composed  of  one  ship,  or  an  army  of  one  man. 
 The  author  of  Charity  Mistaken  "  demands  a  particular  catalogue  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,  w^ierein 
 are  comprised  all  poin'-s  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  damna- 
 tion, which  God  commands  us  to  believe  :  there  is  one  catalogue. 
 We  are  obliged,  under  pin  of  damnation,  to  believe  all  whereof  we- 
 may  be  sufficiently  assured  that  Christ  taught  it  his  apostles,  his 
 apostles  the  church  :  there  is  another.  We  are  obliged,  under  pain 
 of  damnation,  to  believe  God's  word,  and  all  contained  in  it,  to  be 
 true  :  there  is  a  third.  If  these  generalities  will  not  satify  you,  but 
 you  will  be  importuning  us  to  tell  you  in  particular  *what  these  doc- 
 trines are  which  Christ  taught  his  apostles  and  his  apostles  the 
 church,  what  points  are  contained  in  God's  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  w  ill 
 give  you  leave  to  proclaim  us  bankrupts. 
 
 53.  Besides  this  deceitful  generality  of  your  catalogue  (as  you  call 
 it),  another  main  fault  we  find  with  it,  that  it  is  extremely  ambigu- 
 ous :  and  therefore,  to  draw  you  out  of  the  clouds,  give  me  leave  to 
 propose  some  questions  to  you  concerning  it.  I  would  know,  there- 
 fore, whether  by  believing,  you  mean  explicitiV  or  implicitly  ?  If 
 you  mean  implicitly,  I  w^ould  know  whether  your  church's  infallibility 
 be,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  be  believed  explicitly  or  no  ?  Whe- 
 ther any  other  point  or  points  besides  this  be,  under  the  same 
 penalty,  to  be  believed  explicitly  or  no  ?  and  if  any,  what  they  be  ? 
 I  would  know^  what  you  esteem  the  proposal  of  the  catholic  visible 
 chm-ch?  In  particular,  whether  the  decree  of  a  pope  eo?  cathedra, 
 that  is,  with  an  intent  to  oblige  all  Christians  by  it,  be  a  sufficient 
 and  an  obliging  proposal  ?  Whether  men,  without  danger  of  dam- 
 nation, may  examine  such  a  decree,  and,  if  they  think  they  have  just 
 cause,  refuse  to  obey  it  ?  Whether  the  decree  of  a  council  w  ithout 
 the  pope's  confirmation  be  such  an  obliging  proposal  or  no  ?  Whe- 
 *  M-hat  they  are  which —Ox/. 
 
206  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 tber  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  coufirmed  by  the 
 pope  be  such  a  proposal,  and  whether  he  be  a  heretic  that  thinks 
 otherwise?  Whether  the  deci-ee  of  a  particular  council  confirmed 
 by  the  pope  be  such  a  proposal  ?  Whether  the  general  uncon- 
 demned  practice  of  the  church  for  some  ages  be  such  a  sufficient  pj-o- 
 position  ?  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  sufticient  proposition  ?  Whether 
 the  fathers'  testifying  such  or  such  a  doctrine  or  practice  to  be  a 
 tradition,  or  to  be  the  doctrine  or  })ractice  of  the  church,  be  a  suffi- 
 cient assurance  that  it  is  so  ?  Whether  we  be  bound,  under  pain  of 
 damnation,  to  believe  every  text  of  the  vulgar  Bible,  now  authorised 
 by  the  Roman  chvn*ch,  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  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  boimd  to  believe 
 it  ?  Whether  the  catholic  visible  church  be  always  that  society  of 
 Christians  which  adheres  to  the  bishop  of  Rome  ?  Whether  every 
 Christian,  that  hath  ability  and  opportunity,  be  not  bound  to  endea- 
 vour to  know  explicitly  the  proposals  of  the  church  ?  Whether 
 implicit  faith  in  the  church's  veracity  will  not  save  him  that  actually 
 and  explicitly  disbelieves  some  doctrine  of  the  church,  not  knowing 
 it  to  be  so  ;  and  actually  believes  some  damnable  heresy,  as,  that 
 God  hath  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  assm'es  him  it  is  so  ?  Whether  his 
 ghostly  father  ma}'^  not  err  in  telling  him  so  ?  and  whether  any  man 
 can  be  obliged,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  believe  an  error  ?  Whe- 
 ther he  be  bound  to  beheve  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  not  deceive  him  in  this  matter  ? 
 Why  implicit  faith  in  Christ  or  the  Scriptures  should  not  suffice  for 
 a  man's  salvation,  as  well  as  implicit  faith  in  the  ciiurch  ?  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  St.  James  and  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  be  canonical  ?  at  least,  not  to  disbeheve 
 it,  and  believe  the  contrary  ?  Lastly,  why  it  is  not  sufficient  for  any 
 man's  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  ingenuous  answers,  you  shall  hear  further 
 from  me. 
 
 65.  Ad  §  20.  At  the  first  entrance  into  this  paragraph,  from  our 
 own  doctrine,  "  that  the  church  cannot  err  in  points  necessary,  it 
 is  concluded,  if   vfe  are  wise,  we  must  forsake  it  in  nothing,  lest 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  207 
 
 we  should  forsake  it  in  something  necessary."  To  which  I  answer, 
 first,  that  the  supposition,  as  you  understand  it,  is  falsely  imposed 
 upon  us,  and,  as  we  understand  it,  will  do  you  no  service.  For 
 when  we  say  that  there  shall  be  a  church  always,  somewhere  or 
 other,  unerring  in  fundamentals,  our  meaning  is  but  this,  that  there 
 shall  be  always  a  church  to  the  very  being  whereof  it  is  repugnant 
 that  it  should  err  m  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  privilege  to  any  one  church  of  any  one 
 denomination,  as  the  Greek  or  the  Roman  church ;  which  if  we  had 
 done,  and  set  up  some  settled  certain  society  of  Christians,  dis- 
 tinguishable 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  ^viadom  "  forsake  this  chm-ch  in  any  point,  for  fear  of  for- 
 saking 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  'always  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,  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  cor- 
 rupted and  most  incorrigible.  Secondly,  that  if  by  adhering*  to 
 that  church  we  could  have  been  thus  far  secured,  this  argument  had 
 some  show  of  reason.  But  seeing  we  are  not  warranted  thus  much 
 by  any  privilege  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  retams  and  the 
 practice  of  them  may  prove  an  antidote  to  her  against  the  errors 
 which  she  maintained  in  such  persons  as  in  simplicity  of  heart  foUow 
 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  aU  her  points,  for 
 she  cannot  err  damnably  :  for  this  is  false,  she  may,  though  perhaps 
 she  doth  not :  but  rather  thus  :  These  points  of  Christianity  which 
 have  in  them  the  nature  of  antidotes  against  the  poison  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  hoj)e  she  errs  not  fundamentally,  assm'es  us  that  in 
 many  things,  and  those  of  great  moment,  she  errs  very  grievously. 
 And  these  errors,  though  to  them  that  believe  them  we  hope  they 
 will  not  be  pernicious,  yet  the  professing  of  them  against  conscience 
 
 *  to  the  church— C'x/". 
 
208  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 could  not  but  bring  to  us  certain  damnation.  "As  for  the  fear  of 
 departing  from  some  fundamental  truths  withal,  while  we  depart  from 
 her  errors  ;  "  haply  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,  adhenng  to  her  in  all  things  cannot  secure  us  from 
 erring  in  fundamentals ;  because  though  de  facto  we  hope  she  doth 
 not  err,  yet  we  know  no  privileges  she  hath  but  she  may  err  in  them 
 herself;  "and  therefore  we  had  need  have  better  security  hereof  than 
 her  bare  authority.  Then,  secondly,  without  dependence  on  her  at 
 all,  w^e  may  be  secured  that  we  do  not  err  fundamentally  ;  I  mean, 
 by  believing  all  things  plainly  set  down  in  Scripture,  wherein  all 
 necessary,  and  most  things  profitable,  are  plainly  dehvered.  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  persuade  me,  there  was 
 no  other  way  but  the  worse,  and  woidd  persuade  me  to  accompany 
 him  in  it,  because  I  confessed  his  way,  though  very  *inconvenient 
 and  very  dangerous,  yet  a  way;  so  that  going  that  way  fwe  might  come 
 to  our  journey's  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  fallacy,  would  you  not  beg  me  for  a  fool  ? 
 Just  so  might  you  think  of  us  if  we  w^ould  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 
 doctrine  of  faitli'in  Christ  and  repentance ;  which  knowing  we  hold 
 as  well  as  you,  notwithstanding  our  departure  from  you,  we  must 
 needs  know  that  we  do  not  err  in  fundamentals,  as  well  as  we  know 
 that  you  Jin  some  sort  do  not  err  in  fundamentals,  and  therefore 
 cannot  possibly  fear  the  contrar}\  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  founda- 
 tion, 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  ourselves  in  the  believing- 
 and  professing  these  errors  m  regard  of  the  smallness  of  thena  ? 
 or,  had  it  not  been  a  damnable  sin  to  do  so,  though  the  errors  in 
 themselves  were  not  damnable  ?  Had  we  not  as  plain  direction  to 
 depart  from  you  in  some  things  profitable,  as  to  adhere  to  you  in 
 things  necessary  ?  \\\  the  beginning  of  your  book,  when  it  was  for 
 your  purpose  to  have  it  so,  the  greatness  or  smallness  of  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  losing 
 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  ! 
 
 b7.  Beyond  all  this,  I  say,  that  this  which  you  say  "  in  wisdom 
 
 *  inconvenient,  yet  a  way. — Oxf. 
 
 i  we  could  not  fail  of  our  journey's  end      Oxf. 
 
 1  do  not  err  in  some  fundamentals.— Cj/. 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE  209 
 
 we  ai'e  to  do,"  is  not  only  unlawful,  but,  if  we  nill  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  ])rinciples  on  which  it  is  founded. 
 And,  therefore,  if  I  consider  what  I  do,  and  be  persuaded  that  your 
 infalhbihty  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  among 
 you  (as  I  am  well  assured  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  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  ?  K.  Because  the  church 
 hath  taught  it,  which  is  infallible.  C.  What !  Infiillibie  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  vou  know 
 what  ])oints  are  fundamental,  what  not  ?  K.  No,  and  therefore  I 
 beheve  her  in  all  things,  lest  I  should  disbelieve  her  in  funda- 
 mentals. C.  How  know  you  then  whether  this  be  a  fundamental 
 point  or  no?  K.  I  know  not.  C.  It  may  be  then  (for  aught  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  it  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  catholic.  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  catholic.  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  infalhble  in  all  her  pro* 
 posals,  be  they  foundations  or  be  they  superstructions,  or*  you 
 must  believe  all  fundamental  which  she  proposes,  or  else  you  are  no 
 catbohc.     K.  But  I  have  been  taught,  that,  "seeing  I  believed  the 
 
 *  or  else  you  must.-  Ox/. 
 P 
 
210  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 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  further,  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 
 yon  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  hath  no  reason  to  do  you  the  courtesy  of 
 believing  all  her  proposals ;  nay,  if  he  be  ignorant  what  these  funda- 
 mentals are,  he  hath  no  certain  ground  to  believe  her,  upon  her 
 authorit}^,  in  any  thing.  And  whereas  you  say,  it  can  be  no  im- 
 prudence to  err  with  the  church ;  I  say,  it  may  be  very  great  impru- 
 dence, if  the  question  be,  whether  we  should  err  with  the  present 
 church,  or  hold  true  with  God  Almighty. 
 
 bS.  ''  But  we  are,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  believe  and  obey 
 her  in  greater  things,  and  therefore  cannot  in  wisdom  suspect  her 
 credit  in  matters  of  less  moment."  Ans.  I  have  told  you  already, 
 that  this  is  falsely  to  suppose  that  we  grant  that  in  some  certain 
 points  some  certain  church  is  infallibly  assisted,  and  under  pain  of 
 damnation  to  be  obeyed  :  whereas  all  that  we  say  is  this  ;  that,  in 
 some  place  or  other,  some  church  there  shall  be,  which  shall  retain 
 all  necessaiy  truths.  Yet,  if  your  supposition  were  true,  I  would  not 
 grant  your  conclusion,  but  with  this  exception,  unless  the  matter 
 were  past  suspicion,  and  apparently  certain,  that  in  these  things  I 
 cannot  believe  God  and  believe  the  church.  For  then  I  hope  you 
 will  grant,  that  be  the  thing  of  never  so  little  mon^ent,  were  it,  for 
 instance,  but  that  St.  Paul  left  his  cloke  at  Troas,  yet  I  were  not  to 
 gratify  the  church  so  far,  as  for  her  sake  to  disbelieve  what  God 
 himself  hath  revealed. 
 
 59.  Whereas  you  say,  "  Since  we  are  undoubtedly  obliged  to  believe 
 her  in  fundamentals,  and  cannot  know  precisely  what  those  funda- 
 mentals be,  we  cannot  v/ithout  hazard  of  our  souls  leave  her  in  any 
 point;"  I  answer,  first,  that  this  argument  proceeds  upon  the  same 
 false  ground  with  the  former.  And  then,  that  I  have  tokl  you  for- 
 merly, that  you  fear  where  no  fear  is ;  and  though  we  know  not 
 precisely  just  how  much  is  fundamental,  yet  we  know  that  the 
 Scripture  contains  all  fundamentals,  and  more  too ;  and  therefore, 
 that  in  believing  that  we  believe  all  fundamentals,  and  more  too  :  and 
 consequently,  in  departing  from  you  can  be  in  no  danger  of  departing 
 from  that  which  may  prove  a  fundamental  truth ;  for  we  are  well 
 assured  that  certain  errors  can  never  prove  fundamental  truths. 
 
 60.  Whereas  you  add,  that  "  that  visible  church,  which  cannot  err 
 in  fundamentals,  propounds  all  her  definitions  without  distinction  to 
 be  believed  under  anathemas ;" — 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 
 anathemas  is  no  good  argument  that  the  propounders  conceive 
 themselves  infallible ;  but  only  that  they  conceive  the  doctrine  they 
 condemn  is  evidently  damnable.  A  i)lain  proof  hereof  is  this,  that 
 pai'ticular  councils,  nay,  particular  men,  have  been  very  liberal  of 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  211 
 
 their  anathemas  which  yet  were  never  conceived  infalhble,  either  by- 
 others  or  themselves.  If  any  man  shoukl  now  deny  Christ  to  be  the 
 Saviour  of  the  worhl,  or  deny  the  resurrection,  I  should  make  no 
 great  scruple  of  anathematiziug  his  doctrine,  and  yet  am  very  far 
 from  dreaming  of  infallibility. 
 
 61.  And  for  the  "  visible  church's  holding  it  a  point  necessary  to 
 salvation,  that  we  oeheve  she  cannot  err,"  I  know  no  such  tenet ; 
 unless  by  the  church  you  mean  the  Roman  church,  which  you  have 
 as  much  reason  to  do,  as  that  petty  king  in  Afric  hath  to  think  him- 
 self king  of  all  the  world.  And  therefore  your  telling  us,  "  If  she 
 speak  true,  what  danger  is  it  not  to  believe  her  ?  and  if  false,  that  it 
 is  not  dangerous  to  believe  her,"  is  somewhat  like  your  pope's 
 setting  your  lawyers  to  dispute  whether  Constantine's  donation  were 
 valid  or  no  ;  whereas  the  matter  of  fact  was  the  far  greater  question, 
 whether  there  were  any  such  donation,  or  rather  when  without 
 <juestion  there  was  none  such.  That  you  may  not  seem  to  delude  us 
 in  like  manner,  make  it  appear  that  the  visible  church  doth  hold  so 
 as  you  pretend !  and  then,  whether  it  be  true  or  false,  we  will  con- 
 sider afterwards  ;  but,  for  the  ])resent,  with  this  invisible  tenet  of 
 the  visible  church  we  will  trouble  ourselves  no  further. 
 
 62.  The  effect  of  the  next  argument  is  this  :  "  I  cannot  without 
 grievous  sin  disbobey  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  catholic  church,  but  only  a  cor- 
 rupt part  of  it,  declared  herself,  nor  required  our  obedience,  in  the 
 points  contested  among  us  :  this,  therefore,  is  falsely  an(i  vainly 
 supposed  here  by  ^'ou,  being  one  of  the  greatest  questions  amongst 
 us.  Then,  secondly,  that  God  can  better  inform  us  what  are  the 
 limits  of  the  church's  power  than  the  church  herself;  that  i  rh:i!i 
 the  Roman  clergy,  who  being  men  subject  to  the  same  ])assions 
 with  other  men,  why  they  should  be  thought  the  best  judges  in 
 their  own  cause,  I  do  not  well  understand  ;  but  yet  we  opi^ose 
 against  them  no  human  decisive  judges,  nor  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  followmg  any 
 sect  or  man  applying  Scriptures  against  her  doctrine,"  inasmuch  :;> 
 w'e  never  went  about  to  arrogate  to  ourselves  that  infallibilit_.  or 
 absolute  authority  which  we  take  away  from  you.  But  if  von  vniid 
 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  innmnerable  per- 
 sons, who,  forsaking  the  church  upon  pretence  of  her  errors,  have 
 failed  even  in  fundamental  points,  ought  to  deter  all  Christians  fr  -rn 
 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,  you  keep  close  to  Charyb'h.s  t 
 divers,  leav^ing  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  wor- 
 
212  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 shipping  many  gods^  to  worshipping  none ;  this  then  ought  to  deter 
 men  from  leaving  siij)erstition  or  idolatry,  for  fear  of  falling  into 
 atheism  and  impiety.  This  is  your  council  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  goodmay  come  thereon  : 
 therefore,  neither  that  you  may  avoid  a  greater  evil,  you  must  not 
 be  obstinate  in  a  certain  error,  for  fear  of  an  micertain.  What  if 
 some,  forsaking  the  chvu'ch  of  Rome,  have  forsaken  fundamental 
 truths  ?  ^Vas  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  yourself  out  of  it,  though  you  err 
 on  the  right  hand,  though  you  offend  on  the  milder  part;  for  this  is 
 the  only  way  that  leads  to  life,  andfeiv  there  he  that  find  it.  It  is 
 true,  if  we  said  there  was  no  danger  in  being  of  the  Roman  church, 
 and  there  were  danger  in  leaving  it,  it  were  madness  to  persuade  any 
 man  to  leave  it.  But  we  protest  and  proclaim  the  contrary,  and  that 
 we  have  very  little  hope  of  their  salvation,  who,  either  out  of  negli- 
 gence in  seeking  the  truth,  or  unwilhngness  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  persuade 
 men  to  be  constant  in  one  way  to  hell,  lest  haply,  if  they  leave  it, 
 they  should  fall  into  another. 
 
 04.  But  "  not  only  others,  but  even  protestants  themselves,  whose 
 example  ought  most  to  move  us,  pretending  to  reform  the  church, 
 are  come  to  affirm  that  she  perished  for  many  ages,  which  Dr. 
 Potter  cannot  deny  to  be  a  fundamental  error  against  the  article  of 
 the  Creed,  '  I  believe  the  catholic  church,'  seeing  he  affirms  Dona- 
 ti?ts  erred  fundamentally  in  confining  it  to  Africa."  To  this  I  an- 
 swer, first,  that  the  error  of  the  Donatis^ts  was  not,  that  they  held  it 
 possible  that  some  or  many  or  most  |)arts  of  Christendom  might 
 fall  away  from  Christianity,  and  that  the  church  may  lose  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,  man's  wickedness  deserving  it,  and  God's  providence 
 permitting  it,  have  prevailed,  to  the  utter  extirpation  of  Christianity, 
 upon  far  the  greater  part  of  the  world ;  and  St.  Austin,  when  he 
 was  out  of  the  heat  of  dis}>utation,  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  pos- 
 sible that  the  church,  from  a  large  extent,  might  be  contracted  to  a 
 lesser ;  nor  that  they  held  it  jjossible  to  be  reduced  to  Africa  (for 
 why  not  to  Afric  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  them- 
 selves from  the  communion  of  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 
 
DEXOMINATIOX    INFALLIBLE.  213 
 
 <lm(le  himself  from  all  other  comniimions  from  which  they  were 
 ^lividcd;  which  was  a  condition  both  unnecessary  and  unlawful  to 
 be  required,  and  therefore  the  exacting  of  it  was  directly  opposite  to 
 the  church's  Catholicism;  in  the  very  same  nature  with  their  errors 
 wlio  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  tlie  church's  universality,  by  hindering  either  men  or 
 countries  from  adjoJniug  themselves  to  it ;  ^vhich,  were  it  not  for 
 these  unnecessary  and  therefore  unlawful  conditions,  in  probability 
 vv-oidd  have  made  them  members  of  it.  And  seeing  the  ])resent 
 church  of  Rome  ])ersuades  men  they  were  as  good  (for  any  hope  of 
 salvation  they  have)  not  to  be  Christians,  as  not  to  be  Roman 
 catholics ;  beheve  nothing  at  all,  as  not  believe  all  *she  imposes 
 U])on  them  ;  be  absolutely  out  of  the  church's  communion,  as  be  out 
 of  ther  co:nmuuion,  or  be  in  any  other;  whether  Jshe  be  not  guilty 
 of  the  same  crime  with  the  Donatists,  and  those  zealots  of  the 
 Mosaical  law,  I  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of  those  that  understand 
 reason  ;  this  is  sufficient  to  show  the  vanity  of  this  argument.  But 
 I  add,  moreover,  that  you  neither  have  named  those  protestants  who 
 held  tlie  church  to  have  ])erished  for  many  ages,  who  ])erhaps 
 held  not  the  destruction,  but  the  corru{)tion  of  the  church  ;  not 
 that  the  true  church,  but  that  the  pure  church  perished  ;  or  rather, 
 that  the  church  ])erished  not  from  its  life  and  existence,  but  from  its 
 purity  and  integrity,  or  perhaj)s  from  its  splendour  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  pos- 
 sibly be  driven  out  of  the  world,  and  abolished  for  a  time  from  the 
 face  of  the  earth. 
 
 ()5.  "  But  to  accuse  the  church  of  any  error  m  faith,  is  to  say, 
 she  lost  all  faith ;  for  this  is  the  doctrine  of  catholic  divines,  that 
 one  error  in  faith  destroys  faith."  To  which  I  answer,  that  to  ac- 
 cuse the  church  of  some  error  in  faith,  is  not  to  say  she  lost  all 
 faith ;  for  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  all  catholic  divines  :  but  that  he 
 which  is  an  heretic  in  one  article  may  have  true  faith  of  other  articles. 
 And  the  contrary  is  only  said,  and  not  showed,  in  Charity  Mis- 
 taken. 
 
 66.  Ad  §  21.  Dr.  Potter  says,  "We  may  not  depart  from  the 
 church  absolutely,  and  in  all  things ;"  and  from  hence  you  conclude, 
 *'  therefore  we  may  not  de})art  from  it  in  any  thing  :"  and  this  argu- 
 ment you  call  a  demonstration.  But  a  fallacy,  a  dicta  simpliciter  ad 
 dictum  secundum  quid,  was  not  used  heretofore  to  be  called  a  demon- 
 stration. Dr.  Potter  says  not  that  you  may  not  de{)art  from  any 
 opinion  or  any  practice  of  the  church  ;  for  you  tell  us  in  this  very 
 place  that  he  says  even  the  catholic  may  err  ;  and  every  man  may 
 lawfully  depart  from  error.  He  only  says,  '"'  you  may  not  cease  to 
 be  of  the  church,  nor  de})art  from  those  things  which  make  it  so  to 
 be;"  and  from  hence  you  infer  a  nccessit)'  of  forsaking  it  in  nothing. 
 Just  as  if  you  should  argue  thus  :  You  may  not  leave  yoti  friend 
 or  brother,  therefore  you  may  not  leave  the  vice  of  your  friend  or  the 
 
 which  they  impose.—  Oxf,     which  she  — Lond. 
 t  their  communion. — OxJ.  j  they. — Oxf\ 
 
214  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 error  of  your  brother.  What  he  says  of  the  cathohc  church,  p.  75,  the 
 same  he  extends  ])resently  after  "  to  every  true,  though  never  so  cor- 
 rupted part  of  it."  And  why  do  you  not  conchule  from  hence,  that  no 
 particular  church  (according  to  his  judgment)  can  fall  into  any  error, 
 and  call  this  a  demonstration  too  ?  For  as  he  says,  p.  75,  that 
 "  there  can  be  no  just  cause  to  depart  from  the  whole  church  of 
 Christ,  no  more  than  from  Christ  himself;"  so,  p.  76,  he  tells  you, 
 that"  whosoever  forsakes  any  one  true  member  of  the  body,  forsakes 
 the  whole."  So  that  what  he  says  of  the  one,  he  says  of  the  other; 
 and  tells  you,  that  neither  universal  nor  particular  church,  so  long  as 
 they  continue  so,  may  be  forsaken :  he  means  absolutely,  no  more 
 than  Christ  himself  may  be  forsaken  absolutely  :  for  the  church  is 
 the  body  of  Christ,  and  whosoever  forsakes  either  the  body,  or  his 
 'coherence  to  any  one  part  of  it,  must  forsake  his  subordination  and 
 /elation  to  the  Head.  Therefore,  whosoever  forsakes  the  church, 
 or  any  Christian,  n>ust  forsake  Christ  himself. 
 
 6/.  But  then  he  tells  you  plainly  in  the  same  place,  "  that  it  may 
 be  lawful  and  necessary  to  depart  fiom  a  ])articular  church  in  some 
 doctrines  and  practices  :"  and  this  he  would  have  said  even  of  the 
 catholic  church,  if  there  had  been  occasion  ;  but  there  was  none. 
 For  there  he  \Aas  to  declare  and  justify  our  departure,  not  from  the 
 catholic  church,  but  the  Roman,  which  we  maintain  to  be  a  particular 
 church.  But  in  other  ])laces  you  confess  his  doctrine  to  be,  that 
 even  the  catholic  church  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental ;  \Ahicli 
 you  do  not  pretend  that  he  ever  imputed  to  Christ  himself.  And 
 therefore  you  cannot  with  any  candour  interpret  his  words  as  if  he 
 had  said.  We  may  not  forsake  the  church  in  any  thing,  no  more  than 
 Christ  himself ;  but  only  thus,  We  may  not  cease  to  be  of  the  church, 
 nor  forsake  it  absolutely  and  totally,  no  more  than  Christ  himself; 
 and  thus  we  see  sometimes  a  mountain  may  travail,  and  the  produc- 
 tion be  a  mouse. 
 
 68.  Ad  §  22.  But  *'  Dr.  Potter  either  contradicts  himself,  or 
 else  must  grant  the  church  infallible  ;  because  he  says,  *  if  we  did  not 
 differ  from  the  Roman,  we  could  not  agree  with  the  catholic  ;'  which 
 saying  su})poses  the  catholic  church  cannot  err."  Answ.  This 
 argument,  to  give  it  the  right  name,  is  an  obscure  and  intricate 
 nothing  :  and  to  make  it  appear  so,  let  us  suppose,  in  contradiction 
 to  your  supposition,  either  that  the  catholic  church  may  err,  but- 
 doth  not,  but  that  the  Roman  actually  doth  ;  or  that  the  catholic 
 church  doth  err  in  some  few  things,  but  that  the  Roman  errs  in  many 
 more.  And  is  it  not  apparent  in  both  these  cases  (which  yet  both 
 suppose  the  church's  fallibility)  a  man  may  truly  say,  Unless  I  dissent 
 in  some  opinions  from  the  Roman  church,  I  cannot  agree  with  the 
 catholic ;  either,  therefore,  you  must  retract  your  imjnitation  laid 
 upon  Dr.  Potter,  or  do  that  which  you  condemn  in  him,  and  be 
 driven  to  say,  that  the  same  man  may  hold  some  errors  ^^ith  the 
 church  of  Rome,  and  at  the  same  time  with  the  catholic  church  not 
 hold  but  condemn  them.  For  otherwise,  in  neither  of  these  cases 
 is  it  possible  for  the  same  man,  at  the  same  time,  to  agree  both  with 
 the  Roman  and  the  catholic. 
 
 (d\).  In  all  these  texts  of  Scripture,  which  are  here  ailegcd  in  this 
 last  section  of  this  chapter,  or  in  any  one  of  them,  or  in  any  other 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  215 
 
 tloth  God  say  clearly  and  plainly,  "  The  bishop  of  Rome,  and  that 
 society  of  Christians  which  adheres  to  him,  shall  be  ever  the  in- 
 fallible 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, 
 sliould  we  be  any  thing  the  nearer  for  him  to  an  end  of  contentions  ? 
 yay  rather,  would  not  the  dissensions  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 
 doth  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 
 seemg,  lastly,  he  hath  not  told  us  plainly,  no,  not  at  all  who  it  is ; 
 is  it  not  evident  he  hath  appointed  none  ?  Objection.  But  (you  will 
 say  perhaps)  if  it  be  granted  once,  that  some  church  of  one  denomi- 
 nation 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.  Answer.  Yes,  the  primitive  and  the  apostolic  church  pre- 
 tends to  be  so.  That  assures  us,  that  the  Spirit  ivas  promised  and 
 given  unto  them,  to  lead  them  into  all  saving  truth,  that  ihey  might 
 lead  others.  Obj.  But  that  chm-ch  is  not  now  in  the  world,  and 
 how  then  can  it  pretend  to  be  the  guide  of  faith  ?  Answ.  It  is  now 
 in  the  world  sufficient  to  be  our  guide ;  not  by  the  persons  of  those 
 men  that  were  members  of  it,  but  by  their  \M'itings,  which  do  plainly 
 teach  us  what  truth  they  were  led  into,  and  so  lead  us  into  the  same 
 truth.  Obj.  But  these  A^Titings  were  the  wi-itings  of  some  particular 
 men,  and  not  of  the  church  of  those  times  :  how  then  doth  that 
 church  guide  us  by  these  waitings  ?  Now  these  places  show  that 
 a  church  is  to  be  om*  guide,  therefore  they  cannot  be  so  avoided. 
 Answ.  If  you  regard  the  conception  and  production  of  these  wi'itings, 
 they  were  the  writings  of  particular  men ;  but  if  you  regard  the  re- 
 ception 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  directed  by  God  :  as  a  statute, 
 though  penned  by  some  one  man,  yet  being  ratified  by  the  parlia- 
 ment, is  called  the  act,  not  of  that  man,  but  of  the  parliament. 
 Obj.  But  the  words  seem  cleaily  enough  to  prove  that  the  church, 
 the  present  church  of  every  age,  is  universally  infallible.  Aiisiv. 
 For  my  part  I  know  I  am  as  willing  and  desirous  that  the  bishop  or 
 church  of  Home  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  w^ould  have  them.  As  some  say  the  manna, 
 wherewith  the  Israelites  were  fed  in  the  wilderness,  had  in  every 
 man's  mouth  that  very  taste  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. 
 
216  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 70.  Not  the  first,  for  the  church  may  err,  and  yet  the  gates  of 
 hell  not  prevcdl  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  prove  it.  Neither  is  our  denial  without  reason ;  for 
 seeing  you  do  and  must  grant  that  a  particular  chm-ch  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  a  true 
 universal  ? 
 
 71.  Not  the  second  or  third ;  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;  which  you  confess  to  be  so  unquestioned  and  certain,  that 
 you  are  offended  with  Dr.  Potter  for  offering  to  prove  it.  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  irre- 
 sistibly," so  that  he  may  learn  it  if  he  will,  not  so  that  he  must  and 
 shall  whether  he  will  or  no.  Now  who  can  ascertain  me  that  the 
 Spirit's  teaching  is  not  of  this  nature  ?  or  how  can  you  possibly  re- 
 concile it  with  yoiu'  doctrine  of  freewill  in  believing,  if  it  be  not  of 
 this  nature  ?  Besides,  the  word  in  the  original  is  o^r)yr,ffu,  which  sig- 
 nifies, 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  wilhngly  leave  it  ?  And  to  what 
 purpose  does  God  complain  so  often  and  so  earnestly  of  some  that 
 had  eyes  to  see,  and  wou.d  not  see ;  that  stopjjed  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  kinto  his  own,  and 
 his  own  received  him  not :  that  light  came  into  the  world,  and  men 
 loved  darkness  more  than  light  j  to  what  purpose  should  he  wonder 
 so  few  believed  his  report ,  and  that  to  so  few  his  arm  was  revealed  j 
 and  that  ivhen  he  comes  he  should  find  no  faith  upon  earth,  if  his  out- 
 ward 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 
 chm-ch  not  learn ;  God  may  lead,  and  the  church  be  refractory  and 
 not  follow.  And,  indeed,  Vvho  can  doubt,  that  hath  not  his  eyes 
 veiled  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  public 
 prayers  or  thanksgiving,  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  it,  but  by 
 »2ason  and  common  sense. "  And  so  for  the  communion  in  both 
 kinds,  who  can  deny  but  they  are  taught  it  by  our  Saviour  (John  vi.) 
 m  these  words,  according  to  most  of  yom-  own  expositions  :  Unless 
 you  eat  thefiesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  have  n« 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  217 
 
 life  in  you.  (Tf  our  Saviour  speaks  there  of  the  sacrament,  as  to 
 them  he  doth,  because  they  conceive  he  doth  so.)  For  though  they 
 may  pretend,  that  receiving  in  one  kind  they  receive  tlie  blood  to- 
 gether with  the  body,  yet  they  can  ^vith  no  face  pretend  that  they 
 drink  it;  and  so  obey  not  our  Saviour's  injunction  according  to  the 
 letter,  which  yet  they  *'  profess  is  hterally  always  to  be  obeyed,  unless 
 some  impiety  or  some  absurdity  forces  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  St.  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.  Tliis  a  man  that  is  to  examine  himself,  is 
 every  man  that  can  do  it ;  as  is  confessed  on  all  hands.  And  there- 
 fore 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 
 acknowledge  St,  Paul's  Epistles  and  St.  John's  Gospel  to  be  the 
 word  of  God,  one  would  think  should  not  deny  but  that  they  are 
 taugut  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  tiiught  by  the  Spirit. 
 
 72.  But  all  this  I  have  spoken  u})ou  a  supposition  only,  and 
 showed  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  Roue  by  name),  yet  no  certainty  of  her 
 universal  infallibihty  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  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  (chap.  xiv.  25).  But  the 
 Comforter  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 
 remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  told  you  (ver.  26).  ^Vho  are  they 
 to  whom  he  siys,  I  go  away,  and  come  again  unto  you  j  and,  I  have 
 told  you  before  it  come  to  pass  F  (ver  28,  29.)  You  have  been  with 
 me  from  the  beginning  (chap.  xv.  2/).  And  again,  These  thivgs  I 
 have  told  you,  that  when  the  time  shall  come  you  may  remember  that 
 I  told  you  of  them :  and  these  thinv[s  1  said  not  unto  you  at  the 
 beginning,  because  I  was  with  you  (chap,  xvi,  4).  And,  Because  1 
 said  these  things  unto  you,  sorrow  hath  filed  your  hearts  (ver.  6). 
 Lastl}^  who  are  they  of  whom  he  saith  (ver.  12),  /  have  many  things 
 to  say  unto  you,  but  you  cannot  bear  them  now  f  Do  not  all  these 
 cu'cumstances  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  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 
 
218  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 the  beginning  ?  Was  your  church  filled  with  jsorrow  upon  the  men- 
 tioning of  Clirist's  departure  '  Or,  lastly,  did  he,  or  could  he  have 
 said  to  yoiu*  church,  which  then  was  not  extant,  /  have  yet  many 
 tJiings  to  say  unto  you,  hut  ye  cannot  hear  them  now  ?  as  he  speaks 
 in  the  12th  verse  immediately  before  the  words  by  you  quoted.  And 
 then  goes  on,  Howbeit  when  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  iviJl guide 
 you  into  all  truth.  Is  it  not  the  same  you  he  speaks  to  in  the  13th 
 verse  and  that  he  speaks  to  in  the  14th  ?  and  is  it  not  apparent  to 
 any  one  that  hath  but  half  an  eye,  that  in  the  13th  verse  he  speaks 
 only  to  them  that  then  were  with  him  ?  Besides,  in  the  very  text 
 by  you  alleged,  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  show  you  things 
 to  come.  Now  your  church  (for  aught  I  could  ever  understand) 
 doth  not  so  much  as  pretend  to  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  and  know- 
 ledge 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  youv 
 writers  of  controversies,  when  they  entreat  of  this  argument,  cite 
 this  text  perpetually  by  halves  ;  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  is  most  ridiculous,  that 
 when  our  Savioiu"  said.  He  will  teach  you,  &c.,  and  he  will  show  you, 
 &c.,  he  meant  one  you  in  the  former  clause,  and  another  you  in  the 
 latter. 
 
 73.  Ohj.  But  this  is  to  confine  God's  Spirit  to  the  apostles  only, 
 or  to  the  disciples  that  then  were  present  with  him  :  which  is 
 directly  contrary  to  many  places  of  Scripture.  Ansiv.  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  easy  to  conceive 
 a  difference  between  confining  the  Spirit  of  God  to  them,  and  con- 
 fining the  promises  made  in  this  place  to  them.  God  may  do  many 
 things  which  he  doth  not  promise  at  all ;  much  more,  which  he 
 doth  not  promise  in  such  or  such  a  place. 
 
 74.  Ohj.  But  it  is  promised  in  the  14th  chapter,  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  sup- 
 poses of  necessity  the  existence  of  either.  Therefore  the  promise 
 was  not  made  to'them  onlv  in  their  persons,  but  by  them  to  the 
 church,  which  was  to  abide  for  ever.— Jwsw.  Your  conclusion  is,  not 
 to  them  only ;  but  vour  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  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  restramed,  and 
 accommodated  to  the  subject  here  entreated  of ;  anil  that  it  signifies 
 not  eternally,  without  end  of  time,  hut  ^perpetually,  without  interrup- 
 tion, for  the  time  of  their  lives  :  so  that  the  force  and  sense  of  the 
 words  is,  that  they  shall  never  want  the  Spirit's  assistance  in  the 
 performance  of  their  functions ;  and  that  the  Spirit  would  not,  (as 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  219 
 
 Clirist  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  then-  lives,  which  is  man's  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  pver,"  without  ever  dreaming  of  the  eternity  either  of 
 the  thing  or  persons.  And  then  in  Scripture,  it  not  only  will  bear, 
 but  requii-es  this  sense  very  frequently  ;  as  Exod.  xxi.  6 ;  Dent.  xv. 
 17,  His  master  shall  hore  his  ear  through  with  an  awl,  and  he  shall 
 serve  him  for  ever :  Psa.  lii.  9,  /  will  praise  thee  for  crcr :  Psa. 
 Iki.  4, 1  ivill  abide  in  thy  tabernacle  for  ever:  Psa.  cxix.  Ill,  Thy 
 testimonies  have  I  taken  as  mine  heritage  for  ever :  and,  lastly,  ia 
 the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  He  therefore  departed  from  thee  for  a  time, 
 that  thou  shouldst  receive  him  for  ever. 
 
 75.  And  thus,  I  presume,  I  have  showed  sufficiently  that  this  for 
 ever  hinders  not  but  that  the  promise  may  be  appropriated  to  the 
 apostles,  as  by  many  other  cncumstances  I  have  evinced  it  must  be. 
 But  what  now,  if  the  place  produced  by  you,  as  a  main  pillar  of  your: 
 church's  infallibility,  prove  upon  trial  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  lirst  hearing,  and  not  far  from  a  prodigy.  And  I 
 confess,  as  you  here,  in  this  place,  and  generally  all  your  writers  of 
 controversy,  by  whom  this  text  is  urged,  order  the  matter,  it  is  verv 
 much  disabled  to  do  any  service  against  you  in  this  question  :  for 
 with  a  bold  sacrilege,  and  horrid  impiety,  somewhat  like  Procrustes* 
 cruelty,  you  perpetually  cut  of  the  head  and  foot,  the  beginning  and 
 the  end  of  it ;  and  presenting  your  confidents  ( who  usually  read  no. 
 more  of  the  Bible  than  is  alleged  by  you)  only  these  words,  /  will  ask 
 my  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Paraclete,  that  he  may 
 abide  with  y^^u  for  ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  conceal,  in  the 
 mean  time,  the  words  before  and  the  words  a^ter ;  that  so  the  pro- 
 mise of  God's  Spirit  may  seem  to  be  absolute,  whereas  it  is  indeed, 
 most  clearly  and  expressly  conditional,  being  both,  in  the  words 
 before,  restrained  to  those  only  that  love  God  and  keep  his  command- 
 ments, and,  in  the  words  after,  liatly  denied  to  all  whom  the  Scrip- 
 ture styles  by  the  name  of  the  world  ;  that  is,  as  the  very  antithesis, 
 gives  us  plainly  to  understand,  to  all  wicked  and  worldly  men. 
 Behold  the  place  entire,  as  it  is  set  down  in  your  o^ati  Bible :  If  ye 
 love  me,  keep  my  commandments ;  and  I  ivill  ask  rny  Father,  and  he- 
 shall  give  you  another  Paraclete,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  for 
 ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  whom  the  world  cannot  receive.  Now 
 from  the  place  thus  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  supposition,  that  your 
 popes  are  infallilile  in  confirming  the  decrees  of  general  councils : 
 we  can  have  no  certainty  hereof,  l)ut  upon  this  su^jposition,  that  the 
 Spirit  of  truth  is  promised  to  *them  for  ttheir  direction  in  this, 
 work  :  and  of  this  again  v>'e  can  have  no  certainty  but  upon 
 supposal,  that  +they  perform  the  condition  whereunto  the  pro- 
 mise of  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  expressly  hmited,  viz.  that  §they 
 *  him.— Oxf.  t  bis.— Oa/.  I  he.—Oxf.  j  he.— Oa^. 
 
220  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 love  God  and  keep  his  commandments :  and  of  this,  finall}^  not 
 knomng  the  pope's  heart,  we  can  have  no  certainty  at  all;  therefore, 
 from  the  first  to  the  last,  we  can  have  no  certainty  at  all  of  your 
 church's  infallibility.  This  is  my  first  argument.  "  From  this  place 
 another  follows,  which  ^^^ll  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  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  the  popes  confirm,  nor  of 
 the  church's  infallibility,  which  is  guided  by  these  decrees :  but  many 
 of  the  Roman  see,  even  by  the  confession  of  the  most  zealous  de- 
 fenders of  it,  were  such  men :  therefore  the  Spirit  of  tmth  is  not 
 here  promised,  but  denied  them ;  and  consequently,  we  can  have 
 no  certainty,  neither  of  the  decrees  which  they  confirm,  nor  of  the 
 church's  infallibility,  which  guides  herself  by  these  decrees. 
 
 7Q.  You  may  take  as  much  time  as  you  think  fit  to  ansvv'er  these 
 arguments.  In  the  meaa  while  I  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the 
 next  text  alleged  for  this  purpose  by  you,  out  of  St.  Paul,  1st  Epistle 
 to  Timothy,  where  he  saith,  as  you  say,  the  church  ^s  the  2}illar  and 
 ground  of  truth  j  but  the  truth  is,  you  are  somewhat  too  bold  with 
 St.  Paul ;  for  he  saith  not  in  forma!  terms  what  you  make  him  say, 
 the  church  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth  j  neither  is  it  certain 
 that  he  means  so ;  for  it  is  neither  impossible  nor  improbable,  that 
 these  words,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth,  may  have  reference,  not 
 to  the  church,  but  to  Timothy,  the  sense  of  the  place,  that  thou 
 mayest  know  how  to  behave  thyself,  as  a  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
 truth,  in  the  church  of  God,  'which  is  the  house  of  the  lioing  God  : 
 which  exposition  offers  no  violence  at  all  to  the  words,  but  only 
 supposes  an  elhpsis  of  the  ])article  ar,  in  the  Greek  very  ordinary. 
 Neither  wants  it  some  likelihood,  that  St.  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  oi pillars  j  ratiier  than  having 
 called  the  church  a  house,  to  call  it  presently  a  pillar  j  ^vhich  may 
 seem  somewhat  heterogeneous.  Yet  if  you  will  needs  have  St. 
 Paul  refer  this  not  to  Timoth}-,  but  to  the  church,  I  will  not  contend 
 about  it  any  further,  than  to  say,  })ossibiy  it  may  be  otheriAase. 
 But  then,  secondly,  I  am  to  put  you  in  mind,  that  the  church  which 
 St.  Paul  here  speaks  of,  was  that  in  which  Timothy  conversed,  and 
 that  was  a  particular  church,  and  not  the  Roman  ;  and  such  you  will 
 not  have  to  be  universally  infalhble. 
 
 77'  Thirdly,  if  we  grant  you,  out  of  courtesy  (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  necessit}',  but  what  it  should  be. 
 Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,  saith  our  Saviour  to  his  disciples;  not 
 that  this  quality  was  inseparaljie  from  their  persons,  but  because  it 
 was  their  office  to  be  so  For  if  tliey  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  have  lost  his  savour,  wherewith 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALIJBLE.  221 
 
 shall  it  he  salted  f  It  is  thenceforth  good  for  nothing,  but  to  be 
 cast  forth,  and  to  be  trodden  underfoot.  So  the  church  may  be  by 
 duty  the  pillar  and  ground ;  that  is,  tlie  teacher  of  truth,  of  all 
 truth,  not  only  necessaiy,  but  ])vofitable  to  salvation ;  and  5''et 
 she  may  neglect  and  violate  this  duty,  aud  be  in  fact  the  teacher  of 
 some  error. 
 
 78.  Fourthly  and  lastly,  if  we  deal  most  liberatty  with  you,  and 
 grant  that  the  apostle  here  speaks  of  the  catholic  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  show,  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  always  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  churcli  may  be  still  a  church,  though  it  be 
 defective  in  some  profitable  truth.  And  as  a  man  may  be  a  man 
 that  hath  some  biles  and  blotches  on  his  body;  so  the  church  may 
 be  the  church,  though  it  have  many  corruptions  botli  in  doctrine  and 
 practice. 
 
 79  And  thus  you  see  we  are  at  Uberty  from  the  former  places  ; 
 having  showed  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  tie  us  fast  enough  :  the  words  are.  He  gave 
 some  apostles;  and  some,  prophtts,  &;c.,  to  the  consummation  of 
 saints,  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  &c.,  until  ice  all  meet  in  the 
 unity  offuith,  &c.  :  that  we  be  not  hereafter  children,  wavering,  and 
 carried  up  and  down  ivith  every  wind  of  doctrine.  Out  of  which 
 words  this  is  the  only  argument  which  you  collect,  or  I  can  collect 
 for  yon  : 
 
 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  preserve  un. ty  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  con- 
 firmed, that  it  is  plainly  confuted  by  the  place  alleged.  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  saintSy 
 doing  the  ivork  of  the  ministry,  and  edifying  the  body  of  Christ, 
 was  the  means  to  bring  those  (which  are  there  spoken  of,  be  they 
 who  they  vdli)  to  the  unity  of  faith,  and  to  perfection  in  Christ, 
 that  they  rniglit  not  be  ivavering,  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. 
 
222  NO    CHURCH    OF   OXE 
 
 80.  Pei'adventure  by  he  gave,  you  conceive  it  to  be  understood. 
 Tie  promised  that  he  would  give  unto  the  vorld's  end.     But  what 
 reason  have  you  for  this  conceit  ?     Can  you  show  that  the  word 
 J'S^^'xs  hath  this  signification   in  other  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  broken   his  })romise.      Neither  may  you   i)retend,   that  the 
 "pastors  and  doctors  were  the  same  with  the  apostles,  and  pro- 
 phets, and  evangelists,   and   therefore   having  pastors  and  doctors 
 you  have  all."     For  it  is  apparent,  that  by  tliese  names  are  denoted 
 several  orders  of  men,  clearly  distinguished  and  diversified  by  the 
 original  texts ;  but  m-uch  more  plainly  by  your  own  translations, 
 for  so  you  read  it;  some,  apostles;  and  some,  prophets  j  and  other 
 some,  evangelists  ;  and  other  some,  pastors  and  doctors  :  and  yet 
 more  plainly  in  the  parallel  place,   1  Cor.  xii.,  to  which  we  are  re- 
 ferred by  your  vulgar  translation,  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church, 
 first  apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly  teachers  j  therefore  this 
 subterfuge  is  stopped  against  you.     Obj.  But  how  can  they  which 
 died  in  the  first  age  keep  us  in  the  unity,  and  guard  us  from  error, 
 that  live  novr,  })erhaps  in  the  last  ?     This  seems  to  be  all  one  as  if 
 a  man  should  say,  that  Alexander  or  Julius  Cicsar  should  quiet  a 
 mutiny  in  the  king  of  Spain's  army.     Answ.  I  hope  you  will  grant, 
 that  Hippocrates,  and  Galen,  and  Euclid,  and  Aristotle,  and  Sallust, 
 and  Ca?sar,  and  Livy,  were  dead  many  ages  since  ;  and  yet  that  we 
 are  now  preserved  from  error  by  them,  in  a  great  part  of  i)hysic,  of 
 geometry,  of  logic,  of  the  Roman  stor}'.     But  what  if  these  men 
 had   writ  by   Divine  inspiration,  and  writ  complete  bodies  of  the 
 •sciences  they  professed,  and  writ  them  plainly  and  perspicuously ; 
 you  would  then  have  granted,  I  believe,  tliat  their  works  had  been 
 sufiicient  to  keep  us  from  error  and  from  dissension  in  these  mat- 
 ters.    And  why  then  should   it   be  incongruous  to  say,  that  the 
 O-postles,  and  prophets,  and  evangelists,  and  pastors,  and  doctors, 
 Vv  hich  Christ  gave  upon  his  ascension,  by  their  writing-s,  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  chiefest  of  you*  acknowledge, 
 "  contain  immediately  all  the  principal  and  fundamental  points  of 
 Christianity,"  referring  us  to  the  church   and  tradition    only  for 
 «ome  minute  particularities.     But  tell  me,  I  praj^,  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  ?     Pei'adventure  you  will  say.  Their 
 decrees  are,  but  not  their  persons  ;  but  you  will  not  deny,  1  hope, 
 that  you  owe  your  unity  and  freedom  from  error  to  the  persona 
 
 •  Perron. 
 
DEXOMINATiOX    INFALLIBLE.  223 
 
 that  made  these  decrees ;  neither  will  you  deny,  that  the  Avritings 
 which  they  have  left  behind  them  are  sufficient  for  this  purpose.  And 
 why  may  not  then  the  apostles'  writings  be  as  fit  for  such  purpose  as 
 the  decrees  of  your  doctors  ?  Surely  theu-  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  ^ot  so  certain.  Was  the  Holy  Ghost  then  unwilling  or 
 unable  to  direct  them  so,  that  then-  writing  should  be  fit  and  suffi- 
 cient to  attain  the  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  wi'itings  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  trom  all  pernicious  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  doctrine;"  I  answer,  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  church,  nay,  that  3'our  church,  is  universally  infal- 
 lible. But  we  that  have  no  such  end,  no  such  desires,  but  are 
 wilhng  to  leave  all  men  to  their  liberty,  provided  they  will  not 
 improve  it  to  a  tyranny  over  others,  v.e  find  it  no  difficulty  to 
 discern  between  dedit  and  promisit,  he  gave  at  his  ascension,  and  he 
 promised  to  the  world's  end.  Besides,  though  you  whom  it  concerns 
 may  haply  flatter  yourselves  that  you  have  not  only  pastors  and 
 doctors,  but  prophets,  and  apostles,  and  evanrje lists,  and  those 
 distinct  from  the  former,  still  in  your  church ;  yet  we  that  are 
 disinterested  persons  cannot  but  smile  at  these  strange  imagina- 
 tions. Lastly,  though  you  are  apt  to  think  yom'selves  such  neces- 
 sary instruments  for  all  good  purposes,  and  that  nothing  can  be 
 well  done  unless  you  do  it ;  that  no  unity  or  constancy  in  rehgion 
 can  be  maintained,  but  inevitably  Christendom  must  fall  to  ruin  and 
 confusion,  unless  you  support  it ;  yet  we  that  are  indifierent  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  yours  or 
 of  any  church,  but  the  apostles,  and  prophets,  and  evangelists,  &c., 
 which  Christ  gave  upon  his  ascension,  were  designed  by  him  for  tlie 
 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  perverseness  of  the  subjects  they  have  to  deal  with  ; 
 who,  if  they  wouH  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  not  narrower 
 now  than  Christ  left  it,  his  yoke  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  itself  destructive 
 and  exclusive  from  salvation  now,  which  was  not  then  ;  if  instead  of 
 being  zealous   papists,   earnest    Calvinists,  rigid    Lutherans,  they 
 
224  NO    CHURCH    OF    ONE 
 
 would  become  themselves,  and  be  content  that  others  should  bo, 
 plain  and  honest  Christians  ;  if  all  men  would  believe  the  Scripture, 
 and  freeing  themselves  from  prejudice  and  i)assion,  would  since/ely 
 endeavour  to  find  the  true  sense  of  it,  and  live  accor(hng  to  it,  and 
 require  no  more  of  others  but  to  do  so ;  nor  denying  their  com- 
 munion to  any  that  do  so,  would  so  order  their  public  service  of 
 God,  that  all  which  do  so  may  without  scruple,  or  hypocrisy,  or 
 protestation  against  any  part  of  it,  join  with  them  in  it :  who  doth 
 not  see,  that  seeing  (as  we  suppose  here,  and  shall  prove  hereafter) 
 all  necessary  truths  arc  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  heresy  would  be 
 bjuiished  the  world,  and  those  wretched  contentions  which  now 
 rend  and  tear  in  })ieces,  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  persuade  myself  that  I 
 shall  phiinly  siiow,  that  the  most  vehement  accusers  arc  the  greatest 
 oiienders,  and  that  they  are  indeed,  at  this  time,  the  greatest 
 schismatics  who  make  the  way  to  heaven  narrower,  the  yoke  of 
 Clu'ist  heavier,  the  differences  of  faith  greater,  the  conditions  of 
 ecclesiastical  communion  harder  and  stricter,  than  they  vvere  made 
 at  the  begmning  by  Christ  and  his  ajjostles  ;  they  who  talk  of  unity, 
 but  aim  at  tvranny,  and  will  have  peace  with  none  but  with  their 
 slaves  and  vassals.  In  the  mean  while,  though  I  have  showed 
 how  unity  of  faith,  and  unity  of  charity  too,  may  be  preserved  with- 
 out your  church's  infallibility,  yet  seeing  you  moclestly  conclude 
 from  hence,  not  that  your  church  is,  but  only  seems  to  be,  uni- 
 versally intVdlible,  meaning  to  yourself,  of  which  you  are  a  better  judge 
 than  I ;  therefore  I  willingly  grant  your  conclusion,  and  proceed. 
 
 82.  Whereas  you  say,  that  "  Dr.  Potter  limits  those  promises  and 
 privileges  to  fundamental  points,"  the  truth  is,  with  some  of  them 
 he  meddles  not  all,  neither  doth  his  adversary  give  him  occasion ; 
 not  with  those  out  of  the  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  to  the  Ephesians. 
 To  the  rest  he  gives  other  answer  besides  this. 
 
 S3.  But  the  words  of  Scripture  by  you  alleged  "  are  universal, 
 and  mention  no  such  restraint  to  fundamentals  as  Dr.  Potter  applies 
 to  them."  I  answer,  that  of  the  live  texts  which  you  allege,  four 
 are  indefinite,  and  only  one  universal,  and  that,  you  confess,  is  to 
 be  restrained,  and  are  ofl'ended  with  Dr.  Potter  for  going  about  to 
 prove  it.  And  whereas  you  say  they  mention  no  restraint,  intimating 
 that  therefore  they  are  not  to  be  restrained,  I  tell  you  this  is  no 
 good  consequence ;  for  it  may  appear  out  of  the  matter  and  circum- 
 stances that  they  are  to  be  understood  in  a  restrained  sense,  notwith- 
 standing no  restraint  be  mentioned.  That  place  quoted  by  St» 
 Paul,  and  apphed  by  him  to  our  Saviour,  tie  hath  put  all  things 
 under  his  feet,  mentions  no  exception;  yet  St.  Paul  tells  us,  not 
 only  that  it  is  true  or  certain,  but  it  is  manifest  that  He  is  excepted 
 which  did  put  all  things  under  him. 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  225 
 
 84.  But  your  interpretation  is  better  than  Dr.  Potter's,  because 
 it  is  literal.  I  answer,  his  is  literal  as  well  as  yours  :  and  you  are 
 mistaken  if  you  think  a  restrained  sense  may  not  be  a  hteral  sense  ; 
 for  to  restrained,  literal  is  not  opposed,  but  unlimited  or  absolute  j 
 and  to  literal  is  not  opposed  restrained,  hnt  figurative. 
 
 85.  Whereas  you  say,  "  Dr.  Potter's  brethren,  rejecting  his  limi- 
 tation, restrain  the  mentioned  texts  to  the  apostles,"  implymg  hereby 
 a  contrariety  between  them  and  him ;  I  answer,  so  doth  Dr.  Potter 
 restraui  all  of  them,  which  he  speaks  of,  in  the  pages  by  you  quoted, 
 to  the  apostles,  in  the  direct  and  primary  sense  of  the  words ; 
 though  he  tells  you  there,  the  words  in  a  more  restrained  sense  are 
 true,  being  understood  of  the  church  universal. 
 
 86.  As  for  your  pretence,  that  "to  find  the  meaning  of  those 
 places,  you  confer  divers  texts,  you  consult  originals,  you  examine 
 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  doctrine  is)  you  give  not  yourselves  liberty  of 
 judgment  in  the  use  of  these  means  ;  if  you  make  not  yourselves 
 judges  of,  but  only  advocates  for,  the  doctrine  of  your  church,  re- 
 fusing to  see  what  these  means  show  you,  if  it  any  way  make  against 
 the  doctrine  of  your  church,  though  it  be  as  clear  as  the  light  at 
 noon.  Remove  prejudice,  even  the  balance,  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  God's  assistance,  and  as  sure  as  God  is  true,  you  shall 
 be  led  into  all  necessary  truth. 
 
 87.  Whereas  you  say,  "  you  neither  do,  nor  have  any  possible 
 means  to  agree,  as  long  as  you  are  left  to  yourselves  ;"  the  first  is 
 very  true,  that  while  you  differ  you  do  not  agree.  But  for  the 
 second,  that  you  have  no  possible  means  of  agreement  as  long  as 
 you  are  left  to  yourselves,  i.  e.  to  your  own  reasons  and  judgment, 
 this  sure  is  very  false,  neither  do  you  offer  any  proof  of  it,  unless  you 
 intend  this,  that  you  do  not  agree,  for  a  proof  that  you  cannot ; 
 which  sure  is  no  good  consequence,  nor  half  so  good  as  this  which  I 
 oppose  against  it.  Dr.  Potter  and  I,  by  the  use  of  these  means  by 
 you  mentioned,  do  agree,  concerning  the  sense  of  these  places, 
 therefore  there  is  a  possible  means  of  agreement ;  and  therefore, 
 you  also,  if  you  would  use  the  same  means,  with  the  same  minds, 
 might  agree  so  far  as  it  is  necessary,  and  it  is  not  necessary  that  you 
 should  agree  further.  Or  if  there  be  no  possible  means  to  agree 
 about  the  sense  of  these  texts,  whilst  we  are  left  to  ourselves,  then 
 sure  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  agree  in  your  sense  of  them, 
 which  was,  that  the  church  is  universally  infallible.  For  if  it  were 
 possible  for  us  to  agree  in  this  sense  of  them,  then  it  were  possible 
 for  us  to  agree.  And  Avhy  then  said  you  of  the  selfsame  texts  but 
 in  the  page  next  before,  "  These  words  seem  clearly  enough  to 
 prove  that  the  church  is  universally  infallible."  A  strange  forget- 
 fulness,  that  the  same  man,  almost  in  the  same  breath,  should  say 
 of  the  same  words,  they  seem  clearly  enough  to  prove  such  a  con- 
 clusion true,  and  yet  that  three  indifferent  men,  all  presumed  to  be 
 lovers  of  truth,  and  industrious  searchers  of  it,  should  have  no 
 possible  means,  while  they  follow  their  own  reason,  to  agree  in  the 
 truth  of  this  conclusion  ! 
 
226  NO    CHURCH    OP    ONE  ' 
 
 '88.  Whereas  you  say,  that  "it  were  great  impiety  to  imagine 
 that  God,  the  lover  of  souls,  hath  left  no  certain  infalhble  means  to 
 decide  both  this  and  all  other  differences  arising  about  the  inter- 
 pretation of  Scripture,  or  upon  any  other  occasion,"  I  desire  you  to 
 take  heed  you  commit  not  an  imjiiety  in  making  more  impieties  than 
 God's  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  salva- 
 tion. Deus  non  deficit  in  necessariis,  nee  redundat  in  superfluis : 
 SO  Dr.  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  wliole  discourse.  So  little  care  you  tak  e 
 how  shght  your  foundations  are,  so  yom'  building  make  a  fair  show  ; 
 and  as  httle  care,  how  you  commit  those  faults  yourself  which  you 
 condemn  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  Dr.  Potter,  "  why  the  questions  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  it  not  rather  by  plain  Scripture  indeterminable,  or 
 by  any  rule  of  faith  ?"  So  then  when  you  say,  "  it  were  great  im- 
 piety to  imagine  that  God  hath  not  left  infallible  means  to  decide  all 
 differences,"  I  may  answer.  It  seems  you  do  not  believe  yourself. 
 For  in  this  controversy,  which  is  of  as  high  consequence  as  anj'  can 
 be,  you  seem  to  be  doubtful  whether  there  be  any  means  to  determine 
 it.  On  the  other  side,  when  you  ask  Dr.  Potter,  "  who  assured  him 
 that  there  is  any  means  to  determine  this  controversy  ?  "  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  show  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  mfallible  means  to  decide  all  differences, 
 I  beseech  you  name  them.  You  say,  "  it  is  to  consult  and  hear 
 God's  visible  church  with  submissive  acknowledgment  of  her  infalli- 
 bility." But  suppose  the  difference  be  (as  here  it  is),  whether  your 
 church  be  infalhble,  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 
 controversy,  and  therefore  may  be  as  fit  to  decide  others.  There- 
 fore, to  avoid  this,  you  run  into  a  most  ridiculous  absurdity,  and  tell 
 us,  that  this  difference  also,  whether  the  church  be  infalhble,  as  well 
 
DENOMINATION    INFALLIBLE.  227 
 
 as  others,  must  be  agreed  by  "  a  submissive  acknowledgment  of  iLe 
 church's  infalhbihty;  "  as  if  you  should  have  said,  "My  brethren, 
 I  perceive  this  is  a  great  contention  among  you,  whether  the  Roman 
 church  be  infallible  ?     If  you  will  follow  my  advice,  I  will  show  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  contro- 
 versies, 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  supreme  head  of  the  church ;  that 
 the  substance  of  the  bread  and  w^ine  in  the  sacrament  is  turned  into 
 the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  that  the  communion  is  to  be  given  to 
 laymen  but  in  one  kind ;  that  pictures  may  be  worshipped ;  that 
 saints   are  to  be   invocated ;   and  so  in  the  rest :   and  then  your 
 diiferences  about  the  pope's  supremacy,  transubstantiation,  and  all 
 the  rest,  will  speedily  be  ended.     If  you  say,  the  advice  is  good  iu 
 this,  but  not  in  other  cases,  I  must  request  you  not  to  expect  always 
 to  be  believed  upon  your  word,  but  to  show  us  some  reason  wdiy  any 
 one  thing,  namely  the  church's  infaliibihty,  is  fit  to  prove  itself;  and 
 any  other  thing,  by  name  the  pope's  supremacy,  or  transubstantiation, 
 is  not  as  fit  ?     Or  if  for  shame  you  will  at  length  confess,  that  the 
 church's  infallibility  is  not  fit  to  decide  this  difference,  whether  the 
 chm-ch  be  infalhble,  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  church's  infallibility  cannot  possibly 
 be  well  grounded  upon,  or  decided  by  itself,  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  chm-ch 
 is  infallible.     For  certainly  light  itself  is  not  more  clear  than  the 
 evidence  of  this  syllogism  : 
 
 If  there  be  no  other  means  to  make  men  agree  upon  your  church's 
 infallibility,  but  only  this,  and  this  be  no  means;  then  it  is 
 simply  impossible  for  men  upon  good  grounds  to  agree  that 
 3'our  church  is  infallible  : 
 But  there  is  (as  you  have  granted)  no  other  possible  means  to 
 make  men  agree  hereupon,  but  only  a  submissive  acknowledg- 
 ment of  her  infallibility ;  and  this  is  appai-ently  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  St.  Austin  "  vrherein  we  are  advised  to 
 follow  the  way  of  catholic  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  St.  Austin  speaks 
 of,  and  the  way  which  you  commend,  being  diverse  v/ays,  and  iu 
 many  things  clean  contrary,  we  cannot  possibly  follow  them  both  ; 
 and  therefore,  for  you  to  apply  the  same  words  to  tliem  is  a  vain 
 equivocation.  Show  us  any  way,  and  do  not  say,  but  prove  it  "td 
 have  come  from  Christ  and  his  apostles  down  to  us,"  and  we  are 
 read^'  to  follow  it.     Neither  do  we  expect  demonstration  hereof,  bu^^: 
 
228  NO  CHURCH  OF  ONE  DENOMINATION  INFALLIBLE. 
 
 such  reasons  as  may  make  this  more  probable  than  the  contrary* 
 But  if  you  bring  in  things  into  your  now  cathohc  disciphne,  which 
 Christians  in  St.  Austin's  time  hehl  abominable  (as  the  picturing  of 
 God),  and  which  *you  must,  and  some  of  you  do  confess  to  have 
 come  unto  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's  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  a])ostles,  this  we  conceive  a  request  too 
 unreasonable  for  modest  men  to  miake,  or  for  wise  men  to  grant. 
 
 *  you  must  confess,  Scc.—  O.vf. 
 
CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 To  say  that  the  Creed  contains  all  points  necessarily  to  he  believed 
 is  neither  pertinent  to  the  question  in  hand,  nor  in  itself  true. 
 
 "  I  SAY,  neither  pertinent  nor  true.  Not  pertinent  ,-  because  our 
 question  is  not  what  points  are  necessary  to  be  explicitly  believed, 
 but  what  points  may  be  lawfully  disbelieved  or  rejected  after 
 sufficient  proposition  that  they  are  Divine  truths.  You  say, 
 the  Creed  contains  all  points  necessary  to  be  believed :  be  it  so  : 
 but  doth  it  likewise  contain  all  points  not  to  be  disbelieved  ? 
 Certainly  it  doth  not.  For  how  many  truths  are  there  in  Holy 
 Scripture  not  contained  in  the  Creed,  which  we  are  not  obliged 
 distinctly  and  particularly  to  know  and  believe,  but  are  bound, 
 under  pain  of  damnation,  not  to  reject,  as  soon  as  we  come  to 
 know  that  they  are  found  in  Holy  Scripture !  and  we  having 
 already  showed  that  whatsoever  is  proposed  by  God's  church  as 
 a  point  of  faith  is  infallibly  a  truth  revealed  by  God,  it  followeth, 
 that  whosoever  denieth  any  such  point  opposeth  God's  sacred 
 testimony,  whether  that  point  be  contained  in  the  Creed  or  no. 
 In  vain  then  was  your  care  employed  to  prove,  that  all  points  of 
 faith  necessary  to  be  explicitly  believed  are  contained  in  the 
 Creed.  Neither  was  that  the  catalogue  which  Charity  mistaken 
 demanded.  His  demand  was,  (and  it  was  most  reasonable,  that 
 you  would  once  give  us  a  list  of  all  fundamentals,  the  denial 
 whereof  destroys  salvation ;  whereas  the  denial  of  other  points 
 not  fundamental  may  stand  with  salvation,  although  both  these 
 kinds  of  points  be  equally  proposed  as  revealed  by  God.  For  if 
 they  be  not  equally  proposed,  the  difference  will  arise  from 
 diversity  of  the  proposal,  and  not  of  the  matter  fundamental  or  not 
 fundamental.  This  catalogue  only  can  show  how  far  protestants 
 may  disagree  without  breach  of  unity  in  faith ;  and  upon  this 
 many  other  matters  depend  according  to  the  ground  of  protestants. 
 But  you  will  never  adventure  to  publish  such  a  catalogue.  I  say 
 more  ;  you  cannot  assign  any  one  point  so  great  or  fundamental, 
 that  the  denial  thereof  will  make  a  man  a  heretic,  if  it  be  not 
 sufficiently  propounded  as  a  Divine  truth.  Nor  can  you  assign 
 any  one  point  so  small,  that  it  can  without  heresy  be  rejected,  if 
 once  it  be  sufficiently  represented  as  revealed  by  God. 
 
230  CHARITY    MAINTAINED   BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 2.  "  Nay,  this  your  instance  in  the  Creed  is  not  only  hnper- 
 tinent,  but  directly  against  you.  For  all  points  in  the  Creed  are 
 not  of  their  own  nature  fundamental,  as  I  showed  before  ;*  and 
 yet  it  is  damnable  to  deny  any  one  point  contained  in  the  Creed. 
 So  that  it  is  clear,  that  to  make  an  error  damnable  it  is  not  neces- 
 sary that  the  matter  be  of  itself  fundamental. 
 
 3.  "  Moreover,  you  cannot  ground  any  certainty  upon  the 
 Creed  itself,  unless  first  you  presuppose  that  the  authority  of  the 
 church  is  universally  infallible,  and  consequently  that  it  is  danm- 
 able  to  oppose  her  declarations,  whether  they  concern  matters 
 great  or  small,  contained  or  not  contained  in  the  Creed.  This 
 is  clear,  because  we  must  receive  the  Creed  itself  upon  the  credit 
 of  the  church,  without  which  we  could  not  know  that  there  was 
 any  such  thing  as  that  which  we  call  the  Apostles^  Creed.  And 
 yet  the  arguments  whereby  you  endeavour  to  prove  that  the 
 Creed  contains  all  fundamental  points  are  grounded  upon  sup- 
 position, that  the  Creed  was  made  '  either  by  the  apostles  them- 
 selves, or  by  the  church  of  their  times  from  them  :'  which  thing 
 we  could  not  certainly  know,  if  the  succeeding  and  still  continued 
 church  may  err  in  her  traditions ;  neither  can  we  be  assured, 
 whether  all  fundamental  articles  which  you  say  were,  out  of  the 
 Scriptures,  '  summed  and  contracted  into  the  Apostles'  Creed,' 
 were  faithfully  summed  and  contracted,  and  not  one  pretermitted, 
 altered,  or  mistaken,  unless  we  undoubtedly  know  that  the 
 apostles  composed  the  Creed ;  and  that  they  intended  to  con- 
 tract all  fundamental  points  of  faith  into  it ;  or  at  least  that  '  the 
 church  of  their  times '  (for  it  seemeth  you  doubt  Avhether  indeed 
 it  were  composed  by  the  apostles  themselves)  did  understand 
 the  apostles  aright ;  and  that  '  the  church  of  their  times '  did 
 intend  that  the  Creed  should  contain  all  fundamental  points. 
 For  if  the  church  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental,  may  she 
 not  also  err  in  the  particulars  which  I  have  specified  ?  Can  you 
 show  it  to  be  a  fundamental  point  of  faith,  that  the  apostles 
 intended  to  comprise  all  points  of  faith  necessary  to  salvation  in 
 the  Creed  ?  Yourself  say  no  more  than  that  it  is  '  very  probable  ;* 
 which  is  far  from  reaching  to  a  fundamental  point  of  faith. 
 Your  probability  is  grounded  upon  'the  judgment  of  antiquity, 
 and  even  of  the  Roman  doctors,'  as  you  say  in  the  same  place. 
 But  if  the  catholic  church  may  err,  what  certainty  can  you  expect 
 from  antiquity  or  doctors  ?  Scripture  is  your  total  rule  of  faith. 
 Cite  therefore  some  text  of  Scripture  to  prove  that  the  apostles, 
 or  '  the  church  of  their  times,'  composed  the  Creed,  and  composed 
 it  with  a  purpose  that  it  should  contain  all  fundamental  points 
 of  faith ;  which  being  impossible  to  be  done,  you  must  for  the 
 Creed  itself  rely  upon  the  infallibility  of  the  church. 
 
 4.  "  Moreover,  the  Creed  consisteth  not  so  much  in  the  words, 
 oS  in  their  sense  and  meaning.  All  such  as  pretend  to  the  name 
 of  Christians  recite  the  Creed,  and  yet  many  have  erred  funda- 
 mentally, as  well  against  the  articles  of  the  Creed  as  other  points 
 of  faith.  It  is  then  very  frivolous  to  say,  the  Creed  contains  all 
 fundamental  points,  without  specifying  both  in  what  sense  the 
 
 *  Cap.  iii.  n.  3. 
 
CHAHITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  231 
 
 articles  of  the  Creed  be  true,  and  also  in  what  true  sense  they  be 
 fundamental.  For  both  these  tasks  you  are  to  perform,  who 
 teach  that  all  truth  is  not  fundamental :  and  you  do  but  delude 
 the  ignorant  when  you  say,  that  the  Creed,  '  taken  in  a  catholic 
 sense'  comprehendeth  all  points  fundamental,  because  with  you 
 all  '  catholic  sense  '  is  not  fundamental ;  for  so  it  were  necessary 
 to  salvation  that  all  Christians  should  know  the  whole  Scripture, 
 wherein  every  least  point  hath  a  catholic  sense.  Or  if  by  '  catho- 
 lic sense'  you  understand  that  sense  which  is  so  universally  to  be 
 known  and  believed  by  all,  that  whosoever  fails  therein  cannot 
 be  saved,  you  trifle,  and  say  no  more  than  this ;  '  all  points  of 
 the  Creed,  in  a  sense  necessary  to  salvation ;'  are  necessary  to 
 salvation  ;  or,  '  all  points  fundamental  are  fundamental.'  After 
 this  manner  it  were  an  easy  thing  to  make  many  true  prognos- 
 tications, by  saying,  it  will  certainly  rain  when  it  raineth.  You 
 say  the  Creed  was  opened  and  explained  '  in  some  parts '  in  the 
 Creeds  of  Nice,  &c.  But  how  shall  we  understand  the  other 
 'parts,'  not  explained  in  those  Creeds  ? 
 
 5.  "For  what  article  in  the  Creed  is  more  fundamental,  or 
 may  seem  more  clear,  than  that  wherein  we  believe  Jesus  Christ 
 to  be  the  Mediator,  Redeemer,  and  Saviour  of  mankind,  and  the 
 founder  and  foundation  of  a  catholic  church,  expressed  in  the 
 Creed  ?  A.nd  yet  about  this  article  how  many  different  doctrines 
 are  there,  not  only  of  old  heretics,  as  Arius,  Nestorius,  Eutyches, 
 &c.,  but  also  of  protestants,  partly  against  catholics,  and  partly 
 against  one  another  !  For  the  said  main  article  of  Christ's  being 
 the  only  Saviour  of  the  world,  &c.,  according  to  different  senses 
 of  disagreeing  sects,  doth  involve  these  and  many  other  such 
 questions  :  that  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  doth  justify  alone — 
 that  sacraments  have  no  efficiency  in  justification — that  baptism 
 doth  not  avail  infants  for  salvation,  unless  they  have  an  act  of 
 faith — that  there  is  no  sacerdotal  absolution  from  sins — that 
 good  works  proceeding  from  God's  grace  are  not  meritorious  — 
 that  there  can  be  no  satisfaction  for  the  temporal  punishment 
 due  to  sin,  after  the  guilt  or  offence  is  pardoned — no  purgatory — 
 no  prayers  for  the  dead — no  sacrifice  of  the  mass — no  invocation 
 — no  mediation  or  intercession  of  saints — no  inherent  justice — 
 no  supreme  pastor — yea,  no  bishop  by  divine  ordinance — no  real 
 presence  —  no  trasubstantiation ;  with  divers  others.  And 
 why  ?  because,  forsooth,  these  doctrines  derogate  from  the  titles 
 of  Mediator,  Redeemer,  Advocate,  Foundation,  &c. ;  yea,  and 
 are  against  the  truth  of  our  Saviour's  human  nature,  if  we  believe 
 divers  protestants  writing  against  transubstantiation.  Let  then 
 any  judicious  man  consider,  whether  Dr.  Potter  or  others  do  really 
 satisfy,  when  they  send  men  to  the  Creed  for  a  perfect  catalogue, 
 to  distinguish  points  fundamental  from  those  which  they  say  are 
 not  fundamental.  If  he  will  speak  indeed  to  some  purpose,  let  him 
 say,  This  article  is  understood  in  this  sense,  and  in  this  sense  it 
 is  fundamental ;  that  other  is  to  be  imderstood  in  such  a  mean- 
 ing; yet  according  to  that  meaning  it  is  not  so  fundamental  but 
 that  men  may  disagree,  and  deny  it  without  damnation.  But  it 
 were  no  policy  for  any  protestant  to  deal  so  plainly. 
 
232 
 
 CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 6.  "  But  to  what  end  should  we  use  many  arguments  ?  Even 
 yourself  are  forced  to  limit  your  own  doctrine,  and  come  to  say, 
 that  the  Creed  is  a  perfect  catalogue  of  fundamental  points, 
 '  taken  as  it  was  further  opened  and  explained  in  some  parts  (by 
 occasion  of  emergent  heresies)  in  the  other  catholic  Creeds  of 
 Nice,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  Chalcedon,  and  Athanasius.' 
 But  this  explication  or  restriction  overthroweth  your  assertion. 
 For  as  the  Apostles'  Creed  was  not  to  us  a  sufficient  catalogue 
 till  it  was  explained  by  the  first  council,  nor  then  till  it  was 
 declared  by  another,  &c. ;  so  now  also,  as  new  heresies  may  arise, 
 it  will  need  particular  explanation  against  such  emergent  errors; 
 and  so  it  is  not  yet,  nor  ever  will  be,  of  itself  alone,  a  particular 
 catalogue,  sufficient  to  distinguish  betwixt  fundamental  and  not 
 fundamental  points. 
 
 7.  "  I  come  to  the  second  part,  '  That  the  Creed  doth  not  con- 
 tain all  main  and  principal  points  of  faith :'  and  to  the  end  we 
 may  not  strive  about  things  either  granted  by  us  both,  or  nothing 
 concerning  the  point  in  question,  I  must  premise  these  obser- 
 vations : 
 
 8.  "  First,  that  it  cannot  be  denied  but  that  the  Creed  is  most 
 full  and  complete,  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  par- 
 ticular points  of  faith,  but  such  general  heads  as  were  most  be- 
 fitting and  requisite  for  preaching  the  faith  of  Christ  to  Jews  and 
 Gentiles,  and  might  be  briefly  and  compendiously  set  down,  and 
 easily  learned  and  remembered.  And,  therefore,  in  respect  of 
 Gentiles,  the  Creed  doth  mention  God  as  Creator  of  all  things ; 
 and  for  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the  Trinity,  the  Messias  and 
 Saviour,  his  birth,  life,  death,  resurrection,  and  glory,  from  whom 
 they  were  to  hope  remission  of  sins,  and  life  everlasting,  and  by 
 whose  sacred  name  they  were  to  be  distinguished  from  all  other 
 professions,  by  being  called  Christians :  according  to  which 
 purpose  St.  Thomas  of  Aquine*  doth  distinguish  all  the  articles 
 of  the  Creed  in  these  general  heads :  that  some  belong  to  the 
 majesty  of  the  Godhead,  others  to  the  mystery  of  our  Saviour 
 Christ's  human  nature :  which  two  general  objects  of  faith  the 
 Holy  Ghost  doth  express  and  conjoin,  John  xvii.  H(BC  est  vita 
 (Blerna,  &c.  This  is  life  everlasting,  that  theij  know  thee,  the  true 
 God,  and  whom  thou  hast  sent,  Jesus  Christ.  But  it  was  not  their 
 meaning  to  give  us,  as  it  were,  a  course  of  divinity,  or  a  catechism, 
 or  a  particular  expression  of  all  points  of  faith,  leaving  those 
 things  to  be  performed,  as  occasion  should  require,  by  their  own 
 word  or  writing,  for  their  time,  and  afterwards  by  their  successors 
 in  the  catholic  church.  Our  question  then  is  not,  whether  the 
 Creed  be  perfect,  as  far  as  the  end  for  which  it  was  composed 
 did  require ;  for  we  believe  and  are  ready  to  give  our  lives  for 
 this  ;  but  only  we  deny,  that  the  apostles  did  intend  to  comprise 
 therein  all  particular  points  of  belief  necessary  to  salvation,  as 
 even  by  Dr.  Potter's  own  confession  it  doth  not  comprehend 
 agenda,  or  things  belonging  to  practice ;   as  sacraments,  com- 
 
 ♦  2.  2.  b.  1.  art.  8. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  233 
 
 mandments,  the  acts  of  hope  and  duties  of  charity,  which  we  are 
 obhged  not  only  to  practise,  but  also  to  believe  by  Divine  in- 
 fallible faith.  'Will  he  therefore  infer  that  the  Creed  is  not 
 perfect,  because  it  contains  not  all  those  necessary  and  funda- 
 mental objects  of  faith  ?  He  will  answer.  No,  because  the  apostles 
 intended  only  to  express  credenda,  things  to  be  believed,  not 
 practised.  Let  him  therefore  give  us  leave  to  say,  that  the 
 Creed  is  perfect,  because  it  wanteth  none  of  those  objects  of 
 belief  which  were  intended  to  be  set  down,  as  we  explicated 
 before. 
 
 9.  "  The  second  observation  is,  that  to  satisfy  our  question 
 what  points  in  particular  be  fundamental,  it  will  not  be  sufficient 
 to  allege  the  Creed  unless  it  contains  all  such  points,  either  ex- 
 pressly and  immediately,  or  else  in  such  manner,  that  by  evident 
 and  necessary  consequence  they  may  be  deduced  from  articles 
 both  clearly  and  particularly  contained  therein.  For  if  the 
 deduction  be  doubtful,  we  shall  not  be  sure  that  such  conclusions 
 be  fundamental ;  or  if  the  articles  themselves,  which  are  said  to 
 be  fundamental,  be  not  distinctly  and  particularly  expressed, 
 they  will  not  serve  us  to  know  and  distinguish  all  points  funda- 
 mental, from  those  which  they  call  not  fundamental.  We  do  not 
 deny  but  that  all  points  of  faith,  both  fundamental  and  not 
 fundamental,  may  be  said  to  be  contained  in  the  Creed,  in  some 
 sense  ;  as  for  example,  implicitly,  generally,  or  in  some  such  in- 
 volved manner.  For  when  we  explicitly  believe  the  catholic 
 church,  we  do  implicitly  believe  whatsoever  she  proposeth  as 
 belonging  to  faith ;  or  else  by  way  of  reduction,  that  is,  when  we 
 are  once  instructed  in  the  belief  of  particular  points  of  faith,  not 
 expressed,  nor  by  necessary  consequence  deducible  from  the 
 Creed ;  we  may  afterwards,  by  some  analogy,  or  proportion,  and 
 resemblance,  reduce  it  to  one  or  more  of  those  articles  which 
 are  explicitly  contained  in  the  symbol.  Thus  St.  Thomas,  the 
 cherubim  among  divines,  teacheth*  that  the  miraculous  ex- 
 istence of  our  blessed  Saviour's  body  in  the  eucharist,  as  like- 
 wise all  his  other  miracles,  are  reduced  to  God's  omnipotency, 
 expressed  in  the  Creed.  And  Dr.  Potter  saith,  '  The  eucharist 
 being  a  seal  of  that  holy  union  which  we  have  with  Christ  our 
 Head  by  his  Spirit  and  faith,  and  with  the  saints  his  members 
 by  charity,  is  evidently  included  in  the  communion  of  saints.' 
 But  this  reductive  way  is  far  from  being  sufficient  to  infer  out  of 
 the  articles  of  God's  omnipotency,  or  of  the  communion  of  saints, 
 that  our  Saviour's  body  is  in  the  eucharist,  and  much  less  whether 
 it  be  only  in  figure,  or  else  in  reality,  by  transubstantiation  or 
 consubstantiation,  &c.,  and  least  of  all,  whether  or  no  these 
 points  be  fundamental.  And  you  hyperbolize  in  sayin.g,  the 
 eucharist  is  evidently  included  in  the  communion  of  saints,  as  if 
 there  could  not  have  been,  or  was  not  a  communion  of  saints 
 before  the  blessed  sacrament  was  instituted.  Yet  it  is  true,  that 
 after  we  know  and  believe  there  is  such  a  sacrament,  we  may 
 refer  it  to  some  of  those  heads  expressed  in  the  Creed,  and  yet 
 so    as   St.  Thomas   refers   it  to  one  article  and  Dr.  Potter  to 
 
 •2.  2.  q.  1.  8.  and  6. 
 
234  CHAHITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS, 
 
 another;  and  in  respect  of  different  analogies  or  effects,  it  may 
 be  referred  to  several  articles.  The  like  I  say  of  other  points  of 
 faith,  which  may  in  some  sort  be  reduced  to  the  Creed,  but 
 nothing  to  Dr.  Potters  purpose ;  but  contrarily  it  showeth,  that 
 your  affirming  such  and  such  points  to  be  fundamental  or  not 
 fundamental  is  merely  arbitrary,  to  serve  your  turn,  as  necessity 
 and  your  occasions  may  require.  Which  was  an  old  custom 
 amongst  heretics,  as  we  read  in  St.  Austin,*  Pelagius,  andCoeles- 
 tius,  '  desiring  fraudulently  to  avoid  the  hateful  name  of  heresies, 
 affirmed  that  the  question  of  original  sin  may  be  disputed  without 
 danger  of  faith.'  But  this  holy  father  affirms  that  it  belongs  to 
 the  foundation  of  faith.  '  We  may,'  saith  he,  '  endure  a  disputant 
 who  errs  in  other  questions  not  yet  diligently  examined,  not  yet 
 dilio-ently  established  by  the  whole  authority  of  the  church  j. 
 their  error  may  be  borne  with ;  but  it  must  not  pass  so  far  as  to 
 attempt  to  shake  the  foundation  of  the  church.'  We  see  S. 
 Augustin  placeth  the  being  of  a  point  fundamental  or  not  funda- 
 mental, in  that  it  hath  been  examined  and  established  by  the 
 church,  although  the  points  of  which  he  speaketh,  namely, 
 original  sin,  be  not  contained  in  the  Creed. 
 
 10.  ''  Out  of  that  which  hath  been  said,  I  infer,  that  Dr.  Pot- 
 ter's pains  in  alleging  catholic  doctors,  the  ancient  fathers,  and 
 the  council  of  Trent,  to  prove  that  the  Creed  contains  all  points 
 of  faith,  was  needless ;  since  we  grant  it  in  manner  aforesaid. 
 But  Dr.  Potter  cannot  in  his  conscience  believe  that  catholic  di- 
 vines, or  the  council  of  Trent,  and  the  holy  fathers,  did  intend, 
 that  all  points  in  particular  which  we  are  obliged  to  believe  are 
 contained  explicitly  in  the  Creed  ;  he  knowing  well  enough  that 
 all  catholics  hold  themselves  obliged  to  believe  all  those  points 
 which  the  said  council  defines  to  be  believed  under  an  anathema, 
 and  that  all  Christians  believe  the  commandments,  sacraments, 
 &c.,  which  are  not  expressed  in  the  Creed. 
 
 11.  "  Neither  must  this  seem  strange.  For  who  is  ignorant 
 that  summaries,  epitomes,  and  the  like  brief  abstracts,  are  not 
 intended  to  specify  all  particulars  of  that  science  or  subject  to 
 which  they  belong  ?  For  as  the  Creed  is  said  to  contain  all 
 points  of  faith,  so  the  Decalogue  comprehends  all  articles  (as  I 
 may  term  them)  which  concern  charity  and  good  life,  and  yet 
 this  cannot  be  so  understood,  as  if  we  were  disobliged  from  per- 
 formance of  any  duty,  or  the  eschewing  of  any  vice,  unless  it  be 
 expressed  in  the  Ten  Commandments.  For  (to  omit  the  precepts 
 of  receiving  sacraments,  which  belong  to  practice  or  manners, 
 and  yet  are  not  contained  in  the  Decalogue)  there  are  many  sins, 
 even  against  the  law  of  nature,  and  light  of  reason,  which  are 
 not  contained  in  the  Ten  Commandments,  except  only  by  simili- 
 tude, analogy,  reduction,  or  some  such  way.  For  example,  we 
 find  not  expressed  in  the  Decalogue,  either  divers  sins,  as  glut- 
 tony, drunkenness,  pride,  sloth,  covetousness  in  desiring  things 
 either  superfluous  or  with  too  much  greediness,  or  divers  of  our 
 chief  obligations,  as  obedience  to  princes  and  all  superiors,  not 
 only  ecclesiastical,  but  also  civil ;    whose  laws  Luther,  Melanc- 
 
 *  De  Peccat.  Oris-  cont.  Pelag.  1.  2.  c.  22. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  235 
 
 thon,  Calvin,  and  some  other  protestants,  do  dangerously  afRrm 
 not  to  oblige  in  conscience,  and  yet  these  men  think  they  know 
 the  Ten  Commandments ;  as  likewise  divers  protestants  defend 
 usury  to  be  lawful ;  and  the  many  treatises  of  civilians,  canon- 
 ists, and  casuists  are  witnesses,  that  divers  sins  against  the  light 
 of  reason  and  law  of  nature  are  not  distinctly  expressed  in  the 
 Ten  Commandments;  although  when  by  other  diligence  they 
 are  found  to  be  unlawful,  they  may  be  reduced  to  some  of  the 
 commandments,  and  yet  not  so  evidently  and  particularly  but 
 that  divers  do  it  divers  manners. 
 
 12.  "My  third  observation  is,  that  our  present  question  being 
 whether  or  no  the  Creed  contains  so  fully  all  fundamental  points 
 of  faith,  that  whosoever  do  not  agree  in  all  and  every  one  of 
 those  fundamental  articles  cannot  have  the  same  substance  of 
 faith,  nor  hope  of  salvation ;  if  I  can  produce  one  or  more  points 
 not  contained  in  the  Creed,  in  which  if  two  do  not  agree,  both 
 of  them  cannot  expect  to  be  saved,  1  shall  have  performed  as 
 much  as  I  intend ;  and  Dr.  Potter  must  seek  out  some  other  cata- 
 logue for  points  fundamental  than  the  Creed.  Neither  is  it 
 material  to  the  said  purpose,  whether  such  fundamental  points 
 rest  only  in  knowledge  and  speculation,  or  belief,  or  else  be  fur- 
 ther referred  to  work  and  practice.  For  the  habit  or  virtue  of 
 faith  which  inclineth  and  enableth  us  to  believe  both  speculative 
 and  practical  verities,  is  of  one  and  the  self-same  nature  and  es- 
 sence. For  example,  by  the  same  faith,  whereby  I  speculatively 
 believe  there  is  a  God,  I  likewise  believe  that  he  is  to  be  adored, 
 served,  and  loved;  which  belong  to  practice.  The  reason  is, 
 because  the  formal  object  or  motive  for  which  I  yield  assent  to 
 those  different  sorts  of  material  objects  is  the  same  in  both,  to 
 wit,  the  revelation  or  word  of  God.  Where,  by  the  way,  I  note, 
 that  if  the  unity  or  distinction  and  nature  of  faith  were  to  be 
 taken  from  the  diversity  of  things  revealed,  by  one  faith  I  should 
 believe  speculative  verities,  and  by  another  such  as  tend  to 
 practice,  which  I  doubt  whether  Dr.  Potter  himself  will  admit. 
 
 13.  "Hence  it  foUoweth,  that  whosoever  denieth  any  one 
 main  practical  revealed  truth,  is  no  less  a  heretic,  than  if  he 
 should  deny  a  point  resting  in  belief  alone.  So  that  when  Dr. 
 Potter  (to  avoid  our  argument  that  all  fundamental  points  are  not 
 contained  in  the  Creed,  because  in  it  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
 sacraments,  which  yet  are  points  of  so  main  importance,  that  pro- 
 testants make  the  due  administration  of  them  to  be  necessary  and 
 essential  to  constitute  a  church)  answereth,  that  the  sacraments 
 are  to  be  reckoned  rather  among  the  agenda  of  the  church  than 
 the  credenda,  they  are  rather  Divine  rites  and  ceremonies  than 
 doctrines ;  he  either  grants  that  we  affirm,  or  in  effect  says,  of 
 two  kinds  of  revealed  truths  which  are  necessary  to  be  believed, 
 the  Creed  contains  one  sort  only  ;  ergo,  it  contains  all  kinds  of 
 revealed  truths  necessary  to  be  believed.  Our  question  is  not 
 de  nomine,  but  re,  not  what  be  called  points  of  faith  or  of  prac- 
 tice, but  what  points  indeed  be  necessarily  to  be  believed, 
 whether  they  be  termed  agenda  or  credenda;  especially,  the 
 chiefest  part  of  Christian  perfection  consisting  more  in  action 
 
236  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 than  in  barren  speculation,  in  good  works  than  bare  belief,  in 
 doing  than  knowing.  And  there  are  no  less  contentions  con- 
 tcerning  practical  than  speculative  truths;  as  sacraments — ob- 
 taining remission  of  sin — invocation  of  saints — prayers  for  the 
 dead — adoration  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  and  many  other ;  all 
 ■which  do  so  much  the  more  import,  as  on  them,  beside  right 
 belief,  doth  also  depend  our  practice,  and  the  ordering  of  our 
 life.  Though  Dr.  Potter  could  therefore  give  us  (as  he  will 
 never  be  able  to  do)  a  minute  and  exact  catalogue  of  all  truths 
 to  be  believed,  that  would  not  nmke  me  able  enough  to  know 
 whether  or  no  1  have  faith  sufficient  for  salvation,  till  he  also 
 did  bring  in  a  particular  list  of  all  believed  truths,  which  tend 
 to  practice,  declaring  which  of  them  be  fundamental,  which  not; 
 'that  so  every  man  might  know,  whether  he  be  not  in  some  damn- 
 able error,  for  some  article  of  faith,  which  further  might  give 
 influence  into  damnable  works. 
 
 14.  "These  observations  being  premised,  I  come  to  prove 
 that  the  Creed  doth  not  contain  all  points  of  faith  necessary  to 
 be  known  and  believed.  And  to  omit  that  in  general  it  doth 
 not  tell  us  what  points  be  fundamental  or  not  fundamental, 
 which,  in  the  way  of  protestants,  is  most  necessary  to  be  known ; 
 in  particular,  there  is  no  mention  of  the  greatest  evils  from 
 which  man's  calamity  proceeded  ;  I  mean,  the  sin  of  the  angels, 
 of  Adam,  and  of  original  sin  in  us ;  nor  of  the  greatest  good, , 
 from  which  we  expect  all  good,  to  wit,  the  necessity  of  grace 
 for  all  works  tending  to  piety.  Nay,  there  is  no  mention  of  an- 
 gels, good  or  bad.  The  meaning  of  that  most  general  head 
 (Oportel  accedentem,  8fc.  It  behoves  him  that  comes  to  God,  to 
 Relieve  that  he  is,  and  is  a  remunerator )*  is  questioned  by  the 
 denial  of  merit,  which  makes  God  a  giver,  but  not  a  rewarder. 
 It  is  not  expressed  whether  the  article  of  remission  of  sins  be 
 understood  by  faith  alone,  or  else  may  admit  the  efficiency  of 
 sacraments.  There  is  no  mention  of  ecclesiastical,  apostolical. 
 Divine  traditions,  one  way  or  other ;  or  of  Holy  Scriptures  in 
 general,  and  much  less  of  every  book  in  particular  ;  nor  of  the 
 name,  nature,  number,  effects,  matter,  form,  ministry,  intention, 
 necessity  of  sacraments ;  and  yet  the  due  administration  of  the 
 sacraments  is  with  protestants  an  essential  note  of  the  church. 
 There  is  nothing  for  baptism  of  children,  nor  against  re-baptiz- 
 ation.  There  is  no  mention  in  favour  or  against  the  sacrifice  of 
 the  mass,  of  power  in  the  church  to  institute  rites,  holydays, 
 ■  &c.,  and  to  inffict  excommunication,  or  other  censures ;  of 
 priesthood,  bishops,  and  the  whole  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  which 
 are  very  fundamental  points  ;  of  St.  Peter's  primacy,  which  to 
 Calvin  seemeth  a  fundamental  error ;  nor  of  the  possibility  or 
 impossibihty  to  keep  God's  commandments ;  of  the  procession  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Father  and  Son;  of  purgatory,  or 
 prayer  for  the  dead,  in  any  sense.  And  yet  Dr.  Potter  doth  not 
 deny  but  that  Aerius  was  esteemed  a  heretic,  for  denying  all 
 sort  of  commemoration  for  the  dead.  Nothing  of  the  Church's 
 yisibility  or  invisibility,  fallibility  or  infallibility,  nor  of  other 
 
 *  Heb.  xi.  6. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  237 
 
 points  controverted  betwixt  protestants  themselves,  and  between 
 protestants  and  catholics,  which  to  Dr.  Potter  seemed  so  heinous 
 corruptions,  that  they  cannot  without  damnation  join  with  us  iit 
 profession  thereof.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  cessation  of  the 
 old  law,  which  yet  is  a  very  main  point  of  faith.  And  many- 
 other  might  be  also  added. 
 
 15.  "But  what  need  we  labour  to  specify  particulars  ?  There 
 are  many  important  points  of  faith  not  expressed  in  the  Creed, 
 as,  since  the  world's  beginning,  now,  and  for  all  future  times, 
 there  have  been,  are,  and  may  be,  innumerable  gross  damnable 
 heresies,  whose  contrary  truths  are  not  contained  in  the  Creed. 
 For  every  fundamental  error  must  have  a  contrary  fundamental 
 truth ;  because  of  two  contradictory  propositions  in  the  same 
 degree,  if  the  one  is  false  the  other  must  be  true.  As  for  exam- 
 ple, if  it  be  a  damnable  error  to  deny  the  blessed  Trinity  or  the 
 Godhead  of  our  Saviour,  the  belief  of  them  must  be  a  truth 
 necessary  to  salvation ;  or  rather,  if  we  will  speak  properly,  the 
 error  is  damnable,  because  the  opposite  truth  is  necessary ;  as 
 death  is  frightful,  because  life  is  sweet;  and  according  to  phil- 
 osophy, the  privation  is  measured  by  the  form  to  which  it  is 
 repugnant.  If  therefore  the  Creed  contain  in  particular  all 
 fundamental  points  of  faith,  it  must  explicitly,  or  by  clear  conse- 
 quence, comprehend  all  truths  opposite  to  innumerable  heresies 
 of  all  ages  past,  present,  and  to  come,  which  no  man  in  his  wits 
 will  affirm  it  to  do. 
 
 16.  "And  here  I  cannot  omit  to  signify  how  you  applaud  the 
 saying  of  Dr.  Usher,  *  That  in  those  propositions,  which  with- 
 out all  controversy  are  universally  received  in  the  whole  Christ- 
 ian world,  so  much  truth  is  contained,  as  being  joined  with  holy 
 obedience,  may  be  sufficient  to  bring  a  man  to  everlasting  sal- 
 vation ;  neither  have  we  cause  to  doubt,  but  that  as  many  as 
 walk  according  to  this  rule  (neither  overthrowing  that  which  they 
 have  builded,  by  superinducing  any  damnable  heresies  there- 
 upon, nor  otherwise  vitiating  their  holy  faith  with  a  lewd  and 
 wicked  conversation)  peace  shall  be  upon  them,  and  upon  the 
 Israel  of  God.'  Now  Dr.  Potter  knows  that  the  mystery  of  the' 
 blessed  Trinity  is  not  universally  received  in  the  whole  Christian 
 world,  as  appears  in  very  many  heretics  in  Polony,  Hungary, 
 and  Transylvania,  and  therefore  according  to  this  rule  of  Dr. 
 Usher,  approved  by  Dr.  Potter,  the  denial  of  the  blessed  Trinity 
 shall  not  exclude  salvation. 
 
 17.  "Let  me  note,  by  the  way,  that  you  might  have  easily 
 espied  afoul  contradiction  in  the  said  words  of  Dr,  Usher,  by  you 
 cited,  and  so  much  applauded.  For  he  supposeth  that  a  man 
 agrees  Avith  other  churches  in  belief,  which,  joined  with  holy 
 obedience,  may  bring  him  to  everlasting  salvation,  and  yet  that 
 he  may  superinduce  damnable  herisies.  For  how  can  he  super- 
 induce damnable  heresies  who  is  supposed  to  believe  all  truths 
 necessary  to  salvation  ?  Can  there  be  any  damnable  heresy, 
 unless  it  contradict  some  necessary  truth,  which  cannot  happen  in 
 one  who  is  supposed  to  believe  all  necessary  truths  ?  Besides, 
 if  one  believing  all  fundamental  articles  in  the  Creed  may  super- 
 
288  CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 induce  damnable  heresies,  it  followeth,  that  the  fundamental 
 truths,  contrary  to  those  damnable  heresies,  are  not  contained  in 
 the  Creed. 
 
 18.  "  According  to  this  model  of  Dr.  Potter's  foundation,  con- 
 sistino-  in  the  agreement  of  scarcely  one  point  of  faith,  what  a 
 stran  °e  church  would  he  make  of  men  concurring  in  some  or  few 
 articles  of  belief,  who  yet  for  the  rest  should  be  holding  conceits 
 plainly  contradictory;  so  patching  up  a  religion  of  men  who 
 ao-ree  only  in  the  article,  that  Christ  is  our  Saviour,  bmt  for  the 
 rest  are  like  to  the  parts  of  a  chimera ;  having  the  head  of  a 
 man,  the  neck  of  a  horse,  the  shoulders  of  an  ox,  the  foot  of  a 
 lion,'  &c.  I  wrong  them  not  herein.  For  in  good  philosophy 
 there  is  greater  repugnancy  between  assent  and  dissent,  affirm- 
 ation and  negation,  est,  est,  7ion,  non,  (especially  when  all  these 
 contradictories  pretend  to  rely  upon  one  and  the  selfsame  motive 
 — the  infallible  truth  of  Almighty  God,)  than  between  the  in- 
 tegral parts,  as  head,  neck,  &c.  of  a  man,  horse,  lion,  &c.  And 
 thus  protestants  are  far  more  bold  to  disagree,  even  in  matters  of 
 faith,  than  catholic  divines  in  questions  merely  philosophical,  or 
 not  determined  by  the  church.  And  while  thus  they  stand  only 
 upon  fundamental  articles,  they  do  by  their  own  confession  des- 
 troy the  church,  which  is  the  house  of  God.  For  the  foundation 
 alone  of  a  house  is  not  a  house,  nor  can  they,  in  such  an  imaginary 
 church,  any  more  expect  salvation,  than  the  foundation  alone  of 
 a  house  is  fit  to  afford  a  man  habitation. 
 
 19.  "  Moreover,  it  is  most  evident  that  protestants,  by  (his 
 chaos  rather  than  church,  do  give  unavoidable  occasion  of  des- 
 peration to  poor  souls.  Let  some  one  who  is  desirous  to  save 
 his  soul  repair  to  Dr.  Potter,  who  maintains  these  grounds,  to 
 know  upon  whom  he  may  rely  in  a  matter  of  so  great  conse- 
 quence :  I  suppose  the  Doctor's  answer  will  be,  upon  the  truly 
 catholic  church.  She  cannot  err  damnably.  What  understand 
 vou  by  the  catholic  church?  Cannot  general  councils,  which  are 
 the  church  representative,  err  ?  Yes, '  they  may  weakly  or  wilfully 
 misapply,  or  misunderstand,  or  neglect  Scripture,  and  so  err 
 damnably.'  To  whom  then  shall  1  go  for  my  particular  instrcu- 
 tion  ?  I  cannot  confer  with  the  united  body  of  the  whole  church 
 about  my  particular  difficulties  as  yourself  affirm,  that  the  catholic 
 church '  cannot  be  told  of  private  injuries.'  Must  I  then  consult 
 with  every  particular  person  of  the  catholic  church  ?  So  it  seems 
 by  what  you  v/rite  in  these  words  ;  *  The  whole  militant  church 
 (that  is,  all  the  members  of  it)  cannot  possibly  err,  either  in 
 the  whole  faith,  or  any  necessary  article  of  it.'  You  say,  M. 
 Doctor,  I  cannot  for  my  instruction  acquaint  the  universal 
 church  with  my  particular  scruples.  You  say  the  prelates  of 
 God's  church  meeting  in  a  lawful  general  council  may  err  damn- 
 ably :  it  remains  then,  for  my  necessary  instruction,  I  must  re- 
 pair to  every  particular  member  of  the  universal  church  spread 
 over  the  face  of  the  earth  :  and  yet  you  teach  that  the  'promises 
 which  our  Lord  hath  made  unto  his  church  for  his  assistance, 
 are  intended  not  to  any  particular  persons  or  churches,  bat  only 
 to  the  church  catholic^'  with  which  (as  I  said)  it  is  impossible 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  239 
 
 for  me  to  confer.  Alas  !  O  most  uncomfortable  ghostly  father 
 you  drive  me  to  desperation  !  How  shall  I  confer  with  every 
 Christian  soul,  man  and  w'oman,  by  sea  and  by  land,  close 
 prisoner  or  at  liberty  ?  &c.  Yet  upon  supposal  of  this  miracu- 
 lous pilgrimage  for  faith,  before  I  have  the  faith  of  miracles,  how 
 shall  I  proceed  at  our  meeting  ?  or  how  shall  I  know  the  man  on 
 whom  I  may  surely  rely  ?  Procure  (will  you  say)  to  know 
 whether  he  believe  all  fundamental  points  of  faith ;  for  if  he  do, 
 his  faith,  for  point  of  belief,  is  sufficient  for  salvation,  though  he 
 err  in  a  hundred  things  of  less  moment.  But  how  shall  I  know 
 whether  he  hold  ail  fundamental  points  or  no  ?  For  till  you  tell 
 me  this,  I  cannot  know  whether  or  no  his  belief  be  sound  in  all 
 fundamental  points.  Can  you  say  the  Creed  ?  Yes,  and  so  can 
 many  damnable  heretics.  But  why  do  you  ask  me  this  question  ? 
 Because  the  Creed  contains  all  fundamental  points  of  faith.  Are 
 you  sure  of  that  ?  Not  sure :  1  hold  it  very  probable.  Shall  I 
 hazard  my  soul  on  probabilities,  or  even  wagers  ?  This  yields  a 
 new  cause  of  despair.  But  what  ?  doth  the  Creed  contain  all 
 points  necessary  to  be  believed,  whether  they  rest  in  the  under- 
 standing, or  else  do  further  extend  to  practice  ?  No.  It  was 
 composed  to  deliver  crede?ida,  not  agenda,  to  us  ;  faith,  not  prac- 
 tice. How  then  shall  I  know  what  points  of  belief,  which  di- 
 rect my  practice,  be  necessary  to  salvation  ?  Still  you  chalk  out 
 new^  paths  for  desepration.  Well,  are  all  articles  of  the  Creed, 
 for  their  nature  and  matter,  fundamental  ?  I  cannot  say  so.  How 
 then  shall  I  know"  which  in  particular  be  and  which  be  not 
 fundamental  ?  Read  my  answer  to  a  late  popish  pamphlet,  en- 
 titled Charity  Mistaken,  &c. ;  there  you  shall  find  that  funda- 
 mental doctrines  are  such  '  catholic  verities  as  principally  and 
 essentially  pertain  to  the  faith,  such  as  properly  constitute  a 
 church,  and  are  necessary  (in  ordinary  course)  to  be  distinctly 
 believed  by  every  Christian  that  will  be  saved.  They  are  those 
 grand  and  capital  doctrines  which  make  up  our  faith  in  Christ ; 
 that  is  that  common  faith  which  is  alike  precious  in  all,  being 
 one  and  the  same  in  the  highest  apostle  and  the  meanest  believer, 
 which  the  apostle  elsewhere  calls  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles 
 of  God,  and  the  form  of  sound  word.s.^  But  how  shall  I  apply 
 these  general  definitions  or  descriptions,  or  (to  say  the  truth) 
 these  only  varied  words  and  phrases,  for  I  understand  the  word 
 fundamental  as  well  as  the  words  principal,  essential,  grand,  and 
 capital  doctrines,  &c.)  to  the  particular  articles  of  the  Creed,  in 
 such  sort,  as  that  I  may  be  able  precisely,  exactly,  particularly, 
 to  distinguish  fundamental  articles  points  of  less  moment  ?  You 
 labour  to  tell  us  what  fundamental  points  be,  but  not  which  they 
 be  ;  and  yet  unless  you  do  this,  your  doctrine  serves  only  either 
 to  make  men  despair,  or  else  to  have  recourse  to  those  whom  you 
 call  papists,  and  who  give  one  certain  rule,  that  all  points  defined 
 by  Christ's  visible  church  belong  to  the  foundation  of  faith,  in 
 such  sense,  as  that  to  deny  any  one  cannot  stand  with  salvation. 
 And  seeing  yourself  acknowledges  that  these  men  do  not  err  in 
 points  fundamental,  I  cannot  but  hold  it  most  safe  for  me  to  join 
 with  them,  for  the  securing  of  my  soul,  and  the  avoiding  of  des- 
 
240 
 
 CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 peration,  into  which  this  your  doctrine  must  cast  all  them  who 
 understand  and  believe  it.  For  the  whole  discourse  and  in- 
 ference which  here  I  have  made,  are  either  your  own  direct  as- 
 sertions, or  evident  consequences  clearly  deduced  from  them. 
 
 20.  "  But  now  let  us  answer  some  few  objections  of  Br.  Potter's 
 against  that  which  we  have  said  before :  to  avoid  argument,  that 
 the  Scripture  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  in  the  Creed,  he  saith, 
 *the  Creed  is  an  abstract  of  such  necessary  doctrines  as  are  de- 
 livered in  Scripture,'  or  collected  out  of  it ;  and  therefore  needs 
 not  express  the  authority  of  that  which  it  supposes. 
 
 21.  "This  answer  makes  for  us.  For  by  giving  a  reason  why 
 it  was  needless  that  Scripture  should  be  expressed  in  the  Creed, 
 you  grant  as  much  as  we  desire;  namely,  rhat  the  apostles  judged 
 it  needless  to  express  all  necessary  points  of  faith  in  their  Creed. 
 Neither  doth  the  Creed  suppose  or  depend  on  Scripture  in  such 
 sort  as  that  we  can,  by  any  probable  consequence,  infer  from  the 
 articles  of  the  Creed,  that  there  is  any  canonical  Scripture  at  all ; 
 and  much  less  that  such  books  in  particular  be  canonical.  Yea, 
 the  Creed  might  have  been  the  same,  although  Holy  Scripture 
 had  never  been  written;  and,  which  is  more,  the  Creed,  even  in 
 priority  of  time,  was  before  all  the  Scripture  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, except  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.  And  so,  according  to 
 this  reason  of  his,  the  Scripture  should  not  mention  articles  con- 
 tained in  the  Creed.  And  I  note  in  a  w^ord,  how  little  connexion 
 Dr.  Potter's  arguments  have  while  he  tells  us,  that  '  the  Creed 
 is  an  abstract  of  such  necessary  doctrines  as  are  delivered  in 
 Scripture,  or  collected  out  of  it,  and  therefore  needs  not  express 
 the  authority  of  that  which  it  supposes  :'  it  doth  not  follow — 
 the  articles  of  the  Creed  are  delivered  in  Scripture,  therefore  the 
 Creed  supposeth  Scripture.  For  two  distinct  writings  may  well 
 deliver  the  same  truths,  and  yet  one  of  them  not  suppose  the 
 other,  unless  Dr.  Potter  be  of  opinion  that  two  doctors  cannot  at 
 one  time  speak  the  same  truth. 
 
 22.  ''And  notwithstanding  that  Dr.  Potter  hath  now  told  us, 
 it  was  needless  that  the  Creed  should  express  Scripture,  whose 
 authority  it  supposes  ;  he  comes  at  length  to  say,  that  '  the 
 Nicene  fathers  in  their  Creed  confessing  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
 spake  by  the  prophets,  do  thereby  sufficienly  avow  the  Divine 
 authority  of  all  canonical  Scripture.'  But  I  would  ask  him, 
 whether  the  Nicene  Creed  be  not  also  an  abstract  of  doctrines 
 delivered  in  Scripture,  as  he  said  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and 
 thence  did  infer,  that  it  was  needless  to  express  Scripture,  *  whose 
 authority  it  supposes  ? '  Besides,  we  do  not  only  believe  in 
 general  that  canonical  Scripture  is  of  Divine  authority,  but  we 
 are  also  bound,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  believe  that  such 
 and  such  particular  books,  not  mentioned  in  the  Nicene  Creed, 
 are  canonical.  And,  lastly.  Dr.  Potter  in  this  answer  grants  as 
 much  as  we  desire  ;  which  is,  that  all  points  of  faith  are  not 
 contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  even  as  it  is  explained  by 
 other  Creeds.  For  these  words,  '  who  spake  by  the  prophets,' 
 are  no  way  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  therefore  con- 
 tain an  addition,  not  an  explanation  thereof. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS,  241 
 
 23.  "But  'how  can  it  be  necessary,'  saith  Dr.  Potter,  *  for  any- 
 Christian  to  have  more  in  his  Creed  than  the  apostles  had,  and 
 the  church  of  their  times  ?  '  I  answer,  You  trifle,  not  distin- 
 guishing between  the  apostles '  belief,  and  that  abridgment  of 
 some  articles  of  faith  which  we  call  the  Apostles'  Cre^d ;  and 
 withal  you  beg  the  question,  by  supposing  the  apostles  believed 
 no  more  than  is  contained  in  their  Creed,  which  every  unlearned 
 person  knows  and  believes  ;  and  I  hope  you  will  not  deny  but 
 the  apostles  were  endued  with  greater  knowledge  than  ordinary 
 persons. 
 
 24.  "  Your  pretended  proof  out  of  the  Acts,  that  the  apostles 
 revealed  to  the  church  the  whole  counsel  of  God*  keeping  back 
 nothing,  with  your  gloss,  (*  needful  for  our  salvation,')  is  no 
 proof,  unless  you  still  beg  the  question,  and  do  suppose,  that 
 whatsoever  the  apostles  revealed  to  the  church  is  contained  in 
 the  Creed.  And  I  wonder  you  do  not  reflect  that  those  words 
 were  by  St.  Paul  particularly  directed  to  pastors  and  governors 
 of  the  church,  as  is  clear  by  the  other  words,  he  called  the 
 ancieiits  of  the  church.  And  afterward,  Take  heed  to  yourselves, 
 and  to  the  whole  flock  wherein  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  placed  you 
 bishops  to  rule  the  church.  And  yourself  say,  '  that  more  know- 
 ledge is  necessary  in  bishops  and  priests,  to  whom  is  committed 
 the  government  of  the  church,  and  care  of  souls,  than  in  vulgar 
 laics.'  Do  you  think  that  the  apostles  taught  Christians  nothing 
 but  their  Creed  ?  said  they  nothing  of  the  sacraments,  com- 
 mandments, duties  of  hope,  charity,  <&rc.  ? 
 
 25.  "  Upon  the  same  affected  ambiguity  is  grounded  your  other 
 objections  :  *  to  say,  the  whole  faith  of  those  times  is  not  con- 
 tained in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  but  a  part  of  it.'  For  the  faith  of 
 the  apostles  is  not  all  one  with  that  which  we  commonly  call 
 their  Creed.  Did  not,  I  pray  you,  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John, 
 believe  their  writings  to  be  canonical  Scripture  ?  And  yet  their 
 writings  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Creed.  It  is  therefore  more 
 than  clear  that  the  faith  of  the  apostles  is  of  larger  extent  than 
 the  Apostles'  Creed. 
 
 26.  "  To  your  demand,  why,  amongst  many  things  of  equal 
 'necessity  to  be  believed,  the  apostles  should  so  distinctly  set 
 down  some,  and  be  altogether  silent  of  others  ?'  I  answer,  that 
 you  must  answer  your  own  demand.  For  in  the  Creed  there  be 
 divers  points  in  their  nature  not  fundamental  or  necessary  to  be 
 explicitly  and  distinctly  believed,  as  above  we  showed ;  why 
 are  these  points  which  are  not  fundamental  expressed,  rather 
 than  other  of  the  same  quality  ?  Why  our  Saviour's  decent  to 
 hell  and  burial  expressed,  and  not  his  circumcision,  his  mani- 
 festation to  the  three  kings,  working  of  miracles,  &c.  ?  Why 
 did  they  not  express  Scriptures,  sacraments,  and  all  fundamental 
 points  of  faith  tending  to  practice,  as  well  as  those  which  rest 
 in  belief?  Their  intention  was  particularly  to  deliver  such 
 articles  as  were  fittest  for  those  times,  concerning  the  Deity, 
 Trinity,  and  Messias,   (as  heretofore  I  have  declared,)  leaving 
 
 ♦  Acts  XX.  77, 
 R 
 
242  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 many  things  to  be  taught  by  the  catholic  church,  which  in  the 
 Creed  we  all  profess  to  believe.     Neither  doth  it  follow,  as  you 
 infer,  '  that  as  well,  nay  better,  they  might  have  given  no  article 
 but  that,  [of  the  church,]  and  sent  us  to  the  church  for  all  the 
 rest.     For  in  setting  down  others  besides  that,  and  not  all,  they 
 make  us  believe  we  have  all,  when  we  have  not  all.'    For  by  this 
 kind  of  arguing,  what  may  not  be  deduced?     One  might,  'quite 
 contrary  to  your  inference,  say.  If  the  Apostles'  Creed  contain 
 all  points  necessary  to  salvation,  what  need  we  any  church  to 
 teach  us  ?  and  consequently  what  need  of  the  article  concerning 
 the  church  ?   What  need  we  the  Creeds  of  Nice,  Constantinople, 
 &c.  ?     Superfluous   are  your  Catechisms,  wherein,  besides  the 
 articles  of  the  Creed,  you  add  divers  other  particulars.     These 
 would  be  poor  consequences,  and  so  is  yours.     But  shall  I  tell 
 you  news  ?  for  so  you  are  pleased  to  esteem  it.     We  grant  your 
 inference  thus  far ;  that  our  Saviour  Christ  referred  us  to  his 
 church,   by  her  to  be  taught,  and  by  her  alone.     For  she  was 
 before  the  Creed  and  Scripture ;  and  she,  to  discharge  this  im- 
 posed office  of  instructing  us,  hath  delivered  us  the  Creed,  but 
 not  it  alone,  as  if  nothing  else  were  to  be  ])elieved.     We  have, 
 besides  it.   Holy  Scripture ;    we  have  unwritten,   Divine,  apos- 
 tolical, ecclesiastical  traditions.     It  were  a  childish  argument. 
 The  Creed  contains  not  all  things  which  are  necessary  to  be  be- 
 lieved ;  ergo,  it  is  not  profitable :  or.  The  church  alone  is  suf- 
 ficient to  teach  us  by  some  convenient  means  ;  ergo,  she  must 
 teach  us  without  all  means,  without  creeds,  without  councils, 
 without  Scripture,  <&:c.     If  the  apostles  had  expressed  no  article 
 but  that  of  the  catholic  church,  she  must  have  taught  us  the 
 other  articles  in  particular,  by  creeds,  or  other  means,  as  in  fact 
 we  have  even  the  Apostles'  Creed   from   the  tradition  of  the 
 church.     If  you  will  '  believe  you  have  all  in  the  Creed,  when 
 you  have  not  all,'  it  is  not  the  apostles  or  the  church  that  makes 
 you  so  believe,  but  it  is  your  own  error,  whereby  you  will  needs 
 believe  that  the  Creed  must  contain  all.  For  neither  the  apostles, 
 nor  the  church,  nor  the  Creed  itself,  tell  you  any  such  matter  ; 
 and  what  necessity  is  there  that  one  means  of  instruction  must 
 involve  whatsoever  is  contained  in  all  the  rest  ?     We  are  not  to 
 recite  the  Creed  with  anticipated  persuasion,  that  it  must  contain 
 what  we  imagine  it  ought,  for  better  maintaining  some  opinions 
 of  our  own  ;    but  we  ought  to  say,  and  believe,  that  it  contains 
 what  we  find  in  it,  of  which  one  article  is,  to  believe  the  catholic 
 church,  surely  to  be  taught  by  her,  which  presupposeth  that  we 
 need  other  instruction  beside  the  Creed ;    and  in  particular  we 
 may  learn  of  her  what  points  be  contained  in  the  Creed,  what 
 otherwise  ;  and  so  we  shall  not  be  deceived  by  beheving  we  have 
 all  in  the  Creed,  when  we  have  not  all ;    and  you  may  in  the 
 same  manner  say,  '  as  well,  nay  better,  the  apostles  might  have 
 given  us  no  articles  at  all,  as  have  left  out  articles  tending  to 
 practice.'     For  in  setting  down  one  sort  of  articles  and  not  the 
 other,  'they  make  us  believe  we  have  all,  when  we  have  not  all.' 
 27.  "  To  our  argument,  that  baptism  is  not  contained  in  the 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS.  243 
 
 Creed,  Dr.  Potter,  besides  his  answer,  That  sacraments  belong 
 rather  to  practice  that  faith,  (which  I  have  already  confuted 
 and  which  indeed  maketh  against  himself,  and  serveth  only  to 
 show  that  the  apostles  intended  not  to  comprise  all  points  in  the 
 Creed  which  we  are  bound  to  believe,)  adds,  that  the  Creed  of 
 Nice  '  expressed  baptism  by  name  ['  I  confess  one  baptism  for 
 the  remission  of  sins.']     Which  answer  is  directly  against  him- 
 self, and  manifestly  proves  that  baptism  is  an  article  of  faith,  and 
 yet  is  not  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  neither  explicitly, 
 nor  by  any  necessary  consequence  from  other  articles  expressed 
 therein.     If  to  make  it  an  article  of  faith  it  be  sufficient  that  it 
 is  contained  in  the  Nicene  council,  he  will  find  that  protestants 
 maintain  many  errors  against  faith,  as  being  repugnant  to  defini- 
 tions of  general  councils ;  as,  in  particular,  that  the  very  council 
 of  Nice  (which,  saith  Mr.  Whitgift,*  *  is  of  all  wise  and  learned 
 men  reverenced,  esteemed,  and  embraced,  next  unto  the  Scrip- 
 tures themselves')  decreed,  that  '  to  those  who  were  chosen  to  the 
 ministry  unmarried,  it  was  not  lawful  to  take  any  wife  after- 
 wards,' is  affirmed  by  protestants.     And  your  grand  reformer 
 Luther  (Lib.  de  Conciliis  parte  prima)  saith,  that  he  understands 
 not  the  Holy  Ghost  in  that  council.     For  in  one  canon  it  saith, 
 that  those  who  have  gelded  themselves  are  not  fit  to  be  made 
 priests  ;  in  another;  it  forbids  them  to  have  wives.     '  Hath,'  saith 
 he,  '  the  Holy  Ghost  nothing  to  do  in  councils,  but  to  bind  and 
 load  his  ministers  with  impossible,  dangerous,   and  unnecessary 
 laws  ?'     I  forbear  to  show  that  this  very  article,  '  I  confess  one 
 baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,'  will  be  understood  by  pro- 
 testants in  a  far  different  sense  from  catholics  ;    yea,  protestants 
 among  themselves  do  not  agree  how^  baptism  forgives  sins,  nor 
 what  grace  it  confers.     Only  concerning  the  unity  of  baptism 
 against  rebaptization  of  such  as  were  once  baptized,  (which  I 
 noted  as  a  point  not  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,)  1  cannot 
 omit  an  excellent  place  of  St.  Augustin,  where,  speaking  of  the 
 Donatists,  he  hath  these  words  :  'They  are  so  bold  asf  to  rebaptize 
 catholics,  wherein  they  show  themselves  to  be  the  greater  here- 
 tics, since  it  hath  pleased  the  universal  catholic  church  not  to 
 make  baptism  void  even  in  the  very  heretics  themselves.'     In 
 which  few  words  this  holy  father  delivereth  against  the  Donatists 
 these  points,  which  do  also  make  against  protestants ;    that  to 
 make  a  heresy  or  a  heretic  known  for  such,  it  is  sufficient  to 
 oppose  the  definition  of  God's  church  ;    that  a  proposition  may 
 be  heretical,  though  it  be  not  repugnant  to  any  texts  of  Scrip- 
 ture.    For  St.  Augustin  teacheth  that  the  doctrine  of  rebaptiza- 
 tion is  heretical,  and  yet  acknowledgeth  it  cannot  be  convinced 
 for  such  out  of  Scripture.     And  that  neither  the  heresy  of  rebap- 
 tization of  those  who  were  baptized  by  heretics,  nor  the  contrary 
 catholic  truth,  being  expressed  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  it  fol- 
 loweth  that  it  doth  not  contain  all  points  of  faith  necessary 
 to  salvation.    And  so  we  must  conclude,   that  to  believe  the 
 Creed  is  not  sufficient  for  unity  of  faith  and  spirit  in  the  same 
 
 *  In  his  Defence,  p.  330.  +  Lib.  de  Hoeres,  in  69. 
 
244  CHARITY   MAINTAINED  BY  CATHOLICS. 
 
 church,  unless  there  be  also  a  total  agreement  both  in  belief  of 
 other  points  of  faith,  and  in  external  profession  and  communion 
 also ;  (whereof  we  are  to  speak  in  the  next  chapter ;)  according 
 to  the  saying  of  St.  Augustin:*  'You  are  with  us  in  baptism,  and 
 in  the  Creed ;  but  in  the  spirit  of  unity  and  bond  of  peace,  and, 
 lastly,  in  the  catholic  church,  you  are  not  with  us.' " 
 
 *  Aug.  Ep.  48. 
 
THE 
 
 ANSWER  TO  THE  FOURTH  CHAPTER: 
 
 Wherein  is  showed,  that  the  Creed  contains  all  necessary  points 
 of  mere  belief. 
 
 1.  Ad.  §  1 — 6.  Concerning  the  Creeds  containing  the  funda- 
 mentals of  Christianity,  this  is  Dr.  Potter's  assertion,  delivered 
 in  the  207th  page  of  his  book :  "  The  Creed  of  the  apostles  (as 
 it  is  explained  in  the  latter  creeds  of  the  catholic  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  the  faith,)  but  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  faith, 
 such  as,  though  they  have  influence  upon  our  lives,  as  every 
 essential  doctrine  of  Christianity  hath,  yet  we  are  commanded  to 
 believe  them,  and  not  to  do  them.  The  assent  of  our  under- 
 standings is  required  to  them,  but  not  obedience  from  our  wills. 
 
 3.  But  these  speculative  doctrines  again  he  distinguisheth  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  God's  prime  in- 
 tention, are  essential  parts  of  the  gospel;  such  as  the  teachers  in 
 the  church  cannot  without  mortal  sin  omit  to  teach  the  learners ; 
 as  such  as  are  intrinsical  to  the  covenant  between  God  and  man ; 
 and  not  only  plainly  revealed  by  God,  and  so  certain  truths,  but 
 also  commanded  to  be  preached  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,  but  because  they  are  joined  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  pas- 
 tors themselves  to  know  them  or  believe  them,  or  not  to  disbe- 
 
246 
 
 THE   CREED    CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 lieve  them  absolutely  and  always  ;  but  then  only,  when  they  do 
 see  and  know  them  to  be  delivered  in  Scripture  as  Divine  reve- 
 lations. 
 
 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  God's  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  man  actually 
 to  disbelieve  any  one  particular  historical  verity  contained  in. 
 Scripture,  or  to  believe  the  contradiction  of  it,  though  he  knew 
 M  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  diligence  he  had  perused  it.  To 
 make,  therefore,  any  points  necessary  to  be  believed,  it  is  requi- 
 site 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  acci- 
 dent, and  by  consequence  they  are  so  ;  the  necessity  of  believing 
 them  being  enforced  upon  us  by  a  necessity  of  believing  this 
 essential  and  fundamental  article  of  faith,  "  that  all  Divine  reve- 
 lations are  true,"  which  to  disbelieve,  or  not  to  believe,  is  for 
 any  Christians  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  particularly  known, 
 (I  mean  known  to  be  Divine  revelations),  and  distinctly  to  be 
 believed.  And  of  this  latter  sort  of  speculative  Divine  verities 
 Dr.  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  sum- 
 mary of  all  those  doctrines  which,  being  merely  eredenda^  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  itself  true."  Your  reasons  to  prove 
 it  *'  impertinent,"  put  into  form  and  divested  of  impertinences, 
 are  these  :  I.  "  Because  the  question  was  not.  What  points  were 
 necessary  to  be  explicitly  believed  ?  but.  What  points  were  ne- 
 cessary not  to  be  disbelieved  after  sufficient  proposal  ?  And, 
 therefore,  to  give  a  catalogue  of  points  necessary  to  be  explicitly 
 believed  is  impertinent. 
 
 7.  "  Secondly,  Because  errors  may  be  damnable,  though  the 
 contrary  truths  be  not  of  themselves  fundamental ;  as,  that  Pon- 
 tius Pilate  was  our  Saviour's  judge  is  not  in  itself  a  fundamental 
 truth,  yet  to  believe  the  contrary  were  a  damnable  error.  And 
 therefore  to  give  a  catalogue  of  truths,  in  themselves  funda- 
 
NECESSARY  POINTS   OF    MERE   BELIEF.  247 
 
 mental,  is  no  pertinent  satisfaction  to  this  demand,  what  errors 
 are  damnable. 
 
 8.  "  Thirdly,  Because  if  the  church  be  not  universally  infal- 
 lible, 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 
 tense  the  articles  of  it  are  fundamental. 
 
 10.  "Fifthly,  Because  the  Apostles'  Creed  (as  Dr.  Potter  him- 
 ielf  confesseth)  was  not  a  sufficient  catalogue,  till  it  was  ex- 
 plained 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  v;ill  need  particular  explana- 
 tion ;  and  so  is  not  yet,  nor  ever  will  be,  a  complete  catalogue  of 
 fundamentals." 
 
 11.  Now  to  the  first  of  these  objections,  I  say,  first,  that  your 
 distinction,  between  points  necessary  to  be  believed  and  neces- 
 sary not  to  be  disbelieved,  is  more  subtle  than  sound  ;  a  distinc- 
 tion without  a  difierence  ;  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  abso- 
 lutely, are  yet  necessary  to  be  believed  upon  a  supposition  that 
 they  are  known  to  be  revealed  by  God  ;  that  is,  become  then  ne- 
 cessary to  be  believed,  when  they  are  known  to  be  Divine  reve- 
 lations. But  then  I  must  needs  say,  you  do  very  strangely  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  doth  Dr. 
 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  dam- 
 nable either  to  give  God  the  lie,  or  to  call  his  veracity  into  ques- 
 tion. 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  will  find 
 that  this  qualification,  "although  both  kinds  of  points  be  equally 
 proposed  as  revealed  by  God,"  is  your  addition  and  no  part  of 
 
248 
 
 THE   CREED   CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 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 
 church's  proposals  as  Divine  Revelations,  yet  we  make  no  such 
 distinction  of  known  Divine  revelations,  as  if  some  only  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,  inasmuch 
 as  none  may  be  disbelieved  after  sufficient  proposition  that  it  is 
 a  Divine  revelation.     At  least  it  is  to  desire  us,  first,  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  Di- 
 vine truth,"  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 
 w^e  are  not  bound  to  know  and  believe,  but  are  bound,  under  pain 
 of  damnation,  not  to  reject,  as  soon  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  suf- 
 ficient proposal,  you  require  us  to  set  you  down  all  points  con- 
 tained in  Scripture,  or  evidently  deducible  from  it.     And  yet 
 this  you  are  pleased  to  call  a  reasonable,  nay,  a  most  reasontble 
 demand;  whereas  having  engaged  yourself  to  give  a  catalogue 
 of  your  fundamentals,  you  conceive  your  engagement  very  well 
 satisfied  by  saying,  "All  is  fundamental  which  the  church  pro- 
 poseth,"  without  going  about  to  give  us  an  endless  inventory  of 
 her  proposals.     And  therefore  from  us,  instead  of  a  perfect  par- 
 ticular of  Divine  revelations  of  all  sorts,  (of  which,  with  a  less 
 hyperbole  than  St.  John  useth,  we  might  say,  if  they  were  to  he 
 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;*  which  yet  1  say,  not  as  if  I  thought 
 the  belief  of  this  general  sufficient  to  salvation,  but  because  I 
 conceive  it  as  sufficient  as  the  belief  of  your  general ;  and  there- 
 fore I  said  not,  Methinks  all  should  accept  of  this  general,  but, 
 Methinks  you  should  accept  of  it. 
 
 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  doth  propose  and  in- 
 deed beUeve  them,  hath,  for  matter  of  faith,  the  essence  of  a  true 
 church     that  which  doth  not,  hath  not  ?     Now  to  this  question, 
 
 *  The  reaiaining  part  of  this  paragraph  is  not  in  the  Oxford  Edition. 
 
NECESSARY    POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  249 
 
 tlioiigh  not  to  yours,  Dr.  Potter's  assertion  (if  it  be  true)  is  ap- 
 parently very  pertinent.  And  though  not  a  full  and  total  satis- 
 faction to  it,  yet  very  effectual,  and  of  great  moment  towards  it. 
 For  the  main  question  being,  What  points  are  necessary  to  sal- 
 vation?— 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  journey's  end.  And 
 therefore  that  which  he  doth  is  no  more  to  be  slighted  as  vain 
 and  impertinent,  than  an  architect's  work  is  to  be  thought  im- 
 pertinent towards  the  making  of  a  house,  because  he  doth  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 
 embraced,  cannot  in  all  reason  but  do  infinite  service  both  to  the 
 truth  of  Christ  and  the  peace  of  Christendom.  For  seeing  false- 
 hood and  error  could  not  long  stand  against  the  power  of  truth, 
 were  they  not  supported  by  tyranny  and  worldly  advantage,  he 
 that  could  assert  Christians  to  that  liberty  which  Christ  and  his 
 apostles  left  them,  must  needs  do  truth  a  most  heroical  service. 
 And  seeing  the  overvaluing  of  the  differences  among  Christians 
 is  one  of  the  greatest  maintainers  of  the  schisms  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  flows  naturally  from  Dr. 
 Potter's  assertion,  is  this :  That  what  man  or  church  soever  be- 
 lieves 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  offensive  to  God :  nor 
 therefore  deserve  for  any  such  error  to  be  deprived  of  his  life,  or 
 to  be  cut  off  from  the  church's  communion  and  the  hope  of  sal- 
 vation. And  the  production  of  this  again  would  be  this  (which 
 highly  concerns  the  Church  of  Rome  to  think  of ) :  That  what- 
 soever man  or  church  doth  for  any  error  of  simple  belief  deprive 
 any  man  so  qualified  as  above,  either  of  his  temporal  life,  or 
 livelihood,  or  liberty,  or  of  the  church's  communion,  and  hope 
 of  salvation,  is  for  the  first,  unjust,  cruel,  and  tyrannous;  schism- 
 atical,  presumptuous,  and  uncharitable  for  the  second. 
 
 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  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  revela- 
 tions to  be  true,  how  doth  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  mere  faith,  yet  no 
 
250 
 
 THE    CUBED   CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 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  him  that  believes  the  Creep,  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  j^our  first  argument ;  the  length  M'hereof  will  be  the 
 more  excusable,  if  I  oblige  myself  to  say  but  little  to  the  rest. 
 
 14.  1  come  then  to  your  second;  and,  in  answer  to  it,  deny 
 flatly,  as  a  thing  destructive  of  itself,  that  any  error  can  be  damn- 
 able, unless  it  be  repugnant  immediately  or  mediately,  directly 
 or  indirectly,  of  itself  or  by  accident,  to  some  truth  for  the  mat- 
 ter of  it  fundamental.  And  to  your  example  of  Pontius  Pilate 
 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  funda- 
 mental 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  §  'l5. 
 "  Every  fundamental  error  must  have  a  contrary  fundamental 
 truth,  because  of  two  contradictory  propositions,  in  the  same  de- 
 gree, if  the  one  is  false,  the  other  must  be  true,"  &c. 
 
 15.  To  the  third  1  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  Dr.  Potter  hath  proved)  give  this  constant  testimony 
 unto  it.  Besides,  1  tell  you,  it  is  guilty  of  the  same  fault  which 
 Dr.  Potter's  assertion  is  here  accused  of;  having,  perhaps,  some 
 colour  towards  the  proving  it  false,  but  none  at  all  to  show  it  im- 
 pertinent, 
 
 16.  To  the  fourth,  I  answer  plainly  thus,  That  you  find  fault 
 with  Dr.  Potter  for  his  virtues :  you  are  offended  with  him  for 
 not  usurping  the  authority  which  he  hath  not ;  in  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  pre- 
 sumptuous 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  men's  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  words  of 
 God  ;  this  deifying  our  own  interpretations,  and  tyrannous  en- 
 forcing 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  ;  is 
 and  hath  been  the  only  fountain  of  all  the  schisms  of  the  church, 
 
NECESSARY   POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  "^1 
 
 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  Tiirca  nee  dolente  JiidcBo.  Take  away  these  walls  of 
 separation,  and  all  will  quickly  be  one.  Take  away  this  perse- 
 cuting, 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 
 devil's  instrument  to  support  errors  and  superstitions  and  im- 
 pieties in  the  several  parts  of  the  world,  which  could  not  other- 
 wise 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  w^ell  be  hoped,  by  God's  blessing,  that  universal  liberty, 
 thus  moderated,  may  quickly  reduce  Christendom  to  truth  and 
 unity.  These  thoughts  of  peace  (I  am  persuaded)  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  dan- 
 gerous  supposition,  that  "  new  heresies  may  arise."  For  a  he- 
 sesy  being  in  itself  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,  wha 
 yet,  at  the  same  time,  are  not  ashamed  to  pretend  that  your 
 whole  doctrine  is  catholic  and  apostolic  :  so  Salmeron  :  Non  om- 
 nihus  omnia  dedit  Deus,  ut  qucBlibet  (stat  suis  gaudeat  veritatibus, 
 qiias  priur  cBtas  ignoravit ;  '*  God  hath  not  given  all  things  to 
 all ;  so  that  every  age  hath  its  proper  verities,  which  the  former 
 age  was  ignorant  of,"  Dis.  57.  in  Epist.  ad  Rom.  And  again  in 
 the  margin,  Hahet  unumquodque  seculum  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,  Deiparcs  cultum 
 in  ecclesiam  introduxit :  "  The  doctrine  of  Augustin  only  hath 
 brought  into  the  church  the  worship  of  the  assumption  of  the 
 mother  of  God,"  &c.  Others  again  mince  and  palliate  the  mat- 
 ter w^ith  this  pretence,  that  your  church  undertakes  not  to  coin 
 new  articles  of  faith,  but  only  to  declare  those  that  w^ant  suffi- 
 cient declaration ;  but  if  sufficient  declaration  be  necessary  to 
 make  any  doctrine  an  article  of  faith,  then  this  doctrine,  which 
 before  wanted  it,  was  not  before  an  article  of  faith ;  and  your 
 
 *  This  persuasion  is  no  singularity  of  mine,  but  the  doctrine  which  I  have  learned 
 from  divines  of  great  learning  and  judgment.  Let  the  reader  be  pleased  to  peruse 
 tlie  seventh  book  of  Acont.  de  Strat.  Satauaj,  and  Zanchius  liis  last  Oration  delivered 
 by  him,  after  the  composing  of  the  discord  between  him  and  Amerbachius,  and  he 
 shall  confess  as  much. 
 
252  THE  CREED  CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 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  doctrine,  which  you  pretend  hath  the 
 matter,  but  wants  the  form,  of  an  article  of  faith ;  that  is,  suf- 
 ficient 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 
 learned  it  ?  If  they  knew  it,  then  either  they  concealed  or  de- 
 clared it.  To  say,  they  concealed  any  necessary  part  of  the 
 gospel,  is  to  charge  them  with  far  greater  sacrilege  than  w^hat 
 was  punished  in  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  It  is  to  charge  these 
 glorious  stewards  and  dispensers  of  the  mystery  of  Christ  with 
 want  of  the  great  virtue  requisite  in  a  steward,  which  is  fidelity. 
 It  is  to  charge  them  with  presumption  for  denouncing  anathemas 
 even  to  angels,  in  case  they  should  teach  any  other  doctrine 
 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  doctrine  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  heresy,  without  any  need  of  further 
 declaration ;  and  then  their  successors  either  continued  the 
 declaration  of  it,  or  discontinued  it ;  if  they  did  the  latter,  how 
 are  they  such  faithful  depositories  of  apostolic  doctrine  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  doctrine  a  full  and  formal  heresy,  with- 
 out and  before  the  definition  or  declaration  of  a  council.  So 
 that  councils,  as  they  cannot  make  that  a  truth  or  falsehood 
 which  before  was  not  so ;  so  neither  can  they  make  or  declare 
 that  to  be  an  article  of  faith,  or  a  heresy,  which  before  was  not 
 so.  The  supposition  therefore  on  which  this  argument  stands 
 being  false  and  ruinous,  whatsoever  is  built  upon  it  must  toge- 
 ther with  it  fail  to  the  ground.  This  explication  therefore,  and 
 restriction  of  this  doctrine,  (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  know  not.  He 
 that  can  sbow^,  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  show  either  of  these  things,  let 
 him  ;  for  my  part,  1  cannot.  Yet  I  willingly  confess  the  judg- 
 ment of  a  council,  though  not  infallible,  is  yet  so  far  directive 
 
NECESSARY   POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  253 
 
 and  obliging,  that  without  apparent  reason  to  the  contrary  it 
 may  be  sin  to  reject  it,  at  least  not  to  afford  it  an  outward  sub- 
 mission for  public  peace  sake. 
 
 19.  Ad  §  7,  8,  9.  Were  I  not  peradventure  more  fearful  than 
 I  need  to  be  of  the  imputation  of  tergiversation,  I  might  very 
 easily  rid  my  hands  of  the  remainder  of  this  chapter  ;  for  in  the 
 question  there  discussed,  you  grant  (for  aught  I  see)  as  much  as 
 l)r.  Potter  desires ;  and  Dr.  Potter  grants  as  much  as  you  desire : 
 and  therefore  that  I  should  diseasemyself  or  my  reader  with  a  punc- 
 tual examination  of  it  may  seem  superfluous.  First,  that  which  you 
 would  have,  and  which  your  arguments  wholly  drive  at,  is  this 
 — that  the  Creed  doth  not  contain  all  main  and  principal  points 
 of  faith  of  all  sorts,  whether  they  be  speculative  or  practical, 
 whether  they  contain  matter  of  simple  belief,  or  whether  they 
 contain  matter  of  practice  and  obedience.  This  Dr.  Potter 
 grants,  p.  215,  235.  And  you  grant  that  he  grants  it,  §  8 ;  where 
 your  words  are,  "  Even  by  Dr.  Potter's  own  confession,  it"  [the 
 Creed]  "  doth  not  comprehend  agenda,  or  things  belonging  to 
 practice,  as  sacraments,  commandments,  the  act  of  hope,  and 
 duties  of  charity."  And  if  you  will  infer  from  hence,  that  there- 
 fore C.  M.  hath  no  reason  to  rest  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  as  a 
 perfect  catalogue  of  fundamentals,  and  a  full  satisfaction  to  his 
 demand,  I  have,  without  any  off'ence  of  Dr.  Potter,  granted  as 
 much,  if  that  would  content  you.  But  seeing  you  go  on,  and 
 because  his  assertion  is  not  (as  neither  is  it  pretended  to  be)  a 
 total  satisfaction  to  the  demand,  cashier  it  as  impertinent,  and 
 nothing  towards  it,  here  I  have  been  bold  to  stop  your  proceed- 
 ing, as  unjust  and  unreasonable.  For,  as  if  you  should  request 
 a  friend  to  lend  you,  or  demand  of  a  debtor  to  pay  you,  a  hun- 
 dred pounds,  and  he  could  or  should  let  you  have  but  fifty,  this 
 were  not  fully  to  satisfy  your  demand,  yet  sure  it  were  not  to  do 
 nothing  towards  it ;  or,  as  this  rejoinder  of  mine,  though  it  be 
 not  an  answer  to  all  your  book,  but  only  to  the  first  considerable 
 part  of  it,  and  so  much  of  the  second  as  is  material  and  falls  into 
 the  first,  yet  I  hope  you  will  not  deal  so  unkindly  with  me,  as 
 for  this  reason  to  condemn  it  of  impertinence  :  so  Dr.  Potter 
 being  demanded  a  catalogue  of  fundamentals  of  faith,  and  find- 
 ing them  of  two  kinds,  and  those  of  one  kind  summed  up  to  his 
 hand  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  this  Creed  consigned  unto  him 
 for  such  a  summary  by  very  great  authority ;  if  upon  these  con- 
 siderations he  hath  entreated  his  demander  to  accept  of  thus 
 much,  in  part  of  payment,  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  as  a  sufficient 
 summary  of  these  articles  of  faith  which  are  merely  credenda, 
 methinks  he  hath  little  reason  to  complain  that  he  hath  not 
 been  fairly  and  squarely  dealt  with.  Especially,  seeing  for  full 
 satisfaction,  by  Dr.  Potter  and  all  protestants,  he  is  referred  to 
 Scripture,  which  we  aflSrm  contains  evidently  all  necessary 
 points  of  faith  and  rules  of  obedience ;  and  seeing  Dr.  Potter  in 
 this  very  place  hath  subjoined,  though  not  a  catalogue  of  funda- 
 mentals, which  (because  to  some  more  is  fundamental,  to  others 
 less,  to  others  nothing  at  all)  had  been  impossible,  yet  such  a 
 comprehension  of  them  as  may  serve  every  one  that  will  make  a 
 
'254  THE   CREED   CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 conscionable  use  of  it  instead  of  a  catalogue.  For  thus  he  says, 
 "  It  seems  to  be  fundamental  to  the  faith,  and  for  the  salvation 
 of  every  member  of  the  church,  that  he  acknowledge  and  believe 
 all  such  points  of  faith  whereof  he  may  be  sufficiently  convinced 
 that  they  belong  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ."  This  general 
 rule  if  I  should  call  a  catalogue  of  fundamentals,  I  should  have 
 a  precedent  for  it  with  you  above  exception,  I  mean  yourself; 
 for,  chap.  3.  §  19,  just  such  another  proposition  you  have  called 
 by  this  name.  Yet  because  it  were  a  strange  figure  of  speech,  I 
 forbear  it ;  only  I  will  be  bold  to  say,  that  this  assertion  is  as 
 good  a  catalogue  of  fundamentals  as  any  you  wll  bring  of  your 
 church  proposals,  though  you  take  as  much  time  to  do  it  as  he 
 that  undertook  to  make  an  ass  speak. 
 
 20.  I  come  now  to  show  that  you  also  have  requited  Dr. 
 Potter  with  a  mutual  courteous  acknowledgment  of  his  assertion, 
 that  the  Creed  is  a  sufficient  summary  of  all  the  necessary  arti- 
 cles of  faith  which  are  merely  credenda. 
 
 21.  First  then,  §  8,  you  have  these  words :  "  It  cannot  be  de- 
 nied that  the  Creed  is  most  full  and  complete  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  learned  and  remem- 
 bered." These  words,  I  say,  being  fairly  examined,  without 
 putting  them  on  the  rack,  will  amount  to  a  full  acknowledgment 
 of  Dr.  Potter's  assertion.  But  before  I  put  them  to  the  question, 
 I  must  crave  thus  much  right  of  you,  to  grant  me  this  most  rea- 
 sonable postulate,  that  the  doctrine  of  repentance  from  dead 
 works,  which  St.  Paul  saith  was  one  of  tne  two  only  things 
 which  he  preached,  and  the  doctrine  of  charity,  without  ivhich 
 (the  same  St.  Paul  assures  us  that)  the  knowledge  of  all  mysteries 
 and  all  faith  is  nothing,  were  doctrines  more  necessary  and  re- 
 quisite, and  therefore  more  fit  to  be  preached  to  Jews  and  Gen- 
 tiles, 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  com- 
 prehension of  such  heads  of  faith  as  w^ere  most  befitting  and  re- 
 quisite for  preaching  the  faith  of  Christ,"  &c. ;  you  are  now,  for 
 fear  of  too  much  debasing  those  high  doctrines  of  repentance 
 •and  charity,  to  restrain  your  assertion,  as  Dr.  Potter  doth  his, 
 and  (though  you  speak  indefinitely)  to  say  you  meant  it  only  of 
 those  heads  of  faith  which  are  merely  credetida.  And  then  the 
 meaning  of  it  (if  it  hath  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 
 
NECESSARY    POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  255 
 
 and  remembered.  Neither  I  nor  you,  I  believe,  can  make  any 
 other  sense  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  easily  learned  and  re- 
 membered: 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  remembered,  he 
 that  remembers  that  we  speak  only  of  such  doctrines  as  are 
 necessary  to  be  taught  and  learned,  will  require  hereof  no  fur- 
 ther 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  greater  part  of  men  are  of  very  mean 
 capacities,  that  it  is  necessary  that  that  may  be  learned  easily 
 which  is  to  be  learned  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  remembered,  are  by  your 
 
 confession  comprised  in  the  Creed  : 
 But   all  the  necessary  articles  of  faith    are  requisite   to    be 
 
 preached,  and  easy  to  be  remembered  ; 
 Therefore  they  are  all  comprised  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,    uht 
 
 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,  §  26,  thus  1  conclude 
 
 my  purpose  : 
 
256 
 
 THE   CREED   CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 "The  apostles'  intention  was  particularly  to  deliver  in  the 
 Creed  such  articles  as  were  fittest  for  those  times,  concern- 
 ing the  Deity,  Trinity,  and  Messias:  (thus  you:)  now  I 
 suhsume ; 
 
 But  all  points  simply  necessary,  by  virtue  of  God's  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  befitting  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  ge- 
 neral heads  and  such  articles,  why  did  not  you  say  plainly,  all 
 such,  or  some  such  ?  This  had  been  plain  dealing;  but,  1  fear, 
 cross  to  your  design,  which  yet  you  have  failed  of.  For  that 
 which  you  have  spoken  (though  you  are  laoth  to  speak  out) 
 either  signifies  nothing  at  all,  or  that  which  I  and  Dr.  Potter 
 aifirm ;  viz.  that  the  Apostles'  Creed  contains  all  those  points  of 
 belief  which  were,  by  God's  command,  of  necessity  to  be 
 preached  to  all,  and  believed  by  all.  Neither  when  I  say  so 
 would  1  be  so  mistaken,  as  if  I  said,  that  all  points  in  the  Creed 
 are  thus  necessary:  for  punies  in  logic  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  Gen- 
 tiles ?" 
 
 24.  Neither  may  you  hope  to  avoid  the  pressure  of  these 
 acknowledgments  by  pretending,  as  you  do,  §  10,  that  you  do 
 indeed  acknowledge  the  Creed  to  contain  all  the  necessary  articles 
 of  faith ;  but  yet  so,  that  they  are  not  either  there  expressed  in 
 it  or  deducible  from  it  by  evident  consequence,  but  "  only  by  way 
 of  implication  or  reduction."  For,  first,  not  to  tell  you  that  no 
 proposition  is  implied  in  any  other  which  is  not  deducible  from 
 it ;  nor,  secondly,  that  the  article  of  the  catholic  church,  wherein 
 you  will  have  all  implied,  implies  nothing  to  any  purpose  of 
 yours,  unless  out  of  mere  favour  we  will  grant  the  sense  of  it  to 
 be,  that  the  church  is  infallible,  and  that  yours  is  the  church. 
 To  pass  by  all  this,  and  require  no  answer  to  it,  this  one  thing  I 
 may  not  omit :  that  the  apostle's  intent  was,  (by  your  own  con- 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 257 
 
 fession,)  particularly  to  deliver  in  the  Creed  such  articles  of  belief 
 as  were  fittest  for  those  times  (and  all  necessary  articles  I  have 
 proved  were  such) :  now  to  deliver  particularly,  and  to  deliver 
 only  implicitly ;  to  be  delivered  particularly  in  the  Creed,  and 
 only  to  be  reducible  to  it ;  I  suppose  are  repugnances  hardly  re- 
 concileable.  And  therefore,  though  we  desire  you  not  to  grant 
 that  the  Creed  contains  all  points  of  faith  of  all  sorts,  any  other 
 way  than  by  implication  or  reduction,  no,  nor  so  neither;  yet 
 you  have  granted,  and  must  grant,  of  the  fundamental  points  of 
 simple  belief,  those  which  the  apostles  were  commanded  in  par- 
 ticular to  teach  all  men,  and  all  men  in  particular  to  know  and 
 believe,  that  these  are  delivered  in  the  Creed  after  a  more  parti- 
 cular and  punctual  manner  than  implication  or  reduction 
 comes  to. 
 
 25.  Ad  §  10 — 15.  It  is  vain  for  you  to  hope  that  the  testi- 
 monies of  the  ancient  and  modern  doctors,  alleged  to  this  purpose 
 by  Dr.  Potter  in  great  abundance,  will  be  turned  off  with  this 
 general  deceitful  answer,  that  the  allegation  of  them  was  need- 
 less to  prove  that  the  Creed  contains  all  points  of  faith,  under 
 pretence  that  you  grant  it  in  manner  aforesaid.  For  what  if  you 
 grant  it  in  manner  aforesaid,  yet  if  you  grant  it  not  (as  indeed 
 you  do  but  inconstantly)  in  the  sense  which  their  testimonies 
 require,  then  for  all  this  their  testimonies  may  be  alleged  to  very 
 good  purpose.  Now  let  any  man  read  them  with  any  tolerable 
 indifference,  and  he  shall  find  they  say  plainly,  that  all  points  of 
 faith,  necessary  to  be  particularly  believed,  are  explicitly  con- 
 tained in  the  Creed ;  and  that  your  gloss  of  implication  and  re- 
 duction, had  it  been  confronted  with  their  sentences,  would  have 
 been  much  out  of  countenance,  as  having  no  ground  or  colour 
 of  ground  in  them.  For  example,  if  Azorius  had  thought  thus 
 of  it,  how  could  he  have  called  it  *  "a  brief  comprehension  of 
 the  faith,  and  a  sum  of  all  things  to  be  believed,  and,  as  it  were, 
 a  sign  or  cognizance  whereby  Christians  are  to  be  differenced 
 and  distinguished  from  the  impious  and  misbelievers,  who  pro- 
 fess either  no  faith,  or  not  the  right?"  If  Huntlyhad  been  of 
 this  mind,  how  could  he  have  said  of  it,  with  any  congruity,t 
 "  that  the  rule  of  faith  is  expressly  contained  in  it,  and  all  the 
 prime  foundations  of  faith;"  and,  that  "the  apostles  were  not  so 
 forgetful  as  to  omit  any  prime  principal  foundation  of  faith  in 
 that  Creed  which  they  delivered  to  be  beheved  by  all  Chris- 
 tians ?"  The  words  of  Filiucius  are  pregnant  to  the  same  pur- 
 pose :  J  ''  There  cannot  be  a  fitter  rule  from  whence  Christians 
 may  learn  what  they  are  explicitly  to  believe,  than  that  which  is 
 contained  in  the  Creed."  Which  words  cannot  be  justified,  if 
 all  points  necessary  to  be  believed  explicitly  be  not  comprised 
 in  it.  "To  this  end,"  saith  Putean,||  "was  the  Creed  composed 
 by  the  apostles,  that  Christians  might  have  a  form  whereby  they 
 might  profess  themselves  catholics."  But  certainly  the  apostles 
 did  this  in  vain,  if  a  man  might  profess  this,  and  yet  for  matter 
 of  faith  be  not  a  catholic. 
 
 *  Azor.  part  1.  c.  v.  +  Cont.  2.  c.  10.  n,  10. 
 
 1  Moral,  quest.  Tr.  2i.  c.  2.  n.  31.  ij  In  2  2.  qu.  art.  3.  Dub.  tUt. 
 
258 
 
 THE    CREED   CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 26.  The  words  of  cardinal  Richelieu*  exact  this  sense,  and 
 refuse  your  gloss  as  much  as  any  of  the  former :  "  The  Apostles* 
 Creed  is  the  summary  and  abridgment  of  that  faith  which  is 
 necessary  for  a  Christian ;  these  holy  persons  being  by  the  com- 
 mandment of  Jesus  Christ  to  disperse  themselves  over  the  world, 
 and  in  all  parts  by  preaching  the  gospel  to  plant  the  faith, 
 esteemed  it  very  necessary  to  reduce  into  a  short  sum  all  that 
 which  Christians  ought  to  know,  to  the  end  that  being  dispersed 
 into  divers  parts  of  the  world  they  might  preach  the  same  thing 
 in  a  short  form,  that  it  might  be  the  easier  remembered.  For 
 this  effect  they  called  this  abridgment  a  symbol,  which  signifies 
 a  mark,  or  sign,  which  might  serve  to  distinguish  true  Christians 
 which  embraced  it,  from  infidels  which  rejected  it."  Now  I 
 would  fain  know  how  the  composition  of  the  Creed  could  serve 
 for  this  end,  and  secure  the  preachers  of  it,  that  they  should 
 preach  the  same  thing,  if  there  were  other  necessary  articles  not 
 comprised  in  it?  or  how  could  it  be  a  sign  to  distinguish  true 
 Christians  from  others,  if  a  man  might  believe  it  all,  and  for 
 want  of  believing  something  else,  not  to  be  a  true  Christian  ? 
 
 27.  The  words  of  the  author  of  the  Consideration  of  Four 
 Heads  propounded  to  King  James  f  require  the  same  sense,  and 
 utterly  renounce  your  qualification  :  "  The  symbol  is  a  brief  yet 
 entire  methodical  sum  of  Christian  doctrine,  including  all  points 
 of  faith,  either  to  be  preached  by  the  apostles,  or  to  be  believed 
 by  their  disciples ;  delivered  both  for  a  direction  unto  them,  what 
 they  were  to  preach,  and  others  to  believe,  as  also  to  discern  and 
 put  a  difference  betwixt  all  faithful  Christians  and  misbelieving 
 infidels." 
 
 28.  Lastly,  Gregory  of  Valence  1|  afllirms  our  assertion  even  in 
 terms :  "  The  articles  of  faith  contained  in  the  Creed  are,  as  it 
 were,  the  first  principles  of  the  Christian  faith,  in  which  is  con- 
 tained the  sum  of  evangelical  doctrine,  which  all  men  are  bound 
 explicitly  to  believe." 
 
 29.  To  these  testimonials  of  your  own  doctors,  I  should  have 
 added  the  concurrent  suffrages  of  the  ancient  fathers,  but  the 
 full  and  free  acknowledgment  of  the  same  Valentia,  in  the  place 
 above  quoted,  will  make  this  labour  unnecessary.  "  So  judge," 
 saith  he,  "  the  holy  fathers,  affirming  that  this  symbol  of  faith 
 was  composed  by  the  apostles,  that  all  might  have  a  short  sum 
 of  those  things  which  are  to  be  believed,  and  are  dispersedly 
 contained  in  Scripture." 
 
 30.  Neither  is  there  any  discord  between  this  assertion  of  your 
 doctors,  and  their  holding  themselves  obliged  to  believe  all  the 
 points  which  the  council  of  Trent  defines.  For  protestants  and 
 papists  may  both  hold,  that  all  points  of  belief  necessary  to  be 
 known  and  believed  are  summoned  up  in  the  Creed,  and  yet  both 
 the  one  and  the  other  think  themselves  bound  to  believe  what- 
 soever other  points  they  either  know  or  believe  to  be  revealed 
 by  God.  For  the  articles  which  are  necessary  to  be  known  that 
 they  are  revealed  by  God  may  be  very  few,  and  yet  those  which 
 
 *  Instruction  du  Chrcstiea,  Lccon  premiere. 
 +  Ch.  3.  Consid.  1.  sect.  5.  p.  110.  1]  2.  2.  dis.  i.  q.  2.  p.  4.  in.  fin. 
 
NECESSARY   POINTS   OF   MERE    BELIEF.  259 
 
 are  necessary  to  be  believed,  when  they  are  revealed  and  known 
 to  be  so,  may  be  very  many. 
 
 31.  But  "  summaries  and  abstracts  are  not  intended  to  specify 
 all  the  particulars  of  the  science  or  subject  to  which  they 
 belong."  Yes,  if  they  be  intended  for  perfect  summaries,  they 
 must  not  omit  any  necessary  doctrine  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  logic, 
 and  call  it  a  summary  or  abstract  of  logic.  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  summaries,  and  tell  us  that  they  need  not 
 contain  all  the  particulars  of  their  science ;  and  of  what,  I  pray, 
 may  it  be  a  summary,  but  of  the  fundamentals  of  Christian  faith? 
 Now  you  have  already  told  us,  "  that  it  is  most  full  and  com- 
 plete to  that  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended."  Lay  all  this 
 together,  and  I  believe  the  product  wall  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,  1  have  already 
 told  you. 
 
 32.  Whereas  therefore  to  disprove  this  assertion,  in  divers 
 particles  of  this  chapter,  but  especially  the  fourteenth,  you  mus- 
 ter 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  prac- 
 tice, and  not  simple  belief;  or  else  they  are  such  doctrines  wherein 
 God  hath  not  so  plainly  revealed  himself,  but  that  honest  and 
 good  men,  true  lovers  of  God  and  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  For  Dr.  Potter  never  affirmed,  either 
 that  the  necessary  duties  of  a  Christian,  or  that  all  truths  piously 
 credible  but  not  necessary  to  be  believed,  or  that  all  truths  ne- 
 cessary to  be  believed  upon  the  supposal  of  Divine  revelation, 
 were  specified  in  the  Creed.  For  this  he  affirms  only  of  such 
 speculative  Divine  verities  which  God  hath  commanded  particu- 
 larly to  be  preached  to  all  and  believed  by  all.  Now  let  the 
 doctrines  be  objected  by  you  be  well  considered,  and  let  all  those 
 that  are  reducible  to  the  three  former  heads  be  discarded ;  and 
 then,  of  all  these  instances  against  Dr.  Potter's  assertion,  there 
 will  not  remain  so  much  as  one. 
 
 33.  First,  Questions  touching  the  conditions  to  be  performed 
 by  us  to  obtain  remission  of  sins — the  sacraments — the  com- 
 mandments, and  the  possibility  of  keeping  them — the  necessity 
 
260  THE  CREED  CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 of  imploring  the  assistance  of  God's  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  profit- 
 able, 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  church's  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  are  :  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  St.  Peter  had  no  such 
 primacy  as  you  pretend:  that  the  Scripture  is  a  perfect  rule  of 
 faith,  and  consequently  that  no  necessary  doctrine  is  unwritten  j 
 that  there  is  no  one  society  or  succession  of  Christians  absolutely 
 infallible.  These,  to  my  understanding,  are  truths  plainly  re- 
 vealed 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  explicitly  to  believe  them.  And  for 
 this  reason,  these,  with  innumerable  other  points,  are  to  be  refer- 
 red 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  mustered  together,  reducible  to 
 none  of  these  heads;  and  that  is,  that  God  is,  and  2S  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,  than  that  we  deny  this  point  because  we  deny 
 merit.  Besides,  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  courtesy; 
 and,  lastly,  with  St.  Paul,  that  all  which  they  can  suffer  for  God 
 (and  yet  suffering  is  more  than  doing)  is  not  worthy  to  he  compared 
 to  the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed.  So  that  you  must  either  mis- 
 understand their  meaning  in  denying  merit,  or  you  must  discharge 
 their  doctrine  of  this  odious  consequence,  or  you  must  charge  it 
 on  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  eter- 
 jial  glory  which  is  prepared  for  them.    As  for  the  inconvenience 
 
NECESSARY   POINTS   OF    MERE   BELIEF. 
 
 261 
 
 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 ;  inasmuch  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  man's  work  is  no  merit,  and  God's  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  sin- 
 cerity, have  professed  that  you  had  not  merited  such  a  reward  ? 
 And  yet  the  pope  is  neither  your  creator,  nor  redeemer,  nor  pre- 
 server, nor  perhaps  your  very  great  benefactor ;  sure  I  am,  not 
 so  great  as  God  Mmighty ;  and  therefore  hath  no  such  right  and 
 title  to  your  service  as  God  hath,  in  respect  of  precedent  obliga- 
 tions. Besides,  the  work  you  have  done  him  hath  been  really 
 advantageous  to  him  ;  and,  lastly,  not  altogether  unproportion- 
 able  to  the  forementioned  reward.  And,  therefore,  if  by  the 
 same  w^ork  you  will  pretend  that  either  you  have,  or  hope  to 
 have,  deserved  immortal  happiness,  I  beseech  you  consider 
 well  whether  this  be  not  to  set  a  higher  value  upon  a  cardinal's 
 cap  than  a  crown  of  immortal  glory,  and  with  that  cardinal  to 
 prefer  a  part  in  Paris  before  a  part  in  Paradise. 
 
 37.  In  the  next  paragraph  you  beat  the  air  again,  and  fight 
 manfully  with  your  own  shadow.  The  point  you  should  have 
 spoken  to  was  this  :  That  there  are  some  points  of  simple  belief 
 necessary  to  be  explicitly  believed,  which  yet  are  not  contained 
 in  the  Creed.  Instead  hereof  you  trouble  yourself  in  vain  to 
 demonstrate,  that  many  important  points  of  faith  are  not  con- 
 tained in  it,  which  yet  Dr.  Potter  had  freely  granted,  and  you 
 yourself  take  particular  notice  of  his  granting  of  it.  All  this 
 pains  therefore  you  have  employed  to  no  purpose ;  saving  that 
 to  some  negligent  reader  you  may  seem  to  have  spoken  to  the 
 very  point,  because  that  which  you  speak  to,  at  the  first  hearing, 
 sounds  somewhat  near  it.  But  such  a  one  I  must  entreat  to  re- 
 member, there  be  many  more  points  of  faith  than  there  be  arti- 
 -cles  of  simple  belief  necessary  to  be  explicitly  believed;  and 
 that  though  all  of  the  former  sort  are  not  contained  in  the 
 ■Creed,  yet  all  of  the  latter  sort  may  be.  As  for  your  distinction 
 between  heresies  that  have  been,  and  heresies  that  are,  and 
 heresies  that  maybe,  I  have  already  proved  it  vain;  and  that 
 whatsoever  may  be  an  heresy,  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  rolling,  and  again,  if  you  please,  melt  away 
 
262 
 
 THE    CREED   CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 and  decrease ;  but  as  Christ  Jesus,  so  his  gospel,  is  yesterday, 
 and  to-day,  and  for  ever  the  same. 
 
 38.  Our  Saviour  sending  his  apostles  to  preach,  gave  them  no 
 other  commission  than  this :  Go  teach  alt  nations,  baptising  them 
 in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  teaching 
 them  to  observe  all  things  t&hatsoever  I  have  commanded  you. 
 These  are  the  bounds  of  their  commission.  If  your  church 
 have  any  larger,  or  if  she  have  a  commission  at  large,  to 
 teach  what  she  pleaseth,  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  sacrilege  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  enjoin  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  archbishop  of  Armagh,  is  only  related  by 
 Dr.  Potter,  p.  155,  and  not  applauded:  though  the  truth  is,  both 
 the  man  deserves  as  much  applause  as  any  man,  and  his  saying 
 as  much  as  any  saying ;  it  being  as  great  and  as  good  a  truth, 
 and  as  necessary  for  these  miserable  times,  as  possibly  can  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  that  may  be  conceived  probable :  the  one,  by 
 taking  away  the  diversity  of  opinions  touching  matters  of  reli- 
 gion ;  the  other,  by  showing  that  the  diversity  of  opinions  which 
 as  among  the  several  sects  of  Christians  ought  to  be  no  hinderance 
 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  join  them  in  one  communion,  than  their  dif- 
 ference 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  joint  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  univer- 
 sally believed  of  all  Christians,  if  it  were  joined  with  a  love  of 
 truth,  and  with  holy  obedience,  was  sufficient  to  bring  nen  to 
 
NECESSARY   POINTS    OF   MERE   BELIEF. 
 
 263 
 
 heaven?  For  why  should  men  be  more  rigid  than  God?  Why- 
 should  any  error  exclude  any  man  from  the  church's  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 
 iSIew  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  probable,  but  of  St.  Luke 
 most  apparent,  that  in  every  one  of  their  books  they  have  com- 
 prehended 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 
 w^ork  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  as  of  St.  Matthew,  and 
 St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke,  and  St.  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,  w^hich 
 was,  as  the  titles  of  their  books  show,  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  St.  Mark  and  St.  John,  I  believe  every 
 considering  man  will  be  inclinable  to  believe,  that  then  without 
 doubt  it  is  contained,  with  the  advantage  of  many  other  profit- 
 able things,  in  the  larger  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke. 
 And  that  St.  Mark's  Gospel  wants  no  necessary  article  of  this 
 covenant,  1  presume  you  will  not  deny,  if  you  believe  Irenseus, 
 when  he  says,  "Matthew,  to  the  Hebrews  in  their  tongue  pub- 
 lished 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  Ephesus,  did  himself  also  set  forth, 
 a  Gospel." 
 
 41 .  In  which  words  of  Irenaeus,  it  is  remarkable  that  they  are 
 spoken  by  him  against  some  heretics  that  pretended  (as  you 
 know  who  do  now-a-days)  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  Peter  was  written  by  St.  Mark, 
 and  some  other  necessary  points  of  it  omitted,  had  been  to  speak 
 
264  THE    CREED    CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 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 
 St.  Peter,  was  written  by  St.  Mark.  Now  you  will  not  deny,  I 
 presume,  that  St.  Peter  preached  all;  therefore  you  must  not 
 deny  but  St.  Mark  wrote  all. 
 
 42.  Our  next  inquiry  let  it  be  touching  St.  John's  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  justify  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  1  deny,  but  St.  John's 
 secondary  intent  might  be  to  supply  the  defects  of  the  former 
 three  Gospels  in  some  things  very  profitable.  But  he  that  pre- 
 tends, that  any  necessary  doctrine  is  in  >St.  John  which  is  in 
 none  of  the  other  evangelists,  hath  not  so  considered  them  as  he 
 should  do,  before  he  pronounce  sentence  in  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  him- 
 self; 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 
 the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  you  may  have  life 
 in  his  name.  By  these  are  written,  may  be  understood,  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  St.  John  wrote  in  his  Gospel,  or  less  than  all,  and 
 therefore  all  much  more,  was  sufficient  to  make  them  believe 
 that  which,  being  believed  wdth  lively  faith,  would  certainly 
 bring  them  to  eternal  life. 
 
 43.  This  which  hath  been  spoken  (I  hope)  is  enough  to  justify 
 my  undertaking  to  the  full,  that  it  is  very  probable  that  every 
 one  of  the  four  evangelists  hath  in  his  book  the  whole  substance, 
 all  the  necessary  parts  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  But  for  St.  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  :  Forasmuch  as  many 
 have  taAen  in  hand  to  set  forth  i7i  order  a  declaration  of  those  things 
 which  are  most  surely  believed  among  us,  even  as  they  delivered 
 them  unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses,  and 
 ministers  of  the  word ,-  it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  had  per- 
 fect understanding  of  all  things  from  the  very  first,  to  write  unto  thee 
 
 in  order,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou  mightest  know  the 
 certainty  of  those  things  wherein  thou  hast  been  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  aU  that  Jesus 
 began  both  to  do  and  teach,  until  the  day  in  which  he  was  taken  up» 
 
NECESSARY  POINTS   OF   MERE   BELIEF.  265 
 
 Weigh  well  these  two  places,  and  then  answer  me  freely  and  in- 
 genuously to  these  demands:  1.  Whether  St.  Luke  doth  not 
 undertake  the  very  same  thing  which  he  says  mamj  had  taken  in 
 hand?  2.  Whether  this  were  not  to  set  forth  in  order  a  decla- 
 ration 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  Chris- 
 tians ?  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  doth  not  undertake  to  write  in  order 
 these  things  whereof  he  had  perfect  understanding  from  the  first? 
 €.  AVhether  he  had  not  perfect  understanding  of  the  whole  gospel 
 of  Christ  ?  7.  Whether  he  doth  not  undertake  to  write  to  The- 
 ophilus  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?  II.  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  St. 
 Luke  hath  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  St.  Luke  be  of  credit  with  you)  that  all  things  neces- 
 sary 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  St. 
 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  archbishop  had  very  just  and  certain  ground 
 to  say,  "that  in  these  propositions,  which  without  controversy 
 are  universally  received  in  the  whole  Christian  world,  so  much 
 truth  is  contained,  as,  being  joined  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  heresy  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 
 Tule,  "seeing  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  received  uni- 
 versally among  Christians,  the  denial  of  it  shall  not  exclude 
 salvation:"  the  other,  that  "the  bishop  contradicts  himself,  in 
 supposing  a  man  may  believe  all  necessary  truths,  and  yet  super- 
 induce 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  pro- 
 
266  THE  CREED  CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 fessions  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  deniers  of  the  doctrine  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.  Especially  seeing  your  friend,  to  whom  you  are  so  much 
 beholden,  Paulus  Veridicus,  in  his  scurrilous  and  sophistical 
 pamphlet  against  bishop  Usher's  sermon,  hath  so  kindly  offered 
 to  lead  you  by  the  hand  to  the  observation  of  them  in  these 
 words:  "To  consider  of  your  coinopista,  or  communiter  credenda, 
 articles,  as  you  call  them,  universally  believed  of  all  these  several 
 professions  of  Christianity,  which  have  any  large  spread  in  the 
 world :  these  articles,  for  example,  may  be  the  Unity  of  the  God- 
 head, the  Trinity  of  Persons,  immortality  of  the  soul,"  &c. 
 Where  you  see  that  your  friend,  whom  you  so  much  magnify, 
 hath  plainly  confessed,  that  notwithstanding  the  bishop's  words, 
 the  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  may  exclude  salvation: 
 and  therefore  in  approving  and  applauding  his  answer  to  the 
 bishop's  sermon,  you  have  unawares  allowed  this  answer  of  mine 
 to  your  own  greatest  objection. 
 
 46.  Now  for  the  foul  contradiction,  which  you  say  the  doctor 
 might  easily  have  espied  in  the  bishop's  saying,  he  desires  your 
 pardon  for  his  oversight,  for  Paulus  Veridicus's  sake :  who 
 though  he  set  himself  to  find  fault  with  the  bishop's  sermon,  yet 
 it  seems  this  he  could  not  find,  or  else  questionless  we  should 
 have  heard  of  it  from  him.  And  therefore,  if  Dr.  Potter,  being 
 the  bishop's  friend,  have  not  been  more  sharp-sighted  than  his 
 enemies,  this,  he  hopes,  to  indifferent  judges,  will  seem  an  un- 
 pardonable offence.  Yet  this  1  say,  not  as  if  there  were  any 
 contradiction  at  all,  much  less  any  foul  contradiction,  in  the 
 bishop's  words:  but  as  Antipheron's  picture,  which  he  thought 
 he  saw  in  the  air  before  him,  was  not  in  the  air,  but  in  his  dis- 
 turbed fancy ;  so  all  the  contradiction  which  here  you  descant 
 upon,  is  not  indeed  in  the  bishop's  saying,  but  in  your  imagina- 
 tion: for  wherein,  I  pray,  lies  this  foul  contradiction?  "In  sup- 
 posing," say  you,  "a  man  may  believe  all  truths  necessary  to  sal- 
 vation, and  superinduce  a  damnable  heresy."  I  answer,  it  is  not 
 certain  that  his  words  do  suppose  this;  neither,  if  they  do,  doth 
 he  contradict  himself.  I  say,  it  is  not  certain  that  his  words 
 import  any  such  matter;  for  ordinarily  men  used  to  speak  and 
 write  so  as  here  he  doth,  when  they  intend  not  to  limit  or  restrain, 
 but  only  to  repeat,  and  press,  and  illustrate  what  they  have  said 
 before.  And  I  wonder  why,  with  your  eagles'  eyes,  you  did  not 
 espy  another  foul  contradiction  in  his  words  as  well  as  this,  and 
 say,  that  he  supposes  a  man  may  walk  according  to  the  rule  of 
 holy  obedience,  and  yet  vitiatehis  holy  faith  with  a  lewd  and 
 wicked  conversation.  Certainly,  a  lewd  conversation  is  altogether 
 as  contradictious  to  holy  obedience,  as  a  damnable  heresy  to  ne- 
 cessary truth.     What  then  was  the  reason  that  you  espied  not 
 
NECESSARY   POINTS   OF    MERE    BELIEF. 
 
 267 
 
 this  foul  contradiction  in  his  words  as  well  as  that  ?  "Was  it 
 because,  according  to  the  spirit  and  genius  of  your  church,  your 
 zeal  is  greater  to  that  which  you  conceive  true  doctrine  than 
 holy  obedience,  and  think  simple  error  a  more  capital  crime  than 
 sins  committed  against  knowledge  and  conscience  ?  Or  was  it 
 because  your  reason  told  you,  that  herein  he  meant  only  to  repeat 
 and  not  to  limit  what  he  said  before  ?  And  why  then  had  yoa 
 not  so  much  candour  to  conceive  that  he  might  have  the  same 
 meaning  in  the  former  part  of  the  disjunction,  and  intend  no 
 more  but  this.  Whosoever  walks  according  to  this  rule  of  be- 
 lieving all  necessary  truths,  and  holy  obedience,  (neither  poison- 
 ing his  faith  of  those  truths  which  he  holds  with  the  mixture  of 
 any  damnable  heresy,  nor  vitiating  it  with  a  wicked  life,)  peace 
 shall  be  upon  him  ?  In  which  words  what  man  of  any  ingenuity 
 will  not  presently  perceive  that  the  words  within  the  parenthesis 
 are  only  a  repetition  of,  and  no  exception  from,  those  that  are 
 without?  St.  Anathasius,  in  his  Creed,  tells  us,  "The  catholic 
 faith  is  this,  that  we  worship  one  God  in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in. 
 Unity;  neither  confounding  the  Persons,  nor  dividing  the  Sub- 
 stance ;"  and  why  now  do  you  not  tell  him  that  he  contradicts  him- 
 self, 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  it  his  diet, 
 neither  eating  too  much  nor  too  little;  or  thus,  he  that  will  come 
 to  London  must  go  on  straight  forward  in  such  a  way,  and  nei- 
 ther turn  to  the  right  hand  nor  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  indif- 
 ference, yon  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  pre- 
 tend. Neither,  if  he  did  suppose  this,  (as  perhaps  he  did,)  were 
 this  to  contradict  himself:  for  though  there  can  be  no  damnable 
 heresy  unless  it  contradict  some  necessary  truth,  yet  there  is  no 
 contradiction  but  the  same  man  may  at  once  believe  this  heresy 
 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  Metaphysics;  therefore  it  is  not  impossible  that 
 a  man  may  believe  contradictions.  Secondly,  they  which  be- 
 lieve there  is  no  certainty  in  reason,  must  believe  that  contradic- 
 tions may  be  true ;  for  otherwise  there  will  be  no  certainty  in 
 this  reason:   this  contradicts  truth,  therefore  it  is  false.     But 
 
>68 
 
 THE    CREED   CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 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  irreconcilable  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  irreconcilable  con- 
 tradictions ;  therefore  it  is  as  possible  and  easy  for  you  to  believe 
 those  that  indeed  are  so.     Fourthly,  some  men  may  be  confuted 
 in  their  errors,  and  persuaded  out  of  them :  but  no  man's  error 
 can  be  confuted,  who,  together  with  his  error,  doth  not  believe 
 and  grant  some  true  principle  that  contradicts  his  error;  for  no- 
 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  on  by  both  parties.     Therefore  it  is  not  impossible,  but 
 absolutely  certain,  that  the  same  man  at  the  same  time  may  be- 
 lieve  contradictions.     Fifthly,   it  is  evident,   neither  can  you 
 without  extreme  madness  and  uncharitableness  deny,  that  we 
 believe  the  Bible ;  those  books,  I  mean,  which  we  account  can- 
 onical.    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  doc- 
 trine 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  along, 
 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  selfsame  point :    that  the  body 
 of  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  itself,  and  wholly 
 Lelow  itself,  within  itself,  and  without  itself,  on  the  right  hand, 
 
NECESSARY  POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  269 
 
 and  on  the  left  hand,  and  round  about  itself:  that  the  same 
 thing  at  the  same  time  should  move  to  and  from  itself,  and  lie 
 still;  or,  that  it  should  be  carried  from  one  place  to  another, 
 through  the  middle  space,  aud  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  spaces  between  heaven  and 
 earth :  that  to  be  one,  should  be  to  undivided  from  itself,  and 
 yet  that  one  and  the  same  thing  should  be  divided  from  itself:, 
 that  a  thing  may  be,  and  yet  be  nowhere :  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  itself:  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, 
 and  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  freeze  with  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  ;  a  thief  in 
 one  place,  and  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  doctrine  of  tran- 
 substantiation,  as  it  is  explained  one  way  or  other  by  your 
 schoolmen.  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  catholic  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  contra- 
 dictions. 
 
 47.  Lastly,  I  pray  tell  me  whether  you  have  not  so  much 
 charity  in  store  for  the  bishop  of  Armagh  and  Dr.  Potter,  as  to 
 think  that  they  themselves  believe  this  saying,  which  the  one 
 preached  and  printed,  the  other  reprinted,  and,  as  you  say,  ap- 
 plauded ?     If  you  thmk  they  do,  then  certainly  you  have  done 
 
270 
 
 THE   CREED   CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 unadvisedly,  either  in  charging  it  with  a  foul  contradiction,  or  in 
 saying,  it  is  impossible  that  any  man  should  at  once  believe  con- 
 tradictions. Indeed,  that  men  should  not  assent  to  contradic- 
 tions, and  that  it  is  unreasonable  to  do  so,  I  willingly  grant; 
 but  to  say  it  is  impossible  to  be  done,  is  against  every  man's  ex- 
 perience, and  almost  as  unreasonable  as  to  do  the  thing  which 
 is  said  to  be  impossible :  for  though  perhaps  it  may  be  very  dif- 
 ficult for  a  man  in  his  right  wits  to  believe  a  contradiction  ex- 
 pressed in  terms,  especially  if  he  believe  it  to  be  a  contradiction; 
 yet  for  men,  being  cowed  and  awed  by  superstition,  to  persuade 
 themselves  upon  slight  and  trivial  grounds,  that  these  or  these, 
 though  they  seem  contradictions,  yet  indeed  are  not  so,  and  so 
 to  believe  them ;  or  if  the  plain  repugnance  of  them  be  veiled 
 or  disguised  a  little  v/ith  some  empty  unintelligible  nonsense 
 distinction  ,•  or  if  it  be  not  expressed  but  implied,  not  direct  but 
 by  consequence,  so  that  the  parties  to  whose  faith  the  proposi- 
 tions are  offered  are  either  innocently  or  perhaps  affectedly 
 ignorant  of  the  contrariety  of  them  ;  for  men  in  such  cases  easily 
 to  swallow  and  digest  contradictions,  he  that  denies  it  possible 
 must  be  a  mere  stranger  in  the  world. 
 
 48.  Ad  §  18.  This  paragraph  consists  of  two  immodest  untruths, 
 obtruded  upon  us  without  show  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  "  Dr.  Potter  makes  a  church,  of 
 men  agreeing  scarcely  in  one  point  of  faith ;  of  men  concurring 
 in  some  one  or  few  articles  of  belief ;  and  in  the  rest  holding  con- 
 ceits plainly  contradictory;  agreeing  only  in  this  one  article, 
 that  Christ  is  our  Saviour,  but  for  the  rest,  like  to  the  parts  of  a 
 chimera,"  &c.  Which,  I  say,  is  a  shameless  calumny,  not  only 
 because  Dr.  Potter  in  this  point  delivers  not  his  own  judgment, 
 but  relates  the  opinion  of  others,  Mr.  Hooker  and  Mr.  Morton ; 
 but  especially,  because  even  these  men,  (as  they  are  related  by 
 Dr.  Potter,)  to  the  constituting  the  very  essence  of  a  church,  in 
 the  lowest  degree,  require  not  only  "faith  in  Christ  Jesus  the 
 Son  of  God,  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,"  but  also  "  submission 
 to  his  doctrine  in  mind  and  Avill."  Now  I  beseech  you,  sir,  tell 
 me  ingenuously,  whether  the  doctrine  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,  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  hypo- 
 crisy 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.  1  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 
 
iM:essary  points  of  mere  belief.  271 
 
 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  one  sees 
 them  not,  it  cannot  be  because  he  cannot,  but  becanse  he  will 
 not?  So  plainly,  that  whosoever  submits  sincerely  to  the  doc- 
 trine 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  endeavour  to  find  it  out; 
 the  diflFerence  only  is,  which  is  that  true  sense  which  God  in- 
 tended. Neither  would  this  long  continue,  if  the  w^alls  of  sepa- 
 ration, whereby  the  devil  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  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  innume- 
 rable, and  the  other  scarce  a  number;  the  truth  is  clean  con- 
 trary; 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  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  inconsiderable 
 things,  and  matters  of  no  moment.  For  the  truth  is,  1  am  very 
 fearful  that  some  of  their  opinions,  either  as  they  are,  or  as  they 
 are  apt  to  be  mistaken,  though  not  of  themselves  so  damnable 
 but  that  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  men's  darn- 
 nation  :  and  such  I  conceive  all  these  doctrines  which  either  di- 
 rectly or  obliquely  put  men  in  hopes  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  dif- 
 ferences so  many,  as  you  make  them ;  nor  so  great  as  to  exclude 
 
 *  Chillingworih  uses  this  word  in  its  primitive  sense,  as  equivalent  to  '•  making 
 light"  of  any  point.— Bd. 
 
^i^  THE   CREED  CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 the  opposite  parties  from  being  members  of  the  church  militant, 
 and  joint  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  catholic 
 divines,"  (you  mean  your  own,)  "  in  questions  merely  philoso- 
 phical, 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  colour  or  shadow  of  argument  can  you  make  good, 
 that  "  they  are  more  bold  to  disagree  than  you  are  in  questions 
 merely  philosophical,  or  not  determined  by  the  church  ?  "  For 
 is  there  not  as  great  repugnancy  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  opinions  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  contra- 
 dictions had  been  equally  contradictions  and  equally  repugnant ; 
 because  the  least  of  them  are  as  far  assunder  as  est  and  no?i  est 
 can  make  them,  and  the  greatest  are  no  further.  But  then  you  in 
 your  differences,  (by  name,  about  predetermination,  the  immacu- 
 late conception,  the  pope's  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  fabric  of  the  faith,  no  more  than 
 the  foundation  of  a  house  alone  can  be  a  house." 
 
 52.  But  I  hope,  sir,  that  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  you  yourself,  in  the  very  leaf  after 
 this,  take  notice  that  Dr.  Potter  doth  so.  Where  to  this  ques- 
 tion. How  shall  I  know  in  particular  which  points  be,  and  which 
 be  not  fundamental  ?  you  scurrilously  bring  him  in  making  this 
 ridiculous  answer,  "  Read  my  Answer  to  a  late  pamphlet,  en- 
 titled, '  Charity  Mistaken,'  &c.,  there  you  shall  find  that  funda- 
 mental doctrines  are  such  catholic  verities  as  principally  and 
 essentially  pertain  to  the  faith,  such  as  properly  constitute  a 
 church,  and  are  necessary  (in  ordinary  course)  to  be  distinctly 
 believed  by  every  Christian  that  will  be  saved."  All  which 
 words  he  used,  not  to  tell  you  what  points  be  fundamental,  as 
 you  dishonestly  impose  upon  him,  but  to  explain  what  he  meant 
 by  the  word  fundamental.  May  it  please  you  therefore  now  at 
 Inst  to  take  notice,  that  by  fundamental  we  mean  all  and  only 
 
NECESSARY    POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  273 
 
 that  which  is  necessary ;  and  then  I  liope  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  neces- 
 sary than  that  which  is  necessary. 
 
 53.  Ad  §  19.  This  long  discourse,  so  full  of  uningenuous  deal- 
 ing with  your  adversary,  perhaps  would  have  done  reasonably 
 well  in  a  farce  or  a  comedy,  and  I  doubt  not  but  you  have  made 
 3^ourself  and  your  courteous  readers  good  sport  with  it.  But  if 
 Dr.  Potter  or  I  had  been  by  when  you  wrote  it,  we  should  have 
 stopped  your  career  at  the  first  starting,  and  have  put  you  in 
 mind  of  these  old  school  proverbs.  Ex  falso  supposito  sequitur 
 quodlibet,  and  Uno  absurdo  dato,  sequimtur  mille.  For  whereas 
 you  suppose,  first,  that  to  a  man  desirous  to  save  his  soul,  and 
 requiring  whose  direction  he  might  rely  upon,  the  Doctor's 
 answer  would  be,  upon  the  true  catholic  church,  I  suppose  upon 
 better  reason,  because  I  know  his  mind,  that  he  would  advise 
 him  to  call  no  man  master  on  earth,  but,  according  to  Christ's 
 command,  to  rely  upon  the  direction  of  God  himself.  If  he 
 should  inquire,  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  Avould  answer  him,  that  the  doctrine  itself  is 
 very  fit  and  worthy  to  be  thought  to  come  from  God,  nee  vox 
 hominem  sonat ;  and  that  they  which  v/rote  and  delivered  it,  con- 
 firmed it  to  be  the  word  of  God,  by  doing  such  worlis  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.  And  that  he 
 might  not  mistrust  him  as  partial  in  this  advice,  he  might 
 further  tell  him,  that  a  gentleman  that  would  be  nameless,  that 
 hath  written  a  book  against  him,  called  Charity  Maintained  by 
 Catholics,  though  in  many  things  he  differ  from  him,  yer  agrees 
 with  him  in  this ;  that  "  tradition  is  such  a  principle  as  may  be 
 rested  in,  and  which  requires  no  other  proof."  As  indeed  no 
 wise  man  doubts  but  there  was  such  a  man  as  Julius  Csesar  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  direction  to  eternal  happiness, 
 because  it  affirms  itself  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  two 
 little  books  of  it,  St.  Luke  by  name,  in  the  beginning  of  his 
 Gospel,  and  in  the  beginning  of  his  story,  shows  plainly  that  he 
 alone  hath  written  at  least  so  much  as  is  necessary.  And  what 
 they  wrote  they  wrote  by  God's  direction  for  the  direction  of  the 
 world,  not  only  for  the  learned,  but  for  all  that  would  do  their 
 
274 
 
 THE    CREED    CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 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,  here  he  should  "find  that  God  himself  has  en- 
 gaged 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  at  least  into  all  necessary  truth,  and  suffer  him  to 
 fall  into  no  pernicious  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  of  eternal  happiness.  This  is  the  sub- 
 stance 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  being  free  from  error,  is 
 by  this  way  made  the  only  condition  of  salvation.  As  for  your 
 supposition,  that  he  would  advise  such  a  man  to  rely  upon  the 
 catholic  church  for  finding  out  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  utterly 
 disclaims  it;  and  truly  very  jutsly;  there  being  no  certain  way 
 to  know  that  any  company  is  a  true  church,  but  only  by  their 
 professing  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ.  And  therefore,  as  it  is 
 impossible  that  I  should  know  that  such  a  company  of  philo- 
 sophers are  Peripatetics  and  Stoics,  unless  1  first  know  what  was 
 the  doctrine  of  the  Peripatetics  and  Stoics ;  so  it  is  as  impossible 
 that  I  should  certainly  know  any  company  to  be  the  church  of 
 Christ,  before  I  know  what  is  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  the  pro- 
 fession whereof  constitutes  the  visible  church,  the  belief  and 
 obedience  the  invisible.  And  therefore  whereas  you  would  have 
 him  directed  by  the  catholic  church  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
 the  contrary  rather  is  most  certain  and  necessary,  that  by  the 
 foreknowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  he  must  be  directed  tc 
 a  certain  assurance  *  which  is  the  catholic  church,  if  he  mean 
 not  to  choose  at  a  venture,  but  desire  to  have  certain  direction  to 
 it.  This  supposition,  therefore,  being  the  hinge  whereon  your 
 whole  discourse  turns,  is  the  Minerva  of  your  own  brain ;  and 
 therefore,  were  it  but  for  this,  have  we  not  great  reason  to  accuse 
 you  of  strange  immodesty,  in  saying  as  you  do,  that  "  the  whole 
 discourse  and  inferences,  which  here  you  have  made,  are  either 
 Dr.  Potter's  own  direct  assertions,  or  evident  consequences 
 clearly  deduced  from  them  ?  especially  seeing  your  proceeding 
 in  it  is  so  consonant  to  this  ill  beginning,  that  it  is  in  a  manner 
 wholly  made  up,  not  of  Dr.  Potter's  assertions,  but  your  own 
 fictions  obtruded  on  him. 
 
 54.  t  To  the  next  question,  "  Cannot  general  councils  err  ?" 
 you  pretend  he  answers,^  "  They  may  err  damnably."  Let  the 
 reader  see  the  place,  and  he  shall  find  dnmnahly  is  your  addition. 
 To  the  third  demand,  "Must  I  consult"  (about  my  difficulties) 
 «'  with  every  particular  person  of  the  catholic  church?"   you 
 
 *  Which  is  the  church.— Ox/.        +  A'-l.  §  l9.—0xf.        J  Answers  §  19.— iond. 
 
NECESSARY    POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  ~/0 
 
 answer  for  him,  (that  which  is  most  false,)  that  "  it  seems  so  by 
 his  words  ;  the  whole  militant  church,  that  is,  all  the  members 
 of  it,  cannot  possibly  err  either  in  the  whole  faith,  or  any  neces- 
 sary article  of  it :"  which  is  very  certain,  for  should  it  so  do,  it 
 should  be  the  church  no  longer.  But  what  sense  is  there  that 
 you  should  collect  out  of  these  words,  that  every  member  of  the 
 militant  church  must  be  consulted  with  ?  By  like  reason,  if  he 
 had  said  that  all  men  in  the  world  cannot  err  ;  if  he  said  that  God 
 in  his  own  person,  or  his  angels,  could  not  err  in  these  matters  ; 
 you  might  have  gathered  from  thence,  that  he  laid  a  necessity 
 upon  men  in  doubt  to  consult  with  angels,  or  with  God  in  his 
 own  person,  or  with  all  men  in  the  world.  Is  it  not  evident  to 
 all  sober  men,  that  to  make  an)^  man  or  men  fit  to  be  consulted 
 with,  besides  the  understanding  of  the  matter,  it  is  absolutely 
 requisite  that  they  maybe  spoken  with  ?  and  is  it  not  apparently 
 impossible  that  any  man  should  speak  with  all  the  members  of 
 the  militant  church  ?  or  if  he  had  spoken  with  them  all,  know 
 that  he  had  done  so?  Nay,  does  not  Dr.  Potter  say  as  much  in 
 plain  terms  ?  Nay  more,  do  not  you  take  notice  that  he  does  so 
 in  the  very  next  words  before  these,  where  you  say,  "he  affirms 
 that  the  catholic  church  cannot  be  told  of  private  injuries;" 
 unless  you  will  persuade  us  there  is  a  difference  between  "  the 
 catholic  church"  and  "  the  whole  militant  church."  For 
 whereas  you  make  him  deny  this  of  the  catholic  church  united, 
 and  affirm  it  of  the  militant  church  dispersed  into  particulars ; 
 the  truth  is,  he  speaks  neither  of  united  nor  dispersed,  but  affirms 
 simply,  (as  appears  to  your  shame,  by  your  own  quotations.) 
 that  "the  catholic  church  cannot  be  told  of  private  injuries?" 
 and  then,  that  "the  whole  militant  church  cannot  err."  But 
 then  besides,  that  the  united  church  cannot  be  consulted,  and 
 the  dispersed  may,  what  a  wild  imagination  is  it ;  and  what  a 
 strange  injustice  was  it  in  you  to  father  it  upon  him  !  I  beseech 
 you,  sir,  to  consider  seriously,  how  far  blind  zeal  to  your  super- 
 stition hath  transported  you  beyond  all  bounds  of  honesty  and 
 discretion,  and  made  you  careless  of  speaking  either  truth  oi 
 sense,  so  you  speak  against  Dr.  Potter. 
 
 55.  Again  you  make  him  say,  "  the  prelates  of  God's  church 
 meeting  in  a  lawful  council  may  err  damnably  :"  and  from  this 
 you  collect,  "  ir  remains  then,  for  your  necessary  instruction  you 
 must  repair  to  every  particular  member  of  the  univarsal  cimrr-h 
 spread  over  the  face  of  the  earth."  And  this  is  also  Pergula 
 pictoris,  veri  nihil,  omniatjicta.  The  antecedent  f;ilse,  (not  for  the 
 matter  of  it,  but)  thnt  Dr.  Potter  says  it;  and  the  consequence 
 far  from  it  as  Gades  from  Ganges  and  as  coherent  a^  a  rope  of 
 sand.  A  general  condcil  may  err  ;  therefore  you  must  tr  ivel  all 
 the  world  over,  and  consult  with  every  particular  Christian  !  As 
 if  there  were  nothing  else  to  be  consqlted  with;  nay,  as  if,  ac- 
 cording to  the  doctrine  of  protestants,  (for  so  you  m.ust  say,) 
 there  weie  noteing  to  be  consulted  wite,  but  only  a  general 
 council,  or  all  the  world  !  Have  you  never  heard  that  protestants 
 say,  that  men  for  their  direction  m.ust  consult  wiih  Scripture? 
 Nay,  doth  not  Dr.  Potter  say  it  often  in  this  very  book  which 
 
276  THE    CREED    CONTAINS   ALL 
 
 you  are  confuting  ?  Nay  more,  in  this  very  pasre  out  of  which 
 you  take  this  piece  of  your  cento,  "a  general  ctmncil  may  err 
 damnably,"  are  there  not  these  plain  words;  "  In  searches  of 
 truth"  (he  means  Divine  truth)  "God  ever  directs  us  to  the  in- 
 fallible rule  of  truth,  the  Scripture  ?"  With  what  conscience 
 then  or  modesty,  can  you  impose  upon  him  this  unreasonable 
 consequence,  and  yet  pretend  that  your  whole  discourse  is  either 
 his  own  direct  assertions,  or  evident  consequences  clearly  de- 
 duced from  them  ?  You  add,  that  yet  he  teaches  (as  if  he  con- 
 tradicted himself)  that  "  the  promises  of  God  made  to  the  church 
 for  his  assistance  are  not  intended  to  particular  persons,  but  only 
 to  the  catholic  church:"  which  sure  agrees  very  well  with  any 
 thing  said  by  Dr.  Potter.  If  it  be  repugnant  to  what  you  said 
 for  him  falsely,  what  is  that  to  him  ? 
 
 56.  Neither  yet  is  this  "  to  drive  any  man  to  desperation." 
 unless  it  be  such  an  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  fool's  pilgrimage  for  faith,  and  bid  you  go 
 and  "  confer  with  every  Christian  soul,  man  and  w^oman,  by  sea 
 and  by  land,  close  prisoner  or  at  liberty,"  as  you  dilate  the  matter  '^ 
 but  to  teli  you  very  briefly,  that  universal  tradition  directs  you 
 to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  word  of  God  directs  you  to  heaven. 
 And  therefore  here  is  no  cause  of  desperation,  no  cause  for  you 
 to  be  so  vain  and  tragical,  as  here  you  would  seem.  "  Yet  upon 
 supposal,"  you  say,  "  of  this  miraculous  pilgrimage  for  faith,  be- 
 fore I  have  the  faith  of  miracles,  how  shall  I  proceed  at  our 
 meeting  ?  or  how  shall  I  know  the  man  on  whom  I  may  se- 
 curely rely  ?"  And  hereunto  you  frame  this  answer  for  the 
 Doctor,  "  Procure  to  know  whether  he  believe  all  fundamental 
 points  of  faith :"  whereas,  in  all  the  Doctor's  book,  there  is  no 
 such  answer  to  any  such  question,  or  any  like  it.  Neither 
 do  you,  as  your  custom  is,  note  any  page  where  it  may  be 
 found  ;  which  makes  me  suspect,  that  sure  you  have  some  private 
 licence  to  use  heretics  (as  you  call  them)  at  your  pleasure,  and 
 make  them  answer  any  thing  to  any  thing. 
 
 57.  Wherein  I  am  yet  more  confirmed  by  the  answer  you  put 
 in  his  mouth  to  your  next  demand,  "  How  shall  I  know  whether 
 he  hold  all  fundamental  points  or  no  ?"  For  whereas  hereunto 
 Dr.  Potter  having  given  one  answer  fully  satisfactory  to  it  which 
 is,  "If  he  truly  believe  the  undoubted  books  of  canonical  Scrip- 
 ture, he  cannot  but  believe  all  fundamentals;"  and  another, 
 which  is  but  something  towards  a  full  satisfaction  of  it,  that  "  the 
 Creed  contains  all  the  fundamentals  of  simple  belief;"  you  take 
 no  notice  of  the  former,  and  pervert  the  latter,  and  make  him 
 say,  "  the  Creed  contains  all  fundamentals  of  faith."  Whereas 
 you  know,  and,  within  six  or  seven  lines  after  this,  confess^  that 
 he  never  pretended  it  to  contain  all  "  simply,"  but  "  all  of  one 
 sort,"  all  "  necessary  points  of  simple  belief."  Which  assertion 
 because  he  modestly  delivers  as  very  probable,  (being  willing  to 
 conclude  rather  less  than  more  than  his  reasons  require,)  here- 
 
NECESSARY    POINT?   OF    MERE    BELIEF.  277 
 
 upon  you  take  occasion  to  ask,  "  Shall  I  hazard  my  soul  on  pro- 
 babilities, 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  queen  Elizabeth,  such, 
 a  man  as  Henry  VIII.,  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  re- 
 ligion) 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  undis- 
 cernible  nullities  ;  it  will  be  an  even  wager,  nay,  (if  we  propor- 
 tion things  indiflferently,)  a  hundred  to  one,  that  every  conse- 
 cration 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.  If  you  mislike  these 
 inferences,  then  confess  you  have  injured  Dr.  Potter  in  this  also, 
 that  you  have  confounded  and  made  all  one,  probabilities  and 
 even  wagers.  Whereas  every  ordinary  gamester  can  inform  you, 
 that  though  it  be  a  thousand  to  one  that  such  a  thing  will  happen, 
 yet  it  is  not  sure,  but  very  probable. 
 
 58.  To  make  the  measure  of  your  injustice  yet  fuller,  you 
 demand,  "  If  the  Creed  contains  only  points  of  simple  belief, 
 how  shall  we  know  what  points  of  belief  are  necessary  which  di- 
 rect our  practice?"  Dr.  Potter  would  have  answered  you  in  our 
 Saviour's  words,  Search  the  Scriptures.  But  you  have  a  great 
 mind,  it  seems,  to  be  desparing,  and  therefore,  having  proposed 
 your  questions,  will  not  suffer  him  to  give  you  an  answer,  but 
 shut  your  ears  and  tell  him,  "still  he  chalks  out  new  paths  for 
 desperation." 
 
 59.  In  the  rest  of  your  interlude,  I  cannot  but  commend  one 
 thing  in  you,  that  you  keep  a  decorum,  and  observe  very  well 
 the  rule  given  you  by  the  great  master  of  your  art, 
 
 -Servetur  ad  imum 
 
 Qualis  ab  incepto  processerat,  et  sibi  constet : 
 
 one  vein  of  scurrility  and  dishonesty  runs  clean  through  it,  from 
 the  beginning  to  the  end.  Your  next  demand  then  is,  "  Are  all 
 the  articles  of  the  Creed  for  their  nature  and  matter  fundamental  ?'* 
 and  the  answer,  "  I  caimot  say  so."  Which  answer  (though  it 
 be  true)  Dr.  Pottter  no  where  gives  it,  neither  hath  he  occasion, 
 but  you  make  it  for  him,  to  bring  in  another  question,  and  that 
 is,  "  How  then  shall  I  know,  which  in  particular  be,  and  which 
 be  not  fundamental  ?"    Dr.  Potter  would  have  answered,  "  It  is 
 
278  THE  CREED  CONTAINS  ALL  ' 
 
 a  vain  question  :    believe  all,  and  you  shall  be  sure  to  believe  all 
 that  is  fundamental." 
 
 60.  But  what  says  now  his  prevaricating  proxy  ?  what  does  he 
 make  him  say  ?  This  which  follows :  Read  my  answer  to  a  late 
 popish  pamphlet,  entitled  Charity  Mistaken :  there  you  shall  find 
 that  fundamental  doctrines  are  such  catholic  verities  as  princi- 
 pally and  essentially  pertain  to  the  faith,  such  as  properly  con- 
 stitute a  church,  and  are  necessary  in  ordinary  course  to  be 
 distinctly  believed  by  every  Christian  that  will  be  saved.  They 
 are  those  grand  and  capital  doctrines  which  make  up  our  faith, 
 that  is,  the  common  faith,  which  is  alike  precious  in  all ;  being 
 one  and  the  same,  in  the  highest  apostle  and  the  meanest  believer, 
 which  the  apostle  elsewhere  calls,  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles 
 of  God,  and  the  form  of  sound  wordsT 
 
 61.  But  in  earnest,  good  sir,  doth  the  Doctor,  in  these  places 
 by  you  quoted,  make  to  this  question  this  same  sottish  answer? 
 or  do  you  think  that  against  an  heretic  nothing  is  unlawful  ? 
 Certainly,  if  he  doth  answer  thus,  I  will  make  bold  to  say  he 
 is  a  very  fool.  But  if  he  does  not,  (as  indeed  he  does  not,) 
 then —  :  but  I  forbear  you,  and  beseech  the  reader  to  consult  the 
 places  of  Dr.  Potter's  book  ;  and  there  he  shall  find,  that  in  the 
 former  half  of  these  (as  you  call  them)  varied  words  and  phrases 
 he  declared  only  what  he  means  by  the  word /Mwc/awen^a/,  which 
 was  needful  to  prevent  mistakes  and  cavilling  about  the  meaning 
 of  the  word,  which  is  metaphorical,  and  therefore  ambiguous ; 
 and  that  the  latter  half  of  them  are  several  places  of  Scripture 
 employed  by  Dr.  Potter  to  show  that  his  distinction  of  funda- 
 mental and  not  fundamental  hath  express  ground  in  it.  Now  of 
 these  two  places,  very  pertinent  unto  two  very  good  purposes,  you 
 have  exceeding  fairly  patched  together  a  most  ridiculous  answer 
 to  a  question  that  Dr.  Potter  never  dreamed  of.  "  But  the  words," 
 you  will  say,  "  are  in  Dr.  Potter's  book,  though  in  divers  places, 
 and  to  other  purposes."  Very  true  !  And  so  the  words  of  Au- 
 sonius's  obscene  Fescennie  are  taken  out  of  Virgil,  yet  Virgil 
 surely  was  not  the  author  of  this  poem.  Besides,  in  Dr.  Potter's 
 book  there  are  these  words,  "  Dread  sovereign,  amongst  the  many 
 excellent  virtues  which  have  made  your  majesty's  person  so  dear 
 unto  God,"  &c. :  and  why  now  may  you  not  say  as  well,  that  in 
 these  he  made  answer  to  your  former  question,  what  points  of  the 
 Creed  were,  and  what  were  not  fundamentals  ? 
 
 62.  But  "unless  this  question  maybe  answered,  his  doctrine," 
 you  say,  "  serves  only  either  to  make  men  despair,  or  else  to  have 
 recourse  to  these  whom  we  call  papists."  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  satisfy  your  curious  questions. 
 And  I  pray  be  not  offended  with  me  for  so  esteeming  it,  because, 
 as  I  before  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,  you  desire  to  know  which  are  fun- 
 damentals proceeds  only  from  a  desire  to  be  assured  that  you  da 
 believe  them;   which  seeing  you  may  be  assured  of  without 
 
KECESSARY    POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  279 
 
 knowing  which  they  be,  what  can  it  be  but  curiosity  to  desire  to 
 know  it  ?  Neither  may  you  think  to  mend  yourself  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  explict 
 knowledge  of  them  no  man  can  be  saved. 
 
 63.  But  you  will  say,  "  at  least  they  give  this  certain  rule,  that 
 all  points  defined  by  Christs's  visible  church  belong  to  the  foun- 
 dation of  faith  in  such  sense,  as  to  deny  any  such  cannot  stand 
 with  salvation."  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  fall  of  salvation  : 
 but  besides,  what  certainty  have  you  that  the  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  yourself  to  danger  of  embrac- 
 ing damnable  errors  instead  of  fundamental  truths.  But  you 
 will  say,  "Dr.  Potter  himself  acknowledges,  that  you  do  not 
 err  in  fundamentals."  If  he  did  so,  yet  methinks  you  have  no 
 reason  to  rest  upon  his  acknowledgment  with  any  security,  whom 
 you  condemn  of  error  in  many  other  matters.  Perhaps  excess 
 of  charity  to  your  persons  may  make  him  censure  your  errors 
 more  favourably  than  he  should  do.  But  the  truth  is,  and  so  I 
 have  often  told  you,  though  the  Doctor  hopes  that  your  errors 
 are  not  so  unpardonably  destructive,  but  that  some  men  who 
 ignorantly  hold  them  may  be  saved,  yet  in  themselves  he  pro- 
 fesses and  proclaims  them  damnable,  and  such  as,  he  fears,  will 
 be  certainly  destructive  to  such  as  you  are  ;  that  is,  to  all  those 
 ivho  have  eyes  to  see,  and  will  not  see. 
 
 64.  Ad  §  20 — 23.  In  the  remainder  of  this  chapter  you  pro- 
 mise to  answ^er  Dr.  Potter's  arguments  against  that  which  you 
 said  before.  But  presently  forgetting  yourself,  instead  of 
 answering  his  arguments,  you  fall  a  confuting  his  answers  to 
 your  own.  The  arguments  objected  by  you,  which  here  you 
 vindicate,  were  two:  1.  "  The  Scripture  is  not  so  much  as  men- 
 tioned in  the  Creed,  therefore  the  Creed  contains  not  all  things 
 necessary  to  be  believed.  2.  Baptism  is  not  contained  in  the 
 Creed,  therefore  not  all  things  necessary."  To  both  which  argu- 
 ments my  answer  shortly  is  this,  that  they  piove  something,  but 
 it  is  that  which  no  man  here  denies.      For  Dr.  Potter  (as  you 
 
280  THE  CREED  CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 have  also  confessed)  never  said,  nor  undertook  to  show,  that  the 
 apostles  intended  to  comprise  in  the  Creed  all  points  absolutely 
 which  we  are  bound  to  believe,  or,  after  sufficient  proposal,  not 
 to  disbelieve ;  which  yet  here  and  everywhere  you  are  obtrud- 
 ing upon  him  :  but  only  that  they  purposed  to  comprise  in  it 
 all  such  doctrines  purely  speculative,  all  such  matters  of  simple 
 belief,  as  are  in  ordinary  course  necessary  to  be  distinctly  and 
 explicitly  believed  by  all  men  :  now  neither  of  these  objections 
 do  any  way  infringe  or  impeach  the  truth  of  this  assertion.  Not 
 the  first,  because  according  to  your  own  doctrine  all  men  are  not 
 bound  to  know  explicitly  what  books  of  Scripture  are  canonical. 
 Nor  the  second,  because  baptism  is  not  a  matter  of  faith,  but 
 practice ;  not  so  much  to  be  believed,  as  to  be  given  and  re- 
 ceived. And  against  these  answers,  whether  you  have  brought 
 any  considerable  new  matter,  let  the  indifferent  reader  judge. 
 As  for  the  other  things,  which  Dr.  Potter  rather  glanceth  at 
 than  builds  upon,  in  answering  these  objections;  as  the  Creed's 
 being  collected  out  of  Scripture ;  and  supposing  the  authority 
 of  it,  which  Gregory  of  Valentia,  in  the  place  above  cited, 
 seems  to  me  to  confess  to  have  been  the  judgment  of  the  an- 
 cient fathers  ;  and  the  Nicene  Creed's  intimating  the  authority 
 of  canonical  Scripture,  and  making  mention  of  baptism;  these 
 things  are  said  ex  ahundanti,  and  therefore  I  conceive  it  super- 
 fluous to  examine  your  exceptions  against  them.  Prove  that  Dr. 
 Potter  did  affirm  that  the  Creed  contains  all  things  necessary 
 to  be  believed  of  all  sorts,  and  then  these  objections  will  be  per- 
 tinent, and  deserve  an  answer.  Or  produce  some  point  of  simple 
 belief,  necessary  to  be  explicitly  believed,  which  is  not  contained 
 either  in  terms  or  by  consequence  in  the  Creed,  and  then  I  will 
 either  answer  your  reasons  or  confess  I  cannot.  But  all  this 
 while  you  do  but  trifle,  and  are  so  far  from  hitting  the  mark, 
 that  you  rove  quite  beside  the  butt. 
 
 65.  Ad  §  23,  24,  25.  Dr.  Potter  demands,  "  How  it  can  be 
 necessary  for  any  Christian  to  have  more  in  his  creed  than  the 
 apostles  had,  and  the  Church  of  their  times  ?"  You  answer, 
 "  That  he  trifled,  not  distinguishing  between  the  apostles'  be- 
 lief, and  that  abridgment  of  some  articles  of  faith,  which,  we 
 call  the  Apostles'  Creed."  I  reply,  that  it  is  you  Avhich  trifle, 
 afiectedly  confounding  (what  Dr.  Potter  hath  plainly  distin- 
 guished) the  apostles'  belief  of  the  whole  religion  of  Christ, 
 as  it  comprehends  both  what  we  are  to  do  and  what  we  are  to 
 believe,  with  their  belief  of  that  part  of  it  which  contains  not 
 duties  of  obedience,  but  only  the  necessary  articles  of  simple 
 faith.  Now  though  the  apostles'  belief  be  in  the  former  sense  a 
 larger  thing  than  that  which  we  call  the  Apostles'  Creed  ;  yet 
 in  the  latter  sense  of  the  word,  the  Creed  (I  say)  is  a  full  com- 
 prehension of  their  belief,  which  you  yourself  have  formerly 
 •confessed,  though  somewhat  fearfully  and  inconstantly;  and 
 here  again,  unwillingness  to  speak  the  truth  makes  you  speak 
 that  which  is  hardly  sense,  and  call  it  *'  an  abridgment  of  some 
 articles  of  faith."  For  I  demand,  these  "  some  articles"  which 
 Vou  speak  of,  which  are  they?"     Those  that  are  out   of   the 
 
NECESSARY    POINTS   OF    MERE    BELIEF.  281 
 
 Creed,  or  those  that  are  in  it  ?  Those  that  are  in  it,  it  compre^ 
 hends  at  large,  and  therefore  it  is  not  an  abridgment  of  them ; 
 those  that  are  out  of  it,  it  comprehends  not  at  all,  and  there- 
 fore it  is  not  an  abridgment  of  them.  If  you  would  call  it  now 
 an  abridgment  of  the  faith,  this  would  be  sense,  and  signify- 
 thus  much,  that  all  the  necessary  articles  of  the  Christian  faith 
 are  comprised  in  it.  For  this  is  the  proper  duty  of  abridg- 
 ments, to  leave  out  nothing  necessary,  and  to  take  in  nothing 
 unnecessary. 
 
 66.  Moreover,  in  answer  to  this  demand  you  tell  us,  that  "  the 
 Doctor  begs  the  question,  supposing  that  the  apostles  believed 
 no  more  than  is  contained  in  their  Creed."  I  answer,  he  sup- 
 poses no  such  matter;  but  only  that  they  knew  no  more  neces- 
 sary articles  of  simple  belief,  than  what  are  contained  in  their 
 Creed.  So  that  here  you  abuse  Dr.  Potter  and  your  reader,  by- 
 taking  sophistically  without  limitation  that  which  is  delivered 
 with  limitation. 
 
 67.  But  this  demand  of  Dr.  Potter's  was  equivalent  to  a  nega- 
 tion, and  intended  for  one  :  "  How  can  it  be  necessary  for  any 
 Christian  to  have  more  in  his  Creed  than  the  apostles  had  ?" 
 All  one  with  this,  "  It  cannot  be  necessary,"  &c.  And  this  ne- 
 gation of  his  he  forces  with  many  arguments  which  he  proposes 
 by  way  of  interrogation,  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  encumber  the  king's  high- 
 way with  public  nuisances  ?  And  is  it  lawful,  by  adding  new 
 articles  to  the  faith,  to  retrench  any  thing  from  the  latitude  of 
 the  King  of  heaven's  highway  to  eternal  happiness  ?  The  yoke 
 of  Christ,  which  he  said  was  easy,  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,  damnahilur  !  If  this 
 may  be  done,  why  then  did  our  Saviour  reprehend  the  Pharisees 
 so  sharply,  for  binding  heavy  burdens,  and  laying  them  on 
 men's  shoulders  ?  And  why  did  he  teach  them,  that  in  vain 
 they  worshipped  God,  teaching  for  doctrines  men's  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 ;  to 
 all  which,  (one  excepted,)  according  to  the  advice  of  the  best 
 masters  of  rhetoric  in  such  cases,  you  have  answered  very  dis- 
 creetly by  saying  0.  But  when  you  write  again,  I  pray  take 
 notice  of  them ;  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  impor- 
 tance, for  the  decision  of  many  controversies,  and  the  disburden- 
 ing of  the  faith  of  Christ  from  many  encumbrances. 
 
282  THE    CUBED    CONTAINS    ALL 
 
 69.  As  for  that  one  which  you  thought  you  could  fasten  upon^ 
 grounded  on  Acts  xx.  27,  let  me  tell  you  plainly,  that  by  your 
 answering  this,  you  have  showed  plainly  that  it  was  wisely  done 
 of  you  to  decline  the  rest.  You  tell  Dr.  Potter,  that  "needful 
 for  salvation"  is  his  gloss,  which,  perhaps,  you  intended  for  a 
 piece  of  an  answer.  But,  good  sir,  consult  the  place,  and  you 
 shall  find  that  there  St.  Paul  himself  says,  that  he  kept  back 
 oy^Ev  ruiv  (TviJi<p£povTuv,  not  any  thing  that  was  projitahle ,-  and  I  hope 
 you  will  make  no  difficulty  to  grant,  that  whatsoever  is  needed 
 for  salvation  is  very  profitable. 
 
 70.  But  then  you  say,  "  this  is  no  proof,  unless  he  beg  the 
 question,  and  suppose  that  whatsoever  the  apostle  revealed  to  the 
 church  is  contained  in  the  Creed."  I  answer.  It  is  not  Dr.  Potter 
 that  begs  the  question,  but  you  that  mistake  it ;  which  is  not 
 here  in  this  particular  place,  whether  all  points  of  simple  belief 
 necessary  for  the  salvation  of  the  primitive  Christians  were  con- 
 tained in  the  apostles'  symbol  ?  (for  that  and  the  proofs  of  it 
 follow  after,  in  the  next  §,  p.  223,  of  Dr.  Potter's  book ;)  but, 
 whether  any  thing  can  be  necessary  for  Christians  to  believe  now, 
 which  was  not  so  from  the  beginning  ?  Dr.  Potter  maintains  the 
 negative ;  and,  to  make  good  his  opinion,  thus  he  argues :  St. 
 Paul  declared  to  the  Ephesians  the  whole  counsel  of  God  touching 
 their  salvation ;  therefore  that  which  St.  Paul  did  not  declare 
 can  be  no  part  of  the  counsel  of  God,  and  therefore  not  necessary. 
 And  again,  St.  Paul  kept  back  nothing  from  the  Ephesians  that 
 was  profitable  ;  therefore  he  taught  them  all  things  necessary  to 
 salvation.  Consider  this,  I  pray,  a  little  better,  and  then  I  hope 
 you  will  acknowledge  that  here  was  no  petitio  principii  in  Dr. 
 Potter,  but  rather  ignoratio  elenchi  in  you. 
 
 71.  Neither  is  it  material  that  these  words  were  particularly 
 directed  by  St.  Paul  to  the  pastors  of  the  church ;  for  (to  say 
 nothing  that  the  point  here  issuable  is  not,  whom  he  taught, 
 whether  priest  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 :  /  have 
 kept  hack  nothing  (says  St.  Paul)  that  was  profitable,  hut  have 
 showed,  and  have  taught  you  publicly,  and  from  house  to  house,  tes- 
 tifying (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,  /  know  that  ye  all,  among  whoju  I  have  gone 
 preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  shall  see  my  face  no  more :  where- 
 fore I  take  you  to  record  this  day,  that  I  am  mnocent  from  the  blood 
 of  all  men  ;  for  I  have  kept  nothing  back,  but  have  showed  you  all 
 the  counsel  of  God.  And  again,  Remember,  that  by  the  space  of 
 three  years  I  ceased  not  to  ivarn  every  one  night  and  day  with  tears. 
 Certainly,  though  he  did  all  things  to  the  pastors  among  the  rest, 
 nay,  above  the  rest,  yet,  without  controversy  they  whom  he 
 taught  publicly,  and  from  house  to  house;  the  Jews  and  Greeks 
 to  whom  he  testified,  {i.e.)  preached  faith  and  repentance  ;  those 
 all,  among  whom  Ae  went  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God;  those 
 
NECESSARY    POINTS    OF    MERE    BELIEF.  283 
 
 every  one,  whom  for  the  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,  command- 
 ments, Szc,  for  that  is  not  here  the  point  to  be  proved  ;  but  only, 
 that  they  taught  them  all  things  necessaiy,  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,  and  which  comes  now  to  be 
 further  examined.  Dr.  Potter  in  confirmation  of  it,  besides  the 
 authorities  which  you  formerly  shifted  ofi"  with  so  egregious  ter- 
 giversation, urges  five  several  arguments. 
 
 73.  The  sense  of  the  first  is  this:  "  If  all  the  necessary  points 
 of  simple  belief  be  not  comprised  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  answer,  §  25, 
 "Upon  the  same  affected  ambiguity,"  &c.  Ans.  It  is  very  true 
 that  their  whole  faith  was  of  a  larger  extent;  but  that  was  not 
 the  question :  but  whether  all  the  points  of  simple  belief  which 
 they  taught  as  necessary  to  be  explicitly  believed,  be  not  con- 
 tained in  it?  And  if  thus  much  at  least  of  Christian  religion  be 
 not  comprised  in  it,  I  again  desire  you  to  inform  me,  how  it 
 could  be  called  the  Apostles'  Creed? 
 
 74.  Four  other  reasons  Dr.  Potter  urges  to  the  same  purpose, 
 grounded  upon  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church;  the  last 
 whereof  you  answer  in  the  second  part  of  your  book.  But  to  the 
 rest,  drawn  from  the  ancient  church's  appointing  her  infants  to 
 be  instructed  (for  matter  of  simple  belief)  only  in  the  creed — from 
 her  admitting  catechumens  unto  baptism — and  of  strangers  to 
 her  communion  upon  their  only  profession  of  the  Creed,  you 
 have  not,  for  aught  I  can  perceive,  thought  fit  to  make  any  kind 
 of  answer. 
 
 75.  The  difficulties  of  the  27th  and  last  §  of  this  chapter  have 
 been  satisfied,  so  that  there  remains  unexamined  only  the  26th  §, 
 wherein  you  exceed  yourself  in  sophistry;  especially  in  that  trick  of 
 cavillers,  which  is,  to  answer  objections  by  other  objections;  an 
 excellent  way  to  make  controversies  endless !  Dr.  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  satis- 
 fying 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)  unne- 
 cessary articles  were  fitter  for  those  times  than  necessary.  But 
 now  to  your  question,  the  answer  is  obvious :    these  unnecessary 
 
284  THE  CREED  CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 things  might  be  put  in,  because  they  were  circumstances  of  the 
 necessary;  Pontius  Pilate,  of  Christ's  passion;  the  third  day,  of 
 the  resurrection.  Neither  doth  the  adding  of  them  make  the 
 Creed  ever  a  whit  the  less  portable,  the  less  fit  to  be  understood 
 and  remembered.  And  for  the  contrary  reasons,  other  unneces- 
 sary 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  affectation  ?  and  therefore  not  so 
 great  a  fault,  nor  deserving  such  a  censure,  as  the  omission  of 
 anything  essential  to  the  work  undertaken,  and  necessary  to  the 
 end  proposed  in  it. 
 
 7G.  You  demand  again,  (as  it  is  no  hard  matter  to  multiply 
 demands,)  *'  why  our  Saviour's  descent  to  hell,  and  burial,  was 
 expressed,  and  not  his  circumcision,  his  manifestation  to  the 
 three  kings,  and  working  of  miracles  ?"  I  answer,  his  resur- 
 rection, ascension,  and  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  are  very 
 great  miracles,  and  they  are  expressed.  Besides,  St.  John  as- 
 sures 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  ive  might  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  believing 
 have  eternal  life.  He  therefore  that  believes  this  may  be  saved, 
 though  he  have  no  explicit  and  distinct  faith  of  any  miracle  that 
 our  Saviour  did.  His  circumcision  and  manifestations  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  aught  you  know)  be  put  in  as  a  thing  necessary  of 
 itself  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.  n.  10.  Likewise 
 his  burial  was  put  in  perhaps  as  necessary  of  itself  to  be  known. 
 But  though  it  w^ere  not,  yet  hath  it  manifestly  so  near  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  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,  sacra- 
 ments, and  all  fundamental  points  of  faith  tending  to  practice, 
 as  well  as  those  which  rest  in  belief?"  I  answer,  Because  their 
 purpose  was  to  comprise  in  it  only  these  necessary  points  which 
 rest  in  belief;  which  appears,  because  of  practical  points  there 
 is  not  in  it  so  much  as  one. 
 
 77.  Dr.  Potter  subjoins  to  what  is  said  above,  "  That  as  well, 
 nay  better,  they  might  have  given  no  article  but  that  of  the 
 church,  and  sent  us  to  the  church  for  all  the  rest ;  for  in  setting 
 down  others  besides  that,  and  not  all,  they  make  us  believe  we 
 have  all,  when  we  have  not  all."     This  consequence  you  deny ; 
 
KECESSARY   POIXTS   OF    MERE    RELIEF.  285 
 
 and  neither  give  reason  against  it,  nor  satisfy  his  reason  for  it, 
 which  yet,  in  my  judgment,  is  good  and  concluding.  The  pro- 
 position to  be  proved  is  this  :  that  if  your  doctrine  were  true, 
 this  short  Creed,  "  I  believe  the  Roman  church  to  be  infallible," 
 would  have  been  better,  that  is,  more  effectual  to  keep  the  believ- 
 ers of  it  from  heresy,  and  in  the  true  faith,  than  this  Creed  which 
 now  we  have.  A  proposition  so  evident,  that  T  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  show  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. 
 
 7S.  The  former  Creed  therefore  would  certainly  produce  these 
 effects  in  the  believers  of  it:  an  impossibily  of  being  in  any 
 formal  heresy :  a  necessity  of  being  prepared  in  mind  to  come 
 out  of  all  error  in  faith,  or  material  heresy;  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  vrhich  now  we  have,  is  so  ineffectual  for 
 these  good  purposes,  that  you  yourself  tell  us  of  innumerable, 
 gross,  damnable  heresies,  that  have  been,  are,  and  may  be,  whose 
 contrary  truths  are  neither  explicitly  nor  by  consequence  com- 
 prehended 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  insnare  them  into  them,  by  seeming  and  yet  not 
 being  a  full  comprehension  of  all  necessary  points  of  faith ; 
 which  is  apt  (as  experience  shows)  to  misguide  men  into  *  this 
 (as  you  conceive  it)  pernicious  error,  that  believing  the  Creed, 
 they  believe  all  necessary  points  of  faith,  whereas  f  indeed,  ac- 
 cording to  you,  they  do  not  so.  Now  upon  these  grounds  I  thus 
 conclude:  That  Creed  which  hath  great  commodities  and  no 
 danger,  would  certainly  be  better  than  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  doctrine  be  true,)  is  of  the 
 former  condition,  and  the  latter,  that  is,  the  Apostles'  Creed,  is 
 of  the  latter;  therefore  the  former  (if  your  doctrine  be  true)  would 
 without  controversy  be  better  than  the  latter. 
 
 80.  But  (say  you)  by  this  kind  of  arguing  one  might  infer 
 quite  contrary.  "  If  the  Apostles'  Creed  contain  all  points  neces- 
 sary to  salvation,  what  need  have  we  of  any  church  to  teach  us  ? 
 and  consequently,  what  need  of  the  Article  of  the  church?" 
 To  which  1  answer,  that  having  compared  your  inference  and 
 Dr.  Potter's  together,  1  cannot  discover  any  shadow  of  resem- 
 blance betw^een  them,  nor  any  shov^  of  reason  why  the  perfec- 
 tion of  the  Apostles'  Creed  should  exclude  a  necessity  of  some 
 body  to  deliver  it,    IMuch  less  why  the  whole  Creed's  containing 
 
 *  This  pernicious  error. — OxJ.  j  Indeed  they  do  not  so,— Ox/, 
 
286  THE  CREED  CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 all  things  necessary  should  make  the  belief  of  a  part  of  it  unne- 
 cessary. As  well  (for  aught  I  understood)  you  might  avouch 
 this  inference  to  be  as  good  as  Dr.  Potter's  :  The  Apostles' 
 Creed  contains  all  things  necessary,  therefore  there  is  no  need 
 to  believe  in  God.  Neither  doth  it  follow  so  well  as  Dr.  Pot- 
 ter's argument  follows,  that  if  the  Apostles'  Creed  contains  all 
 things  necessary,  that  all  other  creeds  and  catechisms,  wherein 
 are  added  divers  other  particulars,  are  superfluous.  For  these 
 other  particulars  may  be  the  duties  of  obedience,  they  may  be 
 profitable  points  of  doctrine,  they  may  be  good  expositions  of 
 the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  so  not  superfluous  ;  and  yet  for  all 
 this  the  Creed  may  still  contain  all  points  of  belief  that  are 
 simply  necessary.  These  therefore  are  poor  consequences,  but 
 no  more  like  Dr.  Potter's  than  an  apple  is  like  an  oyster. 
 
 81.  But  this  consequence,  after  you  have  suflficiently  slighted 
 and  disgraced  it,  at  length  you  promise  "  us  news,"  and  pretend 
 to  grant  it.  But  what  is  that  which  you  mean  to  grant  ?  That 
 the  Apostles  did  put  no  article  in  their  Creed  but  only  that 
 of  the  Church  ?  or  that,  if  they  had  done  so,  they  had  done 
 better  than  now  they  have  done  ?  This  is  Dr.  Potter'-s  infer- 
 ence out  of  your  doctrine ;  and  truly  if  you  should  grant  this, 
 this  were  news  indeed !  "  Yes,"  say  you,  "  I  will  grant  it, 
 but  only  thus  far,  that  Christ  hath  referred  us  only  to  his 
 Church."  Yea,  but  this  is  clean  another  thing,  and  no  news 
 at  all,  that  you  should  grant  that  which  you  would  fain  have 
 granted  to  you.  So  that  your  dealing  with  us  is  just  as  if  a 
 man  should  proffer  me  a  courtesy,  and  pretend  that  he  would 
 oblige  himself  by  a  note  under  his  hand  to  give  me  twenty 
 pounds ;  and,  instead  of  it,  write  that  I  owe  him  forty,  and 
 ■desire  me  to  subscribe  to  it,  and  be  thankful.  Of  such  favours 
 as  these  it  is  very  safe  to  be  liberal. 
 
 82.  You  tell  us  afterward  (but  how  it  comes  in  I  know 
 not)  that  "  it  were  a  childish  argument.  The  Creed  contains 
 not  all  things  necessary ;  ergo,  it  is  not  profitable  :  or,  the 
 Church  alone  is  sufficient  to  teach  us  by  some  convenient 
 means  ;  ergo,  she  must  teach  us  without  means."  These  in- 
 deed are  childish  arguments ;  but,  for  aught  I  see,  you  alone 
 are  the  father  of  them ;  for  in  Dr.  Potter's  book  I  can  neither 
 
NECESSARY  POINTS  OF  MERE  BELIEF.  287 
 
 meet  with  them  nor  any  like  them.  He  indeed  tells  you,  that 
 if  (by  an  impossible  supposition)  your  doctrine  were  true,  an- 
 other and  a  far  shorter  creed  would  have  been  more  expedient, 
 even  this  alone,  "  I  believe  the  Roman  Church  to  be  infallible.'* 
 But  why  you  should  conclude  he  makes  this  Creed  which  we 
 liave  unprofitable,*  because  he  says  another,  that  might  be 
 conceived  upon  this  false  supposition,  would  be  more  profit- 
 •able ;  or  that  he  lays  a  necessity  upon  the  Church  of  teaching 
 without  means,  or  of  not  teaching  this  very  Creed  which  now 
 is  taught;  these  things  are  so  subtle  that  I  cannot  apprehend 
 them.  To  my  understanding,  by  those  words,  "  and  sent  us 
 to  the  Church  for  all  the  rest,"  he  does  rather  manifestly  imply 
 that  the  rest  might  be  very  well  not  only  profitable,  but  ne- 
 cessary, and  that  the  Church  was  to  teach  this  by  creeds,  or 
 catechisms,  or  councils,  or  any  other  means  which  she  should 
 make  choice  of;  for,  being  infallible,  she  could  not  choose 
 amiss. 
 
 83.  Whereas  therefore  you  say,  "  If  the  Apostles  had  ex- 
 pressed no  article  but  that  of  the  Catholic  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  doctrine 
 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 
 men's  perpetual  direction  in  the  faith  this  short  creed  shall  be 
 taught  all  men,  "  I  believe  the  Roman  Church  shall  be  for  ever 
 infallible."  Yet  you  must  not  so  mistake  me  as  if  1  meant 
 that  they  had  done  better  not  to  have  taught  the  Church  the 
 substance  of  Christian  religion ;  for  then  the  Church,  not  hav- 
 ing learnt  it  of  them,  could  not  have  taught  it  us.  This,  there- 
 fore, I  do  not  say ;  but  supposing  they  had  written  these  Scrip- 
 tures as  they  have  written,  wherein  all  the  articles  of  their  creed 
 are  plainly  delivered,  and  preached  that  doctrine  which  they 
 did  preach,  and  done  all  other  things  as  they  have  done,  be- 
 sides the  composing  their  symbol ;  I  say,  if  your  doctrine  were 
 true,  they  had  done  a  work  infinitely  more  beneficial  to  the 
 *  Makes  this  Creed  unprofitable.— Oar/. 
 
288  THE  CREED  CONTAINS  ALL 
 
 Church  of  Christ  if  they  had  never  composed  their  symbol,, 
 which  is  but  an  imperfect  comprehension  of  the  necessary 
 points  of  simple  behef,  and  no  distinctive  mark  (as  a  symbol 
 should  be)  between  those  that  are  good  Christians  and  those 
 that  are  not  so  ;  but,  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  for  ever  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  whithersoever  they  lead  me.  Now,  I  say, 
 they  have  led  me  into  this  persuasion,  because  they  have  given 
 me  great  reason  to  believe  it,  and  none  to  the  contrar}^  The 
 reason  they  have  given  me  to  believe  it  is,  because  it  is  apparent 
 and  confessed,  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 
 catholics;"  so  Putean  out  of  Tho.  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 
 they  might  serve  as  a  mark  to  distinguish  true  Christians  from 
 infidels ;"  so  Cardinal  Richeheu.  Now  for  all  these  and  for 
 any  other  good  intent,  it  will  be  plainly  uneffectual  unless  it 
 contain,  at  least,  all  points  of  simple  belief  which  are,  in  ordi- 
 nary 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,  a  vobis  de- 
 cepius  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  per- 
 suasion out  of  a  hope  that  we  may  the  better  maintain  by  it 
 
NECESSARY  POINTS  OF  MERE  BELIEF.  289 
 
 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  nie  to  believe  that 
 it  is  the  will  of  God  I  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  foundation,  and  let  our  superstructions  be  consequent 
 and  coherent  to  them,  and  I  am  confident  peace  would  be  re- 
 stored, and  truth  maintained  against  you,  though  the  Apostles' 
 Creed  were  not  in  the  world. 
 
CHAPTER  V. 
 
 That  Luther,  Calvin,  their  associates,  and  all  who  began  or  continue  the 
 separation  from  the  external  comjnunion  of  the  Roman  church,  are 
 guilty  of  the  proper  and  formal  sin  of  schism. 
 
 "The  Searcher  of  all  hearts  is  witness,  with  how  unwilling 
 minds  catholics  arfe  drawn  to  fasten  the  denomination  of  schis- 
 matics or  heretics  on  them  for  whose  souls  if  they  employed 
 their  best  blood  they  judge  that  it  could  not  be  better  spent ! 
 If  we  rejoice  that  they  are  contristated  at  such  titles,  our  joy 
 riseth  not  from  their  trouble  or  grief,  but,  as  that  of  the  apostle's 
 did,  from  the  fountain  of  charity,  because  they  are  contristated  to 
 repentance  ,-  that  so,  after  unpartial  examination,  they,  finding 
 themselves  to  be  what  we  say,  m.ay,  by  God's  holy  grace,  begin 
 to  dislike  what  themselves  are.  For  our  part,  we  must  remember 
 that  our  obligation  is  to  keep  within  the  mean,  betwixt  uncharit- 
 able bitterness  and  pernicious  flattery,  not  yielding  to  wordly 
 respects,  nor  offending  Christian  modesty,  but  uttering  the  sub- 
 stance of  truth  in  so  charitable  manner,  that  not  so  much  we  as 
 truth  and  charity  may  seem  to  speak,  according  to  the  whole 
 some  advice  of  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  in  these  divine  words  :* 
 'We  do  not  affect  peace  with  prejudice  of  the  true  doctrine,  that 
 so  we  may  get  a  name  of  being  gentle  and  mild;  and  yet  we  seek 
 to  conserve  peace,  fighting  in  a  lawful  manner,  and  containing 
 ourselves  within  our  compass  and  the  rule  of  spirit.  And  of 
 these  things  my  judgment  is,  and  for  my  part  I  prescribe  the 
 same  law  to  all  that  deal  with  souls,  and  treat  of  true  doctrine, 
 that  neither  they  exasperate  men's  minds  by  harshness,  nor  make 
 them  haughty  or  insolent  by  submission  ;  but  that  in  the  cause 
 of  faith  they  behave  themselves  prudently  and  advisedly,  and 
 do  not  in  either  of  these  things  exceed  the  mean.'  With  whom 
 agreeth  St.  Leo,  saying,*  *  It  behoveth  us  in  such  causes  to  be 
 most  careful,  that  without  noise  of  contentions,  both  charity  be 
 conserved  and  truth  maintained.' 
 
 2.  "  For  better  method,  we  will  handle  these  points  in  order. 
 First,  we  will  set  down  the  nature  and  essence,  or,  as  I  may  call 
 it,  the  quality  of  schism.  In  the  second  place,  the  greatness 
 and  grievousness,  or  (so  to  term  it)  the  quantity  thereof.  For 
 the  nature  or  quality  will  tell  us  who  may  without  injury  be 
 judged  schismatics ;  and  by  the  greatness  or  quantity,  such  as 
 find  themselves  guilty  thereof  will  remain  acquainted  with  the 
 true  state  of  their  soul,  and  whether  they  may  conceive  any  hope 
 of  salvation  or  no.  And  because  schism  will  be  found  to  be  a 
 division  from  the  church,  which  could  not  happen  unless  there 
 were  always  a  visible  church,  we  will,  thirdly,  prove,  or  rather 
 take  it  as  a  point  to  be  granted  by  all  Christians,  that  in  aJl  ages 
 
 «  Epist.  8.  *  Orut.  32. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAIXED    BY    UA.THOLICS.  291 
 
 there  hath  been  such  a  visible  congregation  of  faithful  people. 
 Fourthly,  we  will  demonstrate  that  Luther,  Calvin  and  the  rest, 
 did  separate  themselves  from  the  communion  of  that  always  visi- 
 ble church  of  Christ,  and  therefore  were  guilty  of  schism.  And 
 fifthly,  we  will  make  it  evident,  that  the  visible  true  church  of 
 Christ,  out  of  which  Luther  and  his  followers  departed,  was  no 
 other  but  the  Roman  church ;  and  consequently  that  both  they, 
 and  all  others  who  persist  in  the  same  divisions,  are  schismatics, 
 by  reason  of  their  separation  from  the  church  of  Rome. 
 
 L  Point.     The  nature  of  schism, 
 
 3.  "  For  the  first  point,  touching  the  nature  or  quality  of 
 schism :  as  the  natural  perfection  of  man  consists  in  his  being 
 the  image  of  God  his  Creator,  by  the  powers  of  his  soul ;  so  his 
 supernatural  perfection  is  placed  in  similitude  with  God,  as  his 
 last  end  and  felicity,  and  by  having  the  said  spiritual  faculties, 
 his  understanding  and  will,  linked  to  him.  His  understanding 
 is  united  to  God  by  faith,  his  will  by  charity ;  the  former  relies 
 upon  his  infallible  truth,  the  latter  carrieth  us  to  his  infinite 
 goodness.  Faith  hath  a  deadly  opposite,  heresy.  Contrary  to 
 the  union  or  unity  of  charity,  is  separation  and  division.  Cha- 
 rity is  twofold.  As  it  respects  God,  his  opposite  vice  is  hatred 
 against  God ;  as  it  uniteth  us  to  our  neighbour,  his  contrary  is 
 separation  or  division  of  affections  and  will  from  our  neighbour. 
 Our  neighbour  may  be  considered,  either  as  one  private  person 
 hath  a  single  relation  to  another,  or  as  all  concur  to  make  one 
 company  or  congregation,  v\^hich  we  call  the  church ;  and  this  is 
 the  most  principal  reference  and  union  of  one  man  with  another; 
 because  the  chiefest  unity  is  that  of  the  whole,  to  which  the  par- 
 ticular unity  of  parts  is  subordinate.  This  unity  or  oneness  (if 
 so  I  may  call  it)  is  effected  by  charity,  uniting  all  the  members 
 of  the  church  in  one  mystical  body;  contrary  to  which  is  schism, 
 from  the  Greek  word  signifying  scissure,  or  division.  Wherefore 
 upon  the  whole  matter  we  find  that  schism,  as  the  angelical 
 doctor  St.  Thomas  defines  it,*  is  '  a  voluntary  separation  from 
 the  unity  of  that  charity  whereby  all  the  members  of  the  church 
 are  united.'  From  hence  he  deduceth,  that  schism  is  a  special 
 and  particular  vice,  distinct  from  heresy,  because  they  are  oppo- 
 site to  two  diflferent  virtues ;  heresy  to  faith,  schism  to  charity. 
 To  which  purpose  he  fitly  allegeth  St.  Jerom  upon  these  words, 
 (Tit.  iii.)  A  man  that  is  an  heretic  after  the  first  and  second 
 admonition  avoid,  saying,  '  I  conceive  tliat  there  is  this  difference 
 betwixt  schism  and  heresy,  that  heresy  involves  some  perverse 
 assertion ;  schism  for  episcopal  dissension  doth  separate  men 
 from  the  church.'  The  same  doctrine  is  delivered  by  St.  Augustin 
 in  these  words  :  f  '  Heretics  and  schismatics  call  their  congrega- 
 tions churches ;  but  heretics  corrupt  the  faith  by  believing  of 
 God  false  things;  but  schismatics  by  wicked  divisions  break 
 from  fraternal  charity,  although  they  believe  what  we  believe. 
 Therefore  the  heretic  belongs  not  to  the  church,  because  she 
 loves  God ;  nor  the  schismatic,  because  she  loves  her  neighbour.' 
 
 *  2.  2.  q.  39.  art.  in  corp.  tt  ad  3.  t  Lib.  1.  de  Fid.  et  Symbol,  cap.  10. 
 
292  CHARITY    MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 And  in  another  place  he  saith,  *  *  It  is  wont  to  be  demanded  how 
 schismatics  be  distinguished  from  heretics  ;  and  this  difference 
 is  found,  that  not  a  diverse  faith,  but  the  divided  society  of  com- 
 munion doth  make  schismatics.'  It  is  then  evident  that  schism 
 is  different  from  heresy.  *  Nevertheless,'  saith  St.  Thomas,t  'as 
 he  who  is  deprived  of  faith  must  needs  want  charity,  so  every 
 heretic  is  a  schismatic,  but  not  conversively  every  schismatic  is 
 an  heretic  ;'  though  because  want  of  charity  disposes  and  makes 
 way  to  the  destruction  of  faith,  (according  to  those  words  of  the 
 apostle,  which  [a  good  conscience]  some  casting  off,  have  suffered 
 shivwreck  in  their  faith,)  schism  speedily  degenerates  to  heresy. 
 St.'Hierom,  after  tlie  rehearsed  words,  teacheth,  saying,  *  Though 
 schism  in  the  beginning  may  in  some  sort  be  understood  different 
 from  heresy ;  yet  there  is  no  schism  which  doth  not  feign  some 
 heresy  to  itself,  that  so  it  may  seem  to  have  departed  from  the 
 church  upon  good  reason.'  Nevertheless  when  schism  proceeds 
 originally  from  heresy,  heresy,  as  being  in  that  case  the  pre- 
 dominant quaUty  in  these  two  peccant  humours,  giveth  the  de- 
 nomination of  an  heretic;  as  on  the  other  side  we  are  wont, 
 especially  in  the  beginning,  or  for  a  while,  to  call  schismatics 
 those  men  who  first  began  with  only  schism,  though  in  process 
 of  time  they  fell  into  some  heresy,  and  by  that  means  are  indeed 
 both  schismatics  and  heretics. 
 
 4.  "  The  reason  why  both  heresy  and  schism  are  repugnant  to 
 the  being  of  a  good  catholic,  is,  because  the  catholic  or  universal 
 church  signifies  one  congregation  or  company  of  faithful  people, 
 and  therefore  implies  not  only  faith,  to  make  them  faithful  be- 
 lievers, but  also  communion,  or  common  union,  to  make  them 
 one  in  charity,  which  excludes  separation  and  division;  and  there- 
 fore in  the  Apostles'  Creed  *  communion  of  saints '  is  immediately! 
 joined  to  the  '  catholic  church.' 
 
 5.  "From  this  definition  of  schism  may  be  inferred,  that  the 
 guilt  thereof  is  contracted,  not  only  by  division  from  the  univer-| 
 sal  church,  but  also  by  a  separation  from  a  particular  church  or 
 diocese  which  agrees  with  the  universal.  In  this  manner  Mele- 
 tius  was  a  schismatic,  but  not  an  heretic,  because,  as  we  read  ini 
 St.  Epiphanius,t  he  was  'of  the  right  faith,  for  his  faith  was  not' 
 altered  at  any  time  from  the  holy  catholic  church,'  &c.  *H.e 
 made  a  sect,  but  departed  not  from  faith.'  Yet  because  he 
 made  to  himself  a  particular  congregation  against  St.  Peter,^ 
 archbishop  of  Alexandria,  his  lawful  superior,  and  by  that  means 
 brought  in  a  division  in  that  particular  church,  he  was  a  schism- 
 atic. And  it  is  well  worth  the  noting,  that  the  Mel etians  building 
 new  churches  put  this  title  upon  them.  The  Church  of  Martyrs-^ 
 and  upon  the  ancient  churches  of  those  who  succeeded  Peter  was 
 inscribed.  The  Catholic  Church.  For  so  it  is.  A  new  sect  must 
 have  a  new  name,  which  though  it  be  never  so  gay  and  specious,  as,- 
 the  Church  of  Martyrs,  the  reformed  Church,  &c.,  yet  the  novelty 
 showeth  that  it  is  not  the  catholic,  nor  a  true  church.     And  that 
 
 •  schism  may  be  committed  by  division  from  a  particular  churchy 
 
 *  Qu.  Evang.  ex  Mattb.  q.  11.  t  Ubi  supra. 
 
 $  Hsercs.  G8. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  293 
 
 we  read  in  Optatus  Milevitanus*  these  remarkable  words,  (which 
 do  well  declare  who  be  schismatics,)  brought  by  him  to  prove 
 that  not  Csecilianus  but  Parmenianus  was  a  schismatic:  for 
 Caecilianus  'went  not  out  from  Majorinus  thy  grandfather,'  (he 
 means  his  next  predecessor  but  one  in  the  bishopric,)  'but  Ma- 
 jorinus from  Csecilianus;  neither  did  Caecilianus  depart  from  the 
 chair  of  Peter,  or  of  Cyprian,'  (who  was  but  a  particular  bishop) 
 'but  Majorinus,  in  whose  chair  thou  sittest,  which  had  no  begin- 
 ning before  Majorinus  himself.  Seeing  it  is  manifestly  known 
 that  those  things  were  so  done,  it  evidently  appeareth  that  you 
 are  heirs  both  of  traditors,'  (that  is,  of  those  who  delivered  up 
 the  holy  Bible  to  be  burned,)  'and  of  schismatics.'  And  it  seem- 
 eth  that  this  kind  of  schism  must  principally  be  admitted  by 
 protestants,  who  acknowledge  no  one  visible  head  of  the  whole 
 church,  but  hold  that  every  particular  diocese,  church,  or  country 
 is  governed  by  itself,  indepently  of  any  one  person,  or  general 
 council,  to  which  all  Christians  have  obligation  to  submit  their 
 judgments  and  wills. 
 
 11.  Point.       The  grievousness  of  schism, 
 
 6.  "  As  for  the  grievousness  or  quantity  of  schism,  (which  was 
 the  second  point  proposed,)  St.  Thomas  teacheth,t  that  amongst 
 sins  against  our  neighbour,  schism  is  the  most  grievous  ;  because 
 it  is  against  the  spiritual  good  of  the  multitude  or  community. 
 And  therefore,  as  in  a  kingdom  or  commonwealth  there  is  as 
 great  ditFerence  between  the  crime  of  rebellion  or  sedition  and 
 debates  among  private  men,  as  there  is  inequality  betwixt  one 
 man  and  a  v\'hole  kingdom ;  so  in  the  church,  schism  is  as 
 much  more  grievous  than  sedition  in  a  kingdom,  as  the  spiritual 
 good  of  souls  surpasseth  the  civil  and  political  weal.  And  St. 
 Thomas  adds  further,  that  they  lose  the  spiritual  power  of  juris- 
 diction ;  and  if  they  go  about  to  absolve  from  sin,  or  to  excom- 
 municate, their  actions  are  invalid ;  which  he  proves  out  of  the 
 canon  Novatianus,  causa  7.  quesst.  1.  which  saith,  'He  that 
 keepeth  neither  the  unity  of  spirit  nor  the  peace  of  agreement, 
 and  separates  himself  from  the  bond  of  the  church  and  the  col- 
 lege of  priests,  can  neither  have  the  power  nor  dignity  of  a 
 bishop.'  The  power  also  of  order  (for  example,  to  consecrate 
 the  eucharist,  to  ordain  priests,  &c.)  they  cannot  lawfully  exer- 
 cise. 
 
 7.  "  In  the  judgment  of  the  holy  fathers,  schism  is  a  most 
 grievous  offence.  St.  ChrysostomJ  compares  these  schismatical 
 dividers  of  Christ's  mystical  body  to  those  who  sacrilegiously 
 pierced  his  natural  body,  saying, '  Nothing  doth  so  much  incense 
 God,  as  that  the  church  should  be  divided.  Although  we  should 
 do  innumerable  good  works,  if  we  divide  the  full  ecclesiastical 
 congregation,  we  shall  be  punished  no  less  than  they  who  tore 
 his  [natural]  body.  For  that  was  done  to  the  gain  of  the  whole 
 world,  although  not  with  that  intention  ;  but  this  hath  no  profit 
 ■at  all,  but  there  ariseth  from  it  most  great  harm.     These  things* 
 
 *  Lib.  1.  cont.  Parmen.        t  Supra,  art.  2.  ad  3.        *  Horn.  11.  in  Ep.  ad  Eph. 
 
294  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 are  spoken,  not  only  to  those  who  bear  office,  but  also  to  those 
 who  are  governed  by  them.'  Behold  how  neither  a  moral  good 
 life,  (which  conceit  deceiveth  many,)  nor  authority  of  magistrates, 
 nor  any  necessity  of  obeying  superiors,  can  excuse  schism  from 
 being  a  most  heinous  offence.  Optatus  Milevitanus*  calls  schism 
 ingens  Jlagitium,  '  a  huge  crime.'  And  speaking  to  the  Dona- 
 tists,  saith,  'that  schism  is  evil  in  the  highest  degree,  even  you 
 are  not  able  to  deny.'  No  less  pathetical  is  St.  Augustin  upon 
 this  subject.  He  reckons  schismatics  amongst  pagans,  heretics,  and 
 Jews,  saying,!  'Religion  is  to  be  sought,  neither  in  the  confusion 
 of  pagans,  nor  in  the  filth  of  heretics,  nor  in  the  languishing  of 
 schismatics,  nor  in  the  age  of  the  Jews,  but  amongst  these  alone 
 who  are  called  Christian  catholics  or  orthodox,  that  is  lovers 
 of  unity  in  the  whole  body,  and  followers  of  truth.'  Nay,  he 
 esteems  them  worse  than  infidels  and  idolaters,  saying,^  *  those 
 whom  the  Donatists  heal  from  the  wound  of  infidelity  and  idola- 
 try, they  hurt  more  grievously  with  the  wound  of  schism.'  Let 
 here  those  men  who  are  pleased  untruly  to  call  us  idolaters,  re- 
 flect upon  themselves,  and  consider  that  this  holy  father  judgeth 
 schismatics  (as  they  are)  to  be  worse  than  idolaters,  which  they 
 absurdly  call  us.  And  this  heproveth  by  the  example  of  Corah, 
 Dathan,  and  Abiram,  and  other  rebellious  schismatics  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  who  where  conveyed  alive  down  into  hell,  and 
 punished  more  openly  than  idolaters.  *  No  doubt,'  saith  this 
 holy  father,§  *  but  that  was  committed  most  wickedly,  which  was 
 punished  most  severely.'  In  another  place  he  yoketh  schism 
 with  heresy,  saying  upon  the  eighth  beatitude,l|  '  many  heretics, 
 under  the  name  of  Christians,  deceiving  men's  souls,'  do  suffer 
 many  such  things ;  but  therefore  they  are  excluded  from  this 
 reward,  because  it  is  not  only  said,  Happy  are  they  who  suffer 
 persecution,  but  there  is  added,  for  justice.  But  where  there  is 
 not  sound  faith,  there  cannot  be  justice.  Neither  can  schismatics 
 promise  to  themselves,  any  part  of  this  reward,  because  likewise 
 where  there  is  no  charity  there  cannot  be  justice.  And  in 
 another  place,  yet  more  effectually  he  saith,*[  *  being  out  of  the 
 church,  and  divided  from  the  heap  of  unity,  and  the  bond  of 
 charity,  thou  shouldst  be  punished  with  eternal  death,  though 
 thou  shouldst  be  burned  alive  for  the  name  of  Chirst.'  And  in 
 another  place  he  hath  these  words,**  '  If  he  hear  not  the  church, 
 let  him  be  to  thee  as  an  heathen  or  publican ;  which  is  more 
 grievous  than  if  he  were  smitten  with  the  sword,  consumed  with 
 flames,  or  cast  to  wild  beasts.'  And  elsewhere,  'out  of  the 
 catholic  church,'  saith  he,tt  '  one  may  have  faith,  sacraments, 
 order,  and,  in  sum,  all  things  except  salvation.'  With  St.  Au- 
 gustin, his  countryman  and  second  self  in  symparhy  of  spirit, 
 St. Fulgentius,  agreeth,  saying,|J  'Believe  this  stedfastly  without 
 doubting,  that  every  heretic  or  schismatic,  baptized  in  the  name 
 
 *  Lib.  1  cont.  Parmen.  t  Lib.  cle  vera  Relig.  cap.  6. 
 
 X  Cont.  Donatist.  1.  l.cap.8.  §  Cont.  Donatist.  1.  2..  c.  6. 
 
 U  TJe  Serm.  Dom.  in  M<>nte,  cap.  5.  %  Epist.  204. 
 
 **  Cont.  adv.  Leg.  et  Proplict.  1.2.  cap.  17. 
 
 tt  De  Gest.  cum  Emerit.  tt  De  Fide  at  Pet. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 295 
 
 of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  if  before  the  end 
 of  his  life  he  be  not  reconciled  to  the  catholic  church,  what  alms 
 soever  he  give,  yea,  though  he  should  shed  his  blood  for  the 
 name  of  Christ,  he  cannot  obtain  salvation.'  Mark  again,  how 
 no  moral  honesty  of  life,  no  good  deeds,  no  martyrdom,  can  with- 
 out repentance  avail  any  schismatic  for  salvation.  Let  us  also 
 add  that  Dr.  Potter  saith,  '  schism  is  no  less  damnable  than, 
 heresy.* 
 
 8.  "But  O  you  holy,  learned,  zealous  fathers  and  doctors  of 
 God's  church,  out  of  these  premises,  of  the  grievousness  of  schism, 
 and  of  the  certain  damnation  which  itbringeth,  (if  unrepented,) 
 what  conclusion  draw  you  for  the  instruction  of  Christians  ?  St. 
 Augustin  maketh  this  wholesome  inference  :t  '  There  is  no  just 
 necessity  to  divide  unity.'  St.  Irenaeus  concludeth,J  'They 
 cannot  make  any  so  important  reformation,  as  the  evil  of  the 
 schism  is  pernicious.'  St.  Dennis  of  Alexandria  saith,§  '  Certainly, 
 all  things  should  rather  be  endured,  than  to  consent  to  the  divi- 
 sion of  the  church  of  God ;  those  martyrs  being  no  less  glorious 
 that  expose  themselves  to  hinder  the  dismembering  of  the  church, 
 than  those  that  suffer  rather  than  they  will  offer  sacrifice  to 
 idols.'  Would  to  God  all  those  who  divided  themselves  from 
 that  visible  church  of  Christ,  which  was  upon  earth  when  Luther 
 appeared,  would  rightly  consider  of  these  things!  And  thus 
 much  of  the  second  point. 
 
 in.  Point.     Perpetual  visibility  of  the  church. 
 
 9.  "  We  have  just  and  necessary  occasion  eternally  to  bless 
 Almighty  God,  who  has  vouchsafed  to  make  us  members  of  the 
 catholic  Roman  church,  from  which  while  men  fall,  they  precip- 
 itate themselves  into  so  vast  absurdities,  or  rather  sacrilegious 
 blasphemies,  as  is  implied  in  the  doctrine  of  the  total  deficiency 
 of  the  visible  church,  which  yet  is  maintained  by  divers  chief 
 protestants,  as  may  at  large  be  seen  in  Brerely  and  others ;  out 
 of  whom  I  will  here  name  Jewel,  saying,|l  '  The  truth  was  unkown 
 at  the  time,  and  unheard  of,  when  Martin  Luther  and  Ulderic 
 Zwinglius  first  came  unto  the  knowledge  and  preaching  of  the 
 gospel.'  Perkins  saith,*^  '  We  say,  that  before  the  days  of  Luther 
 for  the  space  of  many  hundred  years,  an  universal  apostacy  over- 
 spread the  whole  face  of  the  earth,  and  that  our  (protestant) 
 church  was  not  then  visible  to  the  world.'  Napier  upon  the 
 Revelations  teacheth,**  'that  from  the  year  of  Christ  three  hun- 
 dred and  sixteen,  the  antichristian  and  papistical  reign  hath 
 begun,  reigning  universally,  and  without  any  debatable  contra- 
 diction, one  thousand  two  hundred  sixty  years  ; '  (that  is,  till 
 Luther's  time  ;tt)a-nd  that  'from  the  year  ofChrist  three  hundred 
 and  sixteen,  God  hath  withdrawn  his  visible  church  from  open 
 assemblies,  to  the  hearts  of  particular  godly  men,  &c.,  during  the 
 space  of  one  thousand  two  hundred  three  score  years.'   And  that,t:|: 
 
 *  Page  42.  t  Cont.  Farm.  1.  2.  cap.  62.  +  Cont.  Hseres.  1.  4.  cap.  62. 
 
 S  Apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  6. 
 
 !|  Apol.  part  4.  c.  4.  divis.  2.  and  in  his  Defence  printed  ann.  I5ul,  page  426. 
 ^  In  liis  Exposition  upon  the  Creed,  page  490.  **  Propos.  37.  page  G3. 
 
 i't  Ibid,  cap,  12.  page  161,  coi.  3.  %t  Ibid,  in  cap.  11.  page  145. 
 
296  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 *the  pope  and  clergy  have  possessed  the  outward  visible  church 
 of  Christians  even  one  thousand  two  hundred  and  three-score 
 years.'  And  that,*  'the  true  church  abode  latent  and  invisible.' 
 And  Brocardf  upon  the  Revelations  professeth  to  join  in  opinion 
 with  Napier.  Fulk  atlirmeth4  'that  in  the  time  of  Boniface  the 
 third,'  which  was  the  year  six  hundred  and  seven,  *  the  church 
 was  invisible,  and  fled  into  the  wilderness,  there  to  remain  a  long 
 season.'  Luther  sai th, §  Pr/mo  soius  eram  :  'Attiie  first  I  was 
 alone.'  Jacob  Hailbronnerus,  one  of  the  disputants  for  the  pro- 
 testant  party,  in  the  conference  at  Ratisbon,  affirmeth,|l  'that  the 
 true  church  was  interrupted  by  apostacy  from  the  true  faith.' 
 Calvin  saith,^  '  It  is  absurd  in  the  very  beginning  to  break  one 
 from  another,  after  we  have  been  forced  to  make  a  separation 
 from  the  whole  world.'  It  were  over-long  to  allege  the  words 
 of  Joannes  Regius,  Daniel  Chamieras,  Beza,  Ochinus,  Castalio, 
 and  others  to  the  same  purpose.  The  reason  which  cast  them 
 upon  this  wicked  doctrine  was  a  desperate  voluntary  necessity: 
 because  they  being  resolved  not  to  acknowledge  the  Roman 
 church  to  be  Christ's  true  church,  and  yet  being  convinced  by 
 all  manner  of  evidence  that  for  divers  ages  before  Luther  there 
 was  no  other  congregation  of  Christians,  which  could  be  the 
 church  of  Christ,  there  was  no  remedy  but  to  affirm,  that  upon 
 earth  Christ  had  no  visible  church ;  which  they  would  never 
 have  avouched,  if  they  had  known  how  to  avoid  the  aforesaid 
 inconvenience,  (as  they  apprehended  it,)  of  submitting  them- 
 selves to  the  Roman  church. 
 
 10.  "Against  these  exterminating  spirits,  Dr.  Potter,  and 
 other  more  moderate  protestants,  profess,  that  Christ  always  had, 
 and  always  will  have,  upon  earth  a  visible  church :  otherwise, 
 saith  he,**  '  our  Lord's  promise  of  her  stableft  edification  should 
 be  of  no  value.'  And  in  another  place,  having  affirmed  that 
 protestants  have  not  left  the  church  of  Rome,  but  her  corrup- 
 tions, and  acknowledging  her  still  to  be  a  member  of  Christ's 
 body,  he  seeketh  to  clear  himself  and  others  from  schism,  because, 
 saith  he,  J  J  'the  property  of  schism  is'  (witness  theDonatists  and 
 Luciferians)  '  to  cut  off,  from  the  body  of  Christ  and  the  hope 
 of  salvation,  the  church  from  which  it  separates.  And  if  any 
 zealots  amongst  us  have  proceeded  to  heavier  censures,  their 
 zeal  may  be  excused,  but  their  charity  and  wisdom  cannot  be 
 justified.'  And  elsewhere  he  acknowledgeth,§§  that  the  Roman 
 church  hath  '  those  main  and  essential  truths  which  give  her  the 
 name  and  essence  of  a  church.' 
 
 11.  "  It  being  therefore  granted  by  Dr.  Potter,  and  the 
 chiefest  and  best  learned  English  protestants,  that  Christ's 
 visible  church  cannot  perish,  it  will  be  needless  for  me  on  this 
 occasion  to  prove  it.  St.  Augustin  doubted  not  to  say,|||| 
 •  the  prophets  spake  more  obscurely  of  Christ  than  of  the 
 church:  because,  as  I  think,  they  did' foresee  in  spirit  that  men 
 were  to  make  parties  against  the  church,  and  that  they  were  not 
 
 *  Piopos.  page  191.     t  Fol.  110.  &  123     X  Answer  to  a  counterfeit  Catholic,  page  16. 
 $  111  prsetat.  operum  suoium  ||   In  suo  Acatliolico,  vol.  a.  15.  c.  9.  p.  479. 
 
 ^f  1  Epist,  141.        **  Page  154.        ft  Matt.  xvi.  18         «  Page  76.       §§  Page  83. 
 ilU  In  Psa.  oO,  com.  2. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 297 
 
 to  have  so  great  strife  concerning  Christ:    therefore  that  was 
 more  plainly  foretold,  and  more  openly  prophesied,  about  which 
 greater  contentions  were  to  rise,   that  it  might  turn  to  the  con- 
 demnation of  them  who  have  seen  it,  and  yet  gone  forth.'     And 
 in  another  place  he  saith,*  '  How  do  we  confide  to  have  received 
 manifestly  Christ  himself  from  Holy  Scriptures,  if  we  have  not 
 also  manifestly  received  the  church  from  them?'     And  indeed 
 to  what  congregation  shall  a  man  have  recourse  for  the  affairs  of 
 his  soul,  if  upon  earth  there  be  no  visible  church   of  Christ? 
 Beside,  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  a 
 right  notion  of  the  church  of  Christ  our  Lord.     And  therefore 
 St.  Augustin  saith, t  '  We  cannot  be  saved,  unless  labouring  also 
 for  the  salvation  of  others,  we  profess  with  our  mouths  the  same 
 faith  which  we  bear  in  our  hearts.'     And  if  any  man  hold  it 
 lawful  to  dissemble,  and  deny  matters  of  faith,  we  cannot  be 
 assured  but  that  they  actually  dissemble,  and  hide  Anabaptism, 
 Arianism,  yea  Turcism,  and  even  Atheism,  or  any  other  false  be- 
 lief, under  the  outward  profession  of  Calvinism.     Do  not  protest- 
 ants  teach  that  preaching  of  the  word,  and   administration  of 
 sacraments,  (which  cannot  but  make  a  church  visible,)   are  in- 
 separable notes  of  the  true  church?     And  therefore  they  must 
 either  grant  a  visible  church,  or  none  at  all.     No  wonder,  then, 
 if  St.  Augustin  account  this  heresy  so  gross,  that  he  saith  against 
 those  wlio  in  his  time  defended  the  like  error,   'But  this  church 
 which  hath  been  of  all  nations  is  no  more,  she  hath  perished;  so 
 say  they  that  are  not  in  her.     0  impudent  speech  !f     And  after- 
 ward, 'This  voice,  so  abominable,  so  detestable,  so  full  of  pre- 
 sumption  and   falsehood,    which  is    sustained   with    no    truth, 
 enlightened  with  no  wisdom,   seasoned  with  no  salt,  vain,  rash, 
 heady,  pernicious,  the  Holy  Ghost  foresaw,'   &c.     And  perad- 
 venture  some  one  may  say,  there  are  other  sheep,  I  know  not 
 where,  with  which  1  am  not  acquainted,  yet  God  hath  care  of 
 them.     But  he  is  too  absurd  in  human  sense  that  can  imagine 
 such  things.'  §     And  these  men  do  not  consider,  that  while  they 
 deny  the  perpetuity  of  a  visible  church,  they  destroy  their  own 
 present  church,  according  to  the  argument  which  St.  Augustin 
 urged  against  the  Donatists  in  these  words, 1|  '  If  the  church  were 
 lost  in  Cyprian's  (we  may  say  in  Gregory's)  'time,  from  whence 
 did   Donatus'    (Luther)    'appear?      From   what   earth   did  he 
 spring?     From  what  sea  is  become?     From  what  heaven  did 
 he  drop?'    And  in  another  place,^  '  How  can  they  vaunt  to  have 
 any  church,  if  she  hath  ceased  ever  since  those  times?'     And 
 all  divines,  by  defining  schism  to  be  a  division  from  the  true 
 church,  supposed  that  there  must  be  a  known  church  from  which 
 it  is  possible  for  men  to  depart.     But  enough  of  this  in  these 
 few  words. 
 
 *  Epist.  4S.  t  S.  Au?.  de  Fide  et  Symbol,  c.  7.  t  la  Psa.  101. 
 
 §  De  Ovifa.  c.  1.  i  De  Bapt.  cont.  Donat.   ,  f  Lib.  3.  cont.  Parm 
 
298  CHARITY  MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 IV.  Point.  Luther  and  all  that  follow  him  are  schismatics. 
 
 12.  "Let  us  now  come  to  the  fourth  and  chiefest  point,  which 
 was,  to  examine  whether  Luther,  Calvin,  and  the  rest,  did  not 
 depart  from  the  external  communion  of  Christ's  visible  church, 
 and  by  that  separation  became  guilty  of  schism.  And  that  they 
 are  properly  schismatics  clearly  followeth  from  the  grounds 
 which  we  have  laid  concerning  the  nature  of  schism,  which 
 consists  in  leaving  the  external  communion  of  the  visible  church 
 of  Christ  our  Lord  :  and  it  is  clear,  by  evidence  of  fact,  that 
 Luther  and  his  followers  forsook  the  communion  of  that  ancient 
 church. 
 
 "  For  they  did  not  so  much  as  to  pretend  to  join  with  any 
 congregation  Avhich  had  a  being  before  their  time;    for  they 
 would   needs  conceive  that  no  visible  company  was  free  from 
 errors  in  doctrine,  and  corruption  in  practice  :  and  therefore  they 
 opposed  the  doctrine ;  they  withdrew  their  obedience  from  the 
 prelates ;  they  left  participation  in  sacraments ;   they  changed 
 the  liturgy  of  public  service  of  whatsoever  church  then  extant. 
 And  these  things  they  pretended  to  do  out  of  a  persuasion,  that 
 they  were  bound  (forsooth)  in  conscience  so  to  do,  unless  they 
 would  participate  with  errors,    corruptions,   and   superstitions. 
 'We  dare  not,'   saith  Dr.  Potter,*   'communicate  with  Rome, 
 either  in  her  public  liturgy,  which  is   manifestly  polluted  with 
 gross  superstition,  &c.,    or  in   those   corrupt   and  ungrounded 
 opinions  which  she  hatli  added  to  the  faith  of  catholics.'     But 
 now  let  Dr.  Potter  tell  me  with  what  visible  church  extant  before 
 Luther  he  would  have  adventured  to  communicate  in  her  public 
 liturgy  and  doctrine,  since  he  durst  not  communicate  with  Rome  ? 
 He  will  not  be  able  to  assign  any,  even  with  any  little  colour  of 
 common  sense.      If  then  they  departed  from  all  visible   com- 
 munities  professing  Christ,  it  followeth  that  they  also  left  the 
 communion  of  the   true   visible    church,  whichsoever   it  was, 
 whether  that  of  Rome  or  any  other;  of  which  point  I  do  not  for 
 the  present  dispute.    Yea,  this  the  Lutherans  do  not  only  ac- 
 knowledge, but  prove  and  brag  of.    If  (saith  a  learned  Lutheranf) 
 *  there  had  been  right  believers  which  went  before  Luther  in  his 
 office,  there  had  then  been  no  need  of  a  Lutheran  reformation.' 
 Another  affirmed  it  to  be  ridiculous, f  to  think  that  '  in  the  time 
 before  Luther  any  had  the  purity  of  doctrine  ;  and  that  Luther 
 should  receive  it  from  them,  and  not  they  from  Luther,'  Another 
 speaketh  roundly,  and  saith, §  *  It  is  impudency  to  say,  that  many 
 learned  men  in  Germany,  before  Luther,  did  hold  the  doctrine  of 
 the  gospel.'     And  I  add,  that  far  greater  impudency  it  were  to 
 affirm,  that  Germany  did  not  agree  with  the  rest  of  Europe,  and 
 other  Christian  catholic  nations,  and  consequently  that  it  is  the 
 greatest  impudency  to  deny,  that  he  departed  from  the  com- 
 munion of  the  visible  catholic  church  spread  over  the   whole 
 world.     We  have  heard  Calvin  saying  of  protestants  in  general, 
 *we   were   even   forced  to  make  a  separation  from  the  whole 
 
 *  Page  68.  t  Georgins  Milius  in  Aug.  Confess,  art.  7.  de  Eccles.  p.  137. 
 
 X  Bened.  Morgenstern  tract,  de  Eccles.  p.  l45. 
 
 §  Conrad.  S.  Husselb.  in  Tlieol.  Calvin,  lib.  2.  fol.  130. 
 
CIIAPvITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS.  299 
 
 world.'*  And  Luther  of  himself  in  particular :  *  In  the  beginning 
 I  was  alone,' t  ergo,  (say  I,  by  your  good  leave,)  you  were  at 
 least  a  schismatic,  divided  from  the  ancient  church,  and  a  member 
 of  no  new  church.  For  no  sole  man  can  constitute  a  church; 
 and  though  he  could,  yet  such  a  church  could  not  be  that  glorious 
 company,  of  whose  num^ber,  greatness,  and  amplitude  so  much 
 hath  been  spoken,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New. 
 
 13.  **Dr.  Potter  endeavours  to  avoid  this  evident  argument  by 
 divers  evasions  :  but  by  the  confutation  thereof  I  will  (with  God's 
 holy  assistance)  take  occasion,  even  out  of  his  own  answers  and 
 grounds,  to  bring  unanswerable  reasons  to  convince  them  of 
 schism. 
 
 14.  "His  chief  answer  is,  that  they  have  not  left  the  church, 
 but  her  corruptions. 
 
 15.  "I  reply.  This  answer  may  be  given  either  by  those 
 furious  people,  who  teach  that  those  abuses  and  corruptions  in 
 the  church  were  so  enormous,  that  they  could  not  stand  with 
 the  nature  or  being  of  a  true  church  of  Christ;  or  else  by  those 
 other  more  calm  protestants,  who  affirm  that  those  errors  did  not 
 destroy  the  being,  but  only  deform  the  beauty  of  the  church. 
 Against  both  these  sorts  of  men,  I  may  fitly  use  that  unanswerable 
 dilemma  which  St.  Augustin  brings  against  the  Donatists  ia 
 these  concluding  words  :J  *  Tell  me  whether  the  church  at  that 
 time,  when  you  say  she  entertained  those  who  were  guilty  of  all 
 crimes,  by  the  contagion  of  those  sinful  persons,  perished  or 
 perished  not  ?  Answer,  whether  the  church  perished,  or  perished 
 not  ?  Make  choice  of  what  you  think.  If  then  she  perished,  what 
 church  brought  forth  Donatus  ?  (we  may  say  Luther.)  But  if 
 she  could  not  perish,  because  so  many  were  incorporated  into 
 her,  without  baptism.'  (that  is,  without  a  second  baptism,  or  re- 
 baptization,  and,  I  may  say,  without  Luther's  reformation.) 
 *  answer  me,  I  pray  you,  what  madness  did  move  the  sect  of 
 Donatus  to  separate  themselves  from  her  upon  the  pretence  to 
 avoid  the  communion  of  bad  men  ?'  I  beseech  the  reader  to 
 ponder  every  one  of  St.  Augustin's  words,  and  to  consider,  whether 
 any  thing  could  have  been  spoken  more  directly  against  Luther 
 and  his  followers,  of  what  sort  soever. 
 
 16.  "And  now  to  answer  more  in  particular;  I  say  to  those 
 who  teach  that  the  visible  church  of  Christ  perished  for  many 
 ages,  that  I  can  easily  afford  them  the  courtesy  to  free  them 
 from  mere  schism  ;  but  all  men  touched  with  any  spark  of  zeal, 
 to  vindicate  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  our  Saviour  from  blas- 
 phemous injury,  cannot  choose  but  believe  and  proclaim  them 
 to  be  superlative  archheretics.  Nevertheless,  if  they  will  needs 
 have  the  honour,  singularity,  and  desire  to  be  both  formal  heretics 
 and  properly  schismatics,  I  wdll  tell  them,  that  while  they  dream 
 of  an  invisible  church  of  men,  which  agreed  with  them  in  faith, 
 they  will  upon  due  reflection  find  themselves  to  be  schismatics 
 from  those  corporeal  angels,  or  invisible  men,  because  they  held 
 extenaal  communion  with  the  visible  church  of  those  times,  the 
 
 *  Epist.  141.  t  In  PrsDfat.  oporum  suorum. 
 
 X  Lib.  cont.  Epist.  Gaudent.  cap.  7. 
 
300  CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 outward  communion  of  which  visible  church  these  modern  Hot- 
 spurs forsaking  were  thereby  divided  from  the  outward  communion 
 of  their  hidden  brethren,  and  so  are  separatists  from  the  exter- 
 nal communion  of  them,  with  whom  they  agree  in  faith ;  which 
 is  schism  in  the  most  formal  and  proper  signification  thereof. 
 Moreover,  according  to  Dr.  Potter,  those  boisterous  creatures  are 
 properly  schismatics.  For  the  reason  why  he  thinks  himself, 
 and  such  as  he  is,  to  be  cleared  from  schism,  notwithstanding 
 their  division  from  the  Roman  church,  is,  (because,  according 
 to  his  divinity,)  the  property  of  'schism  is  (witness the Donatists 
 and  Luciferiansj  to  cut  off  from  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the 
 hope  of  salvation,  the  church  from  which  it  separates :'  but  those 
 protestants  of  whom  we  now  speak,  *  cut  off  from  the  body  of 
 Christ,  and  the  hope  of  salvation,'  the  church  from  which  they 
 separated  themselves ;  and  they  do  it  directly  as  the  Donatists 
 (in  whom  you  exemplify)  did,  by  affirming  that  the  true  church 
 had  perished;  and  therefore  they  cannot  be  cleared  from  schism, 
 if  you  may  he  their  judge.  Consider,  I  pray  you,  how  many 
 prime  protestants,  both  domestical  and  foreign,  you  have  at  one 
 blow  struck  off  from  hope  of  salvation,  and  condemned  to  the 
 lowest  pit,  for  the  grievous  sin  of  schism.  And  withal  it  im- 
 ports you  to  consider,  that  you  also  involve  yourself,  and  other 
 moderate  protestants,  in  the  selfsame  crime  and  punishment, 
 while  you  communicate  with  those,  who,  according  to  your  own 
 principles,  are  properly  and  formally  schismatics.  For  if  you 
 held  yourself  obliged,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  forsake  the 
 communion  of  the  Roman  church,  by  reason  of  their  errors  and 
 corruptions,  which  yet  you  confess  were  not  fundamental ;  shall 
 it  not  be  much  more  damnable  ior  you  to  live  in  communion  and 
 confraternity  with  those  who  defend  an  error  of  the  failing  of 
 the  church ;  which  in  the  Donatists  you  confess  to  have  been 
 'properly  heretical  against  the  article  of  our  Creed,  /  believe  the 
 church  ?  And  I  desire  the  reader  here  to  apply  an  authority  of 
 St.  Cyprian,  (Epist.  76.)  which  he  shall  find  alleged  in  the  next 
 number.  And  this  may  suffice  for  confutation  of  the  aforesaid 
 answer,  as  it  might  have  relation  to  the  rigid  Calvinists. 
 
 17.  "For  confutation  of  those  protestants  who  hold  that  the 
 church  of  Christ  had  always  a  being,  and  cannot  err  in  points 
 fundamental,  and  yet  teach  that  she  may  err  in  matters  of  less 
 moment,  wherein,  if  they  forsake  her,  they  would  be  accounted 
 not  to  leave  the  church,  but  only  her  corruptions ;  1  must  say 
 that  they  change  the  state  of  our  present  question,  not  dis- 
 tinguishing between  internal  faith  and  external  communion,  nor 
 between  schism  and  heresy.  This  I  demonstrate  out  of  Dr. 
 Potter  himself,  who  in  express  words  teacheth,  that  the  promises 
 which  *  our  Lord  hath  made  unto  his  church  for  his  assistance, 
 are  intended  not  to  any  particular  persons  or  churches,  but  only 
 to  the  church  catholic.  And  they  are  to  be  extended  not  to 
 every  parcel  or  particularity  of  truth,  but  only  to  points  of  faith 
 or  fundamentals.'  And  afterwards,  speaking  of  the  universal 
 church,  he  saith,  '  It  is  comfort  enough  for  the  church,  that  the 
 Lord  in  mercy  will  secure  her  from  all  capital  dangers,  and  con- 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 3or 
 
 serve  her  on  earth  against  all  enemies ;  but  she  may  not  hope  to 
 triumph  over  all  sin  and  error  till  she  be  in  heaven.'  Out  of 
 which  words  I  observe,  that,  according  to  Dr.  Potter,  the  selfsame 
 church,  which  is  the  universal  church,  remaining  the  universal 
 true  church  of  Christ,  may  fall  into  errors  and  corruptions; 
 from  whence  it  clearly  foUoweth,  that  it  is  impossible  to  leave 
 the  external  communion  of  the  church  so  corrupted,  and  retain 
 external  communion  with  the  catholic  church  ;  since  the  church 
 catholic,  and  the  church  so  corrupted,  is  the  selfsame  one  church, 
 or  company  of  men.  And  the  contrary  imagination  talks  in  a 
 dream,  as  if  the  errors  and  infections  of  the  catholic  church  were 
 not  inherent  in  her,  but  were  separate  from  her.  like  to  acci- 
 dents without  any  subject,  or  rather  indeed  as  if  they  were  not 
 accidents,  but  hypostases,  or  persons  subsisting  by  themselves ; 
 for  men  cannot  be  said  to  live  in  or  out  of  the  communion  of 
 any  dead  creature,  but  with  persons  endued  with  life  and  reason; 
 and  much  less  can  man  be  said  to  live  in  the  communion  of 
 accidents,  as  errors  and  corruptions  are  ;  and  therefore  it  is  an 
 absurd  thing  to  affirm,  that  protestants  divided  themselves  from 
 the  corruptions  of  the  church,  but  not  from  the  church  herself, 
 seeing  the  corruptions  of  the  church  were  inherent  in  the  church. 
 All  this  is  made  more  clear,  if  we  consider  that  when  Luther 
 appeared,  there  were  not  two  distinct  visible  true  catholic 
 churches,  holding  contrary  doctrines,  and  divided  in  external 
 communion ;  one  of  the  which  two  churches  did  *  triumph  over 
 all  error'  and  corruption  in  doctrine  and  practice,  but  the  other 
 was  stained  with  both.  For  to  feign  this  diversity  of  two 
 churches  cannot  stand  with  record  of  histories,  which  are  silent 
 of  any  such  matter,  it  is  against  Dr.  Potter's  own  grounds,  that 
 the  church  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental,  which  were  not 
 true,  if  you  will  image  a  certain  visible  catholic  church  free  from 
 error  even  in  points  not  fundamental.  It  contradicteth  the 
 words  in  which  he  said,  the  church  may  'not  hope  to  triumph 
 over  all  error  till  she  be  in  heaven.'  It  evacuateth  the  brag  of 
 protestants,  that  Luther  reformed  the  whole  church;  and,  lastly, 
 it  maketh  Luther  a  schismatic,  for  leaving  the  commission  of  ail 
 visible  churches,  seeing  (upon  this  supposition)  there  was  a  visi- 
 ble church  of  Christ  free  from  all  corruption,  which,  therefore, 
 could  not  be  forsaken  without  just  imputation  of  schism.  We 
 must  therefore  truly  affirm,  that  since  there  was  but  one  visible 
 church  of  Christ,  which  was  truly  catholic,  and  yet  was  (accord- 
 ing to  protestants)  stained  with  corruption;  when  Luther  left 
 the  external  communion  of  the  corrupted  church,  he  could  not 
 remain  in  the  communion  of  the  catholic  church,  no  more  than 
 it  is  possible  to  keep  company  with  Dr.  Christopher  Potter,  and 
 not  to  keep  company  with  the  provost  of  Queen's  college  in 
 Oxford,  if  Dr.  Potter  and  the  provost  be  one  and  the  selfsame 
 man ;  for  so  one  should  be  and  not  be  with  him  at  the  same 
 time.  This  very  argument,  drawn  from  the  unity  of  God's  church, 
 St.  Cyprian  urgeth  to  convince,  thai.  Novatianus  was  cut  off 
 from'  the  church,    in    these  words :  *       '  The  church  is   one, 
 
 *  Epist  76,  ad  Mag. 
 
302  CHARITY   MAINTAIKED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 which  being  one,  cannot  be  both  within  and  without.  If  she 
 be  with  Novatianus,  she  was  not  with  Cornelius;  but  if  she  were 
 with  Cornelius,  who  succeeded  Fabianus  by  lawful  ordination, 
 Novatianus  is  not  in  the  church.'  1  purposely  here  speak  only 
 of  external  communion  with  the  catholic  church.  For  in  this 
 point  there  is  great  difference  between  internal  acts  of  our  under- 
 standing and  will,  and  of  external  deeds.  Our  understanding 
 and  will  are  faculties  (as  philosophers  speak)  abstractive,  and 
 able  to  distinguish,  and,  as  it  were,  to  part  things,  though  in 
 themselves  they  be  really  conjoined.  But  real  external  deeds 
 do  take  things  in  gross  as  they  find  them,  not  separating  things 
 which  in  reality  are  joined  together.  Thus  one  may  consider 
 and  love  a  sinner  as  he  is  a  man,  friend,  benefactor,  or  the  like  ; 
 and  at  the  same  time  not  consider  him,  nor  love  him  as  he  is  a 
 sinner;  because  these  are  acts  of  our  understanding  and  will, 
 which  may  respect  their  objects  under  some  one  formality  or 
 consideration,  without  reference  to  other  things  contained  in  the 
 selfsame  objects.  But  if  one  should  strike  or  kill  a  sinful  man, 
 he  will  not  be  excused  by  alleging  that  he  killed  him,  not  as  a 
 man,  but  as  a  sinner ;  because  the  selfsame  person  being  a  man 
 and  the  sinner,  the  external  act  of  murder  fell  jointly  upon  the 
 man  and  the  sinner.  And  for  the  same  reason  one  cannot  avoid 
 the  company  of  a  sinner,  and  at  the  same  time  be  really  present 
 with  that  man  who  is  a  sinner.  And  this  is  our  case ;  and  in 
 this  our  adversaries  are  egregious]y,and  many  of  them  affectedly 
 mistaken :  for  one  may  in  some  points  believe  as  the  church  be- 
 lieveth,  and  disagree  from  her  in  other.  One  may  love  the 
 truth  which  she  holds,  and  detest  her  (pretended)  corruptions. 
 But  it  is  impossible  that  a  man  should  really  separate  himself 
 from  her  external  communion  as  she  is  corrupted,  and  be  really 
 within  the  same  external  communion  as  she  is  sound ;  because 
 she  is  the  selfsame  church  which  is  supposed  to  be  sound  in 
 some  things,  and  to  err  in  others.  Now  our  question  for  the 
 present  doth  concern  only  this  point  of  external  communion; 
 because  schism,  as  it  is  distinguished  from  heresy,  is  committed 
 when  one  divides  himself  from  the  external  communion  of  that 
 church  with  which  he  agrees  in  faith :  whereas  heresy  doth 
 necessarily  imply  a  difference  in  matter  of  faith  and  belief ;  and 
 therefore  to  say  that  they  left  not  the  visible  church,  but  her 
 errors,  can  only  excuse  them  from  heresy,  (which  shall  be  tried 
 in  the  next  chapter  )  but  not  from  schism,  as  long  as  they  are 
 really  divided  from  tne  external  comm.union  of  the  selfsame 
 visible  church;  which,  notwithstanding  those  errors  wherein 
 they  do  in  judgment  dissent  from  her,  doth  still  lemain  the  true 
 catholic  church  of  Christ ;  and  therefore  while  they  forsake  the 
 corrupted  church,  they  forsake  the  catholic  church.  Thus  then 
 it  remaineth  clear,  that  their  chiefest  answer  changeth  the  very 
 state  of  the  question  ;  confoundeth  internal  acts  of  the  under- 
 standing with  the  external  deeds ;  doth  not  distinguish  between 
 schism  and  heresy,  and  leaves  this  demonstrated  against  them, 
 that  they  divided  themselves  from  the  communion  of  the  visible 
 catholic  church,  because  they  conceived  that  she  needed  refor- 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED  BY   CATHOLICS.  303 
 
 mation.  But  whether  this  pretence  of  reformation  will  acquit 
 them  of  schism,  I  refer  to  the  unpartial  judges  heretofore  alleged; 
 as  to  St.  Irenaeus,  who  plainly  saith,*  'they  cannot  make  any  so 
 important  reformation,  as  the  evil  of  schism  is  pernicious.'  '  To 
 St.  Dennis  of  Alexandria,  saying  '  Certainly  all  things  should 
 be  endured  rather  than  to  consent  to  the  di\dsion  of  the  church 
 of  God ;  those  martyrs  being  no  less  glorious  that  expose  them- 
 selves to  hinder  the  dismembering  of  the  ehurch,  than  those 
 that  suffer  rather  than  they  will  offer  sacrifice  to  idols.'  To  St. 
 Augustin,  who  tells  us,  that  not  to  hear  the  church  'is  a  more 
 grievous  thing  than  if  he  were  stricken  with  the  sword,  con- 
 sumed with  flames,  exposed  to  wild  beasts.'  And  to  conclude  all 
 in  few  words,  he  giveth  this  general  prescription,  '  There  is  no 
 just  necessity  to  divide  unity ;'  and  Doctor  Potter  may  remember 
 his  own  words,t  '  There  neither  was  nor  can  be  any  just  cause 
 to  depart  from  the  church  of  Christ,  no  more  than  from  Christ  . 
 himself.'  But  I  have  showed  that  Luther  and  the  rest  departed 
 from  the  church  of  Christ  (if  Christ  had  any  church  upon  earth) ; 
 therefore  there  could  be  no  just  cause  (of  reformation,  or  what 
 else  soever)  to  do  as  they  did;  and  therefore  they  must  be  con- 
 tented to  be  held  for  schismatics. 
 
 18.  "Moreover,  I  demand  whether  those  corruptions  which 
 moved  them  to  forsake  the  communion  of  the  visible  church  were 
 in  manners  or  doctrine?  Corruption  in  manners  yields  no  suf- 
 ficient cause  to  leave  the  church,  otherwise  men  must  go  not 
 only  out  of  the  church,  but  out  of  the  world,  as  the  apostle  saith| 
 Our  blessed  Saviour  foretold  that  there  would  be  in  the  church 
 tares  with  choice  corn,  and  sinners  with  just  men.  If  then  pro- 
 testants  wax  zealous  with  the  servants,  to  pluck  up  the  weeds, 
 let  them  first  hearken  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Master,  let  both  grow 
 up.  And  they  ought  to  imitate  them  who,  as  St.  x\ugustin 
 saith  II  'tolerate  for  the  good  of  unity,  that  which  they  detest  for 
 the  good  of  equity.'  And  to  whom  the  more  frequent  and 
 foul  such  scandals  are,  by  so  much  the  more  is  the  merit 
 of  their  perseverance  in  the  communion  of  the  church,  and 
 the  martyrdom  of  their  patience,  as  the  same  saint  calls  it.  If 
 they  were  offended  with  the  life  of  some  ecclesiastical  persons, 
 must  they  therefore  deny  obedience  to  their  pastors,  and  finally 
 break  with  God's  church  ?  The  Pastor  of  pastors  teaches  us 
 another  lesson.  Upon  the  chair  of  Moses  have  silten  the  scribes 
 and  Pharisees.  All  things  therefore  ivhatsoever  theij  shall  say  to 
 you,  observe  ye,  aud  do  ye  :  but  according  to  their  works  do  ye  not.^ 
 Must  people  except  against  laws,  and  revolt  from  magistrates, 
 because  some  are  negligent  or  corrupt  in  the  execution  of  the 
 same  laws  and  performance  of  their  oflace  ?  If  they  intended  re- 
 formation of  manners,  they  used  a  strange  means  for  the  achieving 
 of  such  an  end,  by  denying  the  necessity  of  confession,  laughing 
 at  austerity  of  penance,  condemning  the  vows  of  chastity,  poverty, 
 obedience,  breaking  fasts,  &c.  And  no  less  unfit  were  the  men 
 than  the  means.     1  love  not  recrimination.    But  it  is  well  known 
 
 *  Numb.  8.  t  Page  75.  t  1  Cor.  v.  10. 
 
 il  Ep.  1G2.  §  Matt,  sxiji.  2,  3. 
 
804  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY    CATHOLICS, 
 
 to  how  great  crimes  Luther,  Calvin,  Zuinglius,  Beza,  and  others 
 of  the  prime  reformers,  were  notoriously  obnoxious ;  as  might 
 be  easily  demonstrated  by  only  the  transcribing  of  what  others 
 have  delivered  upon  that  subject:  whereby  it  would  appear,  that 
 they  were  very  far  from  being  any  such  apostolical  men  as  God 
 is  wont  to  use  in  so  great  a  work.  And  whereas  they  were  wont, 
 especially  in  the  beginning  of  their  revolt,  maliciously  to  ex- 
 aggerate the  faults  of  some  clergymen,  Erasmus  said  well,  (Ep. 
 ad  fratres  inferiors  Germanics,)  *  Let  the  riot,  lust,  ambition, 
 avarice  of  priests,  and  whatsoever  other  crimes  be  gathered  to- 
 gether, heresy  alone  doth  exceed  all  this  filthy  lake  of  vices.' 
 Besides,  nothing  at  all  was  omitted  by  the  sacred  council  of 
 Trent  which  might  tend  to  reformation  of  manners.  And  finally, 
 the  vices  of  others  are  not  hurtful  to  any  but  such  as  imitate  and 
 consent  to  them;  according  to  the  saying  of  St.  Augustin,*  '  we 
 conserve  innocency,  not  by  knowing  the  ill  deeds  of  men,  but 
 by  not  yielding  consent  to  such  as  we  know,  and  by  not  judging 
 rashly  of  such  faults  as  we  know  not.'  If  you  answer,  that  not 
 corruption  in  manners,  but  the  approbation  of  them,  doth  yield 
 sufficient  cause  to  leave  the  church;  I  reply  with  St.  Augustin, 
 that  the  church  doth  (as  the  pretended  reformers  ought  to  have  done) 
 tolerate  or  bear  with  scandals  and  corruptions,  but  neither  doth 
 nor  can  approve  them.  *  The  church,'  saith  he,t  'being  placed 
 betwixt  much  chafll'  and  cockle,  doth  bear  with  many  things ; 
 but  doth  not  approve,  nor  dissemble,  nor  act  those  things  which 
 are  against  faith  and  good  like.'  But  because  to  approve,  cor- 
 ruption in  manners  as  lawful  were  an  error  against  faith,  it  be- 
 longs to  corruption  in  doctrine,  which  was  the  second  part  of  my 
 demand. 
 
 19.  "  Now  then  that  corruptions  in  doctrine  (I  still  speak  upon 
 the  untrue  supposition  of  our  adversaries)  could  not  afibrd  any 
 sufficient  cause  or  colourable  necessity  to  depart  from  that  visible 
 church,  which  was  extant  when  Luther  rose,  I  demonstrate  out  of 
 Dr.  Potter's  own  confession,  that  the  catholic  church  neither  hath 
 nor  can  err  in  points  fundamental,  as  we  showed  out  of  his  own 
 express  words,  Avhich  he  also  of  set  purpose  delivereth  in  divers 
 other  places,  and  all  they  are  obliged  to  maintain  the  same,  who 
 teach  that  Christ  had  always  a  visible  church  upon  earth ;  be- 
 cause any  one  fundamental  error  overthrows  the  being  of  a  true 
 church.  Now  (as  schoolmen  speak)  it  is  implicalio  in  termiyiis  (a 
 contradiction  so  plain  that  one  word  destroyeth  the  other,  as  if 
 one  should  say,  a  living  dead  man)  to  affirm  that  the  church  doth 
 not  err  in  points  necessary  to  salvation,  and  damnable  ;  and  yet 
 that  it  is  damnable  to  remain  in  her  communion,  because  she 
 teacheth  errors  which  are  confessed  not  to  be  damnably.  For 
 if  the  error  be  not  damnable,  nor  against  any  fundamental  article 
 of  faith,  the  belief  thereof  cannot  be  damnable.  But  Dr.  Potter 
 teacheth,  that  the  catholic  church  cannot,  and  that  the  Roman 
 church  hath  not,  erred  against  any  fundamental  article  of  faith : 
 therefore  it  cannot  be  damnable  to  remain  in  her  communion ;  and 
 so  the  pretended  corruptions  in  her  doctrines  could  not  induce 
 
 *  De  Unit.  Eccles,  c.  2.  t  Ep.  11 6, 
 
CIIABITY    MAINTAINED    BY    'JATHOLICS.  305 
 
 any  obligation  to  depart  from  her  communion,  nor  could  excuse 
 them  from  schism  who  upon  pretence  of  necessity  in  point  of 
 conscience  forsook  her.  And  Dr.  Potter  will  never  be  able  to 
 salve  a  manifest  contradiction  in  these  his  words  :  '  To  depart 
 from  the  church  of  Rome  in  some  doctrines  and  practices  there 
 might  be  necessary  cause,  though  she  wanted  nothing  necessary 
 to  salvation.'  For  if,  notwithstanding  these  doctrines  and 
 practices,  '  she  wanted  nothing  necessary  to  salvation,'  how 
 could  it  be  '  necessary  to  salvation'  to  forsake  her  ?  And  there- 
 fore we  must  still  conclude,  that  to  forsake  her  was  properly  an. 
 act  of  schism. 
 
 20.  "  From  the  selfsame  ground  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
 church  in  all  fundamental  points,  I  argue  after  this  manner: 
 The  visible  church  cannot  be  forsaken  without  damnation,  upon 
 pretence  that  it  is  damnable  to  remain  in  her  communion  by 
 reason  of  corruption  in  doctrine;  as  long  as,  for  the  truth  of  her 
 faith  and  belief,  she  performeth  the  duty  which  she  ovreth  to 
 God  and  her  neighbour ;  as  long  as  she  performeth  what  our 
 Saviour  exacts  at  her  hands;  as  long  as  she  doth  as  much  as  lies 
 in  her  power  to  do.  But  (even  according  to  Dr.  Potter's  asser- 
 tion) the  church  performeth  all  these  things  as  long  as  she 
 erreth  not  in  points  fundamental,  although  she  were  supposed  to 
 err  in  other  points  not  fundamental;  therefore  the  commun7.)n 
 of  the  visible  church  cannot  be  forsaken  without  damnation, 
 upon  pretence  that  it  is  damnable  to  remain  in  her  communion, 
 by  reason  of  corruption  in  doctrine.  The  major,  or  first  pro- 
 position, of  itself  is  evident.  The  minor,  or  second  proposition, 
 doth  necessarily  follow  out  of  Dr.  Potter's  own  doctrine  above 
 rehearsed,  that  the  'promises  of  our  Lord  made  to  his  church 
 for  his  assistance  are  to  be  extended  only  to  points  of  faith,  or 
 fundamental ; '  (let  me  note  here  by  the  way,  that  by  his  or  he 
 seems  to  exclude  from  faith  all  points  which  are  not  fundamental, 
 and  so  we  may  deny  innumerable  texts  of  Scripture;)  that  'it  is 
 comfort  enough  for  the  church,  that  the  Lord  in  mercy  will  se- 
 cure her  from  all  capital  dangers,  Sec,  but  she  may  not  hope  to 
 triumph  over  all  sin  and  error  till  she  be  in  heaven.'  For  it  is 
 evident  that  the  church  (for  as  much  as  concerns  the  truth  of 
 her  doctrines  and  belief)  owes  no  more  duty  to  God  and  her 
 neighbour,  neither  doth  our  Saviour  exact  more  at  her  hands, 
 nor  is  it  in  her  power  to  do  more,  than  God  doth  assist  her  to  do ; 
 which  assistance  is  promised  only  for  points  fundamental ;  and 
 consequently,  as  long  as  she  teacheth  no  fundamental  error,  her 
 communion  cannot  without  damnation  be  forsaken.  And  we 
 may  fitly  apply  against  Dr.  Potter  a  concionatory  declamation 
 which  he  makes  against  us,  where  he  saith,  '  May  the  church  of 
 after-ages  make  the  narrow  way  to  heaven  narrower  than  our 
 Saviour  left  it ! '  &c.,  since  he  himself  obligeth  men,  under  pain 
 of  damnation,  to  forsake  the  church,  by  reason  of  errors ;  against 
 which  our  Saviour  thought  it  needless  to  promise  his  assistance, 
 and  for  v/hich  he  neither  denieth  his  grace  in  this  life,  or  glory 
 in  the  next.  Will  Dr.  Potter  oblige  the  church  to  do  more  than 
 she  may  even  hope  for,  or  to  perform  on  earth  that  which  is 
 proper  to  heaven  alone  ? 
 
 x 
 
306  CHARITY    MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 21.  'And  as  from  your  own  doctrine  concerning  the  infalli- 
 bility of  the  church  in  fundamental  points,  we  have  proved  that 
 it  was  a  grievous  sin  to  forsake  her  ;  so  do  we  take  a  strong  argu- 
 ment from  the  fallibility  of  any  who  dare  pretend  to  reform  the 
 church,  which  any  man  in  his  wits  will  believe  to  be  endued 
 with  at  least  as  much  infallibility  as  private  men  can  challenge; 
 and  Dr.  Potter  expressly  affirmeth,  that  Christ's  promises  of  his 
 assistance  'are  not  intended  to  any  particular  persons  or  churches:* 
 and  therefore  to  leave  the  church  by  reason  of  errors,  w-as  at  the 
 best  hand  but  to  flit  from  one  erring  company  to  another,  without 
 any  new  hope  of  triumphing  over  errors,  and  without  necessity 
 or  utility  to  forsake  that  communion  of  which  St.  Augustin 
 saith,*  'There  is  no  just  necessity  to  divide  unity.'  Which  will 
 appear  to  be  much  more  evident,  if  we  consider  that  though  the 
 church  hath  maintained  some  false  doctrines,  yet  to  leave  her 
 communion  to  remedy  the  old,  were  but  to  add  a  new  increase 
 of  errors  arising  from  the  innumerable  disagreements  of  sectaries, 
 which  must  needs  bring  with  it  a  mighty  mass  of  falsehoods, 
 because  the  truth  is  but  one,  and  indivisible.  And  this  reason  is 
 yet  stronger,  if  we  still  remember,  that  even  according  to  Dr. 
 Potter  the  visible  church  hath  a  blessing  not  to  err  in  points 
 fundamental,  in  w^hich  any  private  reformer  may  fail;  and  there- 
 fore they  could  not  pretend  any  necessity  to  forsake  that  church, 
 out  of  whose  communion  they  were  exposed  to  danger  of  falling 
 into  many  more,  and  even  into  damnable  errors.  Remember,  I 
 pray  yon,  what  yourself  affirm,  (page  69,)  where  speaking  of  our 
 church  and  yours,  you  say,  '  All  the  diflference  is  from  the  weeds 
 which  remain  there,  and  here  are  taken  away;  yet  neither  here 
 perfectly  nor  every  where  alike.'  Behold  a  fair  confession  of 
 corruption  still  remaining  in  your  church,  which  you  can  only  ex- 
 cuse by  saying  they  are  not  fundamental,  as  likewise  those  in 
 the  Roman  church  are  confessed  to  be  not  fundamental.  What 
 man  of  judgment  will  be  a  protestant,  since  that  church  is  con- 
 fessedly a  corrupt  one  ? 
 
 22.  "  I  still  proceed  to  impugn  you  expressly  upon  your  own 
 grounds.  You  say,  '  that  it  is  comfort  enough  for  the  church, 
 that  the  Lord  in  mercy  will  secure  her  from  all  capital  dangers; 
 but  she  may  not  hope  to  triumph  over  all  sin  and  error  till  she 
 be  in  heaven.'  Now  if  it  be  comfort '  enough'  to  be  secured  from 
 all  capital  dangers,  which  can  arise  only  from  error  in  funda- 
 mental points,  why  w^ere  not  your  first  reformers  content  with 
 *  enough,'  but  would  needs  dismember  the  church,  out  of  a  per- 
 nicious greediness  of  more  than  enough  ?  for  this  '  enough,' 
 which  according  to  you  is  attained  by  not  erring  in  points  fun- 
 damental, was  enjoyed  before  Luther's  reformation,  unless  you 
 will  now  against  yourself  affirm,  that  long  before  Luther  there 
 was  no  church  free  from  error  in  fundamental  points :  moreover, 
 if  (as  you  say)  no  church  may  hope  '  to  triumph  over  all  error 
 till  she  be  in  heaven,'  you  must  either  grant  that  errors  not 
 fundamental  cannot  yield  sufficient  cause  to  f6rsake  the  church, 
 or  else  you  must  affirm  that  all  communities  may  and  ought  to 
 
 *  Ep.  cont.  Parmen.  lib.  2.  2.  cap.  II. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS.  307 
 
 be  forsaken  ;  and  so  there  will  be  no  end  of  schisms  ;  or  rather 
 indeed  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  schism ;  because,  accord- 
 ing to  you,  all  communities  are  subject  to  errors  not  fundamental, 
 for  which  if  they  may  be  lawfully  forsaken,  it  followeth  clearly 
 that  it  is  not  schism  to  forsake  them.  Lastly,  since  it  is  not  law- 
 ful to  leave  the  communion  of  the  church  for  abuses  in  life  and 
 manners,  because  such  miseries  cannot  be  avoided  in  this  world 
 of  temptation  ;  and  since,  according  to  your  assertion,  *  no 
 church  may  hope  to  triumph  over  all  sin  and  error  ;'  you  must 
 grant,  that  as  she  ought  not  to  be  left  by  reason  of  sin,  so  neither 
 by  reason  of  errors  not  fundamental ;  because  both  sin  and  error 
 are  (according  to  you)  impossible  to  be  avoided  till  she  be  in 
 heaven, 
 
 23.  "  Furthermore,  I  ask,  whether  it  be  the  quantity  or  num- 
 ber, or  quality  and  greatness,  of  doctrinal  errors  that  may  yield 
 sufficient  cause  to  relinquish  the  church's  communion  ?  I  prove 
 that  neither.  Not  the  quality,  which  is  supposed  to  be  beneath 
 the  degree  of  points  fundamental,  or  necessary  to  salvation. 
 Nor  the  quantity  or  number,  for  the  foundation  is  strong  enough 
 to  support  all  such  '  unnecessary  additions,'  as  you  term  them. 
 And  if  they  once  weighed  so  heavy  as  to  overthrow  the  founda- 
 tion, they  should  grow  to  fundamental  errors,  into  which  your- 
 self teach  the  church  cannot  fall.  '  Hay  and  stubble,'  say  you, 
 'and  such  unprofitable  stuff,  laid  on  the  roof,  destroys  not  the 
 house,  while  the  main  pillars  are  standing  on  the  foundation.* 
 And  tell  us,  I  pray  you,  the  precise  number  of  errors  which  can- 
 not be  tolerated  ?  I  know  you  cannot  do  it;  and  therefore  being 
 uncertain  whether  or  no  you  have  cause  to  leave  the  church, 
 you  are  certainly  obliged  not  to  forsake  her.  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  why  then  dare  you  allege  his  com- 
 mand, that  you  must  not  pardon  his  church  for  errors  acknow- 
 ledged to  be  not  fundamental  ?  What  excuse  can  you  feign  to 
 yourselves,  who  for  points  not  necessary  to  salvation  have  been 
 occasions,  causes,  and  authors  of  so  many  mischiefs,  as  could 
 not  but  unavoidably  accompany  so  huge  a  breach  in  kingdomSj 
 in  commonwealths,  in  private  persons,  in  public  magistrates,  in 
 body,  in  soul,  in  goods,  in  life,  in  church,  in  the  state,  by  schisms, 
 by  rebellions,  by  war,  by  famine,  by  plague,  by  bloodshed,  by 
 all  sorts  of  imaginable  calamities  upon  the  whole  face  of  the 
 earth,  wherein  as  in  a  map  of  desolation  the  heaviness  of  your 
 crime  appears,  under  which  the  world  doth  pant  ? 
 
 24.  "  To  say  for  your  excuse  that  you  left  not  the  church,  but 
 her  errors,  doth  not  extenuate,  but  aggravate  your  sin.  For  by 
 this  device  you  sow  seeds  of  endless  schisms,  and  put  into  the 
 mouth  of  all  separatists  a  ready  answer  how  to  avoid  the  note  of 
 schism  from  your  protestant  church  of  England,  or  from  any 
 other  church  whatsoever.  They  will,  I  say,  answer  as  you  do 
 prompt,  that  your  church  may  be  forsaken  if  she  fall  into  errors, 
 though  they  be  not  fundamental ;  and  further,  that  no  church 
 must  hope  to  be  free  from  such  errors  j  which  two  grounds  being 
 
308  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 once  laid,  it  will  not  be  haid  to  infer  the  consequence  that  she 
 may  be  forsaken. 
 
 25.  "  From  some  other  words  of  Dr.  Potter  I  likewise  prove, 
 that  for  errors  not  fundamental  the  church  ought  not  to  be  for- 
 saken, 'there  neither  was,'  saith  he,  '  nor  can  be  any  just  cause 
 to  depart  from  the  church  of  Christ,  no  more  than  from  Christ 
 himself.  To  depart  from  a  particular  church,  and,  namely,  from 
 the  church  of  Rome,  in  som.e  doctrines  and  practices,  there 
 might  be  just  and  necessary  cause,  though  the  church  of  Rome 
 wanted  nothing  necessary  to  salvation.'  Mark  his  doctrine,  that 
 there  '  can  be  no  just  cause  to  depart  from  the  church  of  Christ ;' 
 and  yet  he  teacheth,  that  the  church  of  Christ  may  err  in  points 
 not  fundamental ;  therefore  (say  I)  we  cannot  forsake  the  Roman 
 church  for  points  not  fundamental;  for  then  we  might  also  for- 
 sake the  church  of  Christ,  which  yourself  deny  :  and  I  pray  you 
 consider,  whether  you  do  not  plainly  contradict  yourself,  while, 
 in  the  words  above  recited,  you  say  there  can  be  no  *  just  cause 
 to  forsake'  the  catholic  church  ;  and  yet,  that  there  may  be  ne- 
 cessary cause  to  depart  from  the  church  of  Rome,  since  you 
 grant  that  the  church  of  Christ  may  err  in  points  not  funda- 
 mental ;  and  that  the  Roman  church  hath  erred  only  in  such 
 points,  as  by  and  by  we  shall  see  more  in  particular.  And  thus 
 much  be  said  to  disprove  their  chiefest  answer,  that  they  left 
 not  the  church,  but  her  corruptions. 
 
 26.  "Another  evasion  Dr.  Potter  bringeth  to  avoid  the  impu- 
 tation of  schism,  and  it  is,  because  they  still  acknowledge  the 
 chuiich  of  Rome  to  be  a  'member  of  the  body  of  Christ,'  and  not 
 'cut  off  from  the  hope  of  salvation.  And  this,'  saith  he,  'clears 
 us  from  the  imputation  of  schism,  whose  property  it  is  to  cut  off 
 from  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  hope  of  salvation,  the  church 
 from  which  it  separates.' 
 
 27.  "This  is  an  answer  which  perhaps  you  may  get  some  one 
 to  approve,  if  first  you  can  put  him  out  of  his  wits.  For  what 
 prodigious  doctrines  are  these?  Those  protestants  who  believe 
 that  the  church  erred  in  points  necessary  to  salvation,  and  for 
 that  cause  left  her,  cannot  be  excused  from  damnable  schism; 
 but  others,  who  believed  that  she  had  no  damnable  errors,  did 
 very  well,  yea,  were  obliged  to  forsake  her;  and  (which  is  more 
 miraculous,  or  rather  monstrous)  they  did  well  to  forsake  her 
 formally  and  precisely,  'because  they  judged  that  she  retained' 
 all  means  necessary  to  salvation,  I  say,  because  they  so  judged. 
 For  the  very  reason  for  which  he  acquitteth  himself,  and  con- 
 demneth  those  others  as  schismatics,  is,  because  he  holdeth  that 
 the  church,  wdiich  both  of  them  forsook,  is  not  cut  off  from  the 
 *body  of  Christ,  and  the  hope  of  salvation;'  whereas  those  other 
 zealots  deny  her  to  be  a  member  of  Christ's  body,  or  capable  of 
 salvation,  wherein  alone  they  disagree  from  Dr.  Potter;  for  in 
 the  effect  of  separation  they  agree,  only  they  do  it  upon  a  differ- 
 ent motive  or  reason.  Were  it  not  a  strange  excuse,  if  a  man 
 would  think  to  cloak  his  rebellion  by  alleging  that  he  held  the 
 person  against  whom  he  rebelleth  to  be  his  lawful  sovereign? 
 And  yet  Dr.  Potter  thinks  himself  free  form  schism,  because  he 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 309 
 
 forsook  the  churcli  of  Rome  ;  but  yet  so,  as  that  still  he  held  her 
 to  be  the  true  church,  and  to  have  all  necessary  means  to  sal- 
 vation.   But  I  will  no  further  urge  this  most  solemn  foppery, 
 and  do  much  more  willingly  put  all  catholics  in  mind  what  an. 
 unspeakable  comfort  it  is  that  our  adversaries  are  forced  to  con- 
 fess, that  they  cannot  clear  themselves  from  schism  otherwise 
 than  by  acknowledging  that  they  do  not,  nor  cannot,   'cut  oif 
 from  the  hope  of  salvation'  our  church.     Which  is  as  much  as  if 
 they  should  in  plain  terms,  say,  they  must  be  damned,  unless  xve 
 may  be  saved.     Moreover,  this  evasion  doth  indeed  condemn 
 3'our  zealous  brethren  of  heresy,  for  denying  the  church  per- 
 petuity, but  doth  not  clear  yourself  from  schism,  which  consists 
 in  being  divided  from  that  true  church,  with   which   a  man 
 agreeth  in  all  points  of  faith,  as  you  must  profess  yourself  to 
 agree  with  the  church  of  Rome  in  all  fundamental  articles.     For 
 otherwise  you  should  cut  her  off  from  the  hope  of  salvation,  and 
 so  condemn  yourself  of  schism.     And,  lastly,  even  according  to 
 this  your  ow^n  definition  of  schism,  you  cannot  clear  yourself  from 
 that  crime,  unless  you  be  content  to  acknowledge  a  manifest 
 contradiction  in  your  own  assertions.     For  if  you  do  not  cut  us 
 off  'from  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the   hope  of  salvation,'  how 
 come  you  to  say  in  another  place,  that  you  judge  a  '  reconciliation 
 with  us  '  to  be  damnable  ?'  that  to  depart  '  from  the  church  of 
 Rome,  there  might  be  just  and  necessary   cause?'    that 'they 
 that  have  the  understanding  and  means  to  discover  their  error, 
 and  neglect  to  use  them,  we  dare  not  flatter  them,'  say  you,  '  with 
 so  easy  a  censure,'  of  hope  of  salvation  ?    If  then  il  be  (as  you 
 say)  a  property  of  schism  to  cut  off  from  the  hope  of  salvation 
 the  church  from  which  it  separates,  how  w411  you  clear  yourself 
 from  schism,  who  dare  not  flatter  us  with  so  easy  a  censure  ? 
 and  who  affirm  that  a  reconciliation  with  us  is  damnable  ?    But 
 the  truth  is,  there  is  no  constancy  in  your  assertions,  by  reason 
 of  difficulties  which  press  you  on  all  sides.     For  you  are  loth  to 
 affirm  clearly  that  we  may  be  saved,  lest  such  a  grant  might  be 
 occasion  (as  in  all  reason  it  ought  to  be)  of  the  conversion  of 
 protestants  to  the  Roman  church :  and  on  the  other  side,  if  you 
 affirm  that  our  church  erred  in  points  fundamental,  or  necessary 
 to  salvation,  you  know  not  how,  nor  where,  nor  among  what 
 company  of  men,  to  find  a  perpetual  visible  church  of  Christ  be- 
 fore Luther ;  and  therefore  your  best  shift  is  to  say  and  unsay, 
 as  your  occasions   command.     I  do  not  examine  your  assertion, 
 that  it  is  the  property  of  schism  '  to  cut  off  from  the  body  of 
 Christ,  and  the  hope  of  salvation,   the  church  from  which  it 
 separates ;'  wherein  you  are  mightily  mistaken,  as  appears  by 
 3^our  own  example-  of  the  Donatists,  who  were  most  formal  and 
 proper  heretics,  and  not  schismatics,  as  schism  is  a  vice  distinct 
 from  heresy.     Besides,  although  the  Donatists  and  Luciferians 
 (whom  you  also  allege)  had  been  mere  schismatics,  yet  it  were 
 against  all  good  logic,  from  a  particular  to  infer  a  general  rule, 
 to  determine  Avhat  is  the  property  of  schism. 
 
 28.  "  A  third  device  I  find  in  Dr.  Potter  to  clear  his  brethren 
 
310  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 from  schism :  '  there  is,'  saith  he,   '  great  difference  between  a 
 schism  from  them,  and  a  reformation  of  ourselves.' 
 
 29.  "  This,  I  confess,  is  a  quaint  subtilty,  by  which  all  schism 
 and  sin  may  be  as  well  excused.  For  what  devil  incarnate  could 
 merely  pretend  a  separation,  and  not  rather  some  other  motive 
 of  virtue,  truth,  profit,  or  pleasure  ?  But  now  since  their  pre- 
 tended reformation  consisted,  as  they  gave  out,  in  forsaking  the 
 corruptions  of  the  church,  the  reformation  of  themselves,  and 
 their  division  from  us,  falls  out  to  be  one  and  the  selfsame  thing. 
 Nay,  we  see  that  although  they  infinitely  disagree  in  the  par- 
 ticulars of  their  reformation,  yet  they  symbolize  and  consent  in 
 the  general  point  of  forsaking  our  pretended  corruptions;  an 
 evident  sign  that  the  thing  upon  which  their  thoughts  first 
 pitched  was  not  any  particular  model  or  idea  of  religion,  but  a 
 settled  resolution  to  forsake  the  chureh  of  Rome.  Wherefore 
 this  metaphysical  speculation,  that  they  intended  only  to  reform 
 themselves,  cannot  possibly  excuse  them  from  schism,  unless 
 first  they  be  able  to  prove  that  they  were  obliged  to  depart  from 
 us.  Yet,  for  as  much  as  concerns  the  fact  itself,  it  is  clear  that 
 Luther's  revolt  did  not  proceed  from  any  zeal  of  reformation. 
 The  motives  which  put  him  upon  so  wretched  and  unfortunate 
 a  work  were  covetousness,  ambition,  lust,  pride,  envy,  and  grudg- 
 ing that  the  promulgation  of  indulgences  was  not  committed  to 
 himself,  or  such  as  he  desired.  He  himself  taketh  God  to  witness, 
 that  he  '  fell  into  these  troubles  casually,  and  against  his  will/* 
 not  upon  any  intention  of  reformation,  not  so  much  as  'dreaming 
 or  suspecting  any  change  which  might  happen.'f  And  he  *  be- 
 gan to  preach'  (against  indulgences)  '  when  he  knew  not 
 what  the  matter  meant.,  J  '  For,'  saith  he,§  '  I  scarcely  under- 
 stood then  what  the  name  of  indulgences  meant.'  Insomuch  as 
 afterwards  Luther  did  much  misiike  of  liis  own  undertaken 
 course,  oftentimes,  saith  he,l|  '  wishing  that  I  had  never  begun 
 that  business.'  And  Fox  saith,^  *  It  is  apparent  that  Luther 
 promised  cardinal  Cajetan  to  keep  silence,  provided  also  his 
 adversaries  would  do  the  like.'  Mr.  Cowperreporteth  further,** 
 that  'Luther  by  his  letter  submitted  himself  to  the  pope,  so  that 
 he  might  not  be  compelled  to  recant,'  with  much  more,  which 
 may  be  seen  in  Brerely.tf  But  this  is  sufficient  to  show,  that 
 Luther  was  far  enough  from  intending  any  reformation.  And  if 
 he  judged  a  reformation  to  be  necessary,  what  a  huge  wickedness 
 was  it  in  him  to  promise  '  silence,  if  his  adversaries  would  do  the 
 like !'  or,  to  submit  '  himself  to  the  pope,  so  that  he  might  not 
 be  compelled  to  recant !'  or  if  the  reformation  were  not  indeed 
 intended  by  him,  nor  judged  to  be  necessary,  how  can  he  be  ex- 
 cused from  damnable  schism  ?  And  this  is. the  true  manner  of 
 Luther's  revolt,  taken  from  his  own  acknowledgments,  and  the 
 words  of  the  more  ancient  protestants  themselves,  whereby  Dr. 
 Potter's  faltering  and  mincing  the  matter  is   clearly  discovered 
 
 *  Casn,  non  voliintate,  in  has  turbas  incidi,  Deum  ipsuin  tester. 
 
 t  Act.  and  Mon.  p.  404.        t  Sleid.  5.  lib.  16,  fol.  232.         5  Sleid.  lib    13.  fol.  177> 
 
 3  Luih.  in  coiloq.  mensal.        ^  Act.  and  Mon.  p.  404.        **  Cowp.  in  his  Chionide. 
 
 t'r  Tract.  2.  c.  2.  sect.  11.  subd.  2. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINEP   BY   CATHOLICS.  311 
 
 and  confated.  Upon  what  motives  our  country  was  divided 
 from  the  Roman  church  by  king  Henry  the  Eighth,  and  how  the 
 schism  was  continued  by  queen  Elizabeth,  I  have  no  heart  to 
 rip  up.  The  world  knoweth  it  was  not  upon  any  zeal  of  refor- 
 mation. 
 
 30.  "But  you  will  prove  your  former  evasion  by  a  couple  of 
 similitudes  :  '  If  a  monastery  should  reform  itself,  and  should 
 reduce  into  practice  ancient  good  discipline,  when  others  would 
 not ;  in  this  case  could  it  in  reason  be  charged  with  schism  from 
 others,  or  with  apostacy  from  its  rule  and  order  ?  Or  as  in  a  so- 
 ciety of  men  universally  infected  with  some  disease,  they  that 
 should  free  themselves  from  the  common  disease  could  not  be 
 therefore  said  to  separate  from  the  society ;  so  neither  can  the 
 reformed  churches  be  truly  accused  for  making  a  schism  from 
 the  church,  seeing  all  they  did  was  to  reform  themselves.' 
 
 31.  "I  was  very  glad  to  find  you  in  a  monastery,  but  sorry 
 when  I  perceived  that  you  were  inventing  ways  how  to  forsake 
 your  vocation,  and  to  maintain  the  lawfulness  of  schism  from  the 
 church,  and  apostacy  from  a  religious  order.  Yet  before  you 
 make  your  final  resolution,  hear  a  word  of  advice.  Put  case, 
 that  a  monastery  did  confessedly  observe  their  substantial  vows 
 and  all  principal  statutes  or  constitutions  of  the  order,  though 
 with  some  neglect  of  lesser  monastical  observances  ;  and  that  a 
 reformation  w^ere  undertaken,  not  by  authority  of  lawful  supe- 
 riors, but  by  some  one,  or  very  few  in  comparison  of  the  rest ; 
 and  those  few  known  to  be  led,  not  by  any  spirit  of  reformation, 
 but  by  some  other  sinister  intention  ;  and  that  the  statutes  of 
 the  house  were  even  by  those  busy  fellows  confessed  to  have 
 been  time  out  of  mind  understood,  and  practised  as  now  they 
 were  ;  and  further,  that  the  pretended  reformers  acknowledge, 
 that  themselves,  as  soon  as  they  were  gone  out  of  their  monastery, 
 must  not  hope  to  be  free  from  those  of  the  like  errors  and  cor- 
 ruptions, for  which  they  left  their  brethren  ;  and  (which  is 
 more)  that  they  might  fall  into  more  enormous  crimes  than  they 
 did,  or  could  do  in  their  monastery,  which  we  suppose  to  be 
 secured  from  all  substantial  corruptions,  for  the  avoiding  of 
 which  they  have  an  infallible  assistance  :  but  (I  say)  together 
 all  these  my  ands,  and  then  come  with  your  ifs,  '  If  a 
 monastry  should  reform  itself,'  &c.,  and  tell  me  if  you  could 
 excuse  such  reformers  from  schism,  sedition,  rebellion,  apostacy, 
 &c.  What  would  you  say  of  such  reformers  in  your  college  ? 
 or  tumultuous  persons  in  a  kingdom  ?  Remember  now  your 
 own  tenets,  and  then  reflect  how  fit  a  similitude  you  have  picked 
 out  to  prove  yourself  a  schismatic.  You  teach,  that  the  church 
 may  err  in  points  not  fundmaental,  but  that  for  all  fundamental 
 points  she  is  secured  from  error.  You  teach,  that  no  particular 
 person  or  church  hath  any  promise  of  assistance  in  points  fun- 
 damental :  you  and  the  whole  world  can  witness,  that  when 
 Luther  began,  he  being  but  only  one,  opposed  himself  to  ally 
 as  well  subjects  as  superiors  ;  and  that  even  then  when  he  him- 
 self confessed  that  he  had  no  intention  of  reformation  :  you 
 cannot  be  ignorant  but  that  many  chief  learned  protestants  are 
 
312  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   EY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 forced  to  confess  the  antiquity  of  our  doctrine  and  practice,  and 
 do  in  several  and  many  controversies  acknowledge  that  the 
 ancient  fathers  stood  on  oar  side :  consider,  I  say,  these  points, 
 and  see  whether  your  similitude  do  not  condemn  your  progeni- 
 tors of  schism  from  God's  visible  church,  yea,  and  of  apostacy 
 also  from  their  religious  orders,  if  they  were  vowed  regulars,  as 
 Luther  and  divers  of  them  were. 
 
 32.  "From  the  monastery  you  are  fled  into  an  hospital  *of 
 persons  universally  infected  with  some  disease,'  where  you  find 
 to  be  true  what  I  supposed,  that  after  your  departure  from  your 
 brethren  you  might  fall  into  greater  inconveniences  and  more 
 infectious  diseases  than  those  for  which  you  left  them.  But  you 
 are  also  upon  the  point  to  abandon  these  miserable  needy  per- 
 sons, in  whose  behalf,  for  charity's  sake,  let  me  set  before  you 
 these  considerations.  If  the  disease  neither  were  nor  could  be 
 jnortal,  because  in  that  company  of  men  God  had  placed  a  tree  of 
 life  ;  if  going  thence,  the  sick  man  might  by  curious  tasting  the 
 free  of  knowledge  eat  poison  under  pretence  of  bettering  his 
 hea,lth;  if  he  could  not  hope  thereby  to  avoid  other  diseases  like 
 those  for  which  he  had  quitted  the  company  of  the  first  infected 
 men;  if  by  his  departure  innumerable  mischiefs  were  to  ensue; 
 could  such  a  man  without  senselessness  be  excused  by  saying, 
 that  he  sought  '  to  free  himself  from  the  common  disease,'  but 
 not,  forsooth,  'to  separate  from  the  society?'  Now  yourself 
 compare  the  church  to  a  man  deformed  with  '  superfluous  fingers 
 and  toes,'  but  yet  who  hath  not  lost  any  vital  part:  you  ac- 
 knowledge that  out  of  her  society  no  man  is  secured  from  damn- 
 able error,  and  the  world  can  bear  witness  what  unspeakable 
 mischiefs  and  calamities  ensued  Luther's  revolt  from  the  church. 
 Pronounce  then  concerning  them  the  same  sentence  which  even 
 now  I  have  showed  them  to  deserve,  who  in  the  manner  afore- 
 said should  separate  from  persons  universally  infected  with  some 
 disease. 
 
 33.  "But,  alas!  to  what  pass  hath  heresy  brought  men  who 
 term  themselves  Christians,  and  yet  blush  not  to  compare  the  be- 
 loved spouse  of  our  Lord  the  one  dove,  the  purchase  of  our  Saviour's 
 most  precious  blood,  the  holy  catholic  church,  I  mean  that  visi- 
 ble church  of  Christ  which  Luther  found  spread  over  the  whole 
 ■world,  to  a  monastery  so  disordered  that  it  must  be  forsaken  ;  to 
 the  giant  in  Gath,  '  much  deformed  with  superfluous  fingers  and 
 toes:'  to  a  'society  of  men  universally  infected  with  some  dis- 
 ease!' And  yet  all  these  comparisons,  and  much  worse,  are 
 neither  injurious  nor  undeserved,  if  once  it  be  granted,  or  can 
 be  proved,  that  the  visible  church  of  Christ  may  err  in  any  one 
 point  of  faith,  although  not  fundamental. 
 
 34.  "  Before  I  part  from  these  similitudes,  one  thing  I  must 
 observe  against  the  evasion  of  Dr.  Potter,  that  they  left  not  the 
 church,  but  her  corruptions.  For  as  those  reformers  of  the 
 monastery,  or  those  other  who  left  the  company  of  men  univer- 
 sally infected  with  some  disease,  would  deny  themselves  to  be 
 schismatics,  or  anyway  blameworthy,  but  could  not  deny  but 
 tbat  they  left  the  said  communities ;  so  Luther  and  the  rest  can- 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 313 
 
 not  so  much  as  pretend  not  to  have  left  the  visible  church, 
 ^vhich  according-  to  them  was  infected  v.-ith  many  diseases,  but 
 can  only  pretend  that  they  did  not  sin  in  leaving  her.  And  you 
 speak  very  strangely  when  you  say,  *  in  a  society  of  men  uni- 
 versally infected  v/ith  some  disease,  they  that  should  free  them- 
 selves from  the  common  disease  could  not  be  therefore  said  to 
 separate  from  the  society.'  For  if  they  do  not  separate  them- 
 selves from  the  society  of  the  infected  persons,  how  do  they  free 
 themselves  and  depart  from  the  common  disease  ?  Do  they  at 
 the  same  time  remain  '  in  the  company,'  and  yet  depart  from 
 tho^e  infected  creatures  ?  We  must  then  say,  that  they  separate 
 themselves  from  the  persons,  though  it  be  by  occasion  of  the 
 disease  ?  Or  if  you  say,  they  free  their  own  persons  from  the 
 common  disease,  yet  so  that  they  remain  still  in  the  company 
 infected,  subject  to  the  superiors  and  governors  thereof,  eating, 
 and  drinking,  and  keeping  public  assemblies  with  them ;  you 
 cannot  but  know  Luther  and  your  reformers,  the  first  pretended 
 free  persons  from  the  supposed  common  infection  of  the  Roman 
 church,  did  not  so :  for  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  forces,  drive  them 
 away,  even  their  superiors  both  spiritual  and  temporal,  as  is 
 notorious.  Or  if  they  had  not  power  to  expel  that  supposed 
 infected  community  or  church  of  that  place,  they  departed  from 
 them  corporally  whom  mentally  they  had  forsaken  before.  So 
 that  you  cannot  deny  but  Luther  forsook  the  external  comm.u- 
 nion  and  company  of  the  catholic  church,  for  which,  as  yourself 
 confess,  'there  neither  was  nor  can  be  any  just  cause,  no  more 
 than  to  depart  from  Christ  himself.'  We  do  therefore  infer,  that 
 Luther  and  the  rest  who  forsook  that  visible  church  which  they 
 found  upon  earth,  were  truly  and  properly  schismatics. 
 
 35.  "  Moreover,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  a  division  be- 
 tween Luther  and  that  church  which  was  visible  when  he  arose : 
 but  that  church  cannot  be  said  to  have  divided  herself  from  hira, 
 before  whose  time  she  was,  and  in  comparison  of  whom  she  was 
 a  whole,  and  he  but  apart;  therefore  we  must  say,  that  he  divi- 
 ded himself  and  v/ent  out  of  her,  which  is  to  be  a  schismatic  or 
 heretic,  or  both.  By  this  argument,  Optatus  Melevitanus 
 proveth,  that  not  Ceecilianus,  but  Parmenianus  was  a  schismatic, 
 saying,*  '  For  Csecilianus  went  not  out  from  Majorinus,  thy 
 grandfather,  but  Majorinus  from  Caecilianus  ;  neither  did  Cseci- 
 lianus  depart  from  the  chair  of  Peter  or  Cyprian,  but  Majorinus, 
 in  whose  chair  thou  sittest,  which  had  no  beginning  before  Ma- 
 jorinus. Since  it  manifestly  appeareth  that  these  things  were 
 acted  in  this  manner,  it  is  clear  that  you  are  heirs  both  of  the 
 deliverers  up/  (of  the  holy  Bible  to  be  burned,)  '  and  also  of 
 schismatics.'  The  whole  argument  of  this  holy  father  makes 
 directly  both  against  Luther  and  all  those  who  continue  the 
 division  which  he  began ;  and  proves,  that  '  going  out,'  con- 
 vinceth  those  who  go  out  to  be  schismatics ;  but  not  those  from 
 whom  they  depart :  that  to  forsake  the  chair  of  Peter  is  schism; 
 
 *  Lib.  1.  cont.  Parmen. 
 
314  CHARITY    MAIKTAI.SIED    BY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 yea,  that  it  is  schism  to  erect  a  chair  which  had  no  origin,  or,  a& 
 it  were,  predecessor  before  itself:  that  to  continue  in  a  division 
 begun  by  others  is  to  be  heirs  of  schismatics :  and  lastly,  that 
 to  depart  from  the  communion  of  a  particular  church  (as  that  of 
 St.  Cyprian  was)  is  sufficient  to  make  a  man  incur  the  guilt  of 
 schism;  and  consequently,  that  although  protestants,  who  deny 
 the  pope  to  be  supreme*  head  of  the  church,  do  think  by  that 
 heresy  to  clear  Luther  from  schism,  in  disobeying  the  pope ; 
 yet  that  will  not  serve  to  free  him  from  schism,  as  it  importeth 
 a  division  from  the  obedience  or  communion  of  the  particular 
 bishop,  diocese,  church,  and  country  where  he  lived. 
 
 36.  "But  it  is  not  the  heresy  of  protestants,  or  any  other  sect- 
 aries, that  can  deprive  St.  Peter  and  his  successors  of  the  authority 
 which  Christ  our  Lord  conferred  upon  them  over  his  whole 
 militant  church;  which  is  a  point  confessed  by  learned  protest- 
 ants to  be  of  great  antiquity,  and  for  which  the  judgment  of 
 divers  most  ancient  holy  fathers  is  reproved  by  them,  a^  may  be 
 seen  at  large  in  Brerely,*  exactly  citing  the  places  of  such  chief 
 
 rotestants.  And  we  must  say  with  St.  Cyprian,t  'Heresies 
 ave  sprung,  and  schisms  been  bred,  from  no  other  cause  than 
 for  that  the  priest  of  God  is  not  obeyed,  nor  one  priest  and  judge 
 is  considered  to  be  for  the  time  in  the  church  of  God:'  which 
 w^ords  do  plainly  condemn  Luther,  whether  he  will  understand 
 them  as  spoken  of  the  universal  or  of  every  particular  church ; 
 for  he  withdrew  himself  both  from  the  obedience  of  the  pope, 
 and  of  all  particular  bishops  and  churches.  And  no  less  clear 
 is  the  said  Optatus  Melevitanus,  saying,:{:  '  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 
 all  the  apostles,  sat;  wherefore  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  schismatic  and  a  sinner,  who 
 against  that  one  single  chair  should  erect  another.'  Many  other 
 authorities  of  fathers  might  be  alleged  to  this  purpose,  which  I 
 omit ;  my  intention  being  not  to  handle  particular  controversies. 
 
 37.  "  Now  the  arguments  which  hitherto  I  have  brought, 
 prove  that  Luther  and  his  followers  were  schismatics,  without 
 examining  Cfor  as  much  as  belongs  to  this  point)  whether  or  no 
 the  church  can  err  in  any  one  thing  great  or  small,  because  it 
 is  universally  true,  that  there  can  be  no  just  cause  to  forsake 
 the  communion  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  according  to  St. 
 Augustin,  saying,§  '  It  is  not  possible  that  any  may  have  just 
 cause  to  separate  their  communion  from  the  communion  of  the 
 whole  world,  and  call  themselves  the  church  of  Christ,  as  if  they 
 had  separated  themselves  from  the  communion  of  all  nations 
 upon  just  cause.'  But  since  indeed  the  church  cannot  err  in 
 any  one  point  of  doctrine,  nor  can  approve  any  corruption  in 
 manners,  they  cannot  with  any  colour  avoid  the  just  imputation 
 of  eminent  schism,  according  to  the  verdict  of   the  same  hoi}- 
 
 *  Tract.  1.  sect,  3.  subd.  10.  t  Ep.  55, 
 
 t  Lib.  2.  com.  Paimen.  §  Ep.  18. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATIICLICS-  310 
 
 father  in  these  words:*  *  The  most  manifest  sacrilege  of  schism 
 is  eminent,  Avhen  there  was  no  cause  of  separation.' 
 
 38.  "Lastly,  I  prove  that  protestants  cannot  avoid  the  note  of 
 schism,  at  least  by  reason  of  their  mntual  separation  from  one 
 another;  for  most  certain  it  is,  that  there  is  very  great  difference, 
 for  the  outward  face  of  a  church,  and  profession  of  different  faith, 
 between  the  Lutherans,  the  rigid  Calvinists,  and  the  protestants 
 of  England.  So  that  if  Luther  were  in  the  right,  those  other 
 protestants  who  invented  doctrines  far  different  from  his,  and 
 divided  themselves  from  him,  must  be  reputed  schismatics  :  and 
 the  like  argument  may  proportionably  be  applied  to  their  further 
 divisions  and  subdivisions.  Which  reason  I  yet  urge  more 
 strongly  out  of  Dr.  Potter,  who  affirms,  that  to  him  and  to  such 
 as  are  convicted  in  conscience  of  the  errors  of  the  Roman  church, 
 a  reconciliation  is  impossible  and  damnable.  And  yet  he  teacheth 
 that  their  difference  from  the  Roman  church  is  not  in  funda- 
 mental points.  Now,  since  among  protestants  there  is  such  di- 
 versity of  belief,  that  one  denieth  what  the  other  af!irmeth,  they 
 must  be  convicted  in  conscience  that  one  part  is  in  error,  (at 
 least  not  fundamental,)  and  if  Dr.  Potter  will  speak  consequently, 
 that  a  reconciliation  between  them  is  impossible  and  damnable : 
 and  what  greater  division  or  schism  can  there  be,  than  when 
 one  part  must  judge  a  reconciliation  with  the  other  to  be  impos- 
 sible and  damnable  ? 
 
 39.  "Out  of  all  which  premises  this  conclusion  follows:  that 
 Luther  and  his  followers  were  schismatics;  from  the  universal 
 visible  church;  from  the  pope,  Christ's  vicar  on  earth  and  suc- 
 cessor to  St.  Peter;  from  the  particular  diocese  in  which  they 
 received  baptism;  from  the  country  or  nation  to  which  they  be- 
 longed; from  the  bishop  under  whom  they  lived;  many  of  them 
 from  the  religious  order  in  which  they  were  professed ;  from  one 
 another;  and  lastly,  from  a  man's  self,  (as  much  as  is  possible,) 
 because  the  selfsame  protestant  to-day  is  convicted  in  conscience, 
 that  his  yesterday's  opinion  was  an  error,  (as  Dr.  Potter  knows 
 a  man  in  the  world  who  from  a  puritan  was  turned  to  a  moderate 
 protestant,)  with  whom  therefore  a  reconciliation,  according  to 
 Dr.  Potter's  grounds,  is  both  impossible  and  damnable. 
 
 40.  "  It  seems  Dr.  Potter's  last  refuge,  to  excuse  himself  and 
 his  brethren  from  schism,  is,  because  they  proceeded  according  to 
 their  conscience,  dictating  an  obligation,  under  damnation,  to 
 forsake  the  errors  maintained  by  tlie  church  of  Rome.  His 
 words  are,  '  Although  we  confess  the  church  of  Rome  to  be  (in 
 some  sense)  a  true  church,  and  her  errors  to  some  men  not 
 damnable ;  yet  for  us  who  are  convinced  in  conscience  that  she 
 errs  in  many  things,  a  necessity  lies  upon  us,  even  under  pain  of 
 damnation,  to  forsake  her  in  these  errors.' 
 
 41.  "I  ansv/er.  It  is  very  strange  that  you  judge  us  extremely 
 uncharitable  in  saying  protestants  cannot  be  saved,  while  your- 
 self avouch  the  same  of  all  learned  catholics,  whom  ignorance 
 cannot  excuse.  If  this  your  pretence  of  conscience  may  serve, 
 what  schismatic  in  the  church,  what  popular  seditious  brain  in 
 
 *  De.  Bapt.  lib.  v,  c.  ]. 
 
316 
 
 CHARITY    MAIXTAINED   EY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 a  kingdom,  may  not  allege  the  dictamen  of  conscience,  to  free 
 themselves  from  schism  or  sedition  ?  No  man  wishes  them  to  do 
 any  thing  against  their  conscience,  but  we  say  that  they  may  and 
 ought  to  rectify  and  depose  such  a  conscience,  which  is  easy  for 
 them  to  do,  even  according  to  your  own  affirmation,  that  we 
 catholics  want  no  means  necessary  to  salvation.  Easy  to  do  ? 
 Nay,  not  to  do  so  to  any  man  in  his  right  wits  must  seem  im- 
 possible. For  how  can  these  two  apprehensions  stand  together: 
 In  the  Roman  church  I  enjoy  all  means  necessary  to  salvation, 
 and  yet  I  cannot  hope  to  be  saved  in  that  church  ?  or,  who  can 
 conjoin  in  one  brain  (not  cracked)  these  assertions:  After  due 
 examination  1  adjudge  the  Roman  errors  not  to  be  in  themselves 
 fundamental  or  damnable;  and  yet  I  judge,  that  according  to 
 true  reason  it  is  damnable  to  hold  them  ?  I  say,  *  according  to 
 true  reason.'  For  if  you  grant  your  conscience  to  be  erroneous, 
 in  judging  that  you  cannot  be  saved  in  the  Roman  church  by 
 reason  of  her  errors,  there  is  no  other  remedy,  but  that  you  must 
 rectify  your  erring  conscience  by  your  other  judgment,  that  her 
 errors  are  not  fundamental  nor  damnable.  And  this  is  no  more 
 charity  than  you  daily  afford  to  such  other  protestants  as  you 
 term  brethren,  whom  you  cannot  deny  to  be  in  some  errors,  (un- 
 less you  will  hold,  that  of  contradictory  propositions  both  may 
 be  true,)  and  yet  you  do  not  judge  it  damnable  to  live  in  their 
 communion,  because  you  hold  their  errors  not  to  be  fundamental. 
 You  ought  to  know,  that  according  to  the  doctrine  of  all  divines 
 there  is  great  difference  between  a  speculative  persuasion  and  a 
 practical  dictamen  of  conscience;  and  therefore,  although  they 
 had  in  speculation  conceived  the  visible  church  to  err  in  some 
 doctrines,  of  themselves  not  dam.nable,  yet  with  that  speculative 
 judgment  they  might  and  ought  to  have  entertained  this  prac- 
 tical dictamen,  that  for  points  not  substantial  to  faith  they  neither 
 w^ere  bound  nor  lawfully  could  break  the  bond  of  charity,  by 
 breaking  unity  in  God's  church.  You  say,  that  '  hay  and  stubble, 
 and  such  unprofitable  stuff,'  (as  are  corruptions  in  points  not  fun- 
 damental,) *  laid  on  the  roof,  destroys  not  the  house,  whilst  the 
 main  pillars  are  standing  on  the  foundation.'  And  you  would 
 think  him  a  madman,  who,  to  be  rid  of  such  stuff,  would  set  his 
 house  on  fire,  that  so  he  might  walk  in  the  light,  as  you  teach 
 that  Luther  was  obliged  to  forsake  the  house  of  God,  for  an  un- 
 necessary light,  not  without  a  combustion  formidable  to  the 
 whole  Christian  world,  rather  than  bear  with  some  errors  which 
 did  not  destroy  the  foundation  of  faith.  And  as  for  others  who 
 entered  in  at  the  breach  first  made  by  Luther,  they  might  and 
 ought  to  have  guided  their  consciences  by  that  most  reasonable  rule 
 of  Yincentius  Lyrinensis,  delivered  in  these  words,*  '  Indeed  it  is  a 
 matter  of  great  moment,  and  both  most  profitable  to  be  learned,  and 
 necessary  to  be  remembered,  and  which  we  ought  again  and  again 
 to  illustrate,  and  inculcate  with  weighty  heaps  of  examples,  that 
 almost  all  catholics  may  know  that  they  ought  to  receive  the 
 doctors  with  the  church,  and  not  to  forsake  the  faith  of  the 
 church  with  the  doctors :'  and  much  less  should  they  forsake  the 
 
 *  Adv.  Hscres.  c.  27 
 
CHAKITY    MAI.NTAIXED    BY    CATKOLICS.  317 
 
 faith  of  the  church  to  follow  Luther,  Calvin,  and  such  other 
 novelists.  Moreover,  though  your  first  reformers  had  conceived 
 their  own  opinions  to  be  true,  yet  they  might  and  ought  to  have 
 doubted  whether  they  were  certain ;  because  yourself  affirm,  that 
 infallibility  was  not  promised  to  any  particular  persons  or  churches. 
 And  since  in  cases  of  uncertainties  we  are  not  to  leave  our 
 superior,  nor  can  cast  off  his  obedience,  or  publicly  oppose  his 
 decrees,  your  reformers  might  easily  have  found  a  safe  way 
 to  satisfy  their  zealous  conscience,  without  a  public  breach; 
 especially  if  with  this  their  uncertainty  we  call  to  mind  the 
 peaceable  possession  and  prescription,  which,  by  the  confession  of 
 your  own  brethren,  the  church  and  pope  of  Rome  did  for  many 
 ages  enjoy.  I  wish  you  would  examine  the  works  of  your 
 brethren  by  the  words  yourself  set  down  to  free  St.  Cyprian  from 
 schism ;  every  syllable  of  which  vv'ords  convinceth  Luther  and 
 his  co-partners  to  be  guilty  of  that  crime,  and  showeth  in  what 
 manner  they  might  with  great  ease  and  quietness  have  rectified 
 their  consciences  about  the  pretended  errors  of  the  church.  St. 
 Cyprian  (say  you)  '  was  a  peaceable  and  modest  man,  dissented 
 from  others  in  his  judgment,  but  without  any  breach  of  charity 
 condemned  no  man  (much  less  any  church)  for  the  contrary 
 opinion.  He  believed  his  own  opinion  to  be  true,  but  believed 
 not  that  it  was  necessary,  and  therefore  did  not  proceed  rashly 
 and  peremptorily  to  censure  others,  but  left  them  to  their  liberty.' 
 Did  your  reformers  imitate  this  manner  of  proceeding  ?  Did  they 
 '  censure  no  man ;  much  less  any  church  ?'  '  St.  Cyprian  believed 
 his  own  opinion  to  be  true,  but  believed  not  that  it  was 
 necessary,  and  therefore  did  not  proceed  rashly  and  peremp- 
 torily to  censure  others.'  You  believe  the  points  wherein  Luther 
 differs  from  us  not  to  be  fundamental  or  necessary  ;  and  why  do 
 you  not  thence  infer  the  like  therefore,  he  should  not  have 
 'proceeded  to  censure  others  ?'  In  a  word,  since  their  disagree- 
 ment from  us  concerned  only  points  which  were  not  fundamental, 
 they  should  have  believed  that  they  might  have  been  deceived, 
 as  well  as  the  whole  visible  church,  which  you  say  may  err  in 
 such  points;  and  therefore  their  doctrines,  being  not  certainly 
 true,  and  certainly  not  necessary,  they  could  not  give  sufficient 
 cause  to  depart  from  the  communion  of  the  church. 
 
 42.  "  In  other  places  you  write  so  much  as  may  serve  us  to 
 prove  that  Luther  and  his  followers  ought  to  have  deposed  and 
 rectified  their  consciences :  as  for  example,  when  you  say, 
 '  When  the  church  hath  declared  herself  in  any  matter  of  opinion 
 or  of  rites,  her  declaration  obliges  all  her  children  to  peace  and 
 external  obedience.  Nor  is  it  fit  or  lawful  for  any  private  man 
 to  oppose  his  judgment  to  the  public  (as  Luther  and  his  fellows 
 did).  He  may  ofier  his  opinion  to  be  considered  of,  so  he  do  it 
 ■with  evidence,  or  great  probability  of  Scripture  or  reason,  and 
 very  modestly,  still  containing  himself  within  the  dutiful  respect 
 ■which  he  oweth  ;  but  if  he  will  factiously  advance  his  own  con- 
 ceits,' (What !  do  you  mean  that  they  are  his  own  conceits,  and 
 yet  grounded  upon  evidence  of  Scripture?)  *and  despise  the 
 church  so  far  as  to  cut  off  her  communion,  he  may  be  justly 
 
318 
 
 CHARITV    MAINTAINED    EY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 branded  and  condemned  for  a  schismatic,  yea,  a  heretic  also  in 
 some  degree,  and  inforo  exteriori,  though  his  opinion  were  true, 
 and  much  more  if  it  be  false.'  Could  any  man,  even  for  a  fee, 
 have  spoken  more  home  to  condemn  your  predecessors  of  schism 
 or  heresy  ?  Could  they  have  stronger  motives  to  oppose  the 
 doctrine  of  the  church,  and  leave  her  communion,  than  evidence 
 of  Scripture?  And  yet,  according  to  your  own  words,  they 
 should  have  answered,  and  rectified  their  conscience,  by  jovw 
 doctrine,  that  though  their  opinion  were  true,  and  grounded 
 upon  evidence  of  Scripture  or  reason,  yet  it  was  not  lawful  for 
 any  'private  man  to  oppose  his  judgment  to  the  public,  which 
 obligeth  all  Christians  to  peace  and  external  obedience:'  and  if 
 they  cast  otf  the  communion  of  the  church  for  maintaining  their 
 own  '  conceits,  they  may  be  branded  for  schismatics  and  heretics, 
 in  some  degree,  et  inforo  exteriori,^  that  is,  all  other  Christians 
 ought  to  esteem  of  them,  (and  why  then  are  we  accounted  un- 
 charitable forjudging  so  of  you?)  and  they  also  are  obliged  to 
 behave  themselves  *  in  the  face  of  all  Christian  churches,'  as  if 
 indeed  they  were  not  reformers,  but  schismatics  and  heretics,  or 
 as  pagans  and  publicans.  I  thank  you  for  your  ingenuous  con- 
 fession ;  in  recompence  whereof  I  will  do  a  deed  of  charity,  in 
 putting  you  in  mind  into  what  labyrinths  you  are  brought,  by 
 teaching  that  the  church  may  err  in  some  points  of  faith,  and 
 yet  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  oppose  his  judgment,  or 
 leave  her  communion,  though  he  have  evidence  of  Scripture 
 against  her.  Will  you  have  such  a  man  dissemble  against  his 
 conscience,  or  externally  deny  a  truth  known  to  be  contained  in 
 Holy  Scripture?  How  much  more  coherently  do  catholics  pro- 
 ceed, who  beheve  the  universal  infallibility  of  the  church,  and 
 from  thence  are  assured  that  there  can  be  no  evidence  of  Scrip- 
 ture or  reason  against  her  definitions,  nor  any  just  cause  to  for- 
 sake her  communion  !  Mr.  Hooker,  esteemed  by  many  protestants 
 an  incomparable  man,  yields  as  much  as  we  have  alleged  out  of 
 you  ;  '  The  will  of  God  is,'  saith  he,*  '  to  have  them  do  what- 
 soever the  sentence  of  judicial  and  final  decision  shall  determine, 
 yea,  though  it  seem  in  their  private  opinion  to  swerve  ntteii}^ 
 from  that  which  is  right.'  Dodi  not  this  man  tell  Lnther  what 
 the  will  of  God  was,  which  he  transgressing  must  of  necessity 
 be  guilty  of  schism  ?  And  must  not  Mr.  Hooker  either  acknow- 
 ledge the  universal  infallibilit)^  of  the  church,  or  else  drive  men 
 into  the  perplexities  and  labyrinths  of  dissembling  against  their 
 conscience,  whereof  now  I  speak  ?  Not  unlike  to  this  is  your 
 doctrine  delivered  elsewhere ;  '  Before  the  Nicene  council,'  say 
 you,  '  many  good  catholic  bishops  were  of  the  same  opinion  with 
 the  Donatists,  that  the  baptism  of  heretics  was  ineffectual ,-  and 
 with  the  Novatians,  that  the  church  ought  not  to  absolve  some 
 grievous  sinners.  These  errors  therefore  (if  they  had  gone  no 
 further)  were  not  in  themselves  heretical,  especially  in  the 
 proper  and  most  heavy  or  bitter  sense  of  that  word  ;  neither  was 
 it  in  the  church's  intention  (or  in  her  power)  to  make  them  such 
 by  her  declaration.     Her  intention  was  to  silence  all  disputes, 
 
 «  la  his  preface  to  his  books  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  vol.  i.  p.  209.  Oxf.  edit.  1836, 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  319 
 
 and  to  settle  peace  and  unity  in  her  government,  to  which  all 
 wise  and  peaceable  men  submitted,  whatsoever  their  opinion 
 was.  And  those  factious  people,  for  their  unreasonable  and 
 uncharitable  opposition,  were  very  justly  branded  for  schismatics. 
 For  us,  the  mistake  will  never  prove  that  we  oppose  any  declara- 
 tion of  the  catholic  church,  &c.,  and  therefore  he  doth  unjustly 
 charge  us  either  with  schism  or  heresy.'  These  words  mani- 
 festly condemn  your  reformers,  who  opposed  the  visible  church 
 in  many  of  her  declarations,  doctrines,  and  commands  imposed 
 upon  them,  for  silencing  all  disputes,  and  *  settling  peace  and 
 unity  in  her  government;'  and  therefore  they  still  remaining 
 obstinately  disobedient,  are  justly  '  charged  with  schism  and 
 heresy.'  And  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  you  grant  the  Donatists 
 to  have  been  'very  justly  branded  for  schismatics,'  although 
 their  opposition  against  the  church  did  concern  (as  you  hold)  a 
 point  not  fundamental  to  the  faith,  and  which  according  to  St. 
 Augustin  cannot  be  proved  out  of  Scripture  alone ;  and  therefore 
 either  doth  evidently  convince  that  the  church  is  universally 
 infallible,  even  in  points  not  fundamental,  or  else  that  it  is 
 schism  to  oppose  her  declarations  in  those  very  things  wherein 
 she  may  err;  and  consequently  that  Luther  and  his  fellows  were 
 schismatics,  by  opposing  the  visible  church  for  points  not  fun- 
 damental, though  it  W'Cre  (untruly)  supposed  that  she  erred  in 
 such  points.  But,  by  the  way,  how  come  you  on  the  sudden  to 
 hold  the  determination  of  a  general  council  (of  Nice)  to  be  the 
 declaration  of  the  catholic  church,  seeing  you  teach  that  general 
 councils  may  err  even  fundamentally  ?  And  do  you  now  say, 
 with  us,  that  to  oppose  the  declaration  of  the  church  is  sufficient 
 that  one  may  be  branded  with  heresy,  which  is  a  point  so  often 
 impugned  by  you  ? 
 
 43.  "  It  is  therefore  most  evident,  that  no  pretended  scruple 
 of  conscience  could  excuse  Luther ;  which  he  might  and  ought 
 to  have  rectified  by  means  enough,  if  pride,  ambition,  obstinacy, 
 &c.,  had  given  him  leave.  I  grant  he  was  touched  wdth  scruple 
 of  conscience,  but  it  was  because  he  had  forsaken  the  visible 
 church  of  Christ;  and  I  beseech  all  protestants,  for  the  love 
 they  bear  to  that  sacred  ransom  of  their  souls,  the  blood  of  our 
 blessed  Saviour,  attentively  to  ponder,  and  un partially  to  apply 
 to  their  own  conscience,  what  this  man  spoke  concerning  the 
 feelings  and  remorse  of  his.  'How  often,'  saith  he,*  'did  my 
 trembling  heart  beat  within  me,  and,  reprehending  me,  object 
 against  me  that  most  strong  argument.  Art  thou  only  wise  ?  Do 
 so  many  worlds  err  ?  AVere  so  many  ages  ignorant  ?  What  if 
 thou  errest,  and  drawest  so  many  into  hell  to  be  damned  eter- 
 nally with  thee  !'  And  in  another  place  he  saith,t  '  Dost  thoue 
 who  art  but  one,  and  of  no  account,  take  upon  thee  so  great 
 matters  ?  What  if  thou,  being  but  one,  ofFendest  ?  If  God  per* 
 mit  such,  so  many,  and  all  to  err,  why  may  he  not  permit  thee 
 to  err  ?  To  this  belong  those  arguments,  the  church,  the 
 church,  the  fathers,  the  fathers,  the  councils,  the  customs,  the 
 
 *  Torn.  2.  Germ.  Jen.  fol.  9.  et  torn,  2.  Witt,  of  anno  1562.  de   abrog.  Mis.  privat 
 t'ol   241  -f  Tom.  5.  Aiinot.  breviss. 
 
320 
 
 CHAKITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOmCS. 
 
 multitudes   and  greatness  of   wise  men  :   whom  do  not   these 
 mountains  of   arguments,  these  clouds,  yea,  these  seas  of   ex- 
 amples overthrow  ?'     And  these   thoughts  wrought  so  deep  in 
 his  soul,  that  he  'often  wished  and  desired  that  he  had  never 
 begun  this  business;*  wishing  yet  further  that  'his  writings 
 were  burned  and  buried  in  eternal  oblivion.'t      Behold  what 
 remorse  Luther  felt,  and  how  he  wanted  no  strength  of  malice 
 to  cross  his  own  conscience;    and  therefore  it  was  no  scruple, 
 or  conceived  obligation  of  conscience,  but  some  other  motives 
 which  induced  him  to  oppose  the  church.     And  if  yet  you  doubt 
 of  his  courage  to  encounter  and  strength  to  master  all  relucta- 
 tions  of   conscience,  hear  an  example  or  two  for  that  purpose. 
 Of  communion  under  both  kinds  thus  he  saith;:f:  '  If  the  coun- 
 cil should  in  any  case  decree  this,  least  of   all  would  we  then 
 use  both  kinds ;  yea,  rather,  in  despite  of  the  council  and  that 
 decree,  we  would  use  either  but  one  kind  only,  or  neither,  and 
 in  no  case  both.'     Was  not  Luther  persuaded  hi  conscience,  that 
 to  use  neither  kind  was  against  our  Saviour's  command  ?     Is 
 this  only  '  to  offer  his  opinion  to  be  considered  of,'  as  you  said 
 all  men  ought  to  do  ?     And  that  you  may  be  sure  that  he  spoke 
 from  his  heart,  and  if  occasion  had  been  offered  would  have 
 been  as  good  as  his  word,  mark  what  he  saith  of  the  elevation  of 
 the  sacrament  :§  '  I  did  know  the  elevation  of  the  sacrament  to 
 be  idolatrical ;  yet  nevertheless  I  did  retain  it  in  the  church  at 
 "Wittemberg,  to  the  end  that  I  might  vex  the  devil  Carolostadius.* 
 Was  not  this  a  conscience   large  and   capacious    enough,  that 
 could  swallow  idolatry  ?     Why  would  he  not  tolerate  idolatry 
 in  the  church  of  Rome,  (as  these  men  are  wont  to  blaspheme,) 
 if  he  could  retain   it  in  his  own  church  at  Wittemberg  ?     If 
 Carolostadius,  Luther's  offspring,  was  the  devil,  who  but  himself 
 must  be  his  dam  ?     Is  Almighty  God  wont  to  send  such  furies 
 to  preach  the  gospel  ?     And  yet  further,  (which  makes  most 
 directly  to  the  point  in  hand,)  Luther,  in  his  book  of  abrogating 
 the  private  mass,  exhorts  the  Augustine  friars  of  Wittemberg, 
 who  first  abrogated  the  mass,  that,  even  against  their  conscience 
 accusing  them,  they  should  persist  in  what  they  had  begun, 
 acknowledging  that  in  some  things  he  himself  had  done  the 
 like.      And  Joannes    Mathesius,  a  Lutheran   preacher,  saith,!'; 
 
 *  Antonius  Musa,  the  parish  priest  of  Rocklitz,  recounted  to  me, 
 that  on  a  time  he  heartily  moaned  himself  to  the  doctor,  (he 
 means  Luther,)  that  he  himself  could  not  believe  what  he 
 preached  to  others  ;  and  that  Dr.  Luther  answered.  Praise  and 
 thanks  be  to  God  that  this  happens  also  to  others,  for  I  had 
 thought  it  happened  only  to  me.'  Are  not  these  conscionable 
 and  fit  reformers  ?  And  can  they  be  excused  from  schism,  under 
 pretence  that  they  held  themselves  obliged  to  forsake  the  Roman 
 church?  If  then  it  be  damnable  to  proceed  against  one's  con- 
 science, what  will  become  of  Luther,  who  against  his  conscience 
 persisted  in  his  division  from  the  Roman  church  ? 
 
 *  Colloq.  mensal.  fol.  158.     t  Pra^-fat.  in  torn.  German.  Jen.      J  De  Formula  Missae, 
 
 §  In  parva  Confess.  Vid  Tan.  torn.  1.  disput.  1.  q.  2.  dub.  4.  n.  108. 
 i  lu  Orat,  Germ,  12.  de  Luth. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  321 
 
 44,  "  Some  are  said  to  flatter  themselves  with  another  per- 
 nicious conceit,  that  they,  forsooth,  are  not  guilty  of  sin,  because 
 they  were  not  the  first  authors,  but  only  are  the  continuers  of 
 the  schism  which  was  already  begun. 
 
 45.  "  But  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  any  man  of  judgment  can 
 think  this  excuse  will  subsist,  when  he  shall  come  to  give 
 up  his  final  account.  For  according  to  this  reason  no 
 schism  will  be  damnable,  but  only  to  the  beginners  ;  whereas 
 contrarily,  the  longer  it  continues  the  worse  it  grows  to  be, 
 and  at  length  degenerates  to  heresy ;  as  wine  by  long  keep- 
 ing grows  to  be  vinegar,  but  not  by  continuance  returns 
 again  to  its  former  nature  of  wine.  Thus  St.  Augustin  saith,* 
 that  '  heresy  is  schism  inveterate.'  And  in  another  place,t 
 *  We  object  to  you  only  the  crime  of  schism ;  which  you  have  also 
 made  to  become  heresy,  by  evil  persevering  therein.'  And  St. 
 Hierom  saith, J  'Though  schism  in  the  beginning  may  be  in 
 some  sort  understood  to  be  different  from  heresy,  yet  there  is  no 
 schism  which  doth  not  feign  to  itself  some  heresy,  that  it  may 
 seem  to  have  departed  from  the  church  upon  just  cause.'  And 
 so  indeed  it  falleth  out :  for  men  may  begin  upon  passion,  but 
 afterward,  by  instinct  of  corrupt  nature  seeking  to  maintain  their 
 schism  as  lawful,  they  fall  into  some  heresy,  without  which  their 
 separation  could  not  be  justified  with  any  colour;  as  in  our 
 present  case,  the  very  affirming  that  it  is  lawful  to  continue  a 
 schism  unlawfully  begun,  is  an  error  against  the  main  principle 
 of  Christianity,  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  Christian  to  live  out 
 of  God's  church,  within  which  alone  salvation  can  be  had;  or, 
 that  it  is  not  damnable  to  disobey  her  decrees,  according  to  the 
 words  of  our  Saviour;  §  ^If  he  shall  not  hear  the  church,  Itt  him  be 
 to  thee  as  a  pagan  or  publica7i;  and,  He  that  despise th  you  despis- 
 eth  me.  \\  We  heard  above,  Optatus  Melevitanus  saying  to  Par- 
 menianus,  that  both  he  and  all  those  other  who  continued  in  the 
 schism,  begun  by  Majorinus  did  inherit  their  forefathers'  schism; 
 and  yet  Parmenianus  was  the  third  bishop  after  Majorinus  in 
 his  see,  and  did  not  begin,  but  only  continue  the  schism.  'For,' 
 saith  this  holy  father,^  'Ccecilianus  went  not  out  of  Majorinus 
 thy  grandfather,  but  Majorinus  from  Caecilianus;  neither  did 
 Ceecilianus  depart  from  the  chair  of  Peter  or  Cyprian,  but  Ma- 
 jorinus, in  whose  chair  thou  sittest,  which  before  Majorinus 
 (Luther)  had  no  beginning.  Seeing  it  is  evident  that  these 
 things  passed  in  this  manner,'  (that,  for  example,  Luther  de- 
 parted from  the  chuich,  and  not  the  church  from  Luther,)  'it  is 
 clear  that  you  be  heirs  both  of  the  givers  up  of  the  Bible  to  be 
 burned,  and  of  schismatics.'  And  the  regal  power  or  example 
 of  Henry  the  Eighth  could  not  excuse  his  subjects  from  schism, 
 according  to  what  we  have  heard  out  of  St.  Chrysostom,  saying,** 
 *  Nothing  doth  so  much  provoke  the  wrath  of  Almighty  God,  as 
 that  the  church  should  be  divided.  Although  we  should  do 
 innumerable  good  deeds,  if  we  divide  the  full  ecclesiastical  con- 
 
 *  I,ib.  2.  coiit.  Cress,  c.  7.  t  Ep.  Ifi4. 
 
 X  Upon  these  words  ad  Tit.  iii.  Hereticum  hominein,  &c. 
 
 §  Malt,  xviii.     i  Luke  x.  16.      %  Lib.  1.  cont.  Paim.    **  Horn.  11.  iu  Ep.  ad.  Eph. 
 
 Y 
 
322  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 gregation,  we  shall  be  punished,  no  less  than  they  who  did  rend 
 his  (natural)  body :  for  that  was  done  to  the  gain  of  the  whole 
 world,    though   not    with   that   intention;     but    this    hath    no 
 good  in  it  at  all,  but  the  greatest  hurt  riseth  from  it.     These 
 things  are  spoken  not  only  to  those  who  bear  office,  but  to  such 
 also  as  are  governed  by  them.'     Behold,  therefore,  how  liable 
 both  subjects  and   superiors  are  to  the  sin  of  schism,  if  they 
 break  the  unity  of  God's  church.    The  words  of  St.  Paul*  can  in 
 no  occasion  be  verified  more  than  in  this  of  which  we  speak: 
 They  who  do  such  thijigs  are  worthy  of  death  ;  and  not  only  they 
 that  do  them,  but  they  also  that  consent  with  the  doers.    In  these 
 things,  which  are  indifferent  of  their  own  nature,  custom  may  be 
 occasion,  that  some  act,  not  well  begun,  may  in  time  come  to  be 
 lawfully  continued.    But  no  length  of  time,  no  quality  of  persons, 
 no  circumstance  of  necessity,  can  legitimate  actions  which  are 
 of  their    own   nature  unlawful;    and   therefore   division   from 
 Christ's  mystical  body  being  of  the  number  of  those  actions  which 
 divines  teach   to  be  intrinsece  malas,  •  evil  of  their  own  nature 
 and  essence,'  no  difference  of  persons  or  time  can  ever  make  it 
 lawful.     Dr.   Potter  saith,  '  There  neither  was  nor  can  be  any 
 cause  to  depart  from  the  church  of  Christ,  no  more  than  from 
 Christ  himself.'     And  who  dares  say  that  it  is  not  damnable  to 
 continue  a  separation  from  Christ  ?   Prescription  cannot  in  con- 
 science run,  when  the  first  beginner  and  his  successors  are  con- 
 scious that  the  thing  to  be  prescribed,  for  example,  goods  or 
 lands,  were  unjustly  possessed  at  the  first.   Christians  are  not  like 
 strays,  that,  after  a  certain  time  of  wandering  from  their  right 
 home,  fall  from  their  owner  to  the  lord  of  the  soil ;  but  as  long 
 as  they  retain  the  indelible  character  of  baptism,  and  live  upon 
 earth,  they  are  obliged  to  acknowledge  subjection  to  God's  church. 
 Human  laws  may  come  to  nothing  by  discontinuance  of  time ;  but 
 the  law  of  God,  commanding  us  to  conserve  unity  in  his  church, 
 doth  still  remain.     The  continued  disobedience  of  children  can- 
 not deprive  parents  of  their  paternal  right,  nor  can  the  grand- 
 child be  undutiful  to  his  grandfather,  because  his  father  was 
 unnatural  to  his  own  parent.     The  longer  God's  church  is  dis- 
 obeyed, the  profession  of  her  doctrine  denied,  her  sacraments  neg- 
 lected,   her    liturgy  condemned,  her  unity  violated,  the   more 
 grievous  the  fault  grows  to  be;  as  the  longer  a  man  withholds 
 a  due  debt,  or  retains  his  neighbour's  goods,  the  greater  injustice 
 he  commits.    Constancy  in  evil  doth  not  extenuate,  but  aggravate 
 the   same,   which  by   extension  of  time   receiveth  increase  of 
 strength,  and  addition  of  greater  malice.     If  these  men's  con- 
 ceits were  true,  the  church  might  come  to  be  wholly  divided  by 
 wicked  schisms,  and  yet  after  some  space  of  time  none  could  be 
 accused  of  schism,  nor  be  obliged  to  return  to  the  visible  church 
 of  Christ;  and  so  there  should  remain  no  one  true  visible  church. 
 Let  therefore  these  men  who  pretend  to  honour,  reverence,  and 
 believe  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  visible  church,  and  to 
 condemn  their  forefathers  who  forsook  her,  and  say,  they  would 
 not  have  done  so  if  they  had  lived  in  the  days  of  their  fathers, 
 
 *  Rom.  i.  32. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHCLICS-  323 
 
 and  yet  follow  their  example  in  remaining  divided  from  her  com- 
 Tnunion,  consider  how  truly  these  words  of  our  Saviour  fall  upon 
 them  :  fVoe  be  to  yoii,  because  you  build  the  prophetic'  sepulchres^ 
 ayid  garnish  the  monuments  of  Just  me?i,  a7id  say,  If  we  had  been 
 in  our  fathers'  days,  we  had  not  been  their  fellows  in  the  blood  of 
 the  prophets.  Therefore  you  are  a  testimony  to  your  own  selves, 
 that  you  are  the  sons  of  them  that  killed  the  prophets,  and  fill  up 
 the  measure  of  your  fathers  * 
 
 46.  "  And  thus  having  demonstrated  that  Luther,  his  associates, 
 and  all  that  continue  in  the  schism  by  them  begun,  are  guilty  of 
 schism  by  departing  from  the  visible  true  church  of  Christ,  it 
 remaineth  that  we  examine  what  in  particular  was  that  visible 
 true  church  from  which  they  departed,  that  so  they  may  know  to 
 ■what  church  in  particular  they  ought  to  return ;  and  then  we 
 shall  have  performed  what  was  proposed  to  be  handled  in  the 
 fifth  point. 
 
 V.  Point.     Luther  and  the  rest  departed  from   the  Roman 
 church. 
 
 47.  "  That  the  Roman  church,  (1  speak  not  for  the  present  of 
 the  particular  diocese  of  Rome,  but  of  all  visible  churches  dis- 
 persed throughout  the  whole  world,  agreeing  in  faith  with  the 
 chair  of  Peter,  whether  that  see  were  supposed  to  be  in  the  city 
 of  Rome  or  any  other  place,)  that,  I  say,  the  church  of  Rome, 
 in  this  sense,  was  the  visible  catholic  church,  out  of  which  Luther 
 departed,  is  proved  by  your  own  confession,  who  assign  for  notes 
 of  the  church  the  true  preaching  of  God's  word,  and  due  ad- 
 ministration of  sacraments ;  both  which,  for  the  substance,  you 
 cannot  deny  to  the  Roman  church,  since  you  confess  that  she 
 ■wanted  nothing  fundamental,  or  necessary  to  salvation  and  for 
 that  very  cause  you  think  to  clear  yourself  from  schism,  'whose 
 property,'  as  you  say,  ''  is  to  cut  off  from  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
 the  hope  of  salvation,  the  church  from  which  it  separates.'  Now 
 that  Luther  and  his  fellows  were  born  and  baptized  in  the  Ro- 
 man church,  and  that  she  was  the  church  out  of  v»'hich  they  de- 
 parted, is  notoriously  known  ;  and  therefore  you  cannot  cut  her 
 off 'from  the  body  of  Christ  and  hope  of  salvation,'  unless  you 
 will  acknowledge  yourself  to  deserve  the  just  imputation  of 
 schism.  Neither  can  you  deny  her  to  be  truly  catholic  by 
 reason  of  (pretended)  corruptions  not  fundamental.  For  your- 
 self avouch,  and  endeavour  to  prove,  that  the  true  catholic  church 
 may  err  in  such  points.  Moreover,  1  hope  you  will  not  so  much 
 as  go  about  to  prove,  that  when  Luther  arose  there  was  any 
 other  true  visible  church  disagreeing  from  the  Roman,  and 
 agreeing  with  protestants  in  their  particular  doctrines ;  and  you 
 cannot  deny,  but  that  England  in  those  days  agreed  with 
 Rome,  and  other  nations  with  England;  and  therefore  either 
 Christ  had  no  visible  church  upon  earth,  or  else  you  must  grant 
 that  it  w^as  the  church  of  Rome.  A  truth  so  manifest,  that  those 
 protestants  who  affirm  the  Roman  church  to  have  lost  the  nature 
 and  being  of  a  true  church,  do  by  inevitable  consequence  grant, 
 
 ■*  Matt,  sxiii .  29,  &c. 
 
S24  CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS, 
 
 that  for  divers  ages  Christ  had  no  visible  church  on  earth;  from 
 which  error  because  Dr.  Potter  disclaimeth,  he  must  of  neces- 
 sity maintain,  that  the  Roman  church  is  free  from  fundamental 
 and  damnable  error,  and  that  '  she  is  not  cut  off  from  the  body 
 of  Christ,  and  the  hope  of  salvation.'  'And  if,'  saith  he,  'any 
 zealots  among  us  have  proceeded  to  heavier  censures,  their  zeal 
 may  be  excused,  but  their  charity  and  wisdom  cannot  be  jus- 
 tified.' 
 
 48.  "  And  to  touch  particulars,  which  perhaps  some  may 
 object,  no  man  is  ignorant  that  the  Grecians,  even  the  schis- 
 matical  Grecians,  do  in  most  points  agree  with  the  Roman 
 catholics,  and  disagree  from  the  protestant  reformation.  They 
 teach  transubstantiation  (which  point  Dr.  Potter  also  con- 
 fesseth) ;  invocation  of  saints  and  angels  ;  veneration  of  relics 
 and  images;  auricular  confession;  enjoined  satisfaction ;  confir- 
 mation with  chrism ;  extreme  unction ;  all  the  seven  sacraments, 
 prayer,  sacrifice,  alms  for  the  dead ;  monachism,  that  priests  may 
 not  marry  after  their  ordination.  In  which  points  that  the  Gre- 
 cians agree  with  the  Roman  church  appeareth  by  a  treatise 
 published  by  the  protestant  divines  of  Wittemberg,  entitled, 
 Acta  Theologorum  fVittembergemium,  et  JeremicB  PatriarchcB 
 Constantijiop.  de  Augustana  Confessione,  &c.  WittemhergcB  anno 
 1584,  by  the  protestant  Crispinus,  and  by  Sir  Edwin  Sands  in 
 the  relation  of  the  state  of  the  religion  of  the  west.*  And  I 
 wonder  with  what  colour  of  truth  (to  say  no  worse)  Dr.  Potter 
 could  affirm,  that  the  doctrines  '  debated  between  the  protes- 
 tants  and  Rome  are  only  the  partial  and  particular  fimcies  of  the 
 Roman  church ;  unless  happily  the  opinion  of  transubstantiation 
 may  be  expected,  wherein  the  latter  Grecians  seem  to  agree  with 
 the  Romanists.'  Beside  the  protestant  authors  already  cited, 
 Petriis  Arcudius,  a  Grecian,  and  a  learned  catholic  writer,  hath 
 published  a  large  volume,  the  argument  and  title  w'hereof  is, 
 *0f  the  agreement  of  the  Roman  and  Greek  church  in  the  seven 
 sacraments.'  As  for  the  heresy  of  the  Grecians,  that  the  Holy 
 Ghost  proceeds  not  from  the  Son,  I  suppose  that  protestants  dis- 
 avow them  in  that  error  as  we  do. 
 
 49.  "Dr.  Potter  will  not  (I  think)  so  much  wrong  his  reputa- 
 tion as  to  tell  us  that  the  Waldpnses,  Wickliff,  Huss,  or  the  like, 
 were  protestants,  because  in  some  things  they  disagreed  from 
 catholics ;  for  he  well  knows  that  the  example  of  such  men  is 
 subject  to  these  manifest  exceptions,  they  were  not  of  all  ages, 
 nor  in  all  countries,  but  confined  to  certain  places,  and  were  in- 
 terrupted in  time  against  the  notion  and  nature  of  the  word 
 catholic.  They  had  no  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  nor  succession 
 of  bishops,  priests,  and  pastors.  They  differed  among  themselves, 
 and  from  protestants  also.  They  agreed  in  divers  things  with 
 lis  against  protestants.  They  held  doctrines  manifestly  absurd 
 and  damnable  heresies. 
 
 50.  ^'  The  Waldenses  began  not  before  the  year  1218;  so  far 
 were  they  from  universality  of  all  ages.  For  their  doctrine,  first 
 they  denied  all  judgments  which  extended  to  the  drawing  of 
 
 *De  Statu  Eccles.  pajje  253. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED  BY   CATHOLICS.  325 
 
 blood  and  the  sabbath,  for  which  cause  they  were  called  In-sab- 
 batists.  Secondly,  they  taught  that  laymen  and  women  might 
 consecrate  the  sacrament,  and  preach  (no  doubt  but  by  this 
 means  to  make  their  master  Waldo,  a  mere  layman,  capable  of 
 such  functions.)  Thirdly,  that  clergymen  ought  to  have  no 
 possessions  or  properties.  Fourthly,  that  there  should  be  no 
 division  of  parishes  nor  churches ;  for  a  walled  church  they  re- 
 puted as  a  barn.  Fifthly,  that  men  ought  not  to  take  an  oath  in 
 any  case.  Sixthly,  that  those  persons  sinned  mortally,  who 
 accompanied  without  hope  of  issue.  Seventhly,  they  held  all 
 things  done  above  the  girdle,  by  kissing,  touching,  words,  com- 
 pression of  the  breasts,  &;c.  to  be  done  in  charity,  and  not  against 
 continency.  Eighthly,  that  neither  priest  nor  civil  magistrate, 
 being  guilty  of  mortal  sin,  did  enjoy  their  dignity,  or  were  to 
 be  obeyed.  Ninthly,  they  condemned  princes  and  judges. 
 Tenthly,  they  affirmed  singing  in  the  church  to  be  a  hellish 
 clamour.  Eleventhly,  they  taught  that  men  might  dissemble 
 their  religion;  and  so  accordingly  they  went  to  catholic  churches, 
 dissembling  their  faith,  and  made  offertories,  confessions,  and 
 communions,  after  a  dissembling  manner.  Waldo  was  so  un- 
 learned, (saith  Fox,*)  he  gave  rewards  to  certain  learned  men  to 
 translate  the  Holy  Scripture  for  him,  and  being  thus  holpen 
 did  (as  the  same  Fox  there  reporteth)  '  confer  the  form  of  re- 
 ligion in  his  time  to  the  infallible  word  of  God.'  A  goodly  ex- 
 ample, for  such  as  must  needs  have  the  Scripture  in  English  to 
 be  read  by  every  simple  body,  with  such  fruit  of  godly  doctrine 
 as  we  have  seen  in  the  foresaid  gross  heresies  of  Waldo.  The 
 followers  of  Waldo  were  like  their  master,  so  unlearned,  that 
 *  some  of  them  (saith  Foxf)  expounded  the  words,  Joan.  T. 
 Sid  eum  non  recepenmt,  '  Swine  did  not  receive  him.'  And  to 
 conclude,  they  agreed  in  divers  things  with  catholics  against 
 protestants,  as  may  be  seen  in  Brerely  J 
 
 51.  "  Neither  can  it  be  pretended  that  these  are  slanders  forged 
 by  catholics.  For,  besides  that  the  same  things  are  testified  by 
 protestant  writers,  as  Illyricus,  Cowper,  and  others,  our  authors 
 cannot  be  suspected  of  partiality  in  disfavour  of  protestants, 
 unless  you  would  say  perhaps  that  they  were  prophets,  and  some 
 hundred  years  ago  did  both  foresee  that  there  were  to  be  pro- 
 testants in  the  world,  and  that  such  protestants  were  to  be  like 
 the  Waldenses.  Besides,  from  whence  but  from  our  historians 
 are  protestants  come  to  know  that  there  were  any  such  men  as 
 the  Waldenses  ?  and  that  in  some  points  they  agreed  with  the 
 protestants,  and  disagreed  from  them  in  others  ?  And  upon  what 
 ground  can  they  believe  our  author  for  that  part  wherein  the 
 Waldenses  were  like  to  protestants,  and  imagine  they  lied  ia 
 the  rest  ? 
 
 52.  "  Neither  could  WicklifF  continue  a  church  never  inter- 
 rupted from  the  time  of  the  Waldenses,  after  whom  he  lived 
 more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years;  to  wit,  in  the  year  1371. 
 He  agreed  with  catholics  about  the  worshipping  of  relics  and 
 
 *  Act.  Mon.  page  628.  -^  Ibid, 
 
 t  Tract.  2.  cap.  2.  sect.  sub.  3. 
 
S26 
 
 CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 images ;  and  about  the  intercession  of  our  blessed  Lady,  the  ever 
 immaculate  mother  of  God,  he  went  so  far  as  to  say,*  '  It  seems 
 to  me  impossible  that  we  should  be  rewarded  without  the  inter- 
 cession of  the  Virgin  Mary.'  He  held  seven  sacraments,  purga- 
 tory, and  other  points.  And  against  both  catholics  and  pro- 
 testants  he  maintained  sundry  damnable  doctrines,  as  divers 
 protestant  writers  relate.  As  first,  if  a  bishop  or  priest  be  in 
 deadly  sin,  he  doth  not  indeed  either  give  orders,  consecrate,  or 
 baptize.  Secondly,  that  ecclesiastical  ministers  ought  not  to 
 have  any  temporal  possessions,  nor  property  in  any  thing,  but 
 should  beg;  and  yet  he  himself  brake  into  heresy,  because  he 
 had  been  deprived  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  of  a  certain 
 benefice ;  as  all  schisms  and  heresies  begin  upon  passion,  which 
 they  seek  to  cover  with  the  cloak  of  reformation.  Thirdly,  he 
 condemned  lawful  oaths,  like  the  Anabaptists.  Fourthly,  he 
 taught  that  all  things  came  to  pass  by  absolute  necessity. 
 Fifthly,  he  defended  human  merits  as  the  wicked  Pelagians  did, 
 namely,  as  proceeding  from  natural  forces,  without  the  necessary 
 help  of  God's  grace.  Sixthly,  that  no  man  is  a  civil  magistrate 
 while  he  is  in  mortal  sin,  and  that  people  may  at  their  pleasure 
 correct  princes  when  they  offend ;  by  which  doctrine  he  proves 
 himself  both  an  heretic  and  a  traitor. 
 
 53.  "  As  for  Huss,  his  chiefest  doctrines  were,  that  lay-people 
 must  receive  in  both  kinds ;  and  that  civil  lords,  prelates,  and 
 bishops  lose  all  right  and  authority  while  they  are  in  mortal  sin. 
 For  other  things  he  wholly  agreed  with  catholics  against  pro- 
 testants;  and  the  Bohemians  his  followers  being  demanded  in 
 what  points  they  disagreed  from  the  church  of  Rome,  propounded 
 only  these :  *  the  necessity  of  communion  under  both  kinds  ;' 
 that  *  all  civil  dominion  was  forbidden  to  the  clergy ;'  that 
 *  preaching  of  the  word  was  free  for  all  men,'  and  in  all  '  places  ;* 
 that  *open  crimes  were  in  no  wise  to  be  permitted  for  avoiding 
 of  greater  evil :'  by  these  particulars,  it  is  apparent  that  Huss 
 agreed  with  protestants,  against  us  in  one  only  point  of  both 
 kinds,  which  according  to  Luther  is  a  thing  indifferent ;  because 
 he  teacheth,  that  '  Christ  in  this  matter  commanded  nothing  as 
 necessary.'!  And  he  saith  further,:}:  *  If  thou  come  to  a  place 
 where  one  only  kind  is  administered,  use  one  kind  only  as  others 
 do.'  Melancthon  likewise  holds  it  a  thing  indifferent ;  §  and  the 
 same  is  the  opinion  of  some  other  protestants.  A.11  which  con- 
 sidered, it  is  clear  that  protestants  cannot  challenge  the  Waldenses, 
 Wickliff,  and  Huss,  for  members  of  their  church ;  and  although 
 they  could,  yet  that  would  advantage  them  little  towards  the 
 finding  out  a  perpetual  visible  church  of  theirs,  for  the  reasons 
 above  specified.  || 
 
 _  54.  "  If  Dr.  Potter  would  go  so  far  off  as  to  fetch  the  Musco- 
 vites, Armenians,  Georgians,  Ethiopians,  or  Abyssines  into  his 
 church,  they  would  prove  over  dear  bought ;  for  they  either  hold 
 the  damnable  heresy  of  Eutyches,  or  use  circumcision,  or  agree 
 
 *  In  serin,  de  Assnmp.  Mariae. 
 
 t  In  Epist.  arl  Bohenios.  J  De  utraque  Specie  Sacram. 
 
 i   In  cent.  Epi,t,  Tlieol.  p,  225.  li   Num.  49. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  327 
 
 with  the  Greek  or  Roman  church.     And  it  is  most  certain  that 
 they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  protestants. 
 
 55.  "  It  being  therefore  granted  that  Christ  had  a  visible  church 
 in  all  ages,  and  that  there  can  be  none  assigned  but  the  church 
 of  Rome;  if  follows  that  she  is  the  true  catholic  church,  and 
 that  those  pretended  corruptions  for  which  they  forsook  her  are 
 indeed  Divine  truths,  delivered  by  the  visible  catholic  church  of 
 Christ.  And  that  Luther  and  his  followers  departed  from  her, 
 and  consequently  are  guilty  of  schism,  by  dividing  themselves 
 from  the  communion  of  the  Roman  church.  Which  is  clearly 
 convinced  out  of  Dr.  Potter  himself,  although  the  Roman  church 
 were  but  a  particular  church.  For  he  saith,  '  whosoever  professes 
 himself  to  forsake  the  communion  of  any  one  number  of  the  body 
 of  Christ,  must  confess  himself  consequently  to  forsake  the 
 whole.'  Since  therefore  in  the  same  place  he  expressly  acknow- 
 ledges the  '  church  of  Rome  to  be  a  member  of  the  body  of 
 Christ,'  and  that  it  is  clear  they  have  forsaken  her;  it  evidently 
 follows,  that  they  have  forsaken  the  whole,  and  therefore  are 
 most  properly  schismatics. 
 
 56.  "And  lastly,  since  the  crime  of  schism  is  so  grievous,  that 
 according  to  the  doctrine  of  holy  fathers  rehearsed  above,  no 
 multitude  of  good  works,  no  moral  honesty  of  life,  no  cruel 
 death  endured  even  for  the  profession  of  some  article  of  faith, 
 can  excuse  any  one  who  is  guilty  of  that  sin  from  damnation ; 
 I  leave  it  to  be  considered,  whether  it  be  not  true  charity  to 
 speak  as  we  believe,  and  to  believe  as  all  antiquity  hath  taught 
 us,  that  whosoever  either  begins  or  continues  a  division  from  the 
 Roman  church,  which  we  have  proved  to  be  Christ's  true 
 militant  church  on  earth,  cannot  without  effectual  repentance 
 hope  to  be  a  member  of  his  triumphant  church  in  heaven. 
 And  so  I  conclude  with  these  words  of  blessed  St.  Augustin  :* 
 *  It  is  common  to  all  heretics  to  be  unable  to  see  that  thing  which 
 in  the  v.orld  is  most  manifest,  and  placed  in  the  light  of  all 
 nations ;  out  of  whose  unity  whatsoever  they  work,  though  they 
 seem  to  do  it  with  great  care  and  diligence,  can  no  more  avail 
 them  against  the  wrath  of  God,  than  the  spidei's  web  against 
 the  extremity  of  cold.'  But  now  it  is  high  time  that  we  treat 
 of  the  other  sort  of  division  from  the  church,  which  is  by 
 heresy. 
 
 Cont.  Parni,  lib.  2.  c.  3. 
 
THE  ANSWER   TO   THE   FIFTH    CHAPTER: 
 
 The  separation  of  protestants  from  the  Roman  church,  being  upon  just 
 and  necessary  causes,  is  not  any  way  guilty  of  schism. 
 
 1.  Ad  §  1 — 7.  Ill  the  seven  first  sections  of  this  chapter  there 
 be  many  things  said,  and  many  things  supposed  b}'-  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  a  be  visible  church." 
 Which  assertions  is  a  manifest  fasehood;  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. 
 
 8.  "  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  hy  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  if  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  like- 
 wise :"  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 
 notwithstiuiding  they  may  be  innocent  who  continue  this  al- 
 teration, and  to  the  utmost  of  their  power  oppose  a  change, 
 though  to  the  former  state  when  continuence  of  time  hath  once 
 settled  the  present.  Thus  have  I  known  some  of  your  own 
 church  condemn  the  Low-countrymen,  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  main- 
 tainers  of  the  common  liberty  against  the  pretences  of  the  king 
 of  Spain. 
 
 5.  Fourthly,  "  That  all  those  which  a  Christian  is  to  esteem 
 neighbours  do  concur  to  make  one  company,  which  is  the 
 church."  Which  is  false ;  for  a  Christian  is  to  esteem  those  his 
 neighbours  who  are  not  members  of  the  true  church. 
 
 6.  Fifthly,  "  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. 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    >IOT   GUILTY    OF    SCHISM.  329 
 
 7.  Sixthh%  "  That  the  catholic  church  signifies  one  company 
 of  faithful  people."  Which  is  repuo^nant  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.  Seventhly,  "That  every  heretic  is  a  schismatic."  Which 
 you  must  acknowledge  false  in  those  who,  though  they  deny  or 
 doubt  of  some  point  professed  by  your  church,  and  so  are  heretics, 
 yet  continue  still  in  the  communion  of  the  church. 
 
 9.  Eighthly,  "That  all  the  members  Of  the  catholic  church 
 must  of  necessity  be  united  in  external  communion."  Which, 
 though  it  Avere  much  to  be  desired  it  were  so,  yet  certainly  can- 
 not be  perpetually  true.  For  a  man  unjustly  excommunicated 
 is  not  in  the  church's  communion,  yet  he  is  still  a  member  of 
 the  church.  And  divers  times  it  hath  happened,  as  in  the  case 
 of  Chr3^sostom  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  catholic  church. 
 These  things  are  in  those  seven  sections  either  said  or  supposed 
 by  you  untruly,  without  all  show  or  pretence  of  proof.  The  rest 
 is  impertinent  commonplace,  wherein  protestants  and  the  cause 
 in  hand  are  absolutely  unconcerned.  And  therefore  I  pass  to 
 the  eighth  section. 
 
 10.  Ad  §  8.  Wherein  you  obtrude  upon  us  a  double  fallacy: 
 one,  in  supposing  and  taking  for  granted  that  whatsoever  is  af- 
 firmed by  three  fathers  must  be  true;  whereas  yourselves  make 
 no  scruple  of  condemning  many  things  of  falsehood  W'hich  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.  For  whereas 
 you  say  St.  Austin,  c.  62.  1.  2.  cont.  Farm,  infers  out  of  the 
 former  premises,  "that  there  is  no  necessity  to  divide  unity:" 
 to  let  pass  your  want  of  diligence,  in  quoting  the  62nd  chapter 
 of  that  book,  which  hath  but  23  in  it;  to  pass  by  also,  that  these 
 words,  which  are  indeed  in  the  11th  chapter,  are  not  inferred  out 
 of  any  such  premises  as  you  pretend:  this,  I  say,  is  evident,  that 
 he  says  not  absolutely  that  there  never  is  or  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  spiritu- 
 ally 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;  1  mean,  to  break  off  conjunction  with 
 them  in  their  impieties.  Which  that  it  was  St.  Austin's  mind, 
 it  is  most  evident  out  of  the  21st  chapter  of  the  same  book; 
 whereto  Parmenian  demanding,  "  How  can  a  man  remain  pure, 
 being  joined  with  those  that  are  corrupted?"  he  answers,  "Very 
 true,  this  is  not  possible,  if  he  be  joined  with  them;  that  is,  if 
 
330  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS   FROM    THE 
 
 he  commit  any  evil  with  them,  or  favour  them  which  do  commit 
 it.  But  if  he  do  neither  of  these,  he  is  not  joined  with  them." 
 And  presently  after,  "  These  two  things  retained,  will  keep  such 
 men  pure  anduncorrupted;  that  is,  neither  doing  ill  nor  approv- 
 ing 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  unavoid- 
 able necessity  of  dividing  unity,  either  with  you  or  with  God; 
 and  whether  of  these  is  rather  to  be  done,  be  ye  judges. 
 
 11.  Irenseus  also  says  not  simply,  (which  only  would  do  you 
 service,)  there  cannot  possibly  be  any  so  important  reformation 
 as  to  justify  a  separation  from  them  who  will  not  reform;  but 
 only,  "  they  cannot  make  any  corruption  so  great  as  is  the  per- 
 niciousness  of  a  schism."  Now  "they"  here  is  a  relative,  and 
 hath  an  antecedent  expressed  in  Irenaeus,  which  if  you  had  been 
 pleased  to  take  notice  of,  you  would  easily  have  seen  that  what 
 Irenseus  says  falls  heavy  upon  the  church  of  Rome,  but  toucheth 
 protectants  nothing  at  all.  For  the  men  he  speaks  of  are  such 
 as  propter  modicas  et  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  swallov/  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  modiccB  et  quce- 
 lihet  causas?  On  the  other  side,  seeing  the  bishop  of  Rome,  who 
 was  contemporary  to  IreucBus,  did  (as  much  as  in  him  lay)  cut 
 oflT  from  the  church's  unity  many  great  churches,  for  not  con- 
 forming to  him  in  an  indifferent  matter  upon  a  difference,  non 
 de  catholico  dogmate,  sed  de  ritu,  vel  ritus  potius  tempore,  "not 
 about  any  catholic  doctrine,  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  Euse- 
 bius  testifies,*  and  (as  Cardinal  Perron, f  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  ecclesiastical  story  of 
 those  times  mentions  no  other  notable  example  of  any  such 
 schismatical  presumption  but  this  of  Victor ;  certainly  we  have 
 great  inducement  to  imagine  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 
 
 *  Euseb.  Hist.  1.  5.  c.  24,  t  Perron  Replic.  1.  3.  c.  2. 
 
CHURCH    OF   ROME,    NOT    GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  331 
 
 upon  small  causes,"  implies  clearly  that  he  conceived  there  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  ensue  upon  it. 
 
 12.  Lastly,  St.  Dennis  of  Alexandria  says  indeed,  and  very 
 well,  "that  all  things  should  be  rather  endured,  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  1  am  to  tell  you,  that  he  says  not.  All 
 things  should  rather  be  done,  but  only.  All  things  should  rather 
 be  endured  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  joining  with 
 others  for  quietness'  sake,  (which  only  Avere  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  Christopherson,  enforced  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
 place,  translates  Dionysius's  words,  all  "  miseries  should  rather 
 be  endured,  than  we  should  consent  to  the  church's  division." 
 
 13.  Ad  §  9.  In  the  next  paragraph  you  affirm  two  things,  but 
 prove  neither,  unless  a  vehement  asseveration  may  pass  for  a 
 weak  proof.  You  tell  us  first,  "  that  the  doctrine  of  the  total 
 deficiency  of  the  visible  church,  Vv'hich  is  maintained  by  divers 
 chief  protestants,  implies  in  it  vast  absurdity,  or  rather  sacri- 
 legious blasphemy."  But  neither  do  the  protestants  alleged  by 
 you  maintain  the  deficiency  of  the  visible  church,  but  only  of 
 the  church's  visibility,  or  of  the  church  as  it  is  visible,  which  so 
 acute  a  man  as  you,  now  that  you  are  minded  of  it,  1  hope  will 
 easily  distinguish  :  neither  do  they  hold  that  the  visible  church 
 hath  failed  totally  and  from  its  essence,  but  only  from  its  purity; 
 and  that  it  fell  into  many  corruptions,  but  yet  not  to  nothing. 
 And  yet  if  they  had  held,  that  there  was  not  only  no  pure  visible 
 church,  but  none  at  all,  surely  they  had  said  more  than  they 
 could  justify;  but  yet  you  do  not  show,  neither  can  I  discover, 
 any  such  "vast  absurdity  or  sacrilegious  blasphemy"  in  this  as- 
 sertion. 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  divers  ages  before  Luther  there  was  no  other."  But 
 this  is  not  to  dispute,  but  to  divine,  and  take  upon  you  the  pro- 
 perty 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,  raason,  anti- 
 quity, 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  con- 
 formable 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  style  them,  "  extermi- 
 
532 
 
 SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS    FROM   THE 
 
 nating  spirits,"  and  those  other,  whom  out  of  courtesy  you 
 entitle  in  your  1 0th  §  "  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  corrup- 
 tions, and  those  of  such  a  nature,  as,  were  they  not  mitigated 
 by  invincible,  or  at  least  a  very  probable  ignorance,  none  sub- 
 ject to  them  could  be  saved.  And  they,  on  the  other  side, 
 denying  the  church's  visibility,  yet  plainly  affirm,  that  they  con- 
 ceive very  good  hope  of  the  salvation  of  many  of  their  ignorant 
 and  honest  forefathers.  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. 
 
 15.  Ad  §  II.  Let  us  proceed  therefore  to  your  11th  section, 
 where  though  Dr.  Potter  and  other  protestants  granting  the 
 church's  perpetual  visibilit)^,  make  it  needless  for  you  to  prove 
 it,  yet  you  will  needs  be  doing  that  which  is  needless.  But  you 
 do  it  so  coldly  and  negligentl}^  that  it  is  very  happy  for  you 
 that  Dr.  Potter  did  grant  it. 
 
 16.  For  "  what  if  the  prophets  speak  more  obscurely  of  Christ 
 than  of  the  church  ?  what  if  they  had  foreseen  that  greater  con- 
 tentions would  arise  about  the  church  than  Christ?"  which  yet 
 he  that  is  not  a  mere  stranger  in  the  story  of  the  church  must 
 needs  know  to  be  untrue,  and  therefore  not  to  be  foreseen  by  the 
 prophets :  what  "if  we  have  manifestly  received  the  church  from 
 the  Scriptures  ?"  does  it  follow  from  any  or  all  these  things  that 
 the  church  of  Christ  must  always  be  visible  ? 
 
 17.  Besides,  what  protestant  ever  granted,  (that  which  you 
 presume  upon  so  confidently,)  "  that  every  man  for  all  the  aftairs 
 of  his  soul  must  have  recourse  to  some  congregation  ?"  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  congrega- 
 tion for  the  affairs  of  his  soul  ?  Will  it  not  be  sufficient,  for 
 such  an  one's  salvation,  to  know  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  live 
 according  to  it  ?  Such  fancies  as  these  you  do  very  wisely  to 
 take  for  granted,  because  you  know  well  it  is  hard  to  prove 
 them. 
 
 18.  Let  it  "  be  as  unlawful  as  you  please  to  deny  and  dissemble 
 matters  of  faith.  Let  them  that  do  so  not  be  a  church,  but  a 
 damned  crew  of  sycophants :"  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 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  33.3 
 
 the  most  rigid  protestants  deny :  which  is  plain  enough  out  of 
 the  places  of  Napier  cited  by  you  in  the  ninth  part  of  this  chapter ; 
 where  his  words  are,  *'  God  hath  withdrawn  his  visible  church 
 from  open  assembles  to  the  hearts  of  particular  godly  men."  And 
 this  church  which  hath  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  de- 
 serve to  be  esteemed  "  a  damned  crew  of  dissembling  syco- 
 phants. 
 
 19.  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  far  insepa- 
 rable, 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 
 administered.  They  make  the  church  visible  to  whom  them- 
 selves are  visible,  but  not  to  others.  As  where  your  sacraments 
 are  administered,  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.  But  St.  Austin  saith,  "it  is  an  impudent,  abominable,  de- 
 testable speech,  &c,,  to  say,*  the  church  hath  perished."  I 
 answer,  1.  All  that  St.  Austin  says  is  not  true.  2.  Though  this 
 were  true,  it  were  nothing  to  your  purpose,  unless  you  will  con- 
 ceive 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.  But  St.  Austin  denied  not  only  the  actual 
 perishing,  but  the  possibility  of  it ;  and  not  only  of  its  falling 
 to  nothing,  but  of  its  falling  into  corruption.  I  answer,  though 
 no  such  thing  appears  out  of  those  places,  yet  I  believe  heat  of 
 disputation  against  the  Donatists,  and  a  desire  to  over-confute 
 them,  transported  him  so  far,  as  to  urge  against  them  more  than 
 was  necessary,  and  perhaps  more  than  was  true.  But  were  he 
 now  revived,  and  did  but  confront  the  doctrine  of  after-ages  with 
 that,  his  own  experience  would  enforce  him  to  change  his  opinion. 
 As  concerning  the  last  speech  of  St.  Austin,  1  cannot  but  wonder 
 very  much  why  he  should  think  it  absurd  for  any  man  to  say, 
 "there  are  sheep  which  he  knows  not,  but  God  knows;"  and  lio 
 less  at  you,  for  obtruding  this  sentence  upon  us,  as  pertinent 
 proof  of  the  church's  visibility. 
 
 21.  Neither  do  I  see  "how  the  truth  of  any  present  church 
 depends  upon  the  perpetual  visibility,  nay,  nor  upon  the  perpe- 
 tuity" of  that  which  is  past  or  future ;  for  what  sense  is  there 
 that  it  should  not  be  in  the  power  of  God  Almightv  to  restore  to 
 
 *  Speech,  and  so  forth   to  say. — Ox,f 
 
334  SEPARATION  OP  PROTESTANTS  FROM  THE 
 
 a  flourishing  estate  a  church  which  oppression  had  made  in- 
 visible ;  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  commonwealth,  though  never 
 so  far  collapsed  and  overrun  with  disorders,  is  yet  in  possibility 
 of  being  reduced  into  its  original  state,  so  long  as  the  ancient 
 laws  and  fundamental  constitutions  are  extant,  and  remain  in- 
 violate, from  whence  men  may  be  directed  how  to  make  such  a 
 reform.ation.  But  St.  Austin  "  urges  this  very  argument  against 
 the  Donatists,"  and  therefore  it  is  good.  1  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  deter- 
 minations, are  yet  in  their  reasons  and  arguments,  whereupon 
 they  ground  them,  subject  to  like  passions  and  errors  with  other 
 men. 
 
 22.  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 ;"  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  sepa- 
 ration, 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  con- 
 sequence 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  tho  word 
 signifies,  (for  defining  is  no  more,)  though  at  this  present  there 
 was  neither  schism  nor  church  in  the  world.  Unless  you  will 
 say  that  we  cannot  tell  what  a  rose  is,  or  what  the  word  rose 
 signifies,  but  only  in  the  summer  when  we  have  roses ;  or  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  somebody  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  metaphysics, 
 which  you  so  much  glory  in,  if  you  know  not  that  the  connexions 
 of  essential  predicates  with  their  subjects  are  eternal,  and  depend 
 not  at  all  upon  the  actual  existence  of  the  thing  defined.  This 
 definition  therefore  of  schism  concludes  not  the  existence  of  a 
 church,  even  when  it  is  defined ;  much  less  the  perpetual  con- 
 tinuance of  it;  and  least  of  all  the  continuance  of  it  in  perpetual 
 visibility  and  jmrity ;  which  is  the  only  thing  that  we  deny,  and 
 you  are  to  prove.  By  this  time  you  perceive,  1  hope,  that  1  had 
 reason  to  say,  that  it  was  Vv^ell  for  you  that  Dr.  Potter  granted  the 
 church's  perpetual  visibility;  for,  for  aught  I  can  perceive,  this 
 
CHURCH  OF  ROME,  KOT  GUILTY  OF  SCHISM.  335 
 
 concession  of  his  is  the  best  stake  in  your  hedge,  the  best  pillar 
 upon  which  this  conclusion  stands,  which  yet  is  the  only  ground- 
 work of  your  whole  accusation. 
 
 23.  Ad  §  12,  47 — 55.  The  remainder  of  this  chapter,  to  con- 
 vince Luther  and  all  that  follow  him  to  be  schismatics,  affords 
 us  arguments  of  two  sorts  :  the  first,  drawn  from  the  nature  of 
 the  thing ;  the  second,  from  Dr.  Potter's  words  and  acknowledg- 
 ments. So  that  the  former,  if  they  be  good,  must  be  good  against 
 all  protestants ;  the  latter,  only  against  Dr.  Potter.  I  will  ex- 
 amine them  all,  and  do  not  doubt  to  make  it  appear,  even  to 
 yourself,  if  you  have  any  indifference,  that  there  is  not  any  sound 
 and  concluding  reason  amongst  them,  but  that  they  are  all  poor 
 and  miserable  sophisms. 
 
 24.  First,  then,  to  prove  us  schismatics,  you  urge  from  the 
 nature  of  schism  this  only  argument : 
 
 Yv^hosoever  leave  the  external  communion  of  the  visible  church 
 are  schismatics ;  but  Luther  and  his  followers  left  the  ex- 
 ternal communion  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ :  therefore 
 they  are  schismatics. 
 The  major  of  this  syllogism  you  leave  naked  without  proof;  and 
 conceive  it,  as  it  should  seem,  able  enough  to  shift  for  itself. 
 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  major  of  this  syllogism  you  take  for  granted  (as  you  have 
 
 reason) ;   the  minor  you  prosecute  with  great  pomp  of  words, 
 
 and  prove  with  plenty  of  reasons,  built  upon  the  confessions  of 
 
 Dr.  Potter,  Luther,  Calvin,  and  other  protestants;   and  this  you 
 
 do  in  the  12th  section  of  this  chapter. 
 
 The  second  argument,  to  prove  the  assumption  of  your  first 
 syllogism,  stands  thus  : 
 
 The  Roman  church,  when  Luther  and  his  followers  made  the 
 separation,  was  the  true  visible  church  of  Christ;  but  Luther 
 and  his  followers  forsook  the  external  communion  of  the 
 Roman  church :  therefore  they  forsook  the  external  com- 
 munion of  the  true  visible  church  of  Christ. 
 The  assumption  of  this  syllogism  needs  no  proof:  the  proposi- 
 tion, which  needs  it  very  much,  yon  endeavour  to  confirm  by 
 these  reasonns : 
 
 1.  The  Roman  church  had  the  notes  of  the  church  assigned 
 by  protestants;  i.  e.  the  true  preaching  of  the  world,''and 
 due  administration  of  the  sacraments  :  therefore  she  was 
 the  true  church. 
 
 The  antecedent  is  proved;  because  Dr.  Potter  confesses  she 
 wanted  nothing  fundamental  or  necessary  to  s;dvation:  therefore, 
 for  the  substance  of  the  matter,  she  had  these  notes. 
 
 2.  Either  the  Roman  church  was  the  true  visible  church,  or 
 
330  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS    FROM    THE 
 
 protestants  can  name  and  prove   some  other,   cli,«.agreeing 
 from  the  Roman  and  agreeing  with  protestants  in  their  ];ar- 
 ticular  doctrines ;  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  protestants   in  their  particular 
 doctrines;  because  this  cannot  be  the  Greek  church,  nor  that 
 of  the  Waldenses,  Wickliffites,  Hussites,  nor  that  of  the  Mus- 
 covites, Armenians,  Georgians,  ^Ethiopians ;  which  you  con- 
 firm by  several  arguments :  therefore  they  must  grant  that 
 the  Roman  church  was  the  true  visible  church. 
 And  this  is  the  business  of  your  47 — 55  sections  of  this  chapter. 
 25.  Now  to  all  this  I  answ^er  very  briefly  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   commu- 
 nion 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  neces- 
 sity for  them  that  would  communicate  wdth  this  church  to  com- 
 municate in  her   corruptions,  or  you  suppose  her  communion 
 uncorrupted.     If  the  former,  and  yet  will  take  for  granted  that 
 all  are  schismatics  that  leave  her  communion,  though  it  be  cor- 
 rupted, 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  schismatics  who  leave  the 
 communion  of  the  visible  church,  if  corrupted  ;  especiiilly  if  the 
 case  be  so,  (and  Luther's  was  so,)  that  they  must  either  leave 
 her  communion,  or  of  necessity  communicate  with  her  in  her 
 corruptions.      You  will  say,  perhaps,   "  that  you  have  already 
 proved  it  impossible  that  the  church  or  her  communion  should 
 be  corrupted;"    and   therefore   that   they  are   schismatics  who 
 leave  the  external  communion  of  the  visible  church,  because  she 
 cannot  be  corrupted;  and  that  "hereafter  you  wall  prove  that 
 corruptions  in  the  chuich's  communion,  though  the  belief  and 
 profession  of  them  be  made  the  condition  of  her  communion, 
 cannot  justify  a  separation  from  it ;''  and  therefore  that  they  are 
 schismatics   who  leave   the   church's  communion,   though  cor- 
 rupted.     I  answer,  that  1  have   examined  your  proofs  of  the 
 former,  and  found  that  a  vein  of  sophistry  runs  clean  through 
 them;  and  for  the  latter,  it  is  so  plain  and  palpable  a  falsehood, 
 that  1  cannot  but  be  confident  whatsoever  you  bring  in  proof  of 
 it  will,  like  the  apples  of  Sodom,  fall  to  ashes  upon  the  first 
 touch.     And  this  is  my  first  and  main  exception  against  your 
 former  discourse  :  that  accusing  protestants  of  a  very  great  and 
 horrible  crime,  you  have  proved  your  accusation  only  with  a 
 fallacy. 
 
 26.  Another  is,  that  although  it  were  granted  schism  to  leave 
 the  external  communion  of  the  visible  church,  in  what  state  or 
 
CHURCH   OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISJI.  337 
 
 case  so  ever  it  be,  and  that  Luther  and  his  followers  were  schis- 
 matics 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  catholic,  or  the  whole  church ;  the 
 latter,  a  particular  church,  or  a  part  of  the  catholic.     And  there- 
 fore, suppose  out  of  courtesy  we  should  grant,  what  by  argument 
 you  can  never  evince,  that  your  church  has  these  notes,  yet 
 would  it  by  no  means  follow,  that  your  church  were  the  visible 
 church,  but  only  a  visible  church ;  not  the  whole  catholic,  but 
 only  a  part  of  it.     But  then,  besides,  where  doth  Dr.  Potter 
 acknowledge  any  such  matter  as  you  pretend?    where  doth  he 
 say,  that  you  had  for  the  substance  "the  true  preaching  of  the 
 word,  or  due  administration  of  the  sacraments  ?  "  or  where  does 
 he  say,  that  (from  which  )^ou  collect  this)  "  yoii  wanted  nothing 
 fundamental,  or  necessary  to  salvation?"     He  says  indeed,  that 
 though  your  "errors  were  in  themselves  damnable,  and  full  of 
 great  impiety,  yet  he  hopes  that  those  amongst  j^ou  that  were 
 invincibly  ignorant  of  the  truth,  might  by  God's  great  mercy 
 have  their  errors  pardoned  and  their  souls  saved:"  and  this  is 
 all  he  says ;  and  this  you  confess  to  be  all  he  says,  in  divers 
 places  of  your  book  :*  which  is  no  more  than  yourself  do  and 
 must  affirm  of  protestants  :  and  yet  I  believe  you  will  not  suifer 
 us  to  infer  from  hence,  that  you  grant  protestants  to  *have,  for 
 the  substance,  the  true  preaching  of  the  word  and  due  adminis- 
 tration of  the  sacraments,  and  want  nothing  fundamental  or 
 necessary  to  salvation.    And  if  we  should  draw  this  consequence 
 from  your  concession,  certainly  we  should  do  you  injury,  in  re- 
 gard many  things  may,  in  themselves  and  in  ordinary  course,  be 
 necessary  to  salvation,  to  those  that  have  means  to  attain  them, 
 as  your  church  generally  hath  ;  which  yet,  by  accident,  to  these 
 which  were,  by  some  impregnable  impediment,  debarred  in  these 
 means,  may  by  God's  mercy  be  made  unnecessary. 
 
 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  doctrine,  or  acknowledge  there  was  no  visible 
 church ;"  it  is  all  one,  as  if  (to  use  St.  Paul's  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  may  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  man- 
 ner say  we,  We  acknowledge  a  church  there  was,  corrupted 
 indeed  universally,  but  yet  such  a  one  as  we  hope  by  God's 
 gracious  acceptance  was  still  a  church.  We  pretend  not  to  name 
 any  one  society  that  was  this  church ;  and  yet  we  see  no  reason 
 
 *  See  c.  1.  sect.  3. 
 Z 
 
838  SEPARATION    OP   PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 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  yourself  in  proving 
 that  we  "  cannot  pretend,  that  either  the  Greeks,  Waldenses, 
 Wickliffites.  Hussites,  Muscovites,  Armenians,  Georgians,  Abys- 
 sines,  were  then  the  visible  church."  For  all  this  discourse 
 proceeds  upon  a  false  and  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  pro- 
 testant,  having  the  false  principle  settled  in  him,  that  there  was 
 to  be  always  some  visible  church  of  one  denomination  pure  from 
 all  error  in  doctrine,  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  pretenders  to  perpetual  succession,  as  well  as 
 yours,  that  I  do  not  understand;  unless  it  be  for  the  reason 
 which  ^neas  Sylvius  gave,  why  more  held  the  pope  above  a 
 council,  than  a  council  above  the  pope;  which  was  because 
 popes  did  give  bishoprics  and  archbishoprics,  but  councils 
 gave  none ;  and  therefore  suing  in  forma  pauperis  were  not 
 like  to  have  their  cause  very  well  maintained.  For  put  the 
 case  1  should  grant  of  mere  favour,  that  there  must  be  always 
 some  church  of  one  denomination  or  communion  free  from  all 
 errors  in  doctrine,  and  that  protestants  had  not  always  such  a 
 church ;  it  would  follow  indeed  from  hence  that  I  must  not  be  a 
 protestaiTt ;  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  myself,  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  cap- 
 tive under  such  miserable  delusions. 
 
 28.  We  see,  then,  how  successful  you  have  been  in  making 
 good  your  accusation,  with  reasons  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the 
 thing,  and  which  may  be  urged  in  common  against  all  protestants, 
 Let  us  come  now  to  the  arguments  of  the  other  kind,  which  you 
 build  upon  Dr.  Potter's  own  words,  out  of  which  you  promise 
 unanswerable  reasons  to  convince  protestants  of  schism. 
 
 29.  But  let  the  understanding  reader  take  with  him  three  or 
 or  four  short  remembrances,  and  I  dare  say  he  will  find  them 
 upon  examination,  not  only  answerable,  but  already  answered. 
 The  memorandums  1  would  commend  to  him  are  these : 
 
 *30.  1.  That  not  every  separation,  but  only  a  causeless  sepa- 
 ration from  the  external  communion  of  any  church,  is  the  sin  of 
 schism. 
 
 t3I.  2.  That  imposing  upon  men,  under  pain  of  excommuni- 
 cation,  a  necessity  of  professing  known  errors,  and  practising 
 
 *  30.  That  not,  &c.— Ox/.  •!•  31.  That  imposing,  kc.—Oxf. 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    NOT    GUILTY   OF   SCHISM. 
 
 339 
 
 known  corruptions,  is  a  sufficient  and  necessary  cause  of  sepa- 
 ration ;  and  that  this  is  the  cause  which  protestants  allege  to 
 justify  their  separation  from  the  church  of  Rome. 
 
 *32.  3.  That  to  leave  the  church,  and  to  leave  the  external 
 communion  of  a  church,  at  least  as  Dr.  Potter  understands  the 
 word,  is  not  the  same  thing:  that  being  done  by  ceasing  to  be 
 a  member  of  it,  by  ceasing  to  have  those  requisites  which  con- 
 stitute a  man  a  member  of  it,  as  faith  and  obedience ;  this,  by- 
 refusing  to  communicate  with  any  church  in  her  liturgies  and 
 public  worship  of  God.  This  littlearmour,  if  it  be  rightly  placed, 
 I  am  persuaded  will  repel  all  those  batteries  which  you  threaten 
 shall  be  so  furious. 
 
 33.  Ad  §  13 — 15.  The  first  is  a  sentence  of  St.  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  ?" 
 "SVhereunto  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 
 Lutherians,  whose  pretence  of  separation  (be  it  true  or  belt  false) 
 was  not  (as  that  of  the  Donatists)  only  to  avoid  the  communion 
 of  bad  men,  but  to  free  themselves  from  the  necessity  (which 
 but  by  separating  was  unavoidable)  of  joining  with  bad  men 
 in  their  impieties.  And  your  not  substituting  Luther  instead 
 of  Donatus,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  dilemma,  as  well  as  in  the 
 former,  would  make  a  suspicious  man  conjecture  that  you  your- 
 self took  notice  of  this  exception  of  disparity  between  Donatus 
 and  Luther. 
 
 34.  Ad  §  16.  Your  second  onset  drives  only  at  those  pro- 
 testants who  "  hold  the  true  church  was  invisible  for  many 
 ages."  Which  doctrine  (if  by  the  true  church  be  understood 
 the  pure  church,  as  you  do  understand  it)  is  a  certain  truth;  and 
 it  is  easier  for  you  to  declaim  (as  you  do)  than  to  dispute  against 
 it.  But  "  these  men,"  you  say,  "  must  be  heretics,  because  they 
 separate  from  the  communion  of  the  visible  church ;  and  there- 
 fore also  from  the  communion  of  that  which  they  say  was  invisi- 
 ble ;  inasmuch  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  perse- 
 cuted and  oppressed  maintainers  of  the  truth  in  the  days  of  our 
 forefathers,  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  beside  liiynselfy 
 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,  aprophet,  and  one  of  the  greatest,  erredin  his  judg- 
 ment touching  his  own  time  and  his  own  country,  why  may  not 
 
 *  32.  That  to.     Oxf. 
 
340  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS   PRO^I   THE 
 
 you,  who  are  certainly  but  a  man,  and  subject  to  tlie  same  pas- 
 sions as  Elias  was,  mistake  in  thinking  that  in  former  ages,  in 
 some  country  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,  tiiat  if  it  be  true,  that  this  sup- 
 posed 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  joined  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."  A71S.  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  1  do, 
 only  in  lawful  things,  or  absolutely  in  every  thing ;  whether  I 
 am  to  join  with  them  in  superstition  and  idolatry,  and  not  only 
 in  a  common  profession  of  the  faith  wherein  we  agree,  but  in  a 
 common  dissimulation  or  abjuration  of  it.  This  is  that  which 
 you  would  have  them  to  do,  or  else,  forsooth,  they  must  be 
 schismatics.  But  hereafter,  I  pray  you,  remember,  that  there  is 
 no  necessity  of  communicating  even  with  true  believers  in  wicked 
 actions.  Kay,  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,  justify  their  separation  from  being  schis- 
 matical. 
 
 37.  Arg.  "  But  the  property  of  schism,  according  to  Dr.  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  schismatics*" 
 
 38.  A71S.  I  deny  the  syllogism ;  it  is  no  better  than  this : 
 
 One  symptom  of  the  plague  is  a  fever; 
 
 But  such  a  man  hath  a  fever  : 
 
 Therefore  he  hath  the  plague. 
 The  true  conclusion  Avhich  issues  out  of  these  premises  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  schismatics.  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  schismatics,  and  yet  not  be  schismatics. 
 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  is  the  reason  ?  Because 
 the  one  hath  cause,  the  other  hath  not.  In  like  manner  schis- 
 matics either  always  or  genarally  denounce  damnation  to  them 
 from  whom  they  separate.  The  same  do  these  protestants,  and 
 yet  are  not  schismatics.     The  reason ;  because  schismatics  do  it. 
 
CHURCH  OF  ROME,  NOT  GUILTY  OF  SCHISM.  341 
 
 and  do  it  without  a  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  per- 
 haps it  may  be  true  that  all  schimatics  do  so,  yet  universal 
 affirmatives  are  not  converted,  and  therefore  it  follows  not  by  any 
 good  logic  that  all  that  do  so,  when  there  is  a  just  cause  for  it, 
 musr.  be  schismatics.  The  cause  in  this  matter  of  separation  is 
 all  in  all,  and  that,  for  aught  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  the  church  ?"  Ans.  Distinguish 
 the  quality  of  the  persons  censured,  and  this  seeming  repug- 
 nance 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 ;  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  dif- 
 ference 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  pro- 
 testants, "who,"  you  say,  "involve  themselves  in  the  sin  of 
 schism,  by  communicating  with  those,"  as  you  call  them,  "exter- 
 minating spirits,  whom  you  conceive  yourself  to  have  proved 
 schismatics;"  and  now  load  them  further  with  the  crime  of 
 heresy.  For,  say  you,  "if  you  held  yourselves  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.  Ajis.  You  mistake,  in  thinking  that  protestants  hold  them- 
 selves obliged  not  to  communicate  with  you,  only  or  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  pro- 
 testants held  this  doctrine  which  you  impute  to  them;  and 
 though  this  error  were  as  damnable  and  as  much  against  the 
 
S42  SEPARATION    OF    TROTESTANTS    FROM    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  them- 
 selves, and  refuse  not  fas  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 
 doctrine  of  the  church's  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  man's  sins,  but  upon  God's 
 readiness  and  resolution  to  forgive  the  sins  of  all  that  believe 
 and  repent ;  so  that  although  unbelief  or  unpenitence  should  be 
 universal,  and  the  faithful  should  absolutely  ya^Vy/•o»^  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  catholic  church  depends  upon  the 
 actual  existence  of  the  catholic  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  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 
 catholic.  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. 
 
 42.  Thirdly,  if  you  understand  by  errors  not  fundamental  such 
 as  are  not  damnable,  it  is  not  true,  as  1  have  often  told  you,  that 
 we  confess  your  errors  not  fundamental. 
 
 43.  Lastly,  for  your  desire  that  I  should  here  apply  an  au- 
 thority of  St.  Cyprian,  alleged  in  your  next  number,  I  would 
 have  done  so  very  willingly,  but  indeed  I  know  not  how  to  do 
 it;  for  in  my  apprehension  it  hath  no  more  to  do  with  your 
 present  business  of  proving  it  unlawful  to  communicate  with 
 these  men,  who  hold  the  church  was  not  alv/ays  visible,  than  In 
 novafert  animus.  Besides,  1  am  here  again  to  remember  you,, 
 that  St.  Cyprian's  words,  were  they  never  so  pertinent,  yet  are 
 by  neither  of  the  parties  litigant  esteemed  any  rule  of  faith. 
 And  therefore  the  urging  of  them,  and  such  like  authorities, 
 serves  only  to  make  books  great,  and  controversies  endless. 
 
 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  church's  external  communion,  but  only  her  corruptions, 
 pretend  to  do  that  which  is  impossible;  because  these  corruptions 
 were  inherent  in  the  church's  external  communion ;  and  there- 
 fore he  that  forsakes  them  cannor  but  forsake  this." 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    NOT    GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  343 
 
 45.  Ans.  But  who  are  they  that  pretend  they  forsook  the 
 church's  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  corrup- 
 tions of  it;  meaning  the  internal  communion  of  it,  and  conjunc- 
 tion 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;  mean- 
 ing, that' they  left  it  not  voluntarily,  being  not fugitivi,  hut fugatt, 
 as  being  willing  to  join  with  you  in  any  act  of  piety;  but  were  by 
 you  necessitated  and  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  confes- 
 sions and  liturgies,  and  participation  of  sacraments  ;  I  cannot 
 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  college,  and  yet  re- 
 main still  a  member  of  the  college  ;  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  m.ay  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  church's  external  communion. 
 
 46.  You  will  reply,  perhaps,  "that  the  difficulty  lies  as  well 
 against  those  who  pretend  to  forsake  the  church's  corruptions 
 and  not  the  church,  as  against  those  who  say  they  forsook  the 
 church's  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  foresaken." 
 
 47.  A71S.  A  pretty  sophism,  and  very  fit  to  persuade  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  com- 
 mon with  others ;  because,  forsooth,  they  cannot  forsake  them- 
 selves;  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  weie  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 
 
344  SEPARATION    OF   PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 not  from  the  subject  itself;  so  is  it  also  against  reason  to  denj' 
 that  a  man  may  (by  an  usual  phrase  of  speech)  forsake  any  cus- 
 tom or  quality,  good  or  bad,  either  proper  to  himself,  or  common 
 to  himself  with  any  company,  and  j^et  never  truly  or  properly 
 forsake  either  his  company  or  himself.  Thus  if  all  the  Jesuits 
 in  the  society  were  given  to  vvrite  sophistically,  yet  you  might 
 leave  this  ill  custom,  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  cit}^  If 
 all  the  parts  of  a  man's  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  *  overrun  with  tares 
 and  weeds  of  superstitions  and  corruptions,  but  that  some  mem- 
 bers of  it  might  reform  themselves,  and  yet  remain  still  true 
 members  of  the  body  of  the  church,  and  not  be  made  no  members 
 but  the  better  by  their  reformation?  Certainly  it  is  so  obvious 
 and  sensible  a  truth,  that  this  thing  is  possible,  that  no  man  in 
 his  wits  will  be  persuaded  out  of  it,  with  all  the  quirks  and 
 metaphysics  in  the  world.  Neither  is  this  to  say,  that  a  man 
 may  keep  company  with  Christopher  Potter,  and  not  keep  com- 
 pany with  the  provost  of  Queen's  college:  nor  that  a  man  can 
 avoid  the  company  of  a  sinner,  and  at  the  same  time  be  really 
 present  with  the  man  who  is  the  sinner:  v/hich  we  leave  to  those 
 protestants  of  your  invention,  M^ho  are  so  foolish  as  to  pretend 
 that  a  man  may  really  separate  himself  from  the  church's  exter- 
 nal communion,  as  she  is  corrupted,  and  yet  continue  in  that 
 church's  external  communion,  which  in  this  external  comm^union 
 is  coii'upted.  But  we,  that  say  only,  the  whole  church  being 
 corrupted,  some  parts  of  it  might  and  did  reform  themselves,  and 
 yet  might  and  did  continue  parts  of  the  church,  though  separated 
 from  the  external  communion  of  the  other  parts,  which  would 
 not  reform,  need  not  trouble  ourselves  to  reconcile  any  such  re- 
 pugnance, For  the  case  put  by  you,  of  keeping  Dr.  Potter's  com- 
 pany, and  leaving  the  company  of  the  provost  of  Queen's  college; 
 and  of  leaving  a  sinner's  company,  and  not  the  man's ;  are  nothing 
 at  all  like  ours.  But  if  you  would  speak  to  the  point,  you  must 
 show  that  Dr.  Potter  cannot  leave  being  provost  of  Queen's  col- 
 lege without  ceasing  to  be  himself;  or  that  a  sinner  cannot 
 leave  his  sin,  without  ceasing  to  be  a  man ;  or  that  he  that  is 
 part  of  any  society,  cannot  renounce  any  vice  of  that  society,  but 
 he  must  relinquish  the  society.  If  you  would  show  any  of  these 
 things,  then  indeed  (I  dare  promise)  you  should  find  us  apt 
 enough  to  believe,  that  the  particular  parts  of  the  visible  church 
 could  not  reform  themselves,  but  they  must  of  necessity  become 
 no  parts  of  it.  But  until  we  see  this  done,  you  must  pardon  us, 
 if  we  choose  to  believe  sense  rather  than  sophistry. 
 
 48.  In  this  paragraph  you  bring  in  the  sentence  of  St.  Cyprian, 
 whereto  you  referred  us  in  the  former :  but  why,  in  a  controversy 
 of  faith,  do  you  cite  any  thing  which  is  confessed  on  all  hands 
 not  to  be  a  rule  of  faith  ?     Besides,  in  my  apprehension,  this 
 
 *  Overcome. — Oxf. 
 
CHURCH    OF   ROME,    KOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  345 
 
 sentence  of  St.  Cyprian's  is,  in  this  place,  and  to  this  purpose, 
 merely  impertinent.  St.  Cyprian's  words  are,  "The  church" 
 (he  speaks  of  the  particular  church  or  diocese  of  Rome)  "  being 
 one,  cannot  be  within  and  without :  if  she  be  with  Novatianus, 
 she  was  not  with  Cornelius;  but  if  she  were  with  Cornelius,  who 
 succeeded  Fabianus  by  lawful  ordination,  Novatianus  is  not  in. 
 the  church."  And  now,  having  related  the  words,  I  am  only  to 
 remember  the  reader,  that  your  business  was  to  prove  it  "  impos- 
 sible for  a  man  to  forsake  the  church's  corruptions,  and  not  the 
 church;"*  and  to  request  him  to  tell  me,  whether,  as  I  said, 
 In  nova  fert  miimus  had  not  been  as  much  to  the  purpose  ? 
 
 49.  T*o wards  the  conclusion  of  this  section,  you  number  up 
 your  victories,  and  tell  us,  "that  out  of  your  discourse  it  re- 
 maineth  clear,  that  this  our  chiefest  answer  changeth  the  very 
 state  of  the  question  ;  confoundeth  internal  acts  of  the  under- 
 standing with  external  deeds ;  doth  not  distinguish  between 
 schism  and  heresy;  and  leaves  this  demonstrated  against  us, 
 that  they  (protestants)  divided  themselves  from  the  communion 
 of  the  visible  catholic  church,  because  they  conceived  that  she 
 needed  reformation."  To  which  triumphs,  if  any  reply  be 
 needful,  then  briefly  thus :  We  do  not  change  the  state  of  the 
 question,  but  you  mistake  it.  For  the  question  was  not,  whether 
 they  might  forsake  the  corruption  of  the  church,  and  continue 
 in  her  external  communion,  which  we  confess  impossible,  be- 
 cause the  corruptions  were  in  her  communion ;  but  the  question 
 was,  whether  they  might  forsake  the  corruptions  of  the  church, 
 and  not  the  church,  but  continue  still  the  members  of  it.  And 
 to  this  question  there  is  not  in  your  whole  discourse  one  perti- 
 nent syllable. 
 
 50.  We  "  do  not  confound  internal  acts  of  understanding  with 
 external  deeds,  but  "  acknowledge  (as  you  would  have  us)  that 
 *' we  cannot"  (as  matters  now  stand)  separate  from  your  corrup- 
 tions but  we  must  depart  from  your  external  communion."  For 
 you  have  so  ordered  things,  that  whosoever  Vvill  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  of  all 
 the  other  parts  of  it ;  taking  for  granted,  that  which  is  certainly 
 false,  that  no  two  men  or  churches,  divided  in  external  commu- 
 nion, can  be  both  true  parts  of  the  catholic  church. 
 
 51.  We  are  not  "to  learn  the  difference  between  schism  and 
 heresy ;"  for  heresy  we  conceive  an  obstinate  defence  of  any 
 error  against  any  necessary  article  of  the  Christian  faith ;  and 
 schism,  a  causeless  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  schismatics,  for  refusing  to  join  with  you  in 
 the  profession  of  these  errors,  and  the  practice  of  these  corrup- 
 tions,    t  Ai^^  therefore  you  must  free  either  us  from  schism  or 
 
 *  ?.nd  then  Xo.—  Oxf. 
 t  And  therefore  you  must  free  yourselves  Iroin  error,  or  us  from  Echism.— Ox/. 
 
346  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS    FROM   THE 
 
 yourselves  from  error ;   *  at  least  from  requiring  the  profession 
 of  it  as  a  condition  of  your  communion. 
 
 52.  Lastly,  whereas  you  say,  "  that  you  have  demonstrated 
 against  us,  that  protestants  divided  themselves  from  the  external 
 communion  of  the  visible  church;"  add,  "which  external  com- 
 munion was  corrupted,"  and  we  shall  confess  the  accusation,  and 
 glory  in  it.  But  this  is  not  that  quod  erat  demonstrandum,  but 
 that  we  divided  ourselves  from  the  church,  that  is,  made  our- 
 selves outlaws  from  it,  and  no  members  of  it.  And  moreover^  in 
 the  reason  of  our  separation  from  the  external  communion  of 
 your  church  you  are  mistaken  ;  for  it  was  not  so  much  because 
 she,  your  church,  as  because  your  church's  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  con- 
 cerns every  man  who  separates  from  any  church's  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  ourselves  from  errors,  supersti- 
 titions,  and  impieties,  will  not  justify  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  alleging  them  you  have 
 gained  little  credit  to  your  cause  or  person ;  and  that,  if  they 
 were  competent  judges  of  this  controversy,  their  sentence  is 
 against  you  much  rather  than  for  you. 
 
 54.  Lastly,  Whereas  you  desire  Dr.  Potter  to  remember  his 
 own  words,  "  There  neither  was  nor  can  be  any  just  cause  to 
 depart  from  the  church  of  Christ,  no  more  than  from  Christ 
 himself,  and  pretend  that  you  have  showed  that  Luther  did  so ;" 
 the  doctor  remembers  his  words  very  well,  and  hath  no  reason 
 to  be  ashamed  of  them :  only  he  desires  you  to  remember,  that 
 hereafter  you  do  not  confound,  as  hitherto  you  have  done,  de- 
 parting from  the  church  (i.  e.  ceasing  to  be  a  member  of  it)  with 
 departing  from  the  church's  external  communion ;  and  then  he 
 is  persuaded  It  will  appear  to  you,  that  against  Luther  and  his 
 followers  you  have  said  many  things,  but  showed  nothing. 
 
 55.  But  *'  the  church  universal  remaining  the  church  univer- 
 sal, according  to  Dr.  Potter,  may  fall  into  error ;  and  from  hence 
 it  clearly  follows,  that  it  is  impossible  to  leave  the  external  com- 
 munion of  the  church  so  corrupted,  and  retain  external  com- 
 munion with  the  catholic  church."  Ans.  The  reason  of  this 
 consequence,  which  you  say  is  so  clear,  truly  I  cannot  possibly 
 discern  ;  but  the  conclusion  inferred,  methinks,  is  evident  of 
 itself,  and  therefore  without  proof  I  grant  it.  I  mean,  that  it 
 is  impossible  to  leave  the  external  communion  of  the  catholic 
 church  corrupted,  and  to  retain  external  communion  with  the 
 
 *  at  least  commuuiou— nof  in  the  Ox/,  tdition. 
 
CHURCH   OF    ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  347 
 
 catholic  church.  But  what  use  you  can  make  of  it  I  do  not  un- 
 derstand ;  unless  you  will  pretend,  that  to  say  a  man  may  for- 
 sake the  church's  corruption,  and  not  the  church,  is  all  one  as 
 to  say,  he  may  forsake  the  church's  external  communion,  and  not 
 forsake  it.  If  you  mean  so,  sure  you  mistake  the  meaning  of 
 protestants  when  they  say,  they  forsook  not  the  church,  hut  her 
 corruptions.  For  in  saying  so,  they  neither  affirm  nor  deny  that 
 they  forsook  the  external  communion  of  the  church,  nor  speak 
 at  all  of  it ;  but  they  mean  only,  that  they  ceased  not  to  be  still 
 members  of  the  church,  though  they  ceased  to  believe  and  prac- 
 tice some  things  which  the  whole  church  formerly  did  believe 
 and  practice.  And  as  for  the  external  communion  of  the  visible 
 church;  we  have  without  scruple  formerly  granted,  that  pro- 
 testants did  forsake  it ;  that  is,  renounce  the  practice  of  some 
 observance,  in  which  the  whole  visible  church  before  them  did 
 communicate.  But  this,  we  say,  they  did  without  schism,  be- 
 cause they  had  cause  to  do  so,  and  no  man  can  have  cause  to  be 
 a  schismatic. 
 
 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."  A71S.  The  ground  of  this  is  no  way 
 certain,  nor  here  sufficiently  proved.  For  whereas  you  say, 
 histories  are  silent  on  any  such  matter;  I  answer,  there  is  no 
 necessity  that  you  or  I  should  have  read  all  histories  that  may 
 be  extant  of  these  matters ;  nor  that  all  should  be  extant  that 
 were  written,  much  less  extant  uncorrupted;  especially  con- 
 sidering your  chuich,  which  had  lately  all  the  power  in  her 
 hands,  hath  been  so  perniciously  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.  Neither,  secondly,  to  suppose  a 
 visible  church  before  Luther,  which  did  not  err,  is  to  contradict 
 this  ground  of  Dr.  Potter's,  that  the  church  may  err  :  unless 
 you  will  have  us  believe,  that  may  be  and  must  be  is  all  one,  and 
 that  all  which  may  be  true  is  true  :  which  rule  if  it  were  true, 
 then  sure  all  men  would  be  honest,  because  all  men  may  be  so ; 
 and  you  would  not  make  so  bad  arguments,  unless  you  will  pre- 
 tend you  cannot  make  better.  Nor,  thirdly,  is  it  to  contradict 
 these  words,  "the  church  may  not  hope  to  triumph  over  all 
 error  till  she  be  in  heaven ;"  for  to  triumph  over  error  is  to  be 
 secure  from  it,  to  be  out  of  danger  of  it,  not  to  be  obnoxious  to 
 it.  Now  a  church  may  be  free  from  error,  and  yet  not  secure 
 from  it,  and  consequently  in  this  sense  not  triumph  over  it. 
 Fourthly,  whereas  you  say,  it  *'  evacuateth  the  brag  of  pro- 
 testants, that  Luther  reformed  the  whole  church  ;"  perhaps 
 (though  I  know  not  who  they  be  that  say  so)  by  a  frequent 
 synecdoche,  they  may  mean  by  the  whole  the  greatest  and  most 
 illustrious  part  of  it,  the  lustre  whereof  did  much  obscure  the 
 other,  though  it  were  not  wholly  invisible.  Besides,  if  their 
 brag  be  evacuated,  (as  you  call  it,)  let  it  be  so,  I  see  no  harm 
 will  come  of  it.      Lastly,  whereas  you  say,  that  supposing  a 
 
348 
 
 SEPARATION    OP   PROTESTANTS    PROM   THE 
 
 visible  pure  church,  Luther  must  be  a  schismatic,  who  separated 
 froni  all  visible  churches  :  I  tell  you,  if  you  will  suppose  a 
 visible  church  extant  before,  and  when  Luther  arose,  conform- 
 able to  him  in  all  points  of  doctrine,  necessary  and  profitable, 
 then  Luther  separated  not  from  this  church,  but  adjoined  him- 
 self to  it :  not  indeed  in  place,  which  was  not  necessary  ;  not 
 in  external  comm.union,  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 
 aught  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  catholic  church?  Well,  let  this  also  be 
 granted,  what  will  come  of  it  ?  What !  that  Luther  must  be  a 
 schismatic  ?  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 
 communion.  And  if  you  urge,  that  they  joined  themselves  to 
 no  other  part,  therefore  they  separated  from  the  whole;  I  say, 
 it  follows  not,  inasmuch  as  themselves  were  a  part  of  it,  and  still 
 continued  so;  and  therefore  could  no  more  separate  fiom  the 
 whole  than  from  themselves.  Thus  though  there  were  no  part 
 of  the  people  of  Rome  to  whom  the  plebeians  joined  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.  In  the  1 8th  section,  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  church's  public 
 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  tlie  church,  but 
 the  world ,-  and  therefore  neither  do  you  obey  our  Saviour's  com- 
 mand. Let  both  grow  up  till  the  harvest,  who  teach  it  to  be  lawful 
 to  root  these  tares  (such  are  heretics)  out  of  the  world ;  neither 
 
CHUnCH    OF    ROME,    NOT   GUIi.TY   OF   SCHISM,  340 
 
 do  protestants   disobey  it,  if   they  eject  manifest  heretics  and 
 notorious  sinners  out  of  the  church. 
 
 58.  Ad  §  19.  In  the  19th  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  Dr.  Potter's 
 confession,  neither  can  it  be  damnable,  in  respect  of  error,  to  re- 
 main in  any  church's  communion  whose  errors  are  not  damnable; 
 for  if  the  error  be  not  damnable,  the  belief  thereof  cannot,"  A71S. 
 Dr.  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  excusablyignorantof  the  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  pre- 
 sumptuous in  judging  your  persons  as  you  are  in  judging  ours, 
 but  leaves  them  to  stand  or  fall  to  their  own  Master,  who  is  in- 
 finitely merciful,  and  therefore  will  not  damn  them  for  mere 
 errors  who  desire  to  find  the  truth  and  cannot ;  and  withal  in- 
 finitely just,  and  therefore  (it  is  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  negligence  would 
 not. 
 
 59.  To  your  minor  also,  I  answer  almost  in  your  own  words, 
 sect.  42.  of  this  chapter,  "  I  thank  you  for  your  courteous"  sup- 
 posal,  that  your  church  may  err,  and  "  m  recompence  thereof 
 will  do  you  a  charity,  by  putting  you  in  mind  into  what  labyrinths 
 you  cast  yourself,"  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  yourself 
 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  yourselves  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  an  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  tenninis,  which  is  "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  hypocrisy ;  to  believe  it 
 and  not  believe  it,  a  manifest  repugnancy';  and  thirdly,  to  pro- 
 fess it  and  to  continue  in  your  communion,  (as  matters  now 
 Stand,)  a  plain  impossibility;  what  remains,  but  tliat  whoso- 
 
S50 
 
 SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS    FROM    THE 
 
 ever  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  church's  communion  who  publicly  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  excom- 
 municate alt  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  there- 
 fore, 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 ;  not- 
 withstanding this  error,  I  might  communicate  with  them :  but 
 if  I  could  not  do  so  without  professing  myself  of  their  belief  in 
 this  matter,  then  I  suppose  I  should  be  excused  from  schism, 
 if  I  should  forsake  their  communion,  rather  than  profess  myself 
 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  the  church's  communion;  and 
 that  this  church  (though  erring  in  this  manner)  wants  nothing 
 necessary  to  salvation.  And  yet  this  is  that  manifest  contra- 
 diction, which  Dr.  Potter  (you  say)  will  never  be  able  to  solve, 
 viz.  "that  there  might  be  necessary  cause  to  depart  from  the 
 church  of  Rome  in  some  doctrines  and  practices,  though  she 
 wanted  nothing  necessary  to  salvation." 
 
 60.  And  your  reason,  wherewith  you  prove  that  there  is  in 
 these  words  such  a  plain  contradiction  is  very  notable.  *'  For," 
 say  you,  "  if  she  wanted  nothing  necessary  to  salvation,  how 
 could  it  be  necessary  to  salvation  to  forsake  her  ?  "  Truly,  sir, 
 if  this  be  a  good  manner  of  proving,  it  is  a  very  ready  way  to 
 prove  any  thing ;  for  what  is  there  that  may  not  be  proved,  if 
 it  be  proof  enough  to  ask,  how  can  it  be  otherwise  ?  Methinks 
 if  you  would  convince  Dr.  Potter's  words  of  manifest  contradic- 
 tion, you  should  show  that  he  affirms  and  denies  the  same  of  the 
 same.  From  which  fault  methinks  he  should  be  very  innocent, 
 who  says  only,  that  that  may  be  damnable  to  one,  which  is  not 
 so  to  another ;  and  that  may'  be  necessary  for  one,  which  is  not 
 necessary  for  another.  And  this  is  all  that  Dr.  Potter  says  here, 
 viz.  that  the  profession  of  a  falsehood  to  him  that  believes  it  may 
 be  not  damnable,  and  yet  damnable  to  him  that  believes  the 
 contrary :  or  that  not  to  profess  a  falsehood,  in  him  that  knows 
 it  to  be  so,  is  necessary  to  salvation ;  and  yet  not  so  in  him  that 
 by  error  conceives  it  to  be  a  truth.  The  words  by  you  cited, 
 and  charged  with  unsalvable  contradiction,  are  in  the  75tli  pagej 
 but  in  the  progress  of  the  same  particular  discourse,  in  the  next 
 page  but  one,  he  gives  such  evident  reason  of  them,  (which  can 
 hardly  be  done  to  prove  implicancy  true),  that  whereas  you  say. 
 
CHURCH  OF  ROME,  NOT  GUILTY  OF  SCHISM.  351 
 
 "he  will  never  be  able  to  salve  them  from  contradiction,"  1  be- 
 lieve any  indifferent  reader,  having  considered  the  place,  will  be 
 very  apt  to  think  that  you  (whatsoever  you  pretend)  were  very 
 able  to  have  done  this  courtesy  for  him,  if  your  will  had  been 
 answerable  to  your  ability.  I  will  set  down  the  words,  and  leave 
 the  reader  to  condemn  or  absolve  them :  "  To  forsake  the  errors 
 of  that  church,  and  not  join  with  her  in  those  practices  which 
 we  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  enjoins)  what  we  believe  not,  were,  without 
 question,  damnable.  And  they  with  their  errors,  by  the  grace 
 of  God,  might  go  to  heaven,  when  we,  for  our  hypocrisy  and 
 dissimulation,"  (he  might  have  added,  and  perjury,)  "  should 
 certainly  be  condemned  to  hell." 
 
 61.  Ad  §  10.  "  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;  there- 
 fore the  communion  of  such  a  church  is  not  upon  pretence  of 
 error  to  be  forsaken."  The  consequence  is  manifest.  The  an- 
 tecedent is  proved,  because  God,  by  Dr.  Potter's  confession, 
 "  hath  promised  his  assistance  no  further,  nor  is  it  in  her  power 
 to  do  more  than  God  doth  assist  her  to  do."  Ans.  The  promise 
 of  Divine  assistance  is  twofold,  absolute  or  conditional.  That 
 there  shall  be  by  Divine  Providence  preserved  in  the  world,  to 
 the  world's  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  denies  but  that  a  further  assistance  is  conditionally 
 promised  us,  even  such  an  assistance  as  shall  lead  us,  if  we  be 
 not  wanting  to  it  and  ourselves,  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  ques- 
 tions. And  should  he  have  done  so,  he  might  have  been  con- 
 futed by  evident  and  express  texts  of  Scripture.  When  there- 
 fore you  say,  "  that  a  church  not  erring  in  fundamentals  doth  as 
 much  as  by  God's  assistance  lies  in  her  power  to  do,"  this  is 
 manifestly  untrue  ;  for  God's  assistance  is  always  ready  to  pro- 
 mote her  further.  It  is  ready,  I  say,  but  on  condition  the  church 
 does  implore  it ;  on  condition,  that  when  it  is  offered  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,  builds  hay  and  stubble  upon  it ;  which, 
 believing  vv^hat  is  precisely  necessary,  errs  shamefully  and  dan- 
 gerously 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  herself  too  much  for  retaining  funda- 
 mental truths,  while  she  remain  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 
 
352  SEPARATION    OF   PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 that  can  give  her  sufficient  assurances,  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  pernicious  and  pestilent, 
 and  undermine  by  secret  consequences  the  very  foundations  of 
 religion  and  piety  ?  Lastly,  who  can  say  that  she  hath  suffi- 
 ciently discharged  her  duty  to  God  and  man,  by  avoiding  only 
 fundamental  heresies,  if  in  the  mean  time  she  be  negligent  of 
 otherF,  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  remissly  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  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  inconsistent  with  sal- 
 vation) 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  a  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,  not  only  a  mere  neglect  of  profitable  truths  but  also 
 a  wretchless,  supine  negligence,  manifest  contempt,  dissimu- 
 lation, 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  myself  a  love  and  desire  of  all  profitable  truth; 
 if  I  did  not  put  away  idleness,  and  prejudice,  and  worldly  affec- 
 tions, 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.  "But  to  oblige  any  man,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  for- 
 
CHURCH   OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  353 
 
 sake  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?  Ans,  It  is  not;  for  Christ  himself  hath  obliged  us  here- 
 unto. He  hath  forbid  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  con- 
 vinced to  be  erroneous.  But  then  besides,  it  is  here  falsely  sup- 
 posed (as  hath  been  showed  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  per- 
 nicious 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.  "But  at  least  the  Roman  church  is  as  infallible 
 as  protestants,  ahd  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  inconse- 
 quence 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  a  posse  ad  esse,  the  argument  follows  not. 
 He  is  equally  fallible  who  believes  twice  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  straight  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  con- 
 science he  may  profess  that,  but  this  he  cannot. 
 
 64.  But  "  we  are  to  remember,  that,  according  to  Dr.  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,  aud  even  into 
 damnable  errors."  A7is.  The  visible  church  is  free  indeed  from 
 all  errors  absolutely  destructive  and  unpardonable,  but  not  from 
 all  error  which  in  itself  is  damnable;  nor  from  all  which  will 
 actually  bring  damnation  upon  them  that  keep  themselves  in 
 
 A  A 
 
3o4  SEPARATION    OP  PROTESTANTS   FROM    THE 
 
 them,  by  their  own  voluntary  and  avoidable  fault.  From  such 
 errors  which  are  thus  damnable  Dr.  Potter  doth  no  where  say, 
 that  the  visible  church  hath  any  privilege  or  exemption.  Nay, 
 you  yourself  teach,  that  he  plainly  teacheth  the  contrary,  and 
 thereupon  will  allow  him  to  be  no  more  charitable  than  papists 
 are  to  protestants ;  and  yet  upon  this  affected  mistake  your  dis- 
 course is  founded  in  almost  forty  places  of  your  book.  Besides, 
 any  private  man  who  truly  believes  the  Scriptures,  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  quahfied  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  church's  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 
 our  errors  were  not  in  themselves  damnable,  yet  to  resist  the 
 known  truth,  and  to  contrive  in  the  possession  of  known  errors 
 and  falsehood,  is  certainly  a  capital  sin,  and  of  great  affinity 
 with  the  sin,  v/hich  shall  never  be  forgiven. 
 
 65.  But  "neither  is  the  church  of  protestants  perfectly  free 
 from  errors  and  corruptions :  so  the  Doctor  confesses,  p.  69 ;  which 
 he  can  only  excuse  by  saying,  they  are  not  fundamental;  as  like- 
 wise those  in  the  Romon  church  are  confessed  not  to  be  fun- 
 damental. And  what  man  of  judgment  will  be  aprotestant,  since 
 that  church  is  confessedly  a  corrupted  one  ?"  Jns.  And  yet  you 
 yourself  make  large  discourses  in  this  very  chapter,  to  persuade 
 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  a  church  supposed  to  be  corrupted;  especially 
 when  this  churcb,  supposed  to  be  corrupted,  requires  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  indifferent  good 
 health,  before  a  diseased  and  corrupted  state  of  body  ?  to  prefer 
 a  field  not  perfectly  weeded,  before  a  field  that  is  quite  overrun 
 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  dispargement  to  his  judgment  to  change 
 your  communion  for  theirs  though  confessed  to  have  some  cor- 
 ruptions, it  may  well  be  presumed  that  he  hath  but  little  judg- 
 ment. For  as  for  your  pretence  that  yours  are  confessed  not  to 
 be  fundamental,  it  Is  an  affected  mistake,  as  already  I  have  often 
 told  you. 
 
 66.  Ad  §  22.   But  Dr.  Potter  says,  "It  is  comfort  enough  for 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    NOT    GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  355 
 
 the  church,  that  the  Lord  in  mercy  will  secure  her  from  all 
 capital  dangers;  but  she  may  not  hope  to  triumph  over  all  sin 
 and  error  till  she  be  in  heaven.  Now  if  it  be  comfort  enough  to 
 be  secured  from  all  capital  dangers,  which  can  arise  only  from 
 error  in  fundamental  points,  why  were  not  our  first  reformers  con- 
 tent with  enough,  but  would  needs  dismember  the  church  out  of 
 a  pernicious  greediness  of  more  than  enough?"  Ans.  I  have 
 already  showed  you  sufficiently  how  capital  danger  may  arise 
 from  errors,  though  not  fundamental.  I  add  now,  that  what 
 may  be  enough  to  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  argu- 
 ment was  objected  to  St.  Cyprian  *  upon  another  occasion,  and 
 also  by  the  British  Quartodecimans  f  to  the  maintainers  of  the 
 doctrine  of  your  church ;  and  by  both  this  very  answer  was  re- 
 turned; J  and  therefore  1  cannot  but  hope  that  for  their  sakes 
 you  will  approve  it. 
 
 67'  But  "  if,"  as  the  Doctor  says,  "  no  church  may  hope  to 
 triumph  over  all  error  till  she  be  in  heaven,  then  we  must  either 
 grant,  that  errors  not  fundamental  cannot  yield  sufl[icient  cause 
 to  forsake  the  church,  or  you  must  affirm,  "that  all  communities 
 may  and  ought  to  be  forsaken."  Ajis,  The  Doctor  does  not  say, 
 that  no  church  may  hope  to  be  free  from  all  error,  either  per- 
 nicious 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  withal  either  a  dissimulation  of  them  being  noxious,  or  a 
 profession  of  them  against  the  dictates  of  conscience,  if  they  be 
 
 *  St.  Cyprian,  Ep.  63.  in  these  \vords :  "Si  qiiis  de  antecessoribns  nostris,  Vil 
 jenoranter  vel  simpliciter  no:i  hoc  obser%'avit,  et  tenuit  qnud  nos  Dominus  facere  ex- 
 cmplo  et  5iagisteiio  suo  docuit,  potest  .<=iinplicitati  ejuf,  de  indulgentia  Domini,  venia 
 concedi :  nobis  vero  non  poterit  ignosci,  qui  nunc  a  Donuiio  admoniti  et  instruct! 
 suntius. 
 
 t  Wilfridu?,  to  Abbot  Colman  alleging  that  he  followed  the  example  of  his  prede- 
 cessor?, famous  for  holiness,  and  famous  for  miracles  in  these  words  :  "  De  patre  vestro 
 C'ulumba  et  sequacibus  ejus,  quorum  sanctitatem  vos  imitari  et  regulam  ac  prascepta, 
 ccelestibus  signis  confirniata,  seqiii  perhibetis.  possem  respondere :  quia  multis  in 
 judicio  dicentibus  Domino  quod  m  nomine  ejus  prophetaverint  et  daemonia  ejecrint, 
 et  yertules  multas  fecerint:  responsurus  sit  Dominus,  quia  nnuqiiam  eos  noverit.  Sed 
 absit  ut  de  patnbus  vestris  hoc  dicam,  quia  jtistius  mullo  est  de  incognilis  bonum 
 credere  quani  malum.  Unde  et  illos  Dei  famulos  ac  Deo  dilectos  esse  non  ntgo,  qui 
 simplicitate  rustica,  sed  intentione  pia  Deum  dilexerunt.  Neque  illis  multum  obesse 
 reor.  Talem  Paschae  observaniiam,  quandiu  nullus  advenerat,  qui  eis  instiiuti  per- 
 fections decreta  quae  sequerentur  ostenderet.  Quos  uiique  credo,  si  qui  tunc  ad  eos 
 cathohcus  calculator  adveniret,  sic  eju?  monita  fuisse  secuturos,  quomodo  ea  qusB 
 noverant  ac  didicerant  Dei  mandata,  probantur  fuisse  secuti.  Tu  autem  et  socii  tui, 
 s>  audita  decreta  sedis  apostolicJB,  imo  universalis  ecclesiae,  et  haec  Uteris  sacris  CCD- 
 o.mata  ^equi  contenmitis,  absque  ulla  dubitatione  peccatis. 
 
 J  Beda,  1.3.  Eccl.  Hist,  c,  25. 
 
356  SEPARATION    OF   rROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 mere  errors.  This  if  the  church  does,  (as  certainly  yours  doth,) 
 then  her  communion  is  to  be  forsaken,  rather  than  the  sin  of 
 hypocrisy  to  be  committed.  Whereas  to  forsake  the  churches  of 
 protestaiits  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.  But  "  the  church  may  not  be  left  by  reason  of  sin,  there- 
 fore neither  by  reason  of  errors  not  fundamental ;  inasmuch  as 
 both  sin  and  error  are  impossible  to  be  avoided  till  she  be  in 
 heaven."  A7is.  The  reason  of  the  consequence  does  not  appear 
 to  me ;  but  I  answer  to  the  antecedent :  neither  for  sin  nor  errors 
 ought  a  church  to  be  forsaken,  if  she  does  not  impose  and  enjoin 
 them ;  but  if  she  do,  fas  the  Roman  does,)  then  we  must  forsake 
 men  rather  than  God,  leave  the  church's  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  a  matter  never  so  small. 
 
 69.  Ad  §  23.  "  But  neither  the  quality  nor  the  number  of  your 
 church's  errors  could  warrant  our  forsaking  it.  Not  the  quality, 
 because  we  suppose  them  not  fundamental.  Not  the  number, 
 because  the  foundation  is  strong  enough  to  support  them." 
 A71S.  Here  again  you  vainly  suppose  that  we  conceive  your  errors 
 in  themselves  not  damnable;  though  w^e  hope  they  are  not  abso- 
 lutely 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  a  necessity  on  us  either  to  forsake  your  company,  or  to 
 profess  what  we  know  to  be  false. 
 
 70.  Our  "  blessed  Saviour  hath  declared  his  will,  that  we  for- 
 give a  private  offender  seventy-seven  times,  that  is,  without 
 limitation  of  quantity  of  time,  or  quality  of  trespasses;  and  then 
 how  dare  we  allege  his  command,  that  we  must  not  pardon  his 
 church  for  errors  acknowledged  to  be  not  fundamental?"  Ans. 
 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  is  yet  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  not,  that  w^e 
 should  against  conscience  profess  the  errors  of  it. 
 
 71.  Ad  §  24.  But  "schismatics  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."  Ayis.  True,  they  may  make  the 
 same  answer  and  the  same  defence  as  we  do  ;  as  a  murderer  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  schismatics.     They  may  object  errors  to^ 
 
CHURCH   OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF  SCHISM.  357 
 
 otner  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,  St.  Peter  and  St.  John 
 answered,  They  must  obey  God  rather  than  men.  The  three  chil- 
 dren to  the  king  of  Babylon  gave  in  effect  the  same  answer. 
 Give  me  now  any  factious  hypocrite,  who  makes  religion  the  pre- 
 tence and  cloak  of  his  rebellion,  and  who  sees  not  that  such  an 
 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 
 abused  by  traitors  and  rebels.  Certainly  therefore  it  is  no  good 
 consequence  to  say,  Schismatics  may  make  use  of  this  answer ; 
 therefore  all  that  do  make  use  of  it  are  schismatics.  But  more- 
 over, it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  chief  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  employed  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.  "But  the  forsaking  the  Roman  church  opens  a  way  to 
 innumerable  sects  and  schisms,  and  therefore  it  must  not  be  for- 
 saken." Ans.  We  must  not  do  evil  to  avoid  evil ;  neither  are  ah 
 courses  presently  lawful,  by  which  inconveniences  may  be 
 avoided.  If  all  men  would  submit  themselves  to  the  chief  mufti 
 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  divers  ways,  or  rather  by  divers  paths  of 
 the  same  way,  than  in  the  same  path  to  go  on  peaceably  to  hell : 
 Arnica  pax,  magis  arnica  Veritas  ! 
 
 73.  "  But  there  can  be  no  just  cause  to  forsake  the  church,  so 
 the  Doctor  grants ;  who  notwithstanding  teacheth  that  the 
 church  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental ;  therefore  neither  is 
 the  Roman  church  to  be  forsaken  for  such  errors."  Ans.  There 
 can  be  no  just  cause  to  forsake  the  church  absolutely  and  simply 
 in  all  things,  that  is,  to  cease  being  a  member  of  the  church  : 
 this  I  grant,  if  it  will  do  you  any  service.  But  that  there  can 
 be  no  just  cause  to  forsake  the  church  in  some  things,  or  (to 
 speak  more  properly)  to  forsake  some  opinions  and  practices 
 which  some  true  church  detains  and  defends  ;  this  I  deny,  and 
 you  mistake  the  Doctor,  if  you  think  he  affirms  it. 
 
 74.  Ad  §  26,  27.  What  "  prodigious  doctrines,"  say  you,  "  are 
 these  ?  Those  protestants  who  believe  that  your  church  erred 
 in  points  necessary  to  salvation,  and  for  that  cause  left  her,  can- 
 not be  excused  from  damnable  schism.  But  others,"  &c.  Pro- 
 digious doctrines  indeed!  But  who,  I  pray,  are  they  that  teach 
 them  ?  Where  does  Dr.  Potter  accuse  those  protestants  of 
 ^'  damnable  schism"  who  left  your  church  because  they  hold  it 
 
358  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS    FROM   THE 
 
 erroneous  in  necessary  points  ?  What  protestant  is  there  that 
 holds  not  that  you  taught  things  contrary  to  the  plain  precepts 
 of  Christ;  both  ceremonial,  in  mutilating  the  communion,  and 
 moral,  in  points  of  superstition  and  idolatry,  and  most  bloody 
 tyranny  ;  which  is  without  question  to  err  in  necessary  matters. 
 Neither  does  Dr.  Potter  accuse  any  man  of  schism  for  holding 
 so  ;  if  he  should,  he  should  call  himself  a  schismatic.  Only  he 
 says,  such  (if  there  be  any  such)  as  affirm,  that  ignorant  souls- 
 among  you,  who  had  no  means  to  know  the  truth,  cannot 
 possibly  be  saved,  that  their  wisdom  and  charity  cannot 
 be  justified.  Now  you  yourself  have  plainly  affirmed,  that 
 "  ignorant  protestants  dying  with  contrition  may  be  saved ;" 
 and  yet  would  be  unwilling  to  be  thought  to  say,  that  protes- 
 tants err  in  no  points  necessary  to  salvation.  For  that  may  be 
 in  itselef,  and  in  ordinary  course,  where  there  are  means  of 
 knowledge,  necessary,  which  to  a  man  invincibly  ignorant  will 
 prove  not  necessary.  Again,  where  doth  Dr.  Potter  suppose 
 (as  you  make  him)  that  there  were  other  protestants  who  be- 
 lieved that  your  church  had  no  errors  ?  or  where  does  he  say 
 they  did  well  to  forsake  her  upon  this  ridiculous  reason,  be- 
 cause they  judged  that  she  retained  all  means  necessary  to  sal- 
 vation ?  Do  you  think  us  so  stupid,  as  that  we  cannot  distin- 
 guish between  that  which  Dr.  Potter  says,  and  that  which  you 
 make  him  say  ?  He  vindicates  protestants  from  schism  two 
 ways :  the  one  is,  because  they  had  just  and  great  and  necessary 
 cause  to  separate,  which  schismatics  never  have ;  because  they 
 that  have  it  are  no  schismatics  ;  for  schism  is  always  a  causeless 
 separation.  The  other  is,  because  they  did  not  join  with  their 
 separation  an  uncharitable  damning  of  all  those  from  whom 
 they  did  divide  themselves,  as  the  manner  of  schismatics  is. 
 Now  that  which  he  intends  for  a  circumstance  of  our  separa- 
 tion, 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  schmismatics  ;"  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  brother's  company  in  some  ill  courses, 
 and  should  say  to  him,  "  Herein  I  forsake  you,  yet  I  leave  you 
 not  absolutely,  for  1  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  leaving  him,  which  indeed  is  the 
 cause  that  he  left  him  no  further. 
 
 75.  "  But  you  say,  "  The  very  reason  for  w^hich  he  acquitteth 
 himself  from  schism  is,  because  he  holds  that  the  church  which 
 they  forsook  is  not  cut  off  from  the  body  of  Christ."  A7i.9.  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, 
 
CHURCH   OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM. 
 
 359 
 
 "  Herein  I  disobey  you,  but  yet  I  am  no  rebel,  because  I  acknow- 
 ledge you  my  sovereign  lord,  and  am  ready  to  obey  you  in  all 
 things  lawful;"  should  not  he  be  an  egregious  sychophant, 
 that  should  accuse  him  as  if  he  had  said,  "  I  do  well  to  disobey 
 you,  because  1  acknowledge  you  my  lawful  sovereign  ?"  Cer- 
 tainly, he  that  joins  this  acknowledgment  with  his  necessitated 
 obedience,  does  well ;  but  he  that  makes  this  consideration  the 
 reason  of  disobedience,  doth  ill.  Urge  therefore  this  (as  you  call 
 it)  most  solemn  foppery  as  far  as  you  please ;  for  every  under- 
 standing reader  will  easily  perceive  that  this  is  no  foppery  of 
 Dr.  Potter's,  but  a  calumny  of  yours,  from  which  he  is  as  far  as 
 he  is  from  holding  yours  to  be  the  true  church  :  whereas  it  is  a 
 sign  of  a  great  deal  of  charity  in  him,  that  he  allows  you  to  be  a 
 part  of  it.  ; 
 
 76.  And  "whereas  you  pretend  to  find  such  unspeakable  com- 
 fort herein,  that  we  cannot  clear  ourselves  from  schism,  otherwise 
 than  by  acknowledging  that  they  do  not  nor  cannot  cut  off  your 
 church  from  the  hope  of  salvation ;"  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  know- 
 ledge, 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  salva- 
 tion depend  on  yours,"  but  only  ours  and  yours  not  desperately 
 inconsistent;  nor  to  say,  "we  must  be  damned,  unless  you  may 
 be  saved;"  but  that  we  assure  ourselves,  if  our  lives  be  answer- 
 able, we  shall  be  saved  by  our  knowledge.  And  that  we  hope, 
 (and  I  tell  you  again,  spes  est  rei  incertce  nomen,)  that  some  of 
 you  may  possibly  be  saved  by  occasion  of  their  unaffected  igno- 
 rance. 
 
 77.  For  our  brethren,  whom  you  say  ''we  condemn  of  heresy 
 for  denying  the  church's  perpetuity,"  we  know  none  that  do  sor 
 unless  N^ou  conceive  a  corrupted  church  to  be  none  at  all ;  and  if 
 you  do,  then,  for  aught  I  know,  in  your  account  we  must  be  all 
 heretics ;  for  all  of  us  acknowledge  that  the  church  might  be 
 corrupted  even  with  errors  in  themselves  damnable,  and  not  only 
 might,  but  hath  been. 
 
 78.  "But  schism  consists  in  being  divided  from  that  true 
 church  with  wliich  a  man  agreeth  in  all  points  of  faith  :  now  we 
 must  profess,  you  say,  that  we  agree  with  the  church  of  Rome 
 in  all  fundamental  articles  ;  therefore  we  are  schismatics."  A7is. 
 Either  in  your  major,  "  by  all  points  of  faith,"  you  mean  all  fun- 
 damental points  only,  or  all  simply  and  absolutely.  If  the  for- 
 mer, I  deny  your  major;  for  I  may  without  all  schism  divide 
 from  that  church  which  errs  in  any  point  of  faith  fundamental, 
 or  otherwise,  if  she  require  the  profession  of  this  error  among 
 the  conditions  of  her  communion.  Now  this  is  our  case.  If  the 
 latter,  I  deny  the  syllogism,  as  having  manifestly  four  terms,  and 
 being  cousin-german  to  this  : 
 
360 
 
 SEPAHATION    OF   PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 He  that  obeys  God  in  all  things  is  innocent: 
 Titius  obeys  God  in  some  things ; 
 Therefore  he  is  innocent. 
 
 79.  "  But  they  who  judge  a  reconciliation  with  the  church  of 
 Rome  to  be  damnable;  they  that  say,  there  might  be  just 
 and  necessary  cause  to  depart  from  it,  and  that  they  of  that  church 
 which  have  understanding  and  means  to  discover  their  errors, 
 and  neglect  to  use  them,  are  not  to  be  flattered  with  hope  of 
 salvation;  they  do  cut  off  that  church  from  the  body  of  Christ, 
 and  the  hope  of  salvation,  and  so  are  schismatics;  but  Dr.  Pot- 
 ter doth  the  former;  therefore  he  is  a  schismatic."  Ans.  No,  he 
 doth  not;  nor  cut  off  that  whole  church  from  the  hope  of  salva- 
 tion, not  those  members  of  it  who  were  invincibly  or  excusably 
 ignorant  of  the  truth;  but  those  only,  who  having  understanding 
 and  means  to  discover  their  error,  neglect  to  use  them.  Now 
 these  are  not  the  whole  church;  and  therefore  he  that,  supposing 
 their  impenitence,  cuts  these  off  from  hopes  of  salvation,  cannot 
 be  justly  said  to  cut  off  that  whole  church  from  the  body  of 
 Christ,  and  the  hope  of  salvation. 
 
 80.  Ad §28,29.  Whereas  Dr. Potter  says,  "There  is  a  great  dif- 
 ference 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."  It  seems  then  in  your  judg- 
 ment, that  thieves,  and  adulterers,  and  murderers,  and  traitors, 
 may  say  with  as  much  probability  as  protestants,  that  they  did 
 no  hurt  to  others,  but  only  reform  themselves.  But  then  me- 
 thinks  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  murderer 
 should  have  been  heard  of,  to  make  use  of  this  apology !  And 
 then  for  schismatics,  I  would  know  whether  Victor  bishop  of 
 Rome,  who  excommunicated  the  churches  of  Asia  for  not  con- 
 forming 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  Feli- 
 cissimus  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  infirmities  of  others,  which  they  might  and 
 ought  to  tolerate,  or  upon  some  difference  in  matters  of  order  and 
 ceremony,  or  for  some  error  in  doctrine,  neither  pernicious  nor 
 hurtful  to  faith  or  piety,  separate  themselves  from  others,  or 
 others  from  themselves ;  or  lastly,  whether  they  that  put  themselves 
 out  of  the  church's  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  church's 
 censure:  I  would  know,  I  say,  whether  all  or  any  of  these  may 
 with  any  face,  or  without  extreme  impudency  put  in  this  plea  of 
 
CHURCH  OF  ROME,  NOT  GUILTY  OF  SCHISM.  361 
 
 protestants,  and  pretend  with  as  much  likelihood  as  they,  that 
 they  did  not  separate  from  others,  but  only  reformed  themselves? 
 But  suppose  they  were  so  impudent  as  to  say  so  in  their  own 
 defence  falsely,  doth  it  follow  by  any  good  logic,  that  therefore 
 this  apology  is  not  to  be  employed  by  protestants,  who  may  say 
 so  truly  ?  "  We  make,"  say  they,  *'  no  schism  from  you,  but  only 
 a  reformation  of  ourselves  :  This,"  you  reply,  "is  no  good  justi- 
 fication, because  it  may  be  pretended  by  any  schismatic."  Very 
 true,  any  schismatic  that  can  speak  may  say  the  same  words ; 
 (as  any  rebel  that  makes  conscience  the  cloak  of  his  impious  dis- 
 obedience, may  say  with  St.  Peter  and  St.  John,  fVe  must  obey 
 God  rather  than  men  ,-)  but  then  the  question  is,  whether  any 
 schismatic  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,  St. 
 Peter  and  St.  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.  "But  seeing  their  pretended  reformation  consisted  in  for- 
 saking the  church's  corruptions,  their  reformation  of  themselves, 
 and  their  division  from  you,  falls  out  to  be  one  and  the  same 
 thing."  Just  as  if  two  men  having  been  a  long  while  com- 
 panions in  drunkenness,  one  of  them  should  turn  sober ;  this 
 reformation  of  himself,  and  desertion  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  cor- 
 ruptions ;  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,  -'^•nd  therefore  though  both  these  were  by  accident 
 joined  toflther,  yet  this  hinders  not  but  that  the  end  they  aimed 
 at  was  not  a  separation  from  you,  but  a  reformation  off  them* 
 selves. 
 
 82.  Neither  "doth  their  disagreement,  in  the  particulars  ot 
 the  reformation,"  (which  yet  when  you  measure  it  without  par- 
 tiality, you  will  find  to  be  far  short  of  infinite,)  nor  "their 
 symbolizing  in  the  general  of  forsaking  your  corruptions,"  prove 
 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  settled  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  showed  itself  more  openly;  others  again 
 believing,  that  the  church  continued  pure  for  some  ages  after  the 
 apostles,  and  then  declined :  and  consequently  some  aiming  at 
 
362 
 
 SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 an  exact  conformity  with  the  apostolic  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 ;  other,  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  dif- 
 ference 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  Scrip- 
 ture interpreted  by  catholic  written  tradition ;  which  rule  the 
 reformers  of  the  church  of  England  proposed  to  themselves  to 
 follow. 
 
 83,  Ad  §  30—32.  To  this  effect  Dr.  Potter,  p.  81 ,  82,  of  his  book 
 speaks  thus  :  "  If  a  monastery  should  reform  itself,  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  the  same  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  from  the 
 church  and  making  themselves  no  members  of  it,)  if  all  they  did 
 was  (as  indeed  it  was)  to  reform  themselves."  Which  cases,  I 
 believe,  any  understanding  man  will  plainly  see  to  have  in  them 
 an  exact  parity  of  reason,  and  that  therefore  the  argument  drawn 
 from  them  is  pressing  and  unanswerable.  And  it  may  well  be 
 suspected  that  you  were  partly  of  this  mind,  otherwise  you  would 
 not  have  so  presumed  upon  the  simplicity  of  your  reader,  as, 
 pretending  to  answer  it,  to  put  another  of  your  own  making  in 
 place  of  it,  and  then  to  answer  tnat. 
 
 84.  This  you  do,  §  31,  32,  of  this  chapter,  in  these  words: 
 "  1  was  very  glad  to  find  you  in  a  monastery,"  &c.  Where  I  be- 
 seech the  reader  to  observe  these  things,  to  detect  the  cunning 
 of  your  tergiversation;  first,  that  you  have  no  reason  to  say, 
 "that you  found  Dr.  Potter  in  a  monastery;"  and  as  little,  "that 
 you  find  him  inventing  ways  how  to  forsake  his  vocation,  and 
 to  maintain  the  lawfulness  of  schism  from  the  church,  and  apos- 
 tacy from  a  religious  order."  Certainly  the  innocent  case  put 
 by  the  Doctor,  of  a  monastery  reforming  itself,  hath  not  deserved 
 such  grievous  accusations ;  unless  reformation  with  you  be  all 
 one  with  apostacy,  and  to  forsake  sin  and  disorder  be  to  forsake 
 one's  vocations :  and  surely,  if  it  be  so,  your  vocations  are  not 
 very  lawful,  and  your  religious  orders  not  very  religious. 
 Secondly,  that  you  quite  pervert  and  change  Dr.  Potter's  cases, 
 and  instead  of  the  case  of  a  "  whole  monastery  reforming  itself, 
 when  other  monasteries  of  their  order  would  not ;"  and  of  "some 
 men  freeing  themselves  from  the  common  disease  of  their  so- 
 ciety, when  others  would  not ;"  you  substitute  two  others,  which 
 
CHURCH    OF    EO.ME,    NOT    GUILTY   OF    SGHIaM.  3G3 
 
 you  think  you  can  better  deal  with,  of  "  some  particular  monks, 
 upon  pretence  of  the  neglect  of  lesser  monastical  observances, 
 going  out  of  their  monastery,  which  monastery  yet  did  confes- 
 sedly observe  their  substantial  vows,  and  all  principal  statutes  : 
 and  of  a  diseased  person,  quitting  the  company  of  those  that 
 were  infected  wdth  the  same  disease,  though  in  their  company 
 there  was  no  danger  from  his  disease,  it  being  impossible  that 
 should  be  mortal,  and  out  of  it  no  hope  of  escaping  others  like 
 that  for  which  he  forsook  the  first  infected  company."  I  appeal 
 now  to  any  indifferent  judge,  whether  these  cases  be  the  same 
 or  near  the  same  with  Dr.  Potter's  ?  whether  this  be  fair  and 
 ingenuous  dealing,  instead  of  his  two  instances,  which  plainly 
 showed  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,  to  foist  in  two  others  clean  cross  to  the  Doctor's  purpose, 
 of  men  under  colour  of  faults,  abandoning  the  society  wherein, 
 they  lived  ?  I  know  not  what  others  may  think  of  this  dealing, 
 but,  to  me,  this  declining  Dr.  Potter's  cases,  and  conveying 
 others  into  their  place,  is  a  great  assurance,  that,  as  they  were 
 put  by  him,  you  could  say  nothing  to  them. 
 
 85.  But  that  no  suspicion  of  tergiversation  may  be  fastened 
 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  prin- 
 cipal statutes,  but  yet  did  generally  practise  and  also  enjoin  the 
 violation  of  some  lesser,  yet  obliging  observances  and  had  done 
 so  time  out  of  mind;  and  that  some  inferior  monks,  more  con- 
 scientious than  the  rest,  discovering  this  abuse,  should  first  with 
 all  earnestness  solicit  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  join  in  the  practice  of  them  with  the  rest  of  their  confraternity, 
 and  persisting  resolutely  in  such  a  refusal,  should  by  their  su- 
 periors 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 
 these*  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  St.  Paul  in  the  same  condem- 
 nation, who  plainly  tells  us,  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  discover- 
 ing a  certain  remedy  for  this  disease,  should  persuade  the  whole 
 company  to  make  use  of  it,  but  find  the  greatest  part  of  them  so 
 far  in  love  with  their  disease,  they  were  resolved,  to  keep  it  ; 
 fnay,  so  fond  of  it,  that  they  should  make  a  decree,  that  whoso- 
 ever would  leave  it  should  leave  their  company.     Suppose  now 
 
 *  And  besides  should  make  a  decree.— Ox/.  t  Their.— Ox/. 
 
S64:  SEPARATION   OF   rROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 that  you  yourself,  and  some  few  others,  should  notwithstanding 
 their  injunction  to  the  contrary,  free  yourselves  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  approbation  of  many  (suppose  not  mortal) 
 but  venial  corruptions. 
 
 86.  *  Thirdly,  the  reader  may  be  pleased  to  be  advertised  that 
 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  avoid- 
 ing of  all  substantial  corruptions;"  for  of  your  chuich  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  gene- 
 rally 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  tithing  of  mint,  and  anise,  and  cummin,  the 
 neglect  whereof  we  impute  unto  you,  but  the  neglect  of  judgment, 
 justice  and  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law.. 
 
 87.  Fourthly,  I  am  to  represent  unto  you  that  you  use  protestants 
 very  strangely,  in  comparing  them  to  a  company  who  all  were 
 "known  to  be  led  to  their  pretended  reformation,  not  with  an  in- 
 tent of  reformation,  but  with  some  other  sinister  intention;"  which 
 is  impossible  to  be  known  of  you,  and  therefore  to  judge  so,  is 
 against  Christian  charity  and  common  equity ;  and  to  such  a 
 "  company  as  acknowledge  that  themselves,  as  soon  as  they  were 
 gone  out  from  the  monastery  that  frefused  to  reform,  must  not 
 hope  to  be  free  from  those  or  the  like  errors  and  corruptions  for 
 which  they  left  their  brethren;"  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  itself.  For  how  can  they  possibly  fall  into  the  same 
 errors  by  forsaking  your  communion,  which  that  they  may  for- 
 sake 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 
 
 *  Thirdly,  that  you  censure,  &c.— Ox/". 
 t  Deferred.— Oxf. 
 
CHURCH    OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  365 
 
 acknowledging  that  they  have  no  hope  to  avoid  this  mischief, 
 that  they  proclaim  to  all  the  world,  that  it  is  most  prone  and 
 easy  to  do  so,  to  all  those  that  fear  God  and  love  the  truth ;  and 
 hardly  possible  for  them  to  do  otherwise,  without  supine  negli- 
 gence and  extreme  impiety. 
 
 88.  To  fit  the  reddition  of  your  perverted  simile  to  the  propo- 
 siton  of  it,  you  tell  us  "that  we  teach,  that  for  all  fundamental 
 points  the  church  is  secured  from  error."  I  answer,  fundamental 
 errors  may  signify,  either  such  as  are  repugnant  to  God's  com- 
 mand, and  so  in  their  own  nature  damnable,  though  to  those 
 which  out  of  invincible  ignorance  practise  them  not  unpardon- 
 able;   or  such  as  are  not  only  meritoriously,  but  remedilessly 
 pernicious  and  destructive  of  salvation.     We  hope  that  yours, 
 and  the  Greek,  and  other  churches  before  the  reformation,  had 
 not  so  far  apostated  from  Christ,  as  to  be  guilty  of  errors  of  the 
 latter  sort.     We  say,  that  not  only  the  catholic  church,  but  every 
 particular  true  church,  so  long  as  it  continues  a  church,  is  secu- 
 red from  fundamental  errors  of  this  kind ;  but  secured  not  abso- 
 lutely by  any  promise  of  Divine  assiS'tance,  which  being  not 
 ordinarily  irresistible,  but  tempered  to  the  nature  of  the  receivers, 
 may  be  neglected,  and  therefore  withdrawn;  but  by  the  repug- 
 nance of  any  error  in  this  sense  fundamental  to  the  essence  and 
 nature  of  a  church.      So  that,  to  speak  properly,  not  any  set 
 known  company  of  men  is  secured,  that,  though  they  neglect  the 
 means  of  avoiding  error,  yet  certainly  they  shall  not  err  *  in  fun- 
 damentals, which  were  necessary  for  the  constitution  of  an  in- 
 fallible guide  of  faith :  but  rather  they  which  know  what  is 
 meant  by  a  church,  are  secured,  or  rather  certain,  that  a  church 
 remaining  a  church  cannot  fall  into  fundamental  errors  ;  because 
 when  it  does  so,  it  is  no  longer  a  church.     As  they  are  certain 
 men  cannot  become  unreasonable  creatures,  because  when  they 
 do  so,  they  are  no  longer  men.     But  for  fundamental  errors  of 
 the  former  sort,  which  yet,  I  hope,  will  warrant  our  departure 
 from  any  communion  infected  with   them,    and  requiring  the 
 profession  of  them ;  from  such  fundamental  errors,  we   do  not 
 teach  so  much  as  the  church  catholic,  much  less  (which  only 
 were  for  your  purpose)  that  your  church  had  not  any  protection 
 or  security,  but  know  for  a  certain,  that  many  errors  of  this 
 nature  had  prevailed  against  you ;  and  that  a  vain  presumption 
 of  an  absolute  Divine  assistance  (which  yet  is  promised  but  upon 
 conditions)  made   both  your  present  errors  incurable,  and  ex- 
 posed you  to  the  imminent  danger  of  more  and  greater.     This 
 therefore  is  either  to  abuse  what  we  say,  or  to  impose  falsely 
 upon  us  what  we  say  not.    And  to  this  you  presently  add  another 
 manifest  falsehood,  viz.  that  we  say,  "that  no  particular  person 
 or  church  hath  any  promise  of  assistance  in  points  fundamental." 
 Whereas,  cross  to  this  in  diameter,  there  is  no  protestant  but 
 holds,  and  must  hold,  that  there  is  no  particular  church,  no,  nor 
 person,  but  hath  promise  of  Divine  assistance  to  lead  them  into 
 all  necessary  truth,  if  they  seek  it  as  they  should,  by  the  means 
 which  God  hath  appointed.     And  should  we  say  otherwise,  we 
 
 *  In  fundamentals  om — Oxf. 
 
366  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS   FROM    THE 
 
 should  contradict  plain  Scripture,  which  assures  us  plainly,  that 
 every  one  that  seeketh  Jindeth,  and  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth : 
 and  that,  if  we  being  evil,  can  give  good  gifts  to  our  children,  much 
 more  shall  our  heavenly  Father  give  his  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  it  : 
 and  that,  if  any  man  want  wisdom,  (especially  spiritual  wisdom,) 
 he  is  to  ask  of  God,  who  giveth  to  all  men,  and  upbraideth  not. 
 
 89.  You  obtrude  upon  us,  thirdly,  "  that  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  heroi- 
 cally done  of  him.  This  had  been  without  hyperbolizing, 
 Mundus  contra  Athanasium,  and  Athanasius  contra  mundum ; 
 neither  is  it  impossible  that  the  whole  world  should  so  far  lie  in 
 wickedness,  (as  St.  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  testify  any  such  thing  for  you  ;  for 
 how  can  we  say  properly  and  without  straining,  that  "  he  opposed 
 himself  to  all,"  unless  we  could  say  also,  that  all  opposed  them- 
 selves 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  immediateh''  before  him  thought  or 
 spake  as  he  did,"  This  is,  first,  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  justify :  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  the  lower 
 voice  of  petitions  and  remonstrances,  in  many  points,  as  he  did. 
 
 91.  Fourthly  and  lastly,  whereas  you  say,  that  "many  chief 
 learned  protestants  are  forced  to  confess  the  antiquity  of  your 
 doctrine  and  practice;"  I  answer,  of  many  doctrines  and  practices 
 of  yours  this  is  not  true,  nor  pretended  to  be  true  by  those  that 
 have  dealt  in  this  argument.  Search  your  storehouse,  Mr. 
 Brerely,  who  hath  travelled  as  far  in  this  north-west  discovery 
 as  it  was  possible  for  human  industry,  and  when  you  have  done 
 so,  I  pray  inform  me,  what  confessions  of  protestants  have  you 
 for  the  antiquity  of  the  doctrine  of  the  communion  in  one  kind  : 
 the  lawfulness  and  expedience  of  the  Latin  service :  for  the 
 present  use  of  indulgences :  for  the  pope's  power  in  temporalities 
 over  princes  :  for  the  picturing  of  the  Trinity  :  for  the  lawfulness 
 of  the  worship  of  pictures :  for  your  beads,  and  rosary,  and  Lady's 
 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  oi  Pater-nosters  and  creeds  to  tiie  honour  of  saints, 
 and  oi  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  Scriptures  to  be  read  publicly  in  the  church, 
 in  such  languages  as  all  may  understand :  for  your  doctrine  of 
 the  blessed  Virgin's  immunity  from  actual  sin;  and  for  your  doc- 
 
CHURCH    OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  367 
 
 trine  and  worship  of  her  immaculate  conception:  for  the  neces- 
 sity of  auricular  confession:  for  the  necessity  of  the  priest's 
 intention  to  obtain  benefit  by  any  of  your  sacraments:  and  lastly 
 (not  to  trouble  myself  with  finding  more,)  for  this  very  doctrine 
 of  licentiousness,  that  though  a  m.an  live  and  die  without  the 
 practice  of  Christian  virtues,  and  with  the  habits  of  many  damn- 
 able sins  unmortified,  yet  if  he  in  the  last  moment  of  life  have 
 any  sorrow  for  his  sins,  and  join  confession  with  it,  certainly  he 
 shall  be  saved.  Secondly,  they  that  confess  some  of  your  doc- 
 trines to  have  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  may  be  mistaken, 
 being  abused  by  many  words  and  phrases  of  the  Fathers,  which 
 have  the  Roman  sound,  v/hen  they  are  far  from  the  sense.  Some 
 of  them  I  am  sure  are  so :  I  will  name  Goulartius,  who  in  his 
 Commentaries  on  St.  Cyprian's  35th  Ep.  grants  that  the  sentence 
 **  Heresies  have  sprung,"  «fec.  quoted  by  you,  sect.  36.  of  this 
 chapter,  was  meant  of  Cornelius  ;  whereas  it  will  be  very  plain 
 to  any  attentive  reader  that  St.  Cyprian  speaks  there  of  himself. 
 Thirdly,  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  therefore,  unless  it  be  absolute  and 
 primitive,  is  a  certain  sign  of  true  doctrine.  For  if  the  church 
 were  obnoxious  to  corruption,  (as  we  pretend  it  was,)  who  can 
 possibly  warrant  us,  that  part  of  this  corruption  might  not  get  in 
 and  prevail  in  the  fifth,  or  fourth,  or  third,  or  second  age  ?  Es- 
 pecially seeing  the  apostles  assure  us,  that  the  mijstery  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  communi- 
 cating 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  postnate  to  apostolic,  of  some 
 points  of  your  doctrine;  so  there  want  not  papists  who  acknow- 
 ledge as  freely  the  novelty  of  many  of  them,  and  the  antiquity 
 of  ours:  a  collection  of  whose  testimonies  we  have  (without 
 thanks  to  you)  in  your  Indices  Expurgatorii:  the  Divine  Provi- 
 dence 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  qui  non  veren- 
 tur  affirmare,  nihil  esse  in  Luthero  quin  per  probatos  aulhores 
 defendi  possit :  "  There  want  not  great  divines,  which  stick  not 
 to  affirm,  that  there  is  nothing  in  Luther  which  may  not  be  de- 
 fended by  good  and  allowed  authors."  Whereas  therefore  you 
 close  up  this  simile  with,  "Consider  these  points,  and  see  whether 
 your  similitude  do  not  condemn  your  progenitors  of  schism  from 
 God's  visible  church  ;"  I  assure  you,  I  have  well  considered 
 them,  and  do  plainly  see  that  this  is  not  Dr.  Potter's  similitude, 
 
 *  Erasin,  Ep.  lib.  xv.  Ep.  ad  Godeschalcura  Ros. 
 
OOO  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS    FROM  THE 
 
 but  your  own;  and  besides,  that  it  is  wholly  made  up  of  mistakes 
 and  falsehood,  and  is  it  at  no  hand  a  sufficient  proof  of  this 
 great  accusation. 
 
 92.  Let  us  now  come  to  the  second  similitude  of  your  making ; 
 in  the  entrance  whereunto  you  tell  us,  that  from  the  "  monastery 
 Dr.  Potter  is  fled  to  an  hospital  of  persons  universally  infected 
 with  some  disease,  where  he  finds  to  be  true  what  you  supposed, 
 that  after  his  departure  from  his  brethren  he  might  fall  into 
 greater  inconveniences  and  more  infectious  diseases  than  those 
 for  which  he  left  them."  Thus  you.  But  to  deal  truly  with  you 
 I  find  nothing  of  all  this,  nor  how  it  is  consequent  from  any 
 thing  said  by  you,  or  done  by  Dr.  Potter*  But  this  I  find,  that 
 you  have  composed  this  your  similitude  as  you  did  the  former, 
 of  a  heap  of  vain  suspicions,*  pretended  to  be  grounded  on  our 
 confessions.  As,  first,  that  your  '*  diseases  which  we  forsook 
 neither  were  nor  could  be  mortal :"  whereas  we  assure  ourselves, 
 and  are  ready  to  justify,  that  they  are  and  were  mortal  in  them- 
 selves, and  would  have  been  so  to  us,  if  when  light  came  to  us,  we 
 had  loved  darkness  more  than  light.  And  Dr.  Potter,  though  he 
 hoped  your  church  wanted  no  necessary  vital  part,  that  is,  that 
 some  in  your  church  by  ignorance  might  be  saved :  yet  he  nothing 
 doubts  but  that  it  is  full  of  ulcers  without,  and  diseases  within, 
 and  is  far  from  so  extenuating  your  errors  as  to  make  them  only 
 like  the  superfluous  fingers  of  the  giant  of  Gath.  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  the  hope  hereof  was  the  only  motive  of  our 
 departure  ;  and  we  assure  ourselves  that  the  means  to  be  secured 
 from  damnable  error,  is,  not  to  be  secure,  as  you  are,  but  care- 
 fully to  use  those  means  of  avoiding  it,  to  which  God  hath  pro- 
 mised, and  will  never  fail  to  give  a  blessing.  Thirdly,  that 
 "  those  innumerable  mischiefs  which  follow  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  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  and  be  damned  with  you  for  company.  Unless 
 we  may  add,  the  impatience  of  some  protestants,  who,  not  en- 
 during to  be  torn  in  pieces,  like  sheep  by  a  company  of  wolves 
 without  resistance,  chose  rather  to  die  like  soldiers  than  martyrs. 
 93.  But  you  proceed,  and  falling  into  a  fit  of  admiration,  cry 
 out  and  say  thus,  "  To  what  pass  hath  heresy  brought  men,  who 
 blush  not  to  compare  the  beloved  spouse  of  the  Lord,  the  only 
 dove,"  &c.  "  to  a  monastery  that  must  be  forsaken,  to  the  giant 
 in  Gath  with  superfluous  fingers  !"  But  this  *'  spouse  of  Christ," 
 this  only  "  dove,"  this  "  purchase  of  our  Saviour's  blood."  this 
 *'  catholic  church,"  which  you  thus  almost  deify,  what  is  it  but 
 a  society  of  men,  whereof  every  particular,  and  by  consequence 
 the  whole  company,  is  or  may  be  guilty  of  many  sins  daily  com- 
 mitted against  knowledge  and  conscience  ?     Now  I  would  fain 
 
 *  Suppositions. — Oxf, 
 
CHURCH    OF   HOME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  369 
 
 understand  why  one  error  in  faith,  especially  if  not  fundamental, 
 should  not  consist  with  the  holiness  of  this  spouse,  this  dove, 
 this  church,  as  well  as  many  and  great  sins  committed  against 
 knowledge  and  conscience  ?  If  this  be  not  to  strain  at  gnats 
 and  swallow  camels,  I  would  fain  understand  what  it  is.  And 
 here,  by  the  way,  I  desire  you  to  consider  whether,  as  it  were 
 with  one  stroke  of  a  sponge,  you  do  not  wipe  out  all  that  you 
 have  said,  to  prove  protestants  schismatics  for  separating  from 
 your  church,  though  supposed  to  be  in  some  errors  not  funda- 
 mental. "  For  if  any  such  error  may  make  her  deserve  to  be 
 compared  to  a  monastery  so  disordered  that  it  must  be  forsaken ;" 
 then  if  you  suppose  (as  here  you  do)  your  church  in  such  errors, 
 your  church  is  so  disordered  that  it  must,  and  therefore  without 
 question  may  be  forsaken ;  I  mean  in  those  her  disorders  and 
 corruptions,  and  no  further. 
 
 94.  And  yet  you  have  not  done  with  those  similitudes,  ''  but 
 must  observe,"  you  say,  "one  thing,  and  that  is,  that  as  these 
 reformers  of  the  monastery,  and  others  who  left  the  diseased  com- 
 pany, could  not  deny  but  that  they  left  the  said  communities; 
 so  Luther  and  and  rest  cannot  pretend  not  to  have  left  the 
 visible  church.  And  that  Dr.  Potter  speaks  very  strangely  when 
 he  says, in  a  society  of  men  universaly  infected  with  some  disease, 
 they  that  should  free  themselves  from  the  common  disease  could 
 not  be  therefore  said  to  separate  from  the  society.  For  if  they 
 do  not  separate  themselves  from  the  society  of  the  infected 
 persons,  how  do  they  free  themselves  from  the  common  disease  ?'* 
 To  which  I  answer,  that  indeed  if  you  speak  of  the  reformers  of 
 a  monastery,  and  of  the  deserters  of  the  diseased  company,  as 
 you  put  the  cases,  that  is,  of  those  which  left  these  communities 
 then  it  is  as  true  as  gospel,  that  they  cannot  deny  but  that  they 
 left  the  said  communities.  But  it  appears  not  to  me,  how  it  will 
 ensue  hereupon,  that  Luther  and  the  rest  cannot  pretend  not  to 
 have  left  the  visible  church.  For,  to  my  apprehension,  this  argu- 
 ment is  very  weak : 
 
 They  which  left  some  communities  cannot  truly  deny  but  that 
 they  left  them ;  therefore  Luther  and  his  followers  cannot 
 deny  but  that  they  left  the  visible  church. 
 Where,  methinks,  you  prove  little,  but  take  for  granted  that 
 which  is  one  of  the  greatest  questions  amongst  us,  that  is,  that 
 the  company  which  Luther  left  was  the  whole  visible  church : 
 whereas  you  know  we  say,  it  was  but  a  part  of  it,  and  that  cor- 
 rupted, and  obstinate  in  her  corruptions.  Indeed  that  Luther 
 and  his  followers  left  off  the  practice  of  those  corruptions  wherein 
 the  whole  visible  church  did  communicate  formerly,  (which  1 
 meant  when  I  acknowledged  above,  that  they  forsook  the  external 
 communion  of  the  visible  church,)  or  that  they  left  that  part  of 
 the  visible  church  in  her  corruptions  which  would  not  be  re- 
 formed ;  these  things,  if  you  desire,  I  shall  be  willing  to  grant  ; 
 and  that  by  a  synecdoche  of  the  whole  for  the  part,  he  might  be 
 said  to  forsake  the  visible  church,  that  is,  a  part  of  it,  and  the 
 greater  part.  But  that,  properly  speaking,  he  forsook  the  v/hole 
 visible  church,  I  hope  you  will  excuse  me  if  I  grant  not  this, 
 
 B  B 
 
370  SEPARATION    OF   PROTESTANTS   FROM    THE 
 
 until  you  bring  better  proof  of  it  than  your  former  similitude. 
 And  my  reason  is  this,  because  he  and  his  followers  were  a  part 
 of  this  church,  and  ceased  not  to  be  so  by  their  reformation.  Now 
 he  and  his  followers  certainly  forsook  not  themselves ;  therefore 
 not  every  part  of  the  church,  therefore  not  the  whole  church. 
 But  then  if  you  speak  of  Dr.  Potter's  cases,  according  as  he  put 
 them,  and  answer  not  your  own  arguments,  when  you  make  show 
 of  answering  his ;  methinks  it  should  not  be  so  unreasonable  as 
 you  make  it,  for  the  persons  he  speaks  of  to  deny  that  they  left 
 the  communities  whereof  they  were  members.  For  example, 
 that  the  monks  of  St.  Bennet's  order  make  one  body,  whereof 
 their  several  monasteries  are  several  members,  I  presume  it  will 
 be  easily  granted.  Suppose  now,  that  all  these  monasteries  being 
 quite  out  of  order,  some  twenty  or  thirty  of  them  should  reform 
 themselves,  the  rest  persisting  still  in  their  irregular  courses ; 
 were  it  such  a  monstrous  impudence  as  you  make  it,  for  these 
 monasteries,  which  we  suppose  reformed,  to  deny  that  they  forsook 
 their  order,  or  the  community  whereof  they  were  parts?  In  my 
 opinion  it  is  no  such  matter.  Let  the  world  judge.  Again, 
 whereas  the  Doctor  says,  "that  in  a  society  of  men  universally 
 infected  with  some  disease,  they  that  should  free  themselves  from 
 the  common  disease  could  not  therefore  be  said  to  separate  from 
 the  society ;"  it  is  very  strange  to  me  that  you  should  say,  he 
 speaks  very  strangely.  Truly,  sir,  I  am  extremely  deceived  if 
 his  words  be  not  plain  English  and  plain  sense,  and  contain  such 
 a  manifest  truth  as  cannot  be  denied  with  modesty,  nor  gone 
 about  to  be  proved  without  vanity.  For  whatsoever  is  proved 
 must  be  proved  by  something  more  evident.  Now  what  can  be 
 more  evident  than  this,  that  if  some  whole  family  were  taken 
 with  agues,  if  the  father  of  this  family  should  free  himself  from 
 his,  that  he  should  not  therefore  deservedly  be  thought  to  aban- 
 don and  desert  his  family  ?  But  (say  you)  if  they  do  not  separate 
 themselves  from  the  society  of  the  wicked  persons,  how  do  they 
 free  themselves  from  the  common  disease  ?  Do  they  at  the  same 
 time  remain  in  the  company,  and  yet  depart  from  those  infected 
 creatures  ?  Methinks  a  writer  of  controversies  should  not  be  igno- 
 rant how  this  may  be  done  without  any  such  difficulty.  But  if 
 you  do  not  know,  I  will  tell  you;  There  is  no  necessity  they 
 should  leave  the  company  of  these  infected  persons  at  all,  much 
 less  that  they  should  at  once  depart  from  it  and  remain  with  it, 
 which  1  confess  were  very  difficult.  But  if  they  will  free  them- 
 selves from  their  disease,  let  them  stay  where  they  are,  and  take 
 physic.  Or  if  you  would  be  better  informed  how  this  strange 
 thing  may  be  done,  learn  from  yourself,  "they  may  free  their  own 
 persons  from  the  common  disease,  yet  so  that  they  remain  still 
 in  the  company  infected,  eating  and  drinking  with  them,"  &c. : 
 which  are  your  own  words  within  four  or  five  lines  after  this : 
 plainly  showing,  that  your  mistaking  Dr.  Potter's  meaning,  and 
 your  wondering  at  his  words  as  at  some  strange  monsters,  was 
 all  this  while  affected,  and  that  you  are  conscious  to  yourself  of 
 perverting  his  argument,  that  you  may  seem  to  say  something, 
 when  indeed  you  say  nothing.    Whereas  therefore  you  add,  "we 
 
CHURCH    OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  371 
 
 must  then  say  that  they  separate  themselves  from  the  persons, 
 though  it  be  by  occasion  of  the  disease ;"  I  assure  you  good  sir, 
 you  must  not  do  so  at  any  hand ;  for  then  you  alter  and  spoil  Dr. 
 Potter's  case  quite,  and  fight  not  with  his  reason,  but  your  own 
 shadow.  For  the  instance  of  *'  a  man  freeing  himself  from  the 
 disease  of  his  company,  and  not  leaving  his  company,"  is  very 
 fit  to  prove,  by  the  parity  of  reason,  that  it  is  very  possible  a  man 
 may  leave  the  corruptions  of  a  church,  and  not  leave  the  church, 
 that  is,  not  cease  to  be  a  member  of  it :  but  yours  "  of  a  man  leaving 
 his  company  by  occasion  of  their  disease,"  hath  no  analogy  at 
 all  with  this  business. 
 
 95.  But  "  Luther  and  his  followers  did  not  continue  in  the 
 company  of  those  from  whose  diseases  they  pretended  to  free 
 themselves."  Very  true ;  neither  was  it  said  they  did  so.  There 
 is  no  necessity  that  that  which  is  compared  to  another  thing 
 should  agree  with  it  in  all  things  ;  it  is  sufficient  if  it  agree  m 
 that  wherein  it  is  compared.  A  man  freeing  himself  from  the 
 common  disease  of  a  society,  and  yet  continuing  a  part  of  it,  is 
 here  compared  to  Luther  and  his  followers  freeing  themselves 
 from  the  corruptions  of  the  visible  church,  and  continuing  a  part 
 of  the  church.  As  for  accompanying  the  other  parts  of  it  in  all 
 things,  it  was  neither  necessary,  nor,  without  destroying  our  sup- 
 position of  their  forsaking  the  corruptions  of  the  church,  possible : 
 not  necessary,  for  they  may  be  parts  of  the  church  which  do  not 
 join  with  other  parts  of  it  in  all  observances;  nor  possible,  for 
 had  he  accompanied  them  in  all  things,  he  had  not  freed  him- 
 self from  the  common  corruptions. 
 
 96.  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  superiors,  both  spiritual  and  temporal,  as  is  notorious." 
 The  proofs  hereof  are  wanting,  and  therefore  1  might  defer  my 
 answer  until  they  were  produced:  yet  take  this  beforehand :  it 
 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  St.  Paul, 
 the  weapons  of  the  Christian  warfare  are  not  carnal.  And  great 
 reason;  for  human  violence  may  make  men  counterfeit,  but  can- 
 not 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  place  by  those  that  have 
 power  as  well  as  they,  and  think  they  have  truth  as  well  as  they,) 
 what  could  follow  but  the  maintenance  perhaps  of  truth,  but 
 perhaps  only  of  the  profession  of  it  in  one  place,  and  the  oppres- 
 sion of  it  in  a  hundred  .f*  What  will  follow  from  it,  but  the 
 preservation  peradventure  of  unity,  but  perad venture  only  of 
 uniformity,  in  particular  states  and  churches ;  but  the  immorta- 
 lizing the  greater  and  more  lamentable  divisions  of  Christendom 
 and  the  world  ?    And  therefore,  what  can  follow  from  it,  but 
 
372  SEPARATION   0?   TROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 perhaps,  in  the  judgment  of  carnal  policy,  the  temporal 
 benefit  and  tranquillity  of  temporal  states  and  kingdoms,  but 
 the  infinite  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  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  tran- 
 quillity in  this  world ;  who  think  of  no  other  means  to  preserve 
 states,  but  human  power  and  Machiavelian  policy,  and  believe 
 no  other  creed  but  this,  Regi  aut  civitati  imperium  hahenti  nihU 
 injustum  quod  utile  ;  such  men  as  these  it  may  become  to  main- 
 tain by  worldly  power  and  violence  their  state  instrument,  re- 
 ligion. For  if  all  be  vain  and  false,  (as  in  their  judgment  it  is,) 
 the  present  whatsoever  is  better  than  any,  because  it  is  already 
 settled ;  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  mankind,  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,  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  man's 
 opinion ;  unless  it  be  such  an  opinion  by  which  disobedience  ta 
 authority,  or  impiety,  is  taught  or  licensed ;  which  sort,  I  confess, 
 may  justly  be  punished  as  well  as  other  faults;  or,  unless  this 
 sanguinary  doctrine  be  joined  with  it,  that  it  is  lawful  for  him 
 by  human  violence  to  enforce  others  to  it.  Therefore  if  pro- 
 testants  did  offer  violence  to  other  men's  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  their  unjust  and  tyrannous  violence, 
 though  it  may  be  avoided,  (according  to  that  of  our  Saviour, 
 When  they  persecute  you  in  one  city,  flee  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  murderers,  and  to  die  for  their  religion  rather  than  to  fight 
 for  it.  But  of  all  the  men  in  the  world,  you  are  the  most  uufit 
 to  accuse  them  hereof,  against  whom  the  souls  of  the  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  heretics,  to  your  blind  zeal  and  furious  superstition :  who 
 teach  plainly,  that  you  may  propagate  your  religion,  when- 
 soever you  have  power,  by  deposing  of  kings,  and  invasion  of 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    KOT    GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  373 
 
 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  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  degree  of  their 
 separation,  yet  certainly  their  separation  itself  was  not  schis- 
 matical,  but  innocent;  and  not  only  so,  but  just  and  necessary. 
 And  as  for  your  obtruding  upon  Dr.  Potter,  that  he  should  say, 
 *'  there  neither  was  nor  could  be  just  cause  to  do  so,  no  more 
 than  to  depart  from  Christ  himself,"  I  have  showed  divers  times 
 already.,  that  you  deal  very  injuriously  with  him,  confounding 
 together  "departing  from  the  church,"  and  *' departing  from 
 some  general  opinions  and  practices,"  which  did  not  constitute, 
 but  vitiate,  not  make  the  church,  but  mar  it.  For  though  he 
 says  that  which  is  most  true,  that  "  there  can  be  no  just  cause  to 
 depart  from  the  church,"  that  is,  to  cease  being  a  member  of  the 
 church,  "no  more  than  to  depart  from  Christ  himself,"  inasmuch 
 as  these  are  not  divers,  but  the  same  thing ;  yet  he  no  where 
 denies  but  there  might  be  just  and  necessary  cause  to  depart 
 from  some  opinions  and  practices  of  your  church,  nay,  of  the 
 catholic  church.  And  therefore  you  do  vainly  infer,  that  "  Luther 
 and  his  followers  for  so  doing  were  schismatics." 
 
 97.  Ad  §  35.  I  answer  in  a  word,  that  neither  are  Optatus's 
 sayings  rules  of  faith,  and  therefore  not  fit  to  determine  contro- 
 versies of  faith  :  and  then,  that  Majorinus  might  well  be  a  schis- 
 matic for  departing  from  Caecilianus,  and  the  chair  of  Cyprian 
 and  Peter,  without  cause ;  and  yet  Luther  and  his  followers,  who 
 departed  from  the  communion  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and  the 
 bishop  of  their  own  diocsse,  be  none,  because  they  had  just  and 
 necessary  cause  of  their  departure.  For  otherwise  they  must 
 have  continued  in  the  profession  of  known  errors,  and  the  practice 
 of  manifest  corruptions. 
 
 98.  Ad  §  36.  In  the  next  section  you  tell  us,  that  *'  Christ  our 
 Lord  gave  St.  Peter  and  his  successors  authority  over  his  whole 
 militant  church."  And  for  proof  hereof,  "you  first  refer  us 
 Brerely,  citing  exactly  the  places  of  such  chief  protestants  as 
 have  confessed  the  antiquity  of  this  point."  Where  first  you 
 fall  into  the  fallacy  which  is  called  ignoratio  elenchi,  or  mistaking 
 the  question ;  for  being  to  prove  this  point  true,  you  only  prove 
 it  ancient :  which  to  what  purpose  is  it,  when  l3oth  the  parties 
 litigant  are  agreed  that  many  errors  were  held  by  many  of  the 
 ancient  doctors,  much  more  ancient  than  any  of  those  who  are 
 pretended  to  be  confessed  by  protestants  to  have  held  you  in 
 this  matter ;  and  when  those  whom  you  have  to  do  with,  and 
 whom  it  is  vain  to  dispute  against,  but  out  of  principles  received 
 by  them.,  are  all  peremptory,  that  no  novelty  be  a  certain  note  of 
 falsehood,  yet  no  antiquity  less  than  apostolical  is  a  certain  note 
 of  truth  ?  Yet  this  I  say  not  as  if  I  did  acknowledge  what  you 
 pretend^  that  protestants  did  confess  the  Fathers  against  them  in 
 
 *  Of  tbat  Dart  of  the  unreformed  part  of  the  church.— Or/. 
 
S74  SEPARATION    OF   PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 this  point.  For  the  point  here  issuable  is  not,  whether  St.  Peter 
 were  head  of  the  church  ?  nor,  whether  the  bishop  of  Rome  had 
 any  priority  in  the  church  ?  nor,  whether  he  had  authority  over 
 it  given  him  by  the  church  ?  but,  whether  by  Divine  right,  and 
 by  Christ's  appointment,  he  were  head  of  the  catholic  church? 
 Now,  having  perused  Brerely,  I  cannot  find  any  one  protestant 
 confessing  any  one  Father  to  have  concurred  in  opinion  with 
 you  in  this  point.  And  the  reader  hath  reason  to  suspect,  that 
 you  also  out  of  all  the  Fathers  could  not  find  any  one  authority 
 pertinent  to  this  purpose  ;  for  otherwise  you  were  much  to  blame, 
 citing  so  few,  to  make  choice  of  such  as  are  impertinent.  For 
 let  the  understanding  reader  peruse  the  55th  Epist.  of  St.  Cyprian, 
 with  an  ordinary  intention,  out  of  which  you  take  your  first  place, 
 and  I  am  confident  that  he  shall  find  that  he  means  nothing  else 
 by  the  words  quoted  by  you,  but  that  in  one  particulrr  church, 
 at  one  time,  there  ought  to  be  but  one  bishop,  and  that  he  should 
 be  obeyed  in  all  things  lawful;  the  non-performance  whereof 
 was  one  of  the  most  ordinary  causes  of  heresies  against  the  faith, 
 and  schism  from  the  communion  of  the  church  universal.  He 
 shall  find,  secondly,  and  that  by  many  convincing  arguments, 
 that  though  he  write  to  Cornelius  bishop  of  Rome,  yet  he  speaks 
 not  of  him,  but  of  himself  then  bishop  of  Carthage,  against  whom 
 a  faction  of  schismatics  had  then  set  up  another.  And  therefore 
 here  your  ingenuity  is  to  be  commended  above  many  of  your 
 side :  for  whereas  they  ordinarily  abuse  this  place  to  prove,  that 
 in  the  whole  church  there  ought  to  be  but  one  priest  and  one 
 judge ;  you  seem  somewhat  diffident  hereof,  and  thereupon  say, 
 ''That  the  words  plainly  condemn  Luther,  whether  he  will 
 understand  them  as  spoken  of  the  universal,  or  of  every  particular 
 church."  But  whether  they  condemn  Luther,  is  another  ques- 
 tion. The  question  here  is,  whether  they  plainly  prove  the 
 pope's  supremacy  over  all  other  bishops  ?  Which  certainly  they 
 are  as  far  from  proving,  as  from  proving  the  supremacy  of  any 
 other  bishop ;  seeing  it  is  evident  they  were  intended,  not  of  one 
 bishop  over  the  whole  catholic  church,  but  of  one  bishop  in  one 
 particular  church. 
 
 99.  And  no  less  impertinent  in  your  saying  out  of  Optatus,  if 
 it  be  well  looked  into,  though  at  the  first  sight  it  may  seem 
 otherwise ;  because  Optatus's  scene  happened  to  be  Rome, 
 whereas  St.  Cyprian's  was  Carthage.  The  truth  is,  the  Dona.- 
 tists  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  St.  Cyprian's 
 above-mentioned  ground  of  "  one  bishop  in  one  church,"  proves 
 them  schismatics  for  so  doing,  and  he  proves  it  by  this  argu- 
 meiit:  St.  Peter  was  first  bishop  of  Rome,  neither  did  the  apostles 
 attribute  to  themselves  each  one  his  particular  chair;  (under- 
 stand, in  that  city;  for  in  other  places  others,  1  hope,  had  chairs 
 beside  St.  Peter;)  and  therefore  he  is  a  schismatic,  who  against 
 that  one  single  chair  erects  another,  (understand,  as  before,  in 
 that  place,)  making  another  bishop  of  that  diocese  besides  him 
 who  was  lawfully  elected  to  it. 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF  SCHISM.  tt/O 
 
 100.  But  ''yet  by  the  way  he  styles    St.  Peter  head  of  the 
 apostles,   and  says,   that  from  thence  he  was  called  Cephas.'* 
 Jns.   Perhaps   he   was  abused  into  this   opinion,   by  thinking 
 Cephas  derived  from  the  Greek  word  xKpxXvi,  a  head  ,•  whereas  it 
 is  a  Syriac  word,  and  signifies  a  stone.     Besides,  St.  Peter  might 
 be  head  of  the  apostles,  that  is,  first  in  order  and  honour  among 
 them,  and  not  have  supreme  authority  over  them.     And  indeed 
 that  St.  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  show  to  him  no  sign  of  subjection,  methinks  is  as 
 strange  as  that  a  king  of  England  for  ♦  twenty-five  years  together 
 should  do  no  act  of  regality,  nor  receive  any  one  acknowledg- 
 ment 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  virtue  whereof  St.  Peter  is  pretended  to  have  been, 
 made  their  head)  should  still  be  so  ignorant  of  it  as  to  question 
 which  of  them  should  be  the  greatest  1    Yet  more  strange,  that 
 our  Saviour  should  not  bring  them  out  of  their  error,  by  telling 
 them  St.  Peter  was  the  man,  but  rather   confirm  it  by  saying, 
 The  kings  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  authoritij  over  them,  hut  it  should 
 not  he  so  among  them.     No  less  a  wonder  was  it,  that  St.  Paul 
 should  so  far  forget  St.  Peter  and  himself,  as  that,  first,  mention- 
 ing of  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  St.  Peter  the  highest,  but  place  him  in  equi- 
 page with  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  and  say,  God  hath  appointed 
 (not,  first  Peter,  then  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  hnt)  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  eitheir  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  St.  Peter,  must  be  before  any  of  them.    Thirdly 
 and  lastly,  that  speaking  of  himself  in  particular,  and  perhaps 
 comparing  himself  with  St.  Peter  in  particular,  rather  than  any 
 other,  he  should  say  in  plain  terms,  /  am  in  nothing  inferior  to 
 the  very  chief  est  apostles.     But  besides  all  this,  though  we  should 
 grant  against  all  those  probabilities,  and  many  more,  that  Opta- 
 tus  meant  that  St.  Peter  was  head  of  the  aspostles,  not  in  our, 
 but  in  your  sense,  and  St.  Peter  indeed  was  so  ;  yet  still  you  are 
 very  far  from  showing,  that  in  the  judgment  of   Optatus  the 
 bishop  of  Rome  was  to  be  at  all,  much  less  by  Divine  right,  suc- 
 cessor to  St.  Peter  in  this  his  headship  and  authority.     For 
 what  incongruity  is  there,  if  we  say,  that  he  might  succeed  St. 
 Peter  in  that  part  of  his  care,  the  government  of  that  particular 
 church,  (as  sure  he  did  even  while  St.  Peter  was  living,)  and 
 yet  that  neither  he  nor  any  man  was  to  succeed  him  in  his 
 apostleship,  nor  in  his  government  of  the  church  universal? 
 
 *  for  tweuty-five  years  should. — Oxf. 
 
376  SEPARATION   OF   PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 especially  seeing  St.  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  by  lay- 
 ing 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  suc- 
 ceed foundations ;  so  it  may  be  in  the  church,  that  any  other 
 apostles*  should  succeed  the  first. 
 
 101.  Ad  §  37.  The  next  paragraph  I  might  well  pass  over,  as 
 having  no  argument  in  it.      For  there  is  nothing  in  it  but  two 
 sayings  of  St.  Austin,  which  I  have  great  reason  to  esteem  no 
 argument,  until  you  will  promise  me  to  grant  whatsoever  I  shall 
 prove  by  two  sayings  of  St.  Austin.    But  moreover,  the  second 
 of  these  sentences  seems  to  me  to  imply  the  contradiction  of 
 the  first.     For  to  say,  "  that  the  sacrilege  of  schism  is  eminent, 
 when  there  is  no  cause  of   separation,"  implies,  to  my  under- 
 standing, that  there  may  be  a  cause  of  separation.     Now  in  the 
 first,  he  says  plainly,  "  that  this  is  impossible."     Neither  doth 
 any  reconciliation  of  his  words  occur  to  me,  but  only  this,  that 
 in  the  former  he  speaks  upon  supposition,  that  the  public  ser- 
 vice of  God,  wherein  men  are  to  communicate,  is  unpolluted, 
 and  no  unlawful  thing  practised  in  their  communion ;  which 
 was  so  true  of  their  communion,  that  the  Donatists,  who  sepa- 
 rated, did  not  deny  it.     And  to  make  this  answer  no  improbable 
 evasion,  it  is  observable  out  of  St.  Austin  and  Optatus,  that 
 though  the  Donatists,  at  the  beginning  of  their  separation,  pre- 
 tended no  cause  for  it,  but  only  that  the  men  from  whom  they 
 separated  were  defiled  with  the  contagion  of  traditors ;  yet  after- 
 wards, to  make  the  continuance  of  it  more  justifiable,  they  did 
 invent  and  spread  abroad  this  calumny  against  catholics,  that 
 they  set  pictures  upon  their  altars;    which  when  St.  Austin 
 comes  to  answer,  he  does  not  deny  the  possibility  of  the  thing, 
 for  that  had  been  to  deny  the  catholic  church  to'  be  made  up  of 
 men,  all  w^hich  had  free  wdll  to  do  evil,  and  therefore  might  pos- 
 sibly agree  in  doing  it ;  and  had  he  denied  this,  the  action  of 
 after-ages  had  been  his  refutation  :  neither  does  he  say,  (as  you 
 would  have  done,)  that  it  was  true,  they  placed  pictures  there, 
 and  moreover  worshipped  them ;  but  yet  not  for  their  own  sakes, 
 but  for  theirs  who  were  represented  by  them :  neither  does  he 
 say,  (as  you  do  in  this  chapter,)  that  though  this  were  granted 
 a  corruption,  yet  were  they  not  to  separate  for  it.    What  then 
 does  he  ?     Certainly  nothing  else  but  abhor  the  thing,  and  deny 
 the  imputation.    Which  way  of  answering  does  not,  I  confess, 
 plainly  show,  but  yet  it  somewhat  intimates,  that  he  had  no- 
 thing else  to  answer ;  and  that  if  he  could  not  have  denied 
 this,  he  could  not  have  denied  the  Donatists'  separation  from 
 them  to  have  been  just.     If  this  answer  to  this  little  argument 
 seem  not  sufficient,  I  add  moreover,  that  if  it  be  applied  to 
 Luther's  separation,  it  hath  the  common  fault  of  all  your  alle- 
 gations out  of   Fathers — impertinence.     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 
 
 *  Ajjostle.— Oxf. 
 
CHURCH   OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM. 
 
 377 
 
 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  dehuerat  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 
 catholics,  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  St.  Austin, 
 which  stands  upon  no  other  foundation  but  the  unity  of  the 
 whole  world's  communion. 
 
 102.  Ad  §  38.  If  "  Luther  were  m  the  right,  most  certain 
 those  protestants  that  differed  from  him  were  in  the  wrong :" 
 but  that  either  he  or  they  were  schismatics,  it  follows  not.  Or 
 if  it  does,  then  either  the  Jesuits  are  schismatics  from  the  Domi- 
 nicans, or  they  from  the  Jesuits  ;  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  a  plain  and 
 irreconcilable  contradiction  ;  and  therefore  one  part  must  be  in 
 error,  at  least  not  fundamental.  Thus  your  argument  returns 
 upon  yourself,  and,  if  it  be  good,  proves  the  Roman  church  in  a 
 manner  to  be  made  up  of  schismatics.  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  schismatic. 
 
 103.  Ad  §  39.  In  the  next  place  you  number  up  your  victories, 
 and  tell  us,  "  that  out  of  those  premises  this  conclusion  follows, 
 that  Luther  and  his  followers  were  schismatics  from  the  visible 
 church,  the  pope,  the  diocese  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  man's  self;  be- 
 cause the  selfsame  protestant  is  convicted  to-day  that  his  yester- 
 day's opinion  was  an  error."  To  v/hich  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  caa 
 make  them  schismatics,  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 
 schismatics  from  themselves,  "because  the  selfsame  protestant  to- 
 day is  convicted  in  conscience,  that  his  yesterday's  opinion  was  an 
 error."  It  seems,  then,  that  they  that  hold  errors  must  hold 
 them  fast,  and  take  special  care  of 'being  convicted  in  conscience, 
 that  they  are  in  error,  for  fear  of  being  schismatics  !  Protestants 
 must  continue  piotestants,  and  puritans  puritans,  and  papists  pa- 
 pists, 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  schismatics,  and  that  from  themselves.     And  this 
 
378  SEPARATION   OP   PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 perhaps  is  the  cause  that  makes  papists  so  obstinate,  not  only  m 
 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  for  the  Jesuits.  Without 
 question,  this  gentleman  my  adversary  knows  none  such,  or  else 
 methinks  he  should  not  have  objected  it  to  Dr.  Potter,  "  that  he 
 knew  a  man  in  the  world,  who  from  a  puritan  was  turned  to  a 
 moderate  protestant;"  which  is  likely  to  be  true.  But  sure,  if 
 this  be  all  his  fault,  he  hath  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  his 
 acquaintance :  for  possibly  it  may  be  a  fault  to  be  in  error,  be- 
 cause many  times  it  proceeds  from  a  fault ;  but  sure  the  for- 
 saking of  error  cannot  be  a  sin,  unless  to  be  in  error  be  a  virtue. 
 And  therefore  to  do  as  you  do,  to  damn  men  for  false  opinions, 
 to  call  them  schismatics  for  leaving  them ;  to  make  pertinacy 
 in  error,  that  is,  an  unwillingness  to  be  convicted,  or  a  resolu- 
 tion not  to  be  convicted,  the  form  of  heresy,  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  yesterday's  opinion 
 was  an  error,  and  yet  thinks  he  was  no  schismatic  for  doing  so, 
 and  desires  to  be  informed  by  you,  whether  or  not  he  was  mis- 
 taken ?  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  ta 
 find  the  right  way  to  some  remote  city,  where  he  had  never  been, 
 (as  the  party  I  speak  of  had  never  been  in  heaven,)  did  yet  mis- 
 take 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  God's  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  y 
 as  wherein,  for  God's  sake,  and  (as  he  was  verily  persuaded)  out 
 of  love  to  the  truth,  he  went,  upon  a  certain  expectation  of  those 
 inconveniences,  which  to  ingenious  natures  are  of  all  most  terri- 
 ble :  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  some  principles  commonly 
 received  by  protestants  as  well  as  papists,  and  which  by  his 
 education  had  got  possession  of  his  understanding. 
 
 104.  Ad  §  40,  41.  Dr.  Potter,  p.  81,  of  his  book,  to  prove  our 
 separation  from  you  not  only  lawful,  but  necessary,  hath  these 
 words:  "Although  we  confess  the  church  of  Rome"  (in  some 
 sense)  "to  be  a  true  church,  and  her  error"  (to  some  men)  "not 
 damnable ;  yet  for  us,  who  are  convinced  in  conscience  that  she 
 
CHURCH    OF   KOME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  379 
 
 errs  in  many  things,  a  necessity  lies  upon  us,  even  under  pain- 
 of  damnation,  to  forsake  her  in  those  errors."  He  means  not,  in 
 the  belief  of  those  errors,  for  that  is  presupposed  to  be  done  al- 
 ready ;  for  whosoever  is  convinced  in  conscience  that  she  errs, 
 hath  for  matter  of  belief  forsaken,  that  is,  ceased  to  believe,  those 
 errors.  This  therefore  he  meant  not,  nor  could  not  mean ;  but 
 that  whosoever  is  convinced  in  conscience  that  the  church  of 
 Rome  errs,  cannot  with  a  good  conscience  but  forsake  her  in  the 
 profession  and  practice  of  these  errors :  and  the  reason  hereof 
 is  manifest,  because  otherwise  he  must  profess  what  he  believes 
 not,  and  practise  what  he  approves  not.  Which  is  no  more  than 
 yourself  in  thesi  have  divers  times  affirmed :  for  in  one  place  you 
 say,  "it  is  unlawful  to  speak  any  the  least  untruth."  Now  he 
 that  professeth  your  religion,  and  believes  it  not,  what  else  doth 
 he  but  live  in  a  perpetual  lie?  Again,  in  another,  you  have 
 called  them  that  profess  one  thing,  and  believe  another,  "  a 
 damned  crew  of  dissembling  sycophants;"  and  therefore  in 
 inveighing  against  protestants  for  forsaking  the  profession  of 
 these  errors,  the  belief  whereof  they  had  already  forsaken,  what 
 do  you  but  rail  at  them  for  not  being  "  a  damned  crew  of  dis- 
 sembling sycophants  ?"  And  lastly,  sect.  42,  of  this  chapter, 
 within  three  leaves  after  this,  whereas  "  Dr.  Potter  grants  but 
 only  a  necessity  of  peaceable  external  obedience  to  the  declara- 
 tion of  the  church,  though  perhaps  erroneous,  (provided  it  be  in 
 matter  not  of  faith,  but  of  opinions  or  rites,)"  condemning  those 
 men,  who,  by  occasion  of  errors  of  this  quality,  disturb  the 
 church's  peace,  and  cast  off  her  communion :  upon  this  occasion 
 you  come  upon  him  with  this  bitter  sarcasm;  "  I  thank  you  for 
 your  ingenuous  confession,  in  recompence  whereof  I  will  do  a 
 deed  of  charity,  by  putting  you  in  mind  into  what  labyrinths  you 
 are  brought,  by  teaching  that  the  church  may  err  in  some  points 
 of  faith,  and  yet  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  oppose  his 
 judgment,  or  leave. her  communion,  though  he  have  evidence  of 
 Scripture  against  her!  "Will  you  have  such  a  man  dissemble 
 against  his  conscience,  or  externally  deny  truth  known  to  be  con- 
 tained in  Holy  Scripture  ?"  I  answer  for  him.  No,  it  is  not  he, 
 but  you,  that  would  have  men  do  so :  not  he,  who  says  plainly, 
 that  "whosoever  is  convinced  in  conscience  that  any  church 
 errs,  is  bound,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  forsake  her  in  her 
 profession  and  practice  of  these  errors  ;"  but  you,  who  find  fault 
 with  him,  and  make  long  discourses  against  him  for  thus  affirm- 
 ing :  not  he,  who  can  easily  wind  himself  out  of  your  imaginary 
 labyrinth,  by  telling  you,  that  he  no  where  denies  it  lawful  for 
 any  man  to  oppose  any  church  erring  in  matter  of  faith ;  for 
 that  he  speaks  not  of  matters  of  faith  at  all,  but  only  of  rites  and 
 opinions.  And  in  such  matters,  he  says  indeed  at  first,  "  it  is 
 not  lawful  for  any  man  to  oppose  his  judgmemt  to  the  public:" 
 but  he  presently  explains  himself  by  saying,  not  only  that  he 
 "  may  hold  an  opinion  contrary  to  the  public  resolution,  but 
 besides  that  he  may  offer  it  to  be  considered  of,"  (so  far  is  he 
 from  requiring  any  sinful  dissimulation,)  "provided  he  do  it 
 with  great  probability  of  reason,  very  modestly  and  respectfully. 
 
380  SETA-RATIOK    OF    PKOTESTANTS    FROM    THE 
 
 and  without  separation  from  the  church's  communion.  It  is  not 
 therefore,  in  this  case,  opposing  a  man's  private  judgment  to 
 the  public  simply,  which  the  Doctor  finds  fault  with ;  but  the 
 degree  only  and  malice  of  this  opposition,  "  opposing  it  facti- 
 ously ;"  and  not  holding  a  man's  own  conceit,  different  from  the 
 church  absolutel3^  which  here  he  censures ;  but  a  factious  ad- 
 vancing it,  and  despising  the  church,  so  far  as  to  cast  off  her 
 communion,"  because,  forsooth,  she  errs  in  some  opinion,  or 
 useth  some  inconvenient,  though  not  impious,  rites  and  cere- 
 monies. Little  reason  therefore  have  you  to  accuse  him  there, 
 as  if  he  required  "that  men  should  dissemble  against  their 
 conscience,  or  externally  deny  a  truth  known  to  be  contained  in 
 Holy  Scripture."  But  certainly  a  great  deal  less  to  quarrel  with 
 him  for  saying,  (which  is  all'that  here  he  says,)  that  "men, 
 under  pain  of  damnation,  are  not  to  dissemble  ;  but  if  they  be 
 convinced  in  conscience,  that  your,  or  any  other  church"  (for 
 the  reason  is  alike  for  all)  "  errs  in  many  things,  are  of  neces- 
 sity to  forsake  that  church  in  the  profession  and  practice  of 
 those  errors." 
 
 105.  But  to  consider  your  exception  to  this  speech  of  the 
 Doctor's  somewhat  more  particularly,  I  say,  your  whole  dis- 
 course against  it  is  compounded  of  "  falsehoods"  and  "  imper- 
 tinences." The  first  falsehood  is,  that  he  in  these  words  avouch- 
 eth,  "  that  no  learned  catholics  can  be  saved."  Unless  you  will 
 suppose,  that  all  learned  catholics  are  convinced  in  conscience 
 that  your  church  errs  in  many  things.  It  may  well  be  feared, 
 that  many  are  so  convinced,  and  yet  profess  what  they  believe 
 ■hot.  Many  more  have  been,  and  have  stifled  their  consciences, 
 by  thinking  it  an  act  of  humility  to  do  so.  Many  more  would 
 have  been,  had  they  with  liberty  and  indifference  of  judgment 
 examined  the  grounds  of  the  religion  which  they  profess.  But 
 to  think  that  all  the  learned  of  your  side  are  actually  convinced 
 of  errors  in  your  church,  and  yet  will  not  forsake  the  profession 
 of  them,  this  is  so  great  an  uncharitableness,  that  I  verily  be- 
 lieve Dr.  Potter  abhors  it.  Your  next  falsehood  is,  "that  the 
 Doctor  affirms  that  you  catholics  want  no  means  of  salvation  ;* 
 and  that  he  judges  "  the  Roman  errors  not  to  be  in  themselves 
 fundamental  or  damnable."  Which  calumny  I  have  very  often 
 confuted;  and  in  this  very  place  it  is  confuted  by  Dr.  Potter, 
 and  confessed  by  yourself.  For  in  the  beginning  of  this  answer 
 you  tell  us,  that  the  "Doctor  avouches  of  all  catholics  whom 
 ignorance  cannot  excuse,  that  they  cannot  be  saved."  Certainly 
 then  he  must  needs  esteem  them  to  want  something  necessary 
 to  salvation.  And  then  in  the  Doctor's  saying,  it  is  remarkable 
 that  he  confesses  "your  errors  to  some  men  not  damnable;" 
 which  clearly  imports,  that  according  to  his  judgment,  they 
 were  damnable  in  themselves,  though  by  accident,  to  them  who 
 lived  and  died  in  invincible  ignorance,  and  with  repentance,  they 
 might  prove  not  damnable.  A  third  is,  that  these  assertions, 
 "The  Roman  errors  are  in  themselves  not  damnable,  and  yet 
 it  is  damnable  for  me  (who  know  them  to  be  errors)  to  hold  and 
 
 *  To  salvauon.— Oxf. 
 
CHURCH   OF    ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  381 
 
 confess  them,  are  absolutely  inconsistent :"  which  is  false ;  for 
 be  the  matter  what  it  will,  yet  for  a  man  to  tell  a  lie,  especially 
 in  matters  of  religion,  cannot  but  be  damnable:  how  much  more, 
 then,  to  go  on  in  a  course  of  lying,  by  professing  to  believe  these 
 things  Divine  truths  which  he  verily  believes  to  be  falsehoods 
 and  fables  !  A  fourth  is,  that  "  if  we  erred  in  thinking  that  your 
 church  holds  error,  this  error,  or  erroneous  conscience,  might  be 
 rectified  and  deposed  by  judging  those  errors  not  damnable." 
 For  what  repugnance  is  there  between  these  two  suppositions, 
 that  you  do  hold  some  errors,  and  that  they  are  not  damnable  ? 
 And  if  there  be  no  repugnance  between  them,  how  can  the  belief 
 of  the  latter  remove  or  destroy,  or,  if  it  be  erroneous,  rectify  the 
 belief  of  the  former  ?  Nay,  seeing  there  is  a  manifest  consent 
 between  them,  how  can  it  be  avoided,  but  the  belief  of  the  latter 
 will  maintain  and  preserve  the  belief  of  the  former  ?  For  who 
 can  conjoin  in  one  brain,  not  cracked,  (pardon  me,  if  I  speak  to 
 you  in  your  own  words,)  these  assertions :  In  the  Roman  church 
 there  are  no  errors  not  damnable  ;  and,  in  the  Roman  church 
 there  are  no  errors  at  all  ?  Or  what  sober  understanding  would 
 ever  think  this  a  good  collection :  I  esteem  the  errors  of  the 
 Roman  church  not  damnable ;  therefore  I  do  amiss  to  think  that 
 she  errs  at  all  ?  If  therefore  you  would  have  us  alter  our  judg- 
 ment,* that  your  church  is  erroneous,  your  only  way  is  to  show 
 your  doctrine  consonant,  at  least  not  evidently  repugnant,  to 
 Scripture  and  reason.  For  as  for  this  device,  this  short  cut  of 
 persuading  ourselves  that  you  hold  no  errors,  because  we  believe 
 your  errors  not  damnable,  assure  yourself  it  will  never  hold. 
 
 106.  A  fifth  falsehood  is,  "  that  we  daily  do  this  favour  for 
 protestants,"  you  must  mean,  (if  you  speak  consequently,)  to 
 judge  they  have  no  errors,  because  we  judge  they  have  none 
 damnable.  Which  the  world  know^s  to  be  most  untrue.  And 
 for  our  continuing  in  their  communion,  notwithstanding  their 
 errors,  the  justification  hereof  is  not  so  much,  that  their  errors 
 are  not  damnable,  as  that  they  required  not  the  belief  and  pro- 
 fession of  these  errors  among  the  conditions  of  their  communion. 
 Which  puts  a  main  difference  between  them  and  you  ;  because 
 we  may  continue  in  their  communion  without  professing  to 
 believe  their  opinions,  but  in  yours  we  cannot.  A  sixth  is,  that 
 according  to  the  "  doctrine  of  all  divines,  there  is  not  any  differ- 
 ence between  a  speculative  persuasion  of  conscience,  of  the  un- 
 lawfulness of  any  thing,  and  a  practical  dictamen,  that  the  same 
 thing  is  unlawful."  For  these  are  but  divers  words  signifying 
 the  same  thing;  neither  is  such  persuasion  wholly  speculative, 
 but  tending  to  practice ;  nor  such  a  dictamen  wholly  practical, 
 but  grounded  upon  speculation.  A  seventh  is,  "That  protestants 
 did  only  conceive  in  speculation,  that  the  church  of  Rome  erred 
 in  some  doctrines,"  and  had  not  also  a  practical  dictamen,  that 
 it  w^as  damnable  for  them  to  continue  in  the  profession  of  these 
 errors.  An  eighth  is,  that  "it  is  not  law^ful  to  separate  from  any 
 church's  communion,  for  errors  not  appertaining  to  the  substance 
 of  faith ;"  which  is  not  universally  true,  but  with  this  exception, 
 
 *  Judgments.— Oxf. 
 
382  SEPARATION   OP   PROTESTANTS   FROM  THE 
 
 unless  that  church  requires  the  belief  and  profession  of  them. 
 The  ninth  is,  that  Dr.  Potter  teacheth,  "  that  Luther  was  bound 
 to  forsake  the  house  of  God  for  an  unnecessary  light,"  confuted 
 manifestl)^  by  Dr.  Potter  in  this  very  place  ;  for  by  "the  house  of 
 God"  you  mean  the  Roman  church,  and  of  her  the  Doctor  says, 
 *'  that  a  necessity  did  lie  upon  him,  even  under  pain  of  damna- 
 tion, to  forsake  the  church  of  Rome  in  her  errors."  This  sure  is 
 not  to  say,  that  he  "  was  obliged  to  forsake  her  for  an  unnecessary 
 light."  The  tenth  is  covertly  vented  in  your  intimation, 
 "that  Luther  and  his  followers  were  the  proper  cause  of  the 
 Christian  world's  combustion :  whereas  indeed  the  true  cause  of 
 this  lamentable  effect  was  your  violent  persecution  of  them  for 
 serving  God  according  to  their  conscience ;  which  if  it  be  done 
 to  you,  you  condemn  of  horrible  impiety,  and  therefore  may  not 
 hope  to  be  excused  if  you  do  it  to  others. 
 
 107.  The  eleventh  is,  that  our  "  first  reformers  ought  to  have 
 doubted  whether  their  opinions  were  certain."  Which  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  the  reason  of  this  assertion  is  very  vain ;  *'  for 
 though  they  had  not  an  absolute  infallibility  promised  unto 
 them,"  yet  may  they  be  of  some  things  infallibly  certain.  As 
 Euclid  sure  was  not  infallible ;  yet  was  he  certain  enough,  that 
 **  twice  two  were  four,"  and  "  that  every  whole  was  greater  than 
 a  part  of  that  whole."  And  so,  though  Calvin  and  Melancthon 
 were  not  infallible  in  all  things,  yet  they  might  and  did  know 
 well  enough,  that  your  Latin  service  was  condemned  by  St.  Paul, 
 and  that  the  communion  in  both  kinds  was  taught  by  our  Saviour. 
 The  twelfth  and  last  is  this,  that  "your  church  was  in  peaceable 
 possession,"  (you  must  mean  of  her  doctrine,  and  the  professors 
 of  it,)  "  and  enjoyed  prescription  for  many  ages."  For,  besides 
 that  doctrine  is  not  a  thing  that  may  be  possessed;  and  the 
 professors  of  it  were  the  church  itself,  and  in  nature  of  pos- 
 sessors, (if  we  speak  improperly,)  rather  than  the  thing  possessed, 
 with  whom  no  man  hath  reason  to  be  offended,  if  they  think  fit 
 to  quit  their  own  possession;  I  say  that  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.  These  are  the  "  falsehoods"  which  in  this  answer  oflfered 
 themselves  to  any  attentive  reader,  and  that  which  remains  is 
 mere  "  impertinence."  As,  first,  that  "  a  pretence  of  conscience 
 will  not  serve  to  justify  separation  from  being  schismatical.'* 
 Which  is  true,  but  little  to  the  purpose,  seeing  it  was  not  an 
 erroneous  persuasion,  much  less  an  hypocritical  pretence,  but  a 
 true  and  well  grounded  conviction  of  conscience,  which  Dr. 
 Potter  alleged  to  justify  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 
 i-ightly  informed  conscience,  rather  than  the  unjust  commands 
 of  his  tyrannous  superiors  :  otherwise,  with  what  colour  can  you 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    NOT    GUILTY    OF    SCHISM.  383 
 
 defend  either  your  own  refusing  the  oaths  of    allegiance  and 
 supremacy,  or  the  ancient  martys  and  apostles  and  prophets,  who 
 oftentimes  disobeyed  the  commands  of  men  in  authority,  and 
 for  their  disobedience   made  no    other   but  this  apology,   We 
 must  obey  God  rather  than  men  ?      It  is  therefore  most  apparent, 
 that  this  answer  must  be  merely  impertinent ;    seeing  it  will 
 serve  against  the  martyrs,  and  apostles,  and  prophets,  and  even 
 against  yourselves,  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  justify,  that  they 
 forsook  not,  with  the  Doctor,  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,  nor 
 cast  off  his  disobedience,  nor  publicly  oppose  his  decrees."  From 
 whence  it  will  follow  very  evidently,  that  seeing  it   is   not  a 
 matter  of  faith,  but  a  disputed  question  amongst  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  kingdom's  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  religion.     But  then  it  is  so  far  from  being  a  con- 
 futation, that  it  is  rather  a  confirmation  of  Dr.  Potter's  assertion. 
 For  he  that  useth  these  words,  doth  he  not  plainly  import,  (and 
 such  was  the  case  of  protestants,)  that  we  are  to   leave   our 
 superiors,   cast  off  obedience  to  them,  and  publicly  to  oppose 
 their  decrees,  when  we  are  certain   (as  protestants  were)  that 
 what  they   command   God    doth    countermand  ?      Lastly,    St. 
 Cyprian's  example   is   against     protestants   impertinently   and 
 even  ridiculously  alleged.     "  For  what  if   St.  Cyprian,  holding 
 his  opinion  true,  but  not  necessary,  condemned  no  man  (much 
 less  any  church)  for  holding  the  contrary  ?"      Yet,  methinks 
 this  should    lay  no  obligation   upon  Luther  to   do   likewise  ; 
 seeing  he  held  his  own  opinions  not  only  true,  but  also  neces- 
 sary ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  church  not  only  false,  but 
 damnable.     And  therefore  seeing  the  condition  and  state  of  the 
 parties  censured  by  St.  Cyprian  and  Luther  was  so  diflferent,  no 
 marvel  though  their  censures  also  were  different  according  to 
 the  supposed  merit  of  the  parties  delinquent.     For  as  for  your 
 obtruding  again  upon  us,  "  that  we  believe  the  points  of  dif- 
 ference not  fundamental  or  necessary,"  you  have  been  often  told 
 that  it  is  a  calumny.     We  hold  your  errors  as  damnable  in  them- 
 selves as  you  do  ours;    only  by  accident,  through  invincible 
 ignorance,  we  hope  they  are  not  unpardonable :  and  you  also 
 profess  to  think  the  same  of  ours. 
 
 109.  Ad  §  42.  The  former  part  of  this  discourse,  grounded  on 
 Dr.  Potter's  words,  p.  105,  I  have  already  in  passing  examined 
 and  confuted  :  I  add  in  this  place,  I .  That  though  the  Doctor 
 say,  "  It  is  not  fit  for  any  private  man  to  oppose  his  judgment  to 
 the  public  ;"  that  is,  his  own  judgment,  and  bare  authority  ;  yet 
 he  denies  not  but  occasions  may  happen,  wherein  it  may  be 
 warrantable  to  oppose  his  reason,  or  the  authority  of  Scripture, 
 against  it  j  and  is  not  then  to  be  esteemed  to  oppose  his  own 
 
384  SEPARATION    OP  PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE 
 
 judgment  to  the  public,  but  the  judgment  of  God  to  the  judgment 
 of  men.  Which  his  following  words  seem  to  import :  "  he  may 
 offer  his  opinion  to  be  considered  of,  so  he  do  it  with  evidence, 
 or  great  probability  of  Scripture  or  reason,"  Secondly,  I  am  to 
 tell  you,  that  you  have  no  ground  from  him  to  interline  his 
 words  with  that  interrogatory,  "  his  own  conceits,  and  yet 
 grounded  upon  evidence  of  Scripture  ?"  For  these  things  are  in 
 his  words  opposed,  and  not  confounded  ;  and  the  latter  not  in- 
 tended for  a  repetition,  (as  you  mistake  it,)  but  for  an  antithesis 
 of  the  former.  "  He  may  offer,"  saith  he,  "  his  opinion  to  be 
 considered  of,  so  he  do  it  with  evidence  of  Scripture.  But  if  he 
 will  factiously  advance  his  own  conceits,"  (that  is,  say  I,  clear 
 contrary  to  your  gloss,)  "  such  as  have  not  evident  nor  very  pro- 
 bable ground  in  Scripture,"  (for  these  conceits  are  properly  his 
 own,)  '*  he  may  justly  be  branded,"  &c.  Now  that  this  of  the 
 two  is  the  better  gloss,  it  is  proved  by  your  own  interrogation. 
 For  that  imputes  absurdity  to  Dr.  Potter,  for  calling  them  a  man's 
 "  own  conceits,"  which  were  "  grounded  upon  evidence  of  Scrip- 
 ture." And  therefore  you  have  showed  little  candour  or  equity 
 in  fastening  upon  them  this  absurd  construction  ;  they  not  only 
 bearing,  but  even  requiring,  another  more  fair  and  more  sensi- 
 ble. Every  man  ought  to  be  presumed  to  speak  sense,  rather 
 than  nonsense  ;  coherently,  rather  than  contradictiously  ;  if  his 
 words  be  fairly  capable  of  a  better  construction.  For  Mr. 
 Hooker,  if  writing  against  puritans,  he  had  said  something  un- 
 awares that  might  give  advantage  to  papists,  it  were  not  inex- 
 cusable ;  seeing  it  is  a  matter  of  such  extereme  difficulty,  to  hold 
 such  a  temper  in  opposing  one  extreme  opinion,  as  not  to  seem 
 to  favour  the  other.  Yet  if  his  words  be  rightly  considered,  there 
 is  nothing  in  them  that  will  do  you  any  service.  For  though  he 
 says  that  "  men  are  bound  to  do  whatsover  the  sentence  of  JEirial 
 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  judge's  sentence,  though  in  their  private  opinion 
 it  seem  unjust."  As  if  I  be  cast  wrongfully  in  a  suit  at  law,  and 
 sentenced  to  pay  an  hundred  pounds,  I  am  bound  to  pay  the 
 money ;  yet  I  know  no  law  of  God  or  man  that  binds  me  in  con- 
 science to  acquit  the  judge  of  error  in  his  sentence.  The  question 
 therefore  being  only  what  men  ought  to  think,  it  is  vain  for  you 
 to  tell  us  what  Mr.  Hooker  says  at  all ;  for  Mr.  Hooker,  though 
 an  excellent  man,  was  but  a  man  ;  and  much  more  vain,  to  tell 
 us  out  of  him  what  men  ought  to  do,  for  point  of  external  obedi- 
 ence; when  in  the  very  same  place  he  supposeth  and  alloweth, 
 that  in  their  private  opinion  they  may  think  this  sentence,  to 
 which  they  yield  a  passive  obedience,  to  swerve  utterlj:  from 
 that  which  is  right.  If  you  will  draw  his  words  to  such  a  con- 
 struction, as  if  he  had  said,  "  They  must  think  the  sentence  of 
 judicial  and  final  decision  just  and  right,  though  it  seem  in  their 
 private  opinion  to  swerve  utterly  from  what  is  right ;"  it  is  mani- 
 fest you  make  him  contradict  himself,  and  make  him  say  in  effect, 
 
CHURCH    OF   ROME,    NOT   GUILTY   OF   SCHISM.  385 
 
 they  must  think  thus,  though  at  the  same  time  they  think  the 
 contrary.  Neither  is  there  any  "  necessity,  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  money 
 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  pur- 
 pose, 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.  This  answer  to  this  place  the  words  themselves  offered 
 me,  even  as  they  are  alleged  by  you  :  but  upon  perusal  of  the 
 place  in  the  author  himself,  I  find  that  here,  as  elsewhere,  you 
 and  Mr.  Brerely  wrong  him  extremely.  For  mutilating  his 
 words,  you  make  him  say  that  absolutely  which  he  there  ex- 
 pressly limits  to  some  certain  cases.  "  In  litigious  and  contro- 
 verted causes  of  such  a  quality,"  saith  he,  "  the  will  of  God  is,  to 
 have  them  do  whatsoever  the  sentence  of  judicial  and  final  deci- 
 sion shall  determine.  Observe,  I  pray,  he  says  not  absolutely 
 and  in  all  causes  this  is  the  will  of  God ;  but  only  "  in  litigious 
 causes,"  of  the  quality  of  those  whereof  he  there  entreats.  Iii 
 such  matters,  as  have  plain  Scripture  or  reason  neither  for  them 
 nor  against  them,  and  wherein  men  are  persuaded  this  or  that 
 way,  "  upon  their  own  only  probable  collection ;"  in  such  cases, 
 ''this  persuasion,"  saith  he,  "  ought  to  be  fully  settled  in  men's 
 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  determine."  For  the  purpose,  a  question  there  is, 
 whether  a  surplice  may  be  worn  in  Divine  service  ?  The  autho- 
 rity of  superiors  enjoins  this  ceremony,  and  neither  Scripture  nor 
 reason  plainly  forbids  it.  Sempronius,  notwithstanding,  is,  by 
 some  inducements,  which  he  confesses  to  be  only  probable,  led 
 to  this  persuasion,  that  the  thing  is  unlawful.  The  query  is, 
 whether  he  ought  for  matter  of  practice  to  follow  the  injunction 
 of  authority,  or  his  own  private  and  only  probable  persuasion, 
 Mr.  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."  Which  rule  is  your  own,  and 
 by  you  extended  to  the  commands  of  all  superiors,  in  the  very 
 next  section  before  this,  in  these  words  :  *'  In  cases  of  uncertainty 
 we  are  not  to  leave  our  superior,  nor  cast  off  his  obedience,  or 
 publicly  oppose  his  decrees."  And  yet,  if  a  man  should  conclude 
 upon  you,  that  either  you  make  all  superiors  universally  infalli- 
 ble, or  else  drive  men  into  perplexities  and  laybrinths  of  doing 
 against  conscience,  I  presume  you  would  not  think  yourself  fairly 
 dealt  with  ;  but  allege,  that  your  words  are  not  extended  to  all 
 cases,  but  limited  to  "  cases  of  uncertainty."  As  little  therefore 
 ought  you  to  make  this  deduction  from  Mr.  Hooker's  words,  which 
 are  apparently  also  restrained  to  "  cases  of  uncertainty."  For  as  for 
 requiring  a  blind  and  unlimited  obedience  to  ecclesiastical  deci- 
 sions universally  and  in  all  cases,  even  when  plain  texts  or  reason 
 
 c  c 
 
386  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS    FROM    THE 
 
 seems  to  controul  them,  Mr.  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  autho- 
 rity of  man's  judgment  is  not  able  to  work  that  assurance  which 
 doth  grow  by  a  stronger  proof;  and  therefore  although  ten  thou- 
 sand general  councils  would  set  down  one  and  the  same  definitive 
 sentence  con'cerningany  point  of  religion  whatsoever,  yet  one  de- 
 monstrative reason  alleged,  or  one  manifest  testimony  cited  from 
 the  mouth  of  God  himself  to  the  contrary,  could  not  choose  but 
 overweigh  them  all ;  inasmuch  as  for  them  to  have  been  deceived 
 it  is  not  impossible ;  it  is,  that  demonstrative  reason  or  testionmy 
 Divine  should  deceive."  And  again,  "  Whereas  it  is  thought,  that 
 especially  with '  the  church,  and  those  that  are  called  and  persuaded 
 of  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God,  man's  authority'  with  them 
 especially  *  should  not  prevail ;'  it  must  and  doth  prevail  even 
 with  them,  yea,  with  them  especially,  as  far  as  equity  requireth ; 
 and  further  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  unto  it,  but 
 to  follow  like  beasts  the  first  in  the  herd,  they  know  not  nor  care 
 not  whither,  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  allege  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  Mr,  Hooker  in  his  7th  §,  book  2,*  which 
 place  because  it  is  far  distant  from  that  which  is  alleged  by  you, 
 the  oversight  of  it  might  be  excusable,  did  you  not  impute  it  to 
 Dr.  Potter  as  a  fault,  that  he  cites  some  clauses  of  some  books 
 without  reading  the  whole.  But  besides,  in  that  very  section, 
 out  of  which  you  take  this  corrupted  sentence,  he  hath  very 
 pregnant  words  to  the  same  effect;  '' As  for  the  orders  estab- 
 lished, silh  equity  and  reason  favour  that  which  is  in  being,  till 
 orderly  judgment  of  decision  be  given  against  it,  it  is  but  justice 
 to  exact  of  you,  and  perverseness  in  you  it  would  be  to  deny 
 thereunto  your  willing  obedience.  Not  that  I  judge  it  a  thing 
 allowable,  for  men  to  observe  those  laws  which  in  their  hearts 
 they  are  stedfastly  persuaded  to  be  against  the  law  of  God:  but 
 your  persuasion  in  this  case  ye  are  all  bound  for  the  time  to  sus- 
 pend ;  and  in  otherwise  doing,  ye  ofiend  against  God,  by 
 troubling  his  church  without  just  and  necessary  cause.  Be  it 
 that  there  are  some  reasons  inducing  you  to  think  hardly  of  our 
 laws;  are  those  reasons  demonstrative,  are  they  necessary,  or  but 
 mere  probabilites  only  ?  An  argument  necessary  and  demon- 
 strative is  such,  as,  being  proposed  to  any  man,  and  understood, 
 the  mind  cannot  choose  but  inwardly  assent.  Any  one  such 
 leason  dischargethj  I  grant,  the  conscience,  and  setteth  it  at  full 
 liberty.  For  the  public  approbation  given  by  the  body  of  this 
 whole  church  unto  those  things  which  arc  established,  doth  make 
 
 *  Vol.  i.  p.  407.  Oxf.  edit.  1836. 
 
CHURCH    OF    ROME,    NOT    GUILTY    OF   SCHISM  387 
 
 it  but  probaLle  that  they  are  good.  And  therefore  unto  a  neces- 
 sary proof,  that  they  are  not  good,  it  must  give  place."  This 
 plain  declaration  of  his  judgment  in  this  matter,  this  express 
 limitation  of  his  former  resolution,  he  makes  in  the  very  same 
 section  which  affords  your  former  quotation  ;  and  therefore  what 
 apology  can  be  made  for  you,  and  your  storehouse  Mr.  Brerely, 
 for  diss'embling  of  it,  I  cannot  possibly  imagine. 
 
 HI.  Dr  Potter,  p.  131,  says,  "that  the  errors  of  the  Donatists 
 and  Xovatians  were  not  in  themselves  heresies,  nor  could  be 
 made  so  by  the  church's  determination  :  but  that  the  church's 
 intention  was  only  to  silence  disputes,  and  to  settle  peace  and 
 unity  in  her  government ;  which  because  they  factiously  opposed, 
 they  vvere  justly  esteemed  schismatics.  From  hence  you  con- 
 clude, that  the  same  condemnation  must  pass  against  the  first  re- 
 formers, seeing  they  also  opposed  the  commands  of  the  church, 
 imposed  on  them,  for  silencing  all  disputes,  and  settling  peace 
 and  unity  in  government."  Bat  this  collection  is  deceitful ;  and 
 the  reason  is,  because,  though  the  first  reformers,  as  well  as  the 
 Donatists  and  Novatians,  opposed  herein  the  commands  of  the 
 visible  church,  that  is,  of  a  great  part  of  it ;  yet  the  reformers 
 had  reason,  nay,  necessity  to  do  so,  the  church  being  then  cor- 
 rupted with  damnable  errors  ;  which  was  not  true  of  the  church 
 when  it  was  opposed  by  the  Novatians  and  Donatists.  And 
 therefore  though  they  and  the  reform.ers  did  the  same  action, 
 yet  doing  it  upon  different  grounds,  it  might  in  these  merit  ap- 
 plause, and  in  them  condemnation. 
 
 112.  Ad  §  43.  The  next  section  hath  in  it  some  objections 
 against  Luther's  person,*  and  none  against  his  cause,  which 
 alone  I  have  undertaken  to  justify,  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  opposed  and  perpetually  baited  with  a  w^orld  of 
 furies,  he  was  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  to  preach  the  gospel  ?'* 
 unless  you  desire  to  hear  of  your  killing  of  kings,  massacreing  of 
 people,  blowing  up  of  parliaments;  and  have  a  mind  to  be  asked, 
 "  Whether  it  be  probable,  that  that  should  be  God's  cause,  which 
 needs  to  be  maintained  by  such  devilish  means  ?" 
 
 113.  Ad  §  44,  45.  In  the  two  next  particles,  which  are  all  of 
 this  chapter  that  remain  unspoken  to,  you  spend  a  great  deal  of 
 reading,  and  wit,  and  reason  against  some  men,  who  pretending 
 to  honour  and  believe  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  visible 
 church,  (you  mean  your  own,)  and  condemning  their  forefathers, 
 who  forsook  her,  say  they  would  not  have  done  so,  yet  remain, 
 divided  from  her  communion.    Which  men,  in  my  judgment, 
 
 *  But  none.— Ox/". 
 
S88  SEPARATION    OF    PROTESTANTS   FROM   THE  ' 
 
 cannot  be  defended;  for  if  they  believe  the  doctrine  of  your  ' 
 church,  then  must  they  believe  this  doctrine,  that  they  are  to 
 return  to  your  communion.  And  therefore  if  they  do  not  so,  it  t 
 cannot  be  avoided  but  they  must  be  avrox-arax^iroi,  and  so  I  | 
 leave  them ;  only  I  am  to  remember  you,  that  these  men  cannot  j 
 pretend  to  be  protestants,  because  they  pretend  to  believe  your  j 
 doctrine,  which  is  opposite  in  diameter  unto  the  doctrine  of 
 protestants  ;  and  therefore,  in  a  work  which  you  profess  to  have 
 written  merely  against  protestants,  all  this  might  have  been 
 spared. 
 
CHAPTER  YI. 
 
 That  Luther  and  the   rest  of  protestants  have  added  heresy  unto 
 schism. 
 
 1.  "Because  vice  is  best  known  by  the  contrary  virtue,  we 
 cannot  well  determine  what  heresy  is,  nor  who  be  heretics,  but 
 by  the  opposite  virtue  of  faith,  whose  nature  being  once  under- 
 stood, as  far  as  belongs  to  our  present  purpose,  we  shall  pass  on 
 with  ease  to  the  definition  of  heresy,  and  so  be  able  to  discern, 
 who  be  heretics.  And  this  1  intend  to  do,  not  by  entering  into 
 such  particular  questions  as  are  controverted  between  catholics 
 and  protestants,  but  only  by  applying  some  general  grounds, 
 either  already  proved,  or  else  yielded  to  on  all  sides. 
 
 2.  *'  Almighty  God  having'  ordained  man  to  a  supernatural 
 end  of  beatitude  by  supernatural  means,  it  was  requisite  that  his 
 understanding  should  be  enabled  to  apprehend  that  end  and 
 means  by  a  supernatural  knowledge.  And  because  if  such  a 
 knowledge  were  no  more  than  probable  it  could  not  be  able  suf- 
 ficiently to  overbear  our  will,  and  encounter  with  human  pro- 
 babilities, being  backed  with  the  strength  of  flesh  and  blood;  it 
 was  further  necessary,  that  this  supernatural  knowledge  should 
 be  most  certain  and  infallible;  and  that  faith  should  believe 
 nothing  more  certainly  than  that  itself  is  a  most  certain  belief, 
 and  so  be  able  to  beat  down  all  gay  probabilities  of  human  opi- 
 nion. And  because  the  aforesaid  means  and  end  of  beatifical 
 vision  do  far  exceed  the  reach  of  natural  wit,  the  certainty  of 
 faith  could  not  always  be  joined  with  such  evidence  of  reason  as 
 is  wont  to  be  found  in  the  principles  or  conclusions  of  human 
 natural  sciences,  that  so  all  flesh  might  not  glory  in  the  arm 
 of  flesh,  but  he  who  glories  should  glory  in  the  Lord*  Moreover, 
 it  was  expedient  that  our  belief  or  assent  to  Divine  truths  should 
 not  only  be  unknow^n  or  inevident  by  any  human  discourse,  but 
 that  absolutely  also  it  should  be  obscure  in  itself,  and  (ordinarily- 
 speaking)  be  void  even  of  supernatural  evidence,  that  so  we 
 might  have  occasion  to  actuate  and  testify  the  obedience  which 
 we  owe  to  our  God,  not  only  by  submitting  our  will  to  his  will 
 and  commands,  but  by  subjecting  also  our  understanding  to  hia 
 wisdom  and  words,  captivating  (as  the  apostle  speaks)  the  same 
 understanding  to  the  obedience  of  faith  :t  which  occasion  had 
 been  wanting,  if  Almighty  God  had  made  clear  to  us  the  truths 
 which  now  are  certainly,  but  not  evidently,  presented  to  our 
 minds.  For  where  truth  doth  manifestly  open  itself,  not  obe- 
 dience, but  necessity,  commands  our  assent.     For  this  reason 
 
 *  2  Cor.  X.  17.  t  2  Cor.  x.  5. 
 
S90  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 divines  teach,  that  the  objects  of  faith  being  not  evident  to  human 
 reason,  it  is  in  man's  power,  not  only  to  abstain  from  believing, 
 by  suspending  our  judgment,  or  exercising  no  act  one  way  or 
 other;  but  also  to  disbelieve,  that  is,  to  believe  the  contrary  of 
 that  which  faith  proposeth;  as  the  examples  of  innumerable 
 archheretic?  can  bear  witness.  This  obscurity  of  faith  we  learn 
 from  Holy  Scripture,  according  to  those  words  of  the  apostle. 
 Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  to  he  hoped  for,  the  argument  of 
 things  not  appearing  :*  and.  We  see  now  by  a  glass  i?i  a  dark 
 manner ;  but  then  face  to  face  ;-\  and  accordingly  St.  Peter  saith, 
 Which  you  do  well  attending  unto,  as  to  a  candle  shining  in  a  dark 
 placeX. 
 
 3.  "  Faith  being  then  obscure,  (whereby  it  differeth  from 
 natural  sciences,)  and  yet  being  most  certain  and  infallible, 
 (wherein  it  surpasseth  human  opinion,)  it  must  rely  upon  some 
 motive  and  ground,  which  may  be  able  to  give  it  certainty,  and 
 yet  not  release  it  from  obscurity.  For  if  this  motive,  ground, 
 or  formal  object  of  faith,  were  anything  evidently  presented  to 
 our  understanding,  and  if  also  we  did  evidently  know,  that  it 
 had  a  necessary  connexion  with  the  articles  which  we  believe, 
 our  assent  to  such  articles  could  not  be  obscure,  but  evident ; 
 which,  as  we  said,  is  against  the  nature  of  our  faith.  If  like- 
 wise the  motive  or  ground  of  our  faith  were  obscurely  pro- 
 pounded to  us,  but  were  net  in  itself  infallible,  it  would  leave 
 our  assent  in  obscurity,  but  could  not  endue  it  with  certainty. 
 "We  must  therefore,  for  the  ground  of  our  faith,  find  out  a  motive 
 obscure  to  us,  but  most  certain  in  itself,  that  the  act  of  faith  may 
 remain  both  obscure  and  certain.  Such  a  motive  as  this  can  be 
 no  other  but  the  Divine  authority  of  Almighty  God,  revealing 
 or  speakmg  those  truths  which  our  faith  believes.  For  it  is 
 manifest  that  God's  infallible  testimony  may  transfuse  certainty 
 to  our  faith,  and  yet  not  draw  it  out  of  obscurity;  because  no 
 human  discourse  or  demonstration  can  evince  that  God  reveal etli 
 any  supernatural  truth,  since  God  had  been  no  less  perfect  than 
 he  is,  although  he  had  never  revealed  any  of  those  objects 
 •which  we  now  believe. 
 
 4.  "  Nevertheless,  because  Almighty  God,  out  of  his  infinite 
 wisdom  and  sweetness,  doth  concur  with  his  creatures  in  such 
 sort  as  may  befit  the  temper  and  exigence  of  their  natures,  and 
 because  man  is  a  creature  endued  with  reason,  God  doth  not 
 exact  of  his  will  or  understanding  any  other  than,  as  the  apostle 
 saith,  rationahile  obsequium,^  an  obedience  sweetened  with  good 
 reason,  which  could  not  so  appear,  if  our  understanding  were 
 summoned  to  believe  with  certainty  things  no  way  represented 
 as  infallible  and  certain.  And  therefore  Almighty  God,  ob- 
 liging us,  under  pain  of  eternal  damnation,  to  believe  with 
 greatest  certainty  divers  verities,  not  known  by  the  light  of 
 natural  reason,  cannot  fail  to  furnish  our  understanding  with 
 such  inducements,  motives,  and  arguments,  as  may  sufficiently 
 persuade  any  mind,  which  is  not  partial  or  passionate,  that  the 
 objects  which  we   believe  proceed  from  an  authority  so  wise, 
 
 *  Heb.  xi.  1  t  1  Cor.  xiii.  13.  i  Pet.  i.  19.  §  Rom.  xii,  1. 
 
CHAKITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHCLICS-  391 
 
 that  it  cannot  be  deceived,  and  so  good,  that  it  cannot  deceive; 
 according  to  the  words  of  David,  Thy  testimonies  are  made 
 credible  exceedingly*  These  inducements  are  by  divines  called 
 argumenta  credibilitatis ,  '  arguments  of  credibility,'  which  though 
 they  cannot  make  us  evidently  see  what  we  believe,  yet  they 
 evidently  convince,  that  in  true  wisdom  and  prudence  the  objects 
 of  faith  deserve  credit,  and  ought  to  be  accepted  as  things  re- 
 vealed by  God.  For  without  such  reasons  and  inducements, 
 our  judgment  of  faith  could  not  be  conceived  prudent.  Holy 
 Scripture  telling  us,  that  he  who  soo?i  believes  is  light  of  hearl.f 
 By  these  arguments  and  inducements  our  understanding  is  both, 
 satisfied  with  evidence  of  credibility,  and  the  objects  of  faith 
 retain  their  obscurity ;  because  it  is  a  different  thing  to  be 
 evidently  credible,  and  evidently  true  ;  as  those  who  were  pre- 
 sent at  the  miracles  wrought  by  our  blessed  Saviour  and  his 
 apostles  did  not  evidently  see  their  doctrine  to  be  true,  (for 
 then  it  had  not  been  faith,  but  science,  and  all  had  been  neces- 
 sitated to  believe ;  which  we  see  fell  out  otherwise,)  but  they 
 were  evidently  convinced  that  the  things  confirmed  by  such 
 miracles  were  most  credible,  and  worthy  to  be  embraced  as 
 truths  revealed  by  God. 
 
 5.  "  These  evident  arguments  of  credibility  are  in  great  abun- 
 dance found  in  the  visible  church  of  Christ  perpetually  existing 
 on  earth.  For  that  there  hath  been  a  company  of  men  profess- 
 ing such  and  such  doctrines,  we  have  from  our  next  predeces- 
 sors, and  these  from  theirs  upwards  till  we  come  to  the  apostles 
 and  our  blessed  Saviour  ;  which  gradation  is  known  by  evi- 
 dence of  sense,  by  reading  books,  or  hearing  what  one  man 
 delivers  to  another.  And  it  is  evident,  that  there  was  neither 
 cause  nor  possibility,  that  men  so  distant  in  place,  so  different  in 
 temper,  so  repugnant  in  private  ends,  did  or  could  agree  to  tell 
 one  and  the  selfsame  thing,  if  it  had  been  but  a  fiction  invented 
 by  themselves,  as  ancient  TertuUian  well  saith,J  '  How  is  it 
 likely,  that  so  many  and  so  great  churches  should  err  in  one 
 faith  ?  Among  mdny  events  there  is  not  one  issue;  the  error  of 
 the  churches  must  needs  have  varied.  But  that  which  among 
 many  is  found  to  be  one,  is  not  mistaken,  but  delivered.  Dare 
 then  any  body  say,  that  they  erred  who  delivered  it  ?  With  this 
 never-interrupted'  existence  of  the  church  are  joined  the  many 
 and  great  miracles  wrought  by  men  of  that  congregation  or 
 church;  the  sanctity  of  the  persons;  the  renowned  victories  over 
 so  many  persecutions,  both  of  all  sorts  of  men,  and  of  the  infernal 
 spirits ;  and  lastly,  the  perpetual  existence  of  so  holy  a  church. 
 Being  brought  up  to  the  apostles  themselves,  she  comes  to  par- 
 take of  the  same  assurance  of  truth,  which  they,  by  so  many 
 powerful  ways,  did  communicate  to  their  doctrine,  and  to  the 
 church  of  their  times,  together  with  the  Divine  certainty  which 
 they  received  from  our  blessed  Saviour  himself,  revealing  to 
 mankind  what  he  heard  from  his  Father ;  and  so  we  conclude 
 with  TertuUian,  '  We  receive  it  from  the  churches,  the  churches 
 from  the  apostles,  the   apostles  from  Christ,   Christ  from  his 
 
 *  Psa.  xcii.  t  Kcclus.  xixj  -i.  t  Prsescript.  c.  28, 
 
S92  CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 Father:'*  and  if  we  once  interrupt  this  line  of  succession,  most 
 certainly  made  known  by  means  of  holy  tradition,  we  cannot 
 conjoin  the  present  church  and  doctrine  with  the  church  and 
 doctrine  of  the  apostles,  but  must  invent  some  new  means  and 
 arguments,  sufficient  of  themselves  to  find  out  and  prove  a  true 
 church  and  faith,  independently  of  the  preaching  and  writing  of 
 the  apostles  ;  neither  of  which  can  be  known  but  by  tradition  ; 
 as  is  truly  observed  by  TertuUian,  saying,  *  I  will  prescribe,  that 
 there  is  no  means  to  prove  what  the  apostles  preached,  but  by 
 the  same  churches  which  they  founded.'  f 
 
 6.  "  Thus  then  we  are  to  proceed  :  by  evidence  of  manifest  and 
 incorrupt  tradition,  I  know  that  there  hath  always  been  a  never- 
 interrupted  succession  of  men  from  the  apostles'  time,  believing, 
 professing,  and  practising  such  and  such  doctrines :  by  evident 
 arguments  of  credibility,  as  miracles,  sanctity,  unity,  &c.,  and  by 
 all  those  ways  whereby  the  apostles  and  our  blessed  Saviour 
 himself  confirmed  their  doctrine,  we  are  assured  that  what  the 
 said  never-interrupted  church  proposeth,  doth  deserve  to  be 
 accepted  and  acknowledged  as  a  Divine  truth;  by  evidence  of 
 sense,  we  see  that  the  same  church  proposeth  such  and  such  doc- 
 trines as  Divine  truths;  that  is,  as  revealed  and  testified  by 
 Almighty  God.  By  this  Divine  testimony  we  are  infallibly 
 assured  of  what  we  believe :  and  so  the  last  period,  ground, 
 motive,  and  formal  object  of  our  faith,  is  the  infallible  testimony 
 of  that  supreme  verity,  which  neither  can  deceive  nor  be 
 deceived. 
 
 7./*  By  this  orderly  deduction  our  faith  cometh  to  be  endued 
 with* those  qualities  which  we  said  were  requisite  thereto,  namely, 
 certainty,  obscurity,  and  prudence.  Certainty  proceeds  from 
 the  infallible  testimony  of  God,  propounded  and  conveyed  to  our 
 understanding  by  such  a  mean  as  is  infallible  in  itself,  and  to  us 
 is  evidently  known,  that  it  proposeth  this  point  or  that,  and 
 which  can  manifestly  declare  in  what  sense  it  proposeth  them  j 
 which  means  we  have  proved  to  be  only  the  visible  church  of 
 Christ.  Obscurity,  from  the  manner  in  which  God  speaks  to 
 mankind,  which  ordinarily  is  such,  that  it  doth  not  manifestly 
 show  the  person  who  speaks,  nor  the  truth  of  the  thing  spoken. 
 Prudence  is  not  wanting,  because  our  faith  is  accompanied  with 
 so  many  arguments  of  credibility,  that  every  well-disposed  under- 
 standing may  and  ought  to  judge,  that  the  doctrines  so  confirmed 
 deserve  to  be  believed,  as  proceeding  from  Divine  authority. 
 
 8.  "And  thus,  from  what  hath  been  said,  we  may  easily  gather 
 the  particular  nature  or  definition  of  faith.  For  '  it  is  a  volun- 
 tarj%  or  free,  infallible,  obscure  assent  to  some  truth,  because  it  is 
 testified  by  God,  and  is  sufficiently  propounded  to  us  for  such ;' 
 which  proposal  is  ordinarily  made  by  the  visible  church  of 
 Christ.  I  say,  'sufficiently  proposed  by  the  church;'  not  that  I 
 purpose  to  dispute,  whether  the  proposal  of  the  church  enter  into 
 the  formal  object  or  motive  of  faith;  or  whether  an  error  be  an 
 heresy,  formally  and  precisely,  because  it  is  against  the  proposition 
 of  the  church,  as  if  such  proposal  were  the  formal  object  of  faith, 
 
 *  Praegcript.  c.  21.  and  37.  t  Praescript.  c.  21. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED  BY  CATHOLICS.  393 
 
 which  Dr.  Potter  to  no  purpose  at  all,  labours  so  very  hard  to 
 disprove  :  but  I  only  affirm,  that  when  the  church  propounds 
 any  truth,  as  revealed  by  God,  we  are  assured  that  it  is  such  in- 
 deed ;  and  so  it  instantly  grows  to  be  a  tit  object  for  Christian 
 faith,  vv'hich  inclines  and  enables  us  to  believe  whatsoever  is  duly 
 presented  as  a  thing  revealed  by  Almighty  God.  And  in  the 
 same  manner  we  are  sure,  that  whosoever  opposeth  any  doctrine 
 proposed  by  the  church  doth  thereby  contradict  a  truth  which  is 
 testified  by  God :  as  when  any  lawful  superior  notifies  his  will, 
 by  the  means,  and,  as  it  were,  proposal  of  some  faithful  mes- 
 senger, the  subject  of  such  a  superior,  in  performing  or  neglecting 
 what  is  delivered  by  the  messenger,  is  said  to  obey  or  disobey 
 his  own  lawful  superior.  And  therefore,  because  the  testimony 
 of  God  is  notified  by  the  church,  we  may,  and  we  do  most  truly 
 say,  that  not  to  believe  what  the  church  proposeth  is  to  deny 
 God's  holy  word  or  testimony  signified  to  us  by  the  church, 
 according  to  that  saying  of  St.  Irenaeus, '  We  need  not  go  to  any 
 other  to  seek  the  truth,  which  we  may  easily  receive  from  the 
 church.'  "* 
 
 9.  "  From  this  definition  of  faith  we  may  also  know  what 
 heresy  is,  by  taking  the  contrary  terms,  as  heresy  is  contrary  to 
 faith,  and  saying,  '  Heresy  is  a  voluntary  error  against  that  which 
 God  hath  revealed,  and  the  church  hath  proposed  for  such.' 
 Neither  doth  it  import,  whether  the  error  concern  points  in  them- 
 selves great  or  small,  fundamental  or  not  fundamental.  For 
 more  being  required  to  an  act  of  virtue  than  of  vice,  if  any  truth, 
 though  never  so  small,  must  be  believed  by  faith,  as  soon  as  we 
 know  it  to  be  testified  by  Divine  revelation  :  much  more  will  it 
 be  a  formal  heresy  to  deny  any  the  least  point  sufficiently  pro- 
 pounded as  a  thing  witnessed  by  God. 
 
 10.  "This  Divine  faith  is  divided  into  actual  and  habitual. 
 Actual  faith,  or  faith  actuated,  is  when  we  are  in  act  of  con- 
 sideration and  belief  of  some  mystery  of  faith ;  for  example, 
 that  our  Saviour  Christ  is  true  Gt)d  and  man,  &c.  Habitual  faith 
 is  that  from  which  we  are  denominated  faithful,  or  believers,  as 
 by  actual  faith  they  are  styled  believing.  This  habit  of  faith  is 
 a  quality  enabling  us  most  firmly  to  believe  objects  above 
 human  discourse,  and  it  remaineth  permanently  in  our  soul, 
 even  when  we  are  sleeping,  or  not  thinking  of  any  mystery  of 
 faith.  This  is  the  first  among  the  three  theological  virtues.  For 
 charity  unites  us  to  God,  as  he  is  infinitely  good  in  himself : 
 hope  ties  us  to  him,  as  he  is  unspeakably  good  to  us  :  faith  joins 
 us  to  him,  as  he  is  the  supreme  immovable  verity.  Charity  relies 
 on  his  goodness;  hope  on  his  power;  faith  on  his  Divine  wisdom. 
 From  hence  it  foUoweth,  that  faith  being  one  of  the  virtues 
 which  Divines  term  infused,  (that  is,  which  cannot  be  acquired 
 by  human  wit  or  industry,  but  are  in  their  nature  and  essence 
 supernatural,)  it  hath  this  property  ;  that  it  is  not  destroyed  by 
 little  and  little,  (contrarily  to  the  habits  called  acquisiti,  that  is, 
 'gotten  by  human  endeavour;'  which,  as  they  are  successively 
 produced,  so  also  are  they  lost  successively,  or  by  little  and 
 
 *  Lib.  3.  cont.  Haeres.  cap.  4. 
 
S94  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY  CATHOLICS. 
 
 little,)  but  it  must  either  be  conserved  entire,  or  wholly  de- 
 stroyed :  and  since  it  cannot  stand  entire  with  any  one  act 
 which  is  directly  contrary,  it  must  be  totally  overthrown,  and, 
 as  it  were,  demolished  and  razed,  by  every  such  act.  Wherefore, 
 as  charity,  or  the  love  of  God,  is  expelled  from  our  soul  by  any 
 one  act  of  hatred,  or  any  other  mortal  sin  against  his  Divine 
 majesty;  and  as  hope  is  destroyed  by  any  one  act  of  voluntary 
 desperation  ;  so  faith  must  perish  by  any  one  act  of  heresy,  be- 
 cause every  such  act  is  directly  and  formally  opposite  thereunto. 
 I  know  that  some  sins,  which  (as  divines  speak)  are  ex  genere  suo^ 
 in  their  kind,  grievous  and  mortal,  may  be  much  lessened,  and 
 fall  to  be  venial,  06  levilatem  tnatericB,  because  they  may  happen 
 to  be  exercised  in  a  matter  of  small  consideration :  as,  for  ex- 
 ample, to  steal  a  penny  is  venial,  although  theft  in  its  kind  be  a 
 deadly  sin.  But  it  is  likewise  true,  that  this  rule  is  not  general 
 for  all  sorts  of  sins ;  there  being  some  so  inexcusably  wicked  of 
 their  own  nature,  that  no  smallness  of  matter  nor  paucity  in 
 number  can  defend  them  from  being  deadly  sins.  For,  to  give 
 an  instance,  what  blasphemy  against  God,  or  voluntarily  false 
 oath,  is  not  a  deadly  sin?  Certainly  none  at  all,  although  the 
 salvation  of  the  whole  world  should  depend  upon  swearing  such 
 a  falsehood.  The  like  happeneth  in  our  present  case  of  heresy, 
 the  iniquity  whereof,  redounding  to  the  injury  of  God's  supreme 
 wisdom  and  goodness,  is  always  great  and  enormous.  They 
 were  no  precious  stones  which  David  picked  out  of  the  water  to 
 encounter  Goliath  ;*  and  yet  if  a  man  take  from  the  number  but 
 one,  and  say  there  were  but  four,  against  the  Scripture's  affirm- 
 ing them  to  have  been  five,  he  is  instantly  guilty  of  a  damnable 
 sin.  Why  ?  Because  by  this  subtraction  of  one,  he  doth  deprive 
 God's  word  and  testimony  of  all  credit  and  infallibility.  For  if 
 ever  he  could  deceive  or  be  deceived  in  any  one  thing,  it  were 
 but  wisdom  to  suspect  him  in  all.  And  seeing  every  heresy 
 opposeth  some  truth  revealed  by  God,  it  is  no  wonder  that  no  one 
 can  be  excused  from  deadly  and  damnable  sin;  for  if  voluntary 
 blasphemy  and  perjury,  which  are  opposite  only  to  the  infused 
 moral  virtue  of  religion,  can  never  be  excused  from  mortal  sin, 
 much  less  can  heresy  be  excused,  which  opposeth  the  theological 
 virtue  of  faith. 
 
 11.  "If  any  object,  that  schism  may  seem  to  be  a  greater  sin 
 than  heresy,  because  the  virtue  of  charity  (to  which  this  schism 
 is  opposite)  is  greater  than  faith;  according  to  the  apostle,, 
 saying, f  Norn  there  remain  faith,  hope,  charity ;  but  the  greatest  of 
 these  is  charity:  St.  Thonias  answers  in  these  words:  'Charity 
 hath  two  objects,  one  principal,  to  wit,  the  Divine  goodness; 
 and  another  secondary,  namely,  the  good  of  our  neighbour  :  but 
 schism,  and  other  sins,  which  are  committed  against  our  neigh- 
 bour, are  opposite  to  charity  in  respect  of  this  secondary  good, 
 which  is  less  than  the  object"  of  faith,  which  is  God,  as  he  is  the 
 prime  verity  on  which  faith  doth  rely ;  and  therefore  these  sins 
 are  less  than  infidelity." J  He  takes  infidelity  after  a  general 
 manner,  as  it  comprehends  heresy,  and  other  vices  against  faith. 
 
 *  1  Sam.  xvii.  f  I  Cor.  xiii.  13.  i  ''.:>,.  9.  ?j9.  ar.  2.  ia  corp.  et  ad  3. 
 
CHARITY  MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS.  395 
 
 12.  "  Having  therefore  sufficiently  declared  wherein  heresy 
 consists,  let  us  come  to  prove  that  which  we  proposed  in  this 
 chapter:  where  1  desire  it  to  be  still  remembered,  that  the  visible 
 catholic  church  cannot  err  damnably,  as  Dr.  Potter  confesseth ; 
 and  that  when  Luther  appeared,  there  was  no  other  visible  true 
 church  of  Christ,  disagreeing  from  the  Roman,  as  we  have  de- 
 monstrated in  the  next  precedent  chapter. 
 
 13.  "  Now,  that  Luther  and  his  followers  cannot  be  excused 
 from  formal  heresy,  I  prove  by  these  reasons:  to  oppose  any  truth 
 propounded  by  the  visible  true  church,  as  revealed  by  God,  is 
 formal  heresy,  as  we  have  showed  out  of  the  definition  of  heresy; 
 but  Luther,  Calvin,  and  the  rest,  did  oppose  divers  truths  pro- 
 pounded by  the  visible  church  as  revealed  by  God  ;  yea,  they  did 
 therefore  oppose  her,  because  she  propounded  as  Divine  revealed 
 truths  things  which  they  judged  either  to  be  false  or  human 
 inventions  ;  therefore  they  committed  formal  heresy. 
 
 14.  "Moreover,  every  error  against  any  doctrine  revealed  by 
 God  is  damnable  heresy,  whether  the  matter  in  itself  be  great  or 
 small,  as  I  proved  before ;  and  therefore  either  the  protestants 
 or  the  Roman  church  must  be  guilty  of  formal  heresy,  because 
 one  of  them  must  err  agairtst  the  word  and  testimony  of  God ;  but 
 you  grant,  (perforce,)  that  the  Roman  church  doth  not  err 
 damnably ;  and  I  add,  that  she  cannot  err  damnably,  because  she 
 is  the  truly  catholic  church,  which  you  confess  cannot  err  damn- 
 nably;  therefore  protestants  must  be  guilty  of  formal  heresy. 
 
 15.  "  Besides,  we  have  showed  that  the  visible  church  is  judge 
 of  controversies,  and  therefore  must  be  infallible  in  all  her  pro- 
 posals; which  being  once  supposed,  it  manifestly  followeth,  that 
 to  oppose  what  she  delivereth  as  revealed  by  God,  is  not  so  much 
 to  oppose  her  as  God  himself ;  and  therefore  cannot  be  excused 
 from  grievous  heresy. 
 
 16.  "Again,  if  Luther  were  an  heretic  for  those  points  wherein 
 he  disagreed  from  the  Roman  church,  all  they  who  agree  with 
 him  in  those  very  points  must  likewise  be  heretics.  Now  that 
 Luther  was  a  formal  heretic,  I  demonstrate  in  this  manner  :  to 
 say  that  God's  visible  true  church  is  not  universal,  but  confined 
 to  one  only  place  or  corner  of  the  world,  is,  according  to  your 
 own  express  words,  'properly  heresy  against  that  article  of  the 
 Creed  wherein  we  profess  to  believe  the  holy  catholic  church  :* 
 and  you  biand  Donatus  with  heresy,  because  he  limited  the 
 universal  church  to  Africa.  But  it  is  manifest,  and  acknowledged 
 by  Luther  himself,  and  other  chief  protestants,  that  Luther's 
 reformation,  when  it  first  began,  (and  much  more  for  divers 
 ages  before,)  was  not  universal,  nor  spread  over  the  world,  but 
 was  confined  to  that  compass  of  ground  which  did  contain 
 Luther's  body.  Therefore  his  reformation  cannot  be  excused 
 from  formal  heresy.  If  St.  Augustin  in  those  times  said  to  the 
 Donatists,*  '  There  are  innumerable  testimonies  of  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture, in  which  it  appeareth  that  the  church  of  Christ  is  not 
 only  in  Africa,  as  these  men  with  most  impudent  vanity  do  rave, 
 but  that  she  is  spread  over  the  whole   earth ;'  much  more  may  it 
 
 *  Epist.  50. 
 
'396  CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BV    CATHOLICS. 
 
 be  said,  It  appcareth  by  innumerable  testimonies  of  H0I3'  Scrip- 
 ture, that  the  churcli  of  Christ  cannot  be  confined  to  tiic  city  ot 
 Wittemberg,  or  to  the  phice  where  Luther's  feet  stood,  but  musf 
 be  spread  over  the  whole  world.  It  is  therefore  most  impudent 
 vanity  and  dotage  to  limit  her  to  Luther's  reformation.  In 
 another  place  also  this  holy  Father  writes  no  less  eflectually 
 against  Luther  than  against  the  Donatists.  For  liaving  out  of 
 those  words,  In  thy  seed  all  nalioiis  shall  be  blessed,  proved  that 
 God's  church  musl  be  universal,  he  saith,*  *  Why  do  you  super- 
 add, by  saying  that  Christ  remains  heir  in  no  part  of  the  earth, 
 except  where  he  may  have  Donatus  for  his  co-heir?  Give  me 
 this  (universal)  church,  if  it  be  among  you  ;  show  yourselves  to 
 be  all  nations,  which  we  already  show  to  be  blessed  in  this  seed. 
 Give  us  this  (church),  or  else,  laying  aside  all  fury,  receive  her 
 from  us.'  But  it  is  evident,  that  Luther  could  not,  when  he  said, 
 •  At  the  beginning  1  was  alone,'  give  us  an  universal  church  : 
 therefore  happy  had  he  been,  if  he  had  then,  and  his  followers 
 ■would  now,  '  receive  her  from  ns.'  And  tlierefore  we  must  con- 
 clude with  the  same  holy  Father,  saying  in  another  place  of  the 
 universal  church, f  '  She  hath  this  most  certain  mark,  that  she 
 cannot  be  hidden :  she  is  then  known  unto  all  nations.  The  sect 
 of  Donatus  is  unknown  to  many  nations;  therefore  that  cannot 
 be  she.'  The  sect  of  Luther  (at  least  when  he  began,  and  much 
 more  before  his  beginning)  was  unknown  to  many  nations  j 
 therefore  that  cannot  be  she. 
 
 17.  ''  And  that  it  may  yet  further  appear  how  perfectly  Luther 
 agreed  with  the  Donatists,  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  they  never 
 iaught  that  the  catholic  church  ought  not  to  extend  itself  further 
 than  that  part  of  Africa  where  their  faction  reigned,  but  only 
 that  in  fact  it  w^as  so  confined  because  all  the  rest  of  the  church 
 was  profaned  by  communicating  with  Ctecilianus,  whom  they 
 falsely  affirmed  to  have  been  ordained  bishop  by  those  who  were 
 traditors,  or  givers  up  of  the  Bible  to  the  prosecutors  to  be 
 burned;  yea,  at  that  very  time  they  had  some  of  their  sect  re- 
 siding in  Rome,  and  sent  thither  one  Victor,  a  bishop,  under 
 colour  to  take  care  of  their  brethren  in  that  city;  but  indeed,  as 
 Baronius  observeth,J  that  the  world  might  account  them  ca- 
 tholics, by  communicating  with  the  bishop  of  Rome,  to  commu- 
 nicate with  whom  was  ever  taken  by  the  ancient  Fathers  as  an 
 assured  sign  of  being  a  true  catholic.  They  had  also,  as  St. 
 Augustin  witnesseth,§  a  pretended  church  in  the  house  and  terri- 
 tory of  a  Spanish  lady,  called  Lucilla,  who  went  flying  out  of  the 
 catholic  church,  because  she  had  been  justly  checked  by  Caecili- 
 anus.  And  the  same  saint,  speaking  of  the  conference  he  had 
 with  Fortunius  theDonatist,  saith,  ||  *  Here  did  he  first  attempt  to 
 affirm,  that  his  communion  was  spread  over  the  whole  earth,  &c., 
 but  because  the  thing  was  evidently  false,  they  got  out  of  this 
 
 discourse  by  confusion  of  language :'  whereby  nevertheless  they 
 -sufficiently  declared,  that  they  did  not  hold  that  the  true  church 
 
 *ii5ht  necessarily  to  be  confined  to  one  place,  but  only  by  mere 
 
 *  De  Unit.  Eccles.  cap.  6.  +  Cont.  Lit.  Pelil.  I.  1.  c.  104. 
 
 i  Vnuo32J.ii.  2.  spoud.  »  De  Unit.  Eccles.  c.  3.  i  Ep.  Iti3. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  397 
 
 necessity  were  forced  to  yield  that  it  was  so  in  fact,  because  their 
 sect,  which  they  held  to  be  the  only  true  church,  was  not  spread 
 over  the  world;  in  which  point  Fortunius  and  the  rest  were  more 
 modest  than  he  who  should  affirm  that  Luther's  reformation  in 
 the  very  beginning  was  spread  over  the  whole  earth  ;  being  at 
 that  time  by  many  degrees  not  so  far  diffused  as  the  sect  of  the 
 Donatists.  I  have  no  desire  to  prosecute  the  similitude  of  pro- 
 testants  with  Donatists,  by  remembering  that  the  sect  of  these 
 men  were  begun  and  promoted  by  the  passion  of  Lucilla ;  and 
 who  is  ignorant  what  influence  two  women,  the  mother  and 
 daughter,  ministered  to  protestancy  in  England  ?  Nor  will  I 
 stand  to  observe  their  very  likeness  of  phrase  with  the  Donatists,. 
 who  called  the  chair  of  Rome  the  chair  of  pestilence,  and  the 
 Eoman  church  an  harlot,  which  is  Dr.  Potter's  own  phrase; 
 wherein  he  is  less  excusable  than  they,  because  he  maintaineth 
 her  to  be  a  true  church  of  Christ ;  and  therefore  let  him  duly 
 ponder  these  words  of  St.  Augustin  against  the  Donatists;*  '  If  I 
 persecute  him  justly  who  detracts  from  his  neighbour,  why  should 
 not  I  persecute  him  who  detracts  from  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
 saith,  This  is  not  she,  but  this  is  an  harlot  ?'  And  least  of  all 
 will  I  consider,  whether  you  may  not  be  well  compared  to  one 
 Ticonius  a  Donatist,  who  wrote  against  Parmenianus,  likewise  a 
 Donatist,  who  blasphemed  that  the  church  of  Christ  had  perished, 
 (as  you  do  even  in  this  your  book  write  against  some  of  your 
 protestant  brethren,  or,  as  you  call  them,  zealots  among  you,  who 
 hold  the  very  same,  or  rather  a  worse  heresy,)  and  yet  remained, 
 among  them,  even  after  Parmenianus  had  excommunicated  him; 
 (as  those  your  zealous  brethren  would  proceed  against  you,  if  it 
 were  in  their  power;)  and  yet,  like  Ticonius,  you  remain  in  their 
 communion,  and  come  not  into  that  church,  which  is,  hath  been, 
 and  ever  shall  be,  universal :  for  which  very  cause  St.  Augustin 
 complains  of  Ticonius,  that  although  he  wrote  against  the  Do- 
 natists, yet  he  was  of  '  an  heart  so  extremely  absurd,'t  as  not  to 
 forsake  them  altogether.  And  speaking  of  the  same  thing  in 
 another  place, J  he  observes,  that  although  Ticonius  did  mani- 
 festly confute  them  who  affirmed  that  the  church  had  perished,, 
 yet  '  he  saw  not,'  saith  this  holy  Father,  *  that  which  in  good 
 consequence  he  should  have  seen,  that  those  Christians  of  Africar 
 belonged  to  the  church  spread  over  the  whole  world  who  re- 
 mained united,  not  with  them  who  are  divided  from  the  commu- 
 nion and  anity  of  the  same  world,  but  with  such  as  did  com- 
 municate with  the  whole  world.  But  Parmenianus  and  the  rest 
 of  the  Donatists  saw  that  consequence,  and  resolved  rather  to- 
 settle  their  mind  in  obstinacy  against  the  most  manifest  truth, 
 which  Ticonius  maintained,  than  by  yielding  thereto,  to  be  over- 
 come by  those  churches  in  Africa,  which  enjoyed  the  communion 
 of  that  unity  which  Ticonius  defended,  from  which  they  had  di- 
 vided themselves.'  How  fitly  these  words  agree  to  catholics  in 
 England  in  respect  of  the  protestants,  I  desire  the  reader  to  con- 
 sider.   But  these  and  the  like  resemblances  of  the  protestants 
 
 *  Gone.  7.  super  gest.  cum  Emer.  t  De  Doct.  Christ.  lib.  3.  c.  30. 
 
 t  Cont.  Parm.  1.  1.  c.  1. 
 
398  CHARITY   MAINTAINED    EY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 to  the  Donatists,  I  willingly  let  pass,  and  onlj^  urge  the  main 
 point :  that  since  Luther's  reformed  church  was  not  in  being  for 
 divers  centuries  before  Luther,  and  yet  was  (because  so  forsooth 
 they  will  needs  have  it)  in  the  apostle's  time,  they  must  of  neces- 
 sity affirm  heretically  with  the  Donatists,  that  the  true  and  un- 
 spotted church  of  Christ  perished ;  and  that  she  which  remained 
 on  earth  (0  blasphemy  !)  an  harlot.  Moreover  the  same  heresy 
 follows  out  of  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Potter,  and  other  protestants, 
 that  the  church  may  err  in  points  not  fundamental,  because  we 
 have  showed,  that  every  error  against  any  one  revealed  truth  is 
 heresy,  and  damnable,  whether  the  matter  be  otherwise,  of  itself, 
 great  or  small.     And  how  can  the  church  more  truly  be  said  to 
 
 Eerish,  than  when  she  is  permitted  to  maintain  a  damnable 
 eresy?  Besides,  we  will  hereafter  prove,  that  by  an  act  of 
 heresy  all  Divine  faith  is  lost;  and  to  imagine  a  true  church  of 
 faithful  persons  without  any  faith,  is  as  much  as  to  fancy  a  living 
 man  without  life.  It  is  therefore  clear,  that,  Donatist  "like,  they 
 hold  that  the  church  of  Christ  perished ;  yea,  they  are  worse  than 
 the  Donatists,  who  said,  that  the  church  remained  at  least  in. 
 Africa;  whereas  protestants  must  of  necessity  be  forced  to  grant, 
 that  for  a  long  space  before  Luther  she  was  no  where  at  all.  But 
 let  us  go  forward  to  other  reasons. 
 
 18.  "  The  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  fathers  do  assign  sepa- 
 ration from  the  visible  church  as  a  mark  of  heresy ;  according  to 
 that  of  St.  John,*  They  icent  out  from  us  ;  and.  Some  who  went  out 
 from  MS  ;^  and.  Out  of  you  shall  arise  men  speaking  perverse 
 things.X  And  accordingly,  Vincentius  Lyrinensis  saith,§  'Who 
 ever  began  heresies,  who  did  not  first  separate  himself  from  the 
 universality,  antiquity,  and  consent  of  the  catholic  church?'  But 
 it  is  manifest,  that  when  Luther  appeared,  there  was  no  visible 
 church  distinct  from  the  Roman,  out  of  which  she  could  depart, 
 as  it  is  likewise  well  known  that  Luther  and  his  followers  de- 
 parted out  of  her :  therefore  she  is  no  way  liable  to  this  mark  of 
 heresy:  but  protestants  cannot  possibly  avoid  it.  To  this  pur- 
 pose St.  Prosper  hath  these  pithy  words  :  H  *  A  Christian  com- 
 municating with  the  universal  church  is  a  catholic  ;  and  he  who 
 is  divided  from  her  is  an  heretic  and  antichrist.'  But  Luther 
 in  his  first  reformation  could  not  communicate  with  the  visible 
 catholic  church  of  those  times,  because  he  began  his  reformation 
 by  opposing  the  supposed  errors  of  the  then  visible  church :  we 
 must  therefore  say  with  St.  Prosper,  that  he  was  an  heretic,  &c. 
 Which  likewise  is  no  less  clearly  proved  out  of  St.  Cyprian, 
 saying,^  'Not  we  departed  from  them,  but  they  from  us;  and 
 since  heresies  and  schisms  are  bred  afterwards,  while  they  make 
 to  themselves  divers  conventicles,  they  have  forsaken  the  head 
 and  origin  of  truth.' 
 
 19.  "And  that  we  might  not  remain  doubtful  what  separation 
 it  is  which  is  the  mark  of  heresy,  the  ancient  Fathers  tell  us 
 more  in  particular,  that  it  is  from  the  church  of  Rome,  as  it  is 
 the  see  of  Peter.     And  therefore  Dr.  Potter  need  not  to  be  so  hot 
 
 •  1  John  ii.  19.       t  Acts  xv.  24.      t  Acts  xx.30.        §  Lib.  adversii.?  Haer.  c.  34. 
 II  Dimid.  Temp.  ciip.  5.  H  Lib.  de  Unitat.  Eccks. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  899 
 
 with  US,  because  we  say  and  write,  that  the  church  of  Rome,  m 
 that  sense  as  she  is  the  mother  church  of  all  others,  and  with 
 which  all  the  rest  agree,  is  truly  called  the  catholic  church. 
 St.  Hierom,  writing  to  pope  Damasus,  saith,*  '  I  am  in  the  com 
 niunion  of  the  chair  of  Peter ;  I  know  that  the  church  is  built 
 upon  that  rock.  Whosoever  shall  cat  the  lamb  out  of  this  house, 
 he  is  profane.  If  any  shall  not  be  in  the  ark  of  Noah,  he  shall 
 perish  in  the  time  of  the  deluge.  Whosoever  doth  not  gather 
 with  thee  doth  scatter ;  that  is,  he  that  is  not  of  Christ  is  of  anti- 
 christ,' And  elsewhere,!  '  Which  doth  he  call  his  faith  ?  that 
 of  the  Roman  church,  or  that  which  is  contained  in  the  books  of 
 Origen  ?  If  he  answer.  The  Roman  ;  then  we  are  catholics,  who 
 have  translated  nothing  of  the  error  of  Origen.'  And  yet 
 further, J  'Know  thou,  that  the  Roman  faith,  commended  by 
 the  voice  of  the  apostle,  doth  not  receive  these  delusions,  though 
 an  angel  should  denounce  otherwise  than  it  hath  once  been 
 preached.'  St.  Ambrose,  recounting  how  his  brother  Satyrus 
 inquired  for  a  church,  wherein  to  give  thanks  for  his  delivery 
 from  shipwreck,  saith, §  '  He  called  unto  him  the  bishop,  neither 
 did  he  esteem  any  favour  to  be  true,  except  that  of  the  true 
 faith;  and  he  asked  of  him,  whether  he  agreed  with  the  catholic 
 bishops  ?'  that  is,  with  the  Roman  church.  And  having  under- 
 stood that  he  was  a  schismatic,  that  is,  separated  from  the  Roman 
 church,  he  abstained  from  communicating  with  him.  Where 
 we  see  the  privilege  of  the  Roman  church  confirmed  both  by 
 word  and  deed,  by  doctrine  and  practice.  And  the  same  saint  saith 
 of  the  Roman  church, ||  'From  thence  the  rights  of  venerable 
 communion  do  flow  to  all.'  St.  Cyprian  saith, ^  they  are  bold  to 
 sail  to  the  chair  of  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  preach- 
 ing of  the  apostle,  to  whom  falsehood  cannot  have  access.* 
 Where  we  see  this  holy  Father  joins  together  the  '  principal 
 church,  and  the  chair  of  Peter;'  and  affirmeth,  that  falsehood 
 not  only  hath  not  had,  but  'cannot  have  access  to  that  see.' 
 And  elsewhere,**  '  Thou  wrotest  that  I  should  send  a  copy  of  the 
 same  letters  to  Cornelius,  our  colleague,  that  laying  aside  all 
 solicitude,  he  might  now  be  assured  that  thou  didst  communicate 
 with  him,  that  is,  with  the  catholic  church.'  What  think  you. 
 Mr.  Doctor,  of  these  words  ?  Is  it  so  strange  a  thing  to  take  for 
 one  and  the  same  thing,  to  communicate  with  the  church  and 
 pope  of  Rome,  and  to  communicate  with  the  catholic  church  ? 
 St.  Irenaeus  saith,  jt  '  Because  it  were  long  to  number  the  succes- 
 sions of  all  churches,  we  declaring  the  tradition  (and  faith 
 preached  to  men,  and  coming  to  us  by  tradition)  of  the  most 
 great,  most  ancient,  and  most  known  church,  founded  by  the  two 
 most  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  evil  complacence  of 
 
 *  Ep.  67.  ad  Damas.  t  Lib.  1.  Apolog.  t  Ibid.  lib.  3. 
 
 4  De  Obitn  Sat>ii  Fratris.  II  Lib.  1.  Ep,  4.  ad  Imperalores. 
 
 if  Epist.  55.  ad  Cornel.  **  Epist.  52.  tt  Lib.  3.  cont.  Hsr.  c.  3. 
 
400  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 themselves,  or  vain-glory,  or  by  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  of  what  place  soever;  in  which 
 (Roman  church)  the  tradition  which  is  from  the  apostles  hath 
 always  been  conserved  from  those  who  are  every  where.'  St» 
 Augustin  saith,*  '  It  grieves  us  to  see  you  so  to  lie  cut  off. 
 Number  the  priests  even  from  the  see  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.'  And  in  another 
 place,  speaking  of  CtEcilianus,  he  saith,t  '  He  might  contemn 
 the  conspiring  multitude  of  his  enemies,  because  he  knew  him- 
 self to  be  united  by  communicatory  letters  both  to  the  Roman 
 church,  in  which  the  principality  of  the  see  apostolic  did  always 
 flourish ;  and  to  other  countries,  from  whence  the  gospel  came 
 first  into  Africa.'  Ancient  TertuUian  sailh,J  '  If  thou  be  near 
 Italy,  thou  hast  Rome,  whose  authority  is  near  at  hand  to  us; 
 a  happy  church,  into  which  the  apostles  have  poured  all  doctrine, 
 together  with  their  blood.'  St.  Basil,  in  a  letter  to  the  bishop 
 of  Rome,  saith, §  '  In  very  deed  that  which  was  given  by  our  Lord 
 to  thy  piety,  is  worthy  of  that  most  excellent  voice  which  pro- 
 claimed thee  blessed,  to  wit,  that  thou  mayst  discern  betwixt 
 that  which  is  counterfeit  and  that  which  is  lawful  and  pure,  and 
 without  any  diminution  mayst  preach  the  faith  of  our  ancestors.' 
 Maximinianus,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  about  twelve  hundred 
 years  ago,  said,  '  All  the  bounds  of  the  earth,  who  have  sincerely 
 acknowledged  our  Lord,  and  catholics  through  the  whole  world 
 professing  the  true  faith,  look  upon  the  power  of  the  bishop  of 
 Rome  as  upon  the  sun,  &c.  For  the  Creator  of  the  world 
 amongst  all  men  of  the  world  elected  him,'  (he  speaks  of  St. 
 Peter,)  *  to  whom  he  granted  the  chair  of  doctor,  to  be  princi- 
 pally possessed  by  a  perpetual  right  of  privilege ;  that  whosoever 
 is  desirous  to  know  any  Divine  and  profound  thing,  may  have 
 recourse  to  the  oracle  and  doctrine  of  this  instruction.'  John, 
 patriarch  of  Constantinople,  more  than  eleven  hundred  years 
 ago,  in  an  epistle  to  pope  Hormisda,  wiiteth  thus  :1|  *  Because 
 the  beginning  of  salvation  is  to  conserve  the  rule  of  right  faith, 
 and  in  no  wise  to  swerve  from  the  tradition  of  our  forefathers  j 
 because  the  words  of  our  Lord  cannot  fail,  saying,  Thou  art  PeteVf 
 and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  mij  church :  the  proofs  of  deeds 
 have  made  good  those  words  ;  because  in  the  see  apostolical 
 the  catholic  religion  is  always  conserved  inviolable.'  And  again, 
 *  We  promise  hereafter  not  to  recite  in  the  sacred  mysteries  the 
 names  of  them  who  are  excluded  from  the  communion  of  the 
 catholic  church,  that  is  to  say,  who  consent  not  fully  with  the 
 see  apostolic'  Many  other  authorities  of  the  ancient  Fathers 
 might  be  produced  to  this  purpose ;  but  these  may  serve  to  show, 
 that  both  the  Latin  and  Greek  Fathers  held-  for  a  note  of  being 
 a  catholic  or  an  heretic,  to  have  been  united  or  divided  from  the 
 see  of  Rome.     And  I  have  purposely  alleged  only  such  autho- 
 
 *  In  Psal,  cont.  Patrem  Donati.  t  Ep.  162.  t  Praescr.  c.  35. 
 
 §  Epist.  ad.  Pout.  Rom.  i  Epist.  ad.  Hormis.  P.  P. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATIICLICS-  401 
 
 rities  of  Fathers  as  speak  of  the  privileges  of  the  see  of  Rome  as 
 of  things  permanent,  and  depending  on  our  Saviour's  promise 
 to  St.  Peter,  from  which  a  general  rule  and  ground  ought  to  be 
 taken  for  all  ages,  because  heave?!  and  earth  shall  pass,  hut  the 
 word  of  our  Lord  shall  re  mam  for  ever.*  So  that  I  here  conclude, 
 that  seeing  it  is  manifest  that  Luther  and  his  followers  divided 
 themselves  from  the  see  of  Rome,  they  bear  the  inseparable  mark 
 of  heresy. 
 
 20.  "  And  though  my  meaning  be  not  to  treat  the  point  of 
 ordination  or  succession  in  the  protestants'  church,  yet,  because 
 the  Fathers  alleged  in  the  last  reason  assign  succession  as  one 
 mark  &f  the  true  church,  I  must  not  omit  to  say,  that  according 
 to  the  grounds  of  protestants  themselves,  they  can  neither  pre^ 
 tend  personal  succession  of  bishops,  nor  succession  of  doctrine. 
 For  whereas  succession  of  bishops  signifies  a  never-interrupted 
 line  of  persons  endued  with  an  indelible  quality,  which  divines 
 call  a  character,  which  cannot  be  taken  away  by  deposition,  degra- 
 dation, or  other  means  whatsoever,  and  endued  also  with  juris- 
 diction and  authority  to  teach,  to  preach,  to  govern  the  church 
 by  laws,  precepts,  censures,  &c.,  protestants  cannot  pretend  suc- 
 cession in  either  of  these :  for  (besides  that  there  was  never  pro- 
 testant  bishop  before  Luther,  and  that  there  can  be  no  continuance 
 of  succession  where  there  was  no  beginning  to  succeed)  the}' 
 commonly  acknowledge  no  character,  and  consequently  must 
 affirm,  that  when  their  pretended  bishops  or  priests  are  deprived 
 of  jurisdiction,  or  degraded,  they  remain  mere  lay  persons,  as 
 before  their  ordination  ;  fulfilling  what  TertuUian  objects  as  a 
 mark  of  heresy,t  '  to-day  a  priest,  to-morrow  a  layman."  For 
 if  there  be  no  immovable  character,  their  power  of  order  must 
 consist  only  in  jurisdiction  and  authority,  or  in  a  kind  of  moral 
 deputation  to  some  function,  which  therefore  may  be  taken  away 
 by  the  same  power  by  which  it  was  given.  Neither  can  they 
 pretend  succession  in  authority  or  jurisdiction:  for  all  the  au- 
 thority or  jurisdiction  which  they  had,  was  conferred  by  the 
 church  of  Rome,  that  is,  by  the  pope  :  because  the  whole  church 
 collectively  doth  not  meet  to  ordain  bishops  or  priests,  or  to  give 
 them  authority.  But,  according  to  their  own  doctrine,  they 
 believe  that  the  pope  neither  '  hath  or  ought  to  have  any  juris- 
 diction, power,  superiority,  pre-eminence,  or  authority,  eccle- 
 siastical or  spiritual,  within  this  realm,'  which  they  swear  even 
 when  they  are  ordained  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.  How- 
 then  can  the  pope  give  jurisdiction  where  they  swear  he  neither 
 hath  or  ought  to  have  any  ?  Or,  if  yet  he  had,  how  could 
 they,  Vv^thout  schism,  withdraw  themselves  from  his  obedience  ? 
 Besides,  the  Roman  church  never  gave  them  authority  to  oppose 
 her,  by  whom  it  was  given.  But  grant  their  first  bishops  had 
 such  authority  from  the  church  of  Rome  ;  after  the  decease  of 
 those  men,  who  gave  authority  to  their  pretended  successors  ? 
 The  primate  of  England  ?  But  from  whom  had  he  such  autho- 
 rity ?  And  after  his  decease,  who  shall  confer  authority  upon 
 his  successors  ?  The  temporal  magistrate?    King  Henry,  neither 
 
 *  Matt,  xxiv.  35.  t  sPrasc.  c.  41. 
 
 D  D 
 
402  CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 a  catholic  nor  a  protestant  ?  King  Edward,  a  child  ?  Queen 
 Elizabeth,  a  woman  ?  An  infant  of  one  hour's  age  is  true  king  in 
 case  of  his  predecessor's  decease:  but  shall  your  church  lie 
 fallow,  till  that  infant  king  and  green  head  of  the  church  come 
 to  years  of  discretion  ?  Do  your  bishops,  your  hierarchy,  your 
 succession,  your  sacraments,  your  being  or  not  being  heretics, 
 for  want  of  succession,  depend  upon  this  new-found  supremacy 
 doctrine,  brought  in  by  such  a  man,  merely  upon  base  occasions, 
 and  for  shameful  ends ;  impugned  by  Calvin  and  his  followers  ; 
 derided  by  the  Christian  world ;  and  even  by  chief  protestants, 
 as  Dr.  Andrews,  Wolton,  &c.,  not  held  for  any  necessary  point 
 of  faith  ?  And  from  whom,  1  pray  you,  had  bishops  their  autho- 
 rity, when  there  were  no  Christian  kings  ?  Must  the  Greek 
 patriarchs  receive  spiritual  jurisdiction  from  the  great  Turk  ? 
 Did  the  pope,  by  the  baptism  of  princes,  lose  the  spiritual  power 
 he  formerly  had  of  conferring  spiritual  jurisdiction  upon  bishops  ? 
 Hath  the  temporal  magistrate  authority  to  preach,  to  assoil  from 
 sins,  to  inflict  excommunications,  and  other  censures  ?  Why 
 hath  he  not  power  to  excommunicate,  as  well  as  to  dispense  in 
 irregularity,  as  our  late  sovereign  lord  king  James  either  dis- 
 pensed with  the  late  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  else  gave  com- 
 mission to  some  bishops  to  do  it  ?  And  since  they  were  subject 
 to  their  primate,  and  not  he  to  them,  it  is  clear  that  they  had  no 
 power  to  dispense  with  him,  but  that  power  must  proceed  from 
 the  prince,  as  superior  to  them  all,  and  head  of  the  protestants' 
 church  in  England.  If  he  have  no  such  authority,  how  can  he 
 give  to  others  what  himself  hath  not  ?  Your  ordination  or  con- 
 secration of  bishops  and  priests  imprinting  no  character,  can 
 only  consist  in  giving  a  power,  authority,  jurisdiction,  or  (as  I 
 said  before)  some  kind  of  deputation  to  exercise  episcopal  or 
 priestly  functions.  If  then  the  temporal  magistrate  confers  this 
 power,  &c.,  he  can,  nay,  he  cannot  choose,  but  ordain  and  con- 
 secrate bishops  and  priests,  as  often  as  he  confers  authority  or 
 jurisdiction;  and  your  bishops,  as  soon  as  they  are  designed  and 
 confirmed  by  the  king,  must  ipso  facto  be  ordained  and  con- 
 secrated by  him  without  intervention  of  bishops,  or  matter  and 
 form  of  ordination  ;  which  absurdities  you  will  be  more  unwilling 
 to  grant,  than  well  able  to  avoid,  if  you  will  be  true  to  your  own 
 doctrines.  The  pope,  from  whom  originally  you  must  beg  your 
 succession  of  bishops,  never  received,  nor  will  nor  can  acknow- 
 ledge to  receive,  any  spiritual  jurisdiction  from  any  temporal 
 prince ;  and  therefore,  if  jurisdiction  must  be  derived  from  princes, 
 he  hath  none  at  all :  and  yet  either  you  must  acknowledge  that 
 he  hath  true  spiritual  jurisdiction,  or  that  yourselves  can  receive 
 none  from  him. 
 
 21.  "  Moreover  this  new  reformation,  or  reformed  church  of 
 protestants,  will  by  them  be  pretended  to  be  catholic  or  uni- 
 versal, and  not  confined  to  England  alone,  as  the  sect  of  the 
 Donatists  was  to  Africa  ;  and  therefore  it  must  comprehend  all 
 the  reformed  churches  in  Germany,  Holland,  Scotland,  France, 
 &c.  In  which  number  they  of  Germany,  Holland,  and  France 
 are  not  governed  by  bishops,  nor  regard  any  personal  succession, 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAIKED   BY    CATHOLICS.  4^S 
 
 unless  of  such  fat-beneficed  bishops  as  Nicolas  Arasfordius,  who 
 was  consecrated  by  Luther,  (though  Luther  himself  was  never 
 bishop,)  as  witnesseth  Dresserus.*  And  though  Scotland  hath 
 of  late  admitted  some  bishops,  I  much  doubt  whether  they  hold 
 them  to  be  necessary,  or  of  Divine  institution  ;  and  so  their  en- 
 forced admitting  of  them  doth  not  so  much  furnish  that  king- 
 dom with  personal  succession  of  bishops,  as  it  doth  convince 
 them  to  want  succession  of  doctrine,  since  in  this  their  neglect 
 of  bishops,  they  disagree  both  from  the  milder  protestants  of 
 England,  and  the  true  catholic  church :  and  by  this  want  of  a 
 continued  personal  succession  of  bishops,  they  retain  tlie  note  of 
 schism  and  heresy.  So  that  the  church  of  protestants  must  either 
 not  be  universal,  as  being  confined  to  England;  or  if  you  will 
 needs  comprehend  all  those  churches  which  want  succession, 
 you  must  confess,  that  your  church  doth  not  only  communicate 
 with  schismatical  and  heretical  churches,  but  it  is  also  com- 
 pounded of  such  churches,  and  yourselves  cannot  avoid  the  note 
 of  schismatics  or  heretics,  if  it  were  but  for  participating  with 
 such  heretical  churches.  For  it  is  impossible  to  retain  commu- 
 nion with  the  true  catholic,  and  yet  agree  with  them  who  are 
 divided  from  her  by  schism  or  heresy  ;  because  that  were  to 
 affirm,  that  for  the  selfsame  time  they  could  be  within  and  with- 
 out the  catholic  church,  as  proportionably  I  discoursed  in  the 
 next  precedent  chapter,  concerning  the  communicating  of  mode- 
 rate protestants  with  those  who  maintain  that  heresy  of  the 
 latency  and  invisibility  of  God's  church,  where  I  brought  a  place 
 of  St.  Cyprian  to  this  purpose,  which  the  reader  may  be  pleased 
 to  review  in  the  fifth  chapter,  and  l/th  number. 
 
 22.  "  But  besides  this  defect  in  the  personal  succession  of  pro- 
 feestant  bishops,  there  is  another  of  great  moment ;  which  is,  that 
 they  want  the  right  form  of  ordaining  bishops  and  priests,  be- 
 cause the  manner  which  they  use  is  so  much  different  from  that 
 of  the  Roman  church,  (at  least  according  to  the  common  opinion 
 of  divines,)  that  it  cannot  be  sufficient  for  the  essence  of  ordina- 
 tion ;  as  1  could  demonstrate,  if  this  were  the  proper  place  of  such 
 a  treatise ;  and  will  not  fail  to  do,  if  Dr.  Potter  give  me  occasion. 
 In  the  mean  time,  the  reader  may  be  pleased  to  read  the  author 
 cited  here  in  the  margent,t  and  then  compare  the  form  of  our 
 ordination  with  that  of  protestants  ;  and  to  remember,  that  if 
 the  form  which  they  use  either  in  consecrating  bishops,  or  in 
 ordaining  priests,  be  at  least  doubtful,  they  can  neither  have  un- 
 doubted priests  nor  bishops.  For  priests  cannot  be  ordained  but 
 by  true  bishops,  nor  can  any  be  a  true  Bishop  unless  he  first  be 
 priest.  I  say,  their  ordination  is  at  least  doubtful ;  because  that 
 sufficeth  for  my  present  purpose.  For  bishops  and  priests,  whose 
 ordination  is  notoriously  known  to  be  doubtful,  are  not  to  be 
 esteemed  bishops  or  priests ;  and  no  man  without  sacrilege  can 
 receive  sacraments  from  them ;  all  which  they  administer  un- 
 lawfully ;  and  (if  we  except  baptism)  with  manifest  danger  of 
 
 *  In  Millenario  sexto,  page  187. 
 •<•  See  Adamum  Tannerum.  torn.  4.  disp.  5.  qnsest,  2.  dub.  3.  et.  4. 
 
404  CHARITY   MAINTAIISED   BY   CATHOLICS, 
 
 invalidity,  and  with  obligation  to  be  at  least  conditionally  re- 
 peated :  and  so  protestants  must  remain  doubtful  of  remission  of 
 sins,  of  their  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  and  may  not  pretend  to  be 
 a  true  church;  which  cannot  subsist  without  undoubted  true 
 bishops  and  priests,  nor  without  due  administration  of  sacra- 
 ments, which  (according  to  protestants)  is  an  essential  note  of 
 the  true  church.  And  it  is  a  world  to  observe  the  proceeding  of 
 the  English  protestants  in  this  point  of  their  ordinations.  For 
 first,  an.  3  Edw.  VI.  cap.  2,  when  he  was  a  child  about  twelve 
 years  of  age,  '  it  was  enacted.  That  such  form  of  making  and  con- 
 secrating bishops  and  priests,  as  by  six  prelates,  and  six  other  to 
 be  appointed  by  the  king,  should  be  devised'  (mark  this  word  de- 
 vised) *  and  set  forth  under  the  great  seal,  should  be  used,  and 
 none  other*'*  But  after  this  act  was  repealed,  1  Mar.  sess.  2,  in- 
 somuch as  that  when  afterward,  anno  6.  et  7.  Reg.  Elizabeth, 
 bishop  Bonner  being  indicted  upon  a  certificate  made  by  Dr. 
 Horn,  a  protestant  bishop  of  Winchester,  for  his  refusal  of  the 
 oath  of  supremacy ;  and  he  excepting  against  the  indictment, 
 because  Dr.  Horn  was  no  bishop  ;  all  the  judges  resolved,  that 
 his  exception  was  good,  if  indeed  Dr.  Horn  v/as  not  bishop ; 
 and  they  were  all  at  a  stand,  till  anno  8  EHz.  cap.  1,  the  act  of 
 Edw.  Vl.  was  renewed  and  confirmed  with  aparticular  proviso, 
 that  no  man  should  be  impeached  or  molested,  by  means  of 
 any  certificate  by  any  bishop  or  archbishop  made  before  this  last 
 act.  Whereby  it  is  clear,  that  they  made  some  doubt  of  their 
 own  ordination,  and  that  there  is  nothing  but  uncertainty  in  the 
 whole  business  of  their  ordination,  which  (forsooth)  must  de- 
 pend upon  six  prelates,  the  great  seal,  acts  of  parliaments  being 
 contrary  one  to  another,  and  the  like. 
 
 23.  "But  though  they  want  personal  succession,  yet  at  least 
 they  have  succession  of  doctrine,  as  they  say,  and  pretend  to 
 prove,  because  they  believe  as  the  apostles  believed.  This  is  to 
 beg  the  question,  and  to  take  what  they  may  be  sure  will  never 
 be  granted.  For  if  they  want  personal  succession,  and  slight 
 ecclesiastical  tradition,  how  will  they  persuade  any  man  that 
 they  agree  with  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles?  We  have  heard 
 Tertullian  saying,t  '1  will  prescribe'  (against  all  heretics)  'that 
 there  is  no  means  to  prove  what  the  apostles  preached,  but  by  the 
 same  churches  which  they  founded.'  And  St.  Irenseus  tells  us,  J 
 that  'we  may  behold  the  tradition  of  the  apostles  in  every  church, 
 if  men  be  desirous  to  hear  the  truth,  and  we  can  number  them 
 who  were  made  bishops  by  the  apostles  in  churches,  and  their 
 successors  even  to  us.'  And  the  same  father  in  another  place 
 saith,§  'We  ought  to  obey  those  priests  who  are  in  the  church, 
 who  have  succession  from  the  apostles,  and  who,  together  with 
 succession  in  their  bishoprics,  have  received  the  certain  gift  of 
 truth.'  St.  Augustin  saith,||  'I  am  kept  in  the  church  by  the 
 succession  of  priests  from  the  very  see  of  Peter  the  apostle, 
 to  whom  our  Saviour  after  his  resurrection  committed  his  sheep 
 to  be  fed,  even  to  the  present  bishop.'     Origen  to  this  purpose 
 
 *  Dyer,  fol,  234.  Term  Mich.  6.  et  7.  Eliz.  f  Snp.  c.  5.  t  Lib.  3.  c.  5. 
 
 §  L.  4.  c.  43.  U  Cont.  Epist.  f  uudum.  c.  4. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED    BY    CATHOLICS.  405 
 
 giveth  us  a  good  and  wholesome  rule,  (happy  if  himself  had  fol- 
 lowed the  samel)  in  these  excellent  words:*  'Since  there  be 
 many  who  think  they  believe  the  things  which  are  of  Christ,  and 
 some  are  of  different  opinion  from  those  who  went  before  them; 
 let  the  preaching  of  the  church  be  kept,  which  is  delivered  by 
 the  apostles  by  order  of  succession,  and  remains  in  the  church  to 
 this  very  day ;  that  only  is  to  be  believed  for  truth,  which  in 
 nothing  disagrees  from  the  tradition  of  the  church.'  In  vain 
 then  do  these  men  brag  of  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  unless 
 first  they  can  demonstrate,  that  they  enjoy  a  continued  succession 
 of  bish'ops  from  the  apostles,  and  can  show  us  a  church,  which 
 according  to  St.  Austin,!  is  deduced 'by  undoubted  succession 
 from  the  see  of  the  apostles,  even  to  the  present  bishops.' 
 
 24.  "  But  yet  nevertheless,  suppose  it  were  granted  that  they 
 agreed  with  the  doctrines  of  the  apostles,  this  were  not  sufficient 
 to  prove  a  succession  in  doctrine.  For  succession,  besides  agree- 
 ment or  similitude,  doth  also  require  a  never-interrnpted  convey- 
 ing of  such  doctrine,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  till  the  days 
 of  those  persons  who  challenge  such  a  succession.  And  so  St, 
 Augustin  saith;J  we  are  to  believe  that  gospel,  which  from  the 
 time  of  the  apostles  '  the  church  hath  brought  down  to  our  days, 
 by  a  never-interrupted  course  of  times,  and  by  undoubted  suc- 
 cession of  connexion.'  Now  that  the  reformation,  begun  by 
 Luther,  was  interrupted  for  divers  ages  before  him,  is  manifest 
 out  of  history,  and  by  his  endeavouring  a  reformation,  which 
 must  pre-suppose  abuses.  He  cannot  therefore  pretend  a  con- 
 tinued succession  of  that  doctrine  which  he  sought  to  revive, 
 and  reduce  to  the  knowledge  and  practice  of  men.  And 
 they  ought  not  to  prove  that  they  have  succession  of  doc- 
 trine, because  they  agree  with  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles;  but 
 contrarily  we  must  infer,  that  they  agree  not  with  the  apostles, 
 because  they  cannot  pretend  a  never-interrupted  succession  of 
 doctrine  from  the  times  of  the  apostles  till  Luther.  And  here  it 
 is  not  amiss  to  note,  that  although  the  Waldenses,  Wickliff,  &c. 
 had  agreed  with  protestants  in  all  points  of  doctrine,  yet  they 
 could  not  brag  of  succession  from  them,  because  their  doctrine 
 hath  not  been  free  from  interruption,  which  necessarily  crosseth 
 succession. 
 
 25.  "And  as  want  of  succession  of  persons  and  doctrine  canaot 
 stand  with  that  universality  of  time,  Avhich  is  inseparable  from 
 the  catholic  church;  so  likewise  the  disagreeing  sects,  which 
 are  dispersed  through  divers  countries  and  nations,  cannot  help 
 towards  that  universality  of  place,  wherewith  the  true  church 
 must  be  endued ;  but  rather  such  local  multiplication  doth  more 
 and  more  lay  open  their  division,  and  want  of  succession  in  doctrine. 
 For  the  excellent  observation  of  St.  Augustin  doth  punctually 
 agree  with  all  modern  heretics ;  wherein  this  holy  Father  having 
 cited  these  words  out  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel,§  My  flocks  are  dis- 
 persed upon  the  whole  face  of  the  earth ;  he  adds  this  remarkable 
 sentence,! I  '  Not  all  heretics  are  spread  over  the  face  of  the  earth, 
 
 *  Prsef.  ad  lib.  Peri  Archon.     t  Cont.  Faust,  cap.  2.     J  Lib.  28.  Cont.  Faust,  c.  2. 
 ^  Cap.  xxiv.  il  Lib.  de  Pastor,  c.  8. 
 
406  CHAPtlTY    MAINTAINED    BY  CATHOLICS. 
 
 and  yet  there  are  heretics  spread  over  the  whole  face  of  the 
 earth,  some  here,  some  there;  yet  they  are  wanting  in  no  placCy 
 they  know  not  one  another.  One  sect,  for  example,  in  Africa, 
 another  heresy  in  the  East,  another  in  Egypt,  another  in  Meso- 
 potamia. In  diverse  places  they  are  diverse ;  one  mother,  pride, 
 hath  begot  them  all,  as  our  own  mother  the  catholic  church  hath 
 brought  forth  all  faithful  people  dispersed  throughout  the  whole 
 world.  No  wonder,  then,  if  pride  breed  dissension,  and  charity 
 miion.'  And  in  another  place,  applying  to  heretics  those  words 
 of  the  Canticles,*  If  thou  biow  not  thyself,  go  forth  and  follow 
 after  the  steps  of  the  flocks,  and  feed  thy  kids,  he  saith,t  '  If  thou 
 know  not  thyself,  go  thou  forth  :  1  do  not  cast  thee  out,  but  go 
 thou  out,  that  it  may  be  said  of  thee,  they  ivent  from  us,  but  they 
 were  not  of  us.  Go  thou  out  in  the  steps  of  the  flocks;  not  in 
 my  steps,  but  in  the  steps  of  the  flocks ;  nor  of  one  flock,  but  of 
 divers  and  wandering  flocks  ;  and  feed  thy  kids,  not  as  Peter,  to 
 whom  it  is  said,  Feed  my  sheep;  but  feed  thy  kids  in  the  taberna- 
 cles of  the  pastors,  not  in  the  tabernacle  of  the  pastor,  where 
 there  is  one  flock  and  one  pastor.'  In  which  Avords  this  holy 
 Father  doth  set  down  the  marks  of  heresy  to  wit,  going  out  from 
 the  church,  and  want  of  unity  among  themselves,  which  pro- 
 ceed from  not  acknov/ledging  one  supreme  and  visible  pastor  and 
 head  under  Christ.  And  so  it  being  proved  that  protestants 
 having  neither  succession  of  persons  nor  doctrine,  nor  universa- 
 lity of  time  or  place,  they  cannot  avoid  the  just  note  of  heresy. 
 
 26.  "  Hitherto  we  have  brought  arguments  to  prove  that 
 Luther  and  all  protestants  are  guilty  of  heresy  against  the  ne- 
 gative precept  of  faith,  which  obligeth  us,  uuder  pain  of  damna- 
 tion, not  to  embrace  any  one  error,  contrary  to  any  truth  suffi- 
 ciently propounded  as  testified  or  revealed  by  Almighty  God  j 
 which  were  enough  to  make  good,  that  among  persons  who  dis- 
 agree in  any  one  point  of  faith,  one  part  only  can  be  saved  t 
 yet  we  will  now  prove,  that  whosoever  errcth  in  any  one  point 
 doth  also  break  the  affirmative  precept  of  faith,  whereby  we  are 
 obliged  positively  to  believe  some  revealed  truth,  with  an  in- 
 fallible and  supernatural  faith,  which  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
 even  necessitate  flnis,  or  medii,  as  divines  speak,  that  is,  so  neces- 
 sary, that  not  any,  after  he  is  come  to  the  use  of  reason,  was  or 
 can  be  saved  without  it,  according  to  the  words  of  the  apostle, 
 without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.\ 
 
 27.  "  In  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  I  showed,  that  to 
 Christian  catholic  faith  are  required  certainty,  obscurity,  pru- 
 dence, and  supernaturality  ;  all  which  conditions  we  will  prove 
 to  be  wanting  in  the  belief  of  protestants,  even  in  those  points 
 which  are  true  in  themselves,  and  to  which  they  yield  assent, 
 as  happeneth  in  all  those  particulars  wherein  they  agree  with 
 us  ;  from  whence  it  will  follow,  that  they,  wanting  true  Divine 
 faith,  want  means  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation. 
 
 28.  "  And  first,  that  their  belief  wanteth  certainty,  I  prove, 
 because  they,  denying  the  universal  infallibility  of  the  church;, 
 can  have  no  certain  ground  to  know  what  objects  are  revealed 
 
 *  Cant.  I.  t  Ep.  48.  J  Heb.  xi.  6. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED   BY  CATHOLICS.  407 
 
 or  testified  by  God.  Holy  Scripture  is  in  itself  most  true  and 
 infallible  ;  but  without  the  direction  and  declaration  of  the 
 church,  we  can  neither  have  certain  means  to  know  what  Scrip- 
 ture is  canonical,  nor  what  translations  be  faithful,  nor  what  is 
 the  true  meaning  of  Scripture.  Every  protestant,  as  1  suppose, 
 is  persuaded  that  his  own  opinions  be  true,  and  that  he  hath, 
 used  such  means  as  are  wont  to  be  prescribed  for  understanding 
 the  Scripture  ;  as  prayer,  conferring  of  divers  texts,  &c.,  and 
 yet  their  disagreements  show,  that  some  of  them  are  deceived; 
 and  therefore  it  is  clear,  that  they  have  no  one  certain  ground 
 whereon  to  rely  for  understanding  of  Scripture.  And  seeing 
 they  hold  all  the  articles  of  faith,  even  concerning  fundamental 
 points,  upon  the  selfsame  ground  of  Scripture,  interpreted,  not 
 by  the  church's  authority,  but  according  to  some  other  rules, 
 which,  as  experience  of  their  contradictions  teach,  do  sometimes 
 fail ;  it  is  clear,  that  the  ground  of  their  faith  is  infallible  in  no 
 point  at  all.  And  albeit  sometimes  it  chance  to  hit  on  the 
 truth,  yet  it  is  likewise  apt  to  lead  them  to  error:  as  allarchere- 
 tics,  believing  some  truths,  and  withal  divers  errors,  upon  the 
 same  ground  and  motive,  have  indeed  no  true  Divine  infallible 
 faith,  but  only  a  fallible  human  opinion  and  persuasion ;  for  if 
 the  ground  upon  which  they  rely  were  certain,  it  could  never 
 produce  any  error. 
 
 29.  "  Another  cause  of  uncertainty  in  the  faith  of  protestants 
 must  rise  from  their  distinction  of  points  fundamental  and  not 
 fundamental ;  for  since  they  acknowledge  that  every  error  in 
 fundamental  points  destroyeth  the  substance  of  faith,  and  yet 
 cannot  determine  what  points  be  fundamental,  it  followeth,  that 
 they  must  remain  uncertain  whether  or  no  they  be  not  in  some 
 fundamental  error,  and  so  want  the  substance  of  faith,  without 
 which  there  can  be  no  hope  of  salvation. 
 
 30.  "  And  that  he  who  erreth  against  any  one  revealed  truth 
 (as  certainly  some  protestants  must  do,  because  contradictory 
 propositions  cannot  both  be  true)  doth  lose  all  Divine  faith,  is 
 a  very  true  doctrine  delivered  by  catholic  divines  with  so  general 
 a  consent,  that  the  contrary  is  w^ont  to  be  censured  as  temera- 
 rious. The  angelical  doctor  St.  Thomas  proposeth  this  ques- 
 tion,* *  Whether  he  who  denieth  one  article  of  faith  may  retain 
 faith  of  other  articles  ?'  and  resolves  that  he  cannot ;  wdiich  he 
 proveth  {argumento  sed  contra)  because,  '  as  deadly  sin  is  oppo- 
 site to  charity,  so  to  deny  one  article  of  faith  is  opposite  to  faith. 
 But  charity  doth  not  remain  with  any  one  deadly  sin  ;  therefore 
 faith  doth  not  remain  after  the  denial  of  any  one  article  of  faith.* 
 Whereof  he  gives  this  further  reason ;  *  Because,'  saith  he,  *  the 
 nature  of  every  habit  doth  depend  upon  the  formal  motive  and 
 object  thereof,  which  motive  being  taken  away,  the  nature  of 
 the  habit  cannot  remain.  But  the  formal  object  of  faith  is  the 
 supreme  truth,  as  it  is  manifested  in  Scriptures,  and  in  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  church,  whith  proceeds  from  the  same  supreme 
 verity.  Whosoever  therefore  doth  not  rely  upon  the  doctrine  of 
 the  church,  (which  proceeds  from  the  supreme  verity  manifested 
 
 *  2.  2.  q.  5.  art.  3.  in.  corp. 
 
408  CHARITY    MAINTAINED   BY  CATHOLICS. 
 
 in  Scriptures),  as  upon  an  infallible  rule,  he  hath  not  the  habit 
 of  faith,  but  believes  those  things  which  belong  to  the  faith  by- 
 some  other  means  than  by  faith ;  as,  if  one  should  remember 
 some  conclusion,  and  not  know  the  reason  of  that  demonstration, 
 it  is  clear  that  he  hath  not  certain  knowledge,  but  only  opinion ; 
 now  it  is  manifest,  that  he  who  relies  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
 church,  as  upon  an  infallible  rule,  will  yield  his  assent  to  all 
 that  the  church  teacheth  ;  for  if  among  those  things  which  she 
 teacheth,  he  hold  what  he  will,  and  doth  not  hold  what  he  will 
 not,  he  doth  not  rely  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  as  upon 
 an  infallible  rule,  but  only  upon  his  own  will.  And  so  it  is  clear 
 that  an  heretic,  who  with  pertinacity  denieth  one  article  of  faith, 
 is  not  ready  to  follow  the  doctrine  of  the  church  in  all  things ; 
 and  therefore  it  is  manifest,  that  whosoever  is  an  heretic  in  any 
 one  article  of  faith,  concerning  other  articles  hath  not  faith,  but 
 a  kind  of  opinion,  or  his  own  will.'  Thus  far  St.  Thomas.  And 
 afterward,*  'A  man  doth  believe  all  the  articles  of  faith,  for 
 one  and  the  selfsame  reason,  to  wit,  for  the  prime  verity  pro- 
 posed to  us  in  the  Scripture,  understood  aright  according  to  the 
 doctrine  of  the  church ;  and  therefore  whosoever  falls  from  this 
 reason  or  motive  is  totally  deprived  of  faith.'  From  this  true 
 doctrine  we  are  to  infer,  that  to  retain  or  want  the  substance  of 
 faith  doth  not  consist  in  the  matter  or  multitude  of  the  articles, 
 but  in  the  opposition  against  God's  Divine  testimony  which  is 
 involved  in  every  least  error  against  faith.  And  since  some  pro- 
 testants  must  needs  err,  and  that  they  have  no  certain  rule  to 
 know  why  rather  one  than  another,  it  manifestly  follows,  that 
 none  of  them  have  any  certainty  for  the  substance  of  their  faith 
 in  any  one  point.  Moreovor  Dr.  Potter  being  forced  to  confess, 
 that  the  Roman  church  wants  not  the  substance  of  faith,  it  fol- 
 lows that  she  doth  not  err  in  any  one  point  against  faith,  be- 
 cause, as  we  have  seen  out  of  St.  Thomas,  every  such  error 
 destroys  the  substance  of  faith.  Now  if  the  Roman  church 
 did  not  err  in  any  one  point  of  faith,  it  is  manifest  that  pro- 
 testants  err  in  all  those  points  wherein  they  are  contrary  to  her. 
 And  this  may  suffice  to  prove  that  the  faith  of  protestants  wants 
 infallibility. 
 
 31 .  "  And  now  for  the  second  condition  of  faith,  I  say,  if  pro- 
 testants have  certainty,  they  want  obscurity,  and  so  have  not 
 that  faith,  which,  as  the  apostle  saith,  is  of  things  not  appearing, 
 or  not  necessitating  our  understanding  to  an  assent.  For  the 
 whole  edifice  of  the  faith  of  protestants  is  settled  on  these  two 
 principles  :  these  particular  books  are  canonical  Scripture ;  and 
 the  sense  and  meaning  of  these  canonical  Scriptures  is  clear  and 
 evident,  at  least  in  all  points  necessary  to  salvation.  Now  these 
 principles  being  once  supposed,  it  clearly  followeth,  that  what 
 protestants  believe  as  necessary  to  salvation  is  evidently  known 
 by  them  to  be  true,  by  this  argument :  it  is  certain  and  evident, 
 that  whatsoever  is  contained  in  the  word  of  God  is  true :  but  it  is 
 certain  and  evident,  that  these  books  in  particular  are  the  word 
 of  God :  therefore  it  is  certain  and  evident,  that  whatsoever  is 
 *  Ad.  s, 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    BY  CATHOLICS.  409 
 
 contained  in  these  books  is  true.     Which  conclusion  I  take  for  a 
 major  in  a  second  argument,  and  say  thus :   It  is  certain   and 
 evident,  that  whatsoever  is  contained  in  these  books  is  true  :  but 
 it  is  certain  and  evident,  that  such  particular  articles  (for  ex- 
 ample, the  Trinity,  incarnation,  original  sin,  &c.)  are  contained 
 in  these  books :  therefore  it  is  certain  and  evident,  that  these 
 particular  objects  are  true.     Neither  will  it  avail  you  to  say,  that 
 the  said  principles  are  not  evident  by  natural  discourse,  but  only 
 to  the  *  eye  of  reason  cleared  by  grace,'  as  you  speak.    For  super- 
 natural evidence  no  less  (yea,  rather  more)  drowns  and  excludes 
 obscurity  than  natural  evidence  doth ;  neither  can  the  party  so 
 enlightened  be  said  voluntarily  to  captivate  his  understanding 
 to  that  light,  but  rather  his  understanding  is  by  a  necessity 
 made  captive,  and  forced  not  to  disbelieve  what  is  presented  by 
 so  clear  a  light :  and  therefore  your  imaginary  faith  is  not  the 
 true  faith  defined  by  the  apostles,  but  an  invention  of  your  own. 
 32.  "  That  the  faith  of  protestants  wanted  the  third  condition, 
 which  was  prudence,  is  deduced  from  all  that  hitherto  hath  been 
 said.     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  ?  a  church  acknowledged  to 
 want  nothing  necessary  to  salvation ;  endued  with  succession  of 
 bishops,  with  visibility  and  universality  of  time  and  place :   a 
 church  which,  if  it  be  not  the  true  church,  her  enemies  cannot 
 pretend  to  have  any  church,  ordination.  Scripture,  succession, 
 <fcc.,  and  are  forced,  for  their  own  sake,  to  maintain  her  perpetual 
 existence  and  being.     To  leave,  I  say,  such  a  church,  and  frame 
 a  community,  without  either  unity  or  means  to  procure  it;   a 
 church,  which  at  Luther's  first  revolt  had  no  larger  extent  than 
 where  his  body  was  ;  a  church  without  universality  of  time  or 
 place ;  a  church,  which  can  pretend  no  visibility  or  being,  except 
 only  in  that  former  church,  which  it  opposeth ;  a  church  void  of 
 succession  of  persons  or  doctrine.     What  wisdom  was  it  to  follow 
 such  men  as  Luther,  in  an  opposition  against  the  visible  church 
 of  Christ,  begun  upon  mere  passion  ?     What  wisdom  is  it  to  re- 
 ceive from  us  a  church,  ordination.  Scriptures,  personal  succes- 
 sion, and  not  succession  of  doctrine  ?     Is  not  this  to  verify  the 
 name  of  heresy,  which  signifieth  election  or  choice  ?     Whereby 
 they  cannot  avoid  that  note  of  imprudency,  or  (as  St.  Austin 
 calls  it)  foolishness,  set  down  by  him  against  the  Manichees, 
 and  by  me  recited  before:  '  I  would  not,'  saith  he,*  'believe  the 
 gospel,  unless  the  authority  of  the  church  did  move  me.     Those 
 therefore  whom  I  obeyed,  saying.  Believe  the  gospel,  why  should 
 I  not  obey  the  same  men  saying  unto  me,  Do  not  believe  Mani- 
 chseus  (Luther,  Calvin,  S:c')  ?     Choose  what  thou  pleasest :  if 
 thou  say.  Believe  the  catholics,  they  warn  me  not  to  believe  thee; 
 wherefore  if  I  believe  them,  I  cannot  believe  thee.     If  thou  say. 
 Do  not  believe  the  catholics,  thou  shalt  not  do  well  in  forcing 
 me  to   the  faith  of  Manicheeus,    because  by  the  preaching  of 
 catholics  I  believed  the  gospel  itself.     If  thon  say,  You  did  well 
 to  believe  them  (catholics)  commending  the  gospel ;  but  you  dtid 
 
 *  Cont.  ep.  Fund.  c.  5. 
 
410  CHARTIY   MAINTAINED   BY  CATHOLICS. 
 
 not  well  to  believe  them  discommending  Manicheeus ;  dost  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  ?' 
 Nay,  this  holy  Father  is  not  content  to  call  it  foolishness,  but 
 mere  madness,  in  these  words -.f  'Why  should  I  not  most  dili- 
 gently inquire  what  Christ  commanded,  of  those  before  all  others 
 by  whose  authority  I  was  moved  to  believe  that  Christ  com- 
 manded any  good  thing  ?  Canst  thou  better  declare  to  me  what 
 he  said,  whom  1  woukl  not  have  thought  to  have  been,  or  to  be, 
 if  the  belief  thereof  had  been  recommended  by  thee  to  me  ? 
 This  therefore  I  believed  by  fame,  strengthened  with  celebrity, 
 consent,  antiquity.  But  every  one  may  see  that  you,  so  few,  so 
 turbulent,  so  new,  can  produce  nothing  which  deserves  autho- 
 rity. What  MADNESS  is  this  ?  Believe  them,  (catholics,)  that  we 
 ought  to  believe  Christ ;  but  learn  of  us  what  Christ  said. 
 Why,  I  beseech  thee  ?  Surely  if  they  (catholics;  were  not  at  all, 
 and  could  not  teach  me  any  thing,  I  would  more  easily  per- 
 suade myself  that  I  were  not  to  believe  Christ,  than  I  should 
 learn  any  thing  concerning  him  from  any  other  than  those  by 
 whom  I  believed  him.'  Lastly,  I  ask,  what  wisdom  it  could  be 
 to  leave  all  visible  churches,  and  consequently  the  true  catholic 
 church  of  Christ,  which  you  confess  cannot  err  in  points  neces- 
 sary to  salvation,  and  the  Roman  church,  which  you  grant  doth 
 not  err  in  fundamentals,  and  follow  private  men,  who  may  err 
 even  in  points  necessary  to  salvation  ?  Especially,  if  we  add, 
 that  when  Luther  rose,  there  was  no  visible  true  catholic  church 
 besides  that  of  Rome,  cind  them  who  agreed  with  her ;  in  which 
 sense  she  was  and  is  the  only  true  church  of  Christ,  and  not 
 capable  of  any  error  in  faith.  Nay,  even  Luther,  who  first 
 opposed  the  Roman  church,  yet  coming  to  dispute  against 
 other  heretics,  he  is  forced  to  give  the  lie  both  to  his  own 
 words  and  deeds,  in  saying, J  '  We  freely  confess  that  in  the 
 papacy  there  are  many  good  things  worthy  the  name  of  Chris- 
 tian, which  have  come  from  them  to  us;  namely,  we  confess 
 that  in  the  papacy  there  is  true  Scripture,  true  baptism, 
 the  true  sacrament  of  the  altar,  the  tiue  keys  for  the  remission, 
 of  sins,  the  true  office  of  preaching,  true  Catechism,  as  our 
 Lord's  Prayer,  Ten  Commandments,  Articles  of  Faith,'  &c. 
 And  afterward,  *  I  avouch,  that  under  the  papacy  there  is  true 
 Christianity,  yea,  the  kernel  and  marrow  of  Christianity,  and 
 many  pious  and  great  saints.'  And  again  he  affirmeth,  that 
 *the  church  of  Rome  hath  the  true  spirit,  gospels,  faith,  bap- 
 tism, sacraments,  the  keys,  the  office  of  preaching,  prayer,, 
 Holy  Scripture,  and  whatsoever  Christianity  ought  to  have.* 
 And  a  little  before,  '  I  hear  and  see,  that  they  bring  in  Anabap- 
 tism  only  to  this  end,  that  they  may  spite  the  pope,  as  men  that 
 will  receive  nothing  from  antichrist,  no  otheiwise  than  the  sacra- 
 mentaries  do,  who  therefore  believe  only  bread  and  wine  to  be 
 in  the  sacrament,  .merely  in  hatred  against  the  bishop  of  Rome; 
 and  they  think,  that  by  this  means  they  shall   overcome   the 
 
 t  Lib.  de  Util.  Cred.  c.  14. 
 t  In  epist.  cont.  Anab.  ad  duos  Parochos,  t.  2.  Germ.  Wit.  ful.  229  ct  239. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS.  411 
 
 papacy.  Verily  these  men  rely  upon  a  weak  ground  ;  for  by 
 this  means  they  must  deny  the  whole  Scripture,  and  the  office 
 of  preaching.  For  we  have  all  these  things  from  the  pope, 
 otherwise  we  must  go  make  a  new  Scripture.'  *  O  truth,  more 
 forcible'  (as  St.  Austin  says*)  'to  wring  out  confession  than  is 
 any  rack  or  torment !'  And  so  we  may  truly  say  with  Moses,t 
 Inimici  nostri  sunt  judices,  Our  very  enemies  give  sentence  for  us, 
 
 33.  "  Lastly,  since  your  faith  wanteth  certainty  and  prudence, 
 it  is  easy  to  infer  that  it  wants  the  fourth  condition,  supernatu- 
 rality.  For  being  but  an  human  persuasion  or  opinion,  it  is  not 
 in  nature  or  essence  supernatural.  And  being  imprudent  and 
 rash,  it  cannot  proceed  from  Divine  motion  and  grace  ;  and 
 therefore  it  if  neither  supernatural  in  itself,  nor  in  the  cause 
 from  which  it  proceedeth. 
 
 34.  "  Since  therefore  we  have  proved  that  whosoever  errs 
 against  any  one  point  of  faith  loseth  all  Divine  faith,  even  con- 
 cerning those  other  articles  wherein  he  doth  not  err ;  and  that 
 although  he  could  still  retain  true  faith  for  some  points,  yet  any- 
 one error  in  whatsoever  other  matter  concerning  faith  is  a  griev- 
 ous sin  ;  it  clearly  follows,  that  when  two  or  more  hold  different 
 doctrines  concerning  faith  and  religion,  there  can  be  but  one  part 
 saved.  For  declaring  of  which  truth  if  catholics  be  charged 
 with  want  of  charity  and  modesty,  and  be  accused  of  rashness, 
 ambition,  and  fury,  as  Dr.  Potter  is  very  free  in  this  kind  ;  I  de- 
 sire every  one  to  ponder  the  words  of  St.  Chrysostom,  who 
 teacheth,'that  every  least  error  overthrows  all  faith,  and  whoso- 
 ever is  guilty  thereof,  is,  in  the  church,  like  one  who  in  the  com. 
 monwealth  forgeth  false  coin.  '  Let  them  hear,'  saith  the  holy 
 Father,  '  what  St.  Paul  saith  ;*namely,  that  they  who  brought 
 in  some  small  error  had  overthrown  the  gospel.  For  to  show 
 how  small  a  thing  ill  mingled  doth  corrupt  the  whole,  he  said 
 that  the  gospel  was  subverted.  For  as  he  who  clips  a  little  of 
 the  stamp  from  the  king's  money  makes  the  whole  piece  of  no 
 value  ;  so  whosoever  takes  away  the  least  particle  of  sound  faith 
 is  wholly  corrupted,  always  going  from  that  beginning  to  worse 
 things.  "Where  then  are  they  who  condemn  us  as  contentious- 
 persons  because  we  cannot  agree  with  heretics ;  and  do  often  say, 
 that  there  is  no  difference  betwixt  us  and  them,  but  that  our  dis- 
 agreement proceeds  from  ambition  to  domineer?"  And  thus- 
 having  showed  that  protestants  want  true  faith,  it  lemaineth 
 that,  according  to  my  first  design,  I  examine  whether  they  do  not 
 also  want  charity,  as  respects  a  man's  self. 
 
 •  Cent.  Donat.  post  collat.  c.  24.  t  Dmt  xxxii.  31. 
 
THE 
 
 ANSWER    TO    THE    SIXTH    CHAPTER: 
 
 That  Protestants  are  not  heretics. 
 
 Ad  §  1.  He  that  wiii  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  accu- 
 sation you  would  here  make  show  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  con- 
 vincing arguments  upon  them.  But  both  these  I  find  to  be  mere 
 and  vain  pretences  ;  and,  having  considered  this  chapter  also  with- 
 out 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  gi'anted.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that 
 *'  man  by  his  natural  wit  or  industry  could  never  have  attained  to 
 the  knowledge  of  God's  will  to  give  him  a  supernatiu-al  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  ap- 
 prehend that  end  and  means  by  a  knowledge  supernatural."  I  say 
 this  is  good,  if  you  mean  by  knowledge  an  apprehension  or  belief. 
 But  if  you  take  the  word  properly  and  exactly,  it  is  both  false  ;  for 
 faith  is  not  knowledge,  no  more  than  three  is  four,  but  eminently 
 contained  in  it;  so  that  he  that  knows  believes,  and  something 
 more,  but  he  that  believes  many  times  does  not  knovf — nay,  if  he 
 doth  barely  and  merely  believe,  he  doth  never  know ;  and  besides,  it 
 is  retracted  by  yourself  presently,  where  you  requu-e  "  that  the  object 
 of  faith  must  be  both  natm*ally  and  supernaturally  imknown."  And 
 again,  in  the  next  page,  where  you  say  "  Faith  differs  from  science 
 in  regard  of  the  object's  obscurity."  For  that  science  and  know- 
 ledge, properly  taken,  are  sjTionymous  terms,  and  that  a  Iciowledge 
 of  a  tiling  absolutely  unknown  is  a  plain  implicancy,  I  think,  are 
 things  so  plain  that  you  will  not  require  any  proof  of  them. 
 
 3.  But  then,  whereas  you  add,  "  that  if  such  a  knowledge  were 
 no  more  than  probable,  it  could  not  be  able  sufficiently  to  over- 
 bear our  will,  and  encounter  with  human  probabilities,  being 
 backed  with  the  strength  of  flesh  and  blood ;  and  therefore  con- 
 clude, that  it  was  further  necessary  that  this  supernatural  know- 
 ledge should  be  most  certain  and  infallible :"  to  this  I  answer,  that 
 I  do  heartily  acknowledge  and  believe  the  articles  of  our  faith  to 
 
THE   NATURE    OF   FAITH.  413 
 
 be*  in  themselves  truths,  as  certam  and  infallible  as  the  very  com- 
 mon principles  of  geometry  and  metaphysics.  But  that  there  is 
 required  of  us  a  knowledge  of  them,  and  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  abeady  demon- 
 strated to  be  a  great  error,  and  of  dangerous  and  pernicious  conse- 
 quence. And  because  I  am  more  and  more  confirmed  in  my 
 persuasion  that  the  truth  which  I  there  delivered  is  of  great  and 
 singular  use,  I  will  here  confirm  it  with  more  reasons.  x\nd  to 
 satisfy  you  that  this  is  no  singularity  of  my  o^ai,  my  margent  pre- 
 sents you  with  a  protestant  divine  of  great  authority,  and  no  way 
 singular  in  his  opinions,  and  who  hath  long  since  preached  and 
 justified  the  same  doctrine.f 
 
 4.  I  sayj  that  every  text  of  Scripture  which  makes  mention  of 
 any  that  were  iceak,  or  any  that  were  strong,  in  faith  ;  of  any  that 
 were  of  little,  or  any  that  were  of  great  faith ;  of  any  that  abounded, 
 or  any  that  were  rich  in  faith;  of  increasing,  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  increase  your 
 faith,  (or  if  you  conceive  such  a  prayer  derogatory  from  the  perfec- 
 tion of  your  faith,)  the  apostles  praying  to  Christ  to  increase  their 
 faith,  is  a  convincing  argument  of  the  same  conclusion.  Moreover, 
 if  this  doctrine  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  ali,  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  merely  in- 
 voluntary. 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  St.  John  assures  us,  our  faith  is  the 
 victory  which  overcomes  the  world,  certainly  if  the  faith  of  all  true 
 
 *•  Faith  be.— Oxf. 
 
 t  Mr.   Hooker,  in  liis  Answer  to  Travers's  Supplication ; "  I  have  taught, 
 
 that  the  assurance  of  things  which  we  beUeve  by  the  word,  is  not  so  certain  as  of 
 that  we  perceive  by  sense.  And  is  it  as  certfun?  Yea,  I  taught,  that  the  things 
 which  God  doth  promise  in  his  word  are  surer  unto  us  than  any  thing  which  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  imto  us,  as  he  doth,  by  arguments  taken  from  our 
 sensible  experience  1  We  must  be  surer  of  the  proof  than  of  the  thing  proved,  other- 
 wise it  is  no  proof.  How  is  it,  that  if  ten  men  do  all  look  upon  the  moon,  every  one 
 of  them  knoweth  it  as  certainly  to  be  the  moon  as  another;  but  many  believing  one 
 and  the  same  promise,  all  have  not  one  and  the  same  fulness  of  persuasion  ?  How 
 falleth  it  out,  that  men  being  assured  of  any  thing  by  sense,  can  be  no  surer  of  it  than 
 they  are ;  whereas  the  strongest  in  faith  that  liveth  upon  the  earth,  hath  always  need 
 to  labour,  and  strive,  and  pray,  that  his  assurance  concerning  heavenly  and  spiritual 
 things  mays-row,  increase,  and  be  augmented  J" — Ecclesiastical  Polity,  vol.  iii.  p. 
 718.  Oxf.  edit.  1836. 
 
 t  I  say  then,  that.— Oxf. 
 
414  '^''^^  NATURE   OP  FAITH. 
 
 believers  were  perfect — and  if  true  faith  be  capable  of  no  imperfec- 
 tion, if  all  faith  be  a  knoAvledge  most  certain  and  infallible,  all  faith 
 must  be  perfect ;  for  the  most  imperfect  that  is,  according  to  your 
 doctrine,  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  there- 
 fore over  sin,  must  of  necessity  be  perfect,  and  so  it  should  be  im- 
 possible 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  man  could 
 possibly  make  any  progress  in  it,  but  all  true  believers  should  be 
 equal  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  shows  this  doctrine  of  yours,  which  you  would  fain  have 
 true,  that  there  might  be  some  necessity  of  your  church's  infalli- 
 bility, 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.  And  there- 
 fore I  must  entreat  and  adjure  you  either  to  discover  unto  me 
 (which  I  take  God  to  witness  I  cannot  perceive)  some  fallacy  in 
 my  reasons  against  it,  or  never  hereafter  to  open  your  mouth  in 
 defence  of  it. 
 
 5.  As  for  that  one  single  reason  which  you  produce  to  confirm  it, 
 it  will  appear  upon  examination  to  be  resolved  finally  into  a  ground- 
 less assertion  of  your  own,  contrary  to  all  truth  and  experience,  and 
 that  is,  "  that  no  degree  of  faith  less  than  a  most  certain  and  infal- 
 lible knowledge,  can  be  able  sufficiently  to  overbear  our  will,  and 
 encounter  wUh  human  probablilities,  being  backed  with  the  strength 
 of  flesh  and  blood."  For  who  sees  not  that  many  millions  in  the 
 world  forego  many  times  their  present  ease  and  pleasure,  undergo 
 great  and  toilsome  labours,  encounter  great  difficulties,  adventure 
 upon  great  dangers,  and  all  this  not  upon  any  certain  expectation, 
 but  upon  a  probable  hope  of  same  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  a  hundred  thousand 
 pounds?  And  I  would  fain  know,  "what  gay  probabilities"  you 
 could  devise  to  dissuade  from  this  resolution.  And  if  you  can  devise 
 none,  what  reason  then  or  sense  is  there,  but  that  a  probable  hope 
 of  infinite  and  eternal  happiness,  provided  for  all  those  that  obey 
 Christ  Jesus,  and  much  more  a  fii-m  faith,  though  not  so  certain,  io 
 
THE    XATURE    OF   FAITH.  415 
 
 some  sort,  as  sense  or  science,  may  be  able  to  sway  our  will  to 
 obedience,  and  encounter  with  all  those  temptations  which  ilesh  and 
 blood  can  suggest  to  avert  us  from  it  ?  IMen*  may  talk  their  plea- 
 sure of  an  obsolute  and  most  infallible  certainty,  but  did  they  gene- 
 rally 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  Caesar's  Commentaries,  or 
 the  History  of  Sallust ;  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  obsolute  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  may  be  able  to  do  this,  then  a  less  degree 
 of  faith  may  be  true,  and  Divine,  and  saving  faith :  but  experience 
 shows,  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  employed  to  show,  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,  sect.  25,  are 
 most  presumptuous  and  uncharitable,  viz.  "  That  such  a  most  cer- 
 tain and  infallible  faith  is  necessary  to  salvation,"  necessitate  Jinis 
 or  jnedii ;  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  God's,  but  your  own  making.  But  withal 
 you  clearly  contradict  yourself,  not  only  where  you  afl[irm,f  "  that 
 your  faith  depends  finally  upon  the  tradition  of  age  to  age,  of  father 
 to  son,"  which  cannot  be  a  fit  ground,  but  only  for  a  moral  assurance ; 
 nor  only  where  you  pretend,  j  "  that  not  alone  hearing  and  seeing," 
 but  also  "  histories,  letters,  relations  of  many,"  (which  certainly  are 
 things  not  certain  and  i-nfallible,)  are  yet  foundations  good  enough 
 to  support  your  faith  :  Avliich  doctrine  if  it  were  good  and  allowable, 
 protestants  might  then  hope,  that  there  histories,  and  letters,  and 
 relations,  might  also  pass  for  means  suflficient  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  diflSculty 
 compelled  you  to  speak  here  what  I  believe  you  will  not  justify, 
 and  with  a  pretty  tergiversation  to  show  Dr.  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  yom'selves  in  the  same  condemnation  :  according 
 to  those  terrible  words  of  St.  Paul,§  Thou  art  inexcusable,  O  man, 
 tchosGever  tJiou  art  that  judgest :  for  icherein  thou  judgcst  another, 
 
 *  may  therefore  talk.— Oxf.  t  P.  1.  c.  2.  \U.  %  P.  2.  c.  5,  ?  32. 
 
 \  In  the  Oxford  edit,  there  are  only  two  words  of  the  citation,  viz.  Inexcusabilises» 
 .&c. 
 
416  THE   NATURE    OF   FAITH. 
 
 thou  condemnest  thyself;  for  thou  thatjudgest  doest  the  same  things^ 
 ike.  In  this  therefore  you  plainly  contradict  yourself.  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  con- 
 trition, and  be  saved : "  and  here  you  are  very  peremptory,  that 
 "they  cannot  but  want  a  means  absolute  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 
 human  discourse,"  but  that  "  absolutely  also  it  should  be  obscure 
 in  itself,  and,  ordinarily  speaking,  he  void  even  of  supernatural 
 evidence."  Which  words  must  have  a  very  favourable  construc- 
 tion, or  else  they  will  not  be  sense.  For  who  can  make  anything 
 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  om-  assent,  but  the  object  of  it ;  not  of  our  belief, 
 but  the  thing  believed.  For  well  may  we  assent  to  a  thing  un- 
 known, obscure,  or  unevident ;  but  that  our  assent  itself  should  be 
 called  therefore  unkno^vn  or  obscure,  seems  to  me  as  great  an  im- 
 propriety, as  if  I  should  say,  your  sight  were  green  or  blue,  because 
 you  see  something  that  is  so.  In  other  places  therefore  I  answer 
 your  words,  but  here  I  must  answer  your  meaning  :  which  I  con- 
 ceive 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  understanding  to  an  assent,  that  so  there  might  be 
 some  merit  in  faith,  as  you  love  to  speak  (who  v/ill  not  receive,  no, 
 not  from  God  himself,  but  a  pennpvorth  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  under- 
 standing 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  demonstra- 
 tion ;  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  St.  John  for  saying,  That  which  we  have  seen  icith 
 our  eyes,  and  ivhich  our  hands  have  handled,  &c.,  declare  we  unto 
 you :  nay,  our  Saviour  himself  for  saying,  Thomas,  because  thou 
 seest,  thou  helievest ;  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  pm^e  and  proper  and 
 mere  faith,  but  somewhat  more,  an  assent  containing  faith,  but 
 superadding  to  it,  I  will  not  contend  with  you ;  for  it  will  be  a  con- 
 tention about  words.     But  then  aaain  I  must  crave  leave  to  tell 
 
THE    NATURE    OF    FAITH.  417 
 
 you,  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  cer- 
 tainty 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  contradic- 
 tious faith  may  very  well  become  a  contradictious  religion.  Your 
 faith,  therefore,  if  you  please  to  have  it  so,  let  it  be  a  free  necessi- 
 tated, certain  uncertain,  evident  obscure,  prudent  and  foolish,  na- 
 tural and  supernatural  unnatural  assent.  But  they  which  are  un- 
 willing to  believe  nonsense  themselves,  or  persuade  others  to  do 
 so,  it  is  but  reason  they  should  make  the  faith,  wherewith  they  be- 
 lieve, 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  appear  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  merely  by 
 means,  must  bear  proportion  to,  and  cannot  exceed,  the  vu'tue  of 
 the  means  by  v/hich  it  is  wrought.  As  nothing  by  water  can  be 
 made  more  cold  than  water,  nor  by  fii'e  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  means,  then  that  power 
 w^hich  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  un- 
 derstanding, at  least  the  same  degree  of  evidence  must  be  infused 
 into  the  object.  And  for  you  to  require  a  strength  of  credit  be- 
 yond the  appearance  of  the  object's  credibility,  is  all  one  as  :f  you 
 should  require  me  to  go  ten  mile  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  discernible ;  to  hear  a  sound  more  clearly 
 than  it  is  audible ;  to  understand  a  thing  more  fully  than  it  is  in- 
 telligible :  and  he  that  doth  so,  I  may  well  expect  that  his  next  in- 
 junction will  be,  that  I  must  see  something  that  is  invisible,  hear 
 something  inaudible,  understand  something  that  is  wholly  unin 
 telligible.  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 
 fui'ther  than  they  are  visible,  require  I  should  see  something  in- 
 visible; and  in  requii'ing  that  I  believe  something  more  fii-mly  than 
 
 E  E 
 
418  '3^HE   NATURE    OF   FAITH. 
 
 it  is  made  to  me  evidently  credible,  you  require  in  effect  that  I  be- 
 lieve 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  human  understandings  incomprehensible  ;  but  then  it  is  to  be 
 observed,  that  not  the  sense  of  such  texts,  nor  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  anything,  the  truth  whereof 
 cannot  be  made  evident  with  an  evidence  projjortionable  to  the  de- 
 gree of  faith  required  of  me,  this  I  say  for  any  man  to  be  bound  to 
 do  is  unjust  and  unreasonable,  because  to  do  it  is  impossible. 
 
 8.  Ad.  §§  4 — 12.  Yet  though  I  deny  that  it  is  required  of  us 
 to  be  certain  in  the  highest  degree,  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 
 natiural  or  supernatural,  were  of  the  highest  degree  ;  yet  I  deny- 
 not  *  but  we  ought  to  be  and  may  be  infallibly  certain  that  we  are 
 to  believe  the  religion  of  Christ.  For  fii'st,  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 
 Dy  many  degrees  more  credible  and  probable  than  the  contrary. 
 Thirdly,  this  is  as  certain,  that  to  every  man,  who  considers  im- 
 partially what  great  things  may  be  said  for  the  truth  of  Chris- 
 tianity, 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  the  Christian  religion 
 is  true,  than  the  contrary.  And  from  all  these  premises,  this  con- 
 clusion evidently  follows,  that  it  is  infallibly  certain  that  we  are 
 firmly  to  believe  the  truth  of  the  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  requu-ed  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  (if  they  be 
 5ict  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  credible,  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  as  pru- 
 dent, but  to  be  condemned  of  rashness  and  levity. 
 
 10.  But  then  for  your  making  prudence  not  only  a  commendation 
 
 *  but  that  we  are  to  believe  tbe  religion  of  Christ,  we  axe  and  may  be  infallibly 
 certain.— Oxf. 
 
THE   XATURE    OF   PAITH.  419 
 
 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  mis- 
 taken, aiid  have  done  as  if  being  to  say  -u'hat  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  man, 
 T\^here  nothing  should  have  place  but  what  agrees  to  all  men  ;  so 
 though  all  that  are  truly  wise  (that  is,  wise  for  eternit}')  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  Lord's  people 
 could  prophecy ;  that  all  that  believe  the  ti'ue  religion  were  able 
 (according  to  St.  Peter's  injunction)  to  give  a  reason  of  the  hope  that 
 is  in  theyn,  a  reason  why  they  hope  for  eternal  happiness  by  this 
 way  rather  than  any  other  ;  neither  do  I  thinlc  it  any  great  difficulty, 
 that  men  of  ordinary  capacities,  if  they  would  give  their  mind  to 
 it,  might  quickly  be  enabled  to  do  so.  JBut  should  I  affu-m,  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  fabric  that  they  destroy  one  another.  I  come  now  to 
 show  that  your  arguments  to  prove  protestants  heretics  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,  sect.  13,  "that 
 protestants  must  be  heretics,  because  they  opposed  divers  truths 
 propounded  for  Divme  by  the  visible  chm-ch ;"  I  answer.  It  is 
 not  heresy  to  oppose  any  truth  propounded  by  the  church,  but  only 
 such  a  truth  as  is  an  essential  part  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  2. 
 The  doctrines  which  protestants  opposed  were  not  ti'uths,  but  plain 
 and  unpious  falsehoods.  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  doctrine  revealed  by  God  is  damn- 
 able heresy :  now  either  protestants  or  the  Roman  church  must 
 err  against  the  word  of  God :  but  the  Roman  chui-ch  we  grant 
 (perforce)  doth  not  err  damnably,  neither  can  she,  because  she  is 
 the  cathoKc  church,  which  we  (you  say)  confess  cannot  err  damn- 
 ably :  therefore  Protestants  must  err  against  God's  word,  and  con- 
 sequently are  guilty  of  formal  heresy."  Whereunto  I  answer 
 plainly,  that  there  be  in  this  argument  almost  as  many  falsehoods 
 as  assertions.  For  neither  is  every  error  against  any  doctrine  re- 
 vealed by  God  a  damnable  heresy,  unless  it  be  revealed*  publicly 
 and  plainly,  v/ith  a  command  that  all  should  believe  it.  2.  Dr. 
 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, f  that 
 he  "  allows  no  hope  of  salvation  to  those  amongst  you  whom  ig- 
 
 *  publicly,  plainly.— Oxf.  \  Ch.  5.  +  41. 
 
420  TH^   NATURE    OF   PAITH. 
 
 norance  cannot  excuse."  3.  You  beg  the  question  twice  in  taking  for 
 granted,  first,  that  "  the  Roman  church  is  the  truly  catholic  church ;" 
 "which  without  much  favour  can  hardly  pass  for  a  part  of  it :  and 
 again,  that  the  "  catholic  church  cannot  fall  into  any  eiTor  of  itself 
 damnable ;"  for  it  may  do  so,  and  still  be  the  catholic  church,  if  it 
 retain  those  truths  which  may  be  an  antidote  agains  the  malignity 
 of  this  error,  to  those  that  held  it  out  of  a  simple  unaffected  ig- 
 norance. 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  God's  w^ord.  For  if  their  contradiction  be 
 your  only  reason,  then  also  you  or  the  Dominicians  must  be  heretics, 
 because  you  contradict  one  another  as  much  as  protestants  and 
 papists. 
 
 13.  Ad  §  15.  The  third  argument  pretends,  that  "  you  have 
 showed  already,  that  the  visible  church  is  judge  of  controversies, 
 and  therefore  infallible  ;  from  whence  you  suppose  it  follows,  that 
 to  oppose  her  is  to  oppose  God."  To  which  I  answer,  that  you  have 
 said  only,  and  not  shoAved,  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  ques- 
 tion whether  she  be  judge  of  them  ?  That  which  is  questioned 
 itself,  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  him- 
 self 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  heretic,  then  they  that  agreed  with 
 him  must  be  so."  And  that  Luther  was  a  formal  heretic,  you 
 endeavour  to  prove  by  this  most  formal  syllogism :  *'  To  say  the 
 visible  church  is  not  universal,  is  properly  an  heresy :  but  Luther's 
 reformation  was  not  universal ;  therefore  it  cannot  be  excused  from 
 formal  heresy."  Whereunto  I  answer,  first,  to  the  first  part,  that  it 
 is  no  way  impossible  that  Luther,  had  he  been  the  inventor  and  first 
 broacher  of  a  false  doctrine,  (as  he  was  not,)  might  have  been  a 
 formal  heretic,  and  yet  that  those  who  follow  him  may  be  only 
 
 '  so  materially  and  improperly,  and  indeed  no  heretics.  Your  own 
 men  out  of  St.  Austin  distinguish  between  licaretici,  et  JieBrettcoruni 
 sequaces:  and  you  yourself,  though  you  pronounce  "the  leaders 
 among  the  Arians  formal  heretics,"  yet  confess,  that  Salvian  was  at 
 least  doubtful,  whether,  these  Ai'ians,  who  in  simplicity  followed 
 their  teachers,  might  not  be  excused  by  ignorance.  And  about  this 
 suspension  of  his  you  also  seem  suspended ;  for  you  neither  approve 
 
THE   NATURE   OF   FAITH.  421 
 
 nor  condemn  it.  Secondly,  to  the  second  part  I  say,  that  had  you 
 not  presumed  upon  your  ignorance  in  logic,  as  well  as  metaphysics 
 and  school  divinity,  you  would  never  have  obtruded  upon  us  this 
 rope  of  sand  for  a  formal  syllogism.  It  Ls  even  cousin-german 
 to  this :  To  deny  the  resurrection,  is  properly  an  heresy :  but 
 Luther's  reformation  was  not  universal;  therefore  it  cannot  be 
 excused  from  formal  heresy  :  or  to  this  :  To  say  the  visible  church 
 is  not  universal,  is  properly  an  heresy :  but  the  preaching  of  the 
 gospel  at  the  beginning  was  not  universal ;  therefore  it  cannot  be 
 excused  from  formal  heresy.  For  as  he  whose  reformation  is 
 but  particular  may  yet  not  deny  the  resurrection,  so  may  he  also 
 not  deny  the  church's  universality.  And  as  the  apostles,  who 
 preached  the  gospel  in  the  beginning,  did  believe  the  church 
 imiversal,  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  not  only  the  part 
 reformed  was  the  true  church,  but  also  that  tliey  were  part  of  it  who 
 needed  reformation.  Xeither  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  heresy,  th  it  it  is  a  certain  truth  known  to  all  those  that  know  the 
 world,  and  what  religions  possess  far  the  greater  part  of  it.  Dona- 
 tus  therefore  was  not  to  blame  for  saying,  that  the  church  might 
 possibly  be  confined  to  Afric  ;  but  for  saying,  without  ground,  that 
 then  it  was  so.  And  St.  Austin,  as  he  w^s  in  the  right  in  thinking 
 that  the  church  was  then  extended  further  than  Afric ;  so  was  he  in 
 the  wrong,  if  he  thought  of  necessity  it  ahvays  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. 
 
 lo.  Ad  §  17.  Li  the  next  section  you  pretend,  "  that  you  have  no 
 desire  to  prosecute  the  similitude  of  Protestants  with  the  Donatists;" 
 and  yet  you  do  it  with  as  much  spite  and  malice  as  could  well  be 
 devised,  but  in  vain  :  for  Lucilla  might  do  ill  in  promoting  the  sect 
 of  the  Donatists,  and  yet  the  mother  and  the  daughter,  whom  you 
 glance  at,  might  do  well  in  "  ministering  influence"  (as  you  phrase 
 it)  "  to  protcstants  in  England."  Unless  you  will  conclude,  because 
 one  woman  did  one  thing  ill,  therefore  no  woman  can  do  any  thing 
 well ;  or  because  it  was  ill  done  to  promote  one  sect,  therefore 
 it  must  be  ill  done  to  maint<iin  any. 
 
 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  St.  Austin  "  might  perhaps  have 
 reason  to  persecute  the  Donatists  for  detracting  from  the  church," 
 
422  THE   NATURE    OF   FAITH. 
 
 and  calling  her  harlot,  when  she  was  not  so  ;  yet  you  may  have 
 none  to  threaten  Dr.  Potter  that  you  would  persecute  him,  (as  the 
 application  of  this  place  intimates  you  wouM,)  if  it  were  in  your 
 power  ;  plainly  showing  that  you  are  a  cursed  cow,  though  your 
 horns  be  short,  seeing  the  Roman  church  is  not  now  what  it  was  in 
 St.  Austin's  time.  And  hereof  the  conclusion  of  your  OAvn  book 
 affords  us  a  very  pregnant  testimony  ;  where  you  tell  us  out  of  St. 
 Austin,  that  one  grand  impediment,  which  among  many  kept  the 
 seduced  followers  of  the  faction  of  Donatus  from  the  church's  com- 
 munion, was*  a  calumny  raised  against  the  catholics,  that  "they  did 
 set  some  strange  thing  upon  their  altar.  To  how  many,"  saith  St. 
 Austin,  "  did  the  report  of  ill  tongues  shut  up  the  way  to  enter,  who 
 said,  that  we  put  I  know  not  what  upon  the  altar  ?  "  Out  of  detes- 
 tation 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  Avorship  them,  as  your 
 new  fashion  is)  bruited  abroad  to  be  done  in  the  churches  of  the 
 catholic  church.  But  what  answer  do  St.  Austin  and  Optatus  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  yoiu- 
 church  could  now  make  to  such  an  objection  is  very  hard  to 
 irnagine  ;  and  therefore  were  your  doctrine  the  same  with  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  Fathers  in  this  point,  they  must  have  answered  so 
 likewise.  But  they,  to  the  contrary,  not  only  deny  the  crime,  but 
 also  abhor  and  detest  it.  To  little  purpose  therefore  do  you  hunt 
 after  these  poor  shadows  of  resemblances  between  us  and  the  Dona- 
 tists, unless  you  could  show  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,  v/hich  M'as  then  a  virgin,  may  be  now  a  harlot,  and  that 
 which  was  detraction  in  the  Donatists  may  be  in  protestants  a  just 
 accusation. 
 
 17.  As  ill  success  have  you  in  comparing  Dr.  Potter  with  Tyco- 
 nius,  whom  as  "  St.  Austin  finds  fault  with  for  continuing  in  the 
 Donatists'  separation,  having  forsaken  the  ground  of  it,  the  doctrine 
 of  the  church's  perishing ;  so  you  condemn  the  Doctor  for  continuing 
 in  their  communion,  who  hold,"  as  you  say,  "the  very  same  heresy." 
 But  if  this  were  indeed  the  doctrine  of  the  Donatists,  how  is  it  that 
 you  say  presently  after,  "  that  the  protestants,  who  hold  the  church 
 of  Christ  perished,  were  worse  than  the  Donatists,  who  said  that  the 
 church  remained  at  least  in  Afi-ica  ?  "  These  things  methinks  hang 
 not  well  together.  But  to  let  this  pass :  the  truth  is,  this  difference, 
 for  which  you  would  fain  raise  such  a  horrible  dissension  between 
 *  a  visible  calumny. — Oxf. 
 
THE   NATURE    OF   FAITH.  423 
 
 Dr.  Potter  and  his  brethren,  if  it  be  well  considered,  is  only  in  words 
 and  the  manner  of  expression  ;  they  affirming  only  that  the  church 
 perished  from  its  integrity,  and  fell  into  many  corruptions,  which  he 
 denies  not ;  and  the  Doctor  denjdng  only  that  it  fell  from  its  essence, 
 and  became  no  church  at  all,  which  they  affirm  not. 
 
 18.  These  therefore  are  but  velitations,  and  you  would  seem  to 
 make  but  small  account  of  them.  But  the  main  point,  you  say, 
 is,  that  since  Luther's  "  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  dif- 
 ference between  a  diseased  and  a  dead  man  ?  Nay,  what  is  it  but 
 to  contradict  yourselves,  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  ?     You  proceed, 
 
 19.  But  say,  "  the  same  heresy  follows  out  of  Dr.  Potter  and 
 other  protestants,  that  the  church  may  err  in  points  not  funda- 
 mental ;  because  we  have  showed  that  every  error  against  any  re- 
 vealed truth  is  heresy  and  damnable,  whether  the  matter  be  great 
 or  small :  and  how  can  the  church  more  truly  be  said  to  perish, 
 than  when  she  is  permitted  to  maintain  damnable  heresy  ?  Besides, 
 •we  will  hereafter  prove,  that  by  every  act  of  heresy  all  Divine  faith 
 is  lost ;  and  to  maintain  a  true  church  without  any  faith,  is  to  fancy 
 a  living  man  without  life."  Ans.  What  you  have  said  before,  hath 
 been  answered  before ;  and  what  you  shall  say  hereafter,  shall  be 
 confuted  hereafter.  But  if  it  be  such  a  certain  ground,  that  "  every 
 error  against  any  one  revealed  truth  is  a  damnalDle  heresy,"  then,  I 
 hope,  I  shall  have  your  leave  to  subsume,  that  the  Dominicans  in 
 your  account  must  hold  a  damnable  heresy,  who  hold  an  error 
 against  the  immaculate  conception ;  which  you  must  needs  esteem 
 a  revealed  truth,  or  otherwise  why  are  you  so  urgent  and  impor- 
 tunate to  have  it  defined,  seeing  your  rule  is,  "  Nothing  may  be 
 defined,  unless  it  be  first  revealed  P"  But,  without  youi*  leave,  I  will 
 make  bold  to  conclude,  that,  if  either  that  or  the  contrary  assertion 
 be  a  revealed  truth,  you  or  they,  choose  you  whether,  must  without 
 contradiction  hold  a  damnable  heresy ;  if  this  ground  be  true,  that 
 every  contradiction  of  a  revealed  truth  is  such.  And  now  I  dare 
 say,  for  fear  of  inconvenience,  you  will  begin  to  temper  the  crude- 
 ness  of  your  former  aissertion,  and  tell  us,  that  neither  of  you  are 
 heretics,  because  the  truth  against  which  you  err,  though  revealed 
 is  not  sufficiently  propounded.  And  so  say  I,  neither  is  your  doc- 
 trine, which  protestants  contradict,  sufficiently  propounded.  For 
 though  it  be  plain  enough  that  your  church  proposeth  it,  yet  still, 
 metliinks,  it  is  as  plain,  that  your  chui'ch's  proposition  is  not  suffi- 
 cient ;  and  I  desire  you  would  not  say,  but  prove  the  contrary. 
 
424  THE   NATURE   OF  FAITH. 
 
 Lastly,  to  your  question,  "  How  can  the  church  more  truly 
 be  said  to  perish,  than  when  she  is  permitted  to  maintain  a 
 damnable  heresy  ?"  I  answer,  She  may  be  more  truly  said  to  perish, 
 when  she  is  not  only  permitted  to  do  so,  but  cle  facto  doth  main- 
 tain a  damnable  heresy.  Again,  she  may  be  more  truly  said  to 
 perish,  when  she  falls  into  an  heresy  which  is  not  only  damnable  in 
 itself,  and  ex  natura  rei,  as  you  speak,  but  such  an  heresy  the  belief 
 of  whose  contrary  truth  is  necessary,  not  only  necessitate  2ircecepti, 
 but  medii,  and  therefore  the  heresy  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  heresy  if  the  church  should  fall  into,  it  might  be  more 
 truly  said  to  perish,  than  if  it  fell  only  into  some  heresy  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  be  more  truly  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  he 
 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  doctrine  of  her  own  infallibility,  whereby  her  errors  are 
 made  incurable  ;  and  by  her  pretending  the  Scripture  is  to  be  inter- 
 preted according  to  her  doctrine,  and  not  her  doctrine  to  be  judged 
 of  by  Scripture,  whereby  she  makes  the  Scripture  uneffectual  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  heresy ;"  for  I  was  in  good  hope  that  no  Chris- 
 tian 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  yourself,  good  sir,  it  is  a  very  heinous  crime 
 to  say,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  tchen  the  Lord  doth  not  say  so.  I  ex- 
 pected therefore  some  Scripture  should  have  been  alleged,  wherein 
 it  should  have  been  said,  Whosoever  separates  from  the  Roman 
 church  is  an  heretic  ;  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  evan- 
 gelists and  apostles,  who  wrote  the  New  Testament,  we  all  suppose 
 were  good  men,  and  very  des-irous  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  ummi 
 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 
 
THE   NATURE    OF   FAITH.  42-5 
 
 suppose  them,  lastly,  wise  men,  especially  being  assisted  by  the 
 Spirit  of  wisdom,  and  such  as  knew  that  a  doubtful  and  question- 
 able guide  was  for  men's  direction  as  good  as  none  at  all.  And 
 after  all  these  propositions,  which  I  presume  no  good  Christian  will 
 call  into  question,  is  it  possible  that  any  Chi'istian  heart  can  believe, 
 that  not  one  amongst  them  all  should,  ad  rei  inemoriam,  ^^Tite  this 
 necessary  doctrine  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  written  nothing  else.  Me- 
 thinks  the  evangelists,  undertaking  to  write  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
 could  not  possibly  have  omitted  any  one  of  them  this  most  neces- 
 sary point  of  faith,  had  they  known  it  necessary  (St.  Luke  espe- 
 cially, who  plainly  professes,  that  his  intent  icas  to  icrite  all  things 
 necessary).  Methinks  St.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Romans,  could  not 
 but  have  congratulated  this  their  privilege  to  them  !  Methinks, 
 instead  of  saying,  Your  faith  is  spoken  of  all  thetcorld  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  forborne  to 
 put  them  in  fear  of  an  impossibility,  as  he  doth  in  his  eleventh 
 chapter,  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,  -WTiting 
 so  often  of  heretics  and  antichrist,  he  should  have  given  the  world 
 this  (as  you  pretend)  only  sure  jDreservative  from  them.  How  was 
 it  possible  that  St.  Peter,  writing  two  catholic  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  posssible 
 that  St.  James  and  St.  Jude,  in  their  catholic  epistles,  should  not 
 give  this  catholic  dii-ection  ?  Methinks  St.  John,  instead  of  saying 
 He  that  helieveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  horn  of  God,  (the  force 
 of  which  direction  your  glosses  do  quite  enervate,  and  make  un- 
 available to  discern  who  are  the  sons  of  God,)  should  have  said. 
 He  that  adheres  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  church,  and  lives  ac- 
 cording 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  doctrine,  that  without  the 
 belief  hereof  no  man  ordinarily  can  be  saved,  can  possibly  force  him- 
 self to  conceive  that  all  these  good  and  holy  men,  so  desu-ous  of 
 men's  salvation,  and  so  well  assured  of  it,  (as  it  is  pretended,)  should 
 be  so  deeply  and  affectedly  silent  in  it,  and  not  *  one  of  them  to  say 
 it  plainly  so  much  as  once,  but  leave  it  to  be  collected  from  uncer- 
 tain principles,  by  many  more  uncertain  consequences  ?  Certainly, 
 lie  that  can  judge  so  uncharitably  of  them,  it  is  no  marvel  if  he 
 censure  other  inferior  servants  of  Christ  as  atheists  and  h\-pocrites 
 ♦  one  say  it— Oxf. 
 
426  THE   NATURE   OF   FAITH. 
 
 and  what  he  pleases.  Plam  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  heresy."  But  in- 
 stead hereof  what  have  you  brought  us  but  mere  impertinencies ! 
 St.  John  said  of  some  who  pretended  to  be  Christians,  and  were  not 
 so,  and  therefore,  when  it  was  for  their  advantage,  forsook  theii- 
 profession.  They  went  out  from  us,  hut  they  tvere  not  of  us  ;  for  if 
 they  had  been  of  us  they  would  do  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  to  the  law  of  Moses,  it  is  said  in  the  Acts,  Some  ivho  ivent 
 out  from  us.  And  again,  St.  Paul  in  the  same  book  forewarns  the 
 Ephesian?.,  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  heresy."  Which  is  certainly  a 
 strange  and  unheard  of  strain  of  logic ;  unless  you  will  say,  that 
 every  text,  wherein  it  is  said,  that  somebody  goes  out  from  some- 
 body, aifords  an  argument  for  this  purpose  :  for  the  first  place  there 
 is  no  certainty  that  it  speaks  of  heretics,  but  no  Christians  of  anti- 
 christs, 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  heretics,  for  it  speaks  only  of  some  who  be- 
 lieved and  taught  an  error,  while  it  was  yet  a  question,  and  not 
 evident;  and  therefore,  according  to  your  doctrine,  no  forma-, 
 heresy.  The  third  says,  indeed,  that  of  the  professors  of  Christianity 
 some  shall  arise  that  shall  teach  heresy,  but  not  one  of  them  all  that 
 says  or  intimates,  that  whosoever  separates  from  the  visible  church, 
 in'what  state  soever,  is  certainly  an  heretic.  Heretics,  I  confess, 
 do  always  do  so ;  but  they  that  do  so  are  not  ahvays  heretics  ;  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  king's  command  (M-hich  perhaps  may  be  unjust)  are 
 not  presently  rebels. 
 
 21.  Your  allegations  out  of  Vincentius,  Prosper,  and  Cyprian,  are 
 liable  to  these  exceptions :  1.  That  they  are  the  sayings  of  men  not 
 assisted  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  Avhose  authority  yourselves  will 
 not  submit  to  in  all  things.  2.  That  the  first  and  last  are  merely 
 impertinent,  neither  of  them  affirming  or  intimating  that  separation 
 from  the  present  visible  church  is  a  mark  of  heresy  ;  and  the  former 
 speaking  plainly  of  separation  from  universality,  consent,  and  an- 
 tiquity, which  if  you  will  presume  without  proof  that  we  did,  and 
 you  did  not,  you'beg  the  question.  For  you  know  that  we  pretend 
 that  Ave  separated  only  from  the  present  church,  which  had  sepa- 
 rated from  the  doctrine  of  the  ancients,  and  because  she  had  done 
 so,  and  so  far  forth  as  she  had  done  so,  and  no  further.  And  lastly, 
 the  latter  part  of  Prosper's  words  cannot  be  generally  true,  accord- 
 ing to  your  own  grounds,  for  you  say  a  man  may  be  divided  from 
 the  church  upon  mere  schism,  without  any  mixture  of  heresy,  and  a 
 man  may  be  justly  excommunicated  for  many  other  sufficient  causes 
 besides  heresy.  Lastly,  a  man  may  be  divided  by  an  unjust  excom- 
 munication, and  be  both  before  and  after  a  veiy  good  catholic,  and 
 
THE   NATURE   OF   FAITH.  427 
 
 therefore  you  cannot  maintain  it  universally  true,  "  That  h^  who  h 
 divided  from  the  church  is  an  heretic  and  antichrist." 
 
 22.  In  the  19th  section  we  have  the  authority  of  eight  Fathers 
 urged  to  prove,  ''  that  the  separation  from  the  chui-ch  of  Rome,  as 
 it  is  the  see  of  Peter,"  (I  conceive  you  mean,  as  it  is  *that  particu- 
 lar chui-ch,)  "  is  the  mark  of  heresy."  Which  kind  of  argument  I 
 might  well  refuse  to  answer,  unless  you  would  first  promise  me  that, 
 whensoever  I  should  produce  as  plain  sentences  of  as  great  a  num- 
 ber 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 
 imequal  or  um*easonable,  than  that  you  shoidd  press  us  with  such 
 authorities  as  these,  and  think  yourselves  at  liberty  from  them  ;  and 
 that  you  should  account  them  fathers  when  they  are  for  you,  and 
 and  children  when  they  are  against  you.  Vet  I  would  not  you 
 should  interpret  this  as  if  I  had  not  great  assui'ance,  that  it  is  not 
 possible  for  you  ever  to  gain  this  cause  at  the  tribmial  of  the 
 Fathers ;  nay,  not  of  the  Fathers  whose  sentences  are  here  alleged. 
 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  any  way 
 considerable,  fall  short  of  your  purpose. 
 
 23.  St.  Hierom,  you  say,  writing  to  pope  Damasus,  saith,  "  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  overtruths  men 
 usually  -write  to  one  another  in  letters.  Consider  again,  that  he 
 says  only,  that  "he  was  then  in  commimion  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  always.  Nay,  his  judgment,  as  shall  appear,  is_  ex- 
 press to  the  contrary.  And  so  likeness  the  rest  of  his  expressions 
 (if  we  mean  to  reconcile  Hierom  with  Hierom)  must  be  conceived, 
 as  intended  by  him  of  that  bishop  and  see  of  Rome  at  that  present 
 time  and  in  the  present  state,  and  in  respect  of  that  doctrine  which 
 he  there  treats  of.  For  otherwise,  had  he  conceived  it  necessary 
 for  him  and  all  men  to  conform  their  judgment,  in  matters  of  faith, 
 to  the  judgment  of  the  bishop  and  chiu-ch  of  Rome,  how  came  it  to 
 pass  that  he  chose  rather  to  beheve  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
 canonical,  upon  the  authority  of  the  eastern  church,  than  to  reject 
 it  from  the  canon,  upon  the  authority  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  St.  Hierom,  I  fear  you  will  lose  your 
 fort  by  maintaining  your  outworks  ;  and  by  avoiding  this,  run  into 
 a  greater  danger  of  bemg  forced  to  confess  the  present  Roman 
 church  opposite  herein  to  the  ancient.  How  was  it  possible  that  he 
 should  ever  believe  that  Liberius  bishops  of  Rome  either  was  or 
 could  have  been  -wrought  over  by  the  solicitation  of  Fortunatianus 
 bishop  of  Aquileia,  and  brought  after  two  years'  banishment  to  sub, 
 
 *  the  particular.— Oxf. 
 
428  THE  NATUKE   OF  PAITH. 
 
 «cribe  heresy?  Which  act  of  Liberius  though  some  fondly  question, 
 being  so  vain  as  to  expect  we  should  rather  believe  them  that  lived 
 but  yesterday,  1300  years  almost  after  the  thing  is  said  to  be  done, 
 and  speaking  for  themselves  in  their  own  cause,  rather  than  the  dis- 
 interested 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  St.  Hierom  thought  so.*  And  if  this 
 cannot  be  denied,  I  demand  then,  If  he  had  lived  in  Liberius's  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 
 Jhave  said,  the  Roman  faith  and  the  catholic  were  the  same  ?  or  that 
 the  Koman  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  successors. 
 
 24.  The  same  answer  I  make  to  the  first  place  of  St.  Ambrose — 
 viz.  That  no  more  can  be  certainly  conclued  from  it,  but  that  the 
 catholic  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  catholic  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  excom- 
 municated by  Liberius,  agreed  very  ill  with  the  Roman  chui'ch. 
 And  yet  you  will  not  gainsay  but  he  agreed  well  enough  with  the 
 .catholic  bishops.  The  second,  I  am  uncertain  what  the  sense  of 
 it  is,  and  what  truth  is  in  it ;  but  most  certain  that  it  makes  no- 
 thing to  your  present  purpose ;  for  it  neither  affii-ms  nor  imports, 
 that  separation  from  the  Roman  church  is  a  certain  mark  of 
 heresy.  For  the  rights  of  communion,  (whatsoever  it  signifies,) 
 might  be  said  to  flow  from  it,  if  that  church  were,  by  ecclesiastical 
 law,  the  head  of  all  other  churches ;  but  unless  it  were  made  so  by 
 Divine  authority,  and  that  absolutely,  separation  from  it  could  not 
 be  a  mark  of  heresy. 
 
 25.  For  St.  Cyprian,  all  the  world  knowsjf  that  he  resolutely 
 opposed  a  decree  of  the  Roman  bishop,  and  all  that  adhered  to 
 him  in  the  point  of  rebaptizing,  which  that  chui'ch  at  that  time  de- 
 livered as  a  necessary  tradition  ;  so  necessary,  that  by  the  bishop  of 
 Rome,  Firmilianus,  and  other  bishoj^s  of  Cappadocia,  Cilicia,  and 
 Galatia,  and  generally  all  who  persisted  in  the  contrary  opinion,^ 
 ■were  therefore  deprived  of  the  church's  communion  (which  ex- 
 communication could  not  but  involve  St.  Cyprian,  who  defended 
 the  same  opinion  as  resolutely  as  FirmiHanus,  though  cardinal 
 Perron  magisterially,  and  without  all  colour  of  proof,  affirms  the 
 
 *  Hieronj-m.  de  Scrip.  Eccles.  tit.  Fortunatianus. 
 T  It  is  confessed  by  Earonius,  aim.  238.  n.  41 ;  by  Bellai-m.  1,  4.  de  H.  Pont.  c.  7. 
 »ect.  Tertia  ratio. 
 t  Confessed  by  Baronius,  ann.  258.  n.  14  and  15  ;  by  Card.  Perron,  Kep.  c.l.  c.  25. 
 
PEOTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS.  429 
 
 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  C)"])rian  from  Afric  to  liome  were 
 not  admitted  to  the  communion  of  ordinary  conference ;  but  all  men 
 Avho  "were  subject  to  the  bishop  of  Home's  authority  were  com- 
 manded by  him,  not  only  to  deny  them  the  church's  peace  and 
 communion,  but  even  lodging  and  entertainment ;  manifestly  de- 
 claring that  they  reckoned  them  among  those  whom  St.  John  forbids 
 to  receive  to  house,  or  to  say  God  speed  to  them.  All  these  terrors 
 notwithstanding,  St.  Cyprian  holds  still  his  former  opinion.  And 
 though,  out  of  respect  to  the  church's  peace,  "  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  ad- 
 herents to  hold  a  pernicious  error.f  And  St.  Austin,  though,  dis- 
 13uting  with  the  Donatists,  he  uses  some  tergiversation  in  the  point, 
 yet  confesses  elsewhere  that  "  it  is  not  found  that  Cyprian  did  ever 
 change  his  opinion."  And  so  far  was  he  from  conceiving  any  neces- 
 sity of  doing  so,  by  submitting  to  the  judgment  of  the  bishop  and 
 church  of  llome,  that  he  plainly  j^rofesses  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  tp-ant ;"  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,  J  and  being  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  St.  Peter's  chair  was  a  mark,  I  mean  a  certain 
 mark,  either  of  schism  or  heresy.  If,  after  all  this,  you  will  catch 
 at  a  phrase  or  a  compliment  of  St.  Cyprian's,  and  with  that  hope  ta 
 persuade  protestants,  who  know  this  story  as  well  as  their  own  name, 
 that  St.  Cyprian  did  believe  that  "  falsehood  could  not  have  access 
 to  the  Roman  church,"  and  that  opposition  to  it  Avas  the  brand  of 
 an  heretic ;  may  we  not  well  expect  that  you  will,  the  next  time  you 
 write,  vouch  Luther  and  Calvin  also  for  abettors  of  this  fancy,  and 
 make  us  poor  men  believe,  not  only  (as  you  say)  that  we  have  no 
 metaphysics,  but  that  we  have  no  sense  ?  And  when  you  have 
 done  so,  it  will  be  no  great  difficulty  for  you  to  assure  us,  that  we 
 read  no  such  thing  in  Bellarmine,§  as  "  that  Cyprian  was  always 
 accounted  in  the  number  of  catholics;"  nor  in  Canisius,||  that  he 
 was  a  "  most  excellent  doctor,  and  a  glorious  martp' ;"  nor  in  your 
 calendar,  %  that  he  "  is  a  saint  and  a  martyr ;"  but  that  all  these- 
 are  deceptions  of  our  sight,  and  that  you  ever  esteemed  him  a  very 
 schismatic  and  an  heretic,  as  having  on  him  the  mark  of  the  beast, 
 opposition  to  the  chau*  of  St.  Peter ;  nay,  that  he  (whatever  he  pre- 
 
 *  Vide  Cone.  Carth.  apud  Sur.  t.  1. 
 t  Bell.  1.  2.  de  Cone.  c.  5.  Aug-,  ep.  48.  et  1.  1.  de  Bapt.  c.  18. 
 ?  and  far  from. — Oxf.  \  Bell.  1.  2.  de  Cone.  c.  5.  s.  1. 
 
 11  Canisius  in  Initio  Catechect.  ^  Sept.  die  14. 
 
-430  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HEKETICS. 
 
 tended)  knew  and  believed  himself  to  be  so,  inasmuch  as  he  knew 
 (as  you  pretend)  and  esteemed  this  opposition  to  be  the  mark  of 
 heresy,  and  knew  himself  to  stand,  and  stand  out  in  such  an 
 opposition. 
 
 26.  But  we  need  not  seek  so  far  for  matter  to  refute  the  vanity 
 of  this  pretence.  Let  the  reader  but  peruse  this  very  epistle,  out  of 
 which  this  sentence  is  alleged,  and  he  shall  need  no  further  satis- 
 faction against  it.  For  he  shall  find,  fh'st,  that  you  have  helped  the 
 dice  a  little  with  a  false,  or  at  least  with  a  very  bold  and  strained 
 translation ;  for  St.  Cyprian  saith  not,  "  to  whom  falsehood  cannot 
 have  access,"  by  vrhich  many  of  your  favourable  readers,  I  doubt, 
 understood  that  Cyprian  had  exempted  that  church  from  a  possi- 
 bility of  error,  but,  "  to  whom  perfidiousness  cannot  have  access," 
 meaning  by  "perfidiousness"  in  the  abstract,  according  to  a  com- 
 mon figure  of  speech,  those  perfidious  schismatics  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  pos- 
 sible they  should  find  favourable  entertainment."  Not  that  he 
 conceived  it  any  way  impossible  they  should  do  so ;  for  the  very 
 writing  this  epistle,  and  many  passages  in  it,  plainly  show  the  con- 
 trary ;  but  because  he  was  confident,  or  at  least  would  seem  to  be 
 confident,  they  never  would,  and  so  by  his  good  opinion  and  confi- 
 dence in  the  Komans  lay  an  obligation  upon  them  to  do  as  he  pre- 
 sumed they  would  do ;  as  also  in  the  end  of  his  epistle  he  says,  even 
 of  the  people  of  the  church  of  Home,  "  That  being  defended  by  the 
 providence  of  their  bishop,  nay,  by  their  own  vigilance  sufliciently 
 guarded,  they  could  not  be  taken  nor  deceived  with  the  poison  of 
 heretics."  Not  that  indeed  he  thought  either  this  or  the  former  any 
 way  impossible ;  for  to  what  pm-pose,  but  for  prevention  hereof,  did 
 he  "write  this  long  and  accurate  and  vehement  epistle  to  Cornelius  ? 
 which  sure  had  been  most  vainly  done,  to  prevent  that  which  he 
 knew  or  believed  impossible  !  Or  how  can  this  consist  with  his 
 taking  notice  in  the  beginning  of  it,  "  that  Cornelius  was  somewhat 
 moved  and  wrought  upon  by  the  attempts  of  his  adversaries,"  with 
 his  reprehending  him  for  being  so,  and  with  his  vehement  exhort- 
 •  ing  him  to  courage  and  constancy,  or  with  his  request  to  him  in 
 the  conclusion  of  his  epistle,  that  it  should  "  be  read  pubhcly  to  the 
 whole  clergy  and  laity  of  Kome,  to  the  intent  that  if  any  contagion 
 of  their  poisoned  speech  and  pestiferous  semination  had  crept  in 
 amongst  them,  it  might  be  wholly  taken  away  from  the  ears  and 
 the  hearts  of  the  brethren ;  and  that  the  entire  and  sincere  charity 
 of  good  men  might  be  purged  from  all  dross  of  heretical  detrac- 
 tion ?"  Or  lastly,  with  his  vehement  persuasions  to  them  to  decline, 
 "  for  the  time  to  come,  and  resolutely  avoid  their  word  and  con- 
 ference, because  their  speech  crept  as  a  canker,"  as  the  apostle  saith; 
 "  because  evil  communication  would  corrupt  good  manners,  because 
 wicked  men  carry  perdition  in  their  mouths,  and  hide  fire  in  their 
 lips  ?"  All  v/hich  had  been  but  vain  and  ridiculous  pageantry,  had 
 he  verily  believed  the  Romans  such  inaccessible  forts,  such  im- 
 movable rocks,  as  the  former  sentences  would  seem  to  import,  if  we 
 will  expound  them  rigidly  and  strictly,  according  to  the  exigence  of 
 the  words,  and  not  allow  him,  who  was  a  professed  master  of  th« 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS.  431 
 
 art,  to  have  used  here  a  little  rhetoric,  and  to  say,  that  could  not 
 he,  whereof  he  had  no  absolute  certainty  but  that  it  might  be,  but 
 only  had,  or  would  seem  to  have,  a  great  confidence,  that  it  never 
 would  be,  Ut  Jides  habita  Jidem  ohligaret ;  that  he,  professincj- to  be 
 confident  of  the  liomans,  might  lay  an  obligation  upon  them  to  do 
 as  he  promised  himself  they  would  do.  For  as  for  "  joininn-  the 
 principal  church  and  the  chair  of  Peter,"  how  that  will  serve  for 
 your  present  pm-pose  of  proving  separation  from  the  Roman  church 
 a  mark  of  heresy,  I  suppose  it  is  hard  to  understand.  Xor  indeed 
 how  it  will  advantage  you  in  any  other  design  against  us,  who  do 
 not  altogether  deny  but  that  the  chm-ch  of  Kome  might  be  called 
 "  the  chair  of  Peter,"  m  regard  he  is  said  to  have  preached  the  gos- 
 pel there ;  and  ''  the  principal  chm-ch,"  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  gro'mid  and 
 occasion  why  the  Fathers  of  former  time  (I  pray  observe)  conferred 
 upon  this  church  this  prerogative  above  other  chm-ches. 
 
 27,  And  as  far  am  I  from  understanding  how  you  can  collect  from 
 the  other  sentence,  that  to  communicate  with  the  chm-ch  and  pope 
 of  Rome,  and  to  communicate  with  the  catholic  church,  is  "  always" 
 (for  that  is  yom-  assumpt)  one  and  the  same  thing.  St.  Cyprian 
 speaks  not  of  the  chm-ch  of  Rome  at  all,  but  of  the  bishop  only,  who 
 when  he  doth  communicate  with  the  catholic  chm-ch,  as  Corneous 
 at  that  time  did,  then  whosoever  communicates  with  him  canncr 
 but  communicate  with  the  catholic  church ;  and  then  by  accident 
 one  might  truly  say,  such  an  one  communicates  with  you,  that  is, 
 with  the  catholic  chm-ch ;  and  that  to  communicate  with  him,  is  to 
 communicate  with  the  catholic  church.  As  if  Titius  and  Sempro- 
 nius  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  Avith  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  v,-as  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  man's  hand  be  joined  to  his  body,  the  finger  which  is 
 joined  to  the  hand  is  joined  to  the  body;  and  a  man  may  say  truly 
 of  it.  This  finger  is  joined  to  the  hand,  'that  is,  to  the  boiy :  and  to 
 be  joined  to  the  hand,  is  to  be  joined  to  the  body;  because  all  these 
 things  are  by  accident  true.  And  yet  I  hope  you  would  not  deny, 
 but  the  finger  might  possibly  be  joined  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  collec- 
 tion is  sophistical,  being  in  efi'ect  but  this :  To  communicate  with 
 such  a  bishop  of  Rome,  who  did  communicate  with  the  catholic 
 chm-ch,  was  to  communicate  with  the  catholic  chm-ch;  therefore 
 absolutely  and  always  it  must  be  true,  that  to  communicate  with. 
 him  is  by  consequence  to  communicate  with  the  catholic  church; 
 and  to  be  divided  from  his  communion  is  to  be  an  heretic. 
 
 28.  In  urging  the  place  of  Irena^us,  you  have  showed  much 
 more  ingenuity  than  many  of  your  fellows.  For  whereas  thev 
 usually  begin  at  "declaring  the  tradition  of  the,"  &c.,  and  conceal 
 
432  PROTESTAXTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 what  goes  before ;  you  have  set  it  down,  though  not  so  completely 
 as  you  should  have  done,  yet  sufficiently  to  show,  that  what  autho- 
 rity in  the  matter  he  attributed  to  the  Koman  ehm-ch  in  particular, 
 the  same,  for  the  kind,  (though  perhaps  not  in  the  same  degree,) 
 he  attributed  to  all  other  apostolic  churches.  Either  therefore 
 you  must  say,  that  he  conceived  the  testimony  of  other  apostolic 
 churches  divine  and  infallible,  (which  certainly  he  did  not,  neither 
 do  you  pretend  he  did ;  and  if  he  had,  the  confessed  errors  and 
 heresies  which  after  they  fell  into  w^ould  demonstrate  plainly  that 
 he  had  erred,)  or  else  that  he  conceived  the  testimony  of  the 
 Roman  church  only  human  and  credible,  though  perhaps  more 
 credible  than  any  one  church  beside,  (as  one  man's  testimony  is 
 more  credible  than  another's,)  but  certainly  much  more  credible, 
 which  was  enough  for  his  purpose,  than  that  secret  tradition  to 
 which  those  heretics  pretended,  against  whom  he  wrote,  overbearing 
 them  with  an  argument  of  their  own  kind,  far  stronger  than  their 
 own.  Now  if  Irenseus  thought  the  testimony  of  the  Roman  church 
 in  this  point  only  human  and  fallible,  then  surely  he  could  never 
 think  either  adhering  to  it  a  certain  mark  of  a  catholic,  or  separa- 
 tion from  it  a  certain  mark  of  an  heretic. 
 
 29.  Again,  whereas  your  great  Achilles,  cardinal  Perron,  (in 
 French,  as  also  his  noble  translatress,  misled  by  him,  in  English,) 
 knowing  that  men's  resorting  to  Rome  would  do  his  cause  little 
 service,  hath  made  bold  Avith  the  Latin  tongue,  as  he  does  very 
 often  with  the  Greek,  and  rendered  Ad  hanc  ecclesiam  necesse  est 
 omnem  convenire  ecclesiam,  "  To  this  church  it  is  necessary  that 
 every  church  should  agree,"  you  have  translated  it  as  it  should  be, 
 "  To  this  church  it  is  necessary  that  all  churches  resort ;"  wherein 
 you  have  showed  more  sincerity,  and  have  had  more  regard  to 
 make  the  author  speak  sense.  For  if  he  had  said,  "  By  showing 
 the  tradition  of  the  Roman  church,  we  confound  all  heretics  ;  for 
 to  this  church  all  churches  must  agree;"  what  had  this  been,  but 
 to  give  for  a  reason  that  which  was  more  questionable  than  the 
 thing  in  question  ?  as  being  neither  evident  in  itself,  and  plainly 
 denied  by  his  adversaries,  and  not  at  all  proved,  nor  offered  to  be 
 proved,  here  or  elsewhere  by  Irensevis.  To  speak  thus  therefore 
 had  been  weak  and  ridiculous.  But  on  the  other  side,  if  we  con- 
 ceive him  to  say  thus :  "  You  heretics  decline  a  trial  of  your  doc- 
 trine by  Scripture,  as  being  corrupted  and  imperfect,  and  not  fit 
 to  determine  controversies  Avithout  recourse  to  tradition,  and  in- 
 stead hereof  you  fly  for  a  refuge  to  a  secret  tradition,  which  you 
 pretend  that  you  received  from  your  ancestors,  and  they  from  the 
 apostles  ;  certainly  your  calumnies  against  Scripture  are  most  un- 
 just and  unreasonable  :  but  yet  moreover  assure  yourselves,  that  if 
 you  wdll  be  tried  by  tradition,  even  by  that  also  you  will  be  over- 
 thrown. For  our  tradition  is  far  more  famous,  more  constant,  and 
 in  all  respects  more  credible,  than  that  which  you  pretend  to.  It 
 were  easy  for  me  to  muster  up  against  you  the  uninterrupted  suc- 
 cessions of  all  the  churches  founded  by  the  apostles,  all  conspiring 
 in  their  testimonies  against  you  ;  but  because  it  were  too  long  to 
 number  up  the  successions  of  all  churches,  I  will  content  myself 
 with  the  tradition  of  the  most  ancient  and  most  glorious  church  of 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT    HERETICS.  433 
 
 Home,  whicn  alone  is  sufficient  for  the  confutation  and  confusion 
 of  your  doctrine,  as  being  in  credit  and  authority  as  far  beyond  the 
 tradition  you  build  upon,  as  the  light  of  the  sun  is  beyond  the  light 
 of  a  glowworm.  For  to  this  church,  by  reason  it  is  placed  in  the 
 imperial  city,  whither  all  men's  affairs  do  necessarily  draw  them,  or 
 by  reason  oi'  the  powerful  principality  it  hath  over  all  the  adjacent 
 churches,  there  is,  and  always  hath  been,  a  necessity  of  a  perpetual 
 recourse  of  all  the  faithful  round  about ;  who,  if  there  had  been  any 
 alteration  in  the  church  of  Home,  could  not,  in  all  probability,  but 
 have  observed  it.  But  they,  to  the  contrary,  have  always  observed 
 in  this  church  the  very  tradition  which  came  from  the  aj30stles,  and 
 no  other  :"  I  say,  if  \^'e  conceive  his  meaning  thus,  his  words  will 
 be  intelligible  and  rational ;  which,  if  instead  of  "  resort  "  we  put 
 in  "  agree,"  will  be  quite  lost.  Herein  therefore  we  have  been 
 beholden  to  your  honesty,  which  makes  me  think  you  did  not  wit- 
 tingly falsify,  but  only  twice  in  this  sentence  mistake  midique  for 
 uhique,  and  translated  it  "  everywhere"  and  •'  of  what  place  soever" 
 instead  of  "  round  about."  For  that  it  was  necessary  "  for  all  the 
 faithful  of  what  place  soever  to  resort  to  Rome,"  is  not  true.  That 
 "  the  apostolic  tradition  hath  always  been  conserved  there  from 
 those  who  are  every  where,"  is  not  sense.  Now  instead  of  conser- 
 vata  read  observata,  as  in  all  probability  it  should  be,  and  translate 
 undique  truly  "  round  about,"  and  then  the  sense  will  be  both  plain 
 and  good  5  for  then  it  must  be  rendered  thus :  "  For  to  this  church, 
 by  reason  of  a  more  powerful  principality,  there  is  a  necessity  that 
 all  the  churches,  that  is,  all  the  faithful  round  about,  should 
 resort,  in  which  the  apostolic  tradition  hath  been  always  observed 
 by  those  v/ho  v.'ere  round  about."  If  any  man  say,  I  have  been  too 
 bold  a  critic  in  substituting  observata  instead  of  conservata,  I  desire 
 him  to  know,  that  the  conjecture  is  not  mine;  and  therefore,  as  I 
 expect  no  praise  for  it,  so  I  hope  I  shall  be  far  from  censure.  But 
 I  woidd  entreat  him  to  consider,  whether  it  be  not  likely  that  the 
 same  Greek  word  signifying  observo  and  conservo,  the  translator  of 
 Irenseus,  who  could  hardly  speak  Latin,  might  not  easily  mistake, 
 and  translated  dLarrjp-qTat  conservata  est,  instead  of  observata  est :  or 
 whether  it  be  not  likely,  that  those  men  which  anciently  wrote  books, 
 and  understood  them  not,  might  not  easily  commit  such  an  error:  or 
 whether  the  sense  of  the  place  can  be  salved  any  other  way  ;  if  it  can, 
 in  God's  name  let  it ;  if  not,  I  hope  he  is  not  to  be  condemned,  who  with 
 such  a  little  alteration  hath  made  that  sense  vrhich  he  found  nonsense. 
 30.  But  whether  you  will  have  it  observata  or  conservata,  the 
 new  sumpsimiis  or  the  old  miimjyswius,  possibly  it  may  be  some- 
 thing to  Irenaeus,  but  to  us,  or  our  cause,  it  is  no  way  material. 
 For  if  the  rest  be  rightly  translated,  neither  will  conservata  afford 
 you  any  argument  agamst  us,  nor  observata  help  us  to  any  evasion. 
 For  though  at  the  iii-st  hearing  the  glorious  attributes  liere  given 
 (and  that  justly)  to  the  church  of  Kome,  "  the  confounding  heretics 
 with  her  tradition,  and  saying,  it  is  necessary  for  all  churches  to 
 resort  to  her,"  may  soimd  like  arguments  for  you :  yet  he  that  is 
 attentive,  I  hope,  will  easily  discover,  that  it  might  be  good  and 
 rational  m  Irenteus,  having  to  do  with  heretics,  who,  somewhat  like 
 those  who  would  be  the  only  catholics,  declined  a  trial  by  Scripture 
 
434  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 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  Irenseus  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  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  itself,  which  gives  testimony  to 
 Scripture  ;  and  lastly,  repugnant  to  itself,  as  giving  attestation  "both 
 to  Scripture  and  to  doctrines  plainly  contrary  to  Scripture.  Second- 
 ly, 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  apostolic  churches,  than  now,  when  it  is  divided  from  them, 
 according  to  that  of  Tertullian,  "  Had  the  churches  erred,  they 
 w^ould  have  varied ;  but  that  which  is  the  same  in  all  cannot  be 
 error,  but  tradition."  And  therefore  Ireneeus  his  argument  may  be 
 very  probable,  yet  yours  may  be  worth  nothing.  Thirdly,  that 
 fourteen  huncbed  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  unmixed  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  corrupted  and  impure  :  and  so  this  argument  (being  one  of 
 those  things  which  are  the  worse  for  w^earing)  might  in  Irenaeus 
 his  time  be  strong  and  vigorous,  and  after  declining  and  decaying, 
 may  long  since  have  fallen  to  nothing  :  especially,  considering  that 
 Irenseus  plays  the  historian  only,  and  not  the  prophet,  and  says 
 only,  that  the  "  apostolic  tradition  had  been  always  there,  as  in 
 other  apostolic  churches,  conserved  or  observed,"  choose  you 
 whether ;  but  that  "  it  should  be  ahvays  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,  oiay, 
 the  vliole  church  of  the  Gentiles,  might  fall,  if  they  looked  not  to 
 standing  ;*  and  therefore  to  secure  her  that  she  should  stand  for 
 ever,  lie  had  no  reason  nor  authority.  Fourthly,  that  it  appears 
 manifestly,  out  of  tliis  book  of  Irenoeus,  quoted  by  you,  that  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Chiliasts  was  in  his  judgment  apostolic  tradition,  as 
 also  it  was  esteemed  (for  aught  appears  to  the  contrary)  by  all  the 
 doctors  and  saints  and  martyrs  of  or  about  his  time  ;  for  all  speak 
 of  it,  or  whose  judgments  in  the  point  are  any  way  recorded,  are 
 for  it :  and  Justin  Martyr  professeth,t  that  "  all  good  and  orthodox 
 Christians  of  his  time' believed  it;"  and  those  that  did  not,  he 
 reckons  amongst  heretics.  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  Irenajus  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 
 heresy  to  depart  from  them  who  have  departed  from  themselves, 
 *  Eom.  xi.  +  In  Dial,  cum  Tryphon, 
 
 I 
 
PROTESTAXTS   XOT    HERETICS.  435 
 
 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  Irenaeus  did  esteem  the 
 Roman  tradition  a  great  argument  of  the  doctrine  which  he  there 
 delivers,  and  defends  against  the  heretics  of  his  time,  viz.  "  That 
 there  is  one  God,"  yet  he  was  very  far  from  thinking  that  church. 
 Avas,  and  ever  should  ])e,  a  safe  keeper,  and  an  infallible  witness, 
 of  tradition  in  general ;  inasmuch  as,  in  his  own  life,  his  actions 
 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; 
 Irenseus,  and  all  the  other  western  bishops,  though  agreeing  with 
 him  in  his  observation,  yet  sharply  reprehended  him  for  excommu- 
 nicating the  Asian  bishops  for  their  disagreeing,  plainly  showing 
 that  they  esteemed  that  not  a  necessary  doctrine,  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  this  excommunication  just  and  sufficient  ?  And 
 besides,  evidently  declaring  that  they  esteemed  not  separation  from 
 the  Roman  church  a  certain  mark  of  heresy,  seeing  they  esteemed 
 not  them  heretics,  though  separated  and  cut  off  from  the  Roman 
 church. 
 
 Cardinal  Perron,*  to  avoid  the  stroke  of  this  convincing  argu- 
 ment, raiseth  a  cloud  of  eloquent  words,  which  because  you  borrow 
 them  of  him  in  your  second  part,  I  will  here  insert,  and  with  short 
 censures  dispel ;  and  let  his  idolaters  see  that  truth  is  not  afraid  of 
 giants.     His  words  are  these  : 
 
 "  The  first  instance,  then,  that  Calvin  f  allegeth  against  the  Pope's 
 censures  is  taken  from  Eusebius,  (a)  an  Arian  author,  and  from 
 Ruffinus,  (b)  enemy  to  the  Roman  church,  his  translator,  who  writ 
 (c)  that  St.  Irenceus  reprehended  Pope  Victor  for  having  excom- 
 municated the  churches  of  Asia,  for  the  question  of  the  day  of 
 Pasche,  which  they  observed  according  to  a  particular  tradition  that 
 St.  John  had  introduced  (d)  for  a  time  in  their  provinces,  because  of 
 the  neighbourhood  of  the  Jev.s,  and  to  bury  the  synagogue  with, 
 honour,  and  not  according  to  the  universal  tradition  of  the  apostles. 
 *  Irenfeus,'  saith  Calvin,  '  reprehended  Pope  Victor  bitterly,  because 
 for  a  light  cause  he  had  moved  a  great  and  perilous  contention  in  the 
 church.'  There  is  this  in  the  text,  that  Calvin  produceth,  '  He  repre- 
 hended him,  that  he  had  not  done  well  to  cut  off  from  the  body  of 
 unity  so  many  and  so  great  churches.'  But  against  whom  maketh  he 
 this,  but  (e)  against  those  that  object  it  ?  For  who  sees  not  that  St. 
 IrenosusJ  doth  not  there  reprehend  the  Pope  for  the  (/)  want  of 
 power,  but  for  the  ill  use  of  his  power ;  and  doth  not  reproach  the 
 Pope  that  he  could  not  excommunicate  the  Asians,  but  admonisheth 
 him,  that  for  ((/J  so  small  a  cause  he  should  not  have  cut  off  so 
 many  provinces  from  the  body  of  the  church  ?  Irenaeus  (saith 
 Eusebius§)  '  did  fitly  exhort  Pope  Victor  that  he  should  not  cut  off 
 
 *  Lib.  3.  cap.  2.  of  his  Eeply  to  K.  James,  r.  2.  sect.  32. 
 +  Calv.  ubi.  supra.  t  Kuffin.  in  Vers.  Hist.  Eccl.  Eus.  1.  o.  c.  24. 
 
 I  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  1. 5.  c.  24. 
 
436  PROTESTANTS   ITOT   HERETICS. 
 
 all  the  churches  of  God  which  held  this  ancient  tradition.'  And 
 RufRnus,  translating  and  envenoming  Eusebius,  saith,*  *  He  ques- 
 tioned Victor  that  he  had  not  done  well  in  cutting  off  from  the 
 body  of  unity  so  many  and  so  great  churches  of  God.'  And  in 
 truth  how  could  St.  Irenseus  have  reprehended  the  Pope  for  want  of 
 power  ?  He  that  cries,  '  To  the  Roman  church,  because  of  a  more 
 powerful  principality,'  that  is  to  say,  as  above  appeareth  (h)  because 
 of  a  principality  more  powerful  than  the  temporal,  or,  as  we  have 
 expounded  otherwhere,  because  of  a  more  powerful  original  (i),  it  is 
 necessary  that  every  church  should  agree :  and  (A-)  therefore  also 
 St.  Irenseus  allegeth  not  to  Pope  Victor  the  example  of  him,  and  of 
 the  other  bishops  of  the  Gaulsf  assembled  in  a  council  holden  ex- 
 pressly for  this  effect,  who  had  not  excommunicated  the  Asians  ; 
 nor  the  example  of  Narcissus,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  of  the 
 bishops  of  Palestina,  assembled  in  another  council,  holden  expressly 
 for  the  same  effect,  who  had  not  excommunicated  them ;  nor  the 
 example  of  Palmas,  and  of  the  other  bishops  of  Pontus,  assembled 
 in  the  same  manner  and  for  the  same  cause,  in  the  region  of  Pontus, 
 who  had  not  excommunicated  them ;  but  only  alleges  to  him  the 
 example  of  the  popes  his  predecessors  :  '  The  prelates,'  saith  he,J 
 who  have  presided  before  Soter  in  the  church  where  thou  presidest, 
 Anisius,  Pius,  Hyginus,  Telesphorus,  and  Sixtus,  have  not  observed 
 this  custom,  &c.,  and  nevertheless,  none  of  those  that  observed  it 
 have  been  excommunicated.'  And  yet,  O  admirable  providence  of 
 God!  the  (Z)  success  of  the  after-ages  showed,  that  even  in  the 
 use  of  his  power  the  Pope's  proceeding  was  just.  For  after  the 
 death  of  Victor§  the  councils  of  Nicea,  of  Constantinople,  and  of 
 Ephesus,  excommunicated  again  those  that  held  the  same  custom 
 with  the  provinces  that  the  pope  had  excommunicated,  and  placed 
 them  in  the  catalogue  of  heretics,  under  the  titles  of  heretics 
 qua7'todecuma7is. 
 
 "  But  to  this  instance  Calvin's  sect  do  annex  tAvo  new  observa- 
 tions; the  first,  that  the  pope  having  threatened  the  bishops  of 
 Asia  to  excommunicate  them,  Polycrates,  the  bishop  of  Ephesus 
 and  metropolitan  bishop  of  Asia,  despised  the  pope's  threats,  as  it 
 appears  by  the  answer  of  the^same  Polycrates  to  pope  Victor,  which 
 is  inserted  in  the  writings  of  Eusebius||  and  of  St.  Jerom,  and  which 
 Jerom  seemeth  to  approve,  when  he  saith,  he  reports  it,  '  to  show 
 the  spirit  and  authority  of  the  man.'  And  the  second,  that  when  the 
 pope  pronounced  anciently  his  excommunications,  he  did  no  other 
 thing  but  separate  himself  from  the  commmiion  of  those  that  he 
 excommunicated,  and  did  not  thereby  separate  them  from  the  uni- 
 versal communion  of  the  church.  To  the  first  then  we  say,  that 
 so  far  is  this  epistle  of  Polycrates  from  abating  and  diminishing 
 the  pope's  authority,  that  contrariwise  it  greatly  magnifies  and  exalts 
 it.  For  although  Polycrates,  blinded  with  the  love  of  the  custom 
 of  his  nation,  which  he  believed  to  be  grounded  upon  the  word  of 
 God,  who  had  assigned  the  fomieenth  of  the  month  of  March^  for 
 
 *  Kiiffin.  ib.  c.  24.  Iren.  1.  3.  c.  3.  1.  book,  ch.  25. 
 
 +  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  5.  c.  22.  t  Iren.  apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  1. 5.  c.  26. 
 
 I  Cone.  Antioch.  c.  1.  Cone.  Const,  c.  7.  Cone.  Eph.  p.  2  act.  5. 
 
 II  Euseb.  Hist,  Eccl.  1.  5.  c,24.  Hier.  in  Scrip.  Eccl.  in  Polycv. 
 
 «T  Exod.  xii. 
 
PROTESTANTS  NOT   HERETICS.  437 
 
 the  observation  of  the  Pasche,  and  upon  the  example  of  St.  John's 
 tradition,*  maintains  it  obstinately ;  nevertheless  this  that  he  an- 
 swers, speaking  in  his  own  name,  and  in  the  name  of  the  council  of 
 the  bishops  of  Asia,  to  whom  he  presided,  '  I  fear  not  those  that 
 threaten  us;  for  my  elders  have  said,  It  is  better  to  obey  God  than 
 man ;'  doth  it  not  show,  that  had  it  not  been  that  he  believed  the 
 the  pope's  threat  was  against  the  express  words  of  God  there  had 
 been  cause  to  fear  it,  and  he  had  been  obliged  to  obey  him  ?  For 
 (???)  who  knows  not  that  this  answer.  It  is  better  to  obey  God  than 
 man,  is  not  to  be  made  but  to  those  whom  we  were  obliged  to  obey, 
 if  their  commandments  were  not  contrary  to  the  commandments 
 of  God  ?  And  that  he  adds,  that  he  had  called  the  bishops  of 
 Asia  to  a  national  council,  being  (??)  summoned  to  it  by  the  pope  ; 
 doth  it  not  insinuate  that  the  other  councils,  whereof  Eusebiusf 
 speaks,  that  were  holden  about  this  matter,  through  all  the  pro- 
 vinces of  the  earth,  and  particularly  that  of  Palestina,  which,  if  you 
 believe  the  act  that  BedaJ  said  came  to  his  hands.  Theophilus 
 archbishop  of  Csesarea  had  called  by  the  authority  of  Victor,  were 
 holden  at  the  instance  of  the  pope,  and  consequently  that  the  pope 
 was  the  fii'st  mover  of  the  universal  church  ?  And  that  the  coun- 
 cils of  Nicea,  of  Constantinople,  of  Ephesus,  embraced  the  censure 
 of  Victor,  and  excommunicated  those  that  observed  the  custom  of 
 Polycrates ;  doth  it  not  prove,  that  it  was  not  the  pope,  but  (o) 
 Polycrates,  that  v>'as  deceived  in  belie^ing  that  the  pope's  command- 
 ment was  against  God's  commandment :  And  that  St.  Jerom  him- 
 self celebrates  the  Paschal  homilies  of  Theophilus,  patriarch  of 
 Alexandria,  which  followed  the  order  of  Nicea  concerning  the 
 Pasche  ;  doth  it  not  justify,  that  when  St.  Jerom  saith,  that  he 
 reports  the  epistle  of  Polycrates,  '  to  show  the  spirit  and  authority 
 of  the  man,'  he  intends  by  authority,  not  authority  of  right,  but  of 
 fact,  that  is  to  say,  the  credit  that  Polycrates  had  amongst  the 
 Asians,  and  other  qi/artodecmnans  ? 
 
 These  are  the  cardinal's  words,  the  most  material  and  consider- 
 able passages  whereof,  to  save  the  trouble  of  repetition,  I  have  noted 
 with  letters  of  reference ;  whereunto  my  answers,  noted  respectively 
 with  the  same  letters,  follow  now  in  order. 
 
 (a)  If  Eusebius  were  an  Arian  author,  it  is  nothing  to  the  pur- 
 pose ;  what  he  writes  there,  is  no  Ai'ianism  nor  any  thing  towards  it. 
 Never  any  error  m' as  imputed  to  the  Arians  for  denying  the  authority 
 or  the  infallibility  of  the  bishop  or  chm-ch  of  Rome.  Besides, 
 what  Eusebius  sa}-s,  he  says  out  of  Irena?us :  neither  doth  or  can 
 the  cardinal  deny  the  story  to  be  true,  and  therefore  he  goes  about 
 by  indirect  arts  to  foil  it,  and  cast  a  blur  upon  it.  Lastly,  whenso- 
 ever Eusebius  says  any  thing  which  the  cardinal  thinks  for  the 
 advantage  of  his  side,  he  cites  him,  and  then  he  is  no  Arian ;  or  at 
 least  he  would  not  take  that  for  an  answer  to  the  arguments  he 
 draws  out  of  him. 
 
 (b)  That  Ruffinus  was  enemy  to  the  Roman  church  is  said,  but 
 not  proved,  neither  can  it  be. 
 
 (c)  Eusebius  says  the  same  also  of  cocteri  omnes  ejnscojn,  all  the 
 
 *  Heircn.  ubi  supra.  t  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  5.  c.23 
 
 t  Eeda  in  frag',  de  JEquinoctio  vernali. 
 
438  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 other  bishops,  that  they  advised  Victor  to  keep  those  things  that 
 belonged  to  peace  and  unity,  and  that  they  sharply  reprehended 
 Victor  for  having  done  otherwise. 
 
 (d)  This  is  said,  but  no  offer  made  of  any  proof  of  it:  the 
 cardinal  thinks  we  must  take  every  thing  upon  his  word.  They  to 
 ■whom  the  tradition  was  delivered,  Polycratcs  and  the  Asian  bishops, 
 knew  no  such  matter,  nay,  professed  the  contrary.  And  who  is 
 more  likely  to  know  the  truth,  they  who  lived  within  two  ages 
 of  the  fountain  of  it,  or  the  cardinal,  who  lived  sixteen  ages 
 after  it  ? 
 
 (e)  How  can  it  make  against  those  that  object  it,  seeing  it  is 
 evident  from  Ireneeus  his  reprehensions,  that  he  thought  Victor 
 and  the  lloman  church  no  infallible  nor  sufficient  judge  of  what 
 was  necessary  to  be  believed  and  done,  what  not ;  what  was  uni- 
 versal tradition,  what  not ;  what  was  a  sufficient  ground  of  excom- 
 munication, and  what  not;  and  consequently,  that  there  was  no 
 such  necessity  as  is  pretended,  that  all  other  churches  should  in 
 matters  of  faith  conform  themselves  to  the  church  of  Rome  ? 
 
 (/)  This  is  to  suppose  that  excommunication  is  an  act,  or  argu- 
 ment, or  sign,  of  powTr  and  authority  in  the  party  excommuni- 
 cating, over  the  party  excommunicated  ;  whereas  it  is  undeniably 
 evident  out  of  the  church  story,  that  it  was  often  used  by  equals 
 ^pon  equals,  and  by  inferiors  upon  superiors,  if  the  equals  or 
 Inferiors  thought  the  equals  or  superiors  did  any  thing  which 
 deserved  it. 
 
 ((/)  And  what  is  this  but  to  confess,  that  they  thought  that  a 
 small  cause  of  excommunication  and  unsufficient,  which  Victor  and 
 his  adherents  thought  great  and  sufficient  ;  and  consequently,  that 
 Victor  and  his  part  declared  that  to  be  a  matter  of  faith,  and  of 
 necessity,  which  they  thought  not  so  ?  And  where  was  then  their 
 conformity  ? 
 
 (h)  True,  you  have  so  expounded  it,  but  not  proved  nor  offered 
 any  proof  of  your  exposition.  This  also  we  must  take  upon  your 
 authority.  Irena^us  speaks  not  one  word  of  any  other  power,  to 
 "which  he  compares,  or  before  which  he  prefers,  the  power  of  the 
 lloman  church.  And  it  is  evident  out  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon,* 
 that  "  all  the  principality  which  it  had  was  given  it  "  (not  by  God, 
 but)  "  by  the  church,  in  regard  it  was  seated  in  the  imperial  city." 
 Whereupon,  when  afterwards  Constantinople  was  the  imperial  city, 
 they  decreed,  that  "  that  church  should  have  equal  privileges  and 
 dignity  and  pre-eminence  with  the  church  of  Rome."  All  the 
 Fathers  agreed  in  this  decree,  saving  only  the  legates  of  the 
 bishops  of  Home  ;  showing  plainly,  that  they  never  thought  of  any 
 supremacy  given  the  bishops  of  Rome  by  God,  or  grounded  upon 
 Scripture,  but  only  by  the  church,  and  therefore  alterable  at  the 
 churcli's  plcasiu-e. 
 
 (i)  This  is  falsely  translated  :  Convcnire  ad  Romanam  ecclesiam, 
 every  body  knows,  signifies  no  more  but  to  "  resort  or  come  to  the 
 lloman  church ;  "  which  then  there  was  a  necessity  that  men  should 
 do,  because  that  the  affairs  of  the  empire  were  transacted  in  that 
 place.     But  yet  Irenreus  says  not  so  of  every  chm'ch  simply,  which 
 
 *  Can.  28. 
 
PROTESTANTS    NOT    HEKETICS.  439 
 
 had  not  been  true,  but  only  of  the  adjacent  churches  ;  for  so  he  ex- 
 pounds himself  in  saying,  "  To  this  church  it  is  necessary  that  every 
 church,"  that  is,  all  the  faithful,  "  round  about,  should  resort." 
 With  much  more  reason  therefore  we  return  the  argument  thus : 
 Had  Irenoeus  thought  that  all  churches  must  of  necessity  agree 
 with  the  Pwoman,  how  could  he  and  all  other  bishops  have  then 
 pronounced  that  to  be  no  matter  of  faith,  no  sufficient  ground  of 
 excommunication,  which  Victor  and  his  adherents  thought  to  be 
 so?  And  how  then  could  they  have  reprehended  Victor  so  much 
 for  the  ill  use  of  his  power,  as  cardinal  Perron  confesses  they  did ; 
 seeing,  if  that  vras  true  which  is  pretended,  in  this  also  as  well  as 
 other  things,  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  agree  with  the  church 
 of  Rome  ? 
 
 Some  there  are  that  say,  but  more  wittily  than  truly,  that  all 
 cardinal  Bellarmine's  works  are  so  consonant  to  themselves,  as  if  he 
 had  written  them  in  two  hours.  Had  cardinal  Perron  wrote  his 
 book  in  two  hours,  sure  he  would  not  have  done  that  here  in  the 
 middle  of  the  book  which  he  condemns  in  the  beginning  of  it ;  for 
 here  he  urgeth  a  consequence  drawn  from  the  mistaken  words  of 
 Ii'enaeus  against  his  lively  and  actual  practice ;  which  proceeding 
 there  he  justly  condemns  of  evident  injustice.  His  words  are,* 
 "  For  who  knows  not  that  it  is  too  great  an  injustice  to  allege  con- 
 sequences from  passages,  and  even  those  ill  interpreted  and  misun- 
 derstood, and  in  v>^hose  illation  there  is  always  some  paralogism  hid 
 against  the  express  words,  and  the  lively  and  actual  practice  of  the 
 same  Fathers  from  whom  they  are  collected  ;  and  that  it  may  be  good 
 to  take  the  Fathers  for  adversaries,  and  to  accuse  them  for  want  of 
 sense  or  memory ;  but  not  to  take  them  for  judges,  and  to  submit 
 themselves  to  "the  observation  of  what  they  have  believed  and 
 practised  ?" 
 
 (k)  This  is  nothing  to  the  purpose ;  he  might  choose  these 
 examples,  not  as  of  greater  force  and  authority  in  themselves,  but 
 as  fitter  to  be  employed  against  Victor ;  as  domestic  examples  are 
 fitter  and  more  effectual  than  foreign  :  and  for  his  omitting  to  press 
 him  with  his  own  example  and  others,  to  what  purpose  had  it  been 
 to  use  them,  seeing  their  letters  sent  to  Victor  from  all  parts, 
 wherein  they  reprehended  his  presumption,  showed  him  sufficiently 
 that  their  example  was  against  him  ?  But  besides,  he  that  reads 
 IreniBus's  letter  shall  see,  that  in  the  matter  of  the  Lent  fast,  and 
 the  great  variety  about  the  celebration  of  it,  which  he  parallels 
 with  this  of  Easter,  he  presseth  Victor  with  the  example  of  himself 
 and  others,  not  bishops  of  Rome  ;  "Both  they,  saith  he,  speaking 
 of  other  bishops,  "  notwithstanding  this  difference,  retained  peace 
 among  themselves  :  and  we  also  among  ourselves  retain  it :"  infer- 
 ring from  his  example,  that  Victor  also  ought  to  do  so. 
 
 (Z)  If  the  pope's  proceeding  was  just,  then  the  churches  of  Asia 
 were  indeed  and  in  the  sight  of  God  excommunicate,  and  out  of 
 the  state  of  salvation ;  which  Irenaeus  and  all  the  other  ancient 
 bishops  never  thought.  And  if  they  were  so,  why  do  you  account 
 them  saints  and  martyrs  ?  But  the  truth  is,  that  these  councils  did 
 no  way  show  the  pope's  proceedings  just,  but  rather  the  contrary. 
 
 *  In  his  letter  to  Casaubon,  towards  the  end. 
 
440  PROTESTANTS   NOT  HERETICS. 
 
 For  tliough  they  settled  an  uniformity  in  this  matter,  yet  they  set- 
 tled it  as  a  matter  formerly  indifferent,  and  not  as  a  matter  of  faith 
 or  necessity,  as  it  is  evident  out  of  Athanasius  ;*  and  consequently 
 they  rather  declare  Victor's  proceeding  unjust,  whoexcommunicated 
 so  many  churches  for  differing  from  him  in  an  indifferent  matter. 
 
 (m)  It  seems,  then,  Polycrates  might  be  a  saint  and  a  mart^T, 
 and  yet  think  the  commands  of  the  Roman  church,  enjoined  upon 
 pain  of  damnation,  contrary  to  the  commandments  of  God.  Besides, 
 St.  Peter  himself,  the  head  of  the  church,  the  vicar  of  Christ  (as 
 you  pretend),  made  this  very  answer  to  the  high  priest ;  yet  I  hope 
 you  will  not  say  he  was  his  inferior,  and  obliged  to  obey  him. 
 Lastly,  who  sees  not,  that  when  the  pope  commands  us  any  thiilg 
 unjust,  as  to  communicate  laymen  in  one  kind,  to  use  the  Latin 
 service,  Ave  may  very  fitly  say  to  him,  It  is  better  to  obey  God  than 
 man,  and  yet  never  think  of  any  authority  he  hath  over  us  ? 
 
 (w)  Between  requesting  and  summoning,  methinks  there  should 
 he  some  difference ;  and  Polycrates  says  no  more  but  "  he  was  re- 
 quested by  the  church  of  Rome"  to  call  them,  and  did  so.  Here, 
 then  (as  very  often),  the  cardinal  is  fain  to  help  the  dice  with  a 
 false  translation ;  and  his  pretence  being  false,  every  one  must  see, 
 that  that  which  he  pretends  to  be  insinuated  by  it  is  clearly  incon- 
 sequent. 
 
 (o)  Polycrates  was  deceived  if  he  believed  it  to  be  against  God's 
 commandment,  and  the  pope  deceived  as  much  in  thinking  it  to  be 
 God's  commandment ;  for  it  was  t  neither  one  nor  the  other,  but 
 an  indifferent  matter,  wherein  God  had  not  interposed  his  authority. 
 Neither  did  the  council  of  Nice  embrace  the  censure  of  Victor,  by 
 acknowledging  his  excommunication  to  be  just  and  well-grounded, 
 for  which  the  cardinal  neither  doth  pretend  nor  can  produce  any 
 proof  any  way  comparable  to  the  forealleged  words  of  Athanasius 
 testifying  the  contrary;  though  peradventure,  having  settled  the 
 observation,  and  reduced  it  to  an  uniformity,  they  might  excom- 
 municate those  who  afterward  should  trouble  the  church's  peace  for 
 an  indifferent  matter.     And  thus  much  for  Irenseus. 
 
 31.  I  come  now  to  St.  Austin,  and  to  the  fii'st  place  out  of  him, 
 where  he  seems  to  say,  "  that  the  succession  in  the  see  of  Peter  was. 
 the  rock  which  our  Saviour  meant,  when  he  said,  C/^jom  tliis  rock" 
 &c.  I  answer,  first,  we  have  no  reason  to  be  confident  of  the  truth 
 hereof,  because  St.  Austin  himself  was  not,  but  retracts  it  as  uncer- 
 tain, and  "  leaves  to  the  reader  whether  he  will  think  that  or 
 another  more  probable,"  Retr.  1.  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  apostolic  churches. 
 Thirdly,  that  as  in  this  place  he  urgeth  the  Donatists  Avith  separa- 
 tion from  the  Roman  church  as  an  argument  of  their  error;  so 
 elsewhere  he  presseth  them  with  theu-  separation  from  other  apos- 
 
 *  In  Ep.  ad  Episcopos  in  Africa;  -where  he  clearly  shows,  that  this  question  was 
 not  a  question  qf  faith,  by  saying-,  "  The  council  of  Js'ice  was  celebrated  by  occasion 
 of  the  Avian  lieresy  and  the  difterence  about  Easter ;  insomuch  as  they  in  Syria  and 
 Cilicia  and  Mesopotamia  did  differ  herein  fi-om  us,  and  kept  this  feast  on  the  same 
 day  with  the  Jews."  But,  thanks  be  to  God,  an  agreement  was  made,  as  con- 
 cerning the  faith,  so  also  concerning  this  holy  feast. 
 
 r  neither  the  one. — Oxf. 
 
PFvOTESTANTS   NOT    HERETICS.  441 
 
 tolic  churches ;  nay,  more  from  these  than  from  that,  because  in 
 Rome  the  Donatists  had  a  bishop,  though  not  a  perpetual  succes- 
 sion of  them ;  but  in  other  apostolic  churches  they  wanted  both. 
 "  These  scattered  men,"  saith  he  of  the  Donatists,  Epist.  165,  "  read 
 in  the  holy  books  in  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  he  icith  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  schismatics,  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  schismatics, 
 because  "  they  had  not  the  fellowship  of  communion  with  the 
 seven  churches  of  Asia,  to  which  St.  John  writes ;"  v.hereof  he 
 pronounces  confidently  (though  I  know  not  upon  what  ground), 
 jExtra  septem  ecclesias  quicquid  foris  est,  ah'enum  est.  Now,  I  pray 
 tell  me,  do  you  esteem  the  authority  of  these  Fathers  a  sufficient 
 assurance  that  separation  from  tliese  other  apostolic  churches  was 
 a  certain  mark  of  heresy,  or  not  ?  If  so,  then  your  church  had  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  m-ged  this  only  as  a  probable,  and  not  as  a  certain  argu- 
 ment, so  also  they  might  do  that.  In  a  word,  whatsoever  answer 
 you  can  devise  to  show  that  these  Fathers  made  not  separation 
 from  these  other  churches  a  mark  of  heresy,  apply  that  to  your  own 
 argument,  and  it  Avill  be  satisfied. 
 
 32.  The  other  place  is  evidently  impertinent  to  the  present  ques- 
 tion, nor  is  there  in  it  any  thing  but  this,  that  Csecilian  "  might 
 contemn  the  number  of  his  adversaries,  because  those  that  were 
 united  with  him  were  more,  and  of  more  account,  than  those  that 
 were  against  him."  Had  he  preferred  the  Roman  church  alone, 
 before  Caecilian's  enemies,  this  had  been  little,  but  something ;  but 
 when  other  countries,  from  which  the  gospel  came  first  into  Africa, 
 are  joined  in  this  patent  with  the  church  of  Rome,  how  she  can 
 build  any  singular  privilege  upon  it,  I  am  yet  to  learn  :  neither  do 
 I  see  what  can  be  concluded  from  it,  but  that  "  in  the  Roman 
 church  was  the  principality  of  an  apostolic  see,"  *  which  no  man 
 doubts ;  or  that  the  Roman  church  was  not  the  mother  church, 
 because  the  gospel  came  first  into  Africa,  not  from  her,  but  from 
 other  churches. 
 
 33.  Thus  you  see  his  Avords  make  very  little  or  indeed  nothing 
 for  you.  But  now  his  action,  which,  according  to  cardinal  Perron's 
 rule,  is  much  more  to  be  regarded  than  his  words,  as  not  being  so 
 obnoxious  to  misinterpretation,  I  mean  his  famous  ojDposition  of 
 
 *  You  do  ill  to  translate  it  "  the  principality  of  the  see  apostolic,"  as  if  there 
 were  but  one ;  whereas  St.  Austin  presently  after  speaks  of  apostolic  churches,  in 
 the  plui-^  number ;  and  makes  the  bishops  of  them  joint-commissioners  for  the 
 judging  of  ecclesiastical  causes. 
 
442  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS, 
 
 three  bishops  of  Rome,  in  succession,  touching  the  great  question, 
 of  appeals,  wherein  he  and  the  rest  of  the  African  bishops  pro- 
 ceeded so  far  in  the  first  or  second  Milevitan  council,  as  to  "  decree 
 any  African  excommunicate  that  should  appeal  to  any  out  of 
 Afric,"  *  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  Avith  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
 church,  in  all  things  which  she  held  necessary,  was  a  certain  note 
 of  a  good  catholic,  and  by  God's  command  necessary  to  salvation^ 
 how  was  it  possible  they  should  have  opposed  it  in  this  ?  Unless 
 you  Avill  say  they  were  all  so  foolish  as  to  believe  at  once  direct 
 contradictions,  viz.  that  conformity  to  the  Roman  church  was  neces- 
 sary in  all  points,  and  not  necessary  in  this  ;  or  so  horribly  impious, 
 as  believing  this  doctrine  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  M'ell  as  the  inferior  clergy  and  laity:  and 
 cardinal  Perron's  pretence  of  the  contrary  is  a  shameless  falsehood, 
 repugnant  to  the  plain  words  of  the  remonstrance  of  the  African 
 bishops  to  Celestine  bishop  of  Rome.f 
 
 34.  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  felloAvs  always 
 conceal  and  dissemble,  that  immediately  before  these  words  he 
 attributes  as  much  for  point  of  direction  to  any  other  apostolic 
 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  employ  thy  curiosity  in  the 
 business  of  thy  salvation ;  run  over  the  apostolical  churches,  wherein 
 the  chairs  of  the  apostles  are  yet  sat  upon  in  their  places,  wherein 
 their  authentic  epistles  are  recited,  sounding  out  the  voice,  and  re- 
 presenting the  face  of  every  one  !  Is  Achaia  near  thee  ?  There 
 thou  hast  Corinth.  If  thou  art  not  far  from  Macedonia,  thou  hast 
 Philippi,  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  Afric)  ;  *'  a  happy 
 
 *  The  words  of  tlie  desfree  (which  also  Bellarm.  1.  1.  de  IMatrim.  c.  IT.  assures  us 
 to  have  been  formed  by  St.  Austin)  are  these:  "  Si  qui  (Africani)  ab  episcopus  pro- 
 vocandum  putaverint,  iion  nisi  ad  Africana  provoccnt  concilia,  vel  ad  primates' 
 provinciarum  suarum.  Ad  transmarina  autem  qui  putaverit  appellandum,  a  nuUo 
 intra  Africam  in  communionem  suscipiatur."  This  decree  is  by  Gratian  most  im- 
 pudently corrupted.  For  whereas  the  Fathers  of  that  council  intended  it  particu- 
 larly asrainst  the  church  of  Kome,  he  tells  us  they  forbad  appeals  to  all,  "  excepting- 
 only  the  church  of  Home." 
 
 t  The  words  are  these  :  "  Pra?fato  debito  salutationis  officio,  impendio  depre- 
 caraur,  ut  deinceps  ad  avires  vestras  hinc  vcnicntes,  non  facilius  admittatis ;  nee 
 a  nobis  excommunicatos  ultra  in  communionem  velitis  recipcre  ;  quia  hoc  etiam 
 Niceno  concilio  definitum  facile  adrertet  venerabilitas  tua.  Nam  si  de  inferiori- 
 bus  clericis  vel  laicis  videtur  id  prsecaveri,  quanto  magis  hoc  de  episcopis  voluit 
 observari ] " 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS.  443 
 
 church,  into  which  the  apostles  poured  forth  all  their  doctrine  to- 
 gether with  their  blood,"  &c.  Now  I  pray  you,  sir,  tell  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  show, 
 that  in  the  judgment  of  Tertullian,  separation  from  any  of  their- 
 churches  is  a  certain  mark  of  heresy,  as  justly  and  rationally  as  you 
 allege  it  to  yindicate  this  privilege  to  the  Roman  church  only. 
 Certainly,  if  you  will  stand  to  Tertullian's  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 
 heretics  had,  especially  in  conjunction  with  other  apostolic  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  shall  maintain  the  authority  of  every  one  of  these  infallible  as 
 well  as  the  Roman.  For  though  he  make  a  panegyric  of  the  Ro- 
 man 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  shows)  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  ? 
 
 35.  From  the  saying  of  St.  Basil,  certainly  nothing  can  be  ga^ 
 thered,  but  only  "  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  may  discern  between 
 that  which  is  counterfeit,  and  that  which  is  lawful  and  pure,  and 
 without  any  diminution  may  preach  the  faith  of  our  ancestors." 
 Which  certainly  he  might  do,  if  ambition  and  covetousness  did  not 
 hinder  him,  or  else  I  should  never  condemn  him  for  doing  other- 
 wise. But  is  there  no  difference  between  may  and  'must  ?  between 
 he  may  do  so,  and  he  cannot  hut  do  so  ?  Or  doth  it  follow,  because 
 he  may  do  so,  therefore  he  always  shall  or  Avill  do  so  ?  In  my  opi- 
 nion rather  the  contrary  should  follow ;  for  he  that  saith.  You  may 
 do  thus,  implies,  according  to  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  words,  that 
 if  he  will,  he  may  do  otherwise.  You  certainly  may,  if  you  please, 
 leave  abusing  the  world  with  such  sophistry  as  this ;  but  whether 
 you  will  or  no,  of  that  I  have  no  assurance. 
 
 36.  Your  next  witness  I  would  willingly  have  examined ;  but  it 
 seems  you  are  unwilling  he  should  be  found,  otherwise  you  would 
 have  given  us  your  direction  where  we  might  have  him.  Of  that 
 Maximianus,  who  succeeded  Nestorius,  I  can  find  no  such  thing  in 
 the  councils ;  neither  can  I  beheve  that  any  patriarch  of  Constanti- 
 nople twelve  hundred  years  ago  was  so  base  a  parasite  of  the  see 
 of  Rome. 
 
 37.  Your  last  witness,  John  of  Constantinople,  I  confess,  speaks 
 home,  and  advanceth  the  Roman  see,  even  to  heaven ;  but  I  fear  it 
 is  that  his  own  may  go  up  with  it,  which  he  there  professes  to  be- 
 all  one  see  with  the  see  of  Rome ;  and  therefore  his  testimony,  as 
 speaking  in  his  own  cause,  is  not  much  to  be  regarded.  But  be- 
 sides, I  have  little  reason  to  be  confident  that  this  epistle  is  not  a 
 forgery;  for  certainly  Biniushath  obtruded  upon  us  many  a  hun 
 
444  PROTESTANTS   XOT   HERETICS, 
 
 dred  such.  This,  though  written  by  a  Grecian,  is  not  extant  in 
 Greek,  but  in  Latin  only.  Lastly,  it  comes  out  of  a  suspicious  place, 
 an  old  book  of  the  Vatican  library,  which  library  the  world  knows 
 to  have  been  the  mint  of  very  many  impostures. 
 
 38.  Ad  §  20 — 23.   The  sum  of  your  discourse  in  the  four  next 
 sections,  if  it  be  pertinent  to  the  question  in  agitation,  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  heresy : 
 but  protestants  want  all  these  things  ;  therefore  they  are  heretics." 
 To  which  I  answer.  That  nothing  but  want  of  truth,  and  holding 
 error,  can  make  or  prove  any  man  or  church  heretical.     For  if  he 
 be  a  true  Aristotelian,  or  Platonist,  or  Pp-rhonian,  or  Epicm-ean, 
 •who  holds  the  doctrine  of  Aristotle,  or  Pyrrho,  or  Epicurus,  al- 
 though he  cannot  assign  any  that  held  it  before  him  for  many  ages 
 too-ether ;  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  com- 
 mandments of  God,  why  may  I  not  embrace  his  doctrine  with  my 
 ■understanding,  although  my  predecessors  do  not  so  ?     You  have 
 above,  in  this  chapter,  defined  faith,  "  a  free,  infallible,  obscure, 
 supernatm-al  assent  to  Divine  truths,  because  they  are  revealed  by 
 God,  and  sufficiently  propounded,"    This  definition  is  very  fantasti- 
 cal :  but  for  the  present  I  will  let  it  pass,  and  desire  you  to  give  me 
 some  piece  or  shadow  of  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  mali- 
 ciously 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  Scrip- 
 ture) 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  Avithout  any  mixture  of  error ; 
 nay,  I  am  fully  persuaded  there  hath  been  no  such  succession,  and 
 yet  do  not  find  myself  any  way  weakened  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  myself 
 that  I  should  not  be  moved.    This  I  say,  and  this  I  am  sure  is  true ; 
 and  if  you  will  be  so  hypersceptical,  as  to  persuade  me  that  I  am 
 not  sure  that  I  do  believe  all  this,  I  desire  you  to  tell  me,  how  are 
 you  sm-e  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  eiT  concerning  what  he  believes,  then  you 
 must  give  me  leave  to  assure  myself  that  I  do  believe,  and  con- 
 
PK0TESTANT3   NOT   HERETICS.  445 
 
 sequently  that  aiiy  man  may  believe,  the  foresaid  truths  upon  the 
 foresaid  motives,  without  any  dependence  upon  any  succession  that 
 hath  believed  it  always.  And  as  from  your  definition  of  faith,  so 
 from  yoiu-  definition  of  heresy,  this  fancy  may  be  refuted.  For 
 questionless  no  man  can  be  an  heretic  but  he  that  holds  an  heresy, 
 and  an  heresy,  you  say,  "  is  a  voluntary  error;"  therefore  no  man 
 can  be  necessitated  to  be  an  heretic  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  *  our  own  power ;  therefore  our 
 being  or  not  being  heretics  depends  not  on  it.  Besides,  what  is 
 more  certain,  than  that  he  may  make  a  straight  line,  who  hath  a 
 rule  to  make  it  by,  though  never  man  in  the  world  hath  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  necesssity  that  if  God  will  have  his  word  believed,  he  by  his  pro- 
 vidence 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  du-ections  for  their  faith,  and  yet  not  follow 
 them.  I  doubt  not  but  lawyers  at  the  bar  do  find  by  frequent  ex- 
 perience, that  many  men  preserve  and  produce  evidences,  which, 
 being  examined,  ofttimes  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  formerly  alleged,  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  corrupt  them  ? 
 Seeing  therefore  this  is  all  the  necessity  that  is  pretended  of  a  per- 
 petual 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  heresy,  you  shall  then  receive  a  full  answer  to 
 your  minor.  "We  shall  then  consider,  whether  your  indelible  cha- 
 racter 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  men's  persuasions,  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  man's  per- 
 suasion that  he  has  not  taken  physic  or  poison,  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,  speaks  of  a  priest 
 *  yovir  power,— 0.\f.    our  po-n'er.— Lond. 
 
446  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 made  a  layman  by  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  heretics  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  pope's  right,  or  an  usurpation  ?  If  it  were  his 
 right,  whether  by  Divine  law,  or  ecclesiastical  ?  And  if  by  eccle- 
 siastical only,  whether  he  might  possibly  so  abuse  his  power,  as  to 
 deserve  to  lose  it  ?  AVhether  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  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  settled,  and  the  present  government  established)  be  as 
 unlawful  to  go  about  to  restore  it  P  Whether  it  be  not  a  fallacy  to 
 conclude,  because  we  believe  the  pope  hath  no  power  in  England, 
 noAV  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  un- 
 lawful 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  him  ?"  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  chm'ch  of  Rome,  for  any  layman  or 
 woman  that  has  ability,  to  persuade  others  by  word  or  writing  from 
 error,  and  unto  truth  ?  and  Avhy  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  an  unnecessary  disturbance  of  order)  to  persuade  men 
 out  of  a  false,  into  a  true  way  of  eternal  happiness  ?  especially  the 
 apostle  having  assured  us,  that  he  (whosoever  he  is)  ivlio  converteth 
 a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  icay  shall  save  a  soul  from  death,  and 
 shall  hide  a  midtitude  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  car- 
 dinals 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  con- 
 secrated, against  whom  there  is  no  canonical  exception  ?   Whether 
 
PB,OTESTA>rTS   NOT   HERETICS.  447 
 
 the  doctrine,  that  the  king  is  supreme  head  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
 land (as  the  kings  of  Judah  and  the  first  Christian  emperors  were 
 of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church),  be  any  new-found  doctrine  ? 
 Whether  it  may  not  be  true,  that  bishops,  being  made  bishops, 
 have  their  authority  immediately  from  Christ,  though  this  or  that 
 man  be  not  made  bishop  without  the  king's  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 
 practise  physic  in  his  diocese,  which  the  bishop  cannot  do  himself  ? 
 Whether  if  Nero  the  emperor  would  have  commanded  St.  Peter  or 
 St.  Paul  to  preach  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  to  exercise  the  office  of 
 a  bishop  of  Rome,  whether  they  would  have  questioned  his  au- 
 thority to  do  so  ?   Whether  there  were  any  law  of  God  or  man  that 
 prohibited  king  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  dispensed  with  ?    Whe- 
 ther the  pope's  irregularities,  if  he  should  chance  to  incur  any,  be 
 indispensable  ?  and  if  not,  who  is  he,  or  who  are  they,  whom  the 
 pope  is  subject  unto,  that  they  may  dispense  with  him  ?    Whether 
 that  be  certain,  Avhich  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  archi- 
 tecture, and  had  it  immediately  by  infusion  from  God  himself,  yet 
 if  they  were  the  king's  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  com- 
 mand 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  murderer  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 
 Jacto  ordained  and  consecrated  who  by  the  king's  authority  are 
 commended  to  the  bishops  to  be  ordained  and  consecrated ;  espe- 
 cially 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  lung  himself,  nor  any  body  else,  would  esteem  the  per- 
 son bishop  upon  the  king's  designation  ?     Whether  many  popes, 
 though  they  were  not  consecrated  bishops  by  any  temporal  prince. 
 
448  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 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  yourself,  and  contradict  what  you  said  above  in 
 sect.  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  insti- 
 tution ?  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  the  true 
 church  ?  Wliether  the  forms  of  the  church  of  England  differ  essen- 
 tially 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  man's. 
 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  be  diverse  in  diverse  places,  and  that  a  good  and  peace- 
 able 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  heresy,"  which  for  the  present  remains  both  un- 
 proved and  unprobable. 
 
 40.  Ad  §  23.  "  The  Fathers,"  you  say,  "  assign  succession  as  one 
 mark  of  the  true  church  :"  I  confess  they  did  urge  tradition  as  an 
 argument  of  the  truth  of  their  doctrine,  and  of  the  falsehood  of  the 
 contrary ;  and  thus  far  they  agree  with  you.  But  now  see  the  dif- 
 ference :  they  urged  it  not  against  all  heretics  that  ever  should  be, 
 but  against  them  that  rejected  a  great  part  of  the  Scripture,  for  no 
 other  reason,  but  "  because  it  was  repugnant  to  their  docti'ine,  and 
 corrupted  other  parts  with  their  additions  and  detractions,  and  per- 
 verted the  remainder  with  divers  absui-d  interpretations :"  so  Ter- 
 tuUian,  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  T^Titing" 
 (they  did  mean  wholly),  "  but  by  word  of  mouth  :  and  that  there- 
 upon Paul  also  said,  We  speak  wisdom  amongst  the  perfect ;"  so 
 IrensBUS,  in  the  very  next  chapter  before  that  which  you  allege. 
 *  mav  not  be  diverse.— Oxf. 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS.  449 
 
 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  joint  tradition  of  all  the  apostolic  churches,  with  one  mouth 
 and  one  voice,  teaching  the  same  doctrine.     Or  if,  for  brevity's 
 sake,  they  produce  the  tradition  of  any  one  church,  yet  it  is  ap- 
 parent that  that  one  was  then  in  conjunction  with  all  the  rest : 
 Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  testify  as  much  in  the  words  cited,  and 
 St.  Austin  in  the  place  before  alleged  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  of  them, 
 Irenaeus,  was  scholar  to   one  who  was   scholar  to   St.  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,  sect.  5, 
 "  How  is  it  likely  that  so  many  and  so  great  chm-ches  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 
 yourselves  esteemed  good  catholics  ;  nay,  who  refuse  not  to  be 
 tried  by  *  your  own  canon  and  your  own  translation  ;  who  in  inter- 
 preting Scriptures  are  content  to  allow  all  those  rules  which  you 
 propose,  only  except  that  we  will  not  allow  you  to  be  our  judges ; 
 if  you  will  come  one  thousand  five  hundred  years  after  the  apostles, 
 a  fair  time  for  the  purest  church  to  gather  much  dross  and  cor- 
 ruption, and  for  the  mxjstery  of  iniquity  to  bring  its  work  to  some 
 perfection,  which  in  the  apostles^  time  hegan  to  tvork  ;  if,  I  say,  you 
 will  come  thus  long  after,  and  urge  us  with  the  single  tradition  of 
 one  of  these   churches,  being  now  catholic  to  itself  alone,  and 
 heretical  to  all  the  rest ;  nay,  not  only  with  her  ancient  and  original 
 traditions,  but  also  with  her  postnate  introduced  definitions,  and 
 these,  as  w^e  pretend,  repugnant  to  Scripture  and  ancient  tradition^ 
 and  all  this  to  decline  an  indifferent  trial  by  Scripture,  under  pre- 
 tence (wherein  also  you  agree  with  the  calumny  of  the  old  heretics) 
 that  "  all  necessary  truth  cannot  be  found  in  them  without  recoui'se 
 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  forementioned  Fathers 
 urged  the  old  heretics ;  certainly  this  must  needs  proceed  from  a 
 confidence  you  have,  not  only  that  we  have  no  school  divinity  nor 
 metaphysics,  but  no  logic  or  common  sense ;  that  we  are  but  pic- 
 tures 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  logic, 
 which  is  a  certain  sign  of  an  ill  disputer ;  or  are  not  pleased  to  use 
 •  your  own  canon,  your  own  translations.— Oyf. 
 G  G 
 
450  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS, 
 
 it,  -whicli  is  a  worse.  For  speech  is  a  certain  sign  of  a  living  man, 
 yet  want  of  speech  is  no  sure  argumant  that  he  is  dead ;  for  he  may 
 he  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 
 apostolic  churches,  ever  since  the  apostles,  be  a  very  great  argu- 
 ment of  the  truth  of  it,  yet  there  is  no  certainty  but  that  truth,  even 
 Divine  truth,  may,  through  men's  wickedness,  be  contracted  from 
 its  universality,  and  interrupted  in  its  perpetuity,  and  so  lose  this 
 argument,  and  yet  not  want  others  to  justify  and  support  itself. 
 Por  it  may  be  one  of  those  principles  which  God  hath  written  in 
 all  men's  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 
 "  Avant  of  a  perpetual  succession  of  professors  a  certain  note  of 
 heresy,"  you  must  not  content  yourself  to  show,  that  having  it  is 
 one  sign  of  truth  ;  but  you  must  show  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  mar  all :  for  by  proving  this  an 
 inseparable  sign  of  catholic  doctrine,  you  will  prove  your  own, 
 which  apparently  wants  it  in  many  points,  not  to  be  catholic.  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  always ;  as,  your  con- 
 demning 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  ex- 
 ample, in  mutilation  of  the  communion — in  having  your  service  in 
 such  a  language  as  the  assistants  generally  understand  not — your 
 ofiering  to  saints- — your  picturing  of  God — your  worshipping  of 
 pictures. 
 
 42.  Ad  §  24.  As  for  "  universality  of  place,  the  want  whereof 
 you  object  to  protestants  as  a  mark  of  heresy ;"  you  have  not  set 
 down  clearly  and  univocally  what  you  mean  by  it,  whether  uni- 
 versality of  fact  or  of  right;  and  if  of  fact,  whether  absolute  or 
 comparative ;  and  if  comparative,  whether  of  the  church  in  com- 
 parison of  any  other  religion,  or  only  of  heretical  Christians ;  or  if 
 in  comparison  of  these,  whether  in  comparison  of  all  other  sects 
 conjoined,  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  heresy ;  for  those  places  of  St.  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  be  first  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 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS.  451 
 
 oppose  yourselves  against  all  other  Christians  besides  you,  it  is  cer- 
 tain you  would  be  cast  in  this  suit  also  :  if,  lastly,  being-  hard  di'iven, 
 you  should  jjlease  yourselves  v.ith  being  more  than  any  one  sect  of 
 Christians,  it  would  presently  be  rephed,  that  it  is  uncertain  whe- 
 ther now  you  are  so,  but  most  certain,  that  the  time  has  been  when 
 you  have  not  been  so :  then  when  the  "  whole  world  wondered  that 
 it  was  become  Aiian ;"  *  then  when  Athanasius  "  opposed  the  world, 
 and  the  world  Athanasius ;"  then  when  your  Liberius  having  the 
 contemptible  paucity  of  his  adherents  objected  to  him  as  a  note  of 
 error,  answered  for  himself,  f  "  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  v/rong;"  then  when  the  "pro- 
 fessors of  error  surpassed  the  number  of  the  professors  of  truth  in 
 proportion,  as  the  sands  of  the  sea  do  the  stars  of  heaven"  (as  St. 
 Austin  acknowledges);!  then  when  A'incentius  confesses, §  that 
 *'  the  poison  of  the  Arians  had  contaminated,  not  now  some  certain 
 portion,  but  almost  the  whole  world;"  then  when  the  author  of 
 ]!^azianzen's  life  testifies,  1|  "  that  the  heresy  of  Arius  had  possessed 
 in  a  manner  the  whole  extent  of  the  world ;"  and  when  Nazianzen 
 found  cause  to  cry  out,  ^  '■'  Where  are  they  who  reproach  us  with 
 our  poverty,  who  define  the  church  by  the  multitude,  and  despise 
 the  little  iiock  ?  They  have  the  people,  but  we  the  faith."  And 
 lastly,  when  Athanasius  was  so  overborne  with  shoals  and  floods  of 
 Arians,  that  he  was  enforced  to  write  a  treatise  on  purpose,** 
 against  those  "  who  judge  of  the  truth  only  by  plurality  of  ad- 
 herents." So  that  if  you  had  proved  want  of  universality  even  thus 
 restrained,  to  be  an  infallible  note  of  heresy,  there  would  have  been 
 no  remedy  but  you  must  have  confessed,  that  the  time  was  when 
 you  vvere  heretics.  And  besides,  I  see  not  how  you  w^ould  have 
 Jivoided  this  great  inconvenience,  of  laying  grounds  and  storing  up 
 arguments  for  antichrist  against  he  comes,  by  which  he  may  prove 
 hi5  company  the  true  church.  For  it  is  evident  out  of  Scripture, 
 and  confessed  by  you,  that  though  his  time  be  not  long,  his  domi- 
 nion shall  be  very  large,  and  that  the  true  church  shall  be  then  the 
 woman  driven  into  the  icilderness. 
 
 43.  Ad  §  25  and  28.  The  remainder  of  this  chapter,  if  I  would 
 deal  strictly  with  you,  I  might  let  pass,  as  impertinent  to  the  ques- 
 tion now  disputed.  For  whereas  your  judgment  promises,  that  this 
 whole  chapter  shall  be  employed  in  proving  Luther  and  the  pro- 
 testants  guilty  of  heresy ;  here  you  desert  this  question,  and  strike 
 out  into  another  accusation  of  them,  that  '*  their  faith,  even  of  the 
 truth  they  hold,  is  not  indeed  true  faith."  But  put  case  it  were 
 not,  does  it  follow  that  the  having  of  this  faith  makes  them  heretics, 
 or  that  they  are  therefore  heretics  because  they  have  this  faith  ? 
 Aristotle  believed  there  were  intelligences  which  moved  the  spheres ; 
 he  believed  this  with  an  human  persuasion,  and  not  with  a  certain, 
 obscure,  prudent,  supernatural  faith  ;  and  wall  you  make  Aristotle 
 an  heretic,  because  he  believed  so  ?     You  believe  there  was  such  a 
 
 *  Hier.  contr.  Luciferianos.  +  In  Theod.  Hist.  1.  16.  c.  2. 
 
 X  In  Ep.  48.  ad  Vincentium.  $  Commentarii,  1.  1.  c.  14. 
 
 !l  In  Vita  Nazianz.  11  In  Orat.  Arian.  et  pro  seipso. 
 **  Tom.  2. 
 
452  PKOTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 man  as  Julius  Csesar,  that  there  is  such  a  city  as  Constantinople, 
 and  your  belief  hereof  has  not  these  qualifications  Avhich  you 
 *  require  to  Divine  faith.  And  will  you  be  content  that  this  shall 
 pass  for  a  sufficient  proof  that  you  are  an  heretic  ?  Heresy  you 
 have  defined  above  to  be  a  voluntary  error ;  but  he  that  believes 
 truth,  though  his  belief  be  not  qualified  according  to  your  mind, 
 yet  sure  in  believing  truth  he  believes  no  error ;  and  from  hence, 
 according  to  ordinary  logic,  methinks  it  should  follow,  that  such  a 
 man,  for  doing  so,  cannot  be  guilty  of  heresy. 
 
 44.  But  you  will  say,  though  he  be  not  guilty  of  heresy  far 
 believing  these  truths,  yet,  if  his  faith  be  not  saving,  to  what  pur- 
 pose will  it  be  ?  Truly  very  little  to  the  purpose  of  salvation,  as 
 little  as  it  is  to  your  proving  protestants  guilty  of  heresy.  But  out 
 of  our  wonted  indulgence,  let  us  pardon  this  fault  also,  and  do  you 
 the  favour  to  hear  what  you  can  say,  to  beget  this  faith  in  us,  that 
 indeed  we  have  no  faith,  or  at  least  not  suc'h  a  faith  without  tvhich 
 it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  Your  discourse  upon  this  point  you 
 have,  I  know  not  upon  what  policy,  disjointed,  and  given  us  the 
 grounds  of  it  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  and  the  superstruc- 
 ture here  in  the  end.  Them  I  have  already  examined,  and,  for 
 a  great  part  of  them,  proved  them  vain  and  deceitful.  I  have 
 showed  by  many  certain  arguments,  that  though  the  subject  matter 
 of  our  faith  be  in  itself  most  certain,  yet  that  absolute  certainty  of 
 adherence  is  not  required  to  the  essence  of  faith,  no,  nor  to  make 
 it  acceptable  with  God ;  but  that  to  both  these  effects  it  is  sufficient, 
 if  it  be  firm  enough  to  produce  obedience  and  charity.  I  have 
 showed  besides,  that  prudence  is  rather  commendable  in  faith  than 
 intrinsical  and  essential  to  it :  so  that  whatsoever  is  here  said,  to 
 prove  the  faith  of  protestants  no  faith,  for  want  of  certainty,  or  for 
 want  of  prudence,  is  already  answered  before  it  is  objected;  for  the 
 foundation  being  destroyed,  the  building  cannot  stand.  Yet,  for 
 the  fuller  refutation  of  all  pretences,  I  will  here  make  good,  that  to 
 l^rove  our  faith  destitute  of  these  qualifications  you  have  produced 
 but  vain  sophisms,  and,  for  the  most  part,  such  arguments  as  return 
 most  violently  upon  yourselves.     Thus  then  you  say, 
 
 45.  First,  "  That  their  belief  wanteth  certainty,  I  prove,  because 
 they,  denying  the  universal  infallibility  of  the  church,  can  have  no 
 certain  ground  to  know  what  objects  are  revealed  or  testified  by 
 God."  But  if  there  be  no  other  ground  of  certainty  but  your 
 church's  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  allege  for  your  infallibility,  are 
 uncorruptcd ;  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  church's  infallibility 
 
 *  require  :  and  ivill  you,  &c. — Oxf. 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT   HEIIETICS.  453 
 
 Suppose  you  should  meet  witli  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  show  some  sufficient  grounds  to  build 
 his  faith  upon:  will  you  tell  such  a  man,  there  are  no  certain 
 gromids  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  persuade  that  your  church  is  in- 
 fallible because  it  is  infallible,  or  else  that  there  other  certain 
 grounds  besides  your  church's  infallibility. 
 
 46.  But  you  proceed  and  tell  us,  that  "  Holy  Scripture  is  in  itself 
 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."  Ansic.  But  ail  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  church's  infallible  du'ection,  or  we  are  excluded 
 from  all  means  of  knowing  her  direction  to  be  infallible. 
 
 47.  "  But  protestants,  though,  as  you  suppose,  they  are  persuaded 
 their  ovm  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  show 
 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."  The  first  of  these  suppositions  must 
 needs  be  true,  but  the  second  is  apparently  false ;  I  mean,  that 
 every  protestant  is  persuaded  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  logic  you  might  conclude,  that  logic  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  shows  that  some  of  them  are  deceived.  Might 
 not  a  Jew  conclude  as  well  against  all  Ckristians,  that  they  have 
 no  certain  ground  whereon  to  rely  in  their  understanding  of  Scrip- 
 ture, because  their  disagreements  show  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  argu- 
 ment against  both  Jews  and  Christians,  and  an  atheist  against  all 
 religions,  and  a  sceptic  against  all  reason.  Might  not  the  one  say, 
 men's  disagreement  in  religion  shows  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  argu- 
 ments against  them,  which  if  they  could  not  be  answered,  would 
 overthrow,  not  only  your  owti,  but  all  religion  ?  But,  God  be 
 thanked  !  the  answer  is  easy  and  obvious :  for  let  men  but  remem- 
 ber not  to  impute  the  faults  of  men  but  only  to  men,  and  then  it 
 
454  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 ■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  dissensions. 
 
 48.  "  But  protestants  cannot  determine  what  points  be  funda- 
 mental, and  therefore  must  remain  imcertain  whether  or  no  they  be 
 not  in  some  fundamental  error."  Anstv.  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  deter- 
 mine what  points  to  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.  Now  that  you  are  uncertain  what  points  are  defined 
 appears  from  your  own  words,  c.  4.  §  3,  of  yoiu'  second  part,  where, 
 say  you,  "  No  less  impertinent  is  your  discourse  concerning  the  dif- 
 ficulty to  know  what  is  heresy ;  for  we  grant,  that  it  is  not  always 
 easy  to  determine  in  particular  occasions  whether  this  or  that  doc- 
 trine be  such,  because  it  may  be  doubtful  whether  it  be  against  any 
 Scripture  or  Divine  tradition,  or  definition  of  the  church."  Neither 
 were  it  difficult  to  extort  from  you  this  confession,  by  naming  divers 
 points,  which  some  of  you  say  are  defined,  others  the  contrary,  and 
 others  hang  in  suspense,  and  know  not  what  to  determine.  But 
 this  I  have  done  elsewhere;  as  also  I  have  showed  plainly  enough, 
 that  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 
 1-eceipt  takes  twenty  ingredients,  whereof  ten  only  are  necessary, 
 though  he  know  not  which  those  ten  are,  yet  taking  the  whole 
 twenty,  he  is  sure  enough  that  he  hath  taken  all  that  are  ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 49.  Ad  §  29.  "  But  that  he  who  erreth  against  any  one  revealed 
 truth  loseth  all  Divine  faith,  is  a  very  true  doctrine,  delivered  by 
 catholic  divines"  (you  mean  your  own)  "  with  so  general  a  consent^ 
 that  the  contrary  is  wont  to  be  censured  as  temerarious :  now  cer- 
 tainly some  protestants  must  do  so,  because  they  hold  contradic- 
 tions, which  cannot  all  be  true ;  therefore  some  of  them  at  least 
 have  no  Divine  faith."  Ansa:  I  pass  by  your  weakness  in  urging 
 protestants  with  the  authority  of  your  divines,  which  yet  in  you 
 might  very  deservedly  be  censured.  For  when  Dr.  Potter,  to  show 
 the  many  actual  dissensions  between  the  Romish  doctors,  notwith- 
 standing their  brags  of  potential  unity,  refers  to  Pappus,  who  has 
 collected  out  of  Bellarmine  their  conradictions,  and  set  them  down 
 in  his  own  words  to  the  number  of  237  ;  and  to  Flacius,  de  Sedis 
 et  Controversiis  ReUgionis  Pcqnsticcs ;  you,  making  the  very  same 
 use  of  Brerely  against  protestants,  yet  jeer  and  scorn  Dr.  Potter,  as 
 if  he  offered  you  for  a  proof  the  bare  authority  of  Pappus  and 
 Flacius ;  and  tell  him,  which  is  all  the  answer  you  vouchsafe  him, 
 "  It  is  pity  that  he  brings  Pappus  and  Flacius,  flat  heretics,  to  prove 
 your  many  contradictions  :"  as  if  he  had  proved  this  with  the  bare 
 authority,  the  bare  judgment,  of  these  men,  which  sure  he  does 
 not,  but  with  the  formal  words  of  Bellarmine  faithfully  collected 
 by  Pappus.     And  why  then  might  we  not  say  to  you.  Is  it  not 
 
PBOTESTANTS   NOT   HEKETICS.  455 
 
 pretty,  that  you  bring  Brerely,  as  flat  an  heretic  as  Pappus  or 
 Flacius,  to  prove  the  contradictions  of  protestants  ?  Yet  had  he 
 been  so  vain  as  to  press  you  with  the  mere  authority  of  protestant 
 divines  in  any  point,  methinks  for  your  own  sake  you  should  have 
 pardoned  him,  who  here,  and  in  many  other  places,  urge  us  with 
 the  judgment  of  your  divines  as  with  weighty  arguments.  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  doctrine  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  yourself  ex- 
 cepted), that  this  truth  must  not  only  be  revealed,  but  revealed 
 publicly,  and  (all  things  considered)  sufficiently  propounded  to  the 
 erring  party,  to  be  one  of  those  which  God,  under  pain  of  damna- 
 tion, commands  all  men  to  believe.  And  therefore  the  contra- 
 diction of  protestants  (though  this  vain  doctrine  of  your  divines 
 were  supposed  true)  is  but  a  weak  argument,  that  any  of  them 
 have  no  Divine  faith,  seeing  you  neither  have,  nor  ever  can  prove 
 (without  begging  the  question  of  your  church's  infallibility),  that 
 the  truths  about  which  they  differ  are  of  this  quality  and  condition. 
 But  though  out  of  courtesy  we  may  suppose  this  doctrine  true,  yet 
 we  have  no  reason  to  grant  it,  nor  to  think  it  any  thing  but  a  vain 
 and  groundless  fancy ;  and  that  this  very  vreak  and  inartificial 
 argument,  from  the  authority  of  your  divines,  is  the  strongest  pillar 
 which  it  hath  to  support  it.  Two  reasons  you  allege  for  it  out  of 
 Thomas  Aquinas,  the  first  whereof  vainly  supposeth,  against  reason 
 and  experience,  that  "  by  the  commission  of  any  deadly  sin,  the 
 habit  of  charity  is  quite  extu-pated."  And  for  the  second,  though 
 you  cry  it  up  for  an  Achilles,  and  think,  like  the  Gorgon's  head,  it 
 will  tm*n  us  all  into  stone;  and  in  confidence  of  it,  insult  upon 
 Dr.  Potter,  as  if  he  durst  not  come  near  it ;  yet  in  very  truth, 
 having  considered  it  well,  1  find  it  a  serious,  grave,  prolix,  and 
 profound  nothing.  I  could  answer  it  in  a  word,  by  telling  you, 
 that  it  begs  without  all  proof,  or  colour  of  proof,  the  main  question 
 between  us,  that  the  infallibility  of  youi-  church  is  either  the  formal 
 motive  or  rule,  or  a  necessary  condition  of  faith ;  which  you  know 
 we  flatly  deny,  and  therefore  all  that  is  built  upon  it  has  nothing 
 but  wind  for  a  foundation.  But  to  this  answer  I  will  add  a  large 
 confutation  of  this  vain  fancy  out  of  one  of  the  most  rational  and 
 profound  doctors  of  your  own  church,  I  mean  Estius,  who  upon 
 the  third  of  the  sent,  the  23rd  dist.  the  13  §,  MTites  thus  :  "  It  is 
 disputed,"  saith  he,  '•'  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  ?  In  which  question  we  must,  before  all,  carefully  distin- 
 guish between  those  who,  retaining  a  general  readiness  to  believe 
 whatsoever  the  church  believes,  yet  err  by  ignorance  in  some  doc- 
 trine of  faith,  because  it  is  not  as  yet  sufficiently  declared  to  them 
 that  the  church  does  so  believe  ;  and  those  who,  after  sufficient 
 manifestation  of  the  church's  doctrine,  do  yet  choose  to  dissent 
 from  it,  either  by  doubting  of  it,  or  afiu-ming  the  contrary.  For  of 
 the  former  the  answer  is  easy ;  but  of  these,  that  is,  of  heretics 
 
456  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HEKETICS, 
 
 retaining  some  part  of  wholesome  doctrine,  the  question  is  more 
 difficult,  and  on  both  sides  by  the  doctors  probably  disputed.  For 
 that  there  is  in  them  true  faith  of  the  articles  wherein  they  do  not 
 err,  first  experience  seems  to  convince  ;  for  many  at  this  day  deny- 
 ing, for  example  sake,  purgatory,  or  invocation  of  saints,  neverthe- 
 less firmly  hold,  as  by  Divine  revelation,  that  God  is  three  and 
 one — that  the  Son  of  God  was  incarnate  and  suffered — and  other 
 like  things.  As  anciently  the  Novatians,  excepting  their  peculiar 
 error,  of  denying  reconciliation  to  those  that  fell  in  persecution, 
 held  other  things  in  common  with  catholics  ;  so  that  they  assisted 
 them  very  much  against  the  Arians,  as  Socrates  relates  in  his 
 Ecclesiastical  History.  Moreover,  the  *  same  is  proved  by  the 
 example  of  the  apostles,  who,  in  the  time  of  Christ's  passion,  being 
 scandalized,  lost  theii"  faith  in  him  :  as  also  Christ,  after  his  resur- 
 rection, upbraids  them  with  their  incredulity,  and  calls  Tliomas 
 incredulous,  for  denying  the  resurrection,  John  xx.  ^VTiereupon 
 St.  Austin  also,  in  his  preface  upon  Psalm  xvci.,  saith,  "  that  after 
 the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  faith  of  those  that  fell  was  restored 
 again.  And  yet  we  must  not  say,  that  the  apostles  then  lost  the 
 faith  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  of  eternal  life,  and 
 such-like  other  articles.  Besides,  the  Jews,  before  Christ's  coming, 
 held  the  faith  of  one  God  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth ;  who 
 although  they  lost  the  true  faith  of  the  Messias  by  not  receiving 
 Christ,  yet  we  cannot  say  that  they  lost  the  faith  of  one  God,  but 
 still  retained  this  article  as  firmly  as  they  did  before. 
 
 "  Add  hereunto,  that  neither  Jews  nor  heretics  seem  to  lie,  in 
 saying  they  believe  either  the  books  of  the  prophets,  or  the  four 
 Gospels ;  it  being  apparent  enough  that  they  acknowledge  in  them 
 Divine  authority,  though  they  hold  not  the  true  sense  of  them  ;  to 
 v/hich  purpose  is  that  in  the  Acts,  ch.  xx.,  Believest  thou  the  pro- 
 jphets  ?  I  knoiv  that  thou  believest.  Lastly,  it  is  manifest,  that 
 many  gifts  of  God  are  found  even  in  bad  men,  and  such  as  are  out 
 of  the  church ;  therefore  nothing  hinders  but  that  Jews  and  heretics, 
 though  they  err  in  many  things,  yet  in  other  things  may  be  so 
 divinely  illuminated  as  to  believe  aright.  So  St.  Austin  seems  to 
 teach  in  his  book  De  Unico  Baptis7no  contra  Petiliajium,  c.  3,  in 
 these  words :  '  When  a  Jew  comes  to  us  to  be  made  a  Christian, 
 we  destroy  not  in  him  God's  good  things,  but  his  own  ill.  That  he 
 believes  one  God  is  to  be  worshipped,  that  he  hopes  for  eternal  life, 
 that  he  doubts  not  of  the  resurrection,  we  approve  and  commend 
 him :  we  acknowledge  that  as  he  did  believe  these  things,  so  he  is 
 still  to  believe  them  ;  and  as  he  did  hold,  so  he  is  still  to  hold 
 them.'  Thus  he,  subjoining  more  to  the  same  purpose  in  the  next. 
 And  again  in  the  26th  chap.,  and  in  his  third  book,  De  Bapt.  contr. 
 Do7iat.  cap.  ult.  and  upon  Psa.  Ixiv.  *  But  now  this  reason  seems 
 to  persuade  the  contrary,  because  the  formal  object  of  faith  seems 
 to  be  the  first  verity,  as  it  is  manifested  by  the  church's  doctrine  as 
 the  Divine  and  infallible  rule  ;  wherefore,  whosoever  adheres  not 
 to  this  rule,  although  he  assent  to  some  matters  of  faith,  yet  he 
 embraces  them  not  with  faith,  but  with  some  other  kind  of  assent : 
 as  if  a  man  assent  to  a  conclusion,  not  knowing  the  reason  by 
 
 *  same  thin;?  is. — Oxf. 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS.  457 
 
 "U-hich  it  is  demonstrated,  he  hath  not  true  knowledge,  but  an  opi- 
 nion only  of  the  same  conclusion.  Now  that  an  heretic  adheres 
 not  to  the  rule  aforesaid,  it  is  manifest ;  because  if  he  did  adhere 
 to  it,  as  Divine  and  infallible,  he  would  receive  all,  without  excep- 
 tion, which  the  church  teacheth,  and  so  would  not  be  an  heretic' 
 After  this  manner  discourses  St.  Thom.  2.  2.  q.  5.  art.  3.  From 
 whom  yet  Durand  dissents  upon  this  distinction,  thinking  there 
 may  be' in  an  heretic  true  faith,  in  respect  of  the  articles  in  which 
 he  doth  not  err.  Others,  as  Scotus  and  Bonaventure,  define  not 
 the  matter  plainly,  but  seem  to  choose  a  middle  way. 
 
 "  To  the  authority  of  St.  Austin  and  these  schoolmen,  this  may 
 be  adjoined.  That  it  is  usual  with  good  Christians  to  say,  that 
 heretics  have  not  the  entire  faith.  Whereby  it  seems  to  be  inti- 
 mated, that  some  part  of  it  they  do  retain :  whereof  this  may  be 
 another  reason ;  that  if  the  truths,  which  a  Jew  or  a  heretic  holds, 
 he  should  not  hold  them  by  faith,  but  after  some  other  manner,  to 
 wit,  by  his  own  proper  will  and  judgment,  it  will  follow,  that  all 
 that  excellent  knowledge  of  God  and  divine  things,  which  is  found 
 in  them,  is  to  be  attributed,  not  to  the  grace  of  God,  but  to  the 
 strength  of  freewill ;  which  is  against  St.  Austin,  both  elsewhere, 
 and  especially  in  the  end  of  his  book  De  Potentia. 
 
 "  As  for  the  reason  alleged  to  the  contrary,  we  answer,  It  is  im- 
 pertinent to  faith,  by  what  means  we  believe  the  prime  verity,  that 
 is,  by  wdiat  means  God  useth  to  confer  upon  men  the  gift  of  faith. 
 Por  although  now  the  ordinary  means  be  the  testimony  and  teach- 
 ing of  the  church,  yet  it  is  certain,  that  by  other  means  faith  hath 
 been  given  heretofore,  and  it  is  given  still.  For  many  of  the  an- 
 cients, as  Adam,  Abraham,  Melchisedec,  Job,  received  faith  by 
 special  revelation ;  the  apostles  by  the  miracles  and  preaching  of 
 Christ ;  others  again  by  the  preaching  and  miracles  of  the  apostles ; 
 and  lastly,  others  by  other  means,  when  as  yet  they  had  heard 
 nothing  of  the  infallibility  of  the  church.  To  little  childi'en  by 
 baptism,  wdthout  any  other  help,  faith  is  infused  :  and  therefore  it 
 is  possible,  that  a  man  not  adhering  to  the  church's  doctrine  as  a 
 rule  infallible,  yet  may  receive  some  things  for  the  word  of  God, 
 which  do  indeed  truly  belong  to  the  faith  ;  either  because  they  are 
 now  or  heretofore  have  been  confirmed  by  miracles,  or  because  he 
 manifestly  sees  that  the  ancient  church  taught  so,  or  upon  some 
 other  inducement.  And  yet,  nevertheless,  we  must  not  say  that 
 heretics  and  Jews  do  hold  the  faith,  but  only  some  part  of  the  faith. 
 For  the  faith  signifies  an  entire  thing,  and  complete  in  all  parts ; 
 whereupon  an  heretic  is  said  to  be  simply  an  infidel,  to  have  lost 
 the  faith,  and  according  to  the  apostle,  1  Tim.  i.,  to  have  made  ship- 
 wreck of  it,  although  he  holds  some  things  with  the  same  strength 
 of  assent  and  readiness  of  will,  wherewith  by  others  are  held  all 
 these  points  which  appertain  to  the  faith."  And  thus  far  Estius  ; 
 •whose  discom-se,  I  presume,  may  pass  for  a  sufficient  refutation  of 
 jour  argument  out  of  Aquinas.  And  therefore  your  corollaries 
 drawn  from  it — that  "  every  error  against  faith  involves  opposition 
 against  God's  testimony;"  that  "  protestants  have  no  faith,  no  cer- 
 tainty;" and  that  "  you  have  all  faith," — must,  together  with  it, 
 fall  to  the  orround. 
 
458  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS, 
 
 50.  But  "  if  pro!  estants  have  certainty,  they  want  obscurity,  and 
 so  have  not  that  faith,  which,  as  the  apostle  saith,  is  of  things  not 
 appearing."  This  argument  }^u  prosecute  in  the  next  paragragh ; 
 but  I  can  find  nothing  in  it  to  convince  or  persuade  me  that  pro- 
 testants  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  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  ?  And  as  you  make  this  long  dis- 
 course against  protestants,  why  may  not  v/e,  putting  church  instead 
 of  Scripture,  send  it  back  again  to  you,  and  say,  "  If  papists  have 
 certainty,  they  want  obscurity,  and  so  have  not  that  faith,  which, 
 as  the  apostle  saith,  is  of  things  not  appearing,  or  not  necessitating 
 our  understanding  to  an  assent  ?  for  the  whole  edifice  of  the  faith 
 of  papists  is  settled  on  these  two  principles  ;  these  particular  pro- 
 positions are  the  propositions  of  the  church ;  and  the  sense  and 
 meaning  of  them  is  clear  and  evident,  at  least  in  all  points  neces- 
 sary to  salvation.  Now  these  principles  being  once  supposed,  it 
 clearly  followeth,  that  what  papists  believe  as  necessary  to  salvation 
 is  evidently  known  by  them  to  be  true,  by  this  argument ;  It  is 
 certain  and  evident,  that  whatsoever  is  the  word  of  God,  or  Divine 
 revelation,  is  true :  but  it  is  certain  and  evident,  that  these  pro- 
 positions of  the  church  in  particular  are  the  word  of  God,  or  Divine 
 revelations :  therefore  it  is  certain  and  evident,  that  all  propositions 
 of  the  church  are  true.  Which  conclusion  I  take  for  a  major  in  a 
 second  argument,  and  say  thus  :  It  is  certain  and  evident,  that  all 
 propositions  of  the  church  are  true  :  but  it  is  certain  and  evident, 
 that  such  particulars,  for  example,  the  lawfulness  of  the  half-com- 
 munion, the  lawfulness  and  expedience  of  Latin  service,  the  doc- 
 trine of  transubstantiation,  indulgences,  &c.,  are  the  propositions 
 of  the  church :  therefore  it  is  certain  and  evident,  that  these  parti- 
 cular objects  are  true.  Neither  will  it  avail  you  to  say,  that  the 
 said  principles  are  not  evident  by  natural  discourse,  but  only  by 
 the  eye  of  reason  cleared  by  grace  ;  for  supernatural  evidence  no 
 less  (yea,  rather  more)  drowns  and  excludes  obscurity  than  natural 
 evidence  doth.  Neither  can  the  party  so  enlightened  be  said  volun- 
 tarily to  captivate  his  understanding  to  that  light,  but  rather,  his 
 understanding  is  by  necessity  made  captive,  and  forced  not  to  dis- 
 believe what  is  presented  by  so  clear  a  light;  and  therefore  your 
 imaginary  faith  is  not  the  true  faith  defined  by  the  apostle,  but  an 
 invention  of  your  own."  | 
 
 51.  And  having  thus  cried  quittance  with  you,  I  must  entreat 
 you  to  devise  (for  truly  I  cannot)  some  answer  to  this  argument, 
 which  will  not  serve  in  proportion  to  yom-  own.  For  I  hope  you 
 will  not  pretend  that  I  have  done  you  injury,  in  settling  your  faith, 
 upon  principles  which  you  disclaim.  And  if  you  allege  this  dis- 
 parity, that  you  are  more  certain  of  your  principles  than  we  of  ours, 
 and  yet  you  do  not  pretend  that  your  principles  are  so  evident  as 
 
PSOTESTAKTS   NOT   HERETICS.  459 
 
 we  do  that  ours  are ;  what  is  this  to  say,  but  that  you  are  more 
 confident  than  we,  but  confess  you  have  less  reason  for  it  ?  For  the 
 evidence  of  the  thing  assented  to,  be  it  more  or  less,  is  the  reason 
 and  cause  of  the  assent  in  the  understanding.  But  then  besides, 
 I  am  to  tell  you,  that  you  are  here,  as  every  where,  extremely,  if 
 not  affectedly,  mistaken  in  the  doctrine  of  protestants ;  who,  though 
 they  acknowledge  that  the  things  which  they  believe  are  in  them- 
 selves 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  ivalk 
 hy  faith,  and  not  hy  sight.  And  consonant  hereunto  is  their  doc- 
 trine touching  the  evidence  of  the  objects  whereunto  they  adhere. 
 Eor  you  abuse  the  world  and  them,  if  you  pretend  that  they  hold 
 the  fii'st  of  your  two  principles,  that  these  particular  books  are  the 
 word  of  God  (for  so  I  think  you  mean),  either  to  be  in  itself  evi- 
 dently certain,  or  of  itself,  and  being  divested  of  the  motives  of 
 credibility,  evidently  credible  :  for  they  are  not  so  fond  *  as  to  con- 
 ceive, 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  vv^ere  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 
 choose,  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  delibera- 
 tion 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  choose  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  with- 
 out dependence  upon  your  church  for  any  part  of  it ;  and  that  your 
 religion  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  mathematics,  another  in  physics,  a  third  in  ethics,  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 
 histor}',  and  a  great  part  of  the  art  of  physic,  together  with  all  duti- 
 fulness  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 
 
 *  as  to  be  ignorant. — Oxf. 
 
460  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 may  be  imputed  to  us  for  obedience),  should  not  so  evidently  ap- 
 pear as  those  things  v/hich  are  apprehended  by  sense  and  plain 
 demonstration,  but  only  be  so  far  forth  revealed  as  may  beget  faith, 
 and  a  persuasion  thereof,  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  such  as  are 
 not  obstinate ;  that  so  the  gospel  may  be  as  a  touchstone  for  trial 
 of  men's  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  men's  infidelity  is  not 
 for  want  of  sufficient  testimony,  but  because  they  would  not  have 
 that  to  he  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  nought  other  commodities ;  which  thing  they 
 know  they  ought  to  do,  if  they  admit  of  Christ's  doctrine,  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  au- 
 thority, and  not  by  any  such  strong  proofs  and  persuasions,  or 
 tokens,  as  to  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  anj-^vhere  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 
 poAver,  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  siu-pass  any  miracle." 
 
 52.  And  now  you  see,  I  hope,  that  protestants  neither  do  nor 
 need  to  pretend  to  any  such  evidence  in  the  doctrine  they  believe, 
 as  cannot  well  consist  both  with  the  essence  and  obedience  of  faith. 
 Let  us  come  now  to  the  last  nullity  which  you  impute  to  the  faith 
 of  protestants,  and  that  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  in- 
 sufficient 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  rehgion  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  chui'ch  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  prescrip- 
 tion, 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  wandered  from  the  way  of  truth,  to  return 
 
 *  From  henee  to  I  52  waR  left  out  in  the  second  edition. 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS.  461 
 
 unto  it ;  or  for  a  part  of  it,  nay,  for  one  man,  to  do  so,  although  all 
 the  world  besides  were  madly  resolute  to  do  the  contrary.  It  might 
 be  great  wisdom  to  forsake  the  errors,  though  of  the  only  visible 
 church,  much  more  of  the  Roman,  which,  in  conceiving  herself  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,  en- 
 dued with  succession  of  bishops,"  &c.,  usque  ad"  election  or  choice  ?" 
 I  answer.  Yet  might  it  be  great  wisdom  to  forsake  a  church  not  ac- 
 knowledged to  want  nothing  necessary  to  salvation,  but  accused  and 
 convicted  of  many  damnable  eiTors  :  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  ac- 
 knowledged) to  suchasignorantly  continued  in  them :  a  chm-ch  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  the  world ;  whereas 
 the  world  knows,  that  a  little  before  Luther's  arising,  your  church 
 was  confined  to  a  part  of  a  part  of  it :  lastly,  a  church  vainly  glory- 
 ing in  the  independence  of  other  churches  upon  her,  which  she  sup- 
 ports no  more  than  those  crouching  antics,  which  seem  in  great 
 buildings  to  labour  under  the  weight  they  bear,  do  indeed  support 
 the  fabric.  For  a  corrupted  and  false  church  may  give  authority  to 
 preach  the  truth,  and  consequently  against  her  own  falsehoods  and 
 coiTuptions.  Besides,  a  false  church  may  preserve  the  Scripture 
 true,  (as  now  the  Old  Testament  is  preserv^ed  by  the  Jews,  (either 
 not  being  arrived  to  that  height  of  impiety  as  to  attempt  the  cor- 
 ruption of  it,  or  not  able  to  effect  it,  v^r  not  perceiving  or  not  regard- 
 ing 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  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  httle  as  we.  So  that  if  vv-e  acknov.iedgo 
 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 
 chm-ch,  such  a  church  (and  no  better)  as  you  do  sometimes  acknow- 
 ledge protestants  to  be,  that  is,  a  company  of  men  wherein  some  in- 
 norant  souls  may  be  saved.  So  that  in  this  balancing  of  religion 
 against  religion,  and  church  against  church,  it  seems  you  have 
 nothing  of  weight  and  moment  to  put  into  your  scale  ;  nothing  but 
 smoke  and  wind,  vain  shadows  and  fantastical  pretences.  Yet  if 
 protestants,  on  the  other  side,  had  nothing  to  put  in  their  scale 
 but  those  negative  commendations  which  you  are  pleased  to  afford 
 them  ;  nothing  but — no  unity,  nor  means  to  procure  it ;  no  further 
 extent,  when  Luther  arose,  than  Luther's  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 
 
462  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HEIIETICS. 
 
 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  by  protestants,  possibly,  with  an  allowance  of  three 
 grains  of  partiahty,  your  scale  might  seem  to  turn.  But  then, 
 if  it  may  appear  that  part  of  these  objections  are  falsely  made 
 against  them,  the  rest  vainly;  that  whatsoever  of  truth  is  in 
 these  imputations  is  impertinent  to  this  trial,  and  whatsoever  is  per- 
 tinent is  untrue ;  and  besides,  that  plenty  of  good  matter  may  be 
 alleged  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  protestant  doctrine 
 before  Luther,  Luther's  being  alone  when  he  first  opposed  your 
 church,  our  having  om-  church,  ordination.  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  pro- 
 fessed or  believed  in  ail  places  at  any  time,  or  in  any  place  at  all 
 times,  is  not  a  thing  evident  in  reason,  neither  have  we  any  reve- 
 lation 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  fooli,sh  as 
 to  take  all,  I  do  not  understand.  For  whereas  you  say,  that  "  this 
 is  to  be  choosers,  and  therefore  heretics,"  I  tell  you,  that  though  all 
 heretics  are  choosers,  yet  all  choosers  are  not  heretics,  otherwise 
 they  also  which  choose  your  religion  must  be  heretics.  As  for  "  our 
 wanting  unity,  and  means  of  proving  it,  Luther's  opposing  your 
 church  upon  mere  passion,  our  following  private  men  rather  than 
 the  Catholic  church,"  the  first  and  last  are  mere  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  "  Luther's  opposing  your  church  upon 
 mere  passion,"  it  is  a  thing  I  will  not  deny,  because  I  know  not  his 
 heart,  and  for  the  same  reason  you  should  not  have  affh-med  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  pas- 
 sion ;  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  somebody  before 
 us  hath  done  it  upon  passion.  You  see  then  how  imprudent  you 
 have  been  in  the  choice  of  your  arguments,  to  prove  protestants 
 unwise  in  the  choice  of  their  religion. 
 
 56.  It  remains  now  that  I  should  show  that  many  reasons  of 
 moment  may  be  alleged  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  tlie  one  side,  I  do  not  understand  by 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS.  463 
 
 yom"  religion,  the  doctrine  of  Bellarmine  or  Baronius,  or  any  other 
 private  man  amongst  you;  nor  the  doctrine  of  the  Sorbonne,  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  Heidelberg,  nor  the  Articles  of 
 the  Church  of  England,  no,  nor  the  harmony  of  protestant  confes- 
 sions ;  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  re- 
 ligion 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  re- 
 ligion, neither  can  they  with  coherence  to  their  ov.n  grounds  be- 
 lieve 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, 
 coimcils  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  tradi- 
 tion, but  only  of  Scripture,  can  derive  itself  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  con- 
 sidering 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  anything  out  of  this  book,  and  re- 
 quire whether  I  believe  it  or  no,  and  seem  it  never  so  incompre- 
 hensible to  human  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  man's 
 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  be- 
 lieve the  Scripture  to  be  God's  word,  to  endeavour  to  find  the  true 
 sense  of  it,  and  to  live  according  to  it. 
 
 57.  This  is  the  rehgion  which  I  have  chosen  after  a  long  delibe- 
 ration, and  I  am  verily  persuaded  that  I  have  chosen  wisely,  much 
 more  wisely  than  if  I  had  guided  myself  according  to  your  church's 
 authority.     For  the  Scripture  being  aU  true,  I  am  seciu-ed,  by  be- 
 
464  PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 lieving  nothing  else,  that  I  shall  believe  no  falsehood  as  matter  of 
 faith.  And  if  I  mistake  the  sense  of  Scripture,  and  so  fall  into 
 error,  yet  I  am  secure  from  any  danger  thereby,  if  but  your  grounds 
 be  true  ;  because  endeavoui-ing  to  find  the  true  sense  of  Scriptm-e, 
 I  cannot  but  hold  my  error  without  pertinacity,  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  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,  whatever  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  Scriptiire  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,  so  much  of  it  at  least  as  contains  all  things 
 necessary ;  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  church's  infallibility,  (whereof,  were  it  not  for  Scrip- 
 ture, v-^hat  pretence  could  you  have,  or  what  notion  could  we 
 have  ?)  and  by  so  doing  tacitly  confess,  that  yourselves  are  surer 
 of  the  truth  of  the  Scripture  than  of  your  church's  authority. 
 For  we  must  be  surer  of  the  proof  than  of  the  thing  proved,  other- 
 wise 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  God's  express  war- 
 rant and  command,  and  no  colour  of  any  prohibition  ;  and  to  be- 
 lieve your  church  infallible,  I  have  no  command  at  all,  much  less 
 an  express  command.  Nay,  I  have  reason  to  fear  that  I  am  prohi- 
 bited to  do  so  in  these  words  :  Call  no  man  master  on  the  earth  : 
 They  Fell  by  infidelity,  thou  standest  hy  faith :  Be  not  high- 
 minded,  hut  fear  :    The  Spirit  of  truth  the  world  camiot  receive. 
 
 62.  Following  your  church,  I  must  hold  many  things  not  only 
 above  reason,  but  against  it,  if  anything  be  against  it;  whereas, 
 following  the  Scripture,  I  shall  believe  many  mysteries,  but  no  im- 
 possibilities ;  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  con- 
 futed ;  many  things,  which  reason  cannot  comprehend  how  they 
 can  be,  but  nothing  which  reason  can  comprehend  that  it  cannot 
 
 *  word  of  God :  whereas  only,  &c. — Oxf. 
 
PROTESTANTS   KOT   HERETICS.  465 
 
 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  j  God  says  so,  there- 
 fore it  is  true. 
 
 63.  Following  your  church,  I  must  hold  many  things,  which  to 
 any  man's  judgment,  that  will  give  himself  the  liberty  of'judg- 
 ment,  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  ex- 
 empted 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  con- 
 fessed to  be  but  only  prudential  and  probable ;  that  is,  with  a 
 weak  foundation  I  must  firmly  support  a  hea\-y,  a  monstrous  heavy 
 building :  now  following  the  Scripture,  I  shall  have  no  necessity 
 to  undergo  any  such  difiiculties. 
 
 65.  Following  your  church,  I  must  be  servant  of  Christ,  and  a 
 subject  of  the  king,  but  only  ad placitum papce.  I  must  be  pre- 
 pared in  mind  to  renounce  my  allegiance  to  the  king,  when  the 
 pope  shall  declare  him  a  heretic,  and  command  me  not  to  obey 
 him ;  and  I  must  be  prepared  in  mind  "  to  esteem  virtue  vice  and 
 vice  virtue,  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  upon  a  questionable  foundation.  And  howsoever,  you 
 must  grant,  that  if  by  an  impossible  supposition  the  pope's  com- 
 mands 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  a  heretic,  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  itself  in  a  very  shert  time  all 
 the  world  over ;  whereas  it  is  too  apparent  that  your  church  hath 
 got,  and  still  maintains,  her  authority  over  men's  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  and  professors  whereof,  it  is  most  certain,  they  could 
 
 H  H 
 
466 
 
 PROTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 have  no  worldly  ends  upon  the  world  ;  that  they  should  not  pro- 
 ject 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  in  truth:  whereas  your  church  and  doctrine  is 
 even  loaded  with  an  infinity  of  weak,  childish,  ridiculous,  unsavoury 
 superstitions  and  ceremonies,  and  full  of  that  unrighteousness  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  works  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  church's  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  (God's  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  strong  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  myself  salvation 
 without  efiectual  dereliction  and  mortification  of  all  vices,  and  the 
 efiectual  practice  of  all  Christian  virtues :  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  virtue, 
 yet  gives  me  assurance,  that  I  may  be  let  into  heaven  at  a  postern- 
 gate,  even  by  an  act  of  attrition  at  the  hour  of  death,  if  it  be  joined 
 with  confession,  or  by  an  act  of  contrition  without  confession. 
 
 71.  Admirable  are  the  precepts  of  piety  and  humility,  of  inno- 
 cence 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  vir- 
 tues, and  against  all  vice,  which  the  Scriptures  impose  upon  us,  to 
 be  obeyed  under  pain  of  damnation :  the  sum  whereof  is  in  a  manner 
 comprised  in  our  Saviour's  sermon  on  the  mount,  recorded  in  the 
 5th,  6th,  and  7th  of  St.  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  o1:her,  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 
 
PROTESTANTS  NOT  HERETICS.  467 
 
 with  these  universal  sanctions  :  Not  every  one  that  saith,  Lordf 
 Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom :  hut  he  that  doeth  the  ivill  of  mxf 
 Father  which  is  in  heaven.  And  again,  Whosoever  heareth  these 
 sayings  of  mine,  and  doeth  them  not,  shall  he  likened  unto  a  foolish 
 man,  ichich  huilt  his  house  tipon  the  sand :  and  the  rain  descended^, 
 and  the  floods  came,  and  the  ivinds  blew,  and  it  fell,  and  great  ivas 
 the  fall  thereof.  Now  your  church,  notwithstanding  all  this,  ener- 
 vates, and  in  a  manner  dissolves  and  abrogates  many  of  these  pre- 
 cepts, teaching  men  that  they  are  not  laws  for  all  Christians,  but 
 counsels  of  perfection,  and  matters  of  supererogation  ;  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  Zebedee  to  the  right  hand 
 or  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  taste  of  purgatory  in  the  way,  he  may  attain 
 it  at  an  easier  purchase.  Therefore  the  religion  of  your  church  is 
 not  so  holy  nor  so  good  as  the  doctrine  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  they  are  a  great  company  together  ?  but  all  of  them,  either 
 out  of  idleness  refuse  the  trouble  of  a  severe  trial  of  their  religion, 
 (as  if  heaven  were  not  worth  it,)  or  out  of  superstition  fear  the 
 event  of  such  a  trial,  that  they  may  be  scrupled,  and  staggered,  and 
 disquieted  by  it ;  and  therefore,  for  the  most  part,  do  it  not  at  all ; 
 or  if  they  do  it,  they  do  it  negligently  and  hypocritically,  and  per- 
 functorily, 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  in- 
 jury ;  but  it  is  very  apparent  to  all  men  from  your  ranking  "  doubting 
 of  any  part  of  your  doctrine"  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 
 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  under- 
 standing fail  him.  And  seeing  this  is  the  condition  of  all  those 
 whom  you  esteem  good  catholics,  who  can  deny  but  you  are  a  com- 
 pany of  men  unwilling  and  afraid  to  understand,  lest  you  should  do 
 good  P  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  trial,)  and 
 iJierefore  deserve  to  be  given  over  to  strong  delusions ;  men  that 
 hve  darkness  more  than  light ;  in  a  word,  that  you  are  the  blind 
 leading  the  blind ;  and  what  prudence  there  can  be  in  followinij  such 
 
466 
 
 PKOTESTANTS   NOT   HERETICS. 
 
 guides  our  Saviour  hath  taught  us  in  saying,  If  the  hlind  lead  the- 
 blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch. 
 
 73.  There  remain  unspoken  to  in  this  section  some  places  out  of 
 St.  Austin,  and  some  sayings  of  Luther,  wherein  he  confesses  that 
 in  the  papacy  are  many  good  things.  But  for  the  former,  I  have 
 abeady  considered,  and  returned  the  argument  grounded  on  them. 
 As  for  Luther's  speeches,  I  told  you,  not  long  since,  that  we 
 follow  no  private  men,  and  regard  not  much  what  he  says  either 
 against  the  church  of  Kome  or  for  it,  but  what  he  proves.  He  was 
 a  man  of  a  vehement  spirit,  and  very  often  what  he  took  in  hand  he 
 did  not  do  it,  but  overdo  it.  He  that  will  justify  all  his  speeches, 
 especially  such  as  he  wrote  in  heat  of  opposition,  I  believe  will  have 
 work  enough.  Yet  in  these  sentences,  though  he  overreach  in  the 
 particulars,  yet  what  he  says  in  general  we  confess  true,  and  con- 
 fess with  him,  "that  in  the  papacy  are  many  good  things,"  which  have 
 come  from  them  to  us ;  but  withal  we  say,  there  are  many  bad ; 
 neither  do  we  think  oui'selves  bound  in  prudence  either  to  reject  the 
 good  with  the  bad,  or  to  retain  the  bad  with  the  good,  but  rather 
 conceive  it  a  high  point  of  wisdom  to  separate  between  the  precious 
 and  the  vile,  to  sever  the  good  from  the  bad,  and  to  put  the  good  in 
 vessels  to  be  kept,  and  to  cast  the  bad  away  ;  to  try  all  things,  and  to 
 hold  to  that  which  is  good. 
 
 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,  supematurality.  For  that  being  a 
 human  persuasion,  it  is  not  in  the  essence  of  it  supernatural ;  and 
 being  imprudent  and  rash,  it  cannot  proceed  from  Divine  motion, 
 and  so  is  not  supernatural  in  respect  of  the  cause  from  which  it  pro- 
 ceedeth."  Ansiv.  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  supematurality, 
 our  faith  may  have  it  as  well  as  yours,  I  would  here  fiirthermore  be 
 informed,  how  you  can  assure  us  that  your  faith  it  not  your  persua- 
 sion or  opinion,  (for  you  make  them  all  one,)  that  your  church's 
 doctrine  is  true  ?  or  if  you  grant  it  your  persuasion,  why  is  it  not 
 the  persuasion  of  men,  and,  in  respect  of  the  subject  of  it,  an  human, 
 persuasion  ?  I  desire  also  to  know,  what  sense  there  is  in  pretend- 
 ing that  your  persuasion  is,  not  in  regard  of  the  object  only  and 
 cause  of  it,  but  in  the  nature  or  essence  of  it,  supernatural  ?  Lastly, 
 whereas  you,  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  su- 
 pernatural 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  con- 
 clusion, and  say.  Seeing  you  have  not  proved  that  whatsoever  errs 
 against  any  one  point  of  faith  loseth  all  Divine  faith ;  nor  that  any 
 error  whatsoever,  concerning  that  which  by  the  parties  litigant  may 
 
PROTESTANTS   NOT  HERETICS.  469 
 
 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  St.  Chrysostom,  with  which  you  conclude  this  chapter,  may  in 
 a  good  sense  be  true  ;  for  ofttimes  by  "  the  faith"  is  meant  only 
 that  doctrine  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  itself.  Besides,  not 
 to  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 
 ineffectual  to  the  end  for  which  it  was  intended,  the  salvation  of 
 men's  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. 
 
CHAPTER  VII. 
 
 Jn  reffard  of  the  precept  of  charity  towards  one's  self,  protestants  are 
 
 in  a  state  of  sin,  as  long  as  they  remain  separated 
 
 from  the  Roman  Church. 
 
 1.  "That  due  order  is  to  be  observed  in  the  theological  virtue 
 ©f  charity,  whereby  we  are  directed  to  prefer  some  objects  before 
 others,  is  a  truth  taught  by  all  divines,  and  declared  in  these  words 
 of  Holy  Scripture,*  He  hath  ordered  charity  in  me.  The  reason 
 whereof  is,  because  the  infinite  goodness  of  God,  which  is  the 
 formal  object  or  motive  of  charity,  and  for  which  all  other  things 
 are  loved,  is  differently  participated  by  different  objects;  and 
 therefore  the  love  we  bear  to  them  for  God's  sake  must  accord- 
 ingly be  unequal.  In  the  virtue  of  faith,  the  case  is  far  other- 
 wise; because  all  the  objects  or  points  which  we  believe  do 
 equally  participate  the  Divine  testimony  or  revelation,  for  which 
 we  believe  alike  all  things  propounded  for  such.  For  it  is  as 
 impossible  for  God  to  speak  an  untruth  in  a  small  as  in  a  great 
 matter.  And  this  is  the  ground  for  which  we  have  so  often  af- 
 firmed, that  any  least  error  against  faith  is  injurious  to  God,  and 
 destructive  of  salvation. 
 
 2.  "This  order  in  charity  may  be  considered,  towards  God, 
 our  own  soul,  the  soul  of  our  neighbour,  our  own  life  or  goods, 
 and  the  life  or  goods  of  our  neighbour.  God  is  to  be  beloved 
 above  all  things,  both  objective,  (as  the  divines  speak,)  that  is, 
 we  must  wish  or  desire  to  God  a  good  more  great,  perfect,  and 
 noble,  than  to  any  or  all  other  things:  namely,  all  that  indeed 
 he  is,  a  nature  infinite,  independent,  immense,  &c.;  and  also 
 appretiative,  that  is,  that  we  must  sooner  leave  what  good  soever, 
 than  leave  and  abandon  him.  In  the  other  objects  of  charity,  of 
 which  I  spake,  this  order  is  to  be  kept:  we  may,  bnt  are  not 
 bound  to  prefer  the  life  and  goods  of  our  neighbour  before  our 
 own:  we  are  bound  to  prefer  the  soul  of  our  nighbour  before  our 
 own  temporal  goods  or  life,  if  he  happen  to  be  in  extreme  spiritual 
 necessity,  and  that  we  by  our  assistance  can  succour  him,  accord- 
 ing to  the  saying  of  St.  John,t  In  this  we  have  knoicn  the  charity 
 of  God,  because  tie  hath  yielded  his  life  for  us :  and  we  ought  to 
 yield  our  life  for  our  brethren.  And  St.  Augustin  likewise  saithj 
 *A  Christian  will  not  doubt  to  lose  his  own  temporal  life  for  the 
 eternal  life  of  his  neighbour.'  Lastly,  we  are  to  prefer  the  spirit- 
 ual good  of  our  own  soul,  before  both  the  spiritual  and  temporal 
 good  of  our  neighbour,  because  as  charity  doth  of  its  own  nature 
 chiefly  incline  the  person  in  whom  it  resides  to  love  God,  and  to 
 
 *  Cant.  ii.  4.  f  I  Joan.  iii.  16.  %  De  Mendas  cap.  vi. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    EY   CATHOLICS.  471 
 
 be  united  with  him,  so  of  itself  it  inclines  him  to  procure  those 
 things  whereby  the  said  union  with  God  is  effected,  rather  to 
 himself  than  to  others.  And  from  hence  it  follows,  that  in  things 
 necessary  to  salvation,  no  man  ought  in  any  case,  or  in  any  res- 
 pect whatsoever,  to  prefer  the  spiritual  good  either  of  any  par- 
 ticular person  or  of  the  whole  world  before  his  own  soul,  accor- 
 ding to  those  words  of  our  blessed  Saviour,*  What  doth  it  avail  a 
 man,  if  he  gain  the  whole  ivorld,  and  sustain  the  damage  of  his  oven 
 sold?  And  therefore  (to  come  to  our  present  purpose)  it  is  di- 
 rectly against  the  order  of  charity,  or  against  charity  as  it  hath 
 a  reference  to  ourselves,  which  divines  call  charitas  propria,  to 
 adventure  either  the  omitting  of  any  means  necessary  to  salvation, 
 or  the  committing  of  any  thing  repugnant  to  it,  for  whatsoever 
 respect;  and  consequently,  if  by  living  out  of  the  Roman  church 
 we  put  ourselves  in  hazard  either  to  want  something  necessarilv- 
 required  to  salvation,  or  else  to  perform  some  act  against  it,  we 
 commit  a  most  grievous  sin  against  the  virtue  of  charity,  as  it 
 respects  ourselves,  and  so  cannot  hope  for  salvation  Avithout 
 repentance. 
 
 3.  "  Now  of  things  necessary  to  salvation  there  are  two  sorts, 
 according  to  the  doctrine  of  all  divines.  Some  things,  say  they, 
 are  necessary  to  salvation^  jiecessitate  prcecepti,  necessary  only 
 because  they  are  commanded;  for,  If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep 
 the  commandments  *  In  which  kind  of  things,  as  probable  igno- 
 rance of  the  law  or  of  the  commandment  doth  excuse  the  party 
 from  all  faulty  breach  thereof,  so  likewise  doth  it  not  exclude 
 salvation  in  case  of  ignorance.  Some  other  things  are  said  to  be 
 necessary  to  salvation,  necessitate  medii,  finis  or  salutis;  because 
 they  are  means  appointed  by  God  to  attain  our  end  of  eternal 
 salvation,  in  so  strict  a  manner,  that  it  were  presumption  to  hope 
 for  salvation  without  them.  And  as  the  former  means  are  said  to  be 
 necessary  because  they  are  commanded,  so  the  latter  are  com- 
 monly said  to  be  commanded  because  they  are  necessary ;  that  is, 
 although  there  were  no  other  special  precept  concerning  them, 
 yet  supposing  they  be  once  appointed  as  means  absolutely  neces- 
 sary to  salvation,  there  cannot  but  arise  an  obligation  of  pro- 
 curing to  have  them,  in  virtue  of  that  universal  precept  of  charity 
 which  obligeth  every  man  to  procure  the  salvation  of  his  own 
 soul.  In  this  sort,  '  Divine  infallible  faith'  is  necessary  to  salva- 
 tion ;  as  likewise  repentance  of  every  deadly  sin,  and  in  the  doc- 
 trine of  catholics,  baptism  in  re,  that  is,  'in  act,'  to  children,  and 
 for  those  who  are  come  to  the  use  of  reason,  in  voto,  or  hearty 
 desire,  when  they  cannot  have  it  in  act.  And  as  baptism  is 
 necessary  for  remission  of  original  and  actual  sin  committed  be- 
 fore it,  so  the  sacrament  of  confession  or  penance  is  necessary  in 
 re,  or  m  voto,  in  act  or  desire,  for  the  remission  of  mortal  sins. 
 committed  after  baptism.  The  minister  of  which  sacrament  of 
 penance  being  necessarily  a  true  priest,  true  ordination  is  neces- 
 sary in  the  church  of  God  for  remission  of  sins  by  this  sacra- 
 ment, as  also  for  other  ends  not  belonging  to  our  present  pur- 
 pose.    From  hence  it  riseth,  that  no  ignorance  or  impossibilitr 
 
 *  Matt.  xvi.  26.  -  Matt.  xix.  17. 
 
472  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 can  supply  the  want  of  those  means  which  are  absolutely  ne- 
 cessary to  salvation.  As  if,  for  example,  a  sinner  depart  this 
 world  without  repenting  himself  of  all  deadly  sins,  although  he 
 die  suddenly,  or  unexpectedly  fall  out  of  his  wits,  and  so  com- 
 mit no  new  sin  by  omission  of  repentance;  yet  he  shall  be  eter- 
 nally punished  for  his  former  sins  committed,  and  never  re- 
 pented of.  If  an  infant  die  without  baptism,  he  cannot  be  saved ; 
 not  by  reason  of  any  actual  sin  committed  by  him  in  omitting 
 baptism,  but  for  original  sin,  not  forgiven  by  the  means  which 
 God  hath  ordained  to  that  purpose.  Which  doctrine  all  or  most 
 protestants  will  (for  aught  1  know)  grant  to  be  true,  in  the  chil- 
 dren of  infidels ;  yea,  not  only  Lutherans,  but  also  some  other 
 protestants,  as  Mr.  Bilson,  late  of  Winchester,*  and  others,  hold 
 it  to  be  true,  even  in  the  children  of  the  faithful.  And  if  pro- 
 testants in  general  disagree  from  catholics  in  this  point,  it  can- 
 not be  denied  but  that  our  disagreement  is  in  a  point  very  fun- 
 damental. And  the  like  I  say  of  the  sacrament  of  penance, 
 which  they  deny  to  be  necessary  to  salvation,  either  in  act  or  in 
 desire :  which  error  is  likewise  fundamental,  because  it  concerns 
 (as  I  said)  a  thing  necessary  to  salvation  :  and  for  the  same  rea- 
 son, if  their  priesthood  and  ordination  be  doubtful,  as  certainly 
 it  is,  they  are  in  danger  to  want  a  means,  without  which  they 
 cannot  be  saved.  Neither  ought  this  rigour  to  seem  strange  or 
 unjust ;  for  Almighty  God  having,  of  his  own  goodness,  without 
 our  merit,  first  ordained  man  to  a  supernatural  end  of  eternal 
 felicity;  and  then  after  our  fall  in  Adam,  vouchsafed  to  reduce 
 us  to  the  attaining  of  that  end,  if  his  blessed  will  be  pleased  to 
 limit  the  attaining  of  that  end,  to  some  means  which  in  his  in- 
 finite wisdom  he  thinks  most  fit;  who  can  say,  Why  dost  thou 
 so  ?  or  who  can  hope  for  that  end  without  such  means  ?  Blessed 
 be  his  Divine  Majesty,  for  vouchsafing  to  ordain  us,  base  crea- 
 tures, to  so  sublime  an  end  by  any  means  at  all ! 
 
 4.  "  Out  of  the  foresaid  difference  foUoweth  another,  that 
 (generally  speaking)  in  things  necessary  only  because  they  are 
 commanded,  it  is  sufficient,  for  avoiding  sin,  that  w^e  proceed 
 prudently,  and  by  the  conduct  of  some  probable  opinion,  ma- 
 turely weighed  and  approved  by  men  of  virtue,  learning,  and 
 wisdom.  Neither  are  we  always  obliged  to  follow  the  most 
 strict  and  severe,  or  secure  part,  as  long  as  the  doctrine  which 
 we  embrace  proceeds  upon  such  reasons  as  may  warrant  it  to  be 
 truly  probable  and  prudent,  though  the  contrary  part  want  not 
 also  probable  grounds.  For  in  human  afiairs  and  discourse  evi- 
 dence and  certainty  cannot  be  ahvays  expected.  But  when  we 
 treat  not  precisely  of  avoiding  sin,  but  moreover  of  procuring 
 something  without  which  I  cannot  be  saved,  I  am  obliged  by 
 the  law  and  order  of  charity,  to  procure  as  great  certainty  as 
 morally  I  am  able,  and  am  not  to  follow  every  probable  opinion 
 or  dictamen,  but  tutiorem  partem,  '  the  safer  part,'  because,  if 
 my  probability  prove  false,  I  shall  not  probably,  but  certainly, 
 come  short  of  salvation.  Nay,  in  such  a  case  I  shall  incur  a 
 new  sin  against  the  virtue  of  charity  towards  myself,  which  ob- 
 
 *  In  his  True  Difference,  &c.  part  4.  page  368  and  369. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS.  473 
 
 ligeth  every  one  not  to  expose  his  soul  to  the  hazard  of  eternal 
 perdition,  when  it  is  in  his  power,  with  the  assistance  of  God's 
 grace,  to  make  the  matter  sure.  From  this  very  ground  it  is, 
 that  although  some  divines  be  of  oginion  that  it  is  not  a  sin  to 
 use  some  matter  or  form  of  sacraments  only  probable,  if  we  re- 
 spect precisely  the  reverence  or  respect  which  is  due  to  sacra- 
 ments, as  they  belong  to  the  moral  infused  virtue  of  religion ; 
 yet  when  they  are  such  sacraments,  as  the  invalidity  thereof 
 may  endanger  the  salvation  of  souls,  all  do  with  one  consent 
 agree  that  it  is  a  grievous  offence  to  use  a  doubtful  or  only  pro- 
 bable matter  or  form,  when  it  is  in  our  power  to  procure  cer- 
 tainty. If  therefore  it  may  appear,  that  though  it  were  not  cer- 
 tain that  protestancy  unrepented  destroys  salvation,  (as  we  have 
 proved  to  be  very  certain,)  yet  at  least  that  it  is  probable,  and 
 withal  that  there  is  a  way  more  safe  ;  it  will  follow  out  of  the 
 grounds  already  laid,  that  they  are  obliged  by  the  law  of  charity 
 to  embrace  that  safe  way. 
 
 5.  "  Now  that  Protestants  have  reason  at  least  to  doubt  in 
 what  case  they  stand,  is  deduced  from  what  we  have  said  and 
 proved  about  the  universal  infallibility  of  the  church,  and  of  her 
 being  judge  of  controversies,  to  whom  all  Christians  ought  to  sub- 
 mit their  judgment  (as  even  some  protestants  grant,)  and  whom  to 
 oppose  in  any  one  of  her  definitions  is  a  grevious  sin  :  as  also  from 
 what  we  have  said  of  the  unity,  universality,  and  visibility  of  the 
 church,  and  of  succession  of  persons  and  doctrine ;  of  the  condi- 
 tions of  Divine  faith — certainty,  obscurity,  prudence,  and  super- 
 naturality — which  are  wanting  in  the  faith  of  protestants;  of  the 
 frivolous  distinction  of  points  fundamental  and  not  fundamental 
 (the  confutation  whereof  proveth,  that  heretics  disagreeing 
 among  themselves  in  any  least  point  cannot  have  the  same  faith, 
 nor  be  of  the  same  church) ;  of  schism,  of  heresy,  of  the  persons 
 who  first  revolted  from  Rome,  and  of  their  motives ;  of  the 
 nature  of  faith,  which  is  destroyed  by  any  least  error;  and  it  is 
 certain,  that  some  of  them  must  be  in  error,  and  want  the  sub- 
 €tance  of  true  faith  ;  and  since  all  pretend  the  like  certainty,  it 
 is  clear  that  none  of  them  have  any  certainty  at  all,  but  that  they 
 want  trne  faith,  which  is  a  means  most  absolutely  necessary  to 
 salvation.  Moreover,  as  I  said  heretofore,  since  it  is  granted  that 
 every  error  in  fundamental  points  is  damnable,  and  that  they 
 cannot  tell  in  particular  what  points  be  fundamental,  it  follows, 
 that  none  of  them  knows  whether  he  or  his  brethren  do  not  err 
 damnably,  it  being  certain,  that  among  so  many  disagreeing  per- 
 sons some  must  err.  Upon  the  same  ground  of  not  being  able 
 to  assign  what  points  be  fundamental,  1  say,  they  cannot  be  sure 
 whether  the  difference  among  them  be  fundamental  or  no,  and 
 consequently,  whether  they  agree  in  the  substance  of  faith  and 
 hope  of  salvation.  I  omit  to  add,  that  you  want  the  sacrament 
 of  penance,  instituted  for  remission  of  sins ;  or  at  least  you  must 
 confess  that  you  hold  it  not  necessary;  and  yet  your  own 
 brethren,  for  example,  the  century  writers,*  do  acknowledge,  that 
 in  the  times  of  Cyprian  and  TertuUian,  private  confession,  even 
 
 *  Cent.  3.  cap.  6.  col.  127. 
 
474  CHAIUTY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 of  thoughts,  was  used  ;  and  that  it  was  then  commanded  and 
 thought  necesssary.  The  like  I  say  concerning  your  ordination, 
 which  at  least  is  very  doubtful,  and  consequently  all  that  de- 
 pends thereon. 
 
 6.  *'  On  the  other  side,  that  the  Roman  church  is  the  safer 
 way  to  heaven,  (not  to  repeat  what  hath  been  already  said  upon 
 divers  occasions,)  I  will  again  put  you  in  mind,  that  unless  the 
 Roman  church  was  the  true  church,  there  was  no  visible  true 
 church  upon  earth  :  a  thing  so  manifest,  that  protestants  them- 
 selves confess,  that  more  than  one  thousand  years  the  Roman 
 church  possessed  the  whole  word,  as  we  have  shovv^ed  heretofore, 
 out  of  their  own  words  :*  from  whence  it  follows,  that  unless  ours 
 be  the  true  church,  you  cannot  pretend  to  any  perjjietual  visible 
 church  of  your  own;  but  ours  doth  not  depend  co  yours,  before 
 which  it  was.  And  here  I  wish  you  to  consider  with  fear  and 
 trembling,  how  all  Roman  catholics,  not  one  excepted,  that  is,, 
 those  very  men  whom  you  must  hold  not  to  err  damnably  in  their 
 belief,  unless  you  will  destroy  your  own  church  and  salvation,  do 
 with  unanimous  consent  believe  and  profess,  that  protestancy 
 unrepented  destroys  salvation  ;  and  then  tell  me,  as  you  will 
 answer  at  the  last  day,  whether  it  be  not  more  safe  to  live  and 
 die  in  that  church,  which  even  yourselves  are  forced  to  acknow- 
 ledge '  not  to  be  cut  off  from  hope  of  salvation,'  (which  are  your 
 own  words,)  than  to  live  in  a  church  which  the  isaid  confessedly 
 true  church  doth  firmly  believe  and  constantly  profess  not  to  be 
 capable  of  salvation.  And  therefore  I  conclude,  that  by  the 
 most  strict  obligation  of  charity  towards  your  own  soul,  you  are 
 bound  to  place  it  in  safety,  by  returning  to  that  church  from 
 which  your  progenitors  schismatically  departed,  lest  too  late  you 
 find  that  saying  of  the  Holy  Ghost  verified  in  yourselves,  He  that 
 loves  the  danger  shall  perish  therein.^ 
 
 7.  "  Against  this  last  argument  of  the  greater  security  of  the 
 Roman  church,  drawn  from  your  own  confession,  you  bring  an. 
 objection,  which  in  the  end  will  be  found  to  make  for  us  against 
 yourself.  It  is  taken  from  the  words  of  the  Donatists,  speaking 
 to  catholics  in  this  manner :  '  Yourselves  confess  our  baptism, 
 sacraments,  and  faith,'  (here  you  put  an  explication  of  your  own, 
 and  say,  '  for  the  most  part,'  as  if  any  small  error  in  faith  did 
 not  destroy  all  faith,)  *  to  be  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  join  with  us.' 
 
 8.  "  By  your  leave,  our  argument  is  not  (as  you  say)  for  simple 
 people  alone,  but  for  all  them  who  have  care  to  save  their  souls. 
 Neither  is  it  grounded  upon  your  charitable  judgment,  (as  you 
 speak,)  but  upon  an  inevitable  necessity  for  you  either  to  grant 
 salvation  to  our  church,  or  to  entail  certain  damnation  upon  your 
 own  ;  because  yours  can  have  no  being  till  Luther,  unless  ours 
 be  supposed  to  have  been  the  true  church  of  Christ.  And  since 
 you  term  this  argument  a  charm,  take  heed  you  be  none  of  those, 
 who,  according  to  the  prophet  David,  do  not  hear  the  voice  of 
 him  who  charmeth  wisely.  J    But  to  come  to  the  purpose,  catholics 
 
 *  Cliap.  5.  num.  9.  f  Ecclus.  iii.  26.  t  Psa.  Iviii.  5. 
 
CHARITY    MAINTAINED    DY    CATHOLICS. 
 
 475 
 
 never  granted  that  the  Donatists  had  a  true  church,  or  might  be 
 saved ;  and  therefore  you  having  cited  out  of  St.  Augustin  the 
 words  of  the  catholic,  that  the  Donatists  had  true  baptism,  when 
 you  come  to  the  contrary  words  of  the  Donatists,  you  add,  '  No 
 church,  no  salvation;'  making  the  argument  to  have  quinque 
 terminos,  without  which  addition  you  did  see  it  made  nothing 
 against  as  ;  for,  as  I  said,  the  catholics  never  yielded,  that  among 
 the  Donatists  there  was  a  true  church,  or  hope  of  salvation.  Arid 
 yourself,  a  few  leaves  after,  acknowledge,  that  the  'Donatists 
 maintained  an  error,'  which  '  was  in  the  matter  and  nature  of  it 
 properly  heretical,  against  that  article  of  the  Creed  wherein  we 
 profess  to  believe  the  holy  catholic  church ;'  and  consequently 
 you  cannot  allow  salvation  to  them,  as  you  do,  and  must  do,  to 
 us.  And  therefore  the  Donatists  could  not  make  the  like  argu- 
 ment against  catholics,  as  catholics  make  against  you,  who  grant 
 us  salvation,  which  we  deny  to  you.  But  at  least  (you  will  say) 
 this  argument  for  the  certainty  of  their  baptism  was  like  to  ours, 
 touching  the  security  and  certainty  of  our  salvation ;  and  there- 
 fore that  catholics  should  have  esteemed  the  baptism  of  the 
 Donatists  more  certain  than  their  own,  and  so  have  allowed  re- 
 baptization  of  such  as  were  baptized  by  heretics  or  sinners,  as  the 
 Donatists  esteemed  all  catholics  to  be.  I  answer.  No  ;  because  it 
 being  a  matter  of  faith,  that  baptism  administered  by  heretics, 
 observing  due  matter,  form,  &c.  is  valid ;  to  rebaptize  any  so 
 baptized,  had  been  both  a  sacrilege  in  reiterating  a  sacrament 
 not  reiterable,  and  a  profession  also  of  a  damnable  heresy,  and 
 therefore  had  not  been  more  safe,  but  certainly  damnable.  But 
 you  confess,  that  in  the  doctrine  or  practice  of  the  Roman  church, 
 there  is  no  belief  or  profession  of  any  damnable  error,  which  if 
 there  were,  even  your  church  should  certainly  be  no  church. 
 To  believe  therefore,  and  profess  as  we  do,  cannot  exclude  sal- 
 vation, as  rebaptization  must  have  done.  But  if  the  Donatists 
 could  have  affirmed  with  truth,  that  in  the  opinion  both  of  ca- 
 tholics and  themselves  their  baptism  was  good  ;  yea,  and  good 
 in  such  sort,  as  that  unless  theirs  was  good,  that  of  the  catholics 
 could  not  be  such ;  but  theirs  might  be  good,  though  that  of  the 
 catholics  were  not ;  and  further,  that  it  was  no  damnable  error 
 to  believe  that  baptism  administered  by  the  catholics  was  not 
 good,  nor  that  it  was  any  sacrilege  to  reiterate  the  same  baptism 
 of  catholics :  if,  I  say,  they  could  have  truly  affirmed  these  things, 
 they  had  said  somewhat,  which  at  least  had  seemed  to  the  pur- 
 pose. But  these  things  they  could  not  say  with  any  colour  of 
 truth,  and  therefore  their  argument  was  fond  and  impious.  But 
 we  with  truth  say  to  protestants.  You  cannot  but  confess  that 
 our  doctrine  contains  no  damnable  error,  and  that  our  church  is 
 so  certainly  a  true  church,  that  unless  ours  be  true,  you  cannot 
 pretend  any  ;  yea.  you  grant  that  you  should  be  guilty  of  schism, 
 if  you  did  cut  off  our  church  from  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the 
 hope  of  salvation.  But  we  neither  do  nor  can  grant  that  yours 
 is  a  true  church,  or  that  within  it  there  is  hope  of  salvation ; 
 therefore  it  is  safest  for  you  to  join  with  us.  And  now  against 
 whom  hath  your  objection  greatest  force  ? 
 
476  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY  CATHOLICS. 
 
 9.  "  But  I  wonder  not  a  little,  and  so  I  think  will  every  body 
 else,  what  the  reason  may  be,  that  you  do  not  so  much  as  go 
 about  to  answer  the  argument  of  the  Donatists,  which  you  say  is 
 all  one  with  ours,  but  refer  us  to  St.  Augustin,  there  to  read  it; 
 as  if  every  one  carried  with  him  a  library,  or  were  able  to 
 examine  the  place  in  St.  Augustin :  and  yet  you  might  be  sure 
 your  reader  would  be  greedy  to  see  some  solid  answer  to  an 
 argument  so  often  urged  by  us,  and  which  indeed,  unless  you  can 
 confute  it,  ought  alone  to  move  every  one  that  hath  care  of  his 
 soul,  to  take  the  safest  way,  by  incorporating  himself  in  our 
 church.  But  we  may  easily  imagine  the  true  reason  of  your 
 silence  ;  for  the  answer  which  St.  Augustin  gives  to  the  Dona- 
 tists is  directly  against  yourself,  and  the  same  which  I  have 
 given,  namely,  that  catholics*  approve  the  baptism  of  Donatists, 
 but  abhor  their  heresy  of  rebaptization.  And  that  as  gold  is 
 good,  (which  is  the  similitude  used  by  St.  Augustin,!)  yet  not  to 
 be  sought  in  company  of  thieves ;  so  though  baptism  be  good, 
 yet  it  must  not  be  sought  for  in  the  conventicles  of  Donatists, 
 But  you  free  us  from  damnable  heresy,  and  yield  us  salvation, 
 which  I  hope  is  to  be  embraced  in  whatsoever  company  it  is 
 found ;  or  rather,  that  company  is  to  be  embraced  before  all 
 other,  in  which  all  sides  agree  that  salvation  may  be  found.  We 
 therefore  must  infer,  that  it  is  safest  for  you  to  seek  salvation 
 among  us.  You  had  good  reason  to  conceal  St.  Augustin's 
 answer  to  the  Donatists. 
 
 10.  "  You  frame  another  argument  in  our  behalf,  and  make  us 
 speak  thus :  'If  protestants  believe  the  religion  of  catholics  to 
 be  a  safe  way  to  heaven,  why  do  they  not  follow  it  ?'  Which 
 wdse  argument  of  your  own  you  answer  at  large,  and  confirm 
 your  answer  by  this  instance  :  *  The  Jesuits  and  Dominicans 
 hold  different  opinions  touching  predetermination,  and  the  im- 
 maculate conception  of  the  blessed  Virgin ;  yet  so,  that  the 
 Jesuits  hold  the  Dominicans'  way  safe,  that  is,  their  error  not 
 damnable  :  and  the  Dominicans  hold  the  same  of  the  Jesuits ; 
 yet  neither  of  them  with  good  consequence  can  press  the  other  to 
 believe  his  opinion,  because,  by  his  own  confession,  it  is  no 
 damnable  error.' 
 
 11.  '-But  what  catholic  maketh  such  a  wise  demand  as  you 
 put  into  our  mouths  ?  If  our  religion  be  a  safe  way  to  heaven, 
 that  is,  not  damnable,  why  do  you  not  follow  it  ?  As  if  every 
 thing  that  is  good  must  be  of  necessity  embraced  by  every  body  ! 
 But  what  think  you  of  the  argument  framed  thus  ?  Oar  religion 
 is  safe  even  by  your  confession ;  therefore  you  ought  to  grant 
 that  all  may  embrace  it.  And  yet  further,  thus :  Among  different 
 religions  and  contrary  ways  to  heaven,  one  only  can  be  safe :  but 
 ours,  by  your  own  confession,  is  safe,  whereas  we  hold,  that  in 
 yours  there  is  no  hope  of  salvation  ;  therefore  you  may  and  ought 
 to  embrace  ours.  This  is  our  argument.  And  if  the  Domi- 
 nicans and  Jesuits  did  say  one  to  another,  as  we  say  to  you, 
 then  one  of  them  might  with  good  consequence  press  the  other 
 
 *  Ad  lit.  Petil.  lib.  2.  cap.  108. 
 +  Contra  Cresc.  lib.  1.  cap.  21. 
 
CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY  CATHOLICS.  477 
 
 to  believe  his  opinion.    You  have  still  the  hard  fortune  to  be 
 beaten  with  your  own  weapon. 
 
 12.  "  It  remaineth,  then,  that  both  in  regard  of  faith  and 
 charity  protestants  are  obliged  to  unite  themselves  with  the 
 church  of  Rome.  And  I  may  add  also,  in  regard  of  the  theo- 
 logical virtue  of  hope,  without  which  none  can  hope  to  be  saved, 
 and  which  you  want,  either  by  excess  of  confidence,  or  defect 
 by  despair,  not  unlike  to  your  faith,  which  I  showed  to  be  either 
 deficient  in  certainty  or  excessive  in  evidence ;  as  likewise,  ac- 
 cording to  the  rigid  Calvinists,  it  is  either  so  strong,  that,  once 
 had,  it  can  never  be  lost ;  or  so  more  than  weak,  and  so  much 
 nothing,  that  it  can  never  be  gotten.  For  the  true  theological 
 hope  of  Christians  is  a  hope  which  keeps  a  mean  between  pre- 
 sumption and  desperation,  which  moves  us  to  work  our  salvation 
 with  fear  and  trembling,  which  conducts  us  to  make  sure  our 
 salvation  by  good  works,  as  Holy  Scripture  adviseth  :  but,  con- 
 trarily,  protestants  do  either  exclude  hope  by  despair,  with  the 
 doctrine,  that  our  Saviour  died  not  for  all,  and  that  such  want 
 grace  sufficient  to  salvation  ;  or  else  by  vain  presumption, 
 grounded  upon  a  fantastical  persuasion,  that  they  are  predes- 
 tinate ;  which  faith  must  exclude  all  fear  and  trembling. 
 Neither  can  they  make  their  calling  certain  by  good  works,  who 
 do  certainly  believe,  that  before  any  good  works  they  are  jus- 
 tified, and  justified  even  by  faith  alone,  and  by  that  faith 
 whereby  they  certainly  believe  that  they  are  justified.  Which 
 points  some  protestants  do  expressly  affirm  to  be  '  the 
 soul  of  the  church,'  *the  principal  origin  of  salvation,' of  all 
 other  points  of  doctrine  the  chiefest  and  weightiest,'  as  already 
 I  have  noted,  chap.  3.  n.  19.  And  if  some  protestants  do  now 
 relent  from  the  rigour  of  the  aforesaid  doctrine,  we  must  affirm, 
 that  at  least  some  of  them  want  the  theological  virtue  of  hope  ; 
 yea,  that  none  of  them  can  have  true  hope,  while  they  hope  to 
 be  saved  in  the  communion  of  those  who  defend  such  doctrines 
 as  do  directly  overthrow  all  true  Christian  hope.  And  for  as 
 much  as  concerns  faith,  we  must  also  infer,  that  they  want  unitv 
 therein,  (and  consequently  have  none  at  all,)  by  their  disagree- 
 ment about  '  the  soul  of  the  church,'  '  the  principal  origin  of 
 salvation,'  '  of  all  other  points  of  doctrine  the  chiefest  and 
 weightiest.'  And  if  you  want  true  faith,  you  must  by  conse- 
 quence want  hope  :  or  if  you  hold  that  this  point  is  not  to  be  so 
 indivisible  on  either  side,  but  that  it  hath  latitude  sufficient  to 
 embrace  all  parties,  without  prejudice  to  their  salvation,  not- 
 withstanding that  your  brethren  hold  it  to  be  *  the  soul  of  the 
 church,'  &c.,  1  must  repeat  what  I  have  said  heretofore,  that 
 even  by  this  example  it  is  clear  you  cannot  agree  what  points 
 be  fundamental.  And  so  (to  whatsoever  answer  you  fly)  I  press 
 you  in  the  same  manner,  and  say,  that  you  have  no  certainty 
 whether  you  agree  in  fundamental  points,  or  unity  and  sub° 
 stance  of  faith,  which  cannot  stand  with  difference  in  funda- 
 mentals. And  so  upon  the  whole  matter  I  leave  it  to  be  con- 
 sidered, whether  want  of  charity  can  be  justly  charged  on  us, 
 because  we  affirm  that  they  cannot  (without  repentance)  be  saved^ 
 
478  CHARITY   MAINTAINED   BY   CATHOLICS. 
 
 who  want  of  all  other  the  most  necessary  means  to  salvation, 
 which  are    the    three    theological    virtues,    faith,    hope,   and 
 
 CHARITY. 
 
 13.  "  And  now  I  end  this  first  part,  having,  as  I  conceive, 
 complied  with  my  first  design,  (in  that  measure  which  time, 
 commodity,  scarcity  of  books,  and  my  own  small  abilities,  could 
 afford,)  which  was  to  show,  that  amongst  men  of  different  re- 
 ligions one  side  can  only  be  saved.  For  since  there  must  be 
 some  infallible  means  to  decide  all  controversies  concerning  re- 
 ligion, and  to  propound  truths  revealed  by  Almighty  God ;  and 
 this  means  can  be  no  other  but  the  visible  church  of  Christ, 
 which  at  the  time  of  Luther's  appearance  was  only  the  church 
 of  Rome,  and  such  as  agreed  with  her;  we  must  conclude,  that 
 whosoever  opposeth  himself  to  her  definitions,  or  forsaketh  her 
 communion,  doth  resist  God  himself,  whose  spouse  she  is,  and 
 whose  Divine  truth  she  propounds,  and  therefore  becomes  guilty 
 of  schism  and  heresy,  which  since  Luther,  his  associates,  and 
 protestants  have  done,  and  still  continue  to  do,  it  is  not  want  of 
 charity,  but  abundance  of  evident  cause,  that  forces  us  to  declare 
 this  necessary  truth,  protestancy  unrepented  destroys  sal- 
 vation." 
 
ANSWER  TO  THE  SEVENTH  CHAPTER  : 
 
 That  protestants  are  not  bound  hy  the  charity  which  they  owe  to  them- 
 selves  to  re-unite  themselves  to  the  Roman  church. 
 
 The  first  four  paragraphs  of  this  chapter  are  wholly  spent  in 
 an  unnecessary  introduction  unto  a  truth,  which  I  presume  never 
 was,  nor  will  be,  by  any  man  in  his  right  wits,  either  denied  or 
 <]uestioned:  and  that  is,  that  "every  man,  in  wisdom  and  cha- 
 rity to  himself,  is  to  take  the  safest  way  to  his  eternal  salvation." 
 
 2.  The  fifth  and  sixth  are  nothing,  in  a  manner,  but  references 
 to  discourses  already  answered  by  me,  and  confuted  in  their 
 proper  places. 
 
 3.  The  seventh,  eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh,  have  no 
 other  foundation  but  this  false  pretence,  that  "  we  confess  the 
 Roman  church  free  from  damnable  error." 
 
 4.  In  the  twelfth,  there  is  something  that  has  some  probability 
 to  persuade  some  protestants  to  forsake  some  of  their  opinions, 
 or  others  to  leave  their  communion ;  but  to  prove  protestants  in 
 general  to  be  in  the  state  of  sin,  while  they  remain  sejmrate  from 
 the  Roman  Church,  there  is  not  one  word  or  syllable :  and  be- 
 sides, whatsoever  argument  there  is  in  it  for  any  purpose,  it  may 
 be  as  forcibly  returned  upon  papists,  as  it  is  urged  against  pro- 
 testants ;  inasmuch  as  all  papists  either  hold  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
 determination, and  absolute  election,  or  communicate  with  those 
 that  do  it.  Now  from  this  doctrine,  what  is  more  plain  and 
 obvious,  than  for  every  natural  man  (without  God's  especial  pre- 
 venting grace)  to  make  this  practical  collection:  Either  1  am 
 elected  or  not  elected;  but  if  I  be,  no  impiety  possible  can  ever 
 damn  me ;  if  not,  no  possible  industry  can  ever  save  me  ?  Now 
 whether  this  disjunctive  persuasion  be  not  as  likely  as  any  doc- 
 trine of  any  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  ingeniously  to  in- 
 form me.  And  if  you  deny  it,  assure  yourself  you  shall  be  con- 
 tradicted and  confuted  by  men  of  your  own  religion,  and  your 
 own  society,  and  taught  at  length  this  charitable  doctrine,  "that 
 though  men's  opinions  may  be  charged  with  the  absurd  conse- 
 quences 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.  And  this  is  all  the  answer  which  I  should  make 
 to  this  discourse,  if  I  should  deal  rigidly  and  strictly  with  you. 
 Yet,  that  you  may  not  think  yourself  contemned,  nor  have  occa- 
 
480  THE    RELIGON    OF    PBOTESTANTS   A   SAFER 
 
 sion  to  pretend  that  your  arguments  are  evade«i,  I  will  entreat 
 leave  of  my  reader  to  bring  to  the  test  every  particle  of  it,  and 
 to  censure  what  deserves  a  censure,  and  to  answer  what  may  any 
 way  seem  to  require  an  answer  ;  and  then  I  doubt  not  but  what 
 I  have  affirmed  m  general  will  appear  in  particular. 
 
 5.  Ad  §  1.  To  the  first  then  I  say,  1.  It  was  needless  to 
 prove  that  due  order  is  to  be  observed  in  any  thing,  much  more 
 in  charity,  which  being  one  of  the  best  things,  may  be  spoiled  by 
 being  disordered  :  yet  if  it  stood  in  need  of  proof,  I  fear  this 
 place  of  the  Canticles,  He  hath  ordered  charity  in  me,  would  be 
 no  enforcing  demonstration  of  it.  2.  The  reason  alleged  by 
 you  why  v/e  ought  *'  to  love  one  object  more  than  another,  be- 
 cause one  thing  participates  the  Bivine  goodness  more  than 
 another,"  is  fantastical,  and  repugnant  to  what  you  say  pre- 
 sently after.  For  by  this  rule,  no  man  should  love  himself  more 
 than  all  the  world,  which  yet  you  require,  unless  he  were  first 
 vainly  persuaded,  that  he  doth  more  participate  the  Divine  good- 
 ness than  all  the  world.  But  the  true  reason  why  one  thing 
 ought  to  be  loved  more  than  another  is,  because  one  thing  is 
 better  than  another,  or  because  it  is  better  to  us,  or  because  God 
 commands  us  to  do  so,  or  because  God  himself  does  so,  and  we 
 are  to  conform  our  affections  to  the  will  of  God.  3.  It  is  no 
 true,  "that  all  objects,  which  we  believe,  do  equally  participatet 
 the  Divine  testimony  or  revelation  :"  for  some  are  testified  more 
 evidently,  and  some  more  obscurely ;  and  therefore  whatsoever 
 you  have  built  upon  this  ground  must  of  necessity  fall  together 
 with  it.     And  thus  much  for  the  first  number. 
 
 6.  Ad  §  2.  In  the  second,  many  passages  deserve  a  censure : 
 for,  1.  It  is  not  true,  that  "we  are  to  wish  or  desire  to  God  a 
 nature  infinite,  independent,  immense;"  for  it  is  impossible 
 I  should  desire  to  any  person  that  which  he  hath  already, 
 if  I  know  that  he  hath  it ;  nor  the  perpetuity  of  it,  if  I 
 know  it  impossible  but  he  must  have  it  for  perpetuity.  And 
 therefore  rejoicing  only,  and  not  well-wishing,  is  here  the  proper 
 work  of  love.  2.  Whereas  you  say,  that  "  in  things  necessary  to 
 salvation,  no  man  ought  in  any  case,  or  in  any  respect  whatso- 
 ever, to  prefer  the  spiritual  good  of  the  whole  world  be- 
 fore his  own  soul  :"  in  saying  this  you  seem  to  me  to  con- 
 demn one  of  the  greatest  acts  of  charity,  of  one  of  the 
 greatest  saints  that  ever  was,  I  mean  St.  Paul,  who  for  his 
 brethren  desired  to  be  an  anathema  from  Christ.  And  as 
 for  the  text  alleged  by  you  in  confirmation  of  your  Sd-ying, 
 What  doth  it  avail  a  man,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and  sustain 
 the  damage  of  his  own  soul?  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  :  for  with- 
 out all  question,  it  is  not  profitable  for  a  man  to  do  so  ;  but  the 
 question  is,  whether  it  be  not  lawful  for  a  man  to  forego  and 
 part  with  his  own  particular  profit,  to  procure  the  universal, 
 spiritual,  and  eternal  benefit  of  others  ?  3.  Whereas  you  say, 
 "It  is  directly  against  charity  to  ourselves,  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  con- 
 
WAY   TO   SALVATION    THAN    THAT   OF    PAPISTS  481 
 
 duce  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  myself,  bound  to  forsake  them,  though  they  be 
 not  destructive  of  it.  4.  Whereas  you  conclude,  that  "  if  by 
 living  out  of  the  Roman  church  we  put  ourselves  in  hazard  to 
 want  something  necessary  to  salvation,  we  commit  a  grievous 
 sin  against  the  virtue  of  charity,  as  it  respects  ourselves  ;"  this 
 consequence  may  be  good  in  those  which  are  thus  persuaded  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  ourselves  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  and  escape,  yet  it  may  well  be  feared 
 that  not  one  in  a  hundred  but  miscarries. 
 
 7.  Ad  §  3.  I  proceed  now  to  the  third  section ;  and  herein  first 
 I  observe  this  acknowledgment  of  yours,  "  That  in  things  neces- 
 sary only  because  commanded,  a  probable  ignorance  of  the  com- 
 mandment excuses  the  party  from  all  fault,  and  ,  oth  not  exclude 
 salvation."  From  which  doctrine  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  pre- 
 tended command,  must  excuse  us  all  from  faulty  breach  of  it,  and 
 cannot  exclude  salvation.  Now  seeing  this  command  is  not 
 pretended  to  be  expressly  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  objec- 
 tions lie  against  it,  which  seem  strongly  to  prove  that  there  is 
 no  such  command ;  with  what  charity  can  you  suppose  that  our 
 ignorance  of  this  command  is  not  at  the  least  probable,  if  not, 
 all  things  considered,  plainly  invincible  ?  Sure  1  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  further  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  a  Divine  infallible  faith,  baptism  in  act  for  children,  and 
 in  desire  for  those  who  are  to  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  aie  therefore 
 appointed  by  God  because  they  were  necessary  for  us  antece- 
 dently to  his  appointment;  which  if  it  were  true,  I  wonder  what 
 it  was  beside  God  that  made  them  necessary,  and  made  it  neces- 
 sary for  God  to  command  them  !  Besides,  in  making  faith  one 
 of  these  necessary  means,  you  seem  to  exclude  infants  from  sal- 
 vation ;  ^OY  faith  comes  by  hearing,  and  they  have  not  heard.  In 
 requiring  that  this  faith  should  be  "Divine  and  infallible,"  yoa 
 
 I  I 
 
482  THE   RELIGION    OF   rROTESTANTS   A  SAFER 
 
 cast  your  *  credents  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  church's  infallibility  with  Divine  or  only  with 
 human  faith,  I  pray  produce  it ;  for  perhaps  it  may  serve  us  to 
 show  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  instead  of  baptism,  then  those  words  of  our  Saviour, 
 Unless  a  man  he  horn  again  of  water,  &c.,  are  not  to  be  under- 
 stood 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 
 itself,  because  they  cannot  have  it,  why  should  you  not  gloss  it 
 a  little  further,  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  itself?  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  effec- 
 tually 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  by  virtue  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  it  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 
 haptism ;  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  de- 
 nied but  that  our  disagreement  is  in  a  point  fundamental ;"  if 
 you  mean  a  point  esteemed  so  by  you,  this  indeed  cannot  be  de- 
 nied; but  if  you  mean  a  point  that  indeed  is  fundamental,  this 
 may  certainly  be  denied :  for  1  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 
 
 *  Credentes.— Ox/.      Credents.— Z-oncf. 
 
■WAY    TO    SALVATION    THAN    THAT    Of    PAPISTS. 
 
 483 
 
 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  penance 
 you  only  say  so,  but  your  proofs  are  wanting.  Lastly,  whereas 
 you  say,  "This  rigour  ought  not  to  seem  strange  or  unjust  in. 
 (jod,  but  that  we  are  rather  to  bless  him  for  ordaining  us  to  sal- 
 vation by  any  means ;"  1  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  God's  will  be  so  indeed,  or  only  your 
 presumption,  this  I  hope  may  be  questioned  lawfully  and  with- 
 out 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  au- 
 thority from  him  to  do  so. 
 
 8.  Ad  §  4.  In  the  fourth  paragraph,  you  deliver  this  false 
 and  wicked  doctrine,  "  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  con- 
 trary way  be  certainly  free  from  sin,  and  theirs  be  doubtful. 
 "Which  doctrine,  in  the  former  part  of  it,  is  apparently  false ; 
 for  though  wisdom  and  charity  to  ourselves  would  persuade  us 
 always  to  do  so,  yet  many  times  that  way,  which  to  ourselves  and 
 our  salvation  is  more  full  of  hazard,  is  notwithstanding,  not  only 
 lawful,  but  more  charitable  and  more  noble.  For  example,  to 
 fly  from  a  persecution,  and  so  to  avoid  the  temptation  of  it,  may 
 be  a  safer  way  for  a  man's  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  God's  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  trial,  rather  than  to  avoid  it ;  rather  to  put  his  own  soul 
 to  the  hazard  of  a  temptation,  in  hope  of  God's  assistance  to  go 
 through  with  it,  than  to  balk  the  opportunity  of  doing  God  and 
 his  brethren  so  great  a  service.  This  part  therefoie  of  this 
 doctrine  is  manifestly  untrue  :  the  other,  not  only  false,  but  im- 
 pious ;  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  ourselves, 
 and  our  own  happiness,  than  for  the  love  of  God ;  and  in  so 
 doing  contradict  our  Saviour,  who  expressly  commands  us 
 to  love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our  heart,  with  cdl  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  St.  Paul's  doctrine,  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  weaker  brother  ;  where- 
 as he  who  should  do  it  with  a  doubtful  conscience  (though  the 
 
484  THE    RELIGION    OF    PROTESTANTS    A    SAFER 
 
 action  were  by  St.  Paul  warranted  lawful,  yet)  should  sin,  and  be 
 eondomned for  so  aoing.  You  pretend  indeed  to  be  rigid  defenders 
 and  stout  champions  for  the  necessity  of  good  works;  but  the 
 truth  is,  you  speak  lies  in  hypocrisy,  and  when  the  matter  is  well 
 examined,  will  appear  to  make  yourselves  and  your  own  func- 
 tions necessary,  but  obedience  to  God  unnecessary  :  which  will 
 appear  to  any  man  who  considers  what  strict  necessity  the  Scrip- 
 ture imposes  upon  all  men,  of  effectual  mortification  of  the  habits 
 of  all  vices,  and  effectual  conversion  to  newness  of  life,  and  uni- 
 versal 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  ap- 
 pears 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  avoid- 
 ing of  sin,  they  may  safely  follow  the  uncertain  guidance  of  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  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  Parlia- 
 ments, and  by  rooting  out  all  others  of  a  different  faith  from 
 you.  Nay,  this  you  may  do,  though  in  your  own  opinion  it  be 
 unlawful,  because  Bellarmine,  a  man  with  you  of  approved 
 virtue,  learning,  and  judgment,  had  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  virtue,  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,  maturely 
 
 *  Bellar,  contr.  Barcl.  c.  7.  in  7.  c.  Refutare  conatur  Barcl.  verba  ilia  Romuli ; 
 ^eteies  illos  iniperatores,  Constantium  Valentem,  ct  caeteros,  iion  ideo  toleravit 
 Ecclesia,  quod  iii;it'inie  sHcceShi<sen!,  sed  quod  illos  sine  popiili  detiimento  coerctre 
 none  poterat.  Et  niiratnr  hoc  idem  s-cripsisse  Bellar.  1.  5.  de  Pom  if.  c  7.  Sed  ut 
 magis  miretur,  sciat  hoc  idem  »ensisse  St.  Thom.  2.  2.  q.  12.  art.  2.  ad  I.  ubi  dicit 
 Eclesiani  tolerasse,  ut  fideles  obedirenl  Jnliano  apostatae,  quia  in  sni  novitate 
 nunduni  habebant  vires  conipesreiidi  priiicipes  teiienos.  Et  postea  :  Sanctns  Grego- 
 rious  dicit,  Nullum  adversus  Juliani  peisecutionem  (uisse  remecliuni  prieter  lacryma«« 
 quoQiam  aon  habebat  ecclesia  vires,  quibus  illius  lyraon''""  '^sio'^re  pos^et. 
 
WAY    TO    SALVATION    THAN    THAT    OF    PAPISTS.  485 
 
 weighed  and  approved  by  men  (as  it  seemed  to  them)  of  virtue, 
 learning,  and  wisdom;  nay,  by  such  as  sat  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  uni- 
 versally, and  without  any  restriction  or  limitation.  And  as  law- 
 ful was  it  for  the  pagans  to  persecute  the  primitive  Christians, 
 because  Trajan  and  Pliny,  men  of  great  virtue  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,  or  to  be  of  none  ?  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  St.  James  sure  intended  to  deliver  the  adequate  cause  of  sin 
 and  death  in  these  words :  Lust,  when  it  hath  conceived,  bri?igeth 
 forth  sin;  and  sin,  ivhen  it  is  finished,  bringeth  forth  death.  Seeing 
 therefore  in  such  things,  according  to  your  doctrine,  it  is  suffi- 
 cient for  avoiding  of  sin  that  we  proceed  prudently,  and  by  the 
 conduct  of  some  probable  opinion  maturely  weighed  and  approved 
 by  men  of  learning,  virtue,  and  wisdom  ;  and  seeing  neither  Jews 
 want  their  Gamaliels,  nor  pagans  their  Antoninuses,  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  virtue,  learning,  and  v/isdom ;  it 
 follows  evidently,  that  the  embracing  their  religion  proceeds 
 upon  such  reason  as  may  warrant  their  action  to  be  prudent ; 
 and  this  (you  say)  is  "  sufficient  for  the  avoiding  of  sin,"  and 
 therefore  certainly  for  avoiding  damnation,  for  "  that  in  human 
 affairs  and  discourse  evidence  and  certainty  cannot  be  ahvays 
 expected."  1  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  also  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  confu- 
 tation 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  tov/ards  one's  self,  and  of  obedience  to  God,  papists 
 (unless  ignorance  excuse  them)  are  in  a  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  it  v\dll  not  be  hard  to  de- 
 termine, that  the  way  of  protestants  must  be  more  secure,  and 
 the  Roman  way  more  dangerous.  Take  but  into  your  considera- 
 tion these  ensuing  controversies;  whether  it  be  lawful  to  worship 
 pictures — to  picture  the  Trinity — to  invocate  saints  and  angels — 
 to  deny  laymen  the  cup  in  the  sacrament — to  adore  the  sacrament 
 —to  prohibit  certain  orders  ^f  men  and  women  to  marry — to 
 
486  THE    RELIGION    OF    PROTESTANTS    A.    SAvER 
 
 celebrate  the  public  service  of  God  in  a  language  vv'hich  the  as- 
 sistants 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  im- 
 pious.    On  the  other  side,  if  you  were  in  the  right,  yet  we  might 
 be  secure  enough;  for  we  should  only  not  do  something  which 
 you  confess  not  necessary  to  be  done.     We  pretend,  and  are 
 ready  to  justify  out  of  principles  agreed  upon  between  us,  that  in 
 all  these  things  you  violate  the  manifest  commandments  of  God; 
 and  allege  such  texts  of  Scripture  against  you,  as,  if  you  would 
 weigh  them  with  any  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,  to  give  all 
 men  the  entire  sacrament,  not  to  adore  the  eucharist,  not  to  pro- 
 hibit 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  enjoins  us,  no,  nor  so  much  as  an  evangelical 
 council  that  advises  us,  to  do  any  of  these  things.     Now  where 
 no  iaio  is,  lltere  can  be  no  sin;  for  ain  is  the  transgression  of  the 
 law.     It  remains  therefore,   that  if  your  church  should  forbear 
 to  do  these  things,  she  must  undoubtedly  herein  be  free  from  all 
 danger  and  suspicion  of  sin;  whereas  your  acting  of  them  must 
 be,  if  not  certainly  impious,  without  all  contradiction  question- 
 able and  dangerous.     1  conclude  tiierefore  tliat  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  cer- 
 tainly the  way  of  protestants  must  be  more  safe,  and  the  Roman 
 way  more  dangerous.     You  will  say,  I  know,  that  "these  things 
 being  by  your  church  concluded  lawful,  we  are  obliged  by  God, 
 though  not  to  do,  yet  to  approve  them;  at  least  in  your  judgment 
 we  are  so,    and  therefore  our  condition  is  as  questionable  as 
 yours."     I  answer,  the  authority  of  your  church  is  no  common 
 principle  agreed  upon  between  us,  and  therefore  from  that  you 
 are  not  to  dispute  against  us.     We  might  press  you  with  our 
 judgment  as  well  and  as  justly  as  you  do  us  with  yours.   Besides, 
 this  very  thing,  that  your  church  hath  determined  these  things 
 lawful,  and  commanded  the  approbation  of  them,  is  that  whereof 
 she  is  accused  by  us,  and  we  maintain  you  have  done  wickedly, 
 or  at  least  very  dangerously,  in  so  determining;  because  in  these 
 very  determinations  you  have  forsaken  that  way  which  was  secure 
 from  sin,  and  have  chosen  that  which  you  cannot  but  know  to  be 
 very  questionable  and  doubtful;  and  consequently  have  forsaken 
 the  safe  way  to  heaven,  and  taken  a  way  which  is  full  of  danger. 
 And  therefore,  although,  if  your  obedience  to  your  church  were 
 questioned,  you  might  fly  for  shelter  to  your  church's  determina- 
 tions, yet  when  these  determinations  are  accused,  methinks  they 
 should  not  be  alleged  in  defence  of  themselves.     But  you  will 
 
•VVAY    TO    SALVATION    THAN    THAT    OF    PAPISTS. 
 
 487 
 
 say,  your  church  is  infallible,  and  therefore  her  determinations 
 not  unlawful.  A7is.  They  that  accuse  your  church  of  error,  you 
 may  be  sure  do  question  her  infallibility :  show  therefore  where 
 it  is  written  that  your  church  is  infallible,  and  the  dispute  will 
 be  ended.  But  till  you  do  so,  give  me  leave  rather  to  conclude 
 thus;  Your  church,  in  many  of  her  determinations,  chooses  not 
 that  way  which  is  most  secure  from  sin,  and  therefore  not  the 
 safest  way  to  salvation ;  than  vainly  to  imagine  her  infallible, 
 and  thereupon  to  believe,  though  she  teach  not  the  surest  way  to 
 avoid  sin,  yet  she  teaches  the  certainest  way  to  obtain  salvation. 
 10.  In  the  close  of  this  number  you  say  as  follows  :  "  If  it 
 may  appear,  though  not  certain,  yet  at  least  probable,  that  pro- 
 testancy  unrepented  destroys  salvation,  and  withal  that  there  is 
 a  safer  way,  it  will  follow,  that  they  are  obliged  by  the  law^  of 
 charity  to  embrace  that  safe  way."  Ansiv.  Make  this  appear, 
 and  1  will  never  persuade  any  man  to  continue  a  protestant ;  for 
 if  I  should,  I  should  persuade  him  to  continue  a  fool.  But 
 after  all  these  prolix  discourses,  still  we  see  you  are  at,  "If  it 
 may  appear :"  from  whence,  without  all  ifs  and  ands,  that  ap- 
 pears sufficiently  which  I  said  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter, 
 that  the  four  first  paragraphs  of  this  chapter  are  wholly  spent 
 in  an  unnecessary  introduction  unto  that  which  never  by  any 
 man  in  his  right  wits  was  denied,  that  "  men,  in  wisdom  and 
 charity  to  themselves,  are  to  take  the  safest  way  to  eternal  sal- 
 vation." 
 
 11.  Ad  §  5.  In  the  fifth  you  begin  to  make  some  show  of 
 arguing,  and  tell  us,  that  "  protestants  have  reason  to  doubt  in 
 what  case  they  stand,  from  what  you  have  said  about  the  church's 
 universal  infallibility,  and  of  her  being  judge  of  controversies," 
 &c.  Answ.  From  all  that  which  you  have  said,  they  have  rea- 
 son only  to  conclude,  that  you  have  nothing  to  say.  They  have 
 as  much  reason  to  doubt,  Avhether  there  can  be  any  motion, 
 from  what  Zeno  says  in  Aristotle's  Physics,  as  to  doubt,  from, 
 what  you  have  said,  whether  the  Roman  church  may  possibly 
 err.  For  this  I  dare  say,  that  not  the  weakest  of  Zeno's  ar- 
 guments but  is  stronger  than  the  strongest  of  yours,  and  that 
 you  would  be  more  perplexed  in  answering  any  one  of  them, 
 than  I  have  been  in  answering  all  yours.  You  are  pleased  to 
 repeat  two  or  three  of  them  in  this  section,  and  in  all  probability 
 so  wise  a  man  as  you  are,  if  he  would  repeat  any,  would  repeat 
 the  best ;  and  therefore,  if  I  desire  the  reader  by  these  to  judge 
 of  the  rest,  I  shall  desire  but  ordinary  justice. 
 
 12.  The  first  of  them,  being  put  into  form,  stands  thus; 
 •■'  Every  least  error  in  faith  destroys  the  nature  of  faith :  it  is  cer- 
 tain that  some  protestants  do  err ;  and  therefore  they  want  the 
 substance  of  faith."  The  major  of  which  syllogism  I  have  for- 
 merly confuted  by  unanswerable  arguments  out  of  one  of  your 
 own  best  authors,  who  shows  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,  inasmuch  as  you  oppose  one  another  as  much  as 
 Arminians  and  Calvinists. 
 
438  THE    RELIGION    OF    PROTESTANTS    A   SAFER 
 
 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  theiu 
 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  i  And  lastly  this  :  Since  ofttimes  they  which  are  abused 
 with  a  specious  paralogism  pretend  the  like  certainty  with  them 
 which  demonstrate,  it  is  clear  that  none  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  inime- 
 diate  consequences  of  your  positions ;  if  you  did  see  it  and  yet 
 would  set  them  down,  you  deserve  a  worse  censure.  Yet  such  as 
 these  are  all  the  arguments  wherewith  you  conceive  yourself  to 
 have  proved  undoubtedly,  that  "  protestants  have  reason  at  least 
 to  doubt  in  what  case  they  stand."  Neither  am  I  afraid  to  ven- 
 ture my  life  upon  it,  that  yourself  shall  not  choose  so  much  as 
 one  out  of  all  ihe  pack,  which  I  will  not  show,  before  indifferent 
 judges,  either  to  be  impertinent  to  the  question,  inconsequent  in 
 the  deduction,  grounded  upon  some  false,  or  at  least  uncertain 
 foundation. 
 
 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  funda- 
 mental." Both  which  deductions  I  have  formerly  showed  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  fandamental  and  what  not; 
 knowing  this,  I  say,  and  believing  it,)  what  can  hinder  but  that 
 I  may  be  well  assured  that  1  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  acknow- 
 ledge, that  in  the  time  of  Cyprian  and  Tertullian,  private  con- 
 fession even  of  thoughts  was  used,  and  that  it  was  then  com- 
 manded and  thought  necessary;  and  then  our  ordination,"  you 
 say,  "  is  very  doubtful,  and  all  that  depends  upon  it."  Answ.  I 
 also  omit  to  answer,  1.  That  your  brother  Rhenanus  acknow- 
 ledges the  contrary,  and  assures  us,  that  the  confession  then  re- 
 quired, and  in  use,  was  public,  and  before  the  church,  and  that 
 your  auricular  confession  was  not  then  in  the  w^orld ;  for  which 
 his  mouth  is  stopped  by  your  Index  Expurgatorius.  2.  That 
 your  brother  Arcudius  acknowledges,  that  the  eucharist  was  in 
 Cyprian's  time  given  to  infants,  and  esteem.ed  necessary,  or  at 
 least  profitable  for  them ;  and  the  giving  it  shows  no  less :  and 
 
WAY    TO    SALVATION    THAN    THAT    OF    PAPISTS.  489 
 
 now  I  would  know,  whether  you  will  acknowledge  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 
 enjoin  the  use  of  it,  but  that,  being  commanded,  it  would  be 
 necessary.  4.  Concerning  our  ordinations,  besides  that  1  have 
 proved  it  impossible  that  they  should  be  so  doubtful  as  yours, 
 according  to  your  own  principles ;  I  answer,  that  experience 
 shows  them  certainly  sufficient  to  bring  men  to  faith  and  le-^ 
 pentance,  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. 
 
 16.  Ad  §  6.  In  the  6th,  you  say,  "you  will  not  repeat,  but 
 only  put  us  again  in  mind,  that  unless  the  Roman  church  were 
 the  true  church,  there  was  no  visible  church  upon  earth,  a  thing 
 so  manifest,  that  protestants  themselves  confess,"  &c.  Answ, 
 Neither  will  I  repeat,  but  only  put  you  in  mind,  that  you  have 
 not  proved  that  there  is  any  necessity  that  there  should  be  any 
 true  church  in  your  sense  visible  ;  nor  if  there  were,  that  there 
 was  no  other  besides  the  Roman.  For  as  for  the  confession  ol 
 protestants,  which  here  you  insist  upon,  it  is  evident,  out  of  their 
 own  words  citecC  by  yourself,  that  by  the  "  whole  world,"  tiiey 
 meant  only  the  greatest  part  of  it,  which  is  an  unusual  figure  of 
 speech,  and  never  intended  to  deny,  that  besides  the  church 
 then  reigning  and  triumphing  in  this  world,  there  was  another 
 militant  church,  other  Christians  visible  enough,  though  per- 
 secuted and  oppressed.  Nor,  thirdly,  do  you  here  make  good  so 
 much  as  with  one  fallacy,  that  if  the  Roman  church  were  then 
 the  visible  church,  it  must  needs  be  now  the  only  or  the  safer 
 way  to  heaven  ;  and  yet  the  connexion  of  this  consequence  was 
 very  necessary  to  be  shovvn.  For,  for  ausrht  I  know,  it  was  not 
 impossible  that  it  might  then  be  the  only  visible  church,  and  yet 
 now  a  very  dangerous  way  to  heaven,  or  perhaps  none  at  all. 
 
 17.  A-fterwards  you  vainly  pretend,  that  all  Roman  catholics, 
 "  not  one  excepted,  profess,  that  protestancy  unrepented  destroys 
 salvation."  From  which  generality  we  may  except  two  at  least 
 to  my  knowledge,  and  those  are,  yourself,  and  Franciscus  de 
 Sancta  Clara,  who  assures  us,*  that  *'  ignorance  and  repentance 
 may  excuse  a  protestant  from  damnation,  though  dying  in  his 
 error."  And  this  is  all  the  charity,  which  by  your  own  confes- 
 sion also,  the  most  favourable  protestants  allow  to  papists ;  and 
 therefore,  with  strange  repugnance  to  yourself,  you  subjoin, 
 *'  that  these  are  the  men  whom  we  must  hold  not  to  err  damn- 
 ably, unless  we  v.'ill  destroy  our  own  church  and  salvation." 
 Whereas,  as  I  have  said  before,  though  you  were  Turks  and 
 Pagans,  we  might  be  good  christians.  Neither  is  it  necessary 
 for  perpetuating  of  a  church  before  Luther,  that  your  errors  even 
 then  should  not  be  damnable,  but  only  not  actually  damning,  to 
 some  ignorant  souls  among  you.     In  vain  therefore  do  you  make 
 
 -  la  problem  15  and  IS. 
 
490  THE    RELIGION    OF    PROTESTANTS    A    SAFER 
 
 such  tragedies  as  here  you  do !  in  vain  you  conjure  us  with 
 "  fear  and  trembling  to  consider  these  things  !"  We  have  con- 
 sidered them  again  and  again,  and  looked  upon  them  on  both 
 sides,  and  find  neither  terror  nor  truth  in  them.  Let  children 
 and  fools  be  terrified  with  bugbears ;  men  of  understanding  will 
 not  regard  them. 
 
 18.  §  7 — 11-  Your  whole  discourse  in  your  five  next  paragraphs 
 I  have  in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  fully  confuted,  by  saying 
 that  it  stands  altogether  upon  the  false  foundation  of  this* affected 
 mistake,  that  "we  do  and  must  confess  the  Roman  church  free 
 from  damnable  error;"  which  will  presently  be  apparent  to  any 
 one  who  considers,  that  the  seventh  and  tenth  are  nothing  but 
 Dr.  Potter's  words,  and  that  in  the  other  three  you  obtrude  upon 
 us  this  crambe  no  fewer  than  seven  times.  May  you  be  pleased 
 to  look  back  to  your  own  book,  and  you  shall  find  it  so  as  I  have 
 said;  and  that  at  least  in  a  hundred  other  places  you  make  your 
 advantage  of  this  false  imputation :  which  when  you  have  obser 
 ved,  and  withal  considered  that  yourself  plainly  intimate  that 
 Dr.  Potter's  discourses,  which  here  you  censure,  would  be  good 
 and  concluding,  if  we  did  not  (as  we  do  not)  free  you  from  dam- 
 nable error,  I  hope  you  will  acknowledge,  that  my  vouchsafing 
 these  sections  the  honour  of  any  further  answer  is  a  great  super- 
 lerogation  in  point  of  civility.  Nevertheless,  partly  that  I  may 
 the  more  ingratiate  myself  with  you,  but  especially  that  I  may 
 stop  their  mouths  who  will  be  apt  to  say,  that  every  word  of 
 yours  which  I  should  omit  to  speak  to  is  an  unanswerable  argu- 
 ment, I  will  hold  my  purpose  of  answering  them  more  punctually 
 and  particularly. 
 
 19.  First,  then,  to  your  little  parenthesis,  which  you  interline 
 among  Dr.  Potter's  words,  sect.  7,  "that  any  small  error  in  faith 
 destroys  all  faith,"  (to  omit  what  hath  been  said  before,)  I  an- 
 swer here,  what  is  proper  for  this  place,  that  St.  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  Donatists,  Ep.  48.) 
 "in  baptism,  in  the  creed,  and  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." 
 Parallell  to  which  words  are  these  of  Optatus:*  "Amongst  us 
 and  you  is  one  ecclesiastical  conversation,  common  lessons,  the 
 same  faith,  the  same  sacraments."  Where,  by  the  way,  we  may 
 observe,  that  in  the  judgment  of  these  Fathers,  even  Donatists, 
 though  heretics  and  schismatics,  gave  true  ordination,  the  true 
 sacrament  of  matrimony,  true  sacramental  absolution,  confirma- 
 tion, the  true  sacrament  of  the  eucharist,  true  extreme  unction; 
 or  else  (choose  you  v/hether)  some  of  these  were  not  then  esteemed 
 sacraments.  But  for  ordination,  M'hcther  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's 
 epistle.f  Which  doctrine  if  you  can  reconcile  with  the  present 
 doctrine  of  the  Roman  church,  eris  mihi  magnus  Apollo. 
 
 *  Lib.  5.  piope  initiuni.  t   Lib.  2.  c.  3. 
 
■WAY   TO   SALVATION    THAN    THAT    OF    PAPISTS  491 
 
 20.  Whereas,  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  section,  "you 
 deny  that  your  argument,  drawn  from  our  confessing  the  possi- 
 bility of  your  salvation,  is  for  simple  people  alone,  but  for  all 
 men:"  I  answer,  certainly  whosoever  is  moved  with  it  must  be 
 so  simple  as  to  think  this  a  good  and  concluding  reason :  some 
 ignorant  men  in  the  Roman  church  may  be  saved,  by  the  confes- 
 sion of  protestants  (which  is  indeed  all  that  they  confess); 
 therefore  it  is  safe  for  me  to  be  of  the  Roman  church:  and  he 
 that  does  think  so,  what  reason  is  there  why  he  should  not  think 
 this  as  good:  Ignorant  protestants  may  be  saved,  by  the  confes- 
 sion of  papists  (by  name  Mr.  K.) ;  therefore  it  is  safe  for  me  to 
 be  of  the  protestant  church  ?  Whereas  you  say,  that  "  this  your 
 argument  is  grounded  upon  an  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  w^hen  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's  time  there  have  been  Christians  in 
 4merica,  though  before  there  were  none  for  many  ages.  For 
 neither  do  you  show,  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  de- 
 pends necesscirily  upon  the  perpetuity  of  a  church  in  all  ages, 
 any  more  than  the  present  being  of  truth,  being  "  ready,  when 
 they  found  it,  to  correct  their  error,  were  not  heretics  ;  and 
 therefore,  notwithstanding  their  error,  might  be  saved."  And 
 this  is  all  the  charity  that  protestants  allow  to  papists. 
 
 22.  Whereas  you  say  that  Dr.  Potter,  having  cited  out  of  St. 
 Austin  the  words  of  the  catholics,  "  that  the  Donatists  had  true 
 baptism,"  when  he  comes  to  the  contrary  words  of  the  Donatists, 
 adds,  "No  church,  no  salvation :"  Answ.  You  wrong  Dr.  Potter, 
 who  pretends  not  to  cite  St.  Austin's  formal  words,  but  only  his 
 sense,  which  in  him  is  complete  and  full  for  that  purpose  whereto 
 it  is  alleged  by  Dr.  Potter,  His  w'ords  are,*  Petilianus  dixety 
 Venite  ad  ecclesiam,  populi^  et  aufugite  traditores,  si  perire  non 
 vultis :  "  Petilian  saith.  Come  to  the  church,  ye  people,  and  fly 
 from  the  traditors,  if  ye  will  not  be  damned ;  for  that  ye  may 
 know  that  they,  being  guilty,  esteem  very  well  of  our  faith, 
 behold,  I  baptize  these  whom  they  have  infected,  but  they  receive 
 those  whom  we  have  baptized."  Where  it  is  plain,  that  Peti- 
 lian by  his  words  makes  the  Donatists  the  church,  and  excludes 
 the  catholics  from  salvation  absolutely.  And  therefore  "  no 
 church,  no  salvation"  was  not  Dr.  Potter's  addition.  And 
 whereas  you  say,  the  "  Catholics  never  yielded  that  among  the 
 Donatists  there  was  a  true  church  and  hope  of  salvation ;"  1  say^ 
 it  appears,  by  what  I  have  alleged  out  of  St.  Austin,  that  they 
 yielded  both  these  were  among  the  Donatists,  as  much  as  we 
 yield  them  to  be  among  the  papists.    As  for  Dr.  Potter's  acknow- 
 
 *  Cont.  lit.  Petil.  1.  2.  c.  108. 
 
492  THE    RELIGION    OF   PROTESTANTS   A  SAFER 
 
 ledgment,  that  "  they  maintained  an  error  in  the  matter  and 
 nature  of  it  heretical;"  this  proves  thfjm  but  material  heretics, 
 whom  you  do  not  exclude  from  possibilily  of  salvation.  So  thnt, 
 all  things  considered,  this  argument  must  be  much  more  forcible 
 from  the  Donatists  against  the  catholics,  than  from  papists 
 against  piotestants,  in  regard  protestants  grant  papists  no  more 
 hope  of  salvation  than  papists  grant,  protestants :  whereas  the 
 Donatists  excluded  absolutely  all  but  their  own  party  from  hope 
 of  salvation,  so  far  as  to  account  them  no  Christians  that  were 
 not  of  it;  the  catholics  meanwhile  accounting  them  brethren, 
 and  freeing  those  among  them  from  the  imputation  of  heresy, 
 who  being  in  error,  qiioBrehant  cauta  sollicitudine  veritatum,  cor- 
 rigi  parati,  cum  invenerint. 
 
 23.  Whereas  you  say,  "  that  the  argument  for  the  certainty 
 of  their  baptism  ^because  it  was  confessed  good  by  catholics 
 whereas  the  baptism  of  catholics  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  doctrine  or  practice  o, 
 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  catholics 
 made  touching  the  certainty  of  their  baptism,  as  good  may  we 
 make,  and  with  much  more  evidence  of  reason,  touching  the  se- 
 curity and  certainty  of  our  salvation. 
 
 24.  By  the  way,  I  desire  to  be  informed,  seeing  you  affirm,  that 
 "  rebaptising  those  whom  heretics  had  baptized  was  a  sacrilege 
 and  a  profession  of  damnable  heresy,"  when  it  began  to  be  so  ? 
 If  from  the  beginning  it  were  so,  then  was  Cyprian  a  sacrilegious 
 professor  of  a  damnable  heresy,  ai.  d  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. 
 
 25.  Whereas  again,  in  this  section,  you  obtrude  upon  us,  "  that 
 we  cannot  but  confess  that  your  doctrine  contains  no  damnable 
 error,  and  that  yours  is  so  certainly  a  true  church,  that  unless 
 yours  be  true,  we  cannot  pretend  any ;"  1  answer,  There  is  in 
 this  neither  truth  nor  modesty  to  outface  us,  that  we  cannot  but 
 confess  what  indeed  we  cannot  but  deny.  For  my  part.  If  1  were 
 upon  the  rack,  I  persuade  myself  1  should  not  confess  the  one  nor 
 the  other. 
 
 26.  Whereas  again  presently  you  add,  that  "  Dr.  Potter  grants 
 we  should  be  guilty  of  schism,  if  we  did  cut  off  your  church  from 
 the  body  of  Christ  and  the  hope  of  salvation;"  I  have  showed 
 above,  that  he  grants  no  such  matter.     He  says  indeed,  '*  that 
 
WAY   TO    SALVATION    THAN    THAT    OF    PAPISTS. 
 
 493 
 
 our  not  doing  so  frees  us  from  the  imputation  of  schism;"  and 
 from  hence  you  sophistically  infer,  that  "  he  must  grant,  if  we 
 did  so,  we  were  schismatics  ;"  and  then  make  your  reader  believe, 
 that  this  is  Dr.  Potters  confession,  it  being  indeed  your  own 
 false  collection.  For  as  every  one  that  is  not  a  papist  is  not  a 
 Jesuit,-  and  yet  not  everyone  that  is  a  papist  is  a  Jesuit :  as 
 whosoever  comes  not  into  England  comes  not  to  London  ;  and 
 yet  many  may  come  to  England,  and  not  come  to  London :  as 
 whosoever  is  not  a  man  is  not  a  king ;  and  yet  many  are  mtn 
 that  are  not  kings:  so  likewise  it  may  be  certain,  that^whoso- 
 ever  does  not  so  is  free  from  schism,  and  yet  they  that  do  so  (if 
 there  be  sufficient  cause)  may  not  be  guilty  of  it. 
 
 27.  Whereas  you  "  pretend  to  wonder,  that  the  doctor  did  not 
 answer  the  argument  of  the  Donatists,  which  he  says  is  all  one 
 with  yours,  but  refers  you  to  St.  Austin,  there  to  read  it,  as  if 
 every  one  carried  with  him  a  library,  or  were  able  to  examine 
 the  places  in  St.  Austin ;"  I  answer,  the  parity  of  the  arguments 
 was,  that  which  the  doctor  was  to  declare,  whereunto  it  was  im- 
 pertinent what  the  answer  was ;  but  sufficient  it  was  to  show,  that 
 the  Donatists'  argument,  which  you  would  never  grant  good,  was 
 yet  as  good  as  yours,  and  therefore  yours  could  not  be  good. 
 Now  to  this  purpose,  as  the  concealing  the  answer  was  no  way 
 advantageous,  so  to  produce  it  was  not  necessary ;  and  therefore 
 he  did  you  more  service  than  he  was  bound  to,  in  referring  you 
 to  St.  Austin  for  an  answer  to  it.  Whereas  you  say,"  he  had 
 reason  to  conceal  it,  because  it  makes  directly  against  himself;" 
 I  say,  it  is  so  far  from  doing  so,  that  it  will  serve  in  proportion  to 
 the  argument,  as  fitly  as  if  it  had  been  made  for  it :  for  as  St. 
 Austin  says,  "that  catholics  approve  the  doctrine  of  Donatists, 
 but  abhor  their  heresy  of  rebaptization  ;"  so  we  say,  that  we  ap- 
 prove those  fundamental  and  simple  necessary  truths  which  you 
 retain,  by  which  some  good  soals  among  you  may  be  saved,  but 
 abhor  your  many  superstitions  and  heresies.  And  as  he  says, 
 that  as  gold  is  good,  yet  not  ought  to  be  sought  for  among  a  com- 
 pany 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  igno- 
 rant souls  among  you  to  salvation  ;  yet  are  they  not  to  be  sought 
 for  in  the  conventicles  of  papists,  who  hold  with  them  a  mixture 
 of  many  vanities  and  many  impieties.  For,  "  as  for  our  freeing 
 you  from  damnable  heresy,  and  yielding  you  salvation,"  (which, 
 stone  here  again  you  stumble  at,)  neither  he  nor  any  other  pro- 
 testant  is  guilty  of  it;  and  therefore  you  must  confess,  that  this 
 very  answer  will  serve  protestants  against  this  charm  of  papists, 
 as  well  as  St.  Austin  against  the  Donatists,  and  that  indeed  it 
 was  not  Dr.  Potter,  but  you,  that  without  a  sarcasm  had  reason 
 to  conceal  it. 
 
 28.  The  last  piece  of  Dr.  Potter's  book,  which  you  are  pleased 
 to  take  notice  of  in  the  first  j)art  of  yours,  is  an  argument  he 
 makes  in  your  behalf,  p.  79  of  his  book,  where  he  makes  you 
 speak  thus: — "  If  protestants  believe  the  religion  of  j)apists  to 
 be  a  safe  way  to  heaven,  why  do  they   not  follow  it  ?"     This 
 
49-i  THE    RELIGION    OF    PROTESTANTS    A    SAFER 
 
 argument  you  like  not  because  "  many  things  may  be  good,  and 
 yet  not  necessary  to  be  embraced  by  every  body ;"  and  therefore 
 scoff  at  it,  and  call  it  an  *'  argument  of  his  own,  a  wise  argument, 
 a  wise  demand  :"  and  then  ask  of  him  what  bethinks  of  it  being 
 framed  thus  :  "  Our  religion  is  safe,  even  by  your  confession ; 
 and  therefore  you  ought  to  grant  that  all  may  embrace  it."  And 
 yet  further,  thus :  "  Among  different  religions  one  only  can  be 
 safe,  But  yours,  by  our  own  confession,  is  safe ;  w^hereas  you 
 hold,  ^at  in  ours  there  is  no  hope  of  salvation ;  therefore  we 
 ought*  embrace  yours."  Answ.  I  have  advised  with  him,  and 
 am  to  tell  you  from  him,  that  he  thinks  reasonably  well  of  the 
 arguments,  but  very  ill  of  him  that  makes  them,  as  affirming  so 
 often  without  shame  and  conscience,  what  he  cannot  but  know 
 to  be  plainly  false  ;  and  his  reason  is,  because  he  is  so  far  from 
 confessing  or  giving  you  any  ground  to  pretend  he  does  confess, 
 "  that  your  religion  is  safe  for  all  that  are  of  it,"  from  w^hence 
 only  it  will  follow,  that  all  may  safely  embrace  it,  that  in  this 
 very  place  from  which  you  take  these  words,  he  professeth 
 plainly,  "  that  it  is  extremely  dangerous,  if  not  certaintly  damn- 
 able, to  all  such  as  profess  it,  when  either  they  do,  or  if  their 
 hearts  were  upright,  and  not  perversely  obstinate,  might  believe 
 the  contrary ;  and  that  for  us,  who  are  convinced  in  conscience 
 that  she  (the  Roman  church)  errs  in  many  things,  it  lies  upon 
 us,  even  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  forsake  her  in  those  errors  :" 
 and  though  here  you  take  upon  you  a  show  of  great  rigour,  and 
 will  seem  to  hold,  "  that  in  our  Vay  there  is  no  hope  of  salva- 
 tion ;"  yet  formerly  you  have  been  more  liberal  of  your  charity 
 towards  us,  and  will  needs  vie  and  contend  with  Dr.  Potter, 
 which  of  "  the  two  shall  be  more  charitable,"  assuring  us,  that 
 *'  you  allow  protestants  as  much  charity  as  Dr.  Potter  spares  you,* 
 for  whom  he  makes  ignorance  the  best  hope  of  salvation."  '  And 
 now  I  appeal  to  any  indifferent  reader,  whether  our  disavowing 
 to  confess  you  free  from  damnable  error  were  not  (as  I  pretend) 
 a  full  confutation  of  that  you  say  in  these  five  foregoing  para- 
 graphs: and  as  for  you,  I  wonder  what  answer,  what  evasion, 
 what  shift  you  can  devise  to  clear  yourself  from  dishonesty,  for 
 imputing  to  him,  almost  a  hundred  times,  this  acknowledgment, 
 which  he  never  makes,  but  very  often,  and  that  so  plainly  that 
 you  take  notice  of  it,  professeth  the  contrary. 
 
 29.  The  best  defence  that  possibly  can  be  made  for  you,  I  con- 
 ceive, is  this ;  that  you  were  led  into  this  error,  by  mistaking  a 
 supposition  of  a  confession  for  a  confession,  a  rhetorical  conces- 
 sion of  the  doctor's  for  a  positive  assertion.  He  says  indeed  of 
 your  errors,  "  Though  in  the  issue  they  be  not  damaable  to  them 
 which  believe  as  they  profess ;  yet  for  us  to  profess  what  we 
 believe  not,  were  without  question  damnable."  But  to  say, 
 J*  Though  your  errors  be  not  damnable,  we  may  not  profess  them,'* 
 is  not  to  say  your  errors  are  not  damnable,  but  only,  "  though 
 they  be  not."  As  if  you  should  say.  Though  the  church  err  in 
 points  not  fundamental,  yet  you  may  not  separate  from  it ;  or. 
 Though  we  do  err  in  believing  Christ  really  present,  yet  our 
 
 *  Chap.l.  §  4. 
 
WAY   TO   SALVATION    THAN    THAT    OF    PAPISTS.  495 
 
 error  frees  us  from  idolatry ;  or  as  if  a  protestant  should  say, 
 Though  you  do  not  commit  idolatry  in  adoring  the  host,  yet  being 
 uncertain  of  the  priest's  intention  to  consecrate,  at  least  you 
 expose  yourself  to  the  danger  of  it ;  1  presume  you  would  not 
 think  it  fairly  done,  if  any  man  should  interpret  either  this  last 
 speech  as  an  acknowledgment  that  you  do  not  commit  idolatry, 
 or  the  former  as  confessions,  that  you  do  err  in  points  not  funda- 
 mental, that  you  do  err  in  believing  the  real  presence.     And 
 therefore  you  ought  not  so  to  have  mistaken  Dr.  Potter's  words, 
 as  if  he  had  confessed  the  errors  of  your  church  not  damnable, 
 when  he  says  no  more  but  this.  Though  they  be  so,  or.  Suppose, 
 or  put  the  case  they  be  so,  yet  being  errors,  we  that  know  them 
 may  not  profess  them  to  be  Divine  truths.     Yet  this  mistake 
 might  have  been  pardonable,  had  not  Dr.  Potter,  in  many  places 
 of  his  book,  by  declaring  his  judgment  touching  the  quality  and 
 malignity  of  your  errors,  taken  away  from  you  all  occasion  of 
 error.    But  now  that  he  says  plainly,  "  That  your  church  hath 
 many  ways  played  the  harlot,  and  in  that  regard  deserved  a  bill 
 of  divorce  from  Christ,  and  the  detestation  of  Christians,"  p.  11  : 
 "  That  for  that  mass  of  errors  and  ahuses  in  judgment  and  prac- 
 tice, which  is  proper  to  her,  and  wherein  she  differs  from  us,  we 
 judge  a  reconciliation  impossible,  and  to  us  (who  ars  convicted 
 in  conscience  of  her  corruptions)  damnable,"  p.  20  :  "  That  popery 
 is  the  contagion  or  plague  of  the  church,"  p.  60  :  "  That  we  can- 
 not, we  dare  not,  communicate  with  her  in  her  public  liturgy, 
 which  is  manifestly  polluted  with  gross  superstition,"  p.  68 : 
 "  That  they  who  in  former  ages  died  in  the  church  of  Rome, 
 died  in   many   sinful   errors,"    p.    78:   "That   they   that  have 
 understanding  and  means  to  discover  their  errors,"  and  neglect 
 to  use    them,  he    dares    not    to    flatter    them  with  so   easy  a 
 censure  as  to  give   them   hope  of  salvation,"  p.  79  :    "  That 
 the  way  of  the  Roman  religion  is  not  safe,  but  very  danger- 
 ous, if  not  certainly  damnable,  to  such  as  profess  it,  when  they 
 believe  (or  if  their  hearts  were  uprghit,  and  not  perversely  obsti- 
 nate, might  believe)  the  contrary,"  p.  79  :  "  That  your  churcch 
 is  but  in  some  sense  a  true  church,  and  your  errors  only  to  some 
 men  not  damnable ;  and  that  we,  who  are  convinced  in  con- 
 science that  she  errs  in  many  things,  are,  under  pain  of  damna- 
 tion, to  forsake  her  in  those  errors  :"  seeing,  I  say,  he  says  all 
 this  so  plainly  and  so  frequently,  certainly  your   charging  him 
 falsely  with  this  acknowledgment,  and  building  a  great  part, 
 not  only  of  your  discourse  in  this  chapter,  but  of  your  whole 
 book  upon  it,  possibly  it  may  be  palliated  with  some   excuse, 
 but  it  can  no  way  be  defended  with  any  just  apology;  especially 
 seeing  you  yourself,  more  than  once  or  twice,  take  notice  of  these 
 his  severer  censures  of  your  church,  and  the  errors  of  it,  and 
 make  your  advantage  of  them.      In  the  first  number  of  your 
 first  chapter  you  set  down  three  of  the  former  places,  and  from 
 thence  infer,  that  "as  you  affirm  protestancy  unrepented  de- 
 stroys salvation,  so  Dr.  Potter  pronounces  the  like  heavy  doom 
 against  Roman  catholics :"  and  again,  sect.  4,  of  the  same  chap- 
 ter, "  We  allow  protestants  as  much  charity  as  Dr.  Potter  spares 
 
496  THE   RELIGION   OF    TROTESTANTS   A   S^FER 
 
 US,  far  whom  he  makes  i<Tnorance  the  best  hope  of  salvation. 
 And  chap.  5,  sect.  41,  you  have  these  words  ;  "  It  is  very  strange 
 that  you  judge  us  extremely  uncharitable  in  saying  protestants 
 cannot  be  saved,  while  yourself  avouch  the  same  of  all  learned 
 catholics,  whom  ignorance  cannot  excuse !"  Thus  out  of  the 
 same  mouth  you  blow  hot  and  cold ;  and  one  while,  when  it  is 
 for  your  purpose,  you  profess  Dr.  Potter  "  censures  your  errors 
 as  heavily  as  you  do  ours  ;"  which  is  very  true,  for  he  gives  hope 
 of  salvation  to  none  among  you,  but  to  those  whose  ignorance 
 was  the  cause  of  their  error,  and  no  sin  cause  of  their  igno- 
 rance ;  and  presently  after,  when  another  project  comes  in  your 
 head,  you  make  his  words  softer  than  oil  towards  you ;  you  pre- 
 tend he  does  and  must  confess  "  that  your  doctrine  contains  no 
 damnable  error,  that  your  church  is  certainly  a  true  church, 
 that  your  way  to  heaven  is  a  safe  way ;"  and  all  these  acknow- 
 ledgments you  set  down  simple  and  absolute,  without  any  re- 
 striction or  limitation ;  whereas  in  the  doctor  they  are  all  so 
 qualified,  that  no  knowing  papist  can  promise  himself  any  se- 
 curity or  comfort  from  them.  "  We  confess,"  saith  he,  "  the 
 church  of  Rome  to  be,  in  some  sense,  a  true  church,  and  her 
 errors,  to  some  men,  not  damnable;  we  believe  her  religion  safe, 
 that  is,  by  God's  great  mercy,  not  damnable,  to  some  such  as 
 believe  what  they  profess ;  but  we  believe  it  not  safe,  but  very 
 dangerous,  if  not  certainly  damnable,  to  such  as  profess  it, 
 when  they  believe  (or,  if  their  hearts  were  upright,  and  not  per- 
 versely obstinate,  might  believe)  the  contrary."  Observe,  I 
 pray  you,  these  restraining  terms  which  formerly  you  have  dis- 
 sembled :  "  A  true  church  in  some  sense — not  damnable  to  some 
 men — a  safe  way — that  is,  by  God's  great  mercy,  not  damnable 
 to  some  men."  And  then,  seeing  you  have  pretended  these  con 
 fessions  to  be  absolute,  which  ar^  thus  plainly  limited,  how  can 
 you  avoid  the  imputation  of  an  egregious  sophister  ?  You  quar- 
 rel wath  the  doctor,  in  the  end  of  your  preface,  for  using  in 
 his  book  such  ambiguous  terms  as  these,  " in  some  sort,"  "in 
 some  sense,"  "  in  some  degree ;"  and  desire  him,  if  "  he  make 
 any  reply,  either  to  forbear  them,  or  to  tell  you  roundly  in  what 
 sort,  in  what  sense,  in  what  degree,  he  understands  these  and 
 the  like  mincing  phrases."  But  the  truth  is,  he  hath  not  left 
 them  so  ambiguous  and  undetermined  as  you  pretend;  but  told 
 you  plainly  "in  v/hat  sense  your  church  may  pass  for  a  true 
 church,"  viz.  in  regard  we  may  hope  that  she  retains  those 
 truths  which  are  simply,  absolutely,  and  indispensably  neces- 
 sary to  salvation,  which  may  suffice  to  bring  those  good  souls  to 
 heaven  who  wanted  means  of  discovering  their  errors.  This 
 is  the  charitable  construction  in  which  you  may  pass  for  a 
 church  ;  and  "  to  what  men  your  religion  may  be  safe,  and  your 
 errors  not  damnable,"  viz.  to  such  whom  ignorance  may  excuse. 
 And  therefore  he  hath  more  cause  to  complain  of  you,  for 
 quoting  his  words  without  those  qualifications,  than  you  to  find 
 fault  with  him  for  using  cf  them. 
 
 30.  That  your  discourse  in  the  12th  section  presseth  you  as 
 forcibly  as  protestants,  I  have  showed  above.     I  add  here,  1. 
 
WAY    TO    SALVATION    THAN    THAT    OP    PAPISTS.  497 
 
 Whereas  you  say,  that  "  faith,  according  to  your  rigid  Calvi- 
 nists,  is  either  so  strong,  that  once  had  it  can  never  be  lost ;  or 
 so  more  than  weak,  and  so  much  nothing,  that  it  car.  never  be 
 gotten  ;"  that  these  are  words  without  sense.  Never  any  Cal- 
 vinist  affirmed  tliat  faith  was  so  weak,  and  so  much  nothing, 
 that  it  can  never  be  gotten  ;  but  it  seems  you  wanted  matter  to 
 make  up  your  antithesis,  and  tlierefore  were  resolved  to  speak 
 empty  words  rather  than  lose  your  figure  : 
 . .  ...  Crimina  rasis 
 Librat  in  antitetis,  doctas  posuisse  figuras 
 
 Laudatur 
 
 2.  That  there  is  no  Calvinist  that  will  deny  the  truth  of  this 
 proposition,  Christ  died  for  atl ;  nor  subscribe  to  that  sense  of  it 
 which  your  Dominicans  put  upon  it ;  neither  can  you,  with  co- 
 herence 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  suffi- 
 cient biTt  only  that  which  is  effectual.  3.  Whereas  you  say, 
 *'  They  cannot  make  their  calling  certain  by  good  works  ;  who 
 do  certainly  believe,  that  before  any  good  works  they  are  justi- 
 fied, 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  God's  favour  and 
 eternal  happiness.  This  being  granted,  the  rest  is  but  a  specu- 
 lative controversy,  a  question  about  words,  which  would  quickly 
 vanish,  but  that  men  affect  not  to  understand  one  another.  As 
 if  a  company  of  physicians  were  in  consultation,  and  should  all 
 agree  that  three  medicines,  and  no  more,  were  necessary  for  the 
 recovery  of  the  patient's  health ;  this  were  sufficient  for  his  di- 
 rection towards  the  recovery  of  his  health  ;  though  concerning 
 the  proper  and  specifical  effects  of  these  three  medicines,  there 
 should  be  amongst  them  as  many  differences  as  men  ;  so  like- 
 wise 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  suffi- 
 ciently agreed  for  men's  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  salva- 
 tion is  as  well  as  you,  and  have  as  much  resson  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  ob- 
 taining the  eternal  reward  without  good  works;  and  why  then 
 may  not  this  doctrine  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, 
 
 K  K 
 
498  THE    RELIGION   OF    PROTESTANTS   A   SAFER 
 
 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  mere  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  justificaton  cannot  with  candour 
 be  pretended  to  believe  that  they  are  justified  oefore  any  good 
 work. 
 
 32.  You  say,  "  They  believe  themselves  justified  by  faith 
 alone,  and  that  by  that  faith  whereby  they  believe  themselves 
 justified:"  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  pre- 
 sumption, and  is  at  no  hand  sufficient  to  justification ;  that 
 though  charity  be  not  imputed  unto  justification,  yet  it  is  re- 
 quired 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  doctrine  of  these  protestants, 
 taken  altogether,  is  not  a  doctrine  of  liberty,  not  a  doctrine  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  public  authority  it  were  so  ordered,  that 
 no  man  should  ever  preach  or  print  this  doctrine,  "  that  faith 
 alone  justifies,"  unless  he  joins  this  together  with  it,  *'that  uni- 
 versal obedience  is  necessary  to  salvation  :"  and  besides,  that 
 those  chapters  of  St.  Paul  which  entreat  of  justification  by 
 faith  without  the  works  of  the  law,  were  never  read  in  the 
 church,  but  when  the  13th  chap,  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
 Corinthians,  concerning  the  absolute  necessity  of  charity,, 
 should  be,  to  prevent  misprision,  read  together  with  them. 
 
 33.  Whereas  you  say,  that  *'  some  protestants  do  expressly 
 affirm  the  former  point  to  be  the  soul  of  the  church,  &c.,  and 
 that  therefore  they  must  want  the  theological  virtue  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  be- 
 lieve the  doctrine  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  im- 
 perfect will  not  justify,)  but  only  in  the  mercies  of  God  through 
 Christ's  satisfaction  ;  and  yet  notwithstanding  this,  nay,  the 
 rather  for  this,  may  preserve  themselves  in  the  right  temper  of 
 good  Christians,  which  is  a  happy  mixture  and  sweet  composi- 
 tion of  confidence  and  fear.  If  this  doctrine  be  otherwise  ex- 
 pounded 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  sohfidian,  but  that  he 
 
WAY    TO    SALVATION    THAN    THAT    OP    PAPISTS. 
 
 49  J 
 
 did  believe  these  Divine  truths  :  "  That  he  must  make  his  call- 
 ing certain  by  good  works — that  he  must  work  out  his  salvation 
 with  fear  and  trembhng— 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  him- 
 self is  predestinate,  and  that  he  is  justified  by  believing  himself 
 justified.     I  never  met  with  any  such,  who  if  he  saw  there  was 
 a  necessity  to  do  either,  would  not  rather  forego  his  belief  of 
 these  doctrines  than  the  former ;  these,  which  he  sees  disputed, 
 and  contradicted,  and  opposed,  with  a  great  multitude  of  very 
 potent  arguments,  than  those,  which  being  the  express  words  of 
 Scripture,  whosoever  should  call  into  question  could  not  with 
 any  modestly  pretend  to  the  title  of  Christian.     And  therefore 
 there  is  no  reason  but  we  may  believe  that  their  full  assurance 
 of  the  former  doctrine  doth  very  well  qualify  their  persuasion  of 
 the  latter ;  and  that  the  former  (as  also  the  lives  of  many  of 
 them  do  sufficiently  testify)  are  more  efiectual  to  temper  their 
 hope,  and  to  keep  it  at  a  stay  of  a  filial  and  modest  assurance  of 
 God's  favour,  built  upon  the  conscience  of  his  love  and  fear, 
 than  the  latter  can  be  to  swell  and  puff  them  up  into  vain  con- 
 fidence and  ungrounded  presumption.     This  reason,  joined  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  ourselves  that  it  cannot 
 be  offensive,  but  rather  most  acceptable  to  God,  if,  notwithstand- 
 ing this  diversity  of  opinion,  we  embrace  each  other  with  the 
 strict  embrace  of  love    and  communion.      To  you   and   your 
 church  we  leave  it,  to  separate  Christians  from  the  church,  and 
 to  proscribe  them  from  heaven  upon  trivial  and  trifling  causes. 
 As  for  ourselves,  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  there- 
 fore shall  always  choose  (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,  Yv^hereas  you  say,  that  "  seeing  protestants  differ 
 about  the  point  of  justification,  you  must  needs  infer  that  they 
 want  unity  in  faith,  and  consequently  ail  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  Polycrates ;  upon  Stephen  bishop  of 
 Eome,  and  St.  Cyprian;  inasmuch  as  it  is  undeniably  evident, 
 that  what  one  of  those  esteemed  necessary  to  salvation,  the  other 
 esteemed  not  so.  But  points  of  doctrine  (as  all  other  things)  are 
 as  they  are,  and  not  as  they  are  esteemed  :  neither  can  a  neces- 
 sary point  be  made  unnecessary  by  being  so  accounted,  or  an  un- 
 necessary 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   diverse   opinions 
 
500  WAY   TO   SALVATION    THAN   THAT   OF   PAPISTS- 
 
 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  yet  all  of  them  have 
 brains  and  have  hearts,  and  herein  agree  sufficiently:  so  likewise, 
 though  some  protestants  esteem  that  doctrine  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  difter  in  some  that  indeed  and 
 in  truth  are  so. 
 
 35.  Now  as  concerning  the  other  inference,  "  that  they  cannot 
 agree  what  points  are  fundamental ;"  1  have  said  and  proved 
 formerly,  that  there  is  no  such  necessity  as  you  imagine  or  pre- 
 tend, that  men  should  certainly  know  what  is  and  what  is  not 
 fundamental.  They  that  believe  all  things  plainly  delivered  in 
 Script  ure  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  some  hurtful  opinions,  for  necessary  and  fundamental 
 truths.  Besides,  I  have  showed  above,  that  as  protestants  do  not 
 agree  for  you  overreach  in  saying  they  cannot)  touching  what 
 points  are  fundamental ;  so  neither  do  you  ageee  what  points  are 
 defined,  and  so  to  be  accounted,  and  what  are  not;*  nay,  not  con- 
 cerning the  subject  in  which  God  hath  placed  this  pretended 
 authority  of  defining  ;  some  of  you  settling  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  un- 
 deniable, that  every  former  may  be  and  are  obliged  to  hold  many 
 things  defined,  and  therefore  necessary,  which  the  latter,  accord- 
 ing to  their  own  grounds,  have  no  obligation  to  do,  nay,  cannot 
 do  so  upon  any  firm  and  sure  and  infallible  foundation. 
 
 *  C.  3.  sect.  51  et  alibi. 
 
THE  CONCLUSION. 
 
 And  thus,  by  God's  assistance  and  the  advantage  of  a  good 
 cause,  I  am  at  length,  through  a  passage  rather  tiring  than 
 difhcnlt,  arrived  at  the  end  of  my  undertaken  voyage  ;  and  have, 
 as  I  suppose,  made  appear  to  all  disinterested  and  unprejudi- 
 cate  readers,  what  in  the  beginning  I  undertook,  that  a  vein  of 
 sophistry  and  calumny  runs  through  this  first  part  of  your  book; 
 where,  though  I  never  thought  of  the  directions  you  have  been 
 pleased  to  give  me  in  your  pamphlet,  entitled,  "  A  Director  to 
 N.  N.,"  yet  upon  consideration  of  my  ansvi^er,  I  find  that  I  have 
 proceeded  as  if  I  had  had  it  always  before  my  eyes,  and  steered 
 my  course  by  it,  as  by  a  card  and  compass. 
 
 For  first,  "  I  have"  not  proceeded  by  a  mere  destructive  way," 
 as  you  call  it,  nor  "  objected  such  difficulties  againstyour  religion, 
 as  upon  examination  tend  to  the  overthrow  of  all  religion  ;"  but 
 have  showed,  that  the  truth  of  Christianity  is  clearly  independent 
 upon  the  truth  of  popery  ;  and  that,  on  the  other  side,  the  argu- 
 ments you  urge,  and  the  courses  you  take,  for  the  maintenance  of 
 your  religion,  do  manifestly  tend  (if  they  be  closely  and  conse- 
 quently followed)  to  the  destruction  of  all  religion,  and  lead  men 
 by  the  hand  to  atheism  and  impiety  ;  whereof  I  have  given  you 
 ocular  demonstrations  in  divers  places  of  my  book ;  but  especially 
 in  my  answer  to  your  "Direction  to  N.  N." 
 
 Neither  can  I  "  discover  any  repugnance  between  any  one  part 
 of  my  answer  and  any  other."  though  I  have  used  many  more 
 judicious  and  more  searching  eyes  than  my  own,  to  make,  if  it 
 were  possible,  such  a  discovery ;  and  therefore  am  in  good  hope, 
 that  though  the  music  I  have  made  be  but  dull  and  flat,  and  even 
 down  right  plain-song,  even  your  curious  and  critical  ears  shall 
 discover  no  discord  in  it;  but  on  the  other  side,  I  have  charged 
 you  frequently,  and  very  justly,  with  manifest  contradiction  and 
 retraction  of  your  own  assertions,  and  not  seldom  of  the  main 
 grounds  you  build  upon,  and  the  principal  conclusions  which 
 you  endeavour  to  maintain :  which  I  conceive  myself  to  have 
 made  apparent  even  to  the  eye,  c.  2.  §  5,  c.  3  §  88.  c.  4.  §  14  and 
 24.  c.  5.  §  93.  C.6  §  6,  7,  12,  17,  c.  7.  §  29.  and  in  many  other  parts 
 of  my  answer. 
 
 And  though  1  did  never  pretend  to  defend  Dr.  Potter  abso- 
 lutely and  In  all  things,  but  only  so  far  as  he  defends  truth, 
 (neither  did  Dr.  Potter  desire  me,  nor  any  law  of  God  or  man 
 oblige  me,  to  defend  him  any  further,)  yet  I  do  not  find  that  I 
 have  cause  to  differ  from  him  in  any  matter  of  moment,  parti- 
 cularly, "not  concerning  the  infallibility  of  God's  church," 
 which  I  grant  v/ith  him  to  be  infallible  in  fundamentals,  be- 
 cause if  it  should  err  in  fundamentals,  it  were  not  the  church ; 
 nor  concerning  the  supernaturahty  of  faith,"  which  I  know 
 and  believe,  as  well  as  you,  to  be  the  gift  of  God,  and  that  flesh 
 and  Mood  revealed  it  not  unto  us,  hut  oiir  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 
 
.502  THE    CONCLUSION. 
 
 But  now,  if  it  were  demanded,  What  defence  you  can  make  for 
 deserting  "  Charity  Mistaken,"  in  the  main  question  disputed 
 between  him  and  Dr.  Potter,  "  Whether  protestancy,  without  a 
 particular  repentance  and  dereliction  of  it,  destroy  salvation," 
 whereof  I  have  convinced  you ;  I  believe  your  answer  would  be 
 much  like  which  Ulysses  makes  in  the  Metamorphosis  for  his 
 running  away  from  his  frieud  Nestor;  that  is,  none  at  all. 
 
 For  "  opposing  the  Articles  of  the  church  of  England,"  the 
 approbation,  I  presume,  clears  my  book  from  this  imputation. 
 
 And  whereas  you  gave  me  a  caution,  "that  my  grounds 
 destroy  not  the  belief  of  divers  doctrines,  which  all  good  Chris- 
 tians believe,  yea,  and  of  all  verities  that  cannot  be  proved  by 
 natural  reason  ;"  I  profess  sincerely,  that  I  do  not  know  nor 
 believe  that  any  ground  laid  by  me  in  my  whole  book  is  any 
 way  inconsistent  with  any  one  such  doctrine,  or  with  any  verity 
 revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  though  never  so  improbable  or  in- 
 comprehensible to  natural  reason;  and  if  I  thought  there  were, 
 1  would  deal  with  it  as  those  primitive  converts  dealt  with  their 
 curious  books  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
 
 For  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  and  those  other  books  which  were 
 anciently  controverted,  and  are  now  received  by  the  church  of 
 England  as  canonical,  I  am  so  far  from  relying  upon  any  prin- 
 ciples which  must,  to  my  apprehension,  bring  with  them  the  de- 
 nial of  the  authority  of  them,  that  I  myself  believe  them  all  to 
 be  canonical. 
 
 For  the  overthrowing  the  infallibility  of  all  Scripture,  my 
 book  is  so  innocent  cf  it,  that  the  infallibility  of  all  Scripture, 
 is  the  chiefest  of  all  my  grounds. 
 
 And,  lastly,  for  arguments  "  tending  to  prove  an  impossibility 
 of  all  Divine,  supernatural,  infallible  faith  and  religion,"  I  assure 
 myself,  that  if  you  were  ten  times  more  a  spider  than  you  are, 
 you  could  suck  no  such  poison  from  them.  My  heart,  I  am 
 sure,  is  innocent  of  any  such  intention ;  and  the  Searcher  of  all 
 hearts  knows  that  I  had  no  other  end  in  writing  this  book,  but 
 to  confirm,  to  the  uttermost  of  my  ability,  the  truth  of  the  Divine 
 and  infallible  religion  of  our  dearest  Lord  and  Saviour  Christ 
 Jesus,  which  1  am  ready  to  seal  and  confirm,  not  with  my  argu- 
 ments only,  but  my  blood. 
 
 "Now  these  are  the  directions  which  you  have  been  pleased 
 to  give  me,  whether  out  of  a  fear  that  I  might  otherwise  deviate 
 from  them,  or  out  of  a  desire  to  make  others  think  so ;  but  how- 
 soever, I  have  not,  to  my  understanding,  swerved  from  them  in 
 any  thing ;  which  puts  me  in  good  hope,  that  my  ansv^'er  to  the 
 first  part  of  your  book  will  give  even  to  yourself  indifferent  good 
 satisfaction. 
 
 I  have  also  provided,  though  this  were  more  than  I  undertook, 
 a  just  and  punctual  examination  and  refutation  of  your  second 
 part ;  but,  if  you  will  give  your  consent,  am  resolved  to  suppress 
 it,  and  that  for  divers  sufficient  and  reasonable  considerations. 
 
 First,  Because  the  discussion  of  the  controversies  entreated  of 
 in  the  first  part,  if  we  shall  think  fit  to  proceed  in  it,  as  I  for  my 
 part  shall,  so  long  as  I  have  truth  to  reply,  will,  1  conceive,  be 
 
THE   CONCLUSION.  503 
 
 sufficient  employment  for  us,  though  we  cast  off  the  burden  of 
 those  many  lesser  disputes  which  remain  behind  in  the  second. 
 And  perhaps  we  may  do  God  and  his  church  more  service  by 
 exactly  discussing  and  fully  clearing  the  truth  in  these  few,  than 
 by  handling  many  after  a  slight  snd  perfunctory  manner. 
 
 '  Secondly,  Because  the  addition  of  the  second  part,  whether  for 
 your  purpose  or  mine,  is  clearly  unnecessary  ;  there  being  no 
 understanding  man,  papist  or  protestant,  but  will  confess,  that 
 (for  as  much  as  concerns  the  main  question  now  in  agitation, 
 about  the  saveableness  of  protestants)  if  the  first  part  of  your 
 book  be  answered,  there  needs  no  reply  to  the  second:  as,  on 
 the  other  side,  I  shall  willingly  grant,  if  I  have  not  answered 
 the  first,  I  cannot  answer  a  great  part  of  the  second. 
 
 Thirdly,  Because  the  addition  of  the  second  not  only  is  unne- 
 cessary, but  in  effect  by  yourself  confessed  to  be  so.  For  in 
 your  preamble  to  your  second  part  you  tell  us,  "  that  the  sub- 
 stance of  the  present  controversy  is  handled  in  the  first ;  and 
 therein  also  you  pretend  to  have  answered  the  chief  grounds  of 
 Dr.  Potter's  book :"  so  that  in  replying  to  your  second  part,  I 
 shall  do  little  else  but  pursue  shadows. 
 
 Fourthly,  Because  your  second  part  (setting  aside  repetitions 
 and  references)  is  in  a  manner  made  up  of  disputes  about  par- 
 ticular matters,  which  you  are  very  importunate  to  have  for- 
 borne, as  suspecting,  at  least  pretending  to  suspect,  that  they 
 "  were  brought  in  purposely  by  Dr.  Potter  to  dazzle  the  reader's 
 eyes  and  distract  his  mind,  that  he  might  not  see  the  clearness 
 of  the  reasons  brought  in  defence  of  the  general  doctrine  deli- 
 vered in  Charity  Mistaken:"  all  which  you  are  likely  enough,  if 
 there  be  occasion,  to  say  again  to  me ;  and  therefore  I  am  re- 
 solved for  once  even  to  humour  you  so  far  as  to  keep  my  dis- 
 course within  those  very  lists  and  limits  which  yourself  have 
 jDrescribed,  and  to  deal  with  you  upon  no  other  arguments,  but 
 only  those  wherein  you  conceive  your  chief  advantage  and  prin- 
 cipal strength,  and,  as  it  were,  your  Samson's  lock,  to  lie  ;  where- 
 in if  I  gain  the  cause  clearly  from  you,  (as  I  verily  hope  by 
 God's  help  I  shall  do,)  it  cannot  but  redound  much  to  the  ho- 
 nour of  the  truth  maintained  by  me,  which  by  so  weak  a  cham- 
 pion can  overcome  such  an  Achilles  in  error,  even  in  his  strongest 
 holds. 
 
 For  these  reasons,  although  I  have  made  ready  an  answer  to 
 your  second  part,  and  therein  have  made  it  sufficiently  evident, 
 that,  for  shifting-  evasions  from  Dr.  Potter's  arguments,  for  im- 
 pertinent cavils,  and  frivolous  exceptions,  and  injurious  calum- 
 nies against  him  for  his  misalleging  of  authors  ;  for  proceeding 
 upon  false  and  ungrounded  principles  ;  for  making  inconsequent 
 and  sophistical  deductions ;  and,  in  a  word,  for  all  the  virtues 
 of  an  ill  answer,  your  second  part  is  no  way  second  to  the  first ; 
 yet  notwithstanding  ail  this  disadvantage,  I  am  resolved,  if  you 
 will  give  me  leave,  either  wholly  to  suppress  it,  or  at  least  to 
 defer  the  publication  of  it,  until  I  see  what  exceptions,  upon  a 
 twelvemonth's  examination,  (for  so  long,  I  am  well  assured,  you 
 have  had  it  in  your  hands,)  you  can  take  at  this  which  is  now 
 
504  T"^   CONCLUSION. 
 
 published ;  that  so,  if  my  grounds  be  discovered  false,  I  may- 
 give  over  building  on  them ;  or  (if  it  shall  be  thought  fit)  build 
 on  more  securely,  when  it  shall  appear  that  nothing  material 
 and  of  moment  is  or  can  be  objected  against  them.  This  I  say 
 upon  a  supposition  that  yourself  will  allow  these  reasons  for 
 satisfying  and  sufficient,  and  not  repent  of  the  motion  which 
 yourself  has  made,  of  reducing  the  controversy  between  us  to 
 this  short  issue.  But  in  case  your  mind  be  altered,  upon  the 
 least  intimation  you  shall  give  me,  that  you  do  but  desire  to 
 have  it  out,  your  desire  shall  prevail  with  me  above  all  other 
 reasons,  and  you  shall  not  fail  to  receive  it  with  all  convenient 
 speed. 
 
 Only,  that  my  answer  may  be  complete,  and  that  I  may  have 
 all  my  work  together,  and  not  be  troubled  myself,  nor  enforced 
 to  trouble  you,  with  after-reckonings,  I  would  first  entreat  you 
 to  make  good  your  promise,  of  not  "  omitting  to  answer  all  the 
 particles  of  Dr.  Potter's  book,  which  may  any  way  import,"  and 
 now  at  least  to  take  notice  of  some  (as  it  seems  to  me)  not  incon- 
 siderable passages  of  it,  which  between  your  first  and  second 
 part,  as  it  were  between  two  stools,  have  been  suffered  hitherto 
 to  fall  to  the  ground,  and  not  been  vouchsafed  any  answer  at  all. 
 
 For  after  this  neglectful  fashion  you  have  passed  by  in  silence, 
 first  his  discourse,  wherin  he  proves  briefly,  but  very  effectually, 
 that  "  protestants  may  be  saved,  and  that  the  Roman  church, 
 especially  the  Jesuits,  are  very  uncharitable  :"  s.  1.  p.  6—9. 
 Secondly,  The  authorities  whereby  he  justifies,  that  "the  ancient 
 fathers  by  the  Roman  understood  always  a  particular,  and  never 
 the  catholic  church  ;"  to  which  purpose  he  allege th  the  words  of 
 Ignatius,  Ambrose,  Innocentius,  Celestine,  Nicolaus:  s.  1.  p.  10  ; 
 whereunto  yon  say  nothing,  neither  do  you  infringe  his  observa- 
 tion with  any  one  instance  to  the  contrary. 
 
 Thirdly,  The  greatest  and  most  substantial  part  of  his  answers 
 to  the  arguments  of  Charity  Mistaken,  built  upon  Deut.  xvii., 
 Numb,  xvi..  Matt,  xxviii.  20.,  Matt,  xviii.  17,  and  in  particular 
 many  pregnant  and  convincing  texts  of  Scripture,  quoted  in  the 
 margin  of  his  book,  p.  25,  to  prove  that  the  judges  of  the  syna- 
 gogue (whose  infallibility  yet  you  make  an  argument  of  yours, 
 and  therefore  must  be  more  credible  than  yours)  are  vainiy  pre- 
 tended to  have  been  infallible :  bnt  as  they  were  obliged  to 
 judo-e  according  to  the  law,  so  were  obnoxious  to  deviations  from 
 if.l  2.  p.  23-27. 
 
 Fourthly,  His  discourse,  wherein  he  shows  the  difference  be- 
 tween the  prayers  for  the  dead  used  by  the  ancients,  and  those 
 now  in  use  in  the  Roman  church. 
 
 Fifthly,  The  authority  of  three  ancient  and  above  twenty 
 modern  doctors  of  your  own  church,  alleged  by  him  to  show,  that 
 in  their  opinion  pagans,  and  therefore  much  more  erring  Chris- 
 tians, (if  their  lives  were  morally  honest,)  by  God's  extraordinary 
 mercy,  and  Christ's  merit,  may  be  saved:   s.  2.  p.  45. 
 
 Sixthly,  A  great  part  of  his  discourse,  whereby  he  declares 
 that  actual  and  external  communion  with  the  church  is  not  of 
 absolute  necessity  to  salvation  ;  nay,  that  those  might  be  saved 
 
THE    CONCLUSION.  505 
 
 whom  the  church  utterly  refused  to  admit  to  her  communion  : 
 8.  2.  p.  46—49. 
 
 Seventhly,  His  discourse  concerning  the  church's  latitude, 
 which  hath  in  it  a  clear  determination  of  the  main  controversy 
 against  you :  for  therein  he  proves  plainly,  that  all  appertain  "  to 
 the  church,  who  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
 and  Saviour  of  the  world,  with  submission  to  his  doctrine"  in 
 mind  and  will ;  which  he  irrefragably  demonstrates  by  many 
 evident  texts  of  Scripture,  containing  the  substance  of  his  asser- 
 tion even  in  terms  :  s.  4.  p.  114 — 117. 
 
 Eighthly,  That  wherein  he  shows,  by  many  pertinent  ex- 
 amples, that  '•'  gross  error  and  true  faith  may  be  lodged  together 
 in  the  same  mind ;"  and  that  men  are  not  "  chargeable  with  the 
 damnable  consequences  of  their  own  erroneous  opinions  ;"  s.  4. 
 p*  112. 
 
 Ninthly,  A  very  great  part  of  his  chapter,  touching  "  the  dis- 
 sensions of  the  Roman  church,"  which  he  shows  (against  the 
 pretences  of  Charity  Mistaken)  "  to  be  no  less  than  ours,  for  the 
 importance  of  the  matter,  and  the  pursuit  of  them  to  be  exceed- 
 ingly uncharitable :"  s.  6.  p.  188—191,  193—197. 
 
 Tenthly,  His  clear  refutation  and  just  representation  of  "  the 
 doctrine  of  implicit  faith,  as  it  is  delivered  by  the  doctors  of 
 your  church  :"  which  he  proves  very  consonant  to  the  doctrine 
 of  heretics  and  infidels,  but  evidently  repugnant  to  the  word  of 
 God  :  s.  6.  p.  201—205. 
 
 Lastly,  His  discourse,  wherein  he  shows  that  "  it  is  unlawful 
 for  the  church  of  after-ages  to  add  any  thing  to  the  faith  of  the 
 apostles  ;"  and  many  of  his  arguments,  whereby  he  proves  that 
 in  the  "judgment  of  the  ancient  church  the  Apostles'  Creed 
 was  esteemed  a  sufficient  summary  of  the  necessary"  points  of 
 simple  belief;  and  a  great  number  af  great  authorities,  to  justify 
 the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England,  touching  the  canon  of 
 Scripture,  especially  the  Old  Testament  :  s.  7-  p.  221,  223,  228, 
 229. 
 
 All  these  parts  of  Dr.  Potter's  book,  for  reasons  best  known 
 to  yourself,  you  have  dealt  with,  as  the  priest  and  Levite  in  the 
 gospel  did  with  the  wounded  Samaritan,  that  is,  only  looked  upon 
 them,  and  passed  by  ;  but  now  at  least  when  you  are  admonished 
 of  it,  that  my  reply  to  your  second  part  (if  you  desire  it)  may 
 be  perfect,  1  would  entreat  you  to  take  them  into  your  considera- 
 tion, and  to  make  some  show  of  saying  something  to  them,  lest 
 otherwise  the  world  should  interpret  your  obstinate  si'ence  a 
 plain  confession  that  you  can  say  nothing. 
 
 *  Page  122.— Oxf. 
 
 THE  END. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Note.— The  figures  within  the  parentheses  refer  to  the  paragraph ;  and  those  whicli 
 follow  to  the  paffe. 
 
 Protestants  agree  in  more  things 
 than  they  differ  in,  by  believing  the 
 Scripture  (49,  50),  270,  272. 
 
 We  may  have  as  many  rational 
 means  of  agreement  as  the  Papists  (7, 
 8),  175. 
 
 Papists  pretend  to  means  of  agree- 
 ment and  do  not  agree  (3-6),  174. 
 
 Not  necessary  to  find  a  church 
 agreeing  with  Protestants  in  all  points 
 (19),  42;  (27),_.337. 
 
 Antiquity  vainly  pleaded  for  Ro- 
 mish doctrines  and  practices,  since 
 many  errors  are  more  ancient  than 
 some  of  their  doctrines  (19),  333. 
 
 Apostles  erred  after  the  sending  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost  (33),  189. 
 
 The  apostolic  church  an  infallible 
 guide,  to  which  we  may  resort,  being 
 present  to  us  by  her  writings  {Q'd, 
 80),  214,  222. 
 
 That  the  church  has  power  to 
 make  new  articles  of  faith,  asserted 
 by  the  Romish  doctors  (18),  251. 
 
 This  one  article  —  I  believe  the 
 Roman  catholic  church  to  be  infal- 
 lible—  if  their  doctrines  were  true, 
 would  secure  against  heresy  more 
 than  the  whole  Creed  (77-79),  284, 
 285;  (83),  287. 
 
 Assent,  evidence  the  cause  thereof, 
 (51),  458. 
 
 Christ's  assistance  promised  to  the 
 church,  to  lead  her  into  more  than 
 
 necessary  truths  (61,  62),  351,  352. 
 
 Assistance,  Divine,  who  shall  have 
 it  (88),  365. 
 
 Atheism  and  irreligion  spring  easily 
 from  some  Romish  doctrines  and 
 practices  (7,  8),  36. 
 
 Attrition,  what  (4),  61. 
 
 St.  Augustine' s  saying,  Evangelio 
 non  crederem,  &c.  how  to  be  under- 
 stood (54),  111;  (97-99),  126. 
 
 St.  Augustine's  testimony  against 
 the  Donatists  not  cogent  against  Pro- 
 testants (163),  155. 
 
 St.  Augustine''s  words,  No  neces- 
 sity to  divide  unity,  explained  (10), 
 329. 
 
 The  Author's  vindication  from  sus- 
 picion of  heresy  (28),  50. 
 
 The  Author's  motives  to  turn  a 
 Papist,  with  answers  to  them  (42, 
 43),  20. 
 
 B. 
 
 Baptism,  what  (7),  481. 
 
 Baptising  of  children  not  proveable 
 by  Scripture  (7),  481. 
 
 Belief.  Things  worthy  to  be  be- 
 lieved not  always  necessary  to  be  be- 
 lieved (46),  197.  Things  necessary  to 
 be  believed,  what  (17),  402;  (101), 
 127;  (13),  178. 
 
 Belief  \n  Christ,  what  (13),  178. 
 
 Bible  only  is  the  religion  of  Pro- 
 testants (56),  462. 
 
A  TABLE  OF  PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 
 
 507 
 
 The  Bible,  which  is  the  religion  of 
 Protestants,  to  be  preferred  before  the 
 way  of  Romish  religion,  shewed  at 
 large  (56-72),  462-467. 
 
 C. 
 
 The  Calvinists*  rigid  doctrine  of 
 predetermination  unjustly  reproached 
 by  Papists,  who  communicate  with 
 those  that  hold  the  same  (30),  496. 
 
 To  give  a  catalogue  of  our  funda- 
 mentals not  necessaiy  nor  possible 
 (27),  48;  (13),  178;  (53),  204. 
 
 Want  of  such  a  catalogue  leaves 
 us  not  uncertain  in  our  faith  (14), 
 180. 
 
 Papists  as  much  bound  to  give  a 
 catalogue  of  the  church's  proposals, 
 which  are  their  fundamentals,  and  yet 
 do  it  not  (53),  204. 
 
 Our  general  catalogue  of  funda- 
 mentals as  theirs  (12),  247;  (35), 
 500. 
 
 Catholic  church  : — I  believe  in  the 
 catholic  church  —  what  it  signifies 
 (41),  315. 
 
 Ceremonies  {i2),  195. 
 Moral  certainty  a  sufficient  foun- 
 dation of  faith  (154),  149. 
 
 Certainty,  actual,  may  be  without 
 absolute  infallibility  (26),  184.  What 
 certainty  required  (154),  149. 
 
 A  Protestant  may  have  certainty, 
 though  disagreeing  Protestants  all 
 pretend  to  like  certainty  (13),  488. 
 
 What  charity  Papists  allow  to  us 
 Protestants,  and  we  to  them  (1,  3-5), 
 59,  60-63. 
 
 A  charitable  judgment  should  be 
 made  of  such  as  err,  but  lead  good 
 lives  (33),  498. 
 
 Protestant  charity  to  ignorant  Pa- 
 pists, no  comfort  lo  them  that  will 
 not  see  their  errors  (76),  359- 
 
 Christianity  must  be  known  before 
 the  church  (53),  273. 
 
 Church,  by  what  constituted,  ibid.  -, 
 true  visible,  what  (19),  42.  Its  visi- 
 bility may  cease  (13),  331.  Visible 
 church  in  some  cases  may  be  resisted 
 (164),  156.  Where  to  be  hearkened 
 to  (3),  34.  Whaterrors  free  from (64), 
 353.  Itmaverr(ll),  177;  (70),  216. 
 How  far  to  be  obeyed  (58),  210.  Its 
 communion,  when  to    be   separated 
 
 from  (11),  177.  What  authority  it 
 hath  to  decide  controversies  of  faith 
 (162),  154.  No  particular  church 
 secured  from  erring  in  fundamentals 
 {bb),  206.  The  same  church,  what 
 (11),  177.  Not  judge  of  controver- 
 sies (20),  424.  Its  perpetuity  not 
 necessary  (13),  420. 
 
 The  church  how  furnished  with 
 means  to  determine  controversies  (7, 
 11),  64,  68. 
 
 Church  of  Rome,  how  a  true  church 
 (20),  424.  Not  infallible,  nor  our 
 guide  (29),  494. 
 
 We  may  be  a  true  church,  though 
 deriving  ordination  and  z*eceiving 
 Scripture  from  a  false  one  (54),  205. 
 Circumstances  of  worship,  how  far 
 to  be  taken  from  the  church  (42), 
 195. 
 
 Commands  in  Scripture  to  hear  the 
 church,  and  obey  it,  suppose  it  not 
 infallible  (41),  195. 
 
 Common  truths  believed,  may  pre- 
 serve them  good,  that  otherwise  err 
 (33),  498. 
 
 Concord  in  damned  errors  worse 
 than  disagreement  in  controverted 
 points  (72),  357. 
 
 Conscience,  how  far  it  justifies  dis- 
 obedience to  superiors  (108),  382. 
 
 The  consequence  of  men's  opinions 
 may  be  unjustly  charged  upon  them 
 (12),  68;  (30),  270. 
 
 Contradictions  a  man  may  believe 
 (46),  266. 
 
 Controversies  in  religion  not  neces- 
 sary to  be  all  determined  (7),  64; 
 (88),  226.  Means  of  ending  them 
 (7,  8),  175. 
 
 How  controversies  about  Scripture 
 itself  are  to  be  decided  (27),  101. 
 
 Controversies  not  necessary  to  be 
 decided  by  a  judicial  sentence,  with- 
 out any  appeal  (85),  121. 
 
 Creed,  how  it  contains  the  cre- 
 denda  necessary  to  be  proposed  (12), 
 247;  and  believed  (1),  59;  (21,  &c.), 
 254 ;  (65),  280  ;  (73),  283.  All  the 
 points  in  it  not  fundamental  (69), 
 182;  and  why  (75),  283. 
 
 That  the  Creed  contains  all  neces- 
 sary points,  and  how  to  be  understood 
 (23),  256;  (73,  74),  283. 
 Not    necessary    that    our    Creed 
 
508 
 
 A  TABLE  OF 
 
 should  be  larger  than  that  of  the 
 apostles  (67),  281;  (70-72),  281, 
 282. 
 
 Damnable  (21),  43;  (26),  44. 
 Befining  is  no  more  than  declaring 
 what  the  word  signifies  (22),  334. 
 
 St.  Dennis  of  Alexandria's  saying 
 explained,  about  not  dividing  the 
 church  (12),  331. 
 
 To  deny  a  truth  witnessed  by  God, 
 whether  always  damnable  (9),  37. 
 
 The  apostle's  depositing  truth  with 
 the  church,  no  argument  that  she 
 should  always  keep  it  sincere  and 
 entire  (148),  147. 
 
 Of  disagreeing  Protestants,  though 
 one  side  must  err,  yet  both  may  hope 
 for  salvation  (22),  43;  (10),  67; 
 (13),  70;  (17),  71. 
 
 Two  may  disagree  in  a  matter  of 
 faith,  and  yet  neither  be  chargeable 
 with  denying  a  declared  truth  of  God 
 (10),  39. 
 
 Differences  among  Protestants 
 vainly  objected  against  them  (2,  3,  5), 
 174. 
 
 No  reason  to  reproach  them  for 
 their  differences  about  necessary 
 truths  and  damnable  errors  (52), 
 202. 
 
 Disbelief,  when  a  fault  (9),  37. 
 What  is  requisite  to   convince  a 
 man  that  a  doctrine  comes  from  God 
 (8),  36. 
 
 Believing  the  doctrine  of  Scripture 
 a  man  may  be  saved,  though  he  did 
 not  believe  it  to  be  the  word  of  God 
 (159),  153. 
 
 The  Donatists'  error  about  the  ca- 
 tholic church,  what  it  was  and  was 
 not  (64j,  212. 
 
 The  Donatists'  case  and  ours  not 
 alike  (101),  376. 
 
 The  Roman  church  guilty  of  the 
 Donatists'  error,  in  persuading  men, 
 as  good  not  to  be  Christians,  as  not 
 Roman  Catholics  (6t),  212. 
 
 Papists  liker  to  the  Donatists  than 
 we,  by  their  uncharitable  denying  of 
 salvation  out  of  their  church  (21,  22), 
 491;  (27),  493. 
 
 E. 
 English  divines   vindicated    from 
 
 inclining  to  popery,  and  for  want  of 
 skill  in  school  divinity  (19),  42. 
 
 Errors,  damnable,  what  and  how 
 (6,  7,)  36;  (26),  44;  (29),  50;  (4), 
 61;  (12),  68;  (12),  96;  (11),  177; 
 (17),  180;  (52),  202;  (14),  268; 
 (49),  270.  Dangerous,  ib.  Funda- 
 mental (21),  43  ;  (9),  176.  Sinful 
 (26),  44.  Venial  (29),  494.  Secu- 
 rity from  fundamental  errors,  how 
 {5i6),  207. 
 
 In  what  case  errors  damnable  may 
 not  damn  those  that  hold  them  (58), 
 438  ;  (14),  236. 
 
 In  what  case  errors  not  damnable 
 may  be  damnable  to  those  that  hold 
 them  (66),  354. 
 
 No  man  to  be  reproached  for 
 quitting  his  errors  (103),  37  7i 
 
 Though  we  may  pardon  the  Roman 
 church  for  her  errors,  yet  we  may 
 not  sin  with  it  (70),  356. 
 
 Errors  of  the  Roman  church  that 
 endanger  salvation  to  be  forsaken, 
 though  they  are  not  destructive  of  it 
 (6),  480. 
 
 Erring  persons  that  lead  good 
 lives,  should  be  judged  of  charitably 
 (33),  498. 
 
 A  man  may  learn  of  the  church  to 
 confute  its  errors  (40),  195. 
 
 We  did  well  to  forsake  the  Roman 
 church  for  her  errors,  though  we 
 afterwards  may  err  out  of  it  (636-5), 
 353,  354  ;  (67),  355  ;  (8?),  364  ;  (92), 
 368. 
 
 We  must  not  adhere  to  a  church 
 in  professing  the  least  errors,  lest 
 we  should  not  profess  with  her  neces- 
 sary doctrine  (56),  207. 
 
 Eucharist  given  to  infants,  ac- 
 counted an  apostolic  tradition  by  St. 
 Augustine,  &c.  (10),  39;  (42),  195. 
 
 The  examples  of  those  that,  for- 
 saking popish  errors,  have  denied  ne- 
 cessary truths,  no  argument  against 
 Protestants  (63),  211. 
 
 External  communion  of  a  church 
 may  be  left  without  leaving  a  churcli 
 (32),  339  ;  (45),  343  ;  (47),  ib. 
 
 Faith,  what  (8),  65.  It  is  not 
 knowledge  (2),  412.  Articles  of  faith 
 necessary  to  be   believed   (17),  42; 
 
PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 
 
 509 
 
 (144),  145;  (159),  153;  (2),  174. 
 Faith,  certain,  how  required  (9),  66 
 Matter  of  faith  (10),  67.  Scripture 
 the  sole  and  adequate  object  of  faith 
 (101),  127.  Faith  in  Christ,  what 
 (13),  178.  Faith  no  new  article  (28), 
 186.  No  article  of  faith  can  be  made 
 or  declared  by  any  one,  which  was 
 not  made  and  declared  before  ( 1 8 ) ,  1 0. 
 
 Whether  faith  be  destroyed,  by 
 denying  a  truth  testified  by  God  (25), 
 44;  (49),  454;  (19),  490. 
 
 The  objects  oi faith,  of  two  sorts  ; 
 essential  and  occasional  (3),  245. 
 
 Certainty  oi  faith,  less  than  the 
 highest  degree,  may  please  God,  and 
 save  a  man  (8),  Qo  ;  (3-5),  412- 
 414. 
 
 Faith,  less  than  infallibly  certain, 
 may  resist  temptations  and  difficul- 
 ties (5),  414. 
 
 There  may  be  faith,  where  the 
 church  and  its  infallibility  begets  it 
 not  (49),  108. 
 
 Faith  does  not  go  before  Scripture, 
 but  follows  its  efficacy  (48),  108. 
 
 Protestants  have  sufficient  means 
 to  know  the  certainty  of  their  faith 
 (152),  148. 
 
 In  the  Roman  church,  the  last  re- 
 solution oi  faith  is  into  motives  of 
 credibility  (154),  149. 
 
 The  fathers  declared  their  judg- 
 ment of  articles,  but  did  not  require 
 their  declarations  to  be  received  under 
 anathema  (18),  257. 
 
 Protestants  did  not  forsake  the 
 church,  though  they  forsook  its  er- 
 rors (11),  177. 
 
 ^nf^cxtnt foundation  for  faith  with- 
 out infallible  certainty  (6),  415  ;  (45), 
 452. 
 
 Fundamentals,  what  (20,  21),  182  ; 
 (51),  202;  (52),  272.  Differences  in 
 fundamentals  (19),  181  ;  (13),  178; 
 (19),  253.  Not  necessary  to  have  a 
 list  of  them  (53),  204.  Who  secure 
 from  erring  in  them  (64),  353.  No 
 infallible  guide  in  fundamentals  (39), 
 194. 
 
 Fundamental  errors  twofold  (88), 
 365. 
 
 To  be  unerring  in  fundamentals 
 can  be  said  of  no  church  of  one  de- 
 nomination (55),  206. 
 
 To  say  that  there  shall  always  be  a 
 church  not  erring  in  fmidamentals,  is 
 to  say  that  there  shall  be  always  a 
 church  (35),  192. 
 
 A  church  is  not  safe,  though  re- 
 taining fundamentals,  when  it  builds 
 hay  and  stubble  on  the  foundation, 
 and  neglects  to  reform  her  errors, 
 (61),  351. 
 
 Ignorance  of  what  points  in  parti- 
 cular are  fundamental,  does  not  make 
 it  uncertain  whether  we  do  not  err 
 fundamentally,  or  differ  in  funda- 
 mentals among  ourselves  (14),  488. 
 
 In  what  sense  the  church  of  Rome 
 errs  not  fundamentally/  (20),  42. 
 
 The  four  gospels  contain  all  neces- 
 sary doctrines  (40-43),  262-264. 
 
 An  infallible  guide  not  necessary 
 for  avoiding  heresy  (127),  138. 
 
 The  apostolic  church  an  infallible 
 guide,  to  which  we  may  resort  (69), 
 214. 
 
 The  church  may  not  be  an  infal- 
 lible guide  in  fundamentals,  though 
 it  be  infallible  in  fundamentals  (39), 
 194. 
 
 That  the  Roman  church  should  be 
 the  only  infallible  guide  of  faith,  and 
 the  Scriptures  say  nothing  concerning 
 it,  is  incredible  (20),  424. 
 
 H. 
 
 I  Heresg,  what  (8),  36  ;  (127),  138  ; 
 (18),  251;  (51),  345;  (11),  419  ; 
 (38),  444. 
 
 No  mark  of  heresy  to  want  succes- 
 sion of  bishops  holding  the  same  doc- 
 trine (38),  444;   (41),  449. 
 
 Heretics,  who  (127),  138. 
 
 We  are  not  heretics  for  opposing 
 things  propounded  by  the  church  of 
 Rome  for  divine  truth  (11,  12),  419. 
 
 Holy  Ghost,  its  motions  (95),  125. 
 
 Hooker's  fundamentals  (49),  270. 
 
 Whether  Protestants  schismatically 
 cut  off  the  Roman  church  from  hopes 
 of  salvation  (38;,  340. 
 
 I. 
 
 Jewish  church  had  in  it  no  infal- 
 lible direction  (124),  138;  (141), 
 143. 
 
510 
 
 A  TABLE  OF 
 
 The  imposing  a  necessity  of  pro- 
 fessing known  errors,  and  practising 
 known  corruptions,  is  a  just  cause  of 
 separating  from  a  church  (31),  338  ; 
 (36),  340;  (40),  341  ;  (50)',  345; 
 {59,  60),  3i9,  350;  (68,  69),  356. 
 
 Indifferency  to  all  religions  falsely 
 charged  upon  Protestants  (3),  34 ; 
 (12),  177. 
 
 The  belief  of  the  church's  infalli- 
 bility makes  way  for  heresy  (10),  39. 
 
 An  infallible  guide  not  needful  for 
 avoiding  heresies  (127),  138. 
 
 The  church's  infallibility  has  not 
 the  same  evidence  as  there  is  for  the 
 Scriptures  (30),  187;  (31),  188. 
 
 The  church's  infallibility  can  no 
 way  be  better  assured  to  us  than  the 
 Scriptures'  incorruption  (25),  100; 
 (27),  185: 
 
 The  church's  infallibility  is  not 
 proved  from  the  promise  that  the 
 gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
 it  (70),  216.  Nor  from  the  promise 
 of  the  Spirits  leading  into  all  truth, 
 which  was  made  only  to  the  apostles 
 (71),  216;  (72),  217. 
 
 The  church's  infallibility  not  prov- 
 ed from  Ephes.  iv.  11-13— He  gave 
 some  apostles,  &c.,  till  we  all  come 
 in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  &c.  (79,  80), 
 221,222. 
 
 That  God  has  appointed  an  infal- 
 lible judge  of  controversies,  because 
 such  a  one  is  desirable  and  useful,  is 
 a  weak  conclusion  ( 1 28- 136). 
 
 Infallibility  in  fundamentals  no 
 warrant  to  adhere  to  a  church  in  all 
 that  she  proposes  (57),  208. 
 
 Infallible  interpretations  of  Scrip- 
 ture vainly  boasted  of  by  the  Roman 
 church  (93-95),  123-125. 
 
 Whether  the  denial  of  the  church's 
 infallibility  leaves  men  to  their  pri- 
 vate spirit,  reason,  and  discourse,  and 
 what  is  the  harm  of  it  (12,  13),  40, 
 41. 
 
 Tra.di\tiondXinterpretationsoi^cY'v^- 
 ture  how  ill  preserved  (10),  94. 
 
 Interpretations  of  Scripture,  which 
 private  men  make  for  themselves  (not 
 pretending  to  prescribe  their  sense  to 
 others),  though  false,  or  seditious,  en- 
 danger only  themselves  (122),  137. 
 Allow  the  Pope  or  Roman  church 
 
 to  be  a  decisive  interpreter  of  Christ's 
 laws,  and  she  can  evacuate  them,  and 
 make  what  laws  she  pleases  (10,  11), 
 39,40;  (1),  90. 
 
 Interpretations  of  Scripture  may 
 not  be  imposed  (16,)  250.  Men  may 
 declare  their  sense,  but  cannot  impose 
 it  (18),  251. 
 
 Interpreter  of  Scripture,  every  man 
 for  himself  (110),  282.  Not  the 
 Roman  church  (80),  120. 
 
 St.  Ireno&us's  account  of  tradition 
 favours  not  popery  (144-146),  145, 
 146.  His  saying,  that  no  reformation 
 can  countervail  the  danger  of  a  schism, 
 explained  (11),  330. 
 
 A  living  j'MfZ^e  to  end  controversies 
 about  the  sense  of  Scripture  not  ne- 
 cessary (12,  13),  96, 
 
 If  Christ  had  intended  such  ?l judge 
 in  religion,  he  would  have  named 
 him,  which  he  has  not  done  (23),  99  ; 
 (69),  117;  (20),  424. 
 
 Though  a  IWm^judge  be  necessary 
 to  determine  civil  causes,  yet  not  ne- 
 cessary for  religious  causes  (14-22), 
 97-99. 
 
 If  there  be  di  judge  of  controversies, 
 no  necessity  he  should  be  of  the  Ro- 
 man church  (69),  214. 
 
 Roman  Catholics  set  up  as  many 
 ■judges  in  religion  as  Protestants  (116), 
 134;  (118),  135;  (153),  149. 
 
 J?^<7^e  of  controversies  none  (10), 
 94;  (l.-^&c.),97;  (85),  121;  (103), 
 129  ;  (69),  214.  In  religion  every 
 one  for  himself  (11),  208;  (116), 
 285;   (153,  &c.),  315;   (87),  468. 
 
 Justification,  verbal  disputes  shovX 
 it  (30,  &c,),  496. 
 
 K. 
 
 Our  obligation  to  Jcnow  any  divine 
 truth  arises  from  God's  manifest  re- 
 vealing of  it  (19),  181. 
 
 How  we  are  assured  in  what  lan- 
 guage the  Scripture  is  uncorrupted 
 (57-75),  112-118. 
 
 To  leave  a  church,  and  to  leave  the 
 external  communion  of  a  church,  is 
 not  the  same  thing  (32),  441  ;  (35), 
 443  ;   (47),  453. 
 
PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 
 
 511 
 
 Love,  what  requires  different  de-  Iwhen  they  are  revealed,  and  known 
 grees  of  it  (5),  480.  'to  be  so  (-30,  &c.),  258. 
 
 Luther^ s  separation  not  like  that        iVeceiscry  doctrines,  all  to  be  found 
 of  the  Donatists,  and  why  (33),  339  ;    in  each  evangelist  (40),  262. 
 (101),  376.  Necessary    simply,    how     to     be 
 
 Luther  and  his  followers  did  not   known  (144),  145. 
 divide  from  the  whole  church,  being  j      What  makes  points  necessary  tohe 
 a  part  of  it.  but  only  reformed  them-  |  believed  (11),  247.     No  more  is  ne- 
 selves,    forsaking   the   coiTupt   part  i  cessary  to  be  believed  by  us  than  by 
 
 (56),  347. 
 
 Luther'' s  opposing  himself  to  all  in 
 his  reformanoD,  no  objection  against 
 him  (89,  90),  366. 
 
 We  are  not  bound  to  justify  all 
 that  Luther  said  and  did,  no  more 
 than  Papists  are  bound  to  justify 
 what  several  Popes  have  said  and 
 done  (112),  387. 
 
 M. 
 
 They  may  be  members  of  the  ca- 
 
 Ithe  apostles  (27,  &c.),  258. 
 
 Papists  make  many  things  neces- 
 sary to  salvation  which  God  never 
 made  so  (7),  481. 
 
 All  necessary  points  of  faith  are 
 contained  in  the  Creed  (73,  74),  283. 
 
 Why  some  points  not  so  necessary 
 wcreputintotheCreed(75,76),283, 
 284. 
 
 Protestants  may  agree  in  necessary 
 points,  though   they  may  overvalue 
 
 .1,  r    \     \    .1  "I         '     r    V  J  • "    some  things  they  hold  (34),  499. 
 
 tholic  church,  that  are  not  united  m        rr.    •  -^    J       c     ■ 
 
 external  communion  (9^,  329.  I  ^  ^°  ^"^P°^'  "  necessity  oi yvoiessmg 
 
 Merit,  how  denied  (35),  260.  known  errors,  and  pract.smg  known 
 
 Millennium    a  matter  of  faith  to    corruptions,  is  a  just  cause  of  sepa- 
 Miuenmum,  a  matter  ot  taitn  to    ^^^.^^  ^..^^     oog  .   ^gj^^^^  o^q  .    ^^,q^^ 
 
 Irenseus  and  Justin  Martyr  (10),  39. 
 
 The  mischiefs  that  followed  the 
 Reformation,  not  imputable  to  it 
 (92),  368. 
 
 The  author's  motives  to  change  his 
 religion,  with  answers  to  them  (42, 43), 
 20. 
 
 The  faith  of  Papists  resolved  at  last 
 into  the  motives  oi  credibility  (154), 
 149. 
 
 N. 
 
 ration  (31), 
 
 341  ;    (50),  345;    (59),  349;    (60). 
 
 350;  (68,  69),  356. 
 
 O. 
 
 A  blind  obedience  is  not  due  to 
 ecclesiastical  decisions,  though  our 
 practice  must  be  determined  by  the 
 sentence  of  superiors,  in  doubtful 
 cases  (110),  385. 
 
 A  probable  opinion  may  be  followed 
 (according  to  the  Roman  doctors), 
 Necessary  to  salvation  what  (26),  |  though  it  be  not  the  safest  way  for 
 44.  avoiding  sin  (8),  474, 
 
 Necessary  simply  to  salvation  (52,  |       Ojy^flfi^s'*  saying  impertinently  urg- 
 
 53),  460,461. 
 
 Necessary  to  be  believed,  what, 
 ibid.  (49),  269. 
 
 Necessary ,  the  evil  of  making  that 
 necessary  which  God  has  not  made 
 necessary  to  salvation  (64),  212. 
 
 Necessary  truths,  what  (1,  &c.), 
 245  ;  (41),  263.  What  makes  any 
 truth  necessary  to  be  believed  (4,  &c.), 
 246.  To  be  believed,  and  not  to  be 
 disbelieved,  the  same  (11),  247.  To 
 be  believed  absolutely,  and  necessary 
 to  be  believed  upon  a  supposition, 
 ibid. 
 
 Necessary  to  be  known  that  they 
 are  revealed,  and  why  to  be  beleived 
 
 ed  against  Protestants  (99,  100),  374, 
 375. 
 
 Ordination  (39),  445  ;  (15),  488. 
 
 Though  we  receive  ordination  and 
 Scripture  from  a  false  church,  yet  we 
 may  be  a  true  church  (54),  461. 
 
 'Whether  PajnstsovProtestantsmo&t 
 hazard  their  souls  on  probabilities 
 (57),  276. 
 
 What  we  believe  concerning  the 
 perpetuity  of  the  visible  church  (18), 
 42. 
 
 Peter  had  no  authority  over  the 
 other  apostles  (100),  375. 
 
612 
 
 A  TABLE  OP 
 
 Whether  1  Tim.  iii.  15,  the  pillar 
 and  ground  of  tmth,  belong  to  Timo- 
 thy, or  the  church  (76),  220. 
 
 If  those  words  belong  to  the  church, 
 whether  they  may  not  signify  her 
 duty,  and  yet  that  she  may  err  in 
 neglecting  it  (77),  220. 
 
 A  possibility  of  being  deceived  ar- 
 gues not  an  uncertainty  in  all  we  be- 
 lieve (26),  184;  (50),  201;  (107), 
 382;  (47),  453. 
 
 By  joining  in  the  prayers  of  the 
 Roman  church,  we  must  join  in  her 
 unlawful  practices  (11),  177. 
 
 Preaching  the  word  and  adminis- 
 tering the  sacraments,  how^  they  are 
 inseparable  notes  of  the  church,  and 
 how  they  make  it  visible  (ID),  333 
 
 Private  judgment,  how  not  to  be 
 opposed  to  the  public  (109),  383. 
 
 Private  spirit,  how  we  are  to 
 understand  it  (110),  132. 
 
 Private  spirit  is  not  appealed  to 
 («.  e.  to  dictates  pretending  to  come 
 from  God's  Spirit)  when  controversies 
 are  referred  to  Scripture  (110),  132. 
 
 Whether  one  is  left  to  his  private 
 spirit,  reason,  and  discourse,  by  deny- 
 ing the  church's  infallibility,  and  the 
 harmofit(r2,  13),  8,9;  (110),  132. 
 
 The  Jesuits'  doctrine  oi probability 
 exposed  (8),  483. 
 
 Proposed  sufficiently,  what  (9),  6. 
 
 It  is  hard  for  Papists  to  resolve 
 •what  is  a  sufficient  proposal  of  the 
 church  (54),  206. 
 
 Protestants  are  on  the  surer  side 
 for  avoiding  sin,  and  Papists  on  the 
 more  dangerous  side  to  commit  sin, 
 shewed  in  instances  (9),  485. 
 
 R. 
 
 Every  man  by  reason  must  judge 
 both  of  Scriptui-e  and  the  church 
 (111-113),  132,  133;  (118),  ,135; 
 (120),  136;  (122),  137. 
 
 Reason  and  judgment  of  discretion 
 is  not  to  be  reproached  for  the  private 
 spirit  (100),  127. 
 
 If  men  must  not  follow  their  reason, 
 what  they  are  to  follow  (114,  115), 
 133,  134. 
 
 Some  kind  of  reformation  may  be 
 so  necessary,  as  to  justify  separation 
 from  a  corrupt  church,  though  every 
 
 pretence  of  reformation  wiU  not  (53), 
 346. 
 
 Nothing  is  more  against  religion, 
 than  using  violence  to  introduce  it, 
 (96),  371. 
 
 The  religion  of  Protestants  (which 
 is  in  the  belief  of  the  Bible)  a  wiser 
 and  safer  way  than  that  of  the  Ro- 
 man church,  shewed  at  large  {6Q- 
 72),  462-467. 
 
 All  Protestants  require  repentance 
 to  remission  of  sins,  and  remission 
 of  sins  to  justification  (31),  497. 
 
 Revelation  unequal  (24),  183. 
 
 No  revelations,  known  to  be  so, 
 may  be  rejected  as  not  fundamental 
 (11),  247. 
 
 A  Divine  revelation  may  be  ignor- 
 antly  disbelieved  by  a  church,  and  yet 
 it  may  continue  a  church  (20),  182. 
 
 Papists  cannot  have  reverence  for 
 the  Scripture,  whilst  they  advance  so 
 many  things  contrary  to  it  (1),  90. 
 
 No  argument  of  their  reverence  to 
 it,  that  they  have  preserved  it  entire 
 (•i),  91. 
 
 The  Roman  church  when  Luther 
 separated,  was  not  the  visible  church, 
 though  a  visible  church,  and  part  of 
 the  catholic  (26,  27),  336,  337. 
 
 The  present  Roman  church  has  lost 
 all  authority  to  recommend  what  we 
 are  to  believe  in  religion  (101),  127. 
 
 The  properties  of  a  perfect  rule 
 (5-7),  92,  93. 
 
 Whether  the  popish  rule  of  funda- 
 mentals, or  ours,  is  the  safest  (83), 
 287. 
 
 S. 
 
 Right  administration  of  sacraments 
 uncertain  in  the  Roman  church  {QZ- 
 68),  114,  115. 
 
 Salvation,  the  conditions  of  it  (5), 
 oo  ;  (159),  152  ;  the  sure  way  to  it 
 (53),  273;  (63),  279;  great  uncer- 
 tainty of  it  in  the  church  of  Rome 
 (63),  114. 
 
 Schism,  what  (3),  34 ;  (22),  43  ; 
 (22),  334 ;  (28,  &c.),  338  ;  (51),  345; 
 (56),  347;  (102),  377;  trial  of  schism 
 (22),  43;  the  only  fountain  thereof 
 (16),  250. 
 
 He  may  be  no  schismatic  that  for- 
 sakes a  church  for  errors  not  dam- 
 nable (2),  33. 
 
PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 
 
 513 
 
 They  may  not  be  schismatics,  that 
 continue  the  separation  from  Rome, 
 though  Luther,  that  began  it,  had 
 been  a  schismatic  (4),  329  ;  ( U) ,  420. 
 
 Scripture,  a  perfect  rule  of  faith 
 (5),  92;  its  meaning  (84),  121;  proofs 
 of  its  Divine  authority  (53),  273;  it 
 is  sufficient  to  guard  us  from  error, 
 and  keep  us  in  unity  of  faith  (80), 
 222  ;  the  incorruption  thereof  known 
 by  consent  of  copies  (27),  185;  re- 
 ceived from  universal  tradition  (36), 
 192;  the  certainty  of  understanding 
 it  in  some  places  (oO),  201  ;  what 
 canonical,  determinable  only  by  the 
 testimony  of  the  ancient  churches 
 (27),  101  ;  (33,  &c.),  104;  transla- 
 tions, how  to  be  examined  or  depend- 
 ed on  (27),  101;  {oo),  111;  (72), 
 118;  (83),  120  ;  internal  arguments 
 for  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures (47),  107  ;  not  received  upon 
 the  authority  of  the  Roman  church 
 (91),  123;  universal  tradition  (27), 
 185  ;  church  of  Rome  not  the  infal- 
 lible interpreter  of  Scripture  (97), 
 126  ;  received  from  universal  tradi- 
 tion (101),  127;  (62),  211  ;  a  suf- 
 ficient rule  to  judge  what  is  necessary 
 to  be  believed  (104),  129;  intelligible 
 in  all  necessaries  (105),  130;  Scrip- 
 ture received  only  by  the  authority  of 
 universal  tradition  (114),  133;  ob- 
 scure places,  what  matter  of  faith 
 they  contain  (127),  138  ;  plain  places 
 maybe  certainly  understood  (150), 
 148  ;  the  only  rule  to  judge  all  con- 
 troversies by  (155),  150;  its  incor- 
 ruption more  secured  by  Providence 
 than  the  Roman  church's  vigilancy 
 (24),  99  ;  when  made  the  rule  of  con- 
 troversies, those  that  concern  itself 
 are  to  be  excepted  (S),  93;  (27), 
 101  ;  (156),  151  ;  it  contains  all  ne- 
 cessary material  objects  of  faith,  of 
 which  the  Scripture  itself  is  none,  but 
 the  means  of  conveying  them  to  us 
 (32),  104;  (159),  153;  it  must  de- 
 termine some  controversies,  else  those 
 about  the  church  and  its  notes  are 
 undeterminable  (3),  91  ;  is  unjustly 
 charged  with  increasing  controversies 
 and  contentions  (4),  92. 
 
 The  Scripture  is  a  sufficient  means 
 for  discovering  heresies  (127),  138. 
 
 I  When  controversies  are  referred  to 
 1  Scripture,  it  is  not  referring  them  to 
 
 the  private  spirit,  understanding  it  of 
 I  a  persuasion  pretending  to  come  from 
 I  the  Spirit  of  God  (10),  94. 
 '      Protestants,  that  believe  Scripture, 
 
 agree  in  more  things  than  they  differ 
 
 in,  and  their  diflFerences  are  not  ma- 
 '  terial  (49),  270  ;  (50),  272. 
 
 Private    men,    if    they    interpret 
 
 Scriptures  amiss,  and  to  ill  purposes, 
 
 endanger  only  themselves,  when  they 
 I  do  not  pretend  to  prescribe  to  others 
 1(122).  137. 
 j      The  Protestants'  security  of  the 
 
 way  to  happiness  {^)^),  111. 
 
 Want  of  skill  in  school  divinity 
 1  foolishly  objected  against  English 
 'divines  (19),  11. 
 
 Separation fromachurch  (56) ,  347; 
 
 grounds  thereof  {5Q),  207;  (57), 
 I  208  ;  how  far  lawful  (71),  ^5Q',  {m), 
 
 213  ;  it  is  justifiable  from  the  pro- 
 
 1  fession  of  what  seems  false  (64),  353. 
 
 Separation  from  a  church  erring  in 
 
 fundamentals,  or  that   requires   the 
 
 profession  of  any  error,  is  not  schism 
 
 (75),  358. 
 
 I'he  principles   of  the   church   of 
 
 England's  separating  from  Rome 
 j  will  not  serve  to  justify  schismatics 
 
 (71),  356;  (74),  357;  (80),  360; 
 !  (81,  82),  361  ;  (85),  363 ;  (86),  364. 
 j  Socinianism  and  other  heresies 
 i  countenanced    by    Romish    writers, 
 
 who  have  undermined  the  doctrine  of 
 
 the  Trinity  (17,  18),  10. 
 
 Spirit  teaches  sufficiently,  not  irre- 
 jsistibly  (71),  216. 
 
 [  The  promise  of  the  Spirit^ s\ea.dmg 
 [  into  all  truth,  proves  not  infallibility, 
 
 it)  id. 
 
 The  promise  of  the  Spirit' s  abiding 
 
 with  them  for  ever  may  be  personal 
 
 (74),  218  ;  and  it  being  a  conditional 
 
 promise  cuts  off  the  Roman  church's 
 
 pretence  to  infallibility  (75),  219. 
 Succession   of  men   orthodox   not 
 
 necessary  (38),  444;   (41),  449. 
 In  what  sense  succession  is  by  the 
 
 fathers    made   a   mark   of  the   true 
 
 church  (40),  448. 
 
 Papists  cannot  prove  a  perpetu£d 
 
 succession  of  professors  of  their  doc- 
 trine (41),  449. 
 
514 
 
 A  TABLE  OF 
 
 Sufficienter  et  efficaciter  (34),  190. 
 
 Superstitions  not  to  be  tolerated 
 (40),  195. 
 
 T. 
 
 Toleration  (85),  121  ;  the  way  to 
 truth  (13),  248;  {:dd),  261. 
 
 The  church  may  tolerate  many 
 things  which  she  does  not  allow  (47) , 
 199. 
 
 Tradition,  what  (J 47,  148),  146. 
 
 Tradition  mistaken  (44),  196  ; 
 (45),  197  ;  good  as  written  (46),  197; 
 how  urged  by  the  fathers  (40),  448. 
 
 Tradition  proves  the  books  of 
 Scripture  to  be  canonical,  not  the 
 authority  of  the  present  church  (25), 
 100  ;  (53),  111  ;  (90-92),  123  ;  (27), 
 185. 
 
 Traditional  interpretations  of 
 Scripture,  how  ill  preserved  by  the 
 Roman  church  (10),  94  ;  (46),  197. 
 
 No  traditional  interpretations  of 
 Scripture,  though  if  there  were  any 
 remaining  we  are  ready  to  receive 
 them  (88,  89),  122  ;  (46),  197. 
 
 The  traditions,  distinct  from  Scrip- 
 ture, which  Irenseus  mentions,  do  not 
 favour  popery  (144),  145;  (145, 146), 
 146. 
 
 The  asserting  unwritten  traditions, 
 though  not  inconsistent  with  the 
 truth  of  Scripture,  yet  disparages  it 
 as  a  perfect  rule  (10),  94. 
 
 Though  our  translations  of  the 
 Bible  are  subject  to  error,  yet  our 
 salvation  is  not  thereby  made  uncer- 
 tain (68),  115;  (73),  118. 
 
 Different  translations  of  Scripture 
 may  as  well  be  objected  to  the  an- 
 cient church  as  to  Protestants  (58, 
 59),  113. 
 
 The  vulgar  translation  is  not  pure 
 and  uncorrupted  (75,  76,  &c.),  118, 
 119. 
 
 Transubstantiation,  contradictions 
 contained  in  it  (46),  266. 
 
 The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  under- 
 mined by  Roman  doctors  (17,  18), 
 10. 
 
 Truth  necessary  to  be  known  (20, 
 21),  182. 
 
 Truths  revealed,  what  necessary  to 
 be  believed  (9),  6. 
 
 Truths  sufficiently  propounded 
 (25),  15. 
 
 Truths  delivered  in  Scripture,  be- 
 cause they  were  necessary  to  be  be- 
 lieved, what  (17),  19. 
 
 Truth  in  Scripture,  not  necessary 
 (13),  70. 
 
 Truths  revealed,  how  they  may  be 
 innocently  denied  (16),  180. 
 
 God's  truths  not  questioned  by 
 Protestants,  thought  they  deny  points 
 professed  by  the  church  (12),  68. 
 
 Protestants  question  not  God's 
 truth,  though  denying  some  truth 
 revealed  by  him,  if  they  know  it  not 
 to  be  revealed  (16),  180. 
 
 The  truth  of  the  present  church 
 depends  not  upon  the  visibility  or 
 perpetuity  of  the  church  in  all  ages 
 (21),  333;   (20),  491. 
 
 The  apostles  depositing  truth  with 
 the  church  is  no  argument  that  she 
 should  always  keep  it  entire  and  sin- 
 cere (148),  147. 
 
 The  promise  of  being  led  into  all 
 truth,  agrees  not  equally  to  the 
 apostles  and  to  the  church  (34),  190. 
 
 A  trial  of  religion  by  Scripture 
 may  well  be  refused  by  Papists  (3), 
 91. 
 
 U.  V. 
 
 Violence  and  force  to  introduce  re- 
 ligion is  against  the  nature  of  reli- 
 gion, and  unjustly  charged  upon  Pro- 
 testants (96),  371. 
 
 What  visible  church  was  before 
 Luther,  disagreeing  from  the  Roman 
 (19),  42;  (27),  337. 
 
 That  there  should  be  always  a 
 visible  unerring  church,  of  one  de- 
 nomination, is  not  necessary  (27), 
 337. 
 
 The  visible  church  may  not  cease, 
 though  it  may  cease  to  be  visible  (13, 
 14),  331  ;  (41),  342. 
 
 The  church  may  not  be  visible  in 
 the  popish  sense,  and  yet  may  not 
 dissemble,  but  profess  her  faith  (18), 
 332. 
 
 The  great  uncertainties  salvation 
 in  the  Roman  church  depends  on  (63- 
 72),  114.118. 
 
 Their  uncertainty  of  the  right  ad- 
 ministration of  sacraments  (63-68), 
 114.  115. 
 
 Unity  how  to  be  obtained  (81, 
 &c.),  223;  (39,  &c.),  362. 
 
PRINCIPAL  MATTERS. 
 
 515 
 
 Unity  of  the  church  (58),  464. 
 
 The  church's  unity,  by  what  means 
 best  preserved  (81),  223  ;  (13),  248  ; 
 (16),  250;  (40),  262. 
 
 Pretence  of  infallibility  a  ridiculous 
 means  to  unity,  when  that  is  the 
 chief  question  to  be  determined  (8), 
 65. 
 
 Unity  of  external  communion  not 
 necessary  to  the  being  a  member  of 
 the  catholic  church  (9),  329. 
 
 Universality  of  a  doctrine  no  cer- 
 tain sign  that  it  came  from  the  apos- 
 tles (44),  196. 
 
 Want  of  universality  of -place  proves 
 not  Protestants  to  be  heretics,  and 
 may  as  well  be  objected  against  the 
 Roman  church  (42),  450;  (55),  462. 
 
 We  would  receive  unwritten  tradi- 
 
 tions derived  from  the  apostles,  if  we 
 knew  what  they  were  (46),  197. 
 
 The  vulgar  translation  not  pure 
 and  uncorrupted  (75,  76,  &c.),  118, 
 119. 
 
 W. 
 
 The  whole  doctrine  of  Christ  was 
 taught  by  the  apostles,  and  an  ana- 
 thema denounced  against  any  that 
 should  bring  in  new  doctrines  (18), 
 251. 
 
 The  wisdom  of  Protestants  justified 
 in  forsaking  the  errors  of  the  Roman 
 church  (53,  54),  460,461. 
 
 The  u'isdom  of  Protestants  shewed 
 at  large  against  the  Papists,  in  mak- 
 ing the  Bible  their  religion  (56-72), 
 462-467. 
 
 THE  END. 
 
on  Theoloq.cal  Sem' 
 
 f ST"  010B1  4392 
 
 Date  Due 
 
 ■  Ufji 
 
 i 
 
 ,m  to' 
 
 u 
 
 mrtn 
 
 J,.. 
 
 -i^SSS^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 **5^ 
 
 is^^^^iS^^^ 
 
 f 
 
>*v|,..