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 ...

CHAP. VII. In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self, Protestants are in state of Sin, as long as they remain separated from the Roman-Church.

THAT, due Order is to be observed in the Theological Vertue of Charity, whereby we are directed to preferre some Objects before others, is a truth taught by all Divines, and declared in these words of holy Scripture: He hath ordered(a) Charity in me. The reason whereof is, because the infinite Goodness of God, which is the formal object, or Motive of Charity, and for which all other things are loved, is differently participated by different Objects; and therefore the love we bear to them for Gods sake, must accordingly be unequal. In the vertue of Faith, the case is far otherwise; because all the Objects, or points which we believe, do equally participate the divine Testimony or Revelation, for which we believe alike all things propounded for such. For it is as impossible for God, to speak an untruth in a small, as in a great matter. And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed, that any least error against Faith, is in jurious to God and destruct∣ive of Salvation.

2. This order in Charity may be considered; Towards God; Our own soul; The soul of our Neighbour; Our own life, or goods; and the life or goods of our Nighbour. God is to be beloved above all things, both Objectivè (as the Divines speak) that is, we must with or desire to God, a good more great, perfect and noble than to any, ••or all other things: namely, all that indeed He is, a Nature Infinite, Independent, Immense &c. and also Appretiativè, that is, we must sooner lose what good soever, than leave, and abandon him. In the other Objects of Charity, of which I spake, this order is to be kept. We may but are not bound, to preferre the life and goods of Neighbour before our own: we are bound to preferre the soul of our Neighbour before our own temporal goods or life, if he happen to be in extreme spiritual necessity, and that we by our assistance can succour him, according to the saying of Saint John: In this we have known(b) the Charity of God, because he hath yeelded his life for us, and we ought to yeeld our life for our Bretheren. And S. Augustine likewise saith: A Christian will not doubt(c) to lose his own temporal life, for the eternal life of his Neighbour. Lastly we are to preferre the spiritual good of our own soule, before both the spiritual and temporal good of our Neighbour, because as Charity doth of its own Nature, chiefly encline the person in whom it resides, to love God, and to be united with him: so of it self it enclines him to procure those things whereby the said Union with God is effected, rather to himself then to others. And from hence it follows, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to preferre the spiritual good, either of any particular person, or of the whole world before his own soul; according to those words of our Blessed Saviour: What doth it(d) avail a man, if he gain the whole would, and sustain the damage of his own soul? And therefore (to come to our present purpose) it is directly against the Order of Charity, or against Charity as it hath a reference to our selves, which Divines call Charitas propria, to adventure either the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, or the commit∣ting of any thing repugnant to it, for whatsoever respect; and consequently, if by living out of the Roman Church w•• put our selves in hazard either to want something necessarily required to salvation, or else to perform some act against it, we commit a most grievous sin against the vertue of Charity, as it respects our selves, and so cannot hope for salvation without repentance.

3. Now of things necessary to salvation, there are two sorts, according to the doctrin of all Divines. Somethings (say they) are necessary to salvation, necessitate praecepti, necessary only because they are commanded; For, If thou wilt(e) enter into life, keepe the Commandements. In which kind of things, as probable ignorance of the Law, or of the commandement, doth excuse the party from all faulty breach thereof; so likewise doth it not exclude salvation in case of ignorance. Some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medii, finis, or salutis; because they are Means appointed by God to attain our End of eternal salvation, in so strict a manner, that it were Presumption to hope for Salvation without them. And as the former means are said to be necessary, because they are commanded; so the latter are commonly said to be commanded, because they are necessary, that is: Although there were no other special precept concerning them; yet supposing they be once appointed as means abso∣lutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them, in vertue of that universal precept of Charity, which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soul. In this sort divine infallible Faith is necessary to salvation; as likewise Repentance of every deadly sin, and in the doctrin of Catholiques, Baptism in re, that is, in Act, to Children, and for those who are come to the use of reason, in voto, or hearty desire, when they cannot have it in act. And as Baptism is necessary for remission of Original and Actual sin committed before it; so the Sacrament of Confession, or pennance is necessary in re or in voto, in act or desire, for the remission of mortal sins, committed after Baptism. The minister of which Sacrament of Pennance being necessarily a true Priest, true Ordination is necessary in the Church of God for remission of sins by this Sacrament, as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose. From hence it riseth, that no ignorance or impos∣sibility can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation. As if, for ex∣ample, a sinner depart this world without repenting himself of all deadly sins, although he die sud∣denly, or unexpectedly fall out of his wits, and so commit no new sin by omission of repentance; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sins committed, and never repented of. If an Infant die with∣out Baptism, he cannot be saved; not by reason of any actuall sin committed by him in omitting Bap∣tism,

but for Original sin, not forgiven, by the means which God hath ordained to that purpose. Which doctrin, all, or most Protestants will (for ought I know) grant to be true, in the Children of Infidels; yea not only Lutherans, but also some other Protestants, as M. Bilson late of Winchester(f) and others, hold it to be true, even in the Children of the faithful. And if Protestants in general disagree from Catholiques in this point, it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement is in a point very funda∣mental. And the like I say of the Sacrament of Pennance, which they deny to be necessary to salvation, either in act or in desire; which error is likewise fundamental, because it concerns (as I said) a thing necessary to salvation: And for the same reason, if their Priesthood and Ordination be doubtful, as certainly it is, they are in danger to want a means without which they cannot be saved. Neither ought this rigour to seem strange, or unjust: For almighty God having, of his own Goodness, without our merit, first ordained man to a supernatural end of eternal felicity; and then, after our fall in Adam vouchsafed to reduce us to the attaining of that End, if his blessed Will be pleased to limit the attaining of that End, to some means which in his infinite Wisdome he thinks most fit; who can say, Why dost thou so? Or who can hope for that End, without such means? Blessed be his divine Majesty, for vouchsafing to ordain us, base creatures, to so sublime an End, by any means at all!

4 Out of the foresaid difference followeth another, that (generally speaking) in things neces∣sary only because they are commanded, it is sufficient for avoiding sin, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue, learning and wisdome. Neither are we alwayes obliged to follow the most strict, and severe, or secure part, as long as the doctrin which we embrace, proceeds upon such reasons, as may warrant it to be truly probable, and prudent, though the contrary part want not also probable grounds. For in humane affairs and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be alwayes expected. But when we treat not precisely of avoiding sin, but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot saved; I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity, to procure as great certainty as morally I am able, and am not to follow every probable opinion or dictamen, but tutiorem partem, the safer part, because, if my pro∣bability prove false, I shall not probably but certainly come short of Salvation. Nay in such case, I shall incurre a new sin against the Vertue of Charity towards my self, which obligeth every one not to ex∣pose his soul to the hazard of eternal perdition, when it is in his power, with the assistance of Gods grace, to make the matter sure. From this very ground it is, that although some Divines be of opinion, that it is not a sin to use some. Matter or Form of Sacraments, only probable, if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to Sacraments, as they belong to the Moral infused Vertue of Religion; yet when they are such Sacraments, as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of souls, all do with one consent agree, that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtful, or only probable Matter or Form, when it is in our power to procure certainty. If therefore it may appear, that though it were not certain that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation (as we have proved to be very certain) yet at least that it is probable, and withal, that there is a way more safe; it will follow out of the grounds already laid, that they are obliged by the law of Charity to embrace that safe way.

5. Now that Protestants have reason, at least to doubt in what case they stand, is deduced from what we have said, and proved about the universal infallibility of the Church, and of her being Judge of Controversies, to whom all Christians ought to submit their Judgement (as even some Protestants grant,) and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions, is a grievous sin: As also from what we have said of the Unity, Universality and Visibility of the Church, and of Succession of Persons, and Doctrin; Of the conditions of Divine Faith, Certainty, Obscurity, Prudence, and Supernaturality, which are wan∣ting in the faith of Protestants; Of the frivolous distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, (the confutation whereof proveth that Heretiques disagreeing among themselves in any least point, can∣not have the same faith, nor be of the same Church:) Of Schism; of Heresie; of the Persons who first revolted from Rome, and of their Motives; of the Nature of Faith, which is destroyed by any least error, and it is certain that some of them must be in error and want the substance of true faith; and since all pretend the like certainty, it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all, but that they want true faith which is a means most absolutely necessary to Salvation. Moreover, as I said heretofore, since it is granted that every Error in fundamentall points is damnable, and that they cannot tell in particular, what points be fundamental, it followes that none of them knowes whether he, or his Brethren, do not erre damnably, it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing Persons some must erre. Upon the same ground of not being able to assigne what points be fundamental, I say they can∣not be sure whether the difference among them be fundamental or no, and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of Salvation. I omit to adde that you want the Sacrament of Penance, instituted for remission of sins, or at least you must confess that you hold it not necessary; and yet your own Bretheren, for example the Century-Writers do(g) acknowledge that in times of Cyprian, and Tertullian, Private Confession even of Thoughts was used; and that it was then commanded and thought necessary. The like, I say, concerning your Ordination, which at least is very doubtful, and conse∣quently all that depends thereon.

6. On the other side, that the Roman Church is the safer way to Heaven (not to repeat what hath been already said upon divers occasions) I will again put you in mind, that unless the Roman Church was the true Church there was no visible true Church upon earth. A thing so manifest, that Protestants themselves confess that more than one thousand yeers the Roman Church possessed the whole world, as we have shewed heretofore, out of their own(h) words: from whence it followes, that unless Ours be the true Church, you cannot pretend to any perpetual visible Church of your Own; but Ours doth not depend on yours, before which it was. And here I wish you to consider with fear and trembling, how all Roman Catholiques, not one excepted; that is, those very men whom you must hold not to erre damnably in their belief, unless you will destroy your own Church, and salvation; do with una∣nimous consent believe, and profess that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation; and then tell me,

as you will answer at the last day, Whether it be not more safe, to live and die in that Church, which even your selves are forced to acknowledg not to be cut off from hope of Salvation, (which are your own words) than to live in a Church, which the said confessedly true Church doth firmly believe, and con∣stantly profess not to be capable of Salvation. And therefore I conclude that, by the most strict ob∣ligation of Charity towards your own soul, you are bound to place it in safety, by returning to that Church, from which your Progenitors Schismatically departed; lest too late you find that saying of the holy Ghost verified in your selves: He that loves(i) the danger, shall perish therein.

7. Against this last argumant of the greater security of the Roman Church drawn from your own confession, you bring an Objection; which in the end will be found to make for us, against your self. It is taken from the words of the Donatists, speaking to Catholiques in this manner: Your selves con∣fess(k) our Baptism, Sacraments, and Faith (here you put an Explication of your own, and say, for the most parts, as if any small error in faith did not destroy all Faith) to be good and available. We deny yours to be so, and say, There is no Church, no salvation amongst you; Therefore it is safest for all to joyn with us.

8. By your leave our Argument is not: (as you say) for simple people alone, but for all them who have care to save their souls. Neither is it grounded upon your Charitable Judgement (as you(l) speak) but upon an inevitable necessity for you, either to grant salvation to our Church, or to entail certain damnation upon your own: because yours can have no being till Luther, unless ours be supposed to have been the true Church of Christ. And since you term this Argument a Charm, take heed you be none of those, who, according to the Prophet David, do not hear the vice of him(m) who charmeth wisely. But to come to the purpose: Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church, or might be saved: And therefore you having cited out of S. Augustine, the words of the Catholiques, that the Donatists had true Baptism, when you come to the contrary words of the Donatists, you adde, No Church, No Salvation; making the Argument to have quinq: terminos; without which Addition you did see, it made nothing against us: For, as I said, the Catholiques never yielded, that among the Dona∣tists there was a true Church, or hope of Salvation. And your self, a few leaves after, acknowledge that the Donatists maintained an error, which was in the Matter and Nature of it properly heretical, against that Article of the Creed, wherein we profess to believe the holy(n) Catholique Church: and con∣sequently, you cannot allow salvationi to them, as you do, and must do to us. And therefore the Donatists could not make the like argument agains Catholiques, as Catholiques make against you, who grant us salvation, which we deny to you. But at least (you will say) this Argument for the Certainty of their Baptism, was like to Ours touching the Security and Certainty of our Salvation; and therefore that Catholiques should have esteemed the Baptism of the Donatists more certain than their own, and so have allowed Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques, or sinners, as the Donatists esteemed all Catholiques to be. I answer, No. Because it being a matter of faith, that Baptism ad∣ministred by Heretiques, observing due Matter, Forme, &c. is valid: to rebaptize any so baptized, had been both a sacriledge in reiterating a Sacrament not reiterable, and a profession also of a damnable Heresy, and therefore had not been more safe, but certainly damnable. But you confess that in the doctrin or practice of the Roman Church, there is no belief, or profession of any damnable error, which if there were, even your Church should certainly be no Church. To believe therefore and profess as we do, cannot exclude Salvation, as Rebaptization must have done. But if the Donatists could have affirmed with truth, that, in the opinion both of Catholiques and themselves, their Baptism was good, yea and good in such sort as that unless theirs was good, that of the Catholiques could not be such: but theirs might be good, though that of the Catholiques were not: and further, that it was no damnable error to believe, that Baptism administred by the Catholiques was not good, nor that it was any Sacriledge to reiterate the same Baptism of Catholiques: If, I say, they could have truly af∣firmed these things, they had said somewhat, which at least had seemed to the purpose. But these things they could not say with any colour of truth, and therefore their argument was fond, and impi∣ous. But we with truth say to Protestants: You cannot but confess that our doctrin contains no dam∣nable error, and that our Church is so certainly a true Church, that unless ours be true, you cannot pretend any; Yea you grant, that you should be guilty of Schism, if you did cut off our Church from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation: But we neither do, aor can grant that yours is a true Church, or that within it there is hope of salvation: Therefore it is safest for you to joyne with us. And now against whom hath your Objection greatest force?

9. But I wonder nor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 little, and so I think will ever body else, what the reason may be, that you do not so much as go about to answer the argument of the Donatists, which you say is all one with Ours, but referre us to S. Augustine there to read it; as if every one carried with him a Library, or were able to examin the place in S. Augustine: and yet you might be sure your Reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us, and which indeed, unless you can con∣fute it, ought alone to move every one who hath care of his soul, to take the safest way, by incorporat∣ing himself in our Church. But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence: For the answer which S. Augustin gives to the Donatists, is directly against your self, and the same which I have given, Namely, that Catholiques(o) approve the Baptism of Donatists, but abhorre their heresie of Rebap∣tization. And that as gold is good (which is the Similitude used by(p) S. Augustine) yet not to be sought in company of theeves; so though Baptism be good, yet it must not be sought for in the Conven∣ticles of Donatists. But you free us from damnable heresie, and yeeld us salvation, which I hope is to be imbraced in whatsoever Company it is found; or rather, that Company is to be imbraced be∣fore all other, in which all sides agree, that salvation may be found. We therefore must inferre, that it is safest for you to seek salvation among us. You had good reason to conceal S. Augustines answer to the Donatists.

10. You frame another argument in our behalf, and make us speak thus: If Protestants believe the(q) Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heaven, why do they not follow it? which wise argument

of your own, you answer at large, and confirme your answer by this instance; The Jesuits and Domi∣nicans hold different Opinions, touching Predetermination, and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin: Yet so, that the Jesuit holds the Dominicans way safe, that is, his error not damnable; and the Dominicans hold the same of the Jesuits; Yet neither of them with good consequence can press the other to believe his opi∣nion, because by his own confession it is no damnable error.

11. But what Catholique maketh such a wise demand as you put into our mouths? If our Religion be a safe way to heaven, that is, not damnable; why do you not follow it? As if every thing that is good, must be of necessity embraced by every body! But what think you of the Argument framed thus? Our Religion is safe even by your confession, therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it. And yet further, thus: Among different Religons and contrary wayes to heaven, one only can be safe: But ours, by your own confession, is safe, whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation: Therefore you may and ought to imbrace ours. This is our Argument••. And if the Dominicans and Jesuits did say one to another as we say you; then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion. You have still the hard fortune to be beaten with your own weapon.

12. It remaineth then, that both in regard of Faith, and Charity, Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome. And I may adde also, in regard of the Theological Vertue of Hope, without which none can hope to be saved; and which you want, either by excess of Confidence, or de∣fect 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Despaire, not unlike to your Faith, which I shewed to be either deficient in Certainty, or ex∣cessive in Evidence; as likewise, according to the rigid Calvinists, it is either so strong, that once had, it can never be lost: or so more than weak, and so much nothing; that it can never be gotten. For the true Theological Hope of Christians, is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption, and Desperation; which moves us to work our salvation with fear and trembling; which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works, as holy Scripture adviseth: But, contrarily, Protestants do either ex∣clude Hope by Despair, with the Doctrin, That our Saviour died not for all, and, that such want grace sufficient to salvation; or else by vain Presumption, grounded upon a fantastical perswasion, that they are Predestinate; which Faith must exclude all fear, and trembling. Neither can they make their Cal∣ling certain by good works, who do certainly believe, that before any good works they are justified, and justified even by Faith alone, and by that Faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified. Which point some Protestants do expresly affirm to be the soul of the Church, the principal Origin of sal∣vation, of all other points of Doctrin the chiefest and weightiest; as already I have noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants do now relent from the rigour of the foresaid doctrin, we must affirm, that at least some of them want the Theological Vertue of Hope; yea that none of them can have true Hope, while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those, who defend such doctrins, as do directly over∣throw all true Christian Hope. And for as much as concerns Faith, we must also inferr, that they want Unity therein (and consequently have none at all) by their disagreement about the soul of the Church; the principal Origin of salvation, of all other points of Doctrin the chiefest and weightiest. And if you want true Faith, you must by consequence want Hope; or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side, but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties, without prejudice to their salva∣tion; notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soul of the Church, &c. I must repeat what I have said heretofore, that, even by this Example, it is cleer, you cannot agree what points be fundamen∣tal. And so (to whatsoever answer you fly) I press you in the same manner, and say, that you have no Certainty, whether you agree in fundamental points; or Unity and substance of Faith, which cannot stand with difference in fundamentals. And so, upon the whole matter, I leave it to be considered, whe∣ther, Want of Charity can be justly charged on us, because we affirm, that they cannot (without repen∣tance) be saved, who want, of all other, the most necessary means to salvation, which are the three Theo∣logical Vertues, FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY.

13. And now I end this first part, having, as I conceive, complyed with my first design, (in that measure, which Time, Commodity, scarcity of Books, and my own small Abilities could afford) which was to shew, that Amongst men of different Religions, one side only can be saved. For since there must be some infallible Means to decide all Controversies concerning Religion, and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God; and this means can be no other, but the Visible Church of Christ, which at the time of Luther's appearance was only the Church of Rome, and such as agreed with her: We must conclude, that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions, or forsaketh her Communion, doth resist God himself, whose Spouse she is, and whose divine truth she propounds; and therefore becomes guilty of Schism and Heresie, which since Luther, his Associates, and Protestants have done, and still continue to do; it is not Want of Charity, but abundance of evident cause, that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth, PROTESTANCY UNREPENTED DESTROIES SALVATION.

The ANSWER to the SEVENTH CHAPTER.

That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves, to re-unite themselves to the Roman-Church.

THE first four Paragraphs of this Chapter, are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction unto a truth, which I pre∣sume, never was, nor will be, by any man in his right wits, either denyed or question'd; and that is, That every man in Wisdom and Charity to himself, is to take the safest way to his eternal Salvation.

2. The sift and sixt are nothing in a manner, but references to discour∣ses, already answered by me, and confuted in their proper places.

3. The seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, have no other founda∣tion but this false pretence, That we confess the Roman Church free from damnable error.

4. In the twelfth there is something that has some probability to per∣swade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions, or others to leave their communion; but to prove Protestants in general, to be in the state of sin while they remain separate from the Roman Church, there is not one word or syllable: and besides, whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose, it may be as forcibly return'd upon Papists, as it is urg'd against Protestants; in as much as all Papists, either hold the doctrin of Predetermination, and absolute Election, or communicate with those that do hold it. Now from this doctrin, what is more prone and obvious, than for every natural man (without Gods especial preventing grace) to make this practical collection, Either I am elected or not elected; If I be, no im∣piety possible can ever damne me: If not, no possible industry can ever save me? Now whether this disjunctive perswasion be not as likely (as any doctrin of any Protestants) to extinguish Christian hope, and filiall fear, and to lead some men to dispaire, others to presumption, all to a wretchless and impious life, I desire you ingeniously to inform mee! and if you deny it, assure your self you shall be contradicted and confu∣ted by men of your own Religion and your own Society, and taught at length this charitable Doctrin, that though mens opinions may be charg'd with the absurd consequencs which naturally flow from them, yet the men themselves are not; I mean, if they perceive not the consequence of these absurdities, nor do not own and acknowledge, but disclaim and detest them. And this is all the answer which I should make to this discourse▪ if I should deal rigidly and strictly with you. Yet that you may not think your self contemn'd, nor have occasion to pre∣tend, that your arguments are evaded, I will intreat leave of my Reader to bring to the test every particle of it, and to censure what deserves a censure, and to answer what may any way seem to require an answer: and then I doubt not, but what I have affirm'd in general will appear in par∣ticular.

Ad §. 1. To the First then I say.

• 1. It was needless to prove, that due Order is to be observed in anything; much more in Charity, which being one of the best things, may be spoil'd by being disordered! Yet if it stood in need of proof, I fear this place of the Canticles, He hath ordered Charity in me, would be no enforcing demonstration of it.
• 2. The reason alledged by you why we ought to love one object more then another, because one thing participates the Divine Goodness more then another, is phantastical, and re∣pugnant to what you say presently after. For by this rule, no man should love himself more than all the world; which yet you require, unless he were first vainly perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness than all the world. But the true reason why one thing ought to be lov'd more then another, is, because one thing is better then another, or because it is better to us, or because God commands us to do so, or because God him∣self does so, and we are to conform our affections to the will of God.
• 3. It is not true, that all objects which we believe, do equally participate the Di∣vine Testimony or Revelation••: For some are testified more evidently, and some more obscurely; and therefore whatsoever you have built upon this ground, must of necessity fall together with it. And thus much for the first number.

6. Ad §. 2. In the Second, many passages deserve a censure. For

• 1. it is not true that we are to wish or desire to God a nature infinite, independent, immense: For it is impossible I should desire to any person that which he hath already, if I know that he hath it; nor the perpetuity of it, if I know it impossible but he must have it for perpetuity. And therefore, Rejoycing only and not Welwishing is here the proper worke of love.
• 2. Whereas you say, That in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good of the whole world before his own soul: In saying this, you seem to me to condemn one of the greatest acts of Charity, of one of the greatest Saints that ever was, I mean S. Paul, who for his bretheren desir'd to be an Anathema from Christ. And as for the Text al∣leadged by you in confirmation of your saying, What doth it avail a man if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul! It is nothing to the purpose: For without all question, it is not profitable for a man to do so; but the question is, whether it be not lawful for a man to forgo and part with his own particular profit, to procure the universal, spiritual, and eternal benefit of others?
• 3. Whereas you say, It is directly against Cha∣rity to our selves, to adventure the omitting of any means necessary to salva∣tion, this is true: But so is this also, that it is directly against the same Cha∣rity, to adventure the omitting any thing, that may any way help or conduce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure or less dangerous. And therefore if the errors of the Roman Church do but hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, I am, in Charity to my self, bound to for∣sake them, though they be not destructive of it.
• 4. Whereas you con∣clude, That if by living out of the Roman-Church we put our selves in hazzard to want something necessary to Salvation, we commit a grievous sin against the vertue of Charity as it respects our selves: This consequence may be good in those which are thus perswaded of the Roman Church, and yet live out of it. But the supposition is certainly false. We may live and dy out of the Roman Church, without putting our selves in any such hazard: Nay to live and dye in it is as dangerous as to shoot a gulf, which though some good ig∣norant

• souls may do and escape, yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries.

Ad §. 3. I proceed now to the third Section; and herein first I observe this acknowledgement of yours, That in things necessary only because com∣manded, a probable ignorance of the commandement excuses the Party from all fault, and doth not exclude Salvation. From which Doctrin it seems to me to follow, that seeing obedience to the Roman Church cannot be pretended to be necessary, but only because it is commanded, therefore not only an invincible, but even a probable ignorance of this pretended command, must excuse us from all faulty breach of it, and cannot exclude Salvation. Now seeing this command is not pretended to be expresly delivered, but only to be deduced from the word of God, and that not by the most cleer and evident consequences that may be; and seeing an infinity of great Ob∣jections lies against it, which seem strongly to prove that that is no such command, with what Charity can you suppose, that our ignorance of this command, is not at the least probable, if not, all things considered, plain∣ly invincible? Sure I am, for my part, that I have done my true endea∣vour to finde it true, and am still willing to do so; but the more I seek, the farther I am from finding, and therefore if it be true, certainly my not finding it is very excusable, and you have reason to be very charita∣ble in your censures of me. 2. Whereas you say, that besides these things necessary because commanded, there are other things, which are command∣ed because necessary: of which number you make Divine infallible faith, Baptism in act for Children, and in Desire for those who are come to the use of Reason, and the Sacrament of Confession for those who have commit∣ted mortal sin: In these words you seem to me to deliver a strange Para∣doxe, viz. That Faith, and Baptism, and Confession, are not therefore necessary for us, because God appointed them, but are therefore appoin∣ted by God, because they were necessary for us, antecedently to his ap∣pointment. which if it were true, I wonder what it was beside God that made them necessary, and made it necessary for God to command them! Besides, in making Faith one of these necessary means, you seem to ex∣clude Infants from Salvation: For, Faith comes by hearing, and they have not heard. In requiring that this Faith should be divine and infallible, you cast your Credence into infinite perplexity, who cannot possibly by any sure Mark discern whether their Faith be Divine or humane; or if you have any certain signe, whereby they may discern whether they believe your Churches infallibility with Divine or only with humane faith, I pray produce it, for perhaps it may serve us to shew, that our faith is di∣vine as well as yours. Moreover, in affirming that Baptism in act is ne∣cessary for Infants, and for men only in desire, You seem to me in the la∣ter to destroy the foundation of the former. For if a desire of Baptism will serve men in stead of Baptism, then those words of our Saviour▪ Unless a man be born again of water, &c. are not to be understood lite∣rally and rigidly of external Baptism; for a desire of Baptism is not Bap∣tism, and so your foundation of the absolute necessity of Baptism is de∣stroyed. And if you may gloss the Text so far, as that men may be saved by the desire, without Baptism it self, because they cannot have, it, Why should you not gloss it a litle farther, that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptized infants: to whom it was more impossible to have a

desire of Baptism, than for the former to have the thing it self? Lastly, for your Sacrament of Confession, we know none such, nor any such abso∣lute necessity of it. They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy, though they confess them to God only and not to men. They that confess them both to God and men, if they do not effectually and in time forsake them, shall not find mercy, 3. Whereas you fay, that supposing these means once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them; you must suppose, I hope, that we know them to be so appointed, and that it is in our power to procure them: otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to fail of the end, for want of the means, certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them. For the rule of the Law is also the dictate of common reason and equity, That no man can be obliged to what is impossible. We can be obliged to no∣thing but by vertue of some command: now it is impossible that God should command in earnest any thing which he knows to be impossible. For to command in earnest, is to command with an intent to be obeyed which is not possible he should do, when he knows the thing commanded to be impossible. Lastly, whosoever is obliged to do any thing, and does it not, commits a fault; but Infants commit no fault in not procuring to have Baptism; therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it. 4. Where∣as you say, that if Protestants dissent from you in the point of the necessity of Baptism for infants, it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement it in a point fundamental; If you mean a point esteemed so by you, this indeed cannot be denyed: But if you mean a point that indeed is fundamental, this may certainly be denyed: for I deny it, and say, that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to Salvation to hold the truth, or not to hold an er∣rour, touching the condition of these Infants. This is certain, and we must believe that God will not deal unjustly with them▪ but how in particular he will deal with them concernes not us, and therefore we need not much regard it. 5. Whereas you say the like of your Sacrament of Penance, you only say so, but your proofs are wanting. Lastly, whereas you say, This ri∣gour ought not to seem strange or unjust in God, but that we are rather to bless him for ordaining us to Salvation by any means: I answer, that it is true, we are not to question the known will of God, of injustice; yet whether that which you pretend to be Gods will be so indeed, or only your presumption, this I hope may be question'd lawfully and without presumption; and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of Ezechiel's commination, against all those who say, Thus saith the Lord, when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to do so.

8. Ad §. 4. In the fourth Paragraph, you deliver this false and wicked Doctrin, that for the procuring our own salvation we are alwaies boundunder pain of mortal sin, to take the safest way; but for avoyding sin we are not bound to do so, but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors, though the contrary way be certainly free from sin, and theirs be doubtfull. Which doctrin in the former part of it, is apparently false. For though wisdom and Charity to our selves would perswade us alwaies to do so, yet many times, that way which to our selves and our salvation is more full of hazard, is notwithstanding not only lawful but more charitable and more noble. For example, to fly from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it, may be the safer way for a mans own salvation; yet I

presume no man ought to condemn him of impiety, who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter, but for Gods greater glory, the greater honour of truth, and the greater confirmation of his bretheren in the faith, choose to stand out the storm and endure the fiery trial, rather than avoid it; rather to put his own soul to the hazard of a temptation, in hope of Gods assistance to go through with it, than to baulk the opportunity of doing God and his bretheren so great a service. This part therefore of this Doctrin is manifestly untrue. The other, not only false but impious; for therein you plainly give us to understand, that in your judgement, a resolution to avoid sin, to the uttermost of your power, is no necessary means of Salvation; nay that a man may resolve not to do so, without any danger of damnation. Therein you teach us that we are to do more for the love of our selves, and our own happiness, than for the love of God; and in so doing contradict our Saviour, who expresly commands us, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our strength; and hath taught us, that the love of God consists in avoiding sin and keeping his com∣mandements. Therein you directly cross S. Pauls doctrin, who though he were a very probable Doctor, and had delivered his judgement for the law∣fulness of eating meats offered to Idols; yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so, and forbear upon his scruple, should not sin, but only be a weak brother; whereas he, who should do it with a doubtful conscience, (though the action were by S. Paul warranted lawful, yet) sheuld sin and be condemn'd for so doing. You pretend indeed to be rigid de∣fenders and stout champions for the necessity of good works; but the truth is, you speak lies in hypocrisie, and, when the matter is well examin'd, will appear to make your selves and your own functions necessary, but obedi∣ence to God unnecessary: Which will appear to any man who considers what strict necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men, of effectual morti∣fication of the habits of all vices, and effectual conversion to newness of life, and universal obedience, and withal remembers that an act of Attrition, which you say with Priestly Absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mor∣tification, which being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be perform'd in an instant. But for the present, it appears sufficiently our of this impious as∣sertion, which makes it absolutely necessary for men, either in Act, if it be possible, or if not, in Desire, to be Baptiz'd and Absolv'd by you, and that with intention: and in the mean time warrants them that for avoiding of sin, they may safely follow the uncertain guidance of vain man, who you cannot deny may either be deceiv'd himself, or out of malice deceive them, and neglect the certain direction of God himself, and their own consciences. What wicked use is made of this Doctrin, your own long experience can better inform you, than it is possible for me to do: yet my own little conver∣sation with you affoords one memorable example to this purpose. For upon this ground I knew a young Schollar in Doway, licenc'd by a great Casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain knowledge, whereof he had yet no knowledge but only a great presumption, because (forsooth) it was the opinion of one Doctor that he might do so. And upon the same ground, when∣soever you shall come to have a prevailing party in this Kingdome, and power sufficient to restore your Religion, you may do it by deposing or killing the King, by blowing up of Parliaments, and by rooting out all others of a different faith from you. Nay this you may do, though in your

own opinion it be unlawful, because Bellarmine, a man with you of ap∣proved vertue, learning, and judgement, hath declared his opinion for the lawfulness of it in saying, that want of power to maintain a rebellion, was the only reason that the primitive Christians did not rebel against their persecuting Emperors. By the same rule, seeing the Priests and Scribes and Pharisees, men of greatest repute among the Jewes for vertue, learning and wisdome, held it a lawful and a pious work to persecute Christ and his Apostles, it was lawful for their people to follow their leaders: for herein, according to your Doctrin, they proceeded prudently, and according to the conduct of opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men (as it seem'd to them) of vertue, learning and wisdome; nay by such as sate in Moses chair, and of whom it was said, Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: which Universal you pretend is to be understood universally, and without any restriction or limitation. And as lawful was it for the Pagans to persecute the Primitive Christians, because Trajan and Pliny, men of great vertue and wisdome were of this opinion. Lastly, that most impious and detestable Doctrin, (which by a foul calumny you impute to me, who abhorre and detest it,) that men may be saved in any Religion, followes from this ground unavoidably. For certainly, Religion is one of those things which is neces∣sary only because it is commanded: for if none were commanded under pain of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any or to be of none? Neither can it be damnable to be of a false Religion; unless it be a sin to be so. For neither are men saved by good luck, but only by obedience; neither are they damned for their ill fortune, but for sin and disobedience. Death is the wages of nothing but sin: and S. James sure intended to deliver the ad∣equate cause of sin and death in those words, Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin and sin, when it is finished bringeth forth death. Seeing there∣fore in such things, according to your doctrin, it is sufficient for avoiding of sin that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, mature y weighed and approv'd by men of learning, vertue and wisdome: and seeing neither Jews want their Gamaliels, nor Pagans their Antoni∣nus's, nor any sect of Christians such professors and maintainers of their se∣veral sects, as are esteem'd by the people, which know no better (and that very reasonably) men of vertue, learning, and wisdome, it followes evident∣ly that the embracing their religion proceeds upon such reason as may war∣rent their action to be prudent, and this (say you) is sufficient for avoiding of sin, and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation, for that in humane of∣fairs and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be alwayes expected. I have stood the longer upon the refutation of this doctrin, not only because it is impious, and because bad use is made of it, and worse may be; but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 because the contrary position, That men are bound for avoiding sin alwayes to take the safest way, is a fair and sure foundation, for a cleer confutation of the main Conclusion, which in this Chapter you labour in vain to prove, and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, and of obedience to God, Papists (unless ignorance excuse them) are in state of sin, as long as they remain in subjection to the Roman Church.

9. For if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly it will not be hard to determin, that the way of Protestants must be more secure, and the Roman way more dangerous: Take but into your consideration these ensuing controversies: Whether

it be lawful to worship Pictures? to picture the Trinity? to invocate Saints and Angels? to deny Lay-men the Cup in the Sacrament? to adore the Sacrament? to prohibit certain Orders of men and women to marry? to celebrate the publique service of God in a language which the assistants ge∣nerally understand not; and you will not choose but confess that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin, and we on that which is more secure. For in all these things, if we say true, you do that which is impious: on the other side, if you were in the right, yet we might be secure enough, for we should only not do something which you confess not necessary to be done. We pretend, and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us, that in all these things, you violate the manifest commandements of God; and alleadge such texts of Scripture against you, as, if you would weigh them with any indifference, would put the matter out of question, but certainly you cannot with any modest deny, but that at least they make it questionable. On the other side, you cannot with any face pretend, and, if you should, know not how to go about to prove, that there is any necessity of doing any of these things; that it is un∣lawful not to worship pictures, not to picture the Trinity, not to invocate Saints and Angels, not to give all men the entire Sacrament, not to adore the Eucharist, not to prohibit marriage, not to celebrate divine service in an unknown tongue: I say, you neither do nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoyns us, no nor so much as an Evangelical Coun∣sel that advises us to do any of these things. Now where no law is, there can be no sin, for sin is the transgression of the law; It remains therefore that if your Church should forbear to do these things, she must undoubtedly herein be free from all danger and suspicion of sin; whereas your acting of them, must be, if not certainly impious, without all condradiction ques∣tionable and dangerous. I conclude therefore that which was to be conclu∣ded, that if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also (as most certainly it is) the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly the way of Protestants must be more safe, and the Roman way more dangerous. You will say, I know, that these things being by your Church concluded lawful, we are obliged by God, though not to do, yet to approve them: at least in your judgement we are so, and therefore our condition is as questionable as yours. I answ. The Autho∣rity of your Church is no common principle agreed upon between us, and therefore from that you are not to dispute against us. We might press you with our judgement as well and as justly as you do us with yours. Besides, this very thing that your Church hath determin'd these things lawful, and commanded the approbation of them, is that whereof she is accused by us, and we maintain you have done wickedly, or at least very dangerously, in so determining; because in these very determinations, you have forsaken that way which was secure from sin, and have chosen that which you can∣not but know to be very questionable and doubtful; and consequently have forsaken the safe way to heaven, and taken a way which is full of danger. And therefore, although if your obedience to your Church were question∣ed, you might flie for shelter to your Churches determinations, yet when these very determinations are accused, me thinks they should not be alleag'd in defence of themselves. But you will say, Your Church is infallible, and therefore her determinations not unlawful. Answ. They that accuse your Church of error, you may be sure do question her infallibility:

shew therefore where it is written, that your Church is infallible, and the dispute will be ended. But till you do so, give me leave rather to conclude thus, Your Church in many of her determinations, chooses not that way which is most secure from sin, and therefore not the safest way to salvation; than vainly to imagine her infallible, and thereupon to believe, though she teach not the securest way to avoid sin, yet she teaches the certainst way to obtain salvation.

10. In the close of this Number, you say as followes, If it may appear though not certain, yet at least probable, that Protestancy unrepented destroyes salvation, and withal that there is a safer way, it will follow that they are obliged by the law of Charity to that safe way. Ans. Make this appear, and I will never perswade any man to continue a Protestant; for if I should, I should perswade him to continue a fool. But after all these prolix discours∣es, still we see you are at, If it may appear: From whence without all Ifs and Ands, that appears sufficiently, which I said in the beginning of the Chapter, that the four first Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction, unto that which never by any man in his right wits was denyed, That men in wisdome and charity to themselves are to take the safest way to eternal salvation.

11. Ad §. 5. In the fift you begin to make some shew of arguing, and tell us, that Protestants have reason to doubt in what case they stand, from what you have said about the Churches universal infallibility, and of her being Judge of Controversies, &c. Ans. From all that which you have said, they have reason only to conclude that you have nothing to say. They have as much reason to doubt, whether there can be any Motion, from what Zeno saies in Aristotles Physicks, as to doubt, from what you have said, Whether the Roman Church may possibly erre. For this I dare say, that not the weak∣est of Zeno's arguments but is stronger than the strongest of yours, and that you would be more perplext in answering any one of them, than I have been in answering all yours. You are pleas'd to repeat two or three of them in this Section, and in all probability so wise a man as you are, if he would repeat any, would repeat the best; and therefore if I desire the Reader by these to judge of the rest, I shall desire but ordinary justice.

12. The first of them being put into form stands thus, Every least error in faith destroys the nature of faith; It is certain that some Protestants do erre, And therefore they want the substance of Faith. The Major of which Syllo∣gism I have formerly confuted by unanswerable arguments out of one of your own best Authors, who shewes plainly that he hath amongst you, as strange as you make it, many other abettors. Besides, if it were true, it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans have no faith, in as much as you oppose one another as much as Arminians and Calvinists.

13. The second Argument stands thus, Since all Protestants pretend the like certainty, it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all? Which argument if it were good, then what can hinder but this must also be so, Since Protestants and papists pretend the like certainty, it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all! And this too: Since all Christians pretend the like certainty, it is cleer that none of them have any cer∣tainty, at all! And thirdly this: Since men of all religions pretend a like certainty, it is cleer that none of them have any at all! And lastly this: Since oft-times they which are abused with a specious Paralogism, pretend

the like certainty with them which demonstrate, it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all! Certainly, Sir, Zeal and the Devil did strangely blind you, if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequences of your positions, if you did see it, and yet would set them down, you deserve a worse censure. Yet such as these, are all the arguments wherewith you conceive your self to have prov'd undoubtedly, that Protestants have reason, at least to doubt in what case they stand. Neither am I afraid to venture my life upon it, that your self shall not choose so much as one out of all the pack, which I will not shew before indifferent Judges, either to be impertinent to the question, in∣consequent in the deduction, or grounded upon some false, or at least uncer∣tain foundation.

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

15. In the close of this Section, you say, that you omit to add that we want the Sacrament of Repentance, instituted for the remission of sins, or at least we must confess, that we hold it not necessary: and yet our own brethren the Century-writers acknowledge that in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian, private confession even of thoughts was used, and that it was then commanded and thought necessary; and then our Ordination, you say, is very doubtful, and all that depends upon it. Ans. I also omit to answer,

• 1. That your bro∣ther Rhenanus, acknowledges the contrary, and assures us, That the confes∣sion then required and in use, was publique, and before the Church, and that your auricular Confession was not then in the world; for which his mouth is stopped by your Index Expurgatorious.
• 2. That your brother Arcudius acknowledges, that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to Infants, and esteemed necessary, or at least profitable for them, and the gi∣ving it shews no less; and now I would know, whether you will acknow∣ledge your Church bound to give it, and to esteem so of it?
• 3. That it might be then commanded, and being commanded, be thought necessary, and yet be but a Church-Constitution. Neither will I deny, if the present Church, could, and would so order it, that the abuses of it might be prevented, and conceiving it profitable, should enjoyn the use of it, but that being com∣manded it would be necessary.
• 4. Concerning our Ordinations, besides that I have proved it impossible that they should be so doubtful as yours, ac∣cording to your own principles; I answer, that experience shews them certainly sufficient to bring men to faith and repentance, and consequently to salvation; and that if there were any secret defect of any thing necessa∣ry, which we cannot help, God will certainly supply it.

16. Ad §. 6. In the sixth, you say, you will not repeat, but only put us again in mind that unless the Roman Church were the true Charch there was no vi∣sible Church upon earth, a thing so manifest that Protestants themselves con∣fesse,

&c. Answ. Neither will I repeat, but only put you in mind that you have not prov'd that there is any necessity that there should be any true Church in your sense visible; nor if there were, that there was no other be∣sides the Roman. For as for the confession of Protestants which here you in∣sist upon, it is evident out of their own words cited by your self, that by the whole world, they meant only the greatest part of it, which is an usual figure of speech, and never intended to deny that besides the Church then reigning and triumphing in this world, there was an other militant Church, other Christians visible enough though persecuted and oppressed. Nor thirdly do you here make good so much as with one fallacy, that if the Roman Church were then the visible Church, it must needs be now the only or the safer way to heaven; and yet the connexion of this consequence was very neces∣sary to be shown. For, for ought I know, it was not impossible that it might then be the only visible Church, and yet now a very dangerous way to heaven, or perhaps none at all.

17. Afterwards you vainly pretend that all Roman Catholiques, not one excepted, profess, that protestancy unrepented destroyes salvation. From which generality we may except two at least to my knowledge, and those are, your self, and Franciscus de Sancta Clara, who assures us that Ignorance and Repentance may excuse a Protestant from damnation though dying in his error. And this is all the Charity, which by your own confession also, the most favourable Protestans allow to Papists; and therefore with strange repug∣nance to your self you subjoyn, that these are the men whom we must hold not to erre dumnably, unless we will destroy our own Church and Salvation. Whereas, as I have said before, though you were Turks, and Pagans, we might be good Christians. Neither is it necessary for perpetuating of a Church before Luther, that your errors even then should not be damnable, but only not actually damning to some ignorant souls among you. In vain therefore you do make such tragedies as here you do! In vain you conjure us with fear and trembling to consider these things! We have considered them again and again, and lookt upon them on both sides, and find neither terror nor truth in them. Let Children and Fools be terrified with bug-bears, men of understanding will not regard them.

18. Ad §. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Your whole discourse in your fiv•• next Pa∣ragraphs, I have in the beginning of this Chapter fully confuted, by saying, that it stands altogether upon the false foundation of this affected mistake, that we do and must confess the Roman Church free from damnable error; which will presently be apparent, to any one who considers, that the seventh and tenth are nothing but D. Potter's words; and that in the other three, you obtrude upon us this Crambe no fewer then seven times. May you be pleased to look back to your own Book, and you shall find it so as I have said: and that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation: which when you have observ'd, and withal considered that your self plainly intimate, that D. Potter's discourses, which here you censure, would be good and concluding, if we did not (as we do not) free you from damnable error; I hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these Sections the honour of any farther answer, is a great supererogation in point of civility. Nevertheless partly that I may the more ingratiate my self with you, but especially, that I may stop their mouths who will be apt to say, that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to, is an

unanswerable argument, I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctally and particularly.

19. First then, to your little parenthesis, which you interline among D. Potter's words, §. 7. That any small error in faith destroyes all faith, (To omit what hath been said before,) I answer here what is proper for this place: that S. Austin, whose authority is here stood upon, thought other∣wise: He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith, and yet not to have no faith. His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident, You are with us (saith he to the Donatists. Ep. 48.) as Baptism, in the Creed, and the other Sacraments: And again, Super gestis cum emerit: Thou hast proved to me that thou hast Faith: prove to me likewise that thou hast Charity. Parallel to which words are these of Optatus, Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiastical conversation, common lessons, the same faith, the same Sacraments. Where, by the way, we may observe, that in the judgement of these Fathers, even Donatists, though Heretiques and Scismatiques, gave true Ordination, the true Sacrament of Matrimony, true Sacramental Abso∣lution, Confirmation, the true Sacrament of the Eucharist, true Extream Unction; or else (choose you whether) some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments. But for Ordination, whether he held it a Sacrament or no, cer∣tainly he held that it remain'd with them entire: for so he saies in express terms, in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle. Which Doctrin if you can reconcile with the present Doctrin of the Roman Church, Eris mihi magnus Apollo.

20. Whereas, in the beginning of the 8. Sect. You deny that your argu∣ment drawn from our confessing the possibility of your Salvation, is for simple people alone, but for all men: I answer, Certainly whosoever is moved with it, must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason; Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd, by the confession of Pro∣testants, (which is indeed all that they confess,) therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church; and he that does think so, what reason is there why he should not think this as good; Ignorant Protestants may be saved, by the confession of Papists, (by name, Mr. K.) therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church? Whereas you say, that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us, either to grant Salvation to your Church, or to entail certain damnation upon our own, because ours can have no being till Luther, unless yours be supposed to have been the true Church. I ans∣wer, This cause is no cause: For first, as Luther had no being before Luther, and yet he was when he was, though he was not before; so there is no re∣pugnance in the terms, but that there might be a true Church after Luther, though there were none for some ages before; as, since Columbus his time, there have been Christians in America, though before there were none for many ages. For neither do you shew, neither does it appear, that the ge∣netation of Churches is univocal, that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church; nor that the present being of a true Church, depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages; any more than the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetual pedegree of them. For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity, yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand, that the truth of the present depends upon it, nor any thing that can hinder, but that a false Church, (Gods providence over-watching and over-ruling it,) may preserve the

means of confuting their own Heresies, and reducing men to truth, and so raising a true Church, I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men. Thus the Jewes preserve means to make men Christians, and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants, and Protestants (which you say are a false Church) do, as you pretend, preserve means to make men Papists; that is, their own Bibles, out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists. Secondly, you shew not, nor does it appear, that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours. For though you talk vainly, as if you were the only men in the world before Luther, yet the world knows that this is but talk, and that there were other Christians besides you, which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not been. Lastly, you shew not, neither doth it appear, that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church, doth necessarily import, that we must grant Salvation to it, unless, by it, you understand the ignorant members of it, which is a very unusual Synechdoche.

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

22. Whereas you say, that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austin the words of the Catholiques, that the Donatists had true Baptism, when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatists, addes, No Church, no salva∣tion! Ans. You wrong D. Potter, who pretends not to cite S. Austins for∣mal words but only his sense, which in him is compleat and full for that purpose, whereto it is alleadged by D. Potter. His words are, Pertilianus dixit, Venite ad Ecclesiam Populi & aufugi••e Traditores, si perire non vultis: Petilian saith, Come to the Church yee people, and flie from the Traditours, if yee will not be damn'd: for, that yee may know that they being guilty, esteem very well of our Faith, Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected, but they receive those whom we have Baptized. Where it is plain, that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church, and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely. And therefore no Church, no salvation was not D. Potter's addition. And whereas you say, the Catholiques never yeeld that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation: I say, it appears by what I have alledged out of S. Austin, that they yeelded both these were among the Donatists, as much as we yeeld them to be among the Papists. As for D. Potter's acknowledgement, that They maintained an error in the matter and nature of it Heretical: This proves them but Material Heretiques, whom you do not exclude from possibility of Salvation. So that, all things considered, this argument must be much more forcible from the Donatists against the Catholiques, than from Papists against Protes∣tants, in regard Protestants grant Papists no more hope of salvation than Papists grant Protestants: whereas the Donatists excluded absolutely all but their own Part from hope of Salvation, so farre as to acount them no Chri∣stians that were not of it: the Catholiques mean while accounting them Brethren, and freeing those among them, from the imputation of Heresie, who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cùm invenerint,

23. Whereas you say, That the Argument for the certainty of their Bap∣tism (because it was confessed good by Catholiques, whereas the Baptism of Catholiques was not confessed by them to be good,) is not so good as yours, touch∣ing the certainty of your salvation grounded on the confession of Protestants, because we confess there is no damnable error in the Doctrin or practice of the Roman Church: I Ans. No: we confess no such matter, and though you say so a hundred times, no repetition will make it true. We profess plainly, that many damnable errors, plainly repugnant to the precepts of Christ both Ceremonial and Moral, more plainly than this of Rebaptization, and there∣fore more damnable, are believed and professed by you. And therefore, seeing this is the only disparity you can devise, and this is vanished, it re∣mains that as good an Answer as the Catholiques made touching the cer∣tainty of their Baptism, as good may we make, and with much more evi∣dence of Reason, touching the security and certainty of our Salvation.

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

25. Whereas again in this §. you obtrude upon us, That we cannot but confess that your Doctrin contains no damnable error, and that yours is so cer∣tainly a true Church, that unless yours be true we cannot pretend any: I answer, there is in this neither truth nor modesty, to outface us that we cannot but confess what indeed we cannot but deny. For my part, if I were upon the rack, I perswade my self I should not confess the one nor the other.

26 Whereas again presently you add, that D. Potter grants we should be guilty of Schism, if we did cut off your Church from the body of Christ & the hope of Salvation: I have shewed above, that he grants no such matter. He saies indeed, that our not doing so frees us from the imputation of Schism, and from hence you sophistically inferre, that he must grant, If we did so, we were Schismatiques, and then make your Reader believe, that this is D. Potter's confession, it being indeed your own collection. For as every one that is not a Papist, is not a Jesuit: and yet not every one that is a Papist is a Jesuit: As, whosoever comes not into England, comes not to London, and yet many may come into England, and not come to London: As, whosoever is not a man, is not a King, and yet many are men that are not Kings: So likewise it may be certain, that whosoever does not so is free from Schism, and yet they that do so (if there be sufficient cause), may be not guilty of it.

27. Whereas you pretend to wonder that the Doctor did not answer the argument of the Donatists, which he saies is all one with yours, but referres you to Saint Austine there to read it, as if every one carried with him a Librarie, or were able to examine the places in Saint Austine: I answer, The parity of the Arguments was that which the Doctor was to declare, whereto it was impertinent what the answer was: But sufficient it was to shew that the Donatists argument which you would never grant good,

was yet as good as yours, and therefore yours could not be good. Now to this purpose as the concealing the answer was no way advantageous, so to produce it was not necessary; and therefore he did you more service then he was bound to, in referring you to St. Austin for an answer to it. Whereas you say, he had reason to conceal it, because it makes directly against himself: I say, it is so farre from doing so, that it will serve in proportion to the ar∣gument, as fitly as if it had been made for it: for, as Saint Austin saies, that Catholiques approve the Doctrin of Donatists, but abhorre their Heresie of Re-baptization: so we say, that we approve those fundamental and simple necessary Truths which you retain, by which some good souls among you may be saved, but abhorre your many Superstitions and Heresies. And as he saies that as Gold is good, yet ought not to be sought for among a com∣pany of Theeves; and Baptism good, but not to be sought for in the Con∣venticles of Donatists: so say we, that the Truths you retain are good, and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you to salvation, yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicles of Papists, who hold with them a mixture of many vanities, and many impieties. For, as for our free∣ing you from damnable Heresy, and yeelding you Salvation, (which stone here again you stumble at,) neither he nor any other Protestant is guilty of it; and therefore you must confess that this very answer will serve Protestants against this charm of Papists, as well as Saint Austin against the Donatists, and that indeed it was not Doctor Potter but You, that, without a Sarcasm, had reason to conceal it.

28. The last piece of D. Potter's book, which you are pleased to take no∣tice of in this first Part of yours, is an argument he makes in your behalfe p. 79. of his book, where he makes you speak thus, If Protestants believe the Religion of Papists to be a safe way to heaven, why do they not follow it? This ar∣gument you like not, because many things may be good and yet not necessary to be embraced by every body, and therefore scoffe at it, and call it an argument of his own, a wife argument, a wise demand: and then aske of him, what he thinks of it being fram'd thus, Our Religion is safe even by your confession; and therefore you ought to grant that a•• may embrace it. And yet farther thus, Among different Religions one only can be safe: But yours by our own confes∣sion is safe; whereas you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation; th••re∣fore we ought to embrace yours. Ans. I have advised with him, and am to tell you from him, that he thinks reasonable well of the arguments, but very ill of him that makes them, as affirming so often without shame and consci∣ence, what he cannot but know to be plainly false: and his reason is, because he is so far from confessing, or giving you any ground to pretend he does con∣fess, that your Religion is safe for all that are of it, from whence only it will follow that all may safely embrace it, that in this very place, from which you take these words, he professeth plainly, that it is extreamly dangerous if not certainly damnable to all such as profess it, when either they do, or, if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate, might believe the contra∣ry, and that for us who are convinc'd in conscience that she (the Roman Church) errs in many things, it lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. And though here you take upon you a shew of great rigour, and will seem to hold that in our way there is no hope of Salvati∣on; yet formerly you have been more liberal of your Charity towards us, and will needs vye and contend with Doctor Potter, Which of the two shall

be more Charitable, assuring us that you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares you, for whom he makes Ignorance the best hope of Salvation. And now I appeal to any indiffer•••••• reader, whether our disavowing to confess you free from damnable error, were not (as I pretend) a full confutation of all that you say in these five foregoing Paragraphs: And as for you I wonder, what answer, what evasion, what shift you can devise to cleer your self from dishonesty, for imputing to him almost a hundred times, this acknowledgement which he never makes, but very often, and that so plainly that you take notice of it, professeth the contrary!

29. The best defence that possibly can be made for you, I conceive, is this, that you were led into this error, by mistaking a supposition of a confession, for a confession; a Rhetorical concession of the Doctors for a positive assertion. He saies indeed of your errors, Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they profess, yet for us to profess what we believe not, were without question damnable. But to say, Though your errors be not damnable, we may not profess them, is not to say your errors are not damnable, but only though they be not. As if you should say, though the Church erre in points not fundamental, yet you may not separate from it: Or, though we do erre in believing Christ really present, yet our error frees us from Idolatry: Or, as if a Protestant should say, Though you do not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host, yet being uncertain of the Priests Intention to consecrate, at least you expose your self to the danger of it: I presume you would not think it fairly done, if any man should inter∣pret either this last speech as an acknowledgement, that you do not com∣mit Idolatry, or the former as confessions, that you do erre in points not fundamental, that you do erre in believing the real presence. And there∣fore you ought not so to have mistaken D. Potter's words, as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not damnable, when he saies no more but this, though they be so, or, suppose, or put the case they be so, yet being errors, we that know them may not profess them to be divine truths. Yet this mistake might have been pardonable, had not Doctor Potter in many places of his book, by declaring his judgement touching the quality and malignity of your errors, taken away from you all occasion of error. But now that he saies plainly, That your Church hath many wayes played the Harlot, and in that regard, deserv'd a Bill of divorce from Christ, and the detestation of Christians, page 11. That for that Mass of errors and abuses in judgement and practice which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from us, we judge a reconciliation impossible, and to us (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions) damnable, page 20. That popery is the contagion or plague of the Church, page 60. That we cannot, we dare not communicate with her in her publique Liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with gross Su∣perstition. page 68. That they who in former ages dyed in the Church of Rome, dyed in many sinfull errors, page 78. That they that have under∣standing and means to discover their errors and neglect to use them, he dares not flatter them with so easie a censure, as to give them hope of salvation, page 79. That the way of the Roman Religion is not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable, to such as profess it, when they believe (or, if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate, might believe) the contrary, p. 79. That your Church is but (in some sense) a true Church: and your er∣rors,

only to some men not damnable, and that we who are convinc'd in con∣science that she errs in many things are, under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. Seeing, I say, he s•••••• all this so plainly and so frequently; certainly your charging him falsely with this acknowledgement, and build∣ing a great part not only of your discourse in this Chapter, but of your whole book upon it, possibly it may be palliated with some excuse, but it can no way be defended with any lust apologie. Especially seeing you your self more than once or twice, take notice of these his severer censures of your Church, and the errors of it, and make your advantage of them. In the first number of your first Chapter, you set down three of the former places; and from thence inferre, That as you affirm Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation, so D. Potter pronounces the like heavy doom against Roman Catholiques: And again §. 4. of the same chapter, We allow Pro∣testants as much charity as D. Potter spares us, for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. And c. 5. §. 41. you have these words: It is very strange that you judge us extreamly uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved, while your self avouch the same of all Learned Catholiques, whom Ignorance cannot excuse! Thus out of the same mouth you blow hot and cold; and one while, when it is for your purpose, you profess D. Pot∣ter censures your errors as heavily as you do ours; which is very true, for he gives hope of Salvation to none among you, but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error, and no sin cause of their ignorance: and presently after, when another project comes in your head, you make his words softer than oile towards you: you pretend he does and must con∣fess, That your doctrin contains no damnable error, that your Church is certainly a true Church, that your way to heaven is a safe way, and all these ac∣knowledgments you set down simple and absolute, without any restriction or limitation; whereas in the Doctor they are all so qualified, that no know∣ing Papist can promise himself any security or comfort from them. We con∣fess (saith he) the Church of Rome to be (in some sense) a true Church, and her errors (to some men) not damnable: we believe her Religion safe, that is, by Gods great mercy not damnable, to some such as believe what they profess: But we believe it not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable to such as profess it, when they believe (or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe) the contrary. Observe, I pray you, these re∣straining terms which formerly you have dissembled, A true Church in some sense, not damnable to some men, a safe way, that is, by Gods great mercy, not damnable to some: And then seeing you have pretended these Confessions to be absolute, which are thus plainly limited, how can you avoid the imputa∣tion of an egregious Sophister? You quarrel with the Doctor, in the end of your Preface, for using in his Book such ambiguous terms as these, in some sort▪ in some sense, in some degree: and desire him, if he make any reply, either to forbear them, or to tell you roundly in what sort, in what sense, in what degree, he understands these and the like mincing phrases. But the truth is, he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermin'd as you pre∣tend; but told you plainly, in what sense your Church may pass for a true Church, viz. in regard we may hope that she retains those truths which are simply, absolutely, and indispensably necessary to Salvation, which may suffice to bring those good souls to heaven, who wanted means of discove∣ring their errors; this is the charitable construction in which you may pass

for a Church: And to what men your Religion may be safe, and your errors not damnable, viz. to such whom Ignorance may excuse; and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you, for quoting his words without those qualifications, than you to find fault with him for using of them.

30. That your Discourse in the 12 §. presseth you as forcibly as Pro∣testants, I have shewed above: I add here,

• 1. Whereas you say, that faith, according to your rigid Calvinists, is either so strong, that once had, it can never he lost; or so more than weak, and so much nothing, that it can never be gotten: That these are words without sense. Never any Calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak, and so much nothing, that it can never be got••en: but it seems you wanted matter to make up your Antithesis, and therefore were resolved to speak empty words, rather than lose your figure,

  —Crimina rasis Librat in antithetis, doctas posuisse Figuras Laudatur.—

• 2. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the Truth of this Proposition, Christ died for all; nor to subscribe to that sense of it, which your Domi∣nicans put upon it; neither can you, with coherence to the received Do∣ctrin of your own Society, deny that they as well as the Calvinists, take away the distinction of sufficient and effectual grace, and indeed hold none to be sufficient, but only that which is effectual.
• 3. Whereas you say, They cannot make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified, and justified by faith alone, and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified: I answ.

There is no Protestant but believes that Faith, Repentance, and universal Obedience, are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternal happiness. This being granted, the rest is but a speculative Controversie, a Question about words, which would quickly vanish, but that men affect not to understand one another. As if a company of Physitians were in consultation, and should all agree, that three medicines and no more were necessary for the reco∣very of the Patients health, this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health; though concerning the proper and specifical effects of these three medicines, there should be amongst them as many differences as men: So likewise being generally at accord that these three things, Faith, Hope, and Charity, are necessary to salvation, so that whosoever wants any of them, cannot obtain it, and he which hath them all cannot fail of it, is it not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens direc∣tions to eternal Salvation? And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all good workes, they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved, what sense is there in saying, they cannot make their cal∣ling certain by good works? They know what salvation is as well as you, and have as much reason to desire it: They believe it as heartily as you, that there is no good work but shall have its proper reward, and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternal reward without good works: and why then may not this Doctrin be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good works?

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

32. You say, They believe themselves justified by faith alone, and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves justified: Some peradventure do so, but withal they believe that that faith which is alone, and unaccompanied with sincere and universal obedience, is to be esteem'd not faith but pre∣sumption, and is at no hand sufficient to justification: that though Charity be not imputed unto justification, yet is it required as a necessary disposi∣tion in the person to be justified, and that though in regard of the imperfec∣tion of it, no man can be justified by it, yet that, on the other side, no man can be justified without it. So that upon the whole matter, a man may truly and safely say, that the Doctrin of these Protestants, taken altogether, is not a Doctrin of Liberty, not a Doctrin that turns hope into presumtion and carnal security: though it may justly be feared, that many licentious per∣sons, taking it by halfes have made this wicked use of it. For my part, I do heartily wish, that by publique Authority it were so ordered, that no man should ever preach or print this Doctrin that Faith alone justifies, un∣less he joyns this together with it, that Universal Obedience is necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of Saint Paul, which intreat of justification by faith, without the works of the Law, were never read in the Church, but when the 13. Chapter of the 1. Epistle to the Corinth. concerning the absolute necessity of Charity, should be, to prevent mispri∣sion, read together with them.

33. Whereas you say, that some Protestants do expresly affirm the former point to be the soul of the Church, &c. and therefore they must want the Theo∣logical vertue of Hope, and that none can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in their communion. I answ. They have great reason to believe the Doctrin of justification, by faith only, a point of great weight and im∣portance, if it be rightly understood: that is, they have reason to esteem it a principal and necessary duty of a Christian, to place his hope of justifica∣tion and salvation, not in the perfection of his own righteousness (which if it be imperfect will not justifie,) but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction; and yet, notwithstanding this, nay the rather for this, may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians, which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear. If this Doctrin be otherwise expounded than I have here expounded, I will not undertake the justification of it: only I will say (that which I may do truly) that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-sidian, but that he did believe these divine truths▪ That he must make his calling certain by good works: That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling, and that while he does not so, he can have no well grounded hope of Salvation:

I say, I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths, and that with a more firm, and a more unshaken assent, than he does that himself is predestinate, and that he is justified by believing himself justified. I never met with any such, who if he saw there were a necessity to do either, would not rather forgoe his belief of these Doctrins, than the former: these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments; than those, which being the express words of Scripture whosoever should call into question, could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore, there is no reason but we may believe, that their full assurance of the former Doctrin, doth very well qualifie their perswasion of the later; and that the former (as also the lives of may of them do sufficiently testifie) are more effectual to temper their hope, and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of Gods favour, built upon the conscience of his love and fear, than the later can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presum∣ption This reason joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion, is a sufficient ground for Charity, to hope well of their Hope: and to assure our selves, that it cannot be offen∣sive, but rather most acceptable to God, if, notwithstanding this diversity of opinion, we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love and com∣munion. To you and your Church we leave it, to separate Christians from the Church, and to proscribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes: As for our selves, we conceive a charitable judgement of our Bre∣theren and their errors, though untrue, much more pleasing to God than a true judgement, if it be uncharitable; and therefore shall alwayes choose (if we do err) to err on the milder and more merciful part, and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected, than eject those that deserve to be retain'd.

34. Lastly, whereas you say, that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Justification, you must needs inferre that they want Unity in faith, and con∣sequently all faith, and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamen∣tall; I answer, to the first of these inferences, that, as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Polycrates; upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and Saint Cyprian: in asmuch as it is undeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so. But points of Doctrin (as all other things) are as they are, and not as they are esteemed: neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted, nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued. But as the ancient Philosophers, (whose different opinions about the Soule of man you may read in Aristotle de anima, and Cicero's Tusculan Ques∣tions,) notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule, yet all of them had soules, and soules of the same nature: Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the Brain or Heart be the principall part of a man, yet all of them have brains and have hearts, and herein agree sufficiently: So likewise, though some Pro∣testants esteem that Doctrine the soule of the Church, which others do not so highly value, yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule of the Church may be in both sorts of them: And though one account that a necessary truth which others account neither neces∣sary nor perhaps true; yet, this notwithstanding, in those truths which

are truly and really necessary they may all agree. For no Argument can be more sophistical than this; They differ in some points which they esteem necessary; Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so.

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

Notes

• (a)

  Cant. 2, 4,
• (b)

  1. Joan. 3. v. 16.
• (c)

  De mendac. cap. 6.
• (d)

  Mat. 6,
• (e)

  Matth. 19.17.
• (f)

  In his true difference &c. Part. 4. pag 168. & 369.
• (g)

  Cent. 3 cap. 6. Col. 127.
• (h)

  Chap. 5. Num. 9.
• (i)

  Eccl. 3.27.
• (k)

  Pag. 112.
• (l)

  Page. 81.
• (m)

  Ps. 57.6.
• (n)

  Page. 126.
• (o)

  Ad lit. Petil. l. 2. cap. 108.
• (p)

  Contra Cresc. lib. 1. cap. 21.
• (q)

  Pag. 79.
• Bellar. Contr. Barcl c. 7 In 7 c. refutare cona••ur Barcl. verba illa Romu••s. Veteres illos imperatores Coasta••••ium, Va••entem, & caeteros n••n id••ò toleravit Eccle∣sia quod legi••i∣mè successissen, sed quod illos sine populi de∣trime••••o co••r∣cere ••on potera. Et miratur hoc idem scripsisse Bell ••minun. l 5 de Po••tif c. 7. Sed ut magis miretur, sciat hoc idem sensisse S. Thomam 2.2. q 12. art. 2. ad 1. Vbi dicit Eccl••siam ••nle∣rasse ut fid••les obed••re•••• Juli∣ano Aposta••ae, quia sui novi∣tate noadu••n habebant vires compescendi Principes te••∣reaos. Et postea, Sanctus Grego∣rius dicit, Nul∣lum adversus juliani perse cutio••••m suiss•• r••m••dium prae ter Lacrimas, quo ••am ••oa b••bebat Ecclesia vires, qu••bus ill us ty••a••••idi resistere Posset.
• C 3. Sect. 54. & alibi.