The religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation, or, An answer to a book entituled, Mercy and truth, or, Charity maintain'd by Catholiques, which pretends to prove the contrary to which is added in this third impression The apostolical institution of episcopacy : as also IX sermons ... / by William Chillingworth ...

The ANSWER to the THIRD CHAPTER. Wherein it is maintained, That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental, is in this present Controversie good and pertinent: And that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points.

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

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

3. You will say, that their fault is, that by remaining Protestants, they exclude themselves from the means of agreement, which you have, and which by submission to your Church they might have also. But if you have means of agreement, the more shame for you that you stil 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, if as they had none: or they which professe to have an easie and expedite means to do it, and yet still leave it undone? If you had been blind (saith our Saviour to the Pharisees) you had had no sin; but now you say you see, therefore your sin remaineth.

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

5. But you are all agreed, that only those things wherein you do agree are matters of Faith. And Protestants, if they were wise, would do so too. Sure I am they have reason enough to do so: seeing all of them agree with expli∣cite Faith in all those things, which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture, that is, in all which God hath plainly revealed: and with an implicite Faith, in that sense of the whole Scripture which God intended whatsoever was. Secondly, That which you pretend is false; for else, why do some of you hold it against faith, to take or allow the Oath of Allegiance; others as learned and honest as they, that it is against Faith and unlawful to refuse it, and allow the refusing of it? Why do some of you hold, that it is de Fide, that the Pope is Head of the Church by divine Law, others the contrary? Some hold it de Fide, that the blessed Virgin was free from Actual sin, others that it is not so. Some, that the Popes Indirect power over Princes in Temporalties is de Fide, Others the contrary. Some, that it is Universal Tradition, and conséquently 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 pre∣tended means of Agreement, how then can you pretend to Unity either Actual or Potential more than Protestants may? Some of you say, the Pope alone without a Councel may determine all Controversies: But others de∣ny it. Some, that a general Councel without a Pope may do so: Others de∣ny this. Some, Both in conjunction are infallible determiners: Others again deny this. Lastly, some among you, hold the Acceptation of the Decrees of Councels by the Universal Church to be the only way to decide Controver∣sies: which others deny, by denying the Church to be Infallible. And in∣deed, 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 Church hath not received it?

7. Again, Means of agreeing differences are either rational and well-grounded, and of Gods appointment; or voluntary and taken up at the plea∣sure 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 Councel, or a Councel confirmed by the Pope, or that Society of Christians which adhere to him, shall be the Infallible Judge of Controversies? I desire you to shew any one of these Assertions plainly set down in Scripture, (as in all reason a thing of this nature should be) or at least delivered with a full consent of Fa∣thers, or at least taught in plain tearms by any one Father for four hundred yeers after Christ. And if you cannot do this (as I am sure you cannot) and yet will still be obtruding your selves upon us for our Judges, Who will not cry out,

—perîsse 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 may make use of when we please, we have a great many more, which you yet have never thought of, for which we have as good

colour out of Scripture, as you have for yours. For first, we could, if we would, try it by Lots, whose Doctrine is true, and whose false. And you know it is written,(a) The Lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposition of it is from the Lord. 2. We could referre them to the King, and you know it is written,(b) A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King; his mouth trans∣gresseth not in judgement.(c) The Heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord. We could referre the matter to any Assembly of Christians assem∣led in the Name of Christ, seeing it is written,(d) Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. We may re∣fer it to any Priest, because it is written,(e) The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge.(f) The Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses chair, &c. To any Prea∣cher of the Gospel, to any Pastor, or Doctor, for to every one of them Christ hath promised,(g) He will be with them alwaies even to the end of the world: and of every one of them it is said(h) He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. To any Bishop, or Prelate; for it is written,(i) Obey your Prelates, and again,(k) He hath given Pastors, and Doctors, &c lest we should be car∣ryed about with every wind of Doctrin. To any particular Church of Christi∣ans, seeing it is a particular Church which is called(l) The house of God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth: and seeing of any particular Church it is writ∣ten,(m) He that heareth not the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or Publican. We might refer it to any man that prayes for Gods Spirit; for it is written,(n) Every one that asketh, receiveth: and again,(o) If any man want wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraid∣eth not. Lastly, we might refer it to the Jews, for without all doubt of them it is written,(p) My 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 shew, that would we make use of voluntary and devised means to determine differences, we had them in great abundance. And if you say, These would fail us and contradict themselves: So, as we pretend, have yours. There have been Popes against Popes: Councels against Councels: Councels confirmed by Popes against Councels confirmed by Popes: Lastly, the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages.

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

10. But they are convinced sometimes even by their own confessions, that the Ancient Fathers taught divers Points of Popery: and then they reply, those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved, because those errors were not Fundamen∣tall. And may not you also be convinced by the confessions of your own men, that the Fathers taught divers Points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome, and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome? Do not your Purging Indexes clip the tongues, and seal up the lips of a great many for such confessions? And is not the above-cited confession of

your Doway Divines, plain and full to the same purpose? And do not you also, as freely as we, charge the Fathers with errors, and yet say they were saved? Now what else do we understand by an unfundamental error, but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved? So that still you proceed in con∣demning others for your own faults, and urging Arguments against us, which return more strongly upon your selves.

11. But your will is, We should remember that Christ must alwaies have a Visible Church. Ans. Your pleasure shall be obeyed, on condition you will not forget, that there is a difference between perpetual Visibility, and per∣petual Purity. As for the Answer which you make for us, true it is, we be∣lieve the Catholique Church cannot perish, yet that she may, and did, erre in Points not Fundamental; and that Protestants were obliged to forsake these errors of the Church, as they did, though not the Church for her errors, for that they did not, but continued still Members of the Church. For it is not all one (though you perpetually confound them) to forsake the errors of the Church, and to forsake the Church: or to forsake the Church in her error, and simply to forsake the Church: no more then it is for me to renounce my Bro∣thers or my Friends Vices or Errors, and to renounce my Brother or my Friend. The former then was done by Protestants, the latter was not done. Nay not only, not from the Catholique, but not so much as from the Roman, did they separate peromnia; but only in those practices which they conceived superstitious or impious. If you would at this time propose a form of Li∣turgy, which both Sides hold lawful, and then they would not joyn with you in this Liturgy, you might have some colour then to say, they renounce your Communion absolutely. But as things are now ordered, they cannot joyne with you in Prayers, but they must partake with with you in unlawful practices, and for this reason, they (not absolutely, but thus farre) separate from your Communion. And this, I say, they were obliged to do under pain of damnation. Not as if it were damnable to hold an error not damnable, but because it is damnable outwardly to profess and maintain it, and to joyn with others in the practice of it, when inwardly they did not hold it. Now had they continued in your Communion, that they must have done, viz. have professed to believe, and externally practised your Errors, whereof 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 hypocrisie, I leave it to you to judge. You your self tell us within two pages after this, That you are obliged, never to speak any one least lye against your knowledge, §. 2. Now what is this but to live in a perpetual lye?

12. As for that which in the next place you seem so to wonder at, That both Catholiques and Protestants, according to the opinion of Protestants, may be saved in their several professions, because, forsooth, we both agree in all Fundamental points. I Answer, this Proposition so crudely set down, as you have here set it down, I know no Protestant will justifie. For you seem to make them teach, that it is an indifferent thing, for the attainment of Salva∣tion, whether a man believe the Truth or the Falshood; and that they care not in whether of these Religions a man live or dye, so he dye in either of them: whereas all that they say is this, That those amongst you which want means to find the Truth, and so dye in Error; or use the best means they can with industry, and without partiality to find the

Truth, and yet dye in error, these men, thus qualified, notwithstanding these errors may be saved. Secondly, for those that have means to find the Truth, and will not use them, they conceive, though their case be dangerous, yet if they die with a general repentance for all their sins, known and unknown, their Salvation is not desperate. The Truths which they hold of Faith in Christ, and Repentance, being as it were an Antidote against their Errors, and their negligence in seeking the Truth. Especially, seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply, and indispensably ne∣cessary to salvation.

13. But seeing we make such various use of this Distinction, is it not prodigi∣ously strange that we will never be induced to give in a particular Catalogue what points be Fundamental? And why, I pray, is it so predigiously strange, that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand? God himself hath told us,(a) That where much is given, much shall be required; where little is given, little shall be required. To Infants, Deaf-men, Mad-men, nothing, for ought we know, is given; and if it be so, of them nothing shall be required. Others perhaps may have means only given them to believe,(b) That God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek him; and to whom thus much only is given, to them it shal not be damnable, that they believe but only thus much. Which me thinks is very manifest from the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where having first said, That without Faith it is impossible to please God, he subjoyns as his reason, For whosoever cometh unto God, must believe that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek him. Where, in my opinion, this is plainly intimated, that this is the minimum 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 Falshood, It must be therefore true, that he is a Re∣warder 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 bring∣ing them immediately to Salvation without Christ, but with bringing them according to his good pleasure, first, to Faith in Christ, and so to Salvation. To which belief the Story of Cornelius in the 10. Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and S. Peter's words to him, are to me a great inducement. For first it is evident he believed not in Christ, but was a meer Gentile, and one that knew not but men might be worshipped, and yet we are as∣sured that his prayers and alms (even while he was in that state) came up for a memorial before God; That his prayer was heard, and his Alms had in remembrance in the sight of God, 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 knowledg of Gods will: For so it is in the 4. and 5. v. Call for Simon whose sirname is Peter, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do: and at the 33. v. We are all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. So that though even in his Gentilism, he was accepted in his present state, yet if he had continued in it, & refused to believe 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 farther) to whom Faith in Christ is sufficiently propounded, as necessary to Salvation, to them it is simply necessary and fundamental to believe in Christ, that is, to expect re∣mission of sins and Salvation from him, upon the performance of the conditions he requires; among which conditions one is, that we be∣lieve what he hath revealed, when it is sufficiently declared, to have been revealed by him: For by doing so, we set to our seal, that God is true, and that Christ was sent by him. Now that may be sufficiently decla∣red to one (all things considered,) which (all things considered) to ano∣ther is not sufficiently declared: and consequently that may be fundamental and necessary to one, which to another is not so. Which variety of Cir∣cumstances, makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fun∣damentals, and proves your request as reasonable, as if you should desire us (according to the Fable) to make a coat to fit the Moon in all her changes; or to give you a garment that will fit all statures; or to make you a 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 thou∣sand, there may be of one hundred thousand. And therefore with∣out setting down 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 our selves by a general description to tell you what is Fundamental. And to warrant us in doing so, we have your own example §. 19. where being engaged to give us a Catalogue of Fundamentals, instead thereof you tell us only in general, That all is Fun∣damental, and not to be disbelieved under pain of damnation, which the Church hath defined. As you therefore think it enough to say in general, That all is fundamental which the Church hath defined, without setting down in particular a compleat 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 any mans salvation to believe that the Scripture is true, and contains all things necessary for salvation; and to do his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it: without delivering any particular Catalogue of the Fun∣damentals of Faith.

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

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

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

17. Seeing therefore the crime of calling Gods Veracity into question, and consequently (according to your grounds) of erring Fundamentally, 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 your heart condemned you of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing Fundamental, and damnable Errors to dis∣agreeing Protestants; Because forfooth, some of them disbelieve, and di∣rectly, wittingly, 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 disbelieves any thing known by himself to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God, and therefore errs fundamentally:

But some Protestants disbelieve those things, which Others believe to be testified by God;

Therefore they impute falshood to God, and err Fundamentally.

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 denyes some things which himself knows or believes to be revealed by God, as before I have de∣monstrated. For otherwise, if I should deny belief to some things which God had revealed secretly to such a man as I had never heard of, I should be guilty of calling Gods Veracity into Question, which is evidently false. Besides, how can it be avoided, but the Jesuits and Dominicans and Francis∣cans must upon this ground differ Fundamentally, and one of them err dam∣nably, seeing the one of them disbelieves, and willingly opposes, what the others 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 expresly to know: I would gladly know, whether you speak of Protestants dif∣fering in profession only, or in opinion also. If the first, why do you say pre∣sently after, that some disbelieve, what others of them believe? If they differ in opinion, then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others 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 others opinions, then, I hope, you will grant they are ignorant of it. If your meaning were, they were not ig∣norant, that each other held these Opinions, or of the sense of the opinions which they held; I answer, This is nothing to the convincing of their understand∣ings 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 expresly bound to know, is it self a fault, and therefore cannot be an excuse: and therefore if you could shew, that Protestants differ in those points, the truth whereof (which can be but one) they were bound expresly to know, I should easily yield that one side must of necessity be in a mortal crime. But for want of proof of this, you content your self only to say it; and therefore I also might be contented only to deny it, yet I will not, but give a reason for my denyal. And my rea∣son is, because our Obligation expresly to know any Divine Truth, must arise from Gods manifest revealing of it, and his revealing unto us that he 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 with Reason, Authority with Authority: which how it can consist with the manifest re∣vealing 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 con∣sider the strange power that Education, and Prejudices instilled by it, have over even excellent understandings, we may well imagine, that many truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a man, prepossest with contrary opinions, not revealed plainly. Nei∣ther doubt I but God, who knows whereof we are made, and what passi∣ons we are subject unto, will compassionate such infirmities, and not enter into judgment with us for those things, which, all things considered, were unavoidable.

20. But till Fundamentals (say you) be sufficiently proposed (as revealed by God) is is not against Faith to reject them; or rather, it is not possible, pru∣dently to believe them: And points unfundamental being thus sufficiently pro∣posed as divne Truths, may not be denyed: Therefore you conclude, there is no difference between them. Answ. A Circumstantial point may by accident become Fundamental, because it may be so proposed, that the denyal of it, will draw after it the denyal of this Fundamental truth, That all which God says is true. Notwithstanding in themselves there is a main difference be∣tween them: Points fundamental being those only which are revealed by God, and commanded to be preacht to all, and believed by all. Points Circumstan∣tial, 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 un∣to all men every where, and the people may be securely ignorant of them.

21. You say, Not erring in points fundamental, is not sufficient for the pre∣servation of the Church; because any Error maintained by it against Gods Re∣velation is destructive. I answer. If you mean against Gods revelation known

by the Church to be so, it is true; but impossible that the Church should 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 dis-believe 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 be∣fore our Saviour's Ascension, in these words, Go and teach all Nations, Mat. 28.19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause, the Church disbelieved it, as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts, until the conversion of Cornelius; and yet was still a Church. There∣fore to disbelieve some divine Revelation, not knowing it to be so, is not destructive of salvation, or of the being of the Church. Again, it is a plain Revelation of God, that(a) the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be ad∣ministred in both kinds: and(b) that the publique Hymns and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification; yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing, by reason of the veil before their eye, their Churches supposed Infallibility; I hope, the denial of them shall not be laid to their charge, no otherwise than as building hay and stubble on the Foundation, not overthrowing the Foundation it self.

22. Ad § 2. In the beginning of this Paragraph, we have this Argu∣ment against this Distinction; It is enough (by D. Potter's confession) to be∣lieve some things negatively, i.e. not to deny 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 D. Pot∣ter had said there had been no divine Truth, declared sufficiently or not declared, but must upon pain of damnation be believed, or at least not deni∣ed; then might you 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, I do not yet understand.

23. In the remainder you infer out of D. Potter's wórds, That all errors are alike damnable, if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different: which, for ought I know, all Protestants, and all that have sense must grant. Yet I deny your Illation from hence, That the distinction of points into Fundamental and Unfundamental, is vain and uneffectual for the purpose of Protestants. For though being alike proposed as divine Truths, they are by accident alike necessary, yet the real difference still remains be∣tween 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 haue different Faiths, but from the Motive to it.
• 3. This Motive is Gods Revelation.
• 4. This Re∣velation is alike for all objects.
• 5. Protestants disagree in things equally reveal∣ed by God: Therefore they forsake the formal motive of Faith: and therefore have no Faith nor Unity therein.

Which is truly a very proper and conveni∣ent Argument to close up a weak Discourse, wherein both the Propositions are false for matter, confused and disordered for the form, and the Con∣clusion

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 their Object? If the Habit be general, from the Act and Object in general; if the Habit be special, from the Act and Object in special. Then for the Motive to a thing; that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moves, who can doubt that knows that a Motive is an efficient cause, and that the efficient is always extrinsecal to the effect? For the fourth, that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects, It is am∣biguous: 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 imperti∣nent: If the sense of it be, that all objects revealed by God are alike (that is, alike plainly and undoubtedly) revealed by him, it is pertinent, but most untrue. Witness the great diversity of Texts of Scripture, whereof some are so plain and evident, that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them. Some are so obscure and ambiguous, that to say, this or this is the certain sense of them, were high presumption. For the fifth; Pro∣testants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselves perhaps, but not equally to them, whose understandings by reason of their dif∣ferent Educations are fashioned, and shaped for the entertainment of va∣rious opinions, and consequently some of them, more enclined to believe such a sense of Scripture, others to believe another; which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions, is to di∣sparage his goodness. But to what purpose is it, that these things are equal∣ly revealed to both, (as the light is equally revealed to all blind men) if they be not fully revealed to either? The sense of this Scripture, Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead? and this, He shall be saved, yet so as by fire, and a thousand others, are equally revealed to you and to another Interpreter, that is, certainly to neither. He now conceives one sense of them, and you another; And would it not be an excellent Inference, if I should conclude now as you do; That you forsake the formal motive of Faith, which is Gods Revelation, and consequently lose all Faith and Unity therein? So likewise the Jesuits and Dominicans, the Franciscans and Dominicans, dis∣agree about things equally revealed by Almighty God: and seeing they do so, I beseech you let me understand, why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all Faith and Unity therein? Thus you have failed of your undertaking in your first part of your Title, and that is a ve∣ry ill omen, especially in points of so streight mutual dependance, that we shall have but slender performance in your second Assumpt. Which is, That the Church is infallible in all her Definitions, whether concerning Points Fundamental, or not Fundamental.

25. Ad § 7. & 8. The Reasons of these two Paragraphs, as they were al∣ledged before, so they were before answered, Cap. 2. and thither I remit the Reader.

26. Ad §. 9, 10, 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sin, either deny any thing to be true, which she knows to be Gods Truth: or propose any thing as his Truth, which she knows not to be so. But that she may not do this by ignorance or mistake, and so without damnable sin, that you should have proved, but have not. But, say you, This excuse cannot serve: for if the Church be assisted only for Points Fundamental, she cannot but know that she may err in points not Fundamental. Answ. It does not follow,

unless you suppose, that the Church knows that she is assisted no farther. But if, being assisted only so far, she yet did conceive by errour her assist∣ance absolute and unlimited, or, if knowing her assistance restrained to Fundamentals, she yet conceived by errour, that she should be guarded, from proposing any thing but what was fundamental, then the consequence is apparently false. But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in propo∣sing points not fundamental, to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith. Ans. Neither is this deduction worth any thing, unless it be understood of such unfundamental points, as she is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture. Indeed, if she propose such, as matters of Faith certain∣ly true, she may well be questioned, Quo Warranto? She builds without a foundation, and says, Thus saith the Lord, when the Lord doth not say so: which cannot be excused from rashness and high presumption; such a pre∣sumption, as an Embassadour should commit, who should say in his Masters name that for which he hath no Commission; Of the same na∣ture, I say, but of a higher strain: as much as the King of Heaven, is grea∣ter than any earthly King. But though she may err in some points not-fundamental, yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others; as for example, these, That Abraham begat Isaac, that S. Paul had a cloak, that Timothy was sick; because these, though not Fundamental, i. e. no essential parts of Christianity, yet are evidently, and undeniably set down in Scri∣pture, and consequently, may be without all rashness proposed by the Church as certain divine Revelations. Neither is your Argument, conclu∣ding, when you say, If in such things she may be deceived, she must be always uncertain of all such things. For, my sense may sometimes possibly deceive me, yet I am certain enough that I see what I see, and feel what I feel. Our Judges are not infallible in their judgments, yet are they certain enough, that they judge aright, and that they proceed according to the Evidence that is given, when they condemn a Thief, or a murderer to the Gallows. A 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 White-Hall? The ground of your Error here is your not distinguishing between Actual Certainty and Absolute Infalli∣bility. Geometricians are not infallible in their own Science: yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated. And Carpen∣ters are not Infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their Rule and Square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain, that in all her Definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her Rule; yet being certain of the Infallibility of her Rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the Truth of some particular Decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true.

27. Ad § 12. But if the Church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing Scripture, and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been deceived already. The Church may err in her Proposition or custo∣dy 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 testi∣mony of any present Church is but a little part. So that here you fall into the Fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. For in effect this is the sense of your Argument: Unless the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty of Scripture from the Authority of the Church: There∣fore unless the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty hereof at all. As if a man should say, If the Vintage of France miscarry, we can have no Wine from France: Therefore, if that Vintage miscarry, we can have no Wine at all. And, for the incorruption of Scripture; I know no other ra∣tional assurance we can have of it, than such as we have of the incorrupti∣on of other ancient Books, that is, the consent of ancient Copies: such, I mean for the kind, though it be far greater for the degree of it. And if the Spirit of God give any man any other Assurance hereof, this is not rational and discursive, but supernatural and infused. And Assurance it may be to him∣self, but no Argument to another. As for the infallibility of the Church; it is so far from being a proof of Scriptures Incorruption, that no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of Scripture: which yet are as sub∣ject to corruption as any other, and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been possible) than any other, and made to speak as they do, for the advantage of those men, whose ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their Authority. Now then, if any man should prove the Scri∣ptures uncorrupted, because the Church says so, which is infallible: I would demand again touching this very thing, That there is an Infallible Church, seeing it is not of it self evident, how shall I be assured of it? And what can he answer, but that the Scripture says so, in these and these places? Hereupon I would ask him, how shall I be assured, that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these places? seeing it is possible, and not altogether impro∣bable, that these men, which desire to be thought Infallible, when they had the government of all things in their own hands, may have altered them for their purpose. If to this he answer again, that the Church is infallible, and therefore cannot do so; I hope it would be apparent, that he runs round in a circle, and proves the Scriptures incorruption, by the Churches infal∣libility, and the Churches infallibility, by the Scriptures incorruption; and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility, and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption.

28. Now for your Observation, that some Books, which were not always known to be Canonical, have been afterwards received for such. But never any Book or Syllable defined for Canonical, was afterwards questioned or re∣jected for Apocryphal: I demand, touching the first sort, Whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonical, or not? If not, seeing the whole Faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church, and seeing, after the Apostles, the Church pretends to no new Revelations, How can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canonical? And how can you pretend, that your Church, which makes this an Article of Faith, is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not re∣vealed by God? If they were, How then is the Church an infallible keep∣er of the Canon of Scripture, which hath suffered some Books of Canoni∣cal Scripture to be lost? and others to lose for a long time their being Cano∣nical, at least, the necessity of being so esteemed, and afterwards, as it were by the law of 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 Churche's omission to teach it for some Ages, as an Article of Faith, nay degrading it from the number of Articles of Faith, and putting it among disputable pro∣blems, 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 Re∣velation, and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such, is inex∣cusable.

19. And then for the other part of it, that never any Book or Syllable de∣fined 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 Epistle of St. James, and to the He∣brews, were they by the Apostles approved for Canonical, or no? If not, With what face dare you approve them, and yet pretend that all your do∣ctrin is Apostolical? Especially, seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational discourse from any other defined by them. If they were approved by them, this, I hope, was a sufficient definition: and there∣fore you were best rub your forehead hard, and say, that these Books were never questioned. But if you do so, then I shall be bold to ask you, what Books you meant in saying before, Some Books which were not always known to be Canonical, have been afterwards received? Then for the Book of Mac∣chabees, I hope, you will say it was defined for Canonical before S. Grego∣rie's time: and yet he, lib. 19. Moral. c. 13. citing a testimony out of it, prefaceth 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 Eleazar in the Book of Macchabees, &c. Which, if it be not to reject it from being Canonical, is, without question, at least to question it. Moreover, because you are so punctual, as to talk of words and syllables, I would know whether before Sixtus Quintus his time, your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture, or not? If not, then was your Church surely a most Vigilant Keeper of Scripture, that for 1500. years had not defined what was Scripture, and what was not. If it had, then I demand, Was it that, set forth by Sixtus? or that, set forth by Clement? or a third different from both? If it were that set forth by Sixtus, then is it now condemned by Clement: if that of Clement, it was condem∣ned I say, but sure you will say contradicted and questioned by Sixtus; If different from both, then was it questioned and condemned by both, and still lies under the condemnation. But then lastly, Suppose it had been true, That both some Book not known to be Canonical had been received, and that never any after receiving had been questioned: How had this been a sign that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost? In what mood or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premisses? Certainly, your flying to such poor signs as these are, is to me a great sign, that you labour with penury of better Arguments: and that thus to catch at sha∣dows and bulrushes, is a shrewd sign of a sinking cause.

3. Ad. §. 13. We are told here, That the general promises of Infallibili∣ty to the Church, must not be restrained only to points Fundamental; Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained. The Argu∣ment put in form, and made compleat by supply of the concealed Propo∣sition, 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 Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamen∣tals:

Therefore neither is the Churche's Infallibility thus to be limited. Or thus;

The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and Writing may be 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 Ma∣jor Proposition, be understood, may be as possibly: it is true, but imperti∣nent. If by it we understand, may be as justly and rightly, It is very perti∣nent, but very false. So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentals, 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 law∣fully: this also may be done, but not lawfully. 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, by five words taken out of Scripture, All Scripture is divinely inspired. Shew but as much for the Church: Shew where it is written, That all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired; and the Controversie will be at end. Be∣sides, there is not the same reason for the Churche'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 Do∣ctrine and Scripture. But, if the Apostles have erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we have recourse, for the disco∣vering and correcting their error? Again, there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation: and, if but wise men have the ordering of the building, they will make it much a surer thing, that the foundation shall not fail the building, than that the building shall not fall from the foundation. And though the building be to be of Brick, or Stone, and perhaps of Wood; yet, if it may be possibly, they will have a Rock for their Foundation, whose stability is a much more indubitable thing, than the adherence of the structure to it. Now the Apostles, and Prophets, and Canonical Writers, are the Foundation of the Church, ac∣cording to that of S. Paul, Built upon the Foundation of Apostles and Pro∣phets; therefore their stability in reason ought to be greater then the Churche's, which is built upon them. Again, a dependant Infallibility (especially if the dependance be voluntary) cannot be so certain as that on which it depends: But the Infallibility of the Church, depends upon the Infallibility of the Apostles, as the straitness of the thing regulated, upon the straitness of the Rule: and besides, this dependance is voluntary; for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule; being nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which every one hath free-will, and is subject to passions and error: Therefore the Churche's Infallibility, is not so certain as that of the Apostles.

31. Lastly, Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? If you be so Infal∣lible as the Apostles were, shew it as the Apostles did; They went forth

(saith S. Mark) and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming their words with signs following. It is impossible that God should lye, and that the eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falshood, or of such Doctrine as is partly true, and part∣ly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was in∣tirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. I say, in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain divine Truth, and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles. For that the Apostles themselves, even after the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and, through inadvertence or prejudice, continued for a time in an errour, repugnant to a revealed Truth, it is, as I have already noted, unanswerably evident, from the Story of the Acts of the Apostles. For notwithstanding our Saviour's express Warrant and Injunction, To go and preach to all Nations, yet until S. Peter was better informed by a Vision from Heaven, and by the conversion of Cornelius; both he and the rest of the Church, held it unlawful for them, to go or preach the Gospel to any but the Jews.

32. And for those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane 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 S. Paul says, in the 1. Epist to the Corinth. 7.12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord; And again, Concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I deliver my judgment: If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak, what S. Paul spake, and that his judgment was God's command∣ment, shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul, and that Spirit by which he wrote? which moved him to write, as in other places, divine Revelations, which he certainly knew to be such; so in this place, his own judgment, touching some things which God had not particularly revealed unto him. And, if D. Potter did speak to this purpose (that the Apostles were Infallible only in these things which they spake, of certain knowledg) I cannot see what danger there were in saying so. Yet the Truth is, you wrong. D. Potter. It is not he, but D. Stapleton in him, that speaks the words you cavil at. D. Stapleton, saith he, p. 140. is full and punctual to this purpose: then sets down the effect of his discourse l. 8. Princ. Doct. 4. c. 15. and in that, the words you cavil at; and then p. 150. he shuts up this Paragraph with these words, Thus D. Stapleton. So that, if either the Doctrine, or the Reason, be not good, D. Stapleton not D. Potter is to answer for it.

33. Neither do D. Potter's ensuing words limit the Apostle's infallibili∣ty to truths absolutely necessary to salvation, if you read them with any can∣dor: for it is evident, he grants the Church infallible in Truths absolutely ne∣cessary; and as evident, that he ascribes to the Apostles, the Spirit's gui∣dance, 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 gui∣dance of the Spirit, in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them, limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals; But D. Pot∣ter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility, and ascribes to the A∣postles, the Spirit's infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner; Therefore he limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals. I once knew a man out of courtesie help a lame dog over a stile, and he for requi∣tal

bit him by the fingers: Just so you serve D. Potter. He out of courtesie grants you, that those words, The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth, and shall abide with you ever, though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles, yet in a conditional, limited, moderate, secun∣dary sense, they may be understood of the Church. But says, that if they be understood 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 courtesie 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 fore-mentioned, 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 which being most incompatible to the Apostles, you with an &c, I cannot but fear, craftily have conceal∣ed: How many obscure Texts of Scripture which she understands not? How many School-Questions which she hath not, happily cannot determine? And for matters of fact, it is apparent that the Church may err; and then concludes, That we must understand by All truths, not simply All, But (if you con∣ceive 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 well to the Apostles themselves; for that All which they were lead in∣to, was not simply All, otherwise S. Paul erred in saying, we know in part; but such an All as was requisite to make them the Churches Foundations. Now such they could not be, without freedom from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly, as certain revealed Truths. For, if we once suppose they may have erred in some things of this nature, it will be utterly undiscernable 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 Doctrin 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 absolute∣ly necessary to salvation; Is it consequent that he makes their Preaching and Writing not infallible in Points not Fundamental? Do you not blush for shame at this Sophistry? The Doctor 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 Infallible in all things proposed by them as Di∣vine Truths, the like must be affirmed of the Church, because D. Potter teach∣eth 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? 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: to the Apostles in a more absolute, to the Church in a more limited sense. To the Apostles absolutely for the Churches di∣rection: to the Church Conditionally by adherence to that direction, and so

far as she doth adhere to it. In a word, the Apostles were lead into all Truths by the Spirit, efficaciter: The Church is led also into all Truth by the Apostles writings, sufficienter. So that the Apostles and the Church, may be fitly compared to the Star and the Wisemen. The Star was di∣rected by the finger of God, and could not but go right to the place where Christ was: But the Wisemen were led by the Star to Christ; led by it, I say, not efficaciter or irresistibiliter, but sufficienter, so that if they would, they might follow it; if they would not, they might chuse. So was it be∣tween the Apostles writing Scriptures, and the Church. They in their wri∣ting were infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine Truth, but what was so. The Church is also led into all Truth, but it is by the intervening of the Apostles writings: But it is as the Wisemen were led by the 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 Doctrin of the Romish Church) hath freewill in believing, it follows, that the whole Aggregate hath freewill in believ∣ing. And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible, that of so many whereof all may believe aright, not any should do so: I answer, It is true, if they did all give themselves any liberty of judgment. But if all (as the case is here) captivate their understandings to one of them, all are as likely to err as that one. And he more likely to err than any other, be∣cause 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, whom the world cannot receive, because he seeth him not, neither knoweth him. Besides, let us suppose, that neither in this nor in any other place, God had promised any more unto them, but to lead them into all Truth, necessary for their own and other mens salvati∣tion: Doth it therefore follow that they were, de facto, led no farther? God indeed is obliged by his Veracity to do all that he hath promised, but is there any thing that binds him to do no more? May not he be better than his word, but you will quarrel at him? May not his Bounty exceed his Pro∣mise? And may not we have certainty enough that oft-times it doth so? God at first did not promise to Solomon, in his vision at Gibeon, any more than what he askt, 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 ask∣ed. If you do, you contradict God himself: For Behold (saith God) because thou hast asked this thing, I have done according to thy word. Lo, I have given thee a Wise and an Understanding heart, 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 ought appears, never obliged himself by promise, to shew S. Paul those Unspeakable mysteries, which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him: and yet, I hope, we have certainty enough, that he did so. God promi∣ses to those that seek his Kingdom, and the righteousness thereof, that all things necessary shall be added unto them, and in rigour by his promise he is obli∣ged 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 meer Necessity? So, though God had 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 farther assistance that he gave them: especially when he himself, both by his word, and by his works, hath assured us, that he did assist them farther. 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 your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposals.

35. Ad §. 14. & 15 Doubting of a Book received for Canonical, may sig∣nifie, either doubting whether it be Canonical; or supposing it to be Cano∣nical, whether it be True. If the former sense were yours, I must then again distinguish of the term, Received; For it may signifie, 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 Ca∣nonical. As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. James; the Church Rome, in Hieromes 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 Church 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, must 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 Gods word; he that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God, hath as much reason to believe nothing that he sayes: and therefore, if he will do ac∣cording to reason, neither must nor can believe any thing he sayes. And upon this ground you conclude rightly, that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Universal, and not confined to Points Fundamental.

36. And this Reason why we should not refuse to believe any part of Scripture, upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamental, you confess to be convincing. But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Univer∣sal infallibility of the Church. For (say you) unless She be infallible in all things, we cannot believe her in 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 your self must not believe your self in any thing, because you know that you are not infallible 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 errour 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 either do unreasonably in be∣lieving any one thing, upon the sole warrant of this authority; or unreasona∣bly, 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 do un∣less you play the Sophister) not upon her own Authority, I grant it: For we believe Canonical Books not upon the Authority of the present Church, but upon Universal Tradition. If you mean, Not at all, and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonical, which the Church proposes, I deny it. There is no more consequence in the Argument than in this, The devil is not infallible, therefore if he sayes there is one God, I cannot believe him. No Geometrician is Infallible in all things, therefore not in these things which he demonstrates. M. Knot is not infallible in all things, there∣fore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled, Charity Main∣tained.

37. But though the Reply be good, Protestants cannot make use of it, with any good coherence to this distinction, and some other Doctrins of theirs: becau∣se 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 dependance on Scripture, they did know 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 Fundamentals, only upon Scripture, and goe about to prove their assertion true, only by Scripture, then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things, or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them, to believe this thing, that these only Points are Fundament∣al. For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus, The Scrip∣ture is true in something; the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fun∣damental, therefore this is true, that these only are so! For every Fresh-man in Logick knows, that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly con∣cluded. But on the other side, this reason is firme, and demonstrative, The Scripture is true in all things; But the Scripture sayes, that these only Points are the Fundamentals of Christian Religion; therefore it is true, that these only are so. So that the knowledge of Fundamentals being it self drawn from Scripture, is so far from warranting us to believe the Scripture is, or may be, in part True, and in part False; that it self can have no foundation, but the Universal truth of Scripture. For, to be a Fundamental Truth, pre∣supposes to be a Truth; now I cannot know any Doctrin to be a Divine and supernatural Truth, or a true part of Christianity, but only because the Scrip∣ture sayes so which 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 infallible, I cannot believe her in every thing she sayes; yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves, either by Scripture, Reason, or Universal Tradition, be it Fundamental, or be it not Fundamental. This you say, we cannot in Points not Fundamental, because in such we believe she may erre. But this I know, we can: because though she may erre in some things,

yet she does not erre in what she proves, though it be not Fundamental. Again you say, We cannot do it in Fundamentals, because we must know what Points be Fundamental, before we go to learn of her. Not so. But 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 part 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 Doctrin, that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in Confir∣mation of it, that the Scripture of 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 Churches infallible Direction, extending only to Fundamentals, unless I know them before I go to learn of her, I may be rather deluded than instructed by her. The reason and connexion of this consequence, I fear neither I nor you do well understand. And besides, I must tell you, you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you, That the Church is an In∣fallible Director in Fundamentals. For if she were so, then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her, but also learn of her what is Fundamen∣tal, and take all for Fundamental which she delivers to be such. In the perfor∣mance whereof, if I knew any one Church to be Infallible, I would quickly be of that Church. But, good Sir, you must needs do us this favour, to be so acute, as to distinguish between being infallible in Fundamentals, and be∣ing an infallible Guide in Fundamentals. That there shall be alwaies a Church infallible in Fundamentals, we easily grant, for it comes to no more but this, that there shall be alwais a Church. But that there shall be alwaies such a Church, which is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, this we deny. For this cannot be without setling a known Infallibility in some one known So∣ciety of Christians, (as the Greek or the Roman, or some other Church) by adhering to which Guide, men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals. A man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet, in himself, and to himself, be infallible; but he could not be a Guide to others. A Man or a Church that were invisible, so that none could know how to repair to it for direction, could not be an in∣fallible Guide, and yet he might be in himself infallible. You see then, there is a wide difference between these two, and therefore I must beseech you not to confound them, nor to take the one for the other.

40. But they that know what Points are Fundamental, otherwise than by the Churches Authority, learn not of the Church: Yes, they may learn of the Church, that the Scripture is the Word of God, and from the Scripture, that such Points are Fundamental, others are not so; and consequently learn, even of the Church, even of your Church, that all is not Fundamental, nay all is not true, which the Church teacheth to be so. Neither do I see what hinders, but a man may learn of a Church, how to confute the errors of that Church which taught him: as well as of my Master in Physick, or the Mathematicks, I may learn those rules and principles, by which I may con∣fute my Master's erroneous Conclusions.

41. But you ask, If the Church be not an Infallible Teacher, why are we commanded to hear, to seek, to obey the Church? I answer. For Commands to seek the Church, I have not yet met with any; and, I believe, you, if you were to shew them, would be your self to seek. But yet, if you could pro∣duce

some such, we might seek the Church to many good purposes, without supposing her a Guide infallible. And then for hearing and obeying the Church, I would fain know, Whether none may be heard and obeyed, but those that are Infallible? Whether particular Churches, Governors, Pastors, Paretns be not to be heard and obeyed? Or whether all these be infallible. I wonder you will thrust upon us so often, these worn-out Objections, without taking notice of their Answers.

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

43. In the next place, you tell us out of him, That that which hath been alwaies kept, is most rightly esteemed to come from the Apostles: Very right, and what then? Therefore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controver∣sies. Sir, I beseech you, when you write again, do us the favour to write no∣thing but Syllogisms: for I find it still an extreame trouble to find out the concealed Propositions, which are to connect the parts of your Enthymems. As now for example, I profess unto you, I am at my wits end, and have done my best endeavour, to finde some glue, or sodder, or cement, or chain, or thred, or any thing to tye this antecedent and this consequent together, 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 Heretiques, are not to re•• baptized, are neither of them to be proved by Scripture: And yet according to S. Austine 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 infallible. I answer▪ that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough, of the Universal Traditions of the ancient Church; such, as in S. Austins account, these were which here are spoken of, and yet not be certain enough, of the definitions of the present Church. Unless you can shew (which I am sure you can never do) that the Infallibility of the present Church, was alwaies 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 Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some Doctrin, touching which the Scripture is silent; therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these, to which the Scripture seems repugnant. Now the Doctrines, which S. Austin received upon the Churches Authority, were of the first sort; the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches Infallibility, are of the second. And therefore though the Churches Authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austin laid upon it, yet 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 S. Austin, as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he says it, not 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 neerness 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 contra∣ry. Yet, I profess, I must have better satisfaction, before I can induce my my self to hold it certain and infallible. And this, not because Popery would come in at this door, as some have vainly feared, but because by the Church Universal of some time, and the Church Universal of other times, I see plain contradictions held and practised. Both which could not come from the Apostles; for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood. And therefore the belief or practice of the present Universal Church, can be no infallible proof, that the Doctrine so believed, or the Custom so practised, came from the Apostles. I instance in the Doctrine of the Mille∣naries, and the Eucharists necessity for Infants: both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some Ages, without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries: and were de∣livered by them, not as Doctors, but as Witnesses, not as their own opi∣nions, but as Apostolike Traditions. And therefore measuring the Doctrin of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinal Perron gives us for that purpose, both these Doctrins must be acknowledged to have been the Doctrins of the ancient Church of some Age or Ages; And that the con∣trary Doctrines were Catholique 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 Doctrin of the present Church, is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles. Besides, who can warrant us, that the Universal Tradi∣tions of the Church were all Apostolical? seeing in that famous place for Traditions, in Tertullian,(a) Quicunque Traditor, Any Author whatsoever is Founder good enough for them. And who can secure us that Humane inventions, and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time, gain the reputation of Apostolique! Seeing the Direction, then was,(b) Pracepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat.

45. No less, you say, is S. Chrysostom, for the infallible Traditions of the Church. But you were to prove the Church infallible, not in her Traditi∣ons (which we willingly grant, if they be as Universal as the Tradition of the undoubted Books of Scripture 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 U∣niversal Traditions, were you to prove the Church infallible, but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies. To this Point when you speak, you shall have an Answer; but hitherto you do but wander.

46. But let us see what S. Chrysostom says, They (the Apostles) delive∣red not all things in writing, (who denies it?) but many things also without writing (who doubts of it?) and these also are worthy of belief. Yes, if we knew what they were. But many things are worthy of belief, which are not necessary to be believed: As, that Julius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief, being so well testified as it is, but yet it is not necessary to be believed; a man may be saved without it. Those many works which our Saviour did (which S. John supposes, would not have been contained in a world of Books) if they had been written, or if God by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them, had been as wor∣thy to be believed, and as necessary, as those that are written. But to shew you how much more a faithful keeper Records are than Report, those few that were written are preserved & believed; those infinitely more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men. And see∣ing God in his Providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them, he hath freed us from the Obligation of believing them: for every Obligation 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, touch∣ing the sense of the obscure places of them? These Traditive Interpreta∣tions, had they been written and dispersed, as the Scriptures were, had without question been preserved, as the Scriptures are. But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition, the Church of Rome hath been, or even the Catholique 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 Anci∣ent Interpreters, we shal hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them. Cardinal Perron, in his Discourse of Traditions, having alledged this place for them, Hold the Traditions, &c. tells us, We must not answer that S. Paul speaks here, only of such Traditions, which (though not in this Epist. to the Thess. yet) were afterwards written, and in other Books of Scripture: because it is upon occasion of Tradition (touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist) which was never writ∣ten, that he lays this injunction upon them, to hold the Traditions. Well, let us grant this Argument good, and concluding; and that the Church of the Thessalonians, or the Catholique Church (for what S. Paul writ to one Church, he writ to all) were to hold some unwritten Traditions, and among the rest, what was the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist. But what if they did not perform their duty in this point, but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church? Shal 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 im∣possibilities, to do that which you cannot do your selves. It is therefore re∣quisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed, before you re∣quire obedience unto it. Are you able then to instruct us so well, as to be fit to say unto us, Now ye know what witholdeth? Or, do you your selves know that ye may instruct us? Can ye, or dare you say, this or this was this hinderance which S. Paul here meant, and all men under pain of dam∣nation 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, Infal∣lible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions; when here this very Traditi∣on, which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church, you have utterly lost it, so that there is no foot∣step or print of it remaining, which with Divine Faith we may rely up∣on. 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! Saint Chrysostom's counsel therefore, of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief, we are willing to obey: And, if you can of any thing make it appear, that it is Tradition, we will seek no farther. But this we say withall, that we are perswaded you cannot make this appear in any thing, but only the Canon of Scri∣pture; and that there is nothing now extant, and to be known by us, which can put in so good plea, to be the unwritten Word of God, as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture, to be the written Word of God.

47. You conclude this Paragraph with a sentence of S. Austins, who says, The Church doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do, these things which are against Faith or good life: and from hence you conclude, That it ne∣ver hath done so, nor ever can do so. But though the argument hold in Lo∣gick à non posse, ad non esse, yet I never heard, that it would hold back, à 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 never do it, this, I believe, will hardly follow. In the Epistle next before to the same Januarius, writing of the same mat∣ter, he hath these words, It remains, that the thing you enquire of, must be of that third kind of things, which are different in divers places. Let every one therefore do, that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes; for none of them is against Faith or good manners. And why do you not infer from hence, that no particular Church can bring up any Custom that is against Faith or good manners? Certainly this Consequence hath as good reason for it as the former. If a man say of the Church of England, (what S. Austin of the Church) that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor 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? Further∣more, it is observable out of this, and the former Epistle, that this Church, which did not (as S. Austin, according to you, thought) approve or dis∣semble, or do any thing against faith or good life, did yet tolerate and dis∣semble vain superstitions, and humane presumptions, and suffer all places to be full of them, and to be exacted, as, nay more severely than, the Com∣mandments of God himself. This Saint Austin himself professeth

in this very Epistle. This (saith he) I do infinitely grieve at, that many most wholsom precepts of the divine Scripture, are little regarded; and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions, that he is more grievously found fault with, who during his octaves, toucheth the earth with his naked fooot, then he that shall bury his soul in drunkenness. Of these he sayes, That they were neither contained in Scripture, decreed by Councels, nor corrobora∣ted by the Custom of the Universal Church. And though not against Faith, yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty, which made the condition of the Jews more tolerable then that of Christians. And therefore he professeth of them, Approbare non possum, I cannot approve them. And, Ubi facultas tri∣buitur, resecanda existimo; I think they are to be cut off, wheresoever we have power. Yet so deeply were they rooted, and spread so far, through the in∣discreet devotion of the people, alwayes more prone to superstition than true piety, and through the connivence of the Governors, who should have strangled them at their birth, that himself, though he grieved at them, and could not allow them, yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them, Multa hujusmodi, propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulenta∣rum personarum scandala devitanda, liberius improbare non audeo. Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, I dare not freely disallow. Nay, the Catholique Church it self, did see and dissemble, and tolerate them; for these are the things of which he presently says after, The Church of God (and you will have him speak of the true Catholique Church) placed between Chaff and Tares, tolerates ma∣ny things. Which was directly against the command of the holy Spirit, given the Church by S. Paul, To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free, and not to suffer her self to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens. Our Saviour tels the Scribes and Pharisees, That in vain they worshipped God, teaching for Doctrines mens Commandments: For that laying aside the Commandments of God, they held the Traditions of men, as the washing of pots, and cups, and many other such like things. Certainly, that which S. Austin complains of, as the general fault of Christians of his time, was parallel to this: Multa (saith he) quae in divinis libris saluberri∣mè praecepta sunt, minus curantur; This, I suppose, I may very well ren∣der in our Saviour's words, The Commandments of God are laid aside; And then, Tam multis praesumptionibus sic pleana sunt omnia, All things, or all pla∣ces, are so full of so many presumptions, and those exacted with such severity, nay with Tyranny, that he was more severly censured, who in the time of his Octaves touched the earth with his naked feet, than he which drowned and bu∣ried his soul in drink. Certainly, if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandments, I know not what is. And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said to worship God in vain, as well as the Scribes and Pharises. And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind, were then al∣ready spread over the Church, being different in divers places. This is plain from these words of S. Austin concerning them, Diversorum locorum diver∣sis moribus innumerabiliter variàntur; and apparent, because the stream of them was grown so violent, that he durst not oppose it, Liberiùs improbare non audeo, I dare not freely speak against them. So that to say, the Catholique Church tolerated all this, and for fear of offence, durst not abrogate or con∣demn it, is to say (if we judge rightly of it) that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain. Now

how this tolerating of Universal superstition in the Church, can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent Spirit to guard it from superstition, and with the accomplishment of that pretended Prophecy of the Church, I have set Watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night; Besides, how these Superstitions being thus nourished, cherished, and strengthened by the practice of the most, and urged with great violence upon others as the Commandments of God, and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any, might in time take such deep root, and spread their branches so far, as to pass for Universal Customs of the Church, he that does not see, sees nothing. Especially, considering the catching and contagious nature of this sin, and how fast ill weeds spread, and how true and experimented that Rule is of the Histo∣rian, Exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt, sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. Nay, that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austin's time, prevailed so far, as to be Consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum, Who can doubt that con∣siders, that the practice of Communicating Infants, had even then got the credit and authority, not only of an universal Custom, but also of an A∣postolique Tradition.

48. But (you will say) notwithstanding all this, S. 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 upon it. Yea, but the same S. Austin tels us in the same place, That the Church may tole∣rate humane presumptions, and vain superstitions, and those urged more se∣verely than the Commandments 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, that a part, and far the lesser, tolerated and dissembled them in silence, and a part and a far greater, publiquely avowed and practised them, and urged them upon others with great violence, and yet continued 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 Church 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 S. Austin says not this which is pretended of the Church, viz. That she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor practises any thing against Faith or good life, but only of good men in the Church? Certainly, though some Copies read as you would have it, yet you should not have dissembled, that others read the place otherwise, viz. Eccclesia multa tolerat; & tamen quae sunt contra Fidem & bonam vitam, nec bonus approbat, &c. The Church tolerates many things, and yet what is against Faith or good life, a good man will neither approve, nor dissemble, nor practise.

50. Ad §. 17. That Abraham begat Isaac, is a point very far from being Fundamental; and yet, I hope, you will grant, that Protestants believing Scripture to be the Word of God, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say that the Catholique Church, and much more themselves may possibly err in some unfundamental points, is it there∣fore consequent, they can be certain of none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle, may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive my

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 Scriptures; when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty, that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether Fundamental or not Fundamental: That God is, and is a Rewarder of them that seek him: That there is no salvation but by faith in Christ: That by Repentance from dead works, and Faith in Christ, Remission of sins may be obtained: That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body? These we con∣ceive both true, because the Scripture says so, and Truths Fundamental, be∣cause they are necessary parts of the Gospel, whereof our Saviour says Qui non crediderit, damnabitur. All which we either learn from Scripture immediately, or learn of those that learn it of Scripture; so that neither Learned nor Unlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture. And therefore in imputing this to us, you cannot excuse your self from having done us a palpable injury.

51. Ad §. 18. And I urge you as mainly as you urge D. 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 Definitions, without which, no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental, and be capable of Salvation; (For, I hope, 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 your selves about the making of it; Some of you, as I have said above, holding some things to 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 reconciled. For either the Errour they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary, or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary. If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault, the Error is it self sinful, and consequently in its own nature dam∣nable; As, if by negligence in seeking the Truth, by unwillingness to find it, by pride, by obstinacy, by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends, by fear of mens ill opinion, or any other wordly fear, or any other wordly hope, I betray my self to any error contrary to any divine revealed Truth, that Error may be justly styled a sin, and con∣sequently of it self to such a one damnable. But if I be guilty of none of these faults, but be desirous to know the Truth, and diligent in seeking it, and advise not at all with flesh and blood about the choice of my opini∣ons, but only with God, and that Reason that he hath given me, if I be thus qualified, and yet through humane infirmity fall into error, that er∣ror cannot be damnable. Again, the party erring may be conceived either to die with contrition for all his sins known and unknown, or without it; If he die without it, this errour, in it self damnable, will be likewise so un∣to him: If he die with contrition (as his error can be no impediment but he may) his errour though in it self damnable, to him, according to your doctrine, will not prove so. And therefore some of those Authors whom you quote, speaking of Errors whereunto men were betrayed, or

wherein they were kept by their Fault, or Vice, or Passion, (as for the most part men are:) Others speaking of them, as errors simply and purely invo∣luntary, and the effects of humane infirmity: some, as they were retracted by Contrition (to use your own phrase); others, as they were not; no mar∣vel though they have past upon them, some a heavier, and some a milder, some an absolving, and some a condemning sentence. The least of all these errours, which here you mention, having malice enough too fre∣quently mixed with it, to sink a man deep enough into hell: and the great∣est of them all, being according to your Principles, either no fault at all, or very Venial, where there is no malice of the will conjoyned with it. And if it be, yet, as the most malignant poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerful Antidote: so, I am confident, your own Doctrin will force you to confess, that whosoever dies with Faith in Christ, and Contrition for all sins known and unknown (in which heap all his sinful errors must be comprized) can no more be hurt by any the most malig∣nant and pestilent error, than S. Paul by the Viper which he shook off in∣to 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 neces∣sary. Moreover, though, if they should go about to chuse out of Scripture all these Propositions and Doctrines which integrate and make up the bo∣dy of Christian Religion, peradventure there would not be so an exact agreement amongst them, as some say there was between the 70. Inter∣preters, in translating the Old Testament; yet thus far without controversie they do all agree, that in the Bible all these things are contained, and therefore, that whosoever 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 explicitely, or at least implicitely, either in Act, or at least in preparation of mind, believe all things Fundamental: It being not-Fundamental, nor required of Almighty God, to believe the true sense of Scripture in all places, but only that we should endeavour to do so, and be prepared in mind to do so, whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us. Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consist∣ing of twenty ingredients, and he, advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it, some of them telling him, that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary; some, that only some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse; lastly, some, that some only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest super∣fluous, yet not hurtful; yet all with one accord agreeing in this, That the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health, and that, if he made use of it, he should infallibly find it successful: what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the reco∣very of his health? Just so, these Protestant Doctors, with whose discords you make such Tragedies, agreeing in Thesi thus far, That the Scripture evidently conteins all things necessary to Salvation, both for matter of Faith, and of Practice, and that whosoever believes it, and endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to conform his life unto it, shall certainly perform all things necessary to Salvation, and undoubtedly be saved; agreeing, I say thus far, What matters it for the direction of men to Salvation, though they differ in opinion, touching what points are absolutely necessary,

and what not? What Errors absolutely repugnant to Salvation, and what not? Especially considering that although they differ about the Question of the necessity of these Truths, yet for the most part they agree in this, that Truths they are, and profitable at least, though not simply necessary. And though they differ in the Question, Whether the contrary Errors be destructive of Salvation, or no: yet in this they consent, that Errors they are, and hurtful to Religion, though not destructive of Salvation. Now that which God requires of us, is this, That we should believe the Doctrins of the Gospel to be Truths, not all necessary Truths, for all are not so; and consequently; the repugnant Errors to be falshoods: yet not all such falshoods, as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them; for all do not so.

53. Yea but you say, It is very requisite we should agree upon a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points; for without such a Catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no, he hath Faith sufficient to Salvation. This I utterly deny as a thing evidently false, and I wonder you should content your self magisterially to say so, without offering any proof of it. I might much more justly think it enough barely to deny it, without refutation, but I will not. Thus therefore I argue against it.

Without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I may be assured of the Truth of this Assertion, if it be true, That the Scri∣pture contains all necessary points of Faith, and know that I believe ex∣plicitely all that is exprest in Scripture, and implicitely all that is con∣tained in them: Now he that believes all this, must of necessity believe all things necessary; Therefore without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I may be assured that I believe all things necessary, and consequently that my faith is sufficient.

I said, of the truth of this Assertion, if it be true: Because I will not here enter into the Question of the truth of it, it being sufficient for my present purpose, that it may be true, and may be believed without any depen∣dance upon a Catalogue of Fundamentals. And therefore, if this be all your reason, to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals, we can∣not but think your demand unreasonable. Especially having your self ex∣pressed the cause of the difficulty of it, and that is, Because Scripture doth de∣liver Divine Truths, but seldom qualifies them, or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation. Yet not so seldom, but that out of it I could give you an abstract of the Essential parts of Christianity, if it were necessary, but I have shewed it not so, by confuting your reason, pre∣tended for the necessity of it, and at this time I have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so troublesom to my self. Yet thus much I will promise, that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church-Proposals with one hand, you shall receive a particular Catalogue of what I conceive Fun∣damental, with the other. For as yet, I see no such fair proceeding as you talk of, nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorous∣ly you require on ours. For, as for the Catalogue which here you have given us, in saying, You are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatso∣ever the Catholike visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Al∣mighty God, it is like a covey of one Partridge, or a flock of one Sheep, or a Fleet composed of one Ship, or an Army of one man. The Author of Cha∣rity 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 Cata∣logue, yet at least such a Catalogue it is not, and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require. For, if to set down such a Proposition, wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation, will serve you instead of a Catalogue, you shall have Catalogues enough. As, we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God com∣mands us to believe. There's one Catalogue. We are obliged under Pain of damnation, to believe all, whereof we may be sufficiently assured, that Christ taught it his Apostles, his Apostles the Church. There's another. We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word, and all con∣tained in it to be true. There's a third. If these generalities will not satisfie you, but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular, what those Doctrins are which Christ taught his Apostles, and his Apostles the Church, what points are contained in Gods Word; Then I beseech you do us reason, and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church-proposals, without leaving out, or adding any, such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to, and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fun∣damentals, I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Bankrupts.

54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue (as you call it) another main fault we find with it, that it is extreamly ambiguous; and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds, give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it. I would know therefore, whether by Be∣lieving, you mean explicitely or implicitely? If you mean implicitely, I would know, Whether your Churches Infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely, or no? Whether any other point or points be∣sides this, be under the same penalty, to be believed explicitely, or no? and if any, what they be? I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholike visible Church? In particular, whether the Decree of the Pope ex Cathedra, that is, with an intent to oblige all Christians by it, be a sufficient and an obliging Proposal? Whether men without danger of Damnation may examin such a Decree, and, if they think they have just cause, refuse to obey it? Whether the Decree of a Councel, without the Pope's Confir∣mation, be such an obliging Proposal, or no? Whether it be so in case there be no Pope, or in case it be doubtful who is Pope? Whether the Decree of a general Councel confirmed by the Pope, be such a Proposal, and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise? Whether the Decree of a par∣ticular Councel confirmed by the Pope, be such a Proposal? Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition? Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age, agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrin, not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries, be a sufficient Proposition? Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrin, or practice to be Tradition, or to be the Doctrin or practice of the Church, be a sufficient assurance that it is so? Whether we be bound under pain of damnation, to believe every Text of the vulgar Bible, now authorized by the Roman Church, to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets, and Evangelists, and Apostles, without any the least alteration? Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that? And if not of that, of what Bible they were bound to believe

it? Whether the Catholike visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome? Whether every Christian, that hath ability and opportunity, be not bound to endevour to know ex∣plicitely the Proposals of the Church? Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity, will not save him that actually and explicitely disbelieves some Doctrin of the Church, not knowing it to be so; and actually believes some damnable Heresie, 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 assures him it is so? Whether his ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so, and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation, to believe an Errour? Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined, when a number of Priests, perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so? And what assurance he can have, that they neither erre, nor deceive him, in this matter? Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite faith in the Church? Whether when you say, Whatsoever the Church proposeth, you mean all that ever she proposed, or that only which she now proposeth; and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose? Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so, and proposed as such by the Apostles? And if not, from whom the Church had this Declaration afterward? If so, whether all men ever since the Apostles time, were bound under pain of damnation to be∣lieve the Epistle of S. James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, to be Cano∣nical; at least, not to disbelieve it, and believe the contrary? Lastly, why it is not sufficient for any mans Salvation to use the best means he can to in∣form his conscience, and to follow the direction of it? To all these de∣mands when you have given fair and ingenuous Answers, you shall hear farther from me.

55. Ad §. 20. At the first entrance into this Paragraph, From our own Doctrin, That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary, it is concluded, if we are wise, we must forsake it in nothing, lest we should forsake it in something necessary. To which I answer, First, that the supposition, as you understand it, is falsly imposed upon us, and as we understand it will do you no service. For when we say, that there shall be a Church alwaies, some where or other, unerring in Fundamentals, our meaning is but this, that there shall be alwaies a Church, to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fun∣damentals; 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 priviledge to any one Church of any one Denomination, as the Greek or the Roman Church: which if we had done, and set up some setled certain So∣ciety of Christians, distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in Fundamentals, then indeed, and then only, might you with some colour, though with no certainty, have concluded that we could not, in wisdome, forsake this Church in any point, for fear of forsaking it in a necessary point. But now that we say not this of any one determinate Church, which alone can perform the office of Guide or Director, but indefinitely of the Church, meaning no more but this, That there shall be al∣waies in some place or other, some Church that errs not in Fundamentals; will you conclude from hence, that we cannot in wisdome forsake this or that, the Roman or the Greek Church, for fear of erring in Fundamentals?

56. Yea, but you may say, (for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments) That this Church thus unerring in Fundamentals, when Luther arose, was by our confession the Roman; and therefore we ought not in wisdome to have departed from it in any thing. I answer, First, that we confess no such thing, that the Church of Rome was then this Church, but only a Part of it, and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible. Secondly, that if by ad∣hering to that Church, we could have been thus far secured, this Argument had some shew of reason. But seeing we are not warranted thus much by any priviledge of that Church, that She cannot erre fundamentally, but only from Scripture, which assures us that she doth erre very haynously, we collect our hope, that the Truths she retains and the practice of them, may prove an Antidote to her against the Errors which she maintains in such Persons, as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalom; we should then do against the light of our conscience, and so sin damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errors though not Fundamental. Neither can we thus conclude, We may safely hold with the Church of Rome in all her Points, for she cannot erre damnably; For this is fals, she may, though per∣haps she doth not: But rather thus; These Points of Christianity, which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sinnes and er∣rors, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains; therefore we hope she errs not Fundamentally, but still remains a Part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she errs not Funda∣mentally, assures 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 consci∣ence, could not but bring to us certain Damnation. As for the fear of depar∣ting from some Fundamental truths withall, while we depart from her errors, Haply it might work upon us, if adhearing to her might secure us from it, and if nothing else could: But both these are false. For first, adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals: Because though de facto we hope she doth not erre, yet we know no priviledges she hath but she may erre in them her selfe: and therefore we had need have better security hereof than her bare Authority. Then secondly, without depen∣dance on her at all, we may be secured that we do not erre Fundamentally; I mean by believing all things plainly set down in Scripture, wherin all necessary, and most things profitable, are plainly delivered. Suppose I were travelling to London, and knew two wayes thither, the one very safe and convenient, the other very inconvenient, and dangerous, but yet a way to London: and that I overtook a Passenger on the way, who himself believed, and would fain perswade me, there was no other way but the worse, and would perswade me to accompany him in it, because I confessed his way, though very inconvenient, and very dangerous, yet a way; so that going that way we might come to our journies end by the consent of both parties: but he believed my way to be none at all; and therefore I might justly fear, lest out of a desire of leaving the worst way, I left the true and the only way: If now I should not be more secure upon my own knowledge, than frighted by this fallacy, would you not beg me for a fool? Just so might you think of us, if we would be frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbear. For the only and the main reason why we believe you not to erre

in Fundamentals, is your holding the Doctrins of Faith in Christ and Re∣pentance: which knowing we hold as well as you, notwithstanding our de∣parture from you, we must needs know that we do not erre in Fun∣damentals, as well as we know that you in some sort do not erre in Funda∣mentals, and therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary. Yet let us be more liberal to you, and grant that which can never be proved, that God had said in plain terms, The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foun∣dation, but withall had said, that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it; That you should never hold any Errour destructive of salvation, but yet many that were prejudicial to Edification: I demand, Might we have dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errors in regard of the smalness of them? Or, had it not been a damnable sin to do so, though the Errors in themselves were not damnable? Had we not had as plain direction to depart from you in some things profitable, as to adhere to you in things necessary? In the beginning of your Book, when it was for your purpose to have it so, the greatness or smalness of the matter was not considerable, the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all. But here we must erre 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.

57. Beyond all this, I say, that this which you say in wisdom we are to do, is not only unlawful, but if we will proceed according to reason, impossible. I mean to adhere to you in all things, having no other ground for it, but be∣cause you are (as we will now suppose) infallible in some things, that is, in Fundamentals. For whether by skill in Architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow foundation, I know not; but sure I am, in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is foun∣ded. And therefore if I consider what I do, and be perswaded that your In∣fallibility is but limited, and particular, and partiall, my adherence upon this ground cannot possibly be absolute, and Universal, and Total. I am confident, that should I meet with such a man amongst you (as I am well 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, obnoxi∣ous to errour in other things, and that you know not what Points are Fun∣damental, I demand, C. Why do you believe the Doctrin of Transubstanti∣ation? K. Because the Church hath taught it, which is infallible. C. What? Infallible in all things, or only in Fundamentals? K. In Fundamentals only. C. Then in other pointsshe may erre? K. She may. C. And do you know what Points are Fundamental, what not? K. No, and therefore I believe her in all things, lest I should disbelieve her in Fundamentals. C. How know you then, whether this be a Fundamental Point or no? K. I know not. C. It may be then (for ought you know) an unfundamental Point? K. Yes, it may be so. C. And in these, you said, the Church may err? K. Yes, I did

so. C. Then possibly it may erre in this? K. It may do so. C. Then what certainty have you that it does not erre in it? K. None at all, but upon this supposition, that this is a Fundamental. C. And this supposition you are uncertain of? K. Yes, I told you so before. C. And therefore you can have no certainty of that which depends upon this uncertainty, saving only a suppositive certainty, if it be a Fundamental truth; which is in plain English to say, you are certain it is true, if it be both true and necessary. Verily Sir, if you have no better Faith than this, you are no Catholique. K. Good words I pray! I am so, and God willing will be so. C. You mean in outward profession and practise, but in belief you are not, no more than a Protestant is a Catholique. For every Protestant yeelds such a kinde of assent to all the proposals of the Church, for surely they believe them true, if they be Fundamental truths. And therefore you must either believe the Church Infallible in all her proposals, be they foundations, or be they su∣perstructions; or you must believe all Fundamental which she proposes, or else you are no Catholique. K. But I have been taught, that seeing I be∣lieved the Church infallible in points necessary, in wisdom I was to believe her in every thing. C. That was a pretty plausible inducement, to bring you hither; but now you are here, you must go farther, and believe her infallible in all things, or else you were as good go back again, which will be a great disparagement to you, and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our Part, and even, with your own, the imputation of rashness and levity. You see, I hope by this time, that though a man did believe your Church infallible in Fundamentals, yet he hath no reason to do you the cur∣tesie of believing all her Proposals; nay, if he be ignorant what these Fun∣damentals are, he hath no certain ground to believe her, upon her Authori∣ty, in any thing. And whereas you say, it can be no imprudence, to erre with the Church; I say, it may be very great imprudence, if the question be, Whether we should erre with the present Church, or hold true with God Almighty.

58. But we are, under pain of damnation, to believe and obey h•••• in greater things, and therefore cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in m••••••••rs of less moment. Answ. I have told you already, that this is falsly to suppose, that we grant that in some certain points, some certain Church is infallibly assist∣ed, 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 necessary Truths. Yet if your supposition were true, I would not grant your Conclusion, but with this Exception, unless the matter were past suspition, and apparently certain, that in these things I cannot believe God, ••nd believe the Church. For then I hope you will grant, that be the thing of never so little moment, were it, for instance, but that S. Paul left his cloak at Troas, yet I were not to gratifie the Church so far, as for her sake to dis∣believe 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 Fundamentals be, we can∣not without 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 told you formerly, that you feare where no fear is; And though we know not precisely, just how much is Fundamental, yet we know, that the Scripture containes 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 wel assured that certain Errors can never prove Fundamental Truths.

60. Whereas you adde, That that visible Church which cannot err in Fundamentals, propounds all her definitions without distinction to be believed under Anathema's: Answ. Again you beg the question, supposing untruly, that there is any that visible Church. I mean any Visible Church of one De∣nomination, which cannot erre in Points Fundamental. Secondly, proposing definitions to be believed under Anathema's, is no good Argument, that the Propounders conceive themselves infallible; but only that they conceive the Doctrin they condemn is evidently damnable. A p••ain proof hereof is this, that particular Councils, nay, particular Men, have been very liberal of their Anathema's, which yet were never conceived infallible, either by others or themselves. If any man should now deny Christ to be the Saviour of the world, or deny the Resurrection, I should make no great scruple of Anathematizing his doctrin, and yet am very far from dreaming of infal∣libility.

61. And for the Visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to Salvation, that we believe she cannot erre, 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 Africk hath, to think himself King of all the world. And there∣fore 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 question there was none such. That you may not seem to delude us in like maner, make it appear that the visible Church doth hold so as you pretend: and then whether it be true or false, we will consider afterwards. But for the present, with this in∣visible Tenet of the visible Church, we will trouble our selves no far∣ther.

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

purpose, you should have said, that in following her you should sooner have been excused, then in cleaving to the Scripture, and to God himself.

63 Whereas you say, The fearful examples of innumerable persons, who forsaking the Church, upon pretence of her errours, have failed even in Funda∣mental Points, ought to deterr all Christians from opposing her in any one Do∣ctrin or practise; This is, just as if you should say, Divers men have fallen into Scylla, with going too far from Charybdis; be sure therefore ye keep close to Charybdis: Divers leaving Prodigality, have fallen into covertousness, there∣fore be you constant to Prodigality: Many have fallen from worshipping God perversly and foolishly, not to worship him at all; from worshipping many gods, to worship none; this therefore ought to deterr men from lea∣ving Superstition or Idolatry, for fear of falling into Atheism and Impiety. This is your counsel and Sophistry: but God sayes clean contrary; Take heed you swerve not, either to the right hand or to the left: you must not do evill that good may come thereon; therefore neither, that you may avoid a greater evill, you must not be obstinate in a certain error, for fear of an un∣certain. What if some, forsaking the Church of Rome, have forsaken Fun∣damental truths? Was this because they forsooke the Church of Rome? No sure, this is non causa pro causa: for else all that have forsaken that Church should have done so, which we say they have not. But because they went too far from her, the golden mean, the narrow way, is hard to be found; and hard to be kept; hard, but not impossible: hard, but yet you must not please your self out of it, though you erre on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part, for this is the only way that leads to life, and few there be that find it. It is true, if we said there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madness to perswade any man to leave it. But we protest and proclaim the contrary, and that we have very little hope of their Salvation, who either out of negligence in seeking the truth, or unwillingness to find it, live and die in the errors and impieties of that Church: and therefore cannot but conceive those fears to be most foolish, and ridiculous, which perswade men to be con∣stant in one way to hell, lest haply, if they leave it, they should fall into another.

64. But, Not only others, but even Protestants themselves, whese example ought most to move us, pretending to reform the Church, are come to affirm that she perished for many ages: which D. Potter cannot deny to be a Funda∣mental errour, against the Article of the Creed, I believe the Catholique Church, seeing be affirms, Donatists erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa. To this I answer, First, that the error of the Donatists was not, that they held it possible that some, or many, or most, parts of Christendome, 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 irre∣fragable experience. For who knows not that Gentilism, and Mahume∣tism, mans wickedness deserving it, and Gods providence permitting it, have prevailed, to the utter extirpation of Christianity, upon far the greater part of the world? And S. Austin when he was out of the heat of Disputation, confesses the Militant Church to be like the Moon, sometimes increasing, and sometimes decreasing. This therefore was no errour in the

Donatists, that they held it possible, that the Church, from a large extent, might be contracted to a lesser: nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa; (For why not to Africk then, as well as within these few Ages, you pretend it was to Europe?) But their error was, that they held de facto, this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so: and so, upon a vain pretence which they could not justifie, separated themselves 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 divide himself from all other Communions from which they were divided: which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawful to be required, and therefore the exacting of it was directly oppo∣site to the Churches Catholicism; in the very same nature with their Er∣rors who required Circumcision, and the keeping of the Law of Moses, as necessary to salvation. For whosoever requires harder or heavyer conditions of men, than God requires of them, he it is that is properly an Enemy of the Churches Universality, by hindering either Men or Countries from ad∣joyning themselves to it; which, were it not for these unnecessary and there∣fore unlawful conditions, in probability would have made them members of it. And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good (for any hope of salvation they have) not be Christians, as not be Romane Catholiques; believe nothing at all, as not believe all which she imposes upon them; be absolutely out of the Churches Communion, as be out of her Communion, or be in any other, Whether she be not guilty of the same crime, with the Donatists and those Zelots of the Mosaical Law, I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason! This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument. But I adde moreover, that you neither have named those Protestants who held the Church to have perished for many Ages, who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the Church; not that the true Church, but that the pure Church perished: or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence, but from its purity and integrity, or perhaps from its splendor and visibility: Nei∣ther have you proved by any one reason, but only affirmed it, to be a Fundamental Error, to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world, and abolished for a time from the face of the earth.

65. But to accuse the Church of any Error in Faith, is to say, she lost all Faith: For this is the Doctrin of Catholique Divines, that one Errour in Faith de∣stroyes Faith. To which I answer, that to accuse the Church of some Error in Faith, is not to say, she lost all Faith: For this is not the Doctrin of all Catholique Divines; But that he which is an Heretique in one Article, may have true Faith of other Articles. And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken.

66. Ad §. 21. D. Potter saies, We may not depart from the Church abso∣lutely, and in all things: and from hence you conclude, Therefore we may not depart from it; in any thing. And this Argument you call a Demon∣stration. But, a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration. D. Potter says not, that you may not depart from any opinion or any practice of the Church: for you tell us in this very place, that he sayes, even the Catholique may err: and every man may lawfully depart from Error. He only says, You may not

cease to be of the Church, nor depart from those things which make it so to be; and from hence you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing. Just as if you should argue thus: You may not leave your friend or brother, therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend, or the Errour of your brother. What he sayes of the Catholique Church, p. 75. the same he extends pre∣sently after, to every true, though never so corrupted, part of it. And why do you not conclude from hence, that no particular Church (according to his judgment) can fall into any Error, and call this a Demonstration too? For, as he sayes, 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 tels you, That whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body, forsakes the whole. So that what he sayes of the one, he sayes of the other; and tels 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 whoso∣ever forsakes either the body, or his coherence to any one part of it, must forsake his subordination, and relation to the Head. Therefore who∣soever forsakes the Church, or any Christian, must forsake Christ himself.

67. But then he tels you plainly in the same place, That it may be lawful and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrins and Practi∣ces: And this he would have said even of the Catholike Church, if there had been occasion, but there was none. For there he was to declare and justifie our departure, not from the Catholike Church, but the Roman; which we maintain to be a particular Church. But in other places, you con∣fess his Doctrin to be, that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not Fundamental; which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself. And therefore you cannot with any candor 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 travel, and the production may be a mouse.

68. Ad §. 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himself, or else must grant the Church infallible; Because, he saies, if we did not differ from the Roman, we could not agree with the Catholique: which saying supposes, the Catholique Church cannot erre. Answer. 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 Catholique Church may erre, but doth not, but that the Roman actually doth: or, that the Ca∣tholique Church doth erre in some few things, but that the Roman erres in many more. And is it not apparent in both these cases, (which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility) a man may truly say, Unless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church, I cannot agree with the Catholique? Either therefore you must retract you imputation laid upon D. Potter, or do that which you condemn in him, and be driven to say, that the same man may hold some errors with the Church of Rome, and at the same time with the Catholique Church not to hold but condemn them. For otherwise, in nei∣ther of these cases is it possible for the same man, at the same time, to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique.

69. In all these Texts of Scripture, which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter, or in any one of them, or in any other, Doth God say

clearly and plainly, The Bishop of Rome, and that Society of Christians which adheres to him, shall be ever the infallible guide of Faith? You will con∣fess, I presume, he doth not; and will pretend, it was not necessary. Yet if the King should tell us, the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes; but should either not tell us at all, or tell us but doubtfully, who should be Lord-Keeper, should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions? Nay rather, would not the dissentions about the Per∣son 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 no∣thing in vain, and seeing it had been in vain, to appoint a Judge of Con∣troversies, and not to tell us plainly who it is; and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly, no not at all who it is; Is it not evident he hath appointed none? Obj. But (you will say perhaps) if it be granted once, that some Church of one denomination, is the infallible Guide of Faith, it will be no difficult thing to prove, that yours is the Church, seeing no other Church pre∣tends to be so. Answ. Yes, the Primitive and the Apostolique Church pre∣tends to be so. That assures us, that the Spirit was promised, and given to them, to lead them into all saving truth, that they might lead others. Obj. But that Church is not now in the world, and how then can it pretend to be the Guide of Faith? Answ. It is now in the world sufficiently to be our Guide; not by the Persons of those men that were Members of it, but by their Writings, which do plainly teach us, what truth they were led into, and so lead us into the same truth. Object. But these writings, were the writings of some particular men; and not of the Church of those times: how then doth that Church guide us by these writings? Now these places shew that a Church is to be our Guide, therefore they cannot be so avoided. Answ. If you regard the conception and production of these writings, they were the writings of particular men: But if you regard the Reception and Approbation of them, they may be well called the writings of the Church, as having the attestation of the Church, to have been written by those that were inspired and directed by God. As a Statute, though penned by some one man, yet being ratified by the Parliament, is called the Act, not of that man, but of the Parliament. Object. But the words seem clearly enough to prove, that the Church, the Present Church of every Age, is Universally Infallable. Ans. For my part, I know I am as willing and desirous, that the Bishop or Church of Rome should be infallible, (provided I might know it) as they are to be so esteemed. But he that would not be deceived must take heed, that he take not his desire that a thing should be so, for a reason that it is so. For, if you look upon Scripture, through such spectacles as these, they will appear to you, of what colour pleases your fancies best: and will seem to say, not what they do say, but what you would have them. As some say, the Manna, wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wilderness, had in every mans mouth, that very tast which was most agreeable to his palate. For my part I profess, I have considered them a thousand times, and have looked upon them (as they say) on both sides, and yet to me they seem to say no such matter.

70. Not the first. For the Church may err, and yet the gates of hell not prevail against her. It may err, and yet continue still a true Church, and bring forth Children unto God, and send souls to Heaven. And therefore

this can do you no service, without the plain begging of the point in Que∣stion, viz. That every error is one of the gates of Hell. Which we abso∣lutely deny, and therefore, you are not to suppose, but to prove it. Nei∣ther is our denial without reason. For seeing you do, and must grant, that a particular Church, may hold some error, and yet be still a true Mem∣ber of the Church: Why may not the Universal Church hold the same error, and yet remain the true Universal?

71. Not the Second or Third. 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 in∣to 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 D. 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 sufficient∣ly, and not irresistibly, so that he may learn it if he will, not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now, who can ascertain me, that Spi∣rit's teaching is not of this nature; or, how can you possibly reconcile it, with your Doctrin of Freewill in believing, if it be not of this nature? Be∣sides, the word in the Original is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies, to be a guide and directer only, not to compel or necessitate. Who knows not, that a Guide may set you in the right way, and you may either negligently mistake, or willingly leave it? And to what purpose doth God complain so often, and so earnestly of some, that had eyes to see and would not see, that stopped their ears, and closed their eyes, lest they should hear and see? Of others that would not understand, lest they should do good: That the light shined, and the darkness comprehended it not: That he came unto his own, and his own re∣ceived him not: That light came into the world, and men loved darkness more than light? To what purpose should he wonder, so few believed his report, and that to so few his Arm was revealed: And that when he comes, he should no find no Faith upon Earth, if his outward teaching were not of this nature, that it might be followed, and might be re∣sisted. And if it be, then God may teach, and the Church not learn: God may lead, and the Church be refractory and not follow. And indeed, who can doubt, that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice, that God hath taught the Church of Rome, plain enough in the Epistle to the Corinthians, that all things in the Church are to be done for edification; and that in any publique Prayers, or Thanks-givings, or Hymns, or Les∣sons of Instruction, to use a language, which the assistants gen••rally under∣stand not, is not for edification? Though the Church of Rome will not learn this, for fear of confessing an error, and so overthrowing her Autho∣rity; yet the time will come, when it shall appear, that not only by Scri∣pture, they were taught this sufficiently, and commanded to believe it, but by reason and common sense. And so for the Communion in both kinds, who can deny but they are taught it by our Saviour, Joh. 6. in these words, according to most of your own expositions, Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you. (If our Saviour speak there, of the Sacrament, as to them he doth, because they conceive he doth so.) For though they may pretend, that receiving in one kind, they receive the blood together with the body, yet they can with no face pretend that they drink it: And so obey not our Saviour's injunction ac∣cording to the letter, which yet they profess, is literally alwayes to be obeyed,

unless some impiety, or some absurdity force us to the contrary: and they are not yet arrived to that impudence, to pretend, that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the Communion in both kinds. This therefore, they, if not others, are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place: But by S. Paul all without exception, when he says; Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this Chalice. This (a Man) that is to examine himself, is every man, that can do it: as is confessed on all hands. And therefore it is all one, as if he had said, Let every man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. They which acknowledge S. Paul's Epistles, and S. John's Gospel, to be the Word of God, one would think should not deny, but that they are taught these two Doctrines plain enough. Yet we see they neither do, nor will learn them. I conclude therefore, that the Spirit may very well teach the Church, and yet the Church fall into and continue in Error, by not regarding what she is taught by the Spirit.

72. But all this I have spoken upon a supposition only, and shewed un∣to you, that though these Promises had been made unto the present Church of every Age (I might have said though they had been to the Church of Rome by name) yet no certainty of her Universal Infallibility could be built upon them. But the plain truth is, that these Promises are vainly ar∣rogated 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 Savi∣our says, These things have I spoken unto you being present with you, c. 14.25. But the Comforter shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have told you, v. 26? Who are they to whom he sayes, I go away and come again unto you; And I have told you before it come to pass, v. 28, 29. You have been with me from the beginning, c. 15. v. 27? And again; These things I have told you, that when the time shall come you may remember that I told you of them: and these things I said not to you at the beginning, because I was with you, c. 16. v. 4. And, Because I said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts, v. 6. Lastly, Who are they of whom he saith, v. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? Do not all these circumstances appropriate this whole dis∣course of our Saviour to his Disciples, that were then with him, and, con∣sequently, restrain the Promises of the Spirit of Truth, which was to lead them into all truth, to their Persons only? And seeing it is so, is it not an impertinent arrogance and presumption, for you to lay claim unto them, in the behalf of your Church? Had Christ been present with your Church? Did the Comforter bring these things to the Remembrance of your Church, which Christ had before taught, and she had forgotten? Was Christ then departing from your Church? And did he tell of his departure before it came to pass? Was your Church with him from the beginning? Was your Church filled with sorrow, upon the mentioning of Christ's de∣parture? Or lastly, Did he, or could he have said to your Church, which then was not extant, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? as he speaks in the 13 v. immediately before the words by you quoted. And then goes on, Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth. Is it not the same You he speaks to in the 13. v. and that he speaks to in the 14? And is it not apparent to any one that hath but half an eye, that in the 13▪ he speaks only to them that then

were with him? Besides, in the very Text by you alledged, there are things promised, which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to. For there it is said, The Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth, but also will shew you things to come. Now your Church (for ought I could ever understand) doth not so much as pretend to the spirit of Prophecy, and knowledge of future events: And therefore hath as little cause to pre∣tend to the former promise of being led by the Spirit into all Truth. And this is the Reason, why both You in this place, and generally, your Wri∣ters of Controversies, when they entreat of this Argument, cite this Text perpetually by halfs; there being in the latter part of it, a clear, and con∣vincing Demonstration, that you have nothing to do with the former. Unless you will say, which is most ridiculous, that when our Saviour said, He will teach you, &c. and he will shew you, &c. he meant one You in the former clause, and another You in the latter.

73. Object. 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 con∣trary to many places of Scripture. Answ. I confess, that to confine the Spirit of God to those that were then present with Christ is against Scripture. But, I hope, it is easie to conceive a difference, between confining the Spirit of God to them, and confining the promises made in this place to them. God may do many things which he doth not pro∣mise at all; much more, which he doth not promise in such or such a place.

74. Object. But it is promised in the 14. Chap. that this Spirit shall abide with them for ever: Now they in their persons were not to abide for ever, and therefore the Spirit could not abide with them, in their Persons for ever, see∣ing the coexistence of two things, supposes of necessity, the existence of either. Therefore the Promise was not made to them only in their Persons, but by them to the Church, which was to abide for ever. Answ. Your Conclusion is, not to them only, but your Reason concludes, either nothing at all, or that this Promise of abiding with them for ever, was not made to their Per∣sons 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 restrained, and accommodated to the subject here entreated of; and that it signifies, not eternally, without end of time, but perpetually, without interruption, for the time of their lives. So that the force, and sense of the words is, that they should never want the Spi∣rit's assistance, in the performance of their function: And that the Spirit would not (as Christ was to do) stay with them for a time, and afterwards leave them, but would abide with them, if they kept their station, unto the very end of their lives, which is mans for ever. Neither is this use of the word, for ever, any thing strange, either in our ordinary speech, wherein we use to say, This is mine for ever, This shall be yours for ever, without ever dreaming of the Eternity, either of the Thing or Persons. And then in Scri∣pture, it not only will bear, but requires, this sense very frequently, as Ex∣od. 21.6. Deut. 15.17. His master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever. Psal. 52.9. I will praise thee for ever, Psal. 61.4. I will abide in thy Tabernacle for ever, Psal. 119.111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as mine heritage for ever. And lastly, in the Ep.

to Philemon, He therefore departed from thee for a time, that thou shouldst receive him for ever.

75. And thus, I presume, I have shewed sufficiently, that this for ever, hinders not, but that the promise may be appropriated to the Apostles, as by many other circumstances I have evinced it must be. But what now, if the place produced by you, as a main pillar of your Churches Infallibility, prove upon 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 first hearing, and not far from a prodigy. And I confess, as you here in this place, and generally all your Writers of Controversie, by whom this Text is urged, order the matter, it is very much disabled, to do any service against you in this question. For with a bold sacriledge, and horrible impiety, somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty, you perpetually cut off the head and foot, the beginning and end of it; and presenting to your Confidents, (who usually read no more of the Bible, than is alledged by you) only these words, I will ask my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, conceal in the mean time, the words before, and the words after; that so, the promise of God's Spirit, may seem to be abso∣lute, whereas it is indeed most clearly and expresly conditional: being doth in the words before, restrained to those only, that love GOD, and keep his Commandments: and in the words after, flatly denied to all, whom the Scriptures stile by the name of the World, that is, as the very Antithesis gives us plainly to understand, to all wicked and wordly men. Behold the place entire, as it is set down in your own Bible: If ye love me keep my Commandments, and I will ask my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of the Truth, whom the world cannot receive. Now from the place thus restored and vin∣dicated from your mutilation, thus I argue against your pretence. We can have no certainty of the Infallibility of your Church, but upon this sup∣position, that your Popes are infallible in confirming the Decrees of Ge∣neral Councels: we can have no certainty hereof, but upon this suppositi∣on, that the Spirit of Truth is promised to them for their direction in this work: And of this again we can have no certainty, but upon supposal, that they perform the condition, whereunto the promise of the Spirit of Truth is expresly limited, viz. That they love God and keep his Commandments: And of this finally, not knowing the Popes heart, we can have no certainty at all; therefore from the first to the last, we can have no certainty at all of your Churches Infallibility. This is my first Argument. Another fol∣lows, which will charge you as home as the former. If many of the Ro∣man See, were such men as could not receive the Spirit of Truth, even men of the World, that is, Wordly, 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 Coun∣cels, which these Popes confirm, nor of the Churches Infallibility, which is guided by these Decrees: But many of the Roman See, even by the con∣fession of the most zealous Defenders of it, were such men: Therefore the Spirit of Truth is not here promised, but denied them; and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the Decrees, which they confirm, nor of the Churches Infallibility, which guides her self by these Decrees.

76. You may take as much time as you think fit, to answer these Ar∣guments. In the mean while I proceed to the consideration of the next Text alledged for this purpose by you; out of S. Paul, 1 Ep. to Timothy, where he saith, as you say, The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. But the truth is, you are somewhat too bold with S. Paul; For he says not in formal terms, what you make him say, The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, neither is it certain that he means so: for it is neither im∣possible 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 maist know how to behave thy self, as a Pillar and Ground of the Truth, in the Church of God, which is house of the living God, which expo∣sition offers no violence at all to the words, but only supposes an Ellipsis of the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Greek very ordinary. Neither wants it some likeli∣hood, that S. Paul comparing the Church to a house, should here exhort Timothy, to carry himself, as a Pillar in that house should do, according as he had given other principal men in the Church, the name of Pillars; rather then having called the Church a House, to call it presently a Pillar; which may seem somewhat heterogeneous. Yet if you will needs have S. Paul re∣fer this not to Timothy, but to the Church, I will not contend about it any farther, then to say, Possibly it may be otherwise. But then secondly, I am to put you in mind, that the Church which S. Paul here speaks of, was that in which Timothy conversed, and that was a Particular Church, and not the Roman; and such you will not have to be Universally Infallible.

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

78. Fourthly and lastly, if we deal most liberally with you, and grant that the Apostle here speaks of the Catholike Church, calls it the Pillar and Ground of Truth, and that not only because it should, but because it al∣ways shall and will be so, yet after all this, you have done nothing; your bridge is too short to bring you to the bank where you would be, unless you can shew, that by Truth here is certainly meant, not only all necessary to salvation, but all that is profitable, absolutely and simply All. For that the true Church always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessa∣ry Truth, you know we grant, and must grant; for it is of the essence of the Church to be so, and any company of men were no more a Church without it, than any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. But as a man may be still a man, though he want a hand or an eye, which yet are profitable parts; so the Church may be still a Church, though it be de∣fective

in some profitable truth. And as a man may be a man that hath some biles and botches on his body; so the Church may be the Church, though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice.

79. And thus you see we are at liberty from the former places; having shewed that the sense of them, either must or may be such as will do your Cause no service. But the last you suppose will be a Gordian knot, and tie us fast enough: The words are, He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, &c. to the consummation of Saints, to the work of the Ministery, &c. Until we all meet into the Unity of faith, &c. That we be not hereafter Children, waver∣ing and carryed up and down with every wind of Doctrin. Out of which words this is the only Argument which you collect, or I can collect for you.

There is no means to conserve Unity of Faith, against every wind of Doctrin, unless it be a Church universally infallible.

But it is impious to say, There is no means to conserve Unity of Faith a∣gainst every wind of Doctrin:

Therefore there must be a Church Universally Infallible. Whereunto I answer, that your Major is so far from being confirmed, that it is plainly confuted by the place alleadged. For that tels us of ano∣ther means for this purpose, to wit, the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evange∣lists, and Pastors, and Doctors, which Christ gave upon his Ascension, and that their consummating the Saints, doing the work of the Ministery, and edifying the body of Christ, was the means to bring those (which are there spoken of, be they who they will) to the Unity of Faith, and to perfection in Christ, that they might not be wavering, and carryed about with every wind of false Do∣ctrin. Now the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Doctors, are not the present Church; therefore the Church is not the only means for this end, nor that which is here spoken of.

80. Peradventure by he gave, you conceive, is to be understood, he pro∣mised that he would give unto the worlds end. But what reason have you for this conceit? Can you shew that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath this signification in other places, and that it must have it in this place? Or, will not this interpre∣tation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that God hath not performed his promise? Unless you will say, which for shame I think you will not, that you have now, and in all Ages since Christ have had Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists: for as for Pastors, and Doctors alone, they will not serve the turn. For if God promised to give all these, then you must say, He hath given all, or else that he hath broke his promise. Neither may you pretend, that the Pastors and Doctors were the same with the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and therefore having Pastors and Doctors, you have all. For it is apparent, that by these names, are denoted several Orders of men, clearly distinguished and diversified by the Original Text; but much more plainly by your own Translations, for so you read it, some Apo∣stles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors: and yet more plainly in the parallel place, 1 Cor. 12. to which we are referred by your Vulgar Translation, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers; therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you. Object. But how can they, which died in the first Age, keep us in Unity, and guard us from Error, that live now, perhaps in the last? This seems to be all one, as if a man should say, that Alexander, or Julius Caesar, should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spain's Army. Answ. I

hope you will grant, that Hippocrates, and Galen, and Euclid, and Aristotle, and Salust, and Caesar, and Livie, were dead many Ages since; and yet that we are now preserved from error by them, in a great part of Physick, of Geometry, of Logick, of the Roman Story. But what if these men had writ by Divine Inspiration, and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they professed, and writ them plainly and perspicuously? You would then have granted, I believe, that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error, and from dissention in these matters. And why then should it be incongruous to say, that the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Do∣ctors, which Christ gave upon his Ascension, by their writings, 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 wri∣tings 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 Tra∣dition only for some minute particularities. But tell me I pray, the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Councel of Trent and the Pope that con∣firmed them, are they means to conserve you in Unity, and keep you from Error, or are they not? Peradventure you will say, Their Decrees are, but not their Persons: but you will not deny I hope, that you owe your Unity, and freedome from Error, to the Persons that made these Decrees: neither will they deny, that the writings which they have left behind them, are suf∣ficient for this purpose. And why may not then the Apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose, as the Decrees of your Doctors? Surely, their intent in writing was to conserve us in Unity of Faith, and to keep us from errour, and we are sure God spake in them: but your Doctors from whence they are, we are not so certain. Was the Holy Ghost then unwilling, or unable to direct them so, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing? For if he were both able and willing to do so, then certainly he did do so. And then their writings may be very sufficient means, if we would use them as we should do, to preserve us in Unity, in all necessary points of Faith, and to guard us from all pernitious Error.

81. If yet you be not satisfied, but will still pretend, that all these words by you cited, seem clearly enough to prove, that the Church is Universally Infal∣lible, without which, Unity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrin: 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 your Church is universally infallible. But we that have no such end, no such desires, but are willing to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others, we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit, he gave at his Ascension, and he promised to the worlds end. Besides, though you whom it concernes, may haply flatter your selves, that you have not only Pastors, and Doctors, but Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and those distinct from the former still in your Church; yet we that are disinter∣essed persons, cannot but smile at these strange imaginations. Lastly, though you are apt to think your selves such necessary instruments for all

good purposes, and that nothing can be well done unless you do it; that no unity or constancy in Religion can be maintained, but inevitably Christen∣dom must fall to ruin, and confusion, unless you support it: yet we that are indifferent, and impartial, and well content, that God should give us his own favours, by means of his own appointment, not of our choosing, can easily collect out of these very words, that not the Infallibility of your, or of any Church, but the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, &c. which Christ gave upon his Ascension, were designed by him, for the compassing all these excellent purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by their wri∣tings for ever. And if they faile hereof, the Reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the means, but the voluntary perversness of the subjects they have to deal with: who, if they would be themselves, and be content that others should be, in the choice of their Religion, the servants of God and not of men; if they would allow, that the way to heaven is no narrower now, then Christ left it, his yoak no heavier then he made it; that the belief of no more difficulties, is required now to Salvation, than was in the Primi∣tive Church; that no error is in it self destructive, and exclusive from Salva∣tion now, which was not then; if, instead of being zealous Papists, earnest Calvinists, rigid Lutherans, they would become themselves, and be content that others should be plain and honest Christians; if all men would believe the Scripture, and freeing themselves from prejudice and passion, would sincerely endeavour to finde the true sense of it, and live according to it, and require no more of others, but to do so; nor denying their Commu∣nion to any that do so, would so order their publique service of God, that all which do so may without scruple, or hypocrisie, or protestation against any part of it, joyn with them in it: who doth not see that seeing (as we suppose here, and shall prove hereafter) all necessary truths, are plainly and evidently set down 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 he, Unity of Communion, and Charity, and mutual toleration? By which means, all Schism and Heresie would be bani∣shed the world, and those wretched contentions which now read and tear in pieces, not the coat, but the members and bowels of Christ, which mutual pride and Tyrannie, and cursing, and killing, and damning, would fain make immortal, should speedily receive a most blessed catastrophe. But of this hereafter, when we shall come to the Question of Schism, wherein I perswade my self, that I shall plainly shew, that the most vehement accusers, are the greatest offenders, and that they are indeed at this time, the great∣est Schismatiques, who make the way to heaven narrower, the yoak of Christ heavier, the differences of Faith greater, the conditions of Ecclesiasti∣call Communion harder, and stricter, then they were made at the begin∣ning by Christ and his Apostles: they who talk of Unity, but ayme at Ty∣raunie, and will have peace with none, but with their slaves and vassals. In the mean while, though I have shewed how Unity of Faith, and Unity of Charity too, may be preserved without your Churches Infallibility, yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence, not that your Church is, but only seems to be universally infallible, meaning to your self, of which you are a better Judge than I: Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion, and proceed.

83. Whereas you say, That D. Potter limits those promises and privi∣ledges to Fundamental points; The truth is, with some of them he meddles not at 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.

83. But the words of Scripture by you alleadged are Universal, and mention no such restraint to Fundamentals, as D. Potter applies to them: I answer, That, of the five Texts which you alleadge, four are indefinite, and only one universal, and that you confess is to be restrained, and are offended with D. Potter for going about to prove it. And Whereas you say, they mention no re∣straint, 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, notwithstanding no restraint be mentioned. That place quoted by S. Paul, and applyed by him to our Saviour, He hath put all things under his feet, mentions no exception; yet S. Paul tels us, not only that it is true or certain, but it is manifest, that He is excepted which did put all things under him.

84. But your interpretation is better than D. Potters, 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 literal sense; for to Restrained, Literal is not opposed, but unlimited or absolute; and to Literal, is not oppos'd Restrained, but Figurative.

85. Wheras you say, D. Potters Bretheren, rejecting his limitation, re∣strain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles, implying hereby a contrariety between them and him: I answer, So doth D. Potter restrain 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 tels 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 doctrin is) you give not your selves liberty of judgment in the use of these means; if you make not your selves Judges of, but only Advocates for, the Doctrin of your Church, refu∣sing to see what these means shew you, if it any way make against the Doctrin of your Church, though it be as clear as the light at noon. Remove Prejudice, eaven the Ballance, and hold it eaven, make it indifferent to you which way you go to heaven so you go the true, which Religion be true so you be of it, then use the means, and pray for Gods assistance, and as sure as God is true, you shall be lead into all necessary Truth.

87. Whereas you say, you neither do, nor have any possible means to agree, as long as you are left to your selves: 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 your selves i. e. to your own reasons and judgment, this sure is very false, neither do you offer any proof of it, unless you intended this, that you do not agree, for a proof that you cannot; which sure is no good consequence, not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it: D. 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 neces∣sary, and it is not necessary that you should agree farther. Or if there be no possible means to agree about the sense of these Texts, whilst we are left to our selves, 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 possi∣ble for us to agree in this sense of them, then it were possible for us to agree. And why then said you of the self same Texts but in the page next before, These words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is Universally infal∣lible. A strange forgetfulness, that the same man, almost in the same breath, should say of the same words, They seem cleerly enough to prove such a Conclusion true, and yet that three indifferent men, all presum'd 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!

88. Whereas you say, that, It were great impiety to imagine that God, the lover of Souls, hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all o'her differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occasion: I desire you to take heed, you commit not an impiety in making more impieties than Gods Commandements make. Certainly, God is no way oblig'd 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 denyes us nothing necessary to Salvation. Deus non deficit in necessariis, nee redundat in superfluis: So D. Stapleton. But that the ending of all Controversies, or having a certain means of ending them, is necessary to Salvation, that you have often said and suppos'd, but never proved, though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse. So little care you take how slight your Foundations are, so your Building make a fair shew. And as little care, how you commit those faults your self, 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 D. Potter, Why the Questi∣ons between the Jesuits and Dominicans remain undetermined? You return him this cross Interrogatory, Who hath assured you that the Point wherein these learned men differ, is a revealed Truth, or capable of definition; or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable, or by any Rule of Faith? So then when you say, It were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infalli∣ble means to decide all differences; I may answer, It seems you do not be∣lieve your self. For in this Controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be, you seem to be doubtful whether there be any means to deter∣mine it. On the other side, when you ask D. Potter, Who assured him that there is any means to determine this Controversie? I answer for him, that you have; in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infal∣lible means to decide this and all other differences arising about the Interpreta∣tion of Scripture, or upon any other occasion. For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference between the Dominicans and Jesuits, which in∣cludes 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 some∣times with exceptions and limitations.

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

If there be no other means to make men agree upon your Churches In∣fallibility, but only this, and this be no means; then it is simply im∣possible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible:

But there is (as you have granted) no other possible means to make men agree hereupon, but only a submissive ackdowledgment of her Infallibi∣lity, And this is apparently no means;

Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible.

90. Lastly, to the place of S. Austin, wherein we are advis'd to follow the way of Catholique Discipline, which from Christ himself by the Apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity; I answer,

That the way which S. Austin spake of, and the way which you commend, being divers wayes, and in many things clean contrary, we cannot possibly follow them both; and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vain equivocation. Shew us any way, and do not say, but prove it to have come from Christ and his Apostles down to us, and we are ready to fol∣low it. Neither do we expect demonstration hereof, but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary. But if you bring in things into your now Catholique Discipline, which Christians in S. Austins time held abominable, (as the picturing of God,) and which you must, and some of you do confess to have come into the Church seven hundred yeers after Christ: if you will bring in things, as you have done the halfe Com∣munion, with a non obstante, notwithstanding Christs Institution, and the pra∣ctice of the Primitive Church, were to the contrary: If you will do such things as these, and yet would have us believe, that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles, this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make, or for wise men to grant.

Notes

• (a)

  Pro. 16 33
• (b)

  Pro. 16.10.
• (c)

  Prov. 21 1.
• (d)

  Mat. 18.20.
• (e)

  Mal. 2.7.
• (f)

  Mat. 25.2.
• (g)

  Mat. 28.20.
• (h)

  Luk. 10.16.
• (i)

  Heb. 13.17.
• (k)

  Eph. 4.11.
• (l)

  1 Tim. 3.15.
• (m)

  Mat. 18.17.
• (n)

  Mat. 7.8.
• (o)

  Jam. 1.5.
• (p)

  Isa. 59.21,
• (a)

  Luk 22.48.
• (b)

  Heb. 11.6.
• (a)

  1 Cor. 11.28.
• (b)

  1 Cor. 14.15, 16, 26.
• (a)

  De Corona Militis. c. 3. & 4. Where having recounted sun∣dry unwritten Traditions then observed by Christians, many whereof, by the way, (notwithstand∣ing the Coun∣cel of Trents profession, To receive them and the written Word with like affection of Pie∣ty) are now re∣jected and neglected by the Church of Rome: For ex∣ample, Immer∣sion in Baptism, Tasting a mix∣ture of milk and honey presently after; Abstaining from Baths for a week after; Accounting it an impi••ty to pray, kneeling on the Lord's Day, or between Easter and Pentecost: I say, having reckoned up these and other Traditions in Chap 3. He adds another in the 4. of the Veiling of Women; And then adds, Since I find no law for this, it fol∣lows, that Tra∣dition must have given this obser∣vation to custom, which shall gain in time, Aposto∣lique Authority by the interpre∣tation of the reason of it. By these examples therefore it is declared, That the observing of unwritten Tradition, being confirmed by custom, may be defended. The perseverance of the observation, being a good testimony of the goodness of the Tradition. Now Custom even in civil affairs where a Law is wanting, passeth for a Law. Neither is it material, on which it is grounded, Scripture or reason; seeing reason is commendation enough for a Law. Moreover, if Law be grounded on rea∣son, all that must be Law, which is so grounded—A quocunque productum—Whosoever is the producer of it. Do ye think it is not lawful, Omni fideli, for every faithful man to conceive and constitute? Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will, what is conducible for discipline, and available to salvation? seeing the Lord says, Why even of our selves judge ye not what is right? And a little after, This reason now demand, saving the respect of the Tradition—A quocunque Traditore censetur, nec Authorem respiciens sed Authoritatem: From whatsoever Tradition it comes, neither regard the Author but the Authority.
• (b)

  Hier.
• Perron.