The ANSWER to the FIRST CHAPTER. Shewing, that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New one: And that there is no reason, why among men of different opi­nions and Communions, one Side only can be saved.

AD 1. §. Your first onset is very violent. D. Potter is charged with malice and indiscretion, for being uncharitable to you, while he is accusing you of uncharitableness. Verily, a great fault, and folly, if the accusation be just; if unjust, a great Calumny. Let us see then how you make good your charge. The effect of your discourse, if I mistake not, is this: D. Potter chargeth the Roman Church with many and great Errors; judgeth reconciliation be­tween her Doctrine and ours, impossible; and that for them who are convicted in Conscience of her Errors, not to forsake her in them, or to be reconciled unto her, is damnable: Therefore, if Romane Catholiques be convicted in Conscience of the Errors of Protestants, they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable; and consequently to judge so, is no more uncharitable in them, than it is in the Doctor to judge as he doth. All this I grant; nor would any Protestant accuse you of want of Charity, if you went no fur­ther: if you judged the Religion of Protestants damnable to them only who profess it, being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous. For, if [Page 26]a man judge some act of vertue to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed: So you have taught us, p. 19. So if you be convinced, or rather, to speak pro­perly, perswaded in conscience, that our Religion is erroneous, the pro­fession of it, though it self most true, to you would be damnable. This therefore I subscribe very willingly, and withall, that if you said no more, D. Potter and my self should be not to Papists only, but even to Protestants, as uncharitable as you are. For I shall always profess and glory in this uncharitableness of judging hypocrisie a damnable sin. Let Hypocrites then and Dissemblers on both sides pass. It is not towards them, but good Christians; not to Protestant Professors, but Believers, that we require your Charity. What think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our Religion, that they are resolved to die in it, and, if occasion were, to die for it? What Charity have you for them? What think ye of those that, in the daies of our Fathers, laid down their lives for it? Are you content that they shall be saved, or do you hope they may be so? Will you grant, that, notwithstanding their Errors, there is good hope they might die with repentance? and, if they did so, certainly they are saved? If you will do so, this Controversie is ended. No man will hereafter charge you with want of Charity. This is as much as either we give you, or expect of you, while you remain in your Religion. But then you must leave abusing silly people, with telling them (as your fashion is) that Protestants confess, Papists may be saved, but Papists confess not so much of Protestants; therefore yours is the safer way, and in Wisdom and Charity to our own souls we are bound to follow it. For, granting this, you grant as much hope of salvation to Protestants, as Protestants do to you. If you will not, but will still affirm, as Charity Mistaken doth, that Pro­testants, not dissemblers, but believers, without a particular repentance of their Religion cannot be saved: This, I say, is a want of Charity, into the society whereof D. Potter cannot be drawn but with palpable and trans­parent Sophistry. For, I pray Sir, what dependance is there between these Propositions: We that hold Protestant Religion false should be damned if we should profess it, Therefore they also shall be damned, that hold it true? Just as if you should conclude, Because he that doubts is damned if he eat, Therefore he that doth not doubt, is damned also if he eat. And therefore though your Religion to us, and ours to you, if pro­fessed against Conscience, would be damnable; yet may it well be uncha­ritable to define it shall be so, to them that profess either this or that ac­cording to Conscience. This recrimination therefore upon D. Potter wherewith you begin, is a plain Fallacy: And, I fear, your proceedings will be answerable to these beginnings!

2. Ad §. 2. In this Paragraph, Protestants are thus far comforted, that they are not sent to Hell without Company; which, the Poet tels us, is the miserable comfort of miserable Men. Then we in England are requested not to be offended with the name of Protestants. Which is a favour I shall easily grant, if by it be understood those that Protest, not against Imperial Edicts, but against the Corruptions of the Church of Rome.

3. Ad §. 3, 4, 5, 6. That you give us not over to reprobation, That you pray and hope for our salvation, if it be a Charity, it's such an one as is common to Turks, and Jews, and Pagans with us. But that which fol­lows, is extraordinary; neither do I know any man that requires more [Page 27]of you than there you pretend to. For there you tell us, That when any man, esteemed a Protestant, dies, you do not instantly avouch that he is lodged in Hell. Where the word, esteemed, is ambiguous: For it may signifie, esteemed truly, or esteemed falsly. He may be esteemed a Protestant that is so: And he may be esteemed a Protestant that is not so. And therefore I should have had just occasion to have laid to your charge the transgression of your own chief pre­scription, which you say, truth exacts at our hands, that is, to speak clearly or distinctly, and not to walk in darkness; but that your following words, to my understanding, declare sufficiently, that you speak of both sorts. For there you tell us, that the Reasons, why you damn not any man that dies with the esteem of a Protestant, are,

• 1. Because you are not alwayes acquain­ted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction; You must mean touching the falshood of his own Religion, and the truth of yours. Which reason is proper to those that are Protestants in truth, and not only in estimation.
• 2. Because you do not penetrate his capacity to understand his Catechist; which is also peculiar to those, who for want of capacity (as you conceive) remain Protestants indeed, and are not only so accounted.
• 3. Be­cause you have no Revelation what light might clear his errors; which be­longs to those which were esteemed Protestants, but indeed were not so.
• 4. Because you have no Revelation what Contrition might have retracted his sins: which reason being distinct from the former, and divided from it by the disjunctive Particle, Or, insinuates unto us, that though no light did clear the errors of a dying Protestant; yet Contrition might, for ought you know, retract his sins: which appropriates this reason also to Protestants truly so esteemed.

I wish with all my heart that in obedience to your own Prescription, you had expressed your self in this matter more fully and plainly. Yet that which you say, doth plainly enough afford us these Co­rollaries.

• 1 That whatsoever Protestant wanteth capacity, or, having it, wanteth sufficient means of instruction to convince his Conscience of the falshood of his own, and the truth of the Roman Religion, by the confession of his most rigid Adversaries, may be saved, notwith­standing any error in his Religion.
• 2 That nothing hinders, but that a Protestant, dying a Protestant, may die with Contrition for all his sins.
• 3 That if he do die with Contrition, he may and shall be saved.

4. All these acknowledgements we have from you, while you are, as you say, stating, but, as I conceive, granting the very Point in question; which was, as I have already proved out of C. M. Whether, without uncha­ritableness, you may pronounce, that Protestants dying in the belief of their Re­ligion, and without particular repentance and dereliction of it, cannot possibly be saved. Which C. M. affirms universally, and without any of your limita­tions. But this presumption of his, you thus qualifie, by saying, that This sentence cannot he pronounced truly, and therefore sure not charitably; Nei­ther of those Protestants that want means sufficient to instruct and convince them of the truth of your Religion, and the falshood of their own; Nor of those, who though they have negected the means they might have had, dyed with Contrittion, that is, with a sorow for all their sins, proceeding from the love of God. So that, according to your Doctrin, it shall remain upon such only as either were, or, but for their own fault, might have been, sufficiently convinced [Page 28]of the truth of your Religion, and the falshood of their own, and yet dye in it without Contrition. Which Doctrine if you would stand to; and not pull down, and pull back with one hand, what you give and build with the other, this Controversie were ended; and I should willingly ac­knowledge that which follows in your fourth Paragraph, That you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter allows you. But then I must in­treat you to alter the argument of this Chapter, and not to go about to give us reasons, why, amongst men of different Religions, one side only can be saved absolutely, which your Reasons drive at: But you must temper the crudeness of your Assertion, by saying, One side only can be saved, unless want of Conviction, or else Repentance, excuse the other. Besides, you must not only abstain from damning any Protestant in particular, but, from af­firming in general, that Protestants dying in their Religion cannot be saved; for you must always remember to add this Caution, unless they were ex­cusably Ignorant of the falshood of it, or died with Contrition. And then, considering that you cannot know, whether or no, all things considered, they were convinced sufficiently of the truth of your Religion, and the falshood of their own, you are obliged by Charity to judge the best, and hope they are not. Considering again, that, notwithstanding their Er­rors; they may die with Contrition, and that it is no way improbable that they do so, and the contrary you cannot be certain of, You are bound in Charity to judge and hope they do so. Considering thirdly and lastly, that if they die not with Contrition, yet it is very probable they may die with Attrition, and that this pretence of yours, that Contrition will serve with­out actual Confession, but Attrition will not, is but a nicety or fancy, or ra­ther, to give it the true name, a Device of your own, to serve ends and purposes; God having no where declared himself, but that wheresoever he will accept of that Repentance, which you are pleased to call Contriti­on, he will accept of that which you call Attrition; For, though he like best the bright flaming holocaust of Love, yet he rejects not, he quench­eth not, the smoaking flax of that Repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds from hope and fear: These things, I say, considered (un­less you will have the Charity of your Doctrine rise up in judgement against your uncharitable Practice) you must not only not be peremptorie, in damning Protestants, but you must hope well of their Salvation: and, out of this hope, you must do for them as well as others, those, as you conceive, Charitable Offices, of Praying, giving Alms, and offering Sacrifice, which usually you do, for those of whose Salvati­on you are well and charitably perswaded; (for, I believe, you will never conceive so well of Protestants, as to assure your selves they go directly to heaven.) These things when you do, I shall believe you think as charitably as you speak. But until then, as he said in the Co­medie, Quid verba audiam, cum facta▪ videam? so may I say to you, Quid verba audiam, cum facta non videam? To what purpose should you give us charitable words, which presently you retract again, by denying us your charitable actions? And, as these things you must do, if you will stand to and make good this pretended Charity, so must I tell you again and again, that one thing you must not do; I mean, You must not affright poor people out of their Religion, with telling them, that, by the confession of both sides, your way is safe, but, in your judgement, ours [Page 29]undoubtedly damnable. Seeing neither you deny Salvation to Protestants dying with repentance, nor we promise it to you, if ye die without it. For, to deal plainly with you, I know no Protestant that hath any other hope of your Salvation, but upon these grounds, that unaffected ignorance may ex­cuse you, or true repentance obtain pardon for you; neither do the heavy censures, which Protestants (you say) pass upon your errors, any way hinder, but they may hope as well of you, upon Repentance, as I do. For the fierce Doctrine, which, God knows who, teacheth, that Christ for many Ages before Luther had no visible Church upon earth; will be mild enough, if you conceive them to mean (as perhaps they do) by no visible Church, none pure and free from corruptions, which in your judgement is all one with no Church. But the truth is, the corruption of the Church, and the destruction of it, is not all one. For, if a particular Man or Church may (as you confess they may) hold some particular Errors, and yet be a Member of the Church Universal; why may not the Church hold some Universal Error, and yet be still the Church? especially seeing, you say, it is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an Error dam­nable, and it is impossible, that the Church should oppose the Church, I mean, that the present Church should oppose it self. And then for the English Protestants, though they censure your Errors deeply, yet, by your favour, with their deepest censures it may well consist, that invincible ignorance may excuse you from damnation for them. For you your self confess, That Ignorance may excuse Errors, even in Fundamental Articles of Faith: so that a man so erring shall not offend at all in such his ignorance or error: they are your own words, Pref. §. 22. And again, with their heaviest censures it may well consist, that your Errors, though in them­selves damnable, yet may prove not-damning to you, if you die with true repentance, for all your sins known and unknown.

5. Thus much Charity therefore, if you stand to what you have said, is interchangeably granted by each Side to the other, that Neither Religion is so fatally destructive, but that by Ignorance or Repentance Salvation may be had on both Sides: though with a difference that keeps Papists still on the more uncharitable side. For whereas we conceive a lower degree of Repentance (that which they call Attrition) if it be true, and effectual, and convert the heart of the penitent, will serve in them: They pretend (even this Author which is most charitable towards us) that without Contrition there is no hope for us. But, though Protestants may not obtain this pur­chase at so easie a rate as Papists; yet (even Papists being Judges) they may obtain it: and, though there is no entrance for them but at the only door of Contrition, yet they may enter; Heaven is not inaccessible to them. Their errors are no such impenetrable Isthmus's between them and Salvation, but that Contrition may make away through them. All their Schism and He­resie is no such fatal poison, but that, if a man joyn with it the Antidote of a general Repentance, he may die in it, and live for ever. Thus much then being acknowledged, I appeal to any indifferent Reader, whether C. M. be not by his Hyperaspist forsaken in the plain field, and the Point in question granted to D. Potter, viz. That Protestancy, even without a particular Repentance, is not destructive of Salvation. So that all the Con­troversie remaining now, is, not simply Whether Protestancy unrepented destroys Salvation? as it was at first proposed, but, Whether Protestancy [Page 30]in it self (that is, abstracted from Ignorance and Contrition) destroys Sal­vation? So that, as a foolish fellow, who gave a Knight the Lye, desiring withall leave of him to set his Knighthood aside, was answered by him, that he would not suffer any thing to be set aside that belonged unto him: So might we justly take it amiss, that, conceiving as you do, Ignorance and Repentance such necessary things for us, you are not more willing to consider us with them, than without them. For my part, such is my Charity to you, that considering what great necessity You have, as much as any Christian Society in the World, that these Sanctuaries of Ignorance and Repentance should always stand open, I can very hardly perswade my self so much as in my most secret consideration to devest you of these so needful qualifications: But whensoever your errors, superstitions, and impieties come into my mind, (and, besides the general bonds of Huma­nity and Christianity, my own particular Obligations to many of you, such and so great, that you cannot perish without a part of my Self,) my only comfort is, amidst these Agonies, that the Doctrine and Practice too of Repentance, is yet remaining in your Church: And that, though you put on a face of confidence of your innocence in point of Doctrine, yet you will be glad to stand in the eye of Mercy as well as your fellows, and not be so stout, as to refuse either God's pardon or the King's.

6. But for the present, Protestancy is called to the bar, and though not sentenced by you to death without Mercy, yet arraigned of so much natu­ral malignity, (if not corrected by ignorance or contrition) as to be in it self destructive of Salvation. Which Controversie I am content to dis­pute with you, tying my self to follow the Rules prescribed by you in your Preface. Only I am to remember you, that the adding of this limi­tation (in it self) hath made this a new Question; and that this is not the Conclusion, for which you were charged with want of Charity. But that, whereas, according to the grounds of your own Religion, Protestants may die in their supposed errors, either with excusable ignorance, or with Con­trition, and if they do so, may be saved, you still are peremptory in pro­nouncing them damned. Which Position, supposing your Doctrine true, and ours false, as it is far from Charity, (whose essential Character it is, to judge and hope the best), so I believe that I shall clearly evince this new, but more moderate, Assertion of yours to be far from verity, and that it is Popery, and not Protestancy, which in it self destroys Salvation.

7. Ad §. 7. & 8. In your gradation I shall rise so far with you as to grant, That Christ founded a visible Church, stored with all helps necessary to Salvation, particularly with sufficient means to beget and conserve Faith, to maintain Unity, and compose Schisms, to discover and condemn Heresies, and to determine all Controversies in Religion, which were necessary to be deter­mined. For all these purposes, he gave at the beginning (as we may see in the Epistle to the Ephesians) Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors: who by word of mouth taught their Contemporaries, and by writings (wrot indeed by some, but approved by all of them) taught their Christian posterity to the world's end, how all these ends, and that which is the End of all these ends, Salvation, is to be atchieved. And these means the Providence of God hath still preserved, and so preserved, that they are sufficient for all these intents. I say, sufficient, though, through [Page 31]the malice of men, not always effectual; for, that the same means may be Sufficient for the compassing an end, and not Effectual, you must not deny, who hold, that God gives to all men sufficient means of Salvation, and yet that all are not saved. I said also, Sufficient to determine all Controver­sies, which were necessary to be determined. For, if some Controversies may for many Ages be undetermined, and yet in the mean-while men be saved; why should, or how can the Churche's being furnisht with ef­fectual means to determine all Controversies in Religion, be necessary to Sal­vation; the end it self, to which these means are ordained, being, as expe­rience shews, not necessary? Plain sense will teach every man, that the necessity of the means must always be measured by, and can never ex­ceed, the necessity of the end. As, if eating be necessary, only that I may live; then certainly if I have no necessity to live, I have no necessity to eat. If I have no need to be at London, I have no need of a horse to carry me thither. If I have no need to fly, I have no need of wings. Answer me then I pray directly, and categorically, Is it necessary that all Controver­sies in Religion should be determined? or, is it not? If it be, Why is the the Question of Predetermination, of the immaculate Conception, of the Pope's indirect power in Temporalties, so long undetermined? If not, What is it but hypocrisie to pretend such great necessity of such effectual means, for the atchieving that end, which is it self not necessary? Christians therefore have and shall have means sufficient (though not always effectu­al) to determine, not all Controversies, but all necessary to be determined. I proceed on farther with you, and grant that this means to decide Con­troversies in Faith and Religion, must be endued with an Universal In­fallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine Truth. For, if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, in anything which God requires men to believe, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing. These Grounds therefore I grant very readily, and give you free leave to make your best advantage of them. And yet, to deal tru­ly, I do not perceive how from the denial of any of them it would follow that Faith is Opinion: or, from the granting them, that it is not so. But for for my part whatsoever clamour you have raised against me, I think no otherwise of the Nature of Faith, I mean, Historical Faith, than generally both Protestants and Papists do; for, I conceive it an assent to divine Reve­lations upon the Authority of the Revealer. Which though in many things it differ from Opinion, (as commonly the word opinion is understood) yet in some things, I doubt not but you will confess, that it agrees with it. As first, that as Opinion is an Assent, so is Faith also. Secondly, that as Opinion, so Faith, is always built upon less evidence than that of Sense or Science. Which Assertion you not only grant, but mainly contend for in your sixth Chapter. Thirdly and lastly, that, as Opinion, so Faith admit degrees; and that, as there may be a strong and weak Opinion, so there may be a strong and weak Faith. These things if you will grant (as sure if you be in your right mind you will not deny any of them) I am well contented that this ill-sounding word, Opinion, should be discarded, and that among the Intellectual habits you should seek out some other Genus for Faith. For I will never contend with any man about words, who grants my mean­ing.

8. But though the essence of Faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection, [Page 32]yet may it be enquired, Whether any certainty of Faith, under the highest de­gree, may be sufficient to please God and attain Salvation? Whereunto I an­swer, That though Men are unreasonable, God requires not any thing but Reason. They will not be pleased without a down-weight, but God is contented if the scale be turned. They pretend, that heavenly things can­not be seen to any purpose, but by the mid-day light: But God will be satisfied, if we receive any degree of light which makes us leave the works of darkness, and walk as children of the light. They exact a certainty of Faith above that of sense or science; God desires only that we believe the Conclusion, as much as the Premisses deserve; that the strength of our Faith be equal or proportionable to the credibility of the Motives to it. Now though I have, and ought to have, an absolute certainty of this Thesis, All which God reveals for truth, is true, being a Proposition, that may be de­monstrated, or rather so evident to any one that understands it, that it needs it not; Yet of this Hypothesis, That all the Articles of our Faith were revealed by God, we cannot ordinarily have any rational and acquired cer­tainty, more than moral, founded upon these Considerations: First, that the goodness of the precepts of Christianity, and the greatness of the pro­mises of it, shews it, of all other Religions, most likely to come from the Fountain of goodness. And then that a constant, famous, and very ge­neral Tradition, so credible that no wise man doubts of any other which hath but the fortieth part of the credibility of this; such and so credible a Tradition, tells us, that God himself hath set his Hand and Seal to the truth of this Doctrine, by doing great, and glorious, and frequent Mi­racles in confirmation of it. Now our Faith is an assent to this Conclusi­on, that the doctrine of Christianity is true, which being deduced from the former Thesis, which is Metaphysically certain, and from the former Hy­pothesis, whereof we can have but a Moral certainty, we cannot possibly by natural means be more certain of it than of the weaker of the Premisses; as a River will not rise higher than the fountain from which it flows. For the Conclusion always follows the worser part, if there be any worse: and must be Negative, particular, Contingent, or but Morally certain, if any of the Propositions, from whence it is derived, be so: Neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree, unless we be thus certain of all the Principles whereon it is grounded. As a man cannot go or stand strongly, if either of his legs be weak. Or as a building cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pillars thereof be infirm and instable. Or as, If a mes­sage be brought me, from a man of absolute credit with me, but by a messenger that is not so, my confidence of the Truth of the Relation, can­not but be rebated and lessened, by my diffidence in the Relatour.

9. Yet all this I say not, as if I doubted, that the Spirit of God, being implored by devout and humble prayer, and sincere obedience, may, and will by degrees, advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence, beyond their certainty of evidence. But, what God gives as a reward to believers, is one thing; and what he requires of all men, as their duty, is another; and what he will accept of, out of grace and fa­vour, is yet another. To those that believe, and live according to their faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how they know not) what they did but believe: And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospel of Christ, as those [Page 33]which heard it from Christ himself with their ears, which saw it with their eyes, which looked upon it, and whose hands handled the Word of Life. He requires of all, that their Faith should be (as I have said) pro­portionable to the Motives and Reasons enforcing to it; he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of Faith, if it be living and effectual unto true Obedience. For he it is that will not quench the smoaking flax, nor break the bruised Reed. He did not reject the prayer of that distressed man that cryed unto him, Lord, I believe; Lord, help mine unbelief. He commands us to receive them that are weak in faith, and thereby declares that he receives them. And as nothing avails with him, but Faith which worketh by love: So any Faith, if it be but as a grain of mustard-seed, if it work by love, shall certainly avail with him, and be accepted of him. Some experience makes me fear, that the faith of considering and dis­coursing men, is like to be crackt with too much straining: And that be­ing possessed with this false Principle, that it is in vain to believe the Go­spel of Christ, with such a kind or degree of assent, as they yield to other matters of Tradition: And finding that their faith of it, is to them un­discernable, from the belief they give to the truth of other Stories; are in danger either not to believe at all, thinking, not at all as good as to no purpose; or else, though indeed they do believe it, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonies and perplexities, as fearing they have not that, without which it is impossible to please God, and obtain eternal happiness. Consideration of this advantage, which the Devil probably may make of this Fancy, made me willing to insist some­what largely upon the Refutation of it.

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

God hath provided means sufficient to decide all Controversies in Re­ligion, necessary to be decided;

This means is universally infallible;

[Page 34] Therefore of two, that differ in any thing which they esteem a matter of Faith, one cannot be saved.

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

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

12. Ad. § 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. In all this long Discourse you only tell us what you will do, but do nothing. Many Positions there are, but proofs of them you offer none, but reserve them to the Chapters fol­lowing; and there, in their proper places, they shall be examined. The summ of all your Assumpts collected by your self, §. 16. is this,

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

To all these Assertions I will content my self for the present to oppose this one, That not one of them all is true. Only I may not omit to tell you, [Page 35]that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himself desires it should be, yet the Corollary, which you deduce from it, would be utterly incon­sequent, That, Whosoever denies any Point proposed by the Church, is inju­rious to God's Divine Majesty; as if He could deceive, or be deceived. For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be, yet, if it appeared not to me to be so, I might very well believe God most true, and your Church most false. As, though the Gospel of S. Matthew be the Word of God; yet, if I neither knew it to be so, nor believed it, I might believe in God, and yet think that Gospel a Fable. Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember, that our be­ing guilty of this impiety, depends not only upon your being, but upon our knowing that you are so. Neither must you argue thus; The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities, therefore he that opposeth Her, calls God's Truth in Question: But thus rather, The Church of Rome is so, and Protestants know it to be so; therefore in opposing her, they impute to God, that either he deceives them, or is deceived himself. For as I may deny something which you upon your knowledge have affirmed, and yet never disparage your honesty, if I never knew that you affirmed it: So I may be undoubtedly certain of God's Omniscience, and Veracity, and yet doubt of something which he hath revealed; provided, I do not know, nor believe that he hath revealed it. So, that though your Church be the appointed witness of God's Revelations, yet until you know, that we know she is so, you cannot without foul calumny impute to us, That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving, or being deceived. You will say perhaps, That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine, That the Church may err, which is directed by God in all her Proposals. True, if we knew it to be directed by him, otherwise not; much less if we believe, and know the contrary. But then, if it were consequent from our Opinion, have you so little Charity, as to say, that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions; Such Consequences, I mean, as they do not own, but disclaim; and, if there were a necessity of doing either, would much rather forsake their Opinion, than imbrace those Consequences? What opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphe­mies, as that of the Dominicans, by the judgement of the best Writers of your own Order? And will you say now, that the Dominicans are justly chargeable with all those Blasphemies? If not, seeing our case (take it at the worst) is but the same, why should not your judgment of us be the same? I appeal to all those Protestants that have gone over to your Side; whether when they were most averse from it, they did ever deny or doubt of God's Omniscience or Veracity; whether they did ever believe, or were taught, that God did deceive them, or was deceived himself. Nay, I provoke to you your self, and desire you to deal truly, and to tell Us whether you do in your heart believe, that we do indeed not believe the eternal Veracity of the eternal Verity? And, if you judge so strangely of us, having no better ground for it, than you have or can have, we shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitableness towards us, this being the extremity of true uncharitableness. If not, then, I hope, having no other ground but this (which sure is none at all) to pronounce us dam­nable Heretiques, you will cease to do so; and hereafter (as, if your ground be true, you may do with more Truth and Charity) collect thus, [Page 36] They only err damnably, who oppose what they know God hath testified; But, Protestants sure do not oppose what they know God hath testified, at least we cannot with Charity say they do; Therefore they either do not err damnably, or with Charity we cannot say they do so.

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

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

14. To the first, Whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any [Page 37]one Truth contained in holy Writ? I answer, Yes, if he knew it to be so, or have no probable Reason to doubt of it: otherwise, not.

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

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

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

An ANSWER to the SECOND CHAPTER. Concerning the means, whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding; and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion.

AD §. 1. He that would usurp an absolute Lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and dif­ficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their in­tent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Laws; if he can rule his people by his Laws, and his Laws by his Lawyers. So the Church of Rome, to establish her tyranny over mens consciences, need­ed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures, the Pillars and sup­porters of Christian liberty (which in regard of the numerous multitude of Copies dispersed through all places, translated into almost all Languages, guarded with all sollicitous care and industry, had been an impossible at­tempt;) But the more expedite way, and therefore more likely to be suc­cesseful, was, to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd Interpreter of them, and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrin she pleased under the title of Traditions or Definitions. For by this means, she might both serve herself of all those clauses of Scripture, which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences, which in case the Scripture had been abolished, she could not have done; and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited, or her cor­ruptions and abuses reformed by them; this being once setled in the minds [Page 46]of men, that unwritten doctrins, if proposed by her, were to be received with equal reverence to those that were writen; and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seemed to mens reason and understanding to be so, but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so, seemed it never so unreasonable and incongruous. The matter being once thus ordered, and the holy Scri­ptures being made in effect not your Directors and Judges (no farther than you please) but your servants and instruments, alwayes prest and in readi­ness to advance your designes, and disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach them; it is safe for you to put a crown on their head, and a reed in their hands, and to bow before them, and cry, Hail Ring of the Jews! to pretend a great deal of esteem, and respect, and reverence to them, as here you do. But to little purpose is verbal reverence without en­tire submission and syncere obedience; and, as our Saviour said of some, so the Scripture, could it speak, I believe would say to you, Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not that which I command you? Cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of infallibility, which makes your errors incurable. Leave picturing God, and worshipping him by pictures. Teach not for Do­ctrin the commandements of men. Debarr not the Laity of the Testament of Christ's Blood. Let your publique Prayers, and Psalms, and Hymns be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistents. Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them. Do not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul con­demns. Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one. Acknowledg them that die in Christ to be blessed, and to rest from their labours. Acknow­ledge the Sacrament after Consecration, to be Bread and Wine, as well as Christs body and bloud. Acknowledg the gift of continency without Mar­riage, not to be given to all. Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnal, such as Massacres, Treasons, Persecutions, and, in a word, all means either violent or fraudulent: These and other things, which the Scripture com­mands you, do, and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve; but till you do so, to talk of estimation, respect, and reverence to the Scripture, is nothing else but talk.

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

[Page 47] 3. For, whereas you say, No cause imaginable could avert your will, for giving the function of supreme and sole Judge to holy Writ; but that the thing is impossible, and that by this means controversies are increased and not ended: you mean perhaps,—That you can or will imagine no other cause but these. But sure there is little reason you should measure other mens imaginations by your own, who perhaps may be so clouded and vailed with prejudice, that you cannot, or will not, see that which is most manifest. For what indif­ferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which (I do not say does, but certainly) may pervert your wills, and avert your understandings from submitting your Religion and Church to a tryall by Scripture? I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this means you would fall into, of losing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility, and consequently your power and authority over mens consciences, and all that depends upon it. So that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up, yet it may be feared that with a great many among you (though I censure or judge no man) the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen, may have with you also the more effe­ctual, though more secret influence: and that is, that by this craft we have our living; by this craft, I mean, of keeping your Proselytes from an in­different tryal of your Religion by Scripture, and making them yield up and captivate their judgement unto yours. Yet had you only said de facto, that no other cause did avert your own will from this, but only these which you pretend; out of Charity I should have believed you. But seeing you speak not of your self, but of all of your Side, whose hearts you cannot know; and profess not only, That there is no other cause, but that No other is imaginable, I could not let this passe without a censure. As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole Judge of Controversies, that is, the sole Rule for men to judge them by (for we mean nothing else) you only affirm it without proof, as if the thing were evident of it self. And therefore I, conceiving the contrary to be more evident, might well content my self to deny it without refutation. Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me, If Scripture cannot be the Judge of any Controversie, how shall that touching the Church and the Notes of it, be determined? And if it be the sole Judge of this one, why may it not of others? Why not of All? Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it self is the subject of the Question, which cannot be determined but by natural reason, the only principle, beside Scri­pture, which is common to Christians.

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

5. In the next words we have direct Boyes-play; a thing given with one hand, and taken away with the other▪ an acknowledgment made in one line, and retracted in the next. We acknowledg (say you) Scripture to be a per­fect rule, for as much as a Writing can be a Rule; only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition. As if you should have said, We acknowledg it to be as perfect a Rule as a Writing can be; only we deny it to be as perfect a Rule [Page 48]as a writing may be. Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledg­ment, or retract your retractation of it; for both cannot possibly stand toge­ther. For if you will stand to what you have granted, That Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a writing can be: you must then grant it both so Compleat, that it needs no addition, and so evident, that it needs no inter­pretation: For both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule, and a writing is capable of both these properties.

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

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

[Page 49] 8. You will say, that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith, yet it must be beholding to Tradition to give it this Testimony, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the Word of God. I answer: First, there is no absolute ne­cessity of this. For God might, if he thought good, give it the attestation of perpetuall miracles. Secondly, that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith, another to be proved so unto us. And this though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith, by its owne saying so, for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book, but only by Tra­dition which is a thing credible of it self, yet it may be so in it self, and contain all the material objects, all the particular articles of our Faith, without any dependance upon Tradition; even this also not excepted, that this writing doth contain the rule of Faith. Now when Protestants affirm against Papists, that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith, their meaning is not, that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved, which are to be believed: For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer, that there is a God, or that the book called Scripture is the word of God; For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken, will believe them never a whit the more, because you can shew them written: But their mea­ning is, that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine, and a Rule of Faith, as Papists and Protestants do, contains all the material objects of Faith; is a compleat and total, and not onely an imperfect and a partial Rule.

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

10. The next Argument to the same purpose is, for Sophistry, cosen­german to the former. When the first books of Scripture were written, they did not exclude unwritten Tradition: Therefore now also, that all the books of Scripture are written, Traditions are not excluded. The sense of which argu­ment (if it have any) must be this. When only a part of the Scripture was written, then a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten; Therefore now when all the Scripture is written, yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten. If you say, your Conclusion is not, that it is so, but, without dis­paragement to Scripture, may be so: without disparagement to the truth of Scripture, I grant it; but without disparagement to the Scripture's be­ing a perfect Rule, I deny it. And now the Question is not of the Truth, but the perfection of it; which are very different things, though you would fain confound them. For Scripture might very well be all true, though it contain not all necessary Divine Truth. But unlesse it do so, it can­not be a perfect Rule of Faith; for that which wants any thing is not per­fect. For, I hope, you do not imagine, that we conceive any antipathy [Page 50]between God's Word written and unwritten, but that both might very well stand together. All that we say is this, that we have reason to believe that God, de facto, hath ordered the matter so, that all the Gospel of Christ, the whole Covenant between God and man, is now written. Whereas, if he had pleased, he might so have disposed it, that, part might have been written, and part unwritten: but then he would have taken order, to whom we should have had recourse, for that part of it which was not written; which seeing he hath not done (as the progresse shall demon­strate) it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten. We know no man therefore that sayes, It were any injury to the written Word to be joy­ned with the unwritten, if there were any wherewith it might be joyned: but that, we deny. The fidelity of a keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody. But we know no one society of Christians that is such a faithfull keeper as you pretend. The Scripture it self was not kept so faithfully by you, but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it; all which could not possibly be divine, and yet, in several parts of your Church, all of them, until the last Age, were so esteemed. The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture, which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Chri­stians, are wholly lost; there remains no certainty scarce of any one. Those Worlds of Miracles, which our Saviour did, which were not writ­ten, for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men. And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not, as that which S. Paul glanceth at in his second Epistle to the Thessal. of the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist, are wholly lost and extinguished. So unfaithful or negligent hath been this Keeper of Divine Verities; whose eyes, like the Keepers of Israel (you say) have never slumbred nor slept. Lastly, we deny not but a Judge and a Law might well stand together, but we deny that there is any such Judge of Gods appointment. Had he intended any such Judge, he would have named him, lest other­wise (as now it is) our Judge of Controversies should be our greatest Con­troversie.

11. Ad §. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In your second Paragraph, you sum up those Arguments wherewith you intend to prove that Scripture alone cannot be Judge in Controversies. Wherein I profess unto you before hand, that you will fight without an Adversary. For though Protestants, being warran­ted by some of the Fathers, have called Scripture the Judge of Controversie; and you, in saying here, That Scripture alone cannot be Judge, imply that it may be called in some sense a Judge, though not alone: Yet, to speak properly (as men should speak when they write of Controversies in Religion) the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversies, but a Rule only, and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by. Every man is to judge for himself with the Judgement of Discretion, and to choose either his Religion first, and then his Church, as we say: or, as you, his Church first, and then his Religion. But, by the consent of both sides, every man is to judge and choose: and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choice, if he be a natural man, is Reason; if he be already a Christian, Scripture; which we say is the Rule to judge Controversies by. Yet not all simply, but all the, Controversies of Christians, of those that are already agreed upon This first Principle, that the Scripture is the Word of God. But that there is any [Page 51]Man, or any Company of men appointed to be Judge for all man, that we deny; and that I believe, you will never prove. The very truth is, we say no more in this matter, than evidence of Truth hath made you confess in plain terms in the beginning of this Chapter, viz. That Scripture is a per­fect Rule of Faith, for as much as a writing can be a Rule. So that all your Reasons, whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this Office of Judging, we might let pass as impertinent to the Conclusion which we maintain, and you have already granted; yet out of courtesie we will consider them.

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

13. Your next encounter is with them, who acknowledging the Scrip­ture a Rule only and not a Judge, make the holy Ghost, speaking in Scri­ture, the Judge of Controversies. Which you disprove by saying, That, the holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us, than the Scripture in which he speaks. But by this reason, neither the Pope, nor a Councel can be a Judge neither. For first, denying the Scriptures, the writings of the holy Ghost, to be Judges; you will not, I hope, offer to pretend, that their Decrees, the writings of men, are more capable of this function: the same exceptions at least, if not more, and greater lying against them as do against Scripture. And then what you object against the holy Ghost, speaking in Scripture, to exclude him from this office, The same I return upon them and their Decrees, to debar them from it; that they speaking unto us only in their Decrees, are no more intelligible than the Decrees in which they speak. And therefore if the Holy Ghost speak­ing in Scripture may not be a Judge for this Reason; neither may they, speaking in their Decrees, be Judges for the same Reason. If the Pope's Decrees (you will say) be obscure, he can explain himself; and so the Scrip­ture cannot. But the holy Ghost, that speaks in Scripture, can do so, if he please; and, when he is pleased, will do so. In the mean time, it will be fit for you to wait his leisure, and to be content, that those things of Scripture [Page 52]which are plain should be so, and those which are obscure should remain obscure, until he please to declare them. Besides, he can (which you can­not warrant me of the Pope or a Councel) speak at first so plainly, that his words shall need no farther explanation; and so in things necessary we believe he hath done. And if you say, The Decrees of Councels touching Controversies, though they be not the Judge, yet they are the Judge's sentence: So, I say, the Scripture, though not the Judge, is the sentence of the Judge. When therefore you conclude, That, to say a Judge is necessary for deciding Controversies about the meaning of Scripture, is as much as to say, He is ne­cessary to decide what the holy Ghost speaks in Scripture: This, I grant, is true; but I may not grant that a Judge (such an one as we dispute of) is necessary either to do the one, or the other. For, if the Scripture (as it is in things necessary) be plain, why should it be more necessary to have a Judg to interpret them in plain places, than to have a Judg to interpret the mean­ing of a Councel's Decrees, and others to interpret their Interpretations, & others to interpret theirs, and so on for ever? And where they are not plain, there if we, using diligence to find the Truth, do yet miss of it and fall into Errour, there is no danger in it. They that err, and they that do not err, may both be saved. So that those places, which contain things necessary, and wherein Errour were dangerous, need no infallible interpreter, because they are plain: and those that are obscure need none, because they con­tain not things Necessary, neither is Errour in them dangerous.

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

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

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

16. Thirdly, In Civil and Criminal Causes the parties have for the most part so much interest, and very often so little honesty, that they will not submit to a Law though never so plain, if it be against them; or will not see it to be against them, though it be so never so plainly: whereas if men were honest, and the Law were plain and extended to all cases, there would be little need of Judges. Now in matters of Religion, when the Questi­on is, Whether every man be a fit Judge and chooser for himself, we sup­pose men honest, and such as understand the difference between a Mo­ment and Eternity. And such men we conceive, will think it highly con­cerns them to be of the true Religion, but nothing at all that this or that Re­ligion should be the true. And then we suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plain and easie, and consequently every man in this cause [Page 53]to be a competent Judge for himself; because it concerns himself to judge right as much as eternal happiness is worth. And if, through his own default he judge amiss, he alone shall suffer for it.

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

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

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

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

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

22. Ninthly, and Lastly, For the ending of Civil Controversies, Who does not see, it is absolutely necessary, that not only Judges should be ap­pointed, but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are? Thus all the Judges of our Land are known men, known to be Judges, and no man [Page 54]can doubt or question, but these are the Men. Otherwise, if it were a disputable thing, Who were these Judges, and they had no certain war­rant for their Authority, but only some Topical congruities; Would not any man say, such Judges, in all likelihood, would rather multiply Con­troversies, than end them? So likewise, if our Saviour, the King of Heaven, had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some visible Judge finally determined, Who can doubt, but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter? He would have said plainly, The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emer­gent Controversies. For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome to this Office, and yet would not say so, nor cause it to be written—ad Rei memoriam—by any of the Evangelists or Apostles, so much as once; but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain Principles, by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain Consequences, He that can believe it, let him.

23. All these Reasons, I hope, will convince you, that though we have, and have great necessity of, Judges in Civil and Criminal Causes: yet you may not conclude from thence, that there is any publique autho­rized Judge to determine Controversies in Religion, nor any necessity there should be any.

24. But the Scripture stands in need of some watchful and unerring eye to guard it, by means of whose assured Vigilancy, we may undoubtedly re­ceive it sincere and pure. Very true, but this is no other than the watch­ful eye of Divine Providence: the goodness whereof will never suffer, that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted, but that in them should be always extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternal happiness. Nei­ther can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodness, than to suffer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment, and yet to exact of men the Belief of those verities, which, without their fault, or knowledge, or possibility of prevention, were defaced out of them. So that God requiring of men to believe Scripture in its purity, ingages himself to see it preserved in sufficient purity; and you need not fear but he will satisfie his engagement. You say, We can have no assurance of this, but your Churches Vigilancy. But if we had no other, we were in a hard case; for, Who could then assure us that your Church hath been so vigilant, as to guard Scripture from any the least alteration? There being various Lections in the ancient Copies of your Bibles, What security can your new raised Office of Assurance give us, that that reading is true which you now receive, and that false which you reject? Certainly, they that anciently received and made use of those divers Copies, were not all guarded by the Churches Vigilancy from having their Scripture altered from the purity of the Original in many places. For of different readings, it is not in nature impossible that all should be false, but more than one cannot possibly be true. Yet the want of such a protection, was no hin­derance to their salvation, and Why then shall the having of it be necessa­ry for ours? But then, this Vigilancy of your Church, what means have we to be ascertained of it? First, the thing is not evident of it self; which is evident, because many do not believe it. Neither can any thing be pretended to give evidence to it, but only some places of Scripture; of whose incorruption more than any other, what is it that can secure me? If you say the Churches Vigilancy, you are in a Circle, proving the Scriptures [Page 55]uncorrupted by the Churche's Vigilancy, and the Churche's Vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture, and again the incorruption of those places by the Churche's Vigilancy. If you name any other means; then, that means which secures me of the Scripture's incor­ruption in those places, will also serve to assure me of the same in other places. For my part, abstracting from Divine Providence, which will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked up, or made in­visible, I know no other means (I mean, no other natural and rational means) to be assured hereof, than I have that any other Book is uncor­rupted. For, though I have a greater degree of rational and humane Assu­rance of that than this, in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible, That the Scripture hath been preserved from any material al­teration; yet my Assurance of both is of the same kind and condition; both Moral Assurances, and neither Physical or Mathematical.

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

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

27. To which I have already answered, saying, That, when Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversies of Religion are to be decided, Those are to be excepted out of this generality, which are concern­ing the Scripture it self. For, as that general saying of Scripture, He hath put all things under his feet, is most true, though yet S. Paul tell us, That [Page 56]when it is said, He hath put all things under him, it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him: So when we say that all Controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture, it is manifest to all, but cavil­lers, that we do, and must, except from this generality, those which are touching the Scripture it self. Just as a Merchant shewing a Ship of his own, may say, All my substance is in this Ship; and yet never intend to deny, that his Ship is part of his substance, nor yet to say that his Ship is in it self. Or, as a man may say, that a whole house is supported by the foundati­on, and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house, or to say; that it is supported by it self. Or as you your selves use to say, that the Bishop of Rome is Head of the whole Church, and yet would think us but captious Sophisters, should we infer from hence, that either you made him no part of the whole, or else made him head of himself. Your Negative Conclusion, therefore, that these Questions touching Scri­pture, are not decidable by Scripture, you needed not have cited any Au­thorities, nor urged any Reason to prove it; it is evident of it self, and I grant it without more ado. But your corollary from it, which you would insinuate to your unwary Reader, That therefore they are to be decided by your, or any, Visible Church, is a meer inconsequence, and very like his collection, who, because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his Wife, presently concluded that he must have her; as if there had been no more men in the World but Pamphilus and himself. For so you, as if there were nothing in the World capable of this Office, but the Scripture, or the present Church; having concluded against Scripture, you conceive, but too hastily, that you have concluded for the Church. But the truth is, neither the one nor the other have any thing to do with this matter. For first, the Question whether such or such a Book be Canonical Scripture, though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture, by shewing appa­rent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other Book confessedly Canonical; yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimo­nies of the Ancient Churches: any Book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonical, or to be doubted of as Uncertain, or rejected as Apocryphal, according as it was received, or doubted of, or rejected by them. Then for the Question, Of various readings which is the true? it is in reason evi­dent, and confessed by your own Pope, that there is no possible determina­tion of it, but only by comparison with ancient Copies. And lastly, for controversies about different translations of Scripture, the Learned have the same means to satisfie themselves in it, as in the Questions which hap­pen about the translation of any other Author; that is, skill in the Language of the Original, and comparing translations with it. In which way if there be no certainty, I would know that certainty you have, that your Doway old, and Rhemish new Testament, are true translations? And then for the unlearned, those on your side are subject to as much, nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours. Neither is there any reason imaginable, why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of of the Translation of our Church, that it is free from errour, if not abso­lutely, yet in matters of moment, as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament, or Doway Bible. The best direction I can give them, is, to compare both together, and where there is no real difference (as in the Translation of controverted places I believe there is very little) there [Page 57]to be confident, that they are right; where they differ, there to be pru­dent in the choice of the Guides they follow. Which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible errour, yet is it the best that either we, or you have; & it is not required that we use any better than the best we have.

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

29. Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this Discourse, that, These controversies about Scripture, are not decidable by Scripture; and have shewed, that your deduction from it, that there­fore they are to be determined by the Authority of some present Church, is ir­rational, and inconsequent; I might well forbear to tire myself with an exact and punctual examination of your premises [...], which whether they be true or false, is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent. Yet because you shall not complain of tergiversation, I will run over them, and let nothing, that is material and considerable, pass without some stricture or animadversion.

30. You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth, that, That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is God's Word, is the Church: and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. §. 8. Let the Rea­der consult the place, and he shall find that he and M. Hooker have been much abused, both by you here, and by M. Breerly, and others before you; and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose, but very much directly to the contrary. There he tells us indeed, That, ordina­ly the first Introduction and probable Motive to the belief of the verity, is the Authority of the Church; but, that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded, that in the same place he plainly de­nies. His words are, Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise, that it self is Divine and Sacred. The Question then being by what means we are taught this: Some an­swer so, but he doth not. some answer; that to learn it we have no other way than Tradition. As, namely, that so we believe, because we from our Predecessors, and they from theirs, have so received. But is this enough? That which all mens experience teacheth them, may not in any wise be deni­ed: and by experience we all know, that The first outward Mo­tive, not the last assurance whereon we rest. the first outward Motive leading men to esteem of the Scripture, is, the Authority of God's Church. For when we know The whole Church that he speaks of, seems to be that particular Church, wherein a man is bred and brought up; and the Au­thority of this he makes an Argument which presseth a man's mo­desty more than his reason. And in saying, It seems impu­dent to be of a contrary mind, without cause, he implies; There may be a just cause to be of a con­trary mind, and that then it were no impu­dence to be so. the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we [Page 58]judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man, bred and brought up in the Church, to be of a contrary mind without cause. Afterwards, the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, Therefore the Authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest: we had need of more assu­rance, and the int [...]ins [...]cal Ar­guments afford [...]t. the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concern­ing it: so that the former inducement, prevailing Some­what, b [...]t not much, until it be backed and inforced by farther reason: it self there­fore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution. somewhat with us be­fore, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministred far­ther reason. If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the Church, concerning Scripture, and our own perswasion, which Scripture it self hath setled, may be proved a truth infallible. Observe, I pray; Our per­swasion, and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture, may be proved true; Therefore nei­ther or them was in his ac­count the far­thest proof. In which case the an­cient Fathers, being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to relie upon the Scriptures, endeavoured still to maintain the Authority of the Books of God, by Arguments, such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judge thereof as they should. Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs, so to manifest and clear that Point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without deny­ing some apparent Principle, such as all men acknowledg to be true Natural reason th [...]n built on prin­ciples common to all men, is the last resolu­tion; unto which the Churches Au­thority is but the first in­ducement. By this time, I hope, the Reader sees sufficient proof of what I said in my Reply to your Preface, that M. Breerelie's great ostentation of exactness, is no ve­ry certain Argument of his fidelity.

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

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

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

34. So also the Ancient Fathers, and not only Fathers, but whole Churches, differed about the certainty of the Authority of the very same Books: and by their difference shewed, they knew no necessity of con­forming [Page 59]themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church. For had they done so, they must have agreed all with that Church, and con­sequently among themselves. Now, I pray, tell me plainly, Had they suf­ficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical, or had they not? If they had not, it seems there is no great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no, as you require: If they had, Why may not Protestants, notwithstanding their differences, have sufficient certainty hereof, as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches, notwithstanding theirs?

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

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

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

38. But leaving Luther, you return to our English Canon of Scrip­ture; [Page 60]And tell us, That, in the New Testament, by the above-mentioned Rule (of whose Authority was never doubt in the Church) divers Books must be dis-canonized. Not so. For I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles, and to be Canonical: but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly, as of those Books which were never questioned. At least I have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now: having the example of Saints in Hea­ven, either to justifie, or excuse such their doubting or denial.

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

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

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

42. The Discourse following, is but a vain Declamation. No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tried by Most Voices, but by the Judgement and Testimony of the Ancient Fathers and Churches.

43. But, with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Ar­ticle, That, by Scripture we mean those Books that were never doubted of; and in the latter say, We receive all the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, whereas of them many were doubted? I answer, When they say, of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church, They mean not, those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all, by any man in the Church; But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church, or by all Churches; but had attestation, though not universal, yet, at least, sufficient to make consi­dering men receive them for Canonical. In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose [Page 61]number and authority was not so great, as to prevail against the contrary suffrages.

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

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

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

That Believers of the Scripture, by considering the Divine matter, the excellent precepts, the glorious promises contained in it, may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures Divine Authority; and that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto, internal arguments have their place and force, certainly no man of understanding can deny. For my part I professe, if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good, and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness, as the Miracles by which it was con­firmed, were great, I should want one main Pillar of my faith: and for want of it, I fear, should be much stagger'd in it. Now this and nothing else, did the Doctor mean in saying, The Believer sees, by that glorious Beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture, and by many internal Arguments, that the Scripture is of Divine Authority. By this (saith he) he sees it, that is, he is mo­ved to, and strengthened in, his beliefe of it: and by this partly, not wholly; [Page 62]by this, not alone, but with the concurrence of other Arguments. He that will quarrel with him for saying so, must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences, and all his Schollers, for they all say the same. The rest of this Paragragh, I am as willing it should be true, as you are to have it: and so let it passe, as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned. You might have met with an Answerer, that would not have suffered you to have said so much Truth together; but to me it is sufficient, that it is nothing to the purpose.

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

49. The close of this Paragraph, is a fit cover for such a dish. There you tell us, That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget faith, this can be no other than the Church. By the Church, we know you doe, and must understand the Roman Church: so that in effect you say, [Page 63]no man can have faith, but he must be moved to it by your Churches Au­thority. And that is to say, that the King and all other Protestants, to whom you write, though they verily think they are Christians and believe the Gospel, because they assent to the truth of it, and would willingly die for it, yet indeed are Infidels and believe nothing. The Scripture tels us, The heart of man knoweth no man, but the spirit of man which is in him. And Who are you, to take upon you to make us believe, that we do not believe, what we know we do? But if I may think verily that I believe the Scri­pture, and yet not believe it; how know you that you believe the Roman Church? I am as verily and as strongly perswaded that I believe the Scri­pture, as you are that you believe the Church. And if I may be deceived, why may not you? Again, what more ridiculous, and against sense and ex­perience, than to affirm, That there are not millions amongst you and us that believe, upon no other reason than their education, and the authority of their Parents and Teachers, and the opinion they have of them? The tenderness of the subject, and aptness to receive impressions, supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent! And will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own Creed, who do indeed lay the foundation of their Faith (for I cannot call it by any other name) no deeper than upon the au­thority of their Father, or Master, or Parish-Priest? Certainly, if these have no true faith, your Church is very full of Infidels. Suppose Xaverius by the holiness of his life had converted some Indians to Christianity, who could (for so I will suppose) have no knowledge of your Church but from him, and therefore must last of all build their faith of the Church, upon their opi­nion of Xaverius: Do these remain as very Pagans after their conversion, as they were before? Are they brought to assent in their souls, and obey in their lives the Gospel of Christ, only to be Tantaliz'd and not saved, and not benefited, but deluded by it, because, forsooth, it is a man and not the Church that begets faith in them? What if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient? Do they therefore not believe what they do believe, because they do it upon insufficient motives? They choose the Faith im­prudently perhaps, but yet they do choose it. Unless you will have us be­lieve, that that which is done, is not done, because it is not done upon good reason: which is to say, that never any man living ever did a foolish acti­on. But yet I know not why the Authority of one holy man, which ap­parently hath no ends upon me, joyn'd with the goodness of the Christian faith, might not be a far greater and more rational motive to me to im­brace Christianity, than any I can have to continue in Paganism. And therefore, for shame, if not for love of Truth, you must recant this fancy when you write again: and suffer true faith to be many times, where your Churches infallibility hath no hand in the begetting of it. And be content to tell us hereafter, that we believe not enough, and not go about to perswade us we believe nothing, for fear with telling us what we know to be ma­nifestly false, you should gain only this, Not to be believed when you speak truth. Some pretty sophisms you may haply bring us, to make us believe, we believe nothing: but wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophistical. And therefore as he that could not answer Zeno's sub­tilties against the existence of Motion, could yet confute them by doing that, which he pretended could not be done: So, if you should give me a hundred Arguments to perswade me, because I do not believe Transubstan­tiation, [Page 64]I do not believe in God, and the Knots of them I could not unty, yet I should cut them in pieces with doing that, and knowing that I do so, which you pretend I cannot do.

50. In the thirteenth Division, we have again much ado about nothing. A great deal of stir you keep in confuting some, that pretend to know Ca­nonical Scripture to be such, by the Titles of the Books. But these men you do not name, which makes me suspect you cannot. Yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world; for Gusmen de Alfarache hath taught us that, The Fools hospital is a large place.

51. In the fourteenth §. we have very artificial jugling. D. Potter had said, That the Scripture (he desires to be understood of those books wherein all Christians agree) is a principle, and needs not be proved among Christians. His reason was, because, that needs no farther proof which is believed already. Now by this (you say) he means either, that the Scripture is one of these first Principles, and most known in all Sciences, which cannot be proved: which is to suppose, it cannot be proved by the Church; and that is to suppose the Question: Or, he means, That it is not the most known in Christianity, and then it may be proved. Where we see plainly, That two most dif­ferent things, Most known in all Sciences, and, Most known in Christianity, are captiously confounded. As if the Scripture might not be the first and most known Principle in Christianity, and yet not the most known in all Sciences? Or, as if to be a First Principle in Christianity, and in all Sciences, were all one? That Scripture is a Principle among Christians, that is, so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent Contro­versie to any Christian, but may be taken for granted, I think few will deny. You your selves are of this a sufficient Testimony, for urging against us many texts of Scripture, you offer no proof of the truth of them, presu­ming we will not question it. Yet this is not to deny, that Tradition is a Principle more known than Scripture; But to say, It is a Principle not in Christianity, but in Reason, nor proper to Christians, but common to all men.

52. But, It is repugnant to our practice to hold Scripture a Principle; be­cause we are wont to affirm, that one part of Scripture may be known to be Ca­nonical, and may be interpreted by another. Where the former device is a­gain put in practice. For to be known to be Canonical, and to be interpre­ted, is not all one. That Scripture may be interpreted by Scripture, that Pro­testants grant, and Papists do not deny; neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion—Scripture is the word of God, may be among Christians a common Principle. But the first,—That one part of Scripture may prove another part Canonical, and need no proof of its own being so; for that, you have produced divers Protestants that deny it; but who they are that affirm it, nondum constat.

53. It is superfluous for you to prove out of S. Athanasius, and S. Au­stine, that we must receive the sacred Canon, upon the credit of Gods Church. Understanding by Church, as here you explain your self, The credit of Tra­dition. And that not the Tradition of the Present Church, which we pre­tend may deviate from the Ancient, but such a Tradition, which involves an [...]ndence of Fact, and from hand to hand, from age to age, bringing us up to the times and persons of the Apostles, and our Saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles, and other Arguments, whereby they convinced [Page 65]their doctrine to be true. Thus you. Now prove the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition, and we will allow it. Prove your whole doctrine, or the infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition, and we will yield to you in all things. Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasi­us, and S. Austin, in this sense, (which is your own,) and they will not press us any thing at all. We will say, with Athanasius, That only four Gospels are to be received, because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church (un­derstand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon) have so determined.

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

55. But we cannot be certain, in what language the Scriptures remain un­corrupted. Not so certain, I grant, as of that which we can demonstrate: But certain enough, morally certain, as certain as the nature of the thing will bear: So certain we may be, and God requires no more. We may be as certain as S. Austin was, who in his second book of Baptism, against the Donatists, c. 3. plainly implies, the Scripture might possibly be corrupted. He means, sure, in matters of little moment, such as concern not the Cove­nant between God and Man. But thus he saith. The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist. cleerly intimates,Neque enim sic poturt inte­grit as atque no­titia literarum quamlibet illu­st is Episcopi, castodiri, quem­admodum Scri­tura Canonica tet linguarum literis & ordine & successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae custoditur; con­tra quam non desuerunt tam [...]n, qui sub nominibus Aposiolorum multa consiagerent. Frustra quidem; quia illa sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est. Verum quid possit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate sundatas etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae conatus auda­ciae, quòd & adversus cos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt, sese erigere non praetermisit. Aug. ep. 48. ad Vincent. cont. Donat. & Rogat. That in his judgement, the only preser­vative of the Scriptures integrity, was the translating it into so many Lan­guages, and the general and perpetual use and reading of it in the Church: for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kind; but the Canonical Scripture being by this means guarded with universal care and diligence, was not obnoxious to such attempts. And this assurance of the Scriptures incorruption, is common to us with him, we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was, and that, I hope, was certain enough. Yet if this does not satisfie you, I say farther, We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was. He in his Preface to his Bible tells us,In hac germani textus pe [...]vestigatione, satis perspicue inter omnes constat, nullum argumenum esse certius ac sirmius, quàm antiquorum probatorum codicum Latinorum fidem, &c. sie S [...]xtus in Praef. That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text, [Page 66]it was perspicuously manifest to all men, that there was no Argument more firm and certain to be relied upon, than the Faith of Ancient Books. Now this ground we have to build upon as well as he had: and therefore our certainty is as great, and stands upon as certain ground as his did.

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

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

58. In the sixteenth Division, It is objected to Protestants in a long discourse transcribed out of the Protestant's Apology, That their Translati­ons of the Scripture are very different, and by each other mutually condemned. Luther's Translation by Zwinglius, and others: That of the Zwinglians, by Luther. The Translation of Oecolampadius, by the Divines of Basil: that of Castalio, by Beza: That of Beza, by Castalio. That of Calvin, by Caro­lus Molinaeus. That of Geneva, by M. Parks, and King James. And last­ly, One of our Translations by the Puritans.

59. All which might have been as justly objected against that great va­riety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church, and made use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it. For which, I desire not that my word, but S. Austin's may be taken. They, which have translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek, may be numbred; but the Latin Interpreters are innume­rable. For, whensoever any one, in the first times of Christianity, met with a Greek Bible, and seemed to himself to have some ability in both Languages, he presently ventured upon an Interpretation. So He, in his second Book of Christi­an doctrine. Cap. 11. Of all these, that which was called the Italian Transla­tion was esteemed best; so we may learn from the same S. Austin in Chap. 15. of the same Book. Amongst all these interpretations (saith he) let the Italian [Page 67]be preferred: for it keeps closer to the Letter, and is perspicuous in the sense. Yet so far was the Church of that time from presuming upon the absolute purity and perfection, even of this best Translation, that S. Hie­rom thought it necessary to make a new Translation, of the Old Testament, out of the Hebrew Fountain, (which himself testifies in his Book de Vi­ris illustribus); and to correct the Vulgar version of the New Testament, according to the truth of the Original Greek; amending many errors which had crept into it, whether by the mistake of the Author, or the negligence of the Transcribers; which work he undertook and performed at the re­quest of Damasus, Bishop of Rome. You constrain me (saith he) to make a new work of an old: that, after the Copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed through the whole World, I should sit, as it were, an Arbitrator amongst them, and, because they vary among themselves, should determine what are those things (in them) which consent with the Greek verity. And after: Therefore this present Preface promises the four Gospels only, corrected by collation with Greek Copies. But, that they might not be very dissonant from the custom of the Latin reading, I have so tempered with my stile, the Translation of the Anci­ents, that, those things amended which did seem to change the sense, other things I have suffered to remain as they were. So that in this matter Pro­testants must either stand or fall with the Primitive Church.

60. The Corruption that you charge Luther with, and the falsification that you impute to Zwinglius, What have we to do with them? Or why may not we as justly lay to your charge the Errours, which Lyranus, or Paulus Bru­gensis, or Laurentius Valla, or Cajetan, or Erasmus, or Arias Montanus, or Augustus Nebiensis, or Pagnine, have committed in their Translations?

61. Which yet I say not, as if these Translations of Luther and Zwin­glius were absolutely indefensible; for what such great difference is there between Faith without the Works of the Law, and Faith alone without the Works of the Law? Or why does not, Without, Alone, signifie all one with, Alone, Without? Consider the matter a little better, and observe the use of these phrases of speech in our ordinary talk, and perhaps you will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground for this invective. And then for Zwinglius, if it be true (as they say it is) that the language our Saviour spake in, had no such word as Tosignifie, but used always, to be, in stead of it, as it is certain the Scripture does in an hundred places; then this Translation, which you so declaim against, will prove no falsifi­cation in Zwinglius, but a calumny in you.

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

63. This Objection, though it may seem to do you great service for the present; yet I fear, you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault, that we make mens salvation depend upon uncertainties; For the Objection returns upon you many ways, as first thus; The salvation of many millions of Papists (as they suppose and teach) depends upon their having the Sacrament of Pennance truly administred unto them. This again upon the Minister's being a true Priest. That such or such a man is Priest; [Page 68]not himself, much less any other can have any possible certainty: for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals. He that will pretend to be certain of it, must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow.

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

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

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

67. Lastly, he must pretend to know the same of him that made him Priest, and him that made Him Priest, even until he comes to the very fountain of Priesthood. For, take any one in the whole train and succession of Ordainers, and suppose him, by reason of any defect, only a supposed and not a true Priest, then according to your Doctrine he could not give a true, but only a supposed Priesthood; and they that receive it of him, and again they that derive it from them, can give no better than they receiv­ed; receiving nothing but a name and shadow, can give nothing but a name and shadow: and so from age to age, from generation to generati­on, seeing equivocal Fathers beget only equivocal Sons; No Principle in Geometry being more certain than this, That the unsuppliable defect of any necessary Antecedent, must needs cause a nullity of all those Consequences which depend upon it. In fine, to know this one thing you must first know ten thousand others, whereof not any one is a thing that can be known, there being no necessity that it should be true, which only can qualifie any thing for an object of Science, but only, at the best, a high degree of probabili­ty that it is so. But then, that of ten thousand probables, no one should be false; that of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should be wanting, this to me is extreamly improbable and even cousin­german to Impossible. So that the assurance hereof is like a Machin com­posed of an innumerable multitude of pieces, of which it is strangely un­likely but some will be out of order; and yet, if any one be so, the whole [Page 69]Fabrick of necessity falls to the ground. And he that shall put them to­gether, and maturely consider all the possible ways of lapsing, and nulli­fying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome, I believe, will be very inclinable to think, that it is an hundred to one, that, amongst an hundred seeming Priests, there is not one true one. Nay, that it is not a thing very impro­bable, that, amongst those many millions, which make up the Romish Hierarchy, there are not twenty true. But be the truth in this what it will be, once this is certain, that They, which make mens salvation (as you do) depend upon Priestly Absolution; and this again (as you do) upon the Truth and reality of the Priesthood that gives it; and this lastly upon a great multitude of apparent uncertainties, are not the fittest men in the world, to object to others, as a horrible crime, That they make mens Sal­vation depend upon fallible and uncertain foundations. And let this be the first retortion of your Argument.

68. But suppose, this difficulty assoyled, and that an Angel from Hea­ven should ascertain you (for other assurances you can have none) that the person you make use of, is a true Priest, and a competent Minister of the Sacrament of Pennance; yet still the doubt will remain, Whether he will do you that good which he can do, whether he will pronounce the absol­ving words with intent to absolve you! For perhaps, he may bear you some secret malice, and project to himself your damnation, for a compleat Italian revenge. Perhaps (as the tale is of a Priest that was lately burnt in France) he may upon some conditions have compacted with the Devil to give no Sacraments with Intention. Lastly, he may be (for ought you can possibly know) a secret Jew, or Moor, or Anti-Trinitarian, or perhaps such a one as is so far from intending your forgiveness of sins and salvati­on by this Sacrament, that in his heart he laughs at all these things, and thinks Sin nothing, and Salvation a word. All these doubts you must have clearly resolved (which can hardly be done but by another Revelation,) before you can upon good grounds assure your self, that your true Priest gives you true and effectual absolution. So that when you have done as much as God requires for your Salvation, yet can you by no means be se­cure, but that you may have the ill luck to be damned: which is to make Salvation a matter of chance, and not of choice; and which a man may fail of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune. Verily, a most comfort­able Doctrine for a considering man lying upon his death-bed, who, either feels or fears that his repentance is but attrition only, and not contrition, and consequently believes, that, if he be not absolved really by a true Priest, he cannot possibly escape damnation. Such a man for his comfort, you tell, first (you that will have mens salvation depend upon no uncertain­ties) that though he verily believe that his sorrow for sins is a true sor­row, and his purpose of amendment a true purpose; yet he may deceive himself, perhaps it is not; and, if it be not, he must be damned. Yet you bid him hope well: But, Spes est rei incertae nomen. You tell him second­ly, that though the party he confesses to, seem to be a true Priest, yet, for ought he knows, or, for ought himself knows, by reason of some secret undiscern [...]ble invalidity in his Baptism or Ordination, he may be none, and if he be none, he can do nothing. This is a hard saying, but this is not the worst. You tell him thirdly, that he may be in such a state that he can­not, or, if he can, that he will not give the Sacrament with due Intenti­on: [Page 70]and, if he does not, all is in vain. Put case, a man by these considera­tion should be cast into some agonies; what advice, what comfort would you give him? Verily, I know not what you could say to him, but this; that, first for the Qualification required on his part, he might know that he desired to have true sorrow, and that that is sufficient. But then, if he should ask you, Why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowful, to be a true desire; I believe you would be put to silence. Then secondly, to quiet his fears, concerning the Priest and his Intention you should tell him, by my advice, that God's goodness (which will not suffer him to damn men for not doing better than their best,) will supply all such defects, as to humane endeavours were unavoidable. And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: and if he gave Absolution without Intention, yet in doing so he should hurt himself only and not his penitent. This were some comfort indeed, and this were to settle mens salvation upon reasonable cer­tain grounds. But this, I fear, you will never say; for this were to reverse many Doctrines established by your Church; and besides, to degrade your Priesthood from a great part of their honour, by lessening the strict necessity of the Laitie's dependance upon them. For it were to say, that the Priests Intention is not necessary to the obtaining of Absolution; which is to say, that it is not in the Parson's power to damn whom he will in his Parish, because, by this rule, God should supply the defect which his ma­lice had caused. And besides, it were to say, that, Infants dying without Baptism might be saved, God supplying the want of Baptism which to them is unavoidable. But beyond all this, it were to put into my mouth a full and satisfying Answer to your Argument, which I am now return­ing; so that in answering my Objection you should answer your own. For then I should tell you, that it were altogether as abhorrent from the goodness of God, and as repugnant to it, to suffer an ignorant Lay-man's soul to perish, meerly for being misled by an undiscernable false Transla­tion, which yet was commended to him by the Church, which (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he had reason to relie upon, either above all other, or as much as any other, as it is to damn a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution, which his Ghostly Father perhaps was an Atheist, and could not give him, or was a villain and would not. This answer therefore, which alone would serve to comfort your penitent in his perplexities, and to assure him that he cannot fail of Salva­tion if he will not, for fear of inconvenience you must forbear. And see­ing you must, I hope you will, come down from the Pulpit, and preach no more against others for making mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain grounds, lest by judging others, you make your selves, and your own Church inexcusable, who are strongly guilty of this fault, above all the men and Churches of the World: whereof I have already given you two very pregnant demonstrations, drawn from your presumptuous tying God and Salvation to your Sacraments; And the efficacy of them to your Priest's Qualifications and Intentions.

69. Your making the Salvation of Infants depend on Baptism a Casu­al thing, and in the power of man to conferre, or not conferre, would yield me a Third of the same nature. And your suspending the same on the Baptizer's Intention, a Fourth. And lastly, your making the Real pre­sence [Page 71]of Christ in the Eucharist depend upon the casualties of the Conse­crator's true Priesthood and Intention, and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present, and to adore the Sacrament, which, ac­cording to your Doctrine, for ought they can possibly know, may be no­thing else but a piece of Bread, so exposing them to the danger of Idola­try, and consequently of damnation, doth offer me a Fifth demonstration of the same Conclusion, if I thought fit to insist upon them. But I have no mind to draw any more out of this Fountain; neither do I think it cha­rity to cloy the Reader with uniformity, when the Subject affords variety.

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

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

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

73. Ninthly. Your Rhemish and Doway Translations are delivered to your Proselytes, (such, I mean, that are dispenced with, for the reading of them,) for the direction of their Faith and Lives. And the same may be said of your Translations of the Bible into other National languages, in re­spect of those that are licenced to read them. This, I presume, you will confess. And moreover, that these Translations came not by inspiration, but were the productions of humane Industry; and that, not Angels, but men, were the Authors of them. Men, I say, meer men, subject to the same pas­sions, [Page 72]and to the same possibility of erring with our Translators. And then how does it not unavoidably follow, that in them which depend upon these Translations for their direction, Faith, and Truth, and Salvation, and All, relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds?

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

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

76. Vega was present at the Councel of Trent, when that Decree was made, which made the Vulgar Edition (then not extant any where in the world) authentical, and not to be rejected upon any pretence whatsoever. At the forming this Decree, Vega I say, was present, understood the mind of the Councel, as well as any man, and professes that he was instructed in it by the President of it, the Cardinal S. Cruce. And yet he hath writ­ten that the Councel in this Decree meant to pronounce this Translation free (not simply from all Error) but only from such Errors, out of which any opi­nion pernitions to faith and manners might be collected. This, And radius in his defence of that Councel reports of Vega, and assents to it himself. Dri­edo, in his Book of the Translation of holy Scripture, hath these words ve­ry pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose; The See Apostolike, hath approved or accepted Hierom's Edition, not as so wholly consonant to the Original, and so entire, and pure, and restored in all things, that it may not be lawful for any man, either by comparing it with the Fountain to examine it, or, in some places to doubt, Whether or no Hierom did understand the true sense of the Scripture; but only, as an Edition to be preferred before all others then extant, and no where deviating from the Truth in the rules of faith and good life. Mariana, even where he is a most earnest Advocate for the Vulgar Edition, yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words, [...]o E [...]t. vulg. c. 21. p. 99. The faults of the Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Councel of Trent, a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of Copie. And again, We maintain that the Hebrew and Greek, were by no means rejected by the Trent-Fathers: And that the Latine Edition is indeed approved; yet not so, as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly, some more properly; whereof it were easie to produce innume­rable examples. And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then General of the Society: who was a great part of that Councel, present at all the Actions of it, and of very great authority in it.

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

[Page 73] 78. Lastly, Bellarmine himself, though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition, yet he acknowledges that the [...]ase may, and does oft-times, so fall out,B [...]ll de ver [...]e D [...]d. 2. c. 12. p. 120. that it is impossible to discern which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition, but only by recourse unto the Origi­nals, and dependance upon them.

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

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

81. But Luther himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length enfor­ced to confess thus much, saying, If the wordlast longer, it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councels, by reason of divers interpreta­tions of Scripture which now raign.

82. And what if Luther, having a Pope in his belly, (as he was wont to say that most men had,) and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretati­ons pass without examining, spake such words in heat of Argument? Do you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to Luther's divinati­ons and angry speeches? Will you oblige your self to answer for all the assertions of your private Doctors? If not; Why do you trouble us with what Luther says, and what Calvin says? Yet this I say not, as if these words of Luther made any thing at all for your present purpose. For what if he feared, or pretended to fear, that, the infallibility of Councels be­ing rejected, some men would fall into greater Errors than were imposed [Page 74]upon them be the Councels? Is this to confess that there is any present vi­sible Church, upon whose bare Authority we may infallibly receive the true Scriptures and the true sense of them? Let the Reader judge. But, in my opinion, to fear a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoid­ing of the less, is not to confess that the less is none at all.

83. For D. Covel's commending your Translation, What is it to the business in hand? Or how proves it the perfection of it, which is here con­tested, any more than S. Augustine's commending the Italian Translation, argues the perfection of that, or that there was no necessity that S. Hierom should correct it? D. Covel commends your Translation and so does the Bishop of Chichester, and so does D. James, and so do I. But I commend it for a good Translation, not for a perfect. Good may be good, and de­serve commendations; and yet Better may be better. And though he says, that the then approved Translation of the Church of England, is that which cometh nearest the Vulgar, yet he does not say, that it agrees exactly with it. So that whereas you infer, that the Truth of your Translation must be the Rule to judge of the goodness of ours: this is but a vain flourish. For, to say of our Translations, That is the best which comes nearest the Vul­gar, (and yet it is but one man that says so,) is not to say, it is therefore the best because it does so. For this may be true by accident, and yet the truth of our Translation no way depend upon the truth of yours. For, had that been their direction, they would not only have made a Translation that should come near to yours, but such a one which should exactly agree with it, and be a Translation of your Translation.

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

85. But seeing there are contentions among us, we are taught by nature and Scripture, and experience (so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them, by submitting unto some Judicial sentence, whereunto nei­ther part may refuse to stand. This is very true. Neither should you need to perswade us to seek such a means of ending all our Controversies, if we could tell where to find it. But this we know, that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judicial definitive obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion, but only such a Man, or such a society of Men, as is authorized thereto by God. And besides, we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not been the pleasure of God to give to any Man, or Society of Men, any such authority. And therefore, though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended, as we do that all sin were abolisht, yet we have little hope of the one, or the other, till the World be ended. And in the mean while, think it best to content our selves with, and to perswade others unto, an [Page 75] Unity of Charity, and mutual Toleration; seeing God hath authorized no man to force all men to Unity of Opinion. Neither do we think it fit to ar­gue thus, To us it seems convenient there should be one Judge of all Con­troversies for the whole world, therefore God hath appointed one: But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus, God hath appointed no such Judge of Controversies, therefore, though it seems to us convenient there should be one, yet it is not so: Or though it were convenient for us to have one, yet it hath pleased God (for Reasons best know to Himself) not to allow us this convenience.

86. D. Field's words which follow, I confess, are somewhat more pres­sing: and, if he had been infallible, and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him, they were the best Argument in your Book. But yet it is evident out of his Book, and so acknowledged by some of your own, That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God, that all men were bound to receive their Decrees without exa­mination, though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason, which the Church of Rome requires. And therefore, if he have in his Preface strained too high in commendation of the Subject he writes of, (as Writers very often do in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles) what is that to us? Be­sides, by all the Societies of the World, it is not impossible, nor very impro­bable, he might mean, all that are, or have been in the world, and so include even the Primitive Church: and her Communion we shall embrace, her Direction we shall follow, her Judgement we shall rest in; if we believe the Scripture, endeavour to find the true sense of it, and live according to it.

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

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

[Page 76] 89. If there be any Traditive Interpretation of Scripture, produce it, and prove it to be so; and we embrace it. But the Tradition of all ages is one thing; and the Authority of the present Church, much more of the Roman Church, which is but a Part, and a corrupted Part, of the Catho­lique Church, is another. And therefore, though we are ready to receive both Scripture, and the sense of Scripture upon the Authority of Original Tradition, yet we receive neither the one, nor the other, upon the Autho­rity of your Church.

90. First for the Scripture, How can we receive them upon the Authori­ty of your Church, who hold now those Books to be Canonical, which for­merly you rejected from the Canon? I instance in the Book of Macchabees, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first of these you held not to be Cano­nical in S. Gregorie's time, or else he was no member of your Church; for it is apparentSee Gr [...]g. Ma [...] 19 [...] 13. He held otherwise. The second you rejected from the Ca­non in S. Hierom's time, as it is evident out of [...] there [...] And a­gain [...] c. 8. in [...]. many places of his Works.

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

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

93. And thus you see what reason we have to believe your Antecedent, That your Church it is which must declare, what Books be true Scripture. Now, for the consequence, that certainly is as liable to exception as the Antecedent. For, if it were true, that God had promised to assist you, for the delivering of true Scripture, would this oblige Him, or would it follow from hence that He had obliged himself, to teach you, not only sufficiently, but ef­fectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture? God is not defective in things necessary: neither will he leave himself without witness, nor the World without means of knowing his will and doing it. And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture [Page 77]from any undiscernable corruption, in those things which he would have known: otherwise it is apparent, it had not been his will, that these things should be known, the only means of continuing the knowledge of them be­ing perished. But now neither is God lavish in superfluities, and therefore having given us means sufficient for our direction, and power sufficient to make use of these means, he will not constrain or necessitate us to make use of these means. For that were to cross the end of our Creation, which was to be glorified by our free obedience: whereas Necessity and Freedom cannot stand together. That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himself in his dealing with Man; and that is, to set life and death before him, and to leave him in the hands of his own Counsel. God gave the Wisemen a Star to lead them to Christ, but he did not ne­cessitate them to follow the guidance of this Star: that was left to their li­berty. God gave the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night, and a Pillar of Cloud by day; but he constrained no man to follow them: that was left to their liberty. So he gives the Church the Scripture: which in those things which are to be believed or done, are plain and easie to be fol­lowed, like the Wisemen's Star. Now that, which he desires of us on our part, is, the Obedience of Faith, and love of the Truth, and desire to find the true sense of it, and industry in searching it, and humility in following, and Constancy in professing it: all which, if he should work in us by an ab­solute irresistible necessity, he could no more require of us as our duty, than he can of the Sun to shine, of the Sea to ebb and flow, and of all other Creatures to do those things which by meer necessity, they must do, and cannot chuse. Besides, What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture, whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture, which you do not pre­tend certainly to understand, and about the Interpretation whereof, your own Doctors differ among themselves? If your Church be infallibly di­rected concerning the true meaning of Scripture, why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction? And, if they do, How comes such diffe­rence among them in their Interpretations?

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

95. If you say, The Holy Ghost, which assists the Church in interpreting, will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit, and that the Church will do it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to do it. I demand, Whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these, be resistible by the Church, or irresistible. If resistible, then the Holy Ghost may move, and the Church may not be moved. As certainly the Holy Ghost doth al­ways move to an action, when he shews us plainly, that it would be for the good of men, and honour of God: As he that hath any sense [Page 78]will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be; and there is no conceivable reason, Why such a work should be put off a day, but only because you are conscious to your selves, you cannot do it, and therefore make excuses. But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible, and you are not yet so moved to go about this work; then I confess you are excused. But then I would know, Whether those Popes, which so long deferred the calling of a Councel for the Reformation of your Church, at length pretended to be effected by the Councel of Trent, whether they may excuse themselves, for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to do it? I would know likewise, as this motion is irresistible when it comes, so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action, that it cannot possibly move with­out it? That is, Whether the Pope now could not, if he would, seat him­self in Cathedra, and fall to writing Expositions upon the Bible for the direction of Christians to the true sense of it? If you say, He cannot, you will make your self ridiculous. If he can, then I would know, Whe­ther he should be infallibly directed in these Expositions, or no? If he should, then what need he to stay for irresisible motion? Why does he not go about this noble work presently? If he should not, How shall we know that the calling of the Councel of Trent was not upon his own volun­tary motion, or upon humane importunity and suggestion, and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost? And consequently, How shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no, seeing He assists none but what He himself moves to? And whether He did move the Pope to call this Coun­cel, is a secret thing, which we cannot possibly know, nor perhaps the Pope himself.

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

97. To the place of S. Austin; I answer, That, not the Authority of the present Church, much less of a Part of it (as the Roman Church is) was that which alone moved S. Austin to believe the Gospel, but the perpetu­al Tradition of the Church of all Ages. Which you your self have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is proved, and which it self needs no proof; and to which you have referred this very Saying of Saint Austin, Ego verò Evangelio non crederem, nisi, &c. Chap. 2. §. 14. And in the next place, which you cite out of his Book De Util. Cred. c. 14. he shews, That his motives to believe, were Fame, Celebrity, Consent, Antiquity. [Page 79]And seeing this Tradition, this Consent, this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus, as to believe the Go­spel, (the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospel) therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds, that he had as much reason to dis-believe Manichaeus, as to believe the Gospel. Now, if you can truly say, that the same Fame, Celebrity, Consent, An­tiquity, that the same Universal and Original Tradition, lies against Lu­ther and Calvin, as did against Manichaeus, you may do well to apply the Argument against them; otherwise it will be to little purpose to substi­tute their names instead of Manichaeus, unless you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him.

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

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

100. Whereas you ask, Whether Protestants do not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austin spake, when they will have men to believe the Ro­man Church delivering Scripture, but not to believe her condemning Luther? I demand again, Whether you be well in your wits to say, that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture, where­as they accuse her to deliver many Books for Scripture which are not so? and do not bid men to receive any Book which she delivers, for that rea­son, because she delivers it? And, if you meant only, Protestants will have [Page 80]men to believe some Books to be Scripture which the Roman Church de­livers for such, may not we then ask as you do, Do not Papists perfectly resemble these men, which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture, but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome?

101. And whereas you say, S. Austin may seem to have spoken Propheti­cally against Protestants, when he said, Why should I not most diligently en­quire what Christ commanded of them before all others, by whose Authority I was moved to believe, that Christ commanded any good thing? I answer. Un­til you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing, that is, That they believe the Truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome, this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose; which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible Expounder of Scriptures and Judg of Controversies: Nay rather, is it not directly against your purpose? For why may not a Member of the Church of England, who received his Baptism, Education, and Faith from the Ministery of this Church, say just so to you as S. Austin here to the Manichees? Why should I not most diligently enquire, what Christ com­manded of them (the Church of England) before all others, by whose Authority I was moved to believe, that Christ commanded any good thing? Can you, F. or K. or whosoever you are, better declare to me what he said, whom I would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me? This therefore (that Christ Jesus did those Miracles, and taught that Doctrine which is con­tained evidently in the undoubted Books of the New Testament) I believ­ed by Fame, strengthened with Celebrity and Consent, (even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another,) and lastly by Antiquity (which gives an universal and a constant attestation to them.) But every one may see that you, so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture,) so turbulent, (that you damn all to the fire, and to Hell, that any way differ from you; that you profess it is lawful for you, to use violence and power whensoever you can have it, for the planting of your own Doctrine, and the extirpation of the contrary;) Lastly, so new in many of your Doctrines, (as in the law­fulness and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramental Cup; the lawfulness and expedience of your Latine Service, Transubstantiation, In­dulgences, Purgatory, the Pope's Infallibility, his Authority over Kings, &c. So new, I say, in comparison of the undoubted Books of Scripture, which evidently containeth, or rather is our Religion, and the sole, and adequate object of our faith: I say, every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving Authority (with wise and considerate men.) What madness is this? Believe then the consent of Christians, which are now, and have been ever since Christ in the World, that we ought to believe Christ; but learn of us what Christ said, which contradict and damn all other parts of Christendom. Why, I beseech you? Surely, if they were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily perswade my self, that I were not to believe in Christ, than that I should learn any thing concerning him, from any other, than them by whom I believed him: at least, than that I should learn what his Religion was from you, who have wronged so exceed­ingly [Page 81]his Miracles and his Doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine; which might give us just occasion, had we no other assurance of them but your Authority, to suspect the true ones. Who, with forging so many false Stories, and fals [...] Authors, have taken a fair way to make the faith of all Stories questi­onable, if we had no other ground for our Belief of them but your Au­thority; who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the Word of Christ, and which, for the most part, make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them: which (if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church) would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that Christi­an Religion was a humane invention, taught by some cunning Impostors, only to make themselves rich and powerful; who make a profession of cor­rupting all sorts of Authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted. For, if you take this Authority upon you, upon the six Ages last past; how shall we know, that the Church of that time, did not usurp the same Authority upon the Authors of the six last Ages before them, and so upwards, until we come to Christ him­self? Whose questioned Doctrines, none of them came from the Foun­tain of Apostolike Tradition, but have insinuated themselves into the Streams, by little and little; some in one age, and some in another; some more anciently, some more lately; and some yet are Embrio's, yet hatch­ing, and in the shell; as the Pope's infallibility, the blessed Virgin's imma­culate Conception, the Pope's power over the Temporalties of Kings, the Doctrine of Predetermination, &c. all which yet are, or in time may be, imposed upon Christians under the Title of Original and Apostolike Tra­dition; and that with that necessity, that they are told, they were as good believe nothing at all, as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles, which they know to have been brought in but yesterday: which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves—I am told, that I were as good believe nothing at all, as believe some points which the Church teacheth me, and not others: and some things which she teacheth to be Ancient and Certain, I plainly see to be New and False; therefore I will believe nothing at all. Whether, I say, the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus; and whether this Conclusion be not too often made in Italy, and Spain, and France, and in England too, I leave it to the judge­ment of those that have wisdom and experience. Seeing therefore the Ro­man Church is so far from being a sufficient Foundation for our Belief in Christ, that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it; why should I not much rather conclude, Seeing we receive not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rom [...]; neither from her must we take his Doctrine, or the Intepretation of Scripture.

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

103. To this I answer: As, to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Judge, so is not that alone sufficient to make a Judge; otherwise you might make your self Judge of Controversies, by arguing, The Scrip­ture [Page 82]is not intelligible by all, but I am; therefore I am Judge of Contro­versies. If you say, Your intent was to conclude against the Scripture, and not for the Church: I demand why then, but to delude the simple with so­phistry, did you say in the close of this §, Such is the Church, and the Scripture is not such? but that you would leave it to them, to infer in the [...]nd, (which indeed was more than you undertook in the beginning) Therefore the Church is Judge, and the Scripture not. I say Secondly, that you still run upon a false supposition: that God hath appointed some Judge of all Con­troversies that may happen among Christians, about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture: whereas he hath left every one to his liberty herein, in those words of S. Paul, Quisque abundet in sensu suo, &c. I say, Thirdly, Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Judge of Controversies, that they have the Authority of Fathers to warrant their manner of speaking: as ofCont. Parmen l. 5. in Prin. Optatus.

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

105. Again, when you say, That unlearned and ignorant men cannot un­derstand Scripture, I would desire you to come out of the Clouds, and tell us what you mean: Whether, that they cannot understand all Scripture, or that they cannot understand any Scripture, or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to heaven. If the first, I believe [Page 83]the Learned are in the same case. If the second, Every man's experience will confute you: for, Who is there that is not capable of a sufficient under­standing of the Story, the Precepts, the Promises, and the Threats of the Gospel? If the third, that they may understand something, but not enough for their Salvations; I ask you, first, Why then doth S. Paul say to Timo­thy, The Scriptures are able to make him wise unto Salvation? Why doth Saint Austin say, Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis, omnia continent quae pertinent ad Fidem, Moresque vivendi? Why does every one of the four Evangelists intitle their Book The Gospel, if any necessary and essential part of the Gospel were left out of it? Can we imagine, that ei­ther they omitted something necessary, out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary? Or, knowing it to be so, maliciously concealed it? Or, out of negligence, did the work they have undertaken by halfs? If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them, considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work, then certainly it most evidently follows, that every one of them writ the whole Gospel of Christ; I mean, all the essential and necessary parts of it. So that, if we had no other Book of Scripture, but one of them alone, we should not want any thing necessary to Salvation. And what one of them hath more than another, it is only profitable and not necessary. Necessary indeed to be believed, because revealed; but not therefore revealed, because neces­sary to be believed.

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

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

108. For first, How shall an unlearned man whom you have supposed now ignorant of Scripture, how shall he know which of all the Societies of Christians is indeed the Church? You will say perhaps, He must examine them by the notes of the Church, which are, perpetual Visibility, Succession, Con­formity with the Ancient Church, &c. But how shall he know, first, that these are the notes of the Church, unless by Scripture, w^ch, you say, he understands not? You may say perhaps, he may be told so. But seeing men may deceive, and be deceived, and their words are no demonstrations, How shall he be as­sured that what they say is true? So that at the first he meets with an im­pregnable difficulty, and cannot know the Church but by such notes, which whether they be the notes of the Church he cannot possibly know. But let us suppose this Isthmus digged through, and that he is assured, These are the notes of the true Church: How can he possibly be a competent Judge, Which society of Christians hath title to these notes, and which hath not? Seeing this trial of necessity requires a great sufficiency of know­ledg of the monuments of Christian Antiquity, which no unlearned man [Page 84]can have, because he that hath it cannot be unlearned. As for example, how shall he possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetual Succession of Visible Professors, which held alwayes the same Doctrin which they now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary; unless he hath first examined, what was the Doctrin of the Church in the first age, what in the second, and so forth? And whether this be not a more difficult work, than to stay at the first Age, and to examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrin of the first Age, every man of ordinary understanding may judge.

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

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

110. Ad §. 20. If by a private spirit, you mean, a particular perswasion that a Doctrin is true, which some men pretend, but cannot prove to come from the Spirit of God: I say, to refer Controversies to Scripture, is not to refer them to this kind of private Spirit. For is there not a manifest difference between saying, The Spirit of God tels me that this is the meaning of such a Text (which no man can possibly know to be true, it being a secret thing) and between saying, These and these reasons I have to shew, that this or that is true Doctrin, or that this or that is the meaning of such a Scripture? Reason being a Publique and certain thing, and exposed to all mens tryal and [Page 85]examination. But now, if by private spirit you understand every mans par­ticular Reason, then your first and second inconvenience will presently be reduced to one, and shortly to none at all.

111. Ad §. 20. And does not also giving the office of Judicature to the Church, come to confert it upon every particular man? For, before any man believes the Church infallible, must he not have reason to induce him to believe it to be so? And, must he not judge of those reasons, whether they be indeed good and firm, or captious and sophistical? Or, would you have all men believe all your Doctrin upon the Churches Infallibility, and the Churches Infallibility they know not why?

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

113. One of these notes, indeed the only note of a true and uncorrupted Church, is Conformity with Antiquity; I mean, the most ancient Church of all, that is the Primitive and Apostolique. Now, how is it possible any man should examine your Church by this note, but he must by his own particular judgement, find out what was the Doctrin of the Primitive Church, and what is the Doctrin of the present Church, and be able to answer all these Arguments which are brought to prove repugnance be­tween them? otherwise, he shall but pretend to make use of this note for the finding the true Church, but indeed make no use of it, but receive the Church at a venture, as the most of you do; not one in a hundered being able to give any tolerable reason for it. So that in stead of reducing them to particular reasons, you reduce them to none at all, but to chance, and pas­sion, and prejudice, and such other wayes; which, if they lead one to the truth, they lead hundreds, nay thousands to falshood. But it is a pretty thing to consider, how these men can blow hot and cold out of the same mouth to serve several purposes. Is there hope of gaining a Proselyte? Then they will tell you, God hath given every man Reason to follow; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the Ditch. That it is no good reason for a mans Religion, that he was born and brought up in it: For then a Turk should have as much reason to be a Turk, as a Christian to be a Christian. That every man hath a judgment of Discretion; which if they will make use of, they shall easily find, that the true Church hath alwayes such and such marks, and that their Church hath them, and no other but theirs. But then if any of theirs be perswaded to a sincere and suf­ficient tryal of their Church, even by their own notes of it, and to try whe­ther they be indeed so conformable to Antiquity as they pretend, then their note is changed, You must not use your own reason, nor your judge­ment, but referr all to the Church, and believe her to be conformable to Antiquity, though they have no reason for it, nay though they have evi­dent [Page 86]reason to the contrary. For my part, I am certain that God hath given us our Reason, to discern between Truth and Falshood, and he that makes not this use of it, but believes things he knows not why; I say, it is by chance that he believes the truth, and not by choice: and that I cannot but fear, that God will not accept of this Sacrifice of fools.

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

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

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

[Page 87] 117. But you demand, What good Statesmen would they be, who should idaeate, or fancy such a Common-wealth, as these men have framed to themselves a Church? T [...]uly if this be all the fault they have, that they say, Every man is to use his own judgement in the choice of his Religion, and not to believe this or that sense of Scripture, upon the bare Authority of any learned man or men, when he conceives he hath reasons to the contrary, which are of more weight then their Authority: I know no reason but, notwithstanding all this, they might be as good Statesmen as any of the Society. But what hath this to do with Common-wealths, where men are bound only to external obedience unto the Laws and Judgement of Courts, but not to an internal approbation of them, no nor to conceal their Judgement of them, if they disapprove them? As if I conceived I had reason to mislike the law of punishing simple theft with death, as Sr. Thomas Moore did, I might profess lawfully my judg­ment; and represent my Reasons to the King or Common-wealth in a Parliament, as Sr. Thomas Moore did, without committing any fault, or fea­ring any punishment.

118. To the place of S. Austin, wherewith this Paragraph is concluded, I shall need give no other Reply, but only to desire you to speak like an honest man, and to say, Whether it be all one for a man, to allow and disallow in every Scripture what he pleases, which is, either to dash out of Scripture such Texts or such Chapters, because they cross his opinion? or to say (which is worse,) Though they be Scripture, they are not true? Whether, I say, for a man thus to allow and disallow in Scripture what he pleases, be all one, and no greater fault, than to allow that sense of Scripture which he conceives to be true and genuine, and deduced out of the words, and to disallow the con­trary? For Gods sake, Sir, tell me plainly; In those Texts of Scripture, which you alledge for the Infallibility of your Church, do you not allow what sense you think true, and disallow the contrary? And do not you this, by the direction of your private reason? If you do, why do you condemn it in others? If you do not, I pray you tell me what direction you follow? or whether you follow none at all? If none at all, this is like drawing Lots, or throwing the Dice for the choice of a Religion. If any other, I beseech you tell me what it is. Perhaps you will say, the Churches Authority; and that will be to dance finely in a round, thus, To believe the Churches infallible Authority, because the Scriptures avouch it; and to be­lieve that Scriptures say and mean so, because they are so expounded by the Church. Is not this for a Father to beget his Son, and the Son to beget his Father? For a foundation to support the house, and the house to support the foundation? Would not Campian have cryed out at it, Ecce quos gyros, quos Maeandros? And to what end was this going about, when you might as well at first have concluded the Church infallible, because she sayes so; as thus to put in Scripture for a meer stale, and to say the Church is infallible because the Scripture sayes so, and the Scripture means so, because the Church sayes so, which is infallible? Is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man, that you are enforced of necessity to do that your self, which so tragically you declaim against in others? The Church, you say, is infal­lible; I am very doubtful of it: How shall I know it? The Scripture you say, affirms it, as in the 59. of Esay, My spirit that is in thee, &c. Well, I confess I find there these words: but I am still doubtful, whether they be spoken of the Church of Christ: and if they be, whether they mean as you [Page 88]pretend. You say, the Church saies so, which is infallible. Yea, but that is the Question; and therefore not to be begg'd, but proved. Neither is it so evident as to need no proof: otherwise, why brought you this Text to prove it? Nor is it of such a strange quality, above all other Propositions, as to be able to prove it self. What then remains but that you say, Reasons drawn out of the Circumstances of the Text, will evince that this is the sense of it. Perhaps they will. But reasons cannot convince me, unless I judge of them by my Reason; and, for every man or woman to rely on that, in the choice of their Religion, and in the interpreting of Scripture, you say, is a horrible absurdity; and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter, nor desire me to make use of it.

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

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

121. Ad § 22. An Heretique he is (saith D. Potter) who opposeth any truth, which to be a divine revelation he is convinced in conscience by any means whatsoever: Be it by a Preacher or Lay-man, be it by reading Scripture, or hearing them read. And from hence you infer, that he makes all these safe Propounders of Faith. A most strange and illogical deduction! For, may not a private man by evident reason convince another man, that such [Page 89]or such a Doctrin is divine Revelation, and yet though he be a true Propoun­der in this point, yet propound another thing falsely, and without proof, and consequently not be a safe Propounder in every point? Your Preachers in their Sermons, do they not propose to men divine Revelations, and do they not sometimes convince men in conscience, by evident proof from Scripture, that the things they speak are divine Revelations? And whoso­ever, being thus convinced, should oppose this divine Revelation, should he not be an Heretique, according to your own grounds, for calling Gods own Truth into question? And would you think your self well dealt with, if I should collect from hence, that you make every Preacher a safe, that is, an infallible Propounder of Faith? Be the means of Proposal what it will, sufficient or insufficient, worthy of credit or not worthy; though it were, if it it were possible, the barking of a Dog, or the chirping of a Bird, or were it the discourse of the Devil himself, yet if I be, I will not say convinced but perswaded, though falsly, that it is a divine Revelation, and shall deny to be­lieve it I shall be a formal though not a material Heretique. For he that be­lieves, though falsly, any thing to be a divine Revelation, and yet will not be­lieve it to be true, must of necessity believe God to be false, which, according to your own Doctrin, is the formality of an Heretique.

122. And how it can be any way advantagious to Civil government, that men without warrant from God should usurp a Tyranny over other mens consciences, and prescribe unto them, without reason, and sometime against reason, what they shall believe, you must shew us plainer if you de­sire we should believe. For to say, Verily I do not see but that it must be so, is no good demonstration. For whereas you say, That a man may be a passion­ate and seditious creature, from whence you would have us inferr, that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion, and raise sedition: There were some colour in this consequence, if we (as you do) make private men infallible Interpreters for others; for then indeed they might lead Dis­ciples after them, and use them as instruments for their vile purposes. But when we say, they can only interpret for themselves, what harme they can do by their passionate or seditious Interpretations, but only endanger both their temporal and eternal happiness, I cannot imagine. For though we de­ny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Judge, yet we do not deny, but that there are Judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons, such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State, as well as against Rebels, and Traitors, and Theeves, and Murderers.

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

[Page 90] 124. But D. Potter sayes, you say, In the Jewish Church there was a living Judge, indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment: as all points belonging to divine Faith are. And where was that infallible direction in the Jewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messi­as, and refused him? Or perhaps this was not a case of moment. D. Potter in­deed might say very well, not that the high Priest was infallible, (for certain­ly he was not) but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed, though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed. Besides, it is one thing to say, that the living Judge in the Jewish Church had an infallible direction: another, that he was necessitated to follow this direction. This is the priviledge which you challenge. But it is that, not this, which the Doctor attributes to the Jews. As a man may truely say, the Wisemen had an in fallible direction to Christ, without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it, and could not do otherwise.

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

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

127. Heresies, you say, would arise after the Apostles time, and after the writ [...]ng of Scriptures: These cannot be discovered, condemned, and avoided, unlesse the Church be infallible; Therefore there must be a Church infallible. But I pray tell me, Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered, condem­ned and avoided, by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith? If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the Faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresie: seeing Heresie is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to, the Faith. That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but manifest the other. If any one should deny, that there is a God; that this God is omnipotent, omniscient, good, just, true, mercifull, a rewarder of them that seek him, a punisher of them that obstinately offend him; That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the World; that it is He, by obedience to whom men must look to be saved: If any man should deny either his Birth, or Passion, or Resurrection, or Ascension, or Sitting at the [Page 91]right hand of God: his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth: That it is he whom God hath appointed to be Judg of the quick & the dead: That all men shall rise again at the last day: That they which believe and re­pent shall be saved: That they which do not believe or repent shall be dam­ned: If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaical Law is necessary to Salvation: or that good works are not necessary to Salvation: In a word, if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture, who does not see, that every one which be­lieves the Scripture, hath a sufficient means to discover, and condemn, and avoid that Heresie without any need of an infallible guide? If you say, that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith: I answer, that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by God, is true; for he that doth not do so, calls Gods Truth into question. But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them, or, to be­lieve the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation. For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with his wisdom, to be so wanting to his own will and end, as to speak obscurely? or how can it consist with his Justice, to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words, which he himselfe hath not revealed? Suppose there were an absolute Monarch, that in his own absence from one of his Kingdomes, had written Laws for the government of it, some very plainly, and some very ambi­guously, and obscurely, and his Subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactness, and for those that were obscure, use their best diligence to find his meaning in them, and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived; should this King either with justice or wis­dom be offended with these Subjects, if, by reason of the obscurity of them, they mistook the sense of them; and faild of performance, by reason of their errour?

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

[Page 92] 129. And so likewise, That there should men succeed the Apostles, which could shew themselves to be their successors, by doing of Miracles, by speaking all kind of languages, by delivering men to Satan, as S. Paul did Hymenaeus, and the incestuous Corinthian; it is manifest in human reason, it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of Controversies, than that the successour of the Apostles should have none of these gifts, and for want of the signs of Apostleship, be justly questionable, whether he be his successour or no: and will you now conclude, That the Popes have the gift of doing Miracles, as well as the Apostles had?

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

131. Who sees not that for mens direction it were much more benefi­cial for the Church, that Infallibility should be setled in the Popes Person, than in a General Councel: That so the means of deciding Controversies might be speedy, easie, and perpetual, whereas that of general Councels is not so. And will you hence infer, that not the Church Representative, but the Pope is indeed the infallible Judg of Controversies? Certainly, if you should, the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good Conclusion.

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

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

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

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

136. Who doth not see, that, supposing the Bishop of Rome had been appointed Head of the Church, and Judge of Controversies, that it would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church, perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible, that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received, this one Proposition had been set down in Terms, The Bishops of Rome shall be alwayes Monarchs of the Church, and they either alone, or with their adherents, the Guides of Faith, and the Judges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians? This, if you will deal ingenuously, you cannot but [Page 93]acknowledge; for then all true Christians would have submitted to him, as willingly as to Christ himself, neither needed you and your Fellows have troubled your self to invent so many Sophisms for the proof of it. There would have been no more doubt of it among Christians, than there is of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, or Ascension of Christ. You were best now rubb your forehead hard, and conclude upon us, that because this would have been so useful to have been done, therefore it is done. Or if you be (as I know you are) too ingenuous to say so, then must you ac­knowledge, that the ground of your Argument, which is the very ground of all these absurdities, is most absurd; and that it is our duty to be hum­bly thankful for those sufficient, nay abundant means, of Salvation, which God hath of his own goodness granted us: and not conclude he hath done that which he hath not done, because, forsooth, in our vain judgments, it seems convenient he should have done so.

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

138. But, if Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Judge, let them first produce some Scripture, affirming, that by the entring thereof, infal­libility went out of the Church. This Argument put in form, runs thus. No Scripture affirms, that by the entring thereof, infallibility went out of the Church: Therefore there is an infallible Church, and therefore the Scripture alone is not Judge, that is, the Rule to judge by. But as no Scripture af­firms, that by the entring of it, Infallibility went out of the Church, so nei­ther do we, neither have we any need to do so. But we say, that it continu­ed in the Church even together with the Scriptures, so long as Christ and his Apostles were living, and then departed: God in his providence having provided a plain and infallible Rule, to supply the defect of living and infal­lible Guides. Certainly, if your cause were good, so great a Wit as yours is, would devise better Arguments to maintain it. We can shew no Scripture affirming Infallibility to have gone out of the Church, therefore it is Infallible. Somewhat like his discourse that said, It could not be proved out of Scripture, that the King of Sweden was dead, therefore he is still living. Me-thinks in all reason, you that challenge priviledges, and exemption from the condition of Men, which is to be subject to errour; You that by vertue of this priviledge usurp authority over mens consciences, should produce your Letters Patents from the King of Heaven, and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take upon you, otherwise you know the rule is, Ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur, praesumitur pro libertate.

139. But D. Potter may remember what himself teacheth, That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in points Fundamental, and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the Truth, the Sanctity, yea [Page 94]with the sufficiency of Scripture, for all matters necessary to salvation. Still your discourse is so far from hitting the White, that it roves quite besides the Butt. You conclude, that the infallibility of the Church may well agree with the Truth, the Sanctity, the Sufficiency of Scripture. But what is this but to abuse your Reader with the proof of that which no man denies? The Question is not, Whether an infallible Church might agree with Scri­pture, but whether there be an Infallible Church? Jam dic, Posthume, de tribus Capellis. Besides, you must know, there is a wide difference be­tween being infallible in Fundamentals, and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentals. D. Potter says, that the Church is the former: that is, There shall be some men in the world, while the world lasts, which err not in Fundamentals; for otherwise there should be no Church: For to say, the Church, while it is the Church, may err in Fundamentals, implies contra­diction, and is all one as to say, The Church while it is the Church, may not be the Church. So that to say, that the Church is infallible in Funda­mentals, signifies no more but this, There shall be a Church in the world for ever. But we utterly deny the Church to be the latter; for to say so, were to oblige our selves to find some certain Society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither do, nor can, err in Fundamentals, nor in declaring what is Fundamental, what is not Fundamental: and consequent­ly, to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in all things, which she proposes and requires to be be­lieved. This therefore we deny both to your and all other Churches of any one denomination, as the Greek, the Roman, the Abyssine: that is indeed, we deny it simply to any Church. For no Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide, but only a Church of some certain denomination. For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church, but by a pre-examina­tion of the Doctrine controverted, and that were, not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrin, but by the true doctrin to the Church. Here­after therefore, when you hear Protestants say, The Church is Infallible in Fundamentals, you must not conceive them as if they meant, as you do, that some Society of Christians, which may be known by adhering to some one Head, for example, the Pope, or the Bishop of Constantinople, is infal­lible in these things: but only thus, That true Religion shall never be so far driven out of the world, but that it shall have always, some where or other, some that believe and profess it, in all things necessary to salvation.

140. But, You would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagines that the Church, by the coming of Scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, and not in others? And I also would gladly know, Why you do thus frame to your self vain imaginations, and then father them upon o­thers? We yield unto you, That there shall be a Church which never er­reth in some points, because (as we conceive) God hath promised so much; but not, there shall be such a Church which doth or can err in no points, because we find not, that God hath promised such a Church; and therefore we may not promise such a one to our selves. But, for the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of Infallibility, in some points, and not in others, that is a wild notion of your own, which we have nothing to do with.

141. But he affirmeth, That The Jewish Church retained Infallibility in her self; and therefore it is unjustly, and unworthily done of him to deprive the Church of Christ of it. That the Jews had sometimes an infallible miraculous [Page 95]direction from God in some cases of moment, he doth affirm, and had good warrant: but that the Synagogue was absolutely infallible, he no where affirms; and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him. And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be con­ceived, but only by setling it in the High-Priest, and the company adhering and subordinate unto him? And whether the High-Priest was Infallible, when he believed not Christ to be the Messias, but condemned and excom­municated them that so professed, and caused him to be crucified for saying so, I leave it to Christians to judge. But then suppose God had been so pleased to do as he did not, to appoint the Synagogue an Infallible Guide: Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him to appoint such an one to Christians also; or say unto him, that in wisdom he could not do otherwise? Vain man, that will be thus alwaystying God to your imaginations! It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him; but if he will do this sometime by living Guides, sometime by written Rules, What is that to you? May not he do what he will with his own?

142. And whereas you say, for the further enforcing of this Argument, that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible, than the Synagogue: because to the Synaggoue all Laws and Ceremonies, &c. were more particularly, and minutely delivered, than in the new Testament is done; our Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the Church. But I pray walk not thus in generality, but tell us, what particulars? If you mean particular Rites and Ceremonies, and orders for government, we grant it, and you know we do so. Our Saviour only hath left a general injunction by S. Paul, Let all things be done Decently, and in Order. But what Order is fittest, i. e. what Time, what Place, what Manner, &c. is fittest, that he hath left to the discretion of the Governours of the Church. But, if you mean, that he hath only concerning matters of Faith, the subject in Questi­stion, prescribed in general that we are to hear the Church, and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to believe, The Church being nothing else but an aggregation of Believers; this in effect is to say, He hath left it to all Believers to determine what Particulars they are to believe. Besides, it is so apparently false, that I wonder you could content your self, or think we should be contented with a bare saying, without any shew or pretence of proof.

143. As for D. Potter's Objection against this Argument, That as well you might infer, that Christians must have all one King, because the Jews had so. For ought I can perceive, notwithstanding any thing answered by you, it may stand still in force; though the truth is, it is urged by him not against the Infallibility but the Monarchy of the Church. For whereas you say, The disparity is very clear: He that should urge this Argument for one Monarch over the whole world, would say that this is to deny the Conclu­sion, and reply unto you, that there is disparity as matters are now ordered, but that there should not be so. For that there was no more reason to be­lieve that the Ecclesiastical Government of the Jews was a Pattern for the Ecclesiastical Government of Christians, than the Civil of the Jews, for the Civil of the Christians. He would tell you, that the Church of Christ, and all Christian Commonwealths, and Kingdoms, are one and the same thing: and therefore he sees no reason why the Syna­gogue should be a Type and Figure of the Church, and not of the Com­monwealth. [Page 96]He would tell you, that as the Church succeeded the Jewish Sy­nagogue, so Christian Princes should succeed to Jewish Magistrates: That is, the Temporal Governours of the Church should be Christians. He would tell you, that as the Church is compared to a House, a King­dom, an Army, a Body, so all distinct Kingdoms might and should be one Army, one Family, &c. and that it is not so, is the thing he complains of. And therefore you ought not to think it enough to say, It is not so; but you should shew, why it should not be so; and why this Argument will not follow, The Jews had one King, therefore all Christians ought to have: as well as this, The Jews had one High-Priest over them all, therefore all Christians also ought to have. He might tell you moreover, that the Church may have one Master, one General, one Head, one King, and yet he not be the Pope, but Christ. He might tell you, that you beg the Question, in saying without proof, that it is necessary to salvation, that all (whether Christians or Churches) have recourse to one Church, if you mean by one Church, one particular Church which is to govern and direct all others: and, that unless you mean so, you say nothing to the purpose. And besides, he might tell you, and that very truly, that it may seem altogether as avai­lable for the Temporal good of Christians to be under one Temporal Prince, or Commonwealth; as, for their salvation, to be subordinate to one Visible Head. I say, as necessary, both for the prevention of the effusion of the Blood of Christians by Christians, and for the defence of Christendom, from the hostile invasions of Turks, and Pagans. And from all this he might inferr, that though now, by the fault of men, there were in several Kingdoms, several Laws, Governments, and Powers; yet that it were much more expedient, that there were but one. Nay, not only expedient, but necessary; if once your ground be setled for a general Rule, that what kind of government the Jews had that the Christians must have. And, if you limit the generality of this Proposition, and frame the Argument thus: What kind of Ecclesiastical government the Jews had, that the Christians must have: But, They were governed by one High-Priest, Therefore, These must be so: He will say, that the first Proposition of this Syllogism, is altogether as doubtful as the Conclusion; and therefore nei­ther fit nor sufficient to prove it, until it self be proved. And then besides, that there is as great reason to believe this, That what kind of Civil govern­ment the Jews had, that the Christians must have. And so D. Potter's Ob­jection remains still unanswered: That there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one King over all Christian Kingdoms, from the Jews having one King; as one Bishop over all Churches, from their being under one High-Priest.

144. Ad. §. 24. Nether is this discourse confirmed by Irenaeus at all: Whether by this discourse you mean that immediatly foregoing, of the A­nalogy between the Church and the Synagogue, to which this speech of Irenaeus, alledged here by you, is utterly and plainly impertinent; Or whether by this discourse, you mean (as I think you do) not your Discourse, but your Conclusion which you discourse on, that is, that Your Church is the Infallible Judge in Controversies. For neither hath Irenaeus one syllable to this purpose; neither can it be deduced out of what he says, with any colour of consequence. For, first in saying, What if the Apostles had not left Scripture, ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition? And [Page 97]in saying, That to this order many Nations yield assent, who believe in Christ, having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of GOD, without Letters or Ink, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition: Doth he not plain­ly shew, that the Tradition he speaks of is nothing else, but the very same that is written: nothing but to believe in Christ? To which, whe­ther Scripture alone, to them that believe it, be not a sufficient guide, I leave it to you to judge. And are not his words just as if a man should say, If God had not given us the light of the Sun, we must have made use of Candles and Torches: If we had no eyes, we must have felt out our way: If we had no legs, we must have used crutches. And doth not this in ef­fect import, that while we have the Sun we need no Candles? While we have our eyes, we need not feel out our way? While we enjoy our legs, we need not crutches? And, by like reason, Irenaeus in saying, If we had no Scripture, we must have followed Tradition; and they that have none, do well to do so; Doth he not plainly import, that to them that have Scripture and believe it, Tradition is unnecessary? Which could not be, if the Scripture did not contain evidently the whole Tradition. Which, whether Irenaeus believed or no, these words of his may inform you, Non enim per alios, &c. we have received the disposition of our Salvation from no others, but from them by whom the Gospel came unto us. Which Gospel truly the A­postles first preached, and afterwards by the will of God delivered in writing to us, to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith. Upon which place, Bel­larmine's two Observations, and his acknowledgment ensuing upon them are very considerable; and, as I conceive, as home to my purpose as I would wish them. His first Notandum is, That, in the Christian Doctrin, some things are simply necessary for the Salvation of all men; as the know­ledge of the Articles of the Apostle's Creed; and besides, the knowledge of the ten Commandments, and some of the Sacraments. Other things are not so necessary, but that a man may be saved without the explicit knowledge, and belief, and profession of them. His second Note is, That those things, which were simply necessary, the Apostles were wont to preach to all men; But of other things not all to all; but, some things to all, to wit, those things which were profitable for all, other things only, to Prelates and Priests. These things premised, he acknowledgeth, That all those things were written by the A­postles which are necessary for all, and which they were wont openly to preach to all; But that other things were not all written: And therefore, when I­renaeus says, that the Apostles wrote what they preached in the World, it is true, saith he, and not against Traditions, because they preached not to the Peo­ple all things, but only those things which were necessary or profitable for them.

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

146. Neither because (as He says) it was then easie to receive the Truth from God's Church; then, in the Age next after the Apostles, Then, when all the Ancient and Apostolique Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentals of Faith: Will it therefore follow, that now, 1600 years after, when the ancient Churches are divided almost into as many Religi­ons [Page 98]as they are Churches, every one being the Church to it self, and Here­tical to all other, that it is as easie, but extreamly difficult or rather impos­sible, to find the Church first independently of the true Doctrin, and then to find the truth by the Church?

147. As for the last clause of the sentence, it will not any whit advantage, but rather prejudice your Assertion. Neither wil I seek to avoid the pressure of it, by saying that he speaks of small Questions and therefore not of Que­stions touching things necessary to Salvation, which can hardly be called small Questions; But I will favour you so far, as to suppose, that saying this of small Questions, it is probable he would have said it much more of the Great: but I will answer that which is most certain and evident, and which I am confident you your self, were you as impudent as I believe you modest, would not deny, That the Ancient Apostolique Churches are not now, as they were in Irenaeus his time: then they were all at Unity about matters of Faith, which Unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in, came from some one common Fountain, and that no other than of Apostolique Preaching. And this is the very ground of Tertullian's so often mistaken Prescription against Heretiques: Variâsse debuerat Errer Ecclesiarum; quod autem apud multos unum est, non est erratum sed tradi­tum: If the Churches had erred, they could not but have varied; but that which is one among so many, came not by Error but Tradition. But now the case is altered, and the mischief is, that these ancient Churches are di­vided among themselves; and if we have recourse to them, one of them will say, This is the way to heaven, another that. So that now, in place of receiving from them certain and clear truths, we must expect nothing but certain and clear contradictions.

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

149. Ad §. 25. But you proceed and tell us, That, beside all this, the Doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it self. For either they have certains and infallible means not to err in interpreting; or not. If not, Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith: If they have, and so cannot err in interpreting Scripture, then they are able with infallibility to hear and determine all Controversies of Faith; and so they may be, and are, Judges of Controversies, although they use the Scripture as a Rule. And thus against their own doctrine, they constitute another Judge of Controversies [Page 99]beside Scripture alone. And may not we with as much reason substitute Church and Papists instead of Scripture and Protestants, and say unto you, Besides all this, the doctrin of Papists is destructive of it self? For ei­ther they have certain and infallible means not to err in the choice of the Church, and interpreting her Decrees, or they have not: If not, then the Church to them cannot be a sufficient (but meerly a phantastical) ground for infallible faith, nor a meet Judge of Controversies: (For un­less I be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible, How can I be upon her Authority infallibly sure, that any thing she says is Infallible?) If they have certain infallible means, and so cannot err in the choice of their Church, and in interpreting her Decrees, then they are able with Infal­libility to hear, examine, and determine all Controversies of Faith, al­though they pretend to make the Church their Guide. And thus against their own Doctrine, they constitute another Judge of Controversies, be­sides the Church alone. Nay every one makes himself a chuser of his own Religion, and of his own sense of the Churches Decree, which very thing in Protestants they so highly condemn: and so, in judging others, condemn themselves.

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

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

152. And now to come to the other part of your Dilemma; in saying, If they have certain means, and so cannot err, methinks you forget your self very much, and seem to make no difference between having certain means to do a thing, and the actual doing of it. As if you should con­clude, [Page 100]because all men have certain means of Salvation, therefore all men certainly must be saved, and cannot do otherwise; as if, Whosoever had a horse must presently get up and ride; Whosoever had means to find out a way, could not neglect those means and so mistake it. God be thanked that we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the truth of our Faith: But the priviledge of not being in possibility of erring that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as you to do so: and you have none at all. If you ask, seeing we may possibly err, How can we be assured we do not? I ask you again, seeing your eye-sight may deceive you, How can you be sure you see the Sun, when you do see it? Perhaps you may be in a dream, and perhaps you, and all the men in the World have been so, when they thought they were awake, and then only awake, when they thought they dreamt. But this I am sure of, as sure as that God is good, that he will require no impossibilities of us: not an Infallible, nor a certainly-unerring belief, unless he hath given us certain means to avoid error; and, if we use those which we have, will never require of us, that we use that which we have not.

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

154. Thus have we cast off your Dilemma, and broken both the horns of it. But now my retortion lies heavy upon you, and will not be turned off. For first you content not your selves with a moral certainty of the things you believe, nor with such a degree of assurance of them, as is suffici­ent to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant, which is all that we require. God's Spirit, if he please, may work more, a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence: But neither God doth, nor man may, require of us as our duty, to give a greater assent to the conclusi­on, than the premisses deserve; to build an Infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible, and not infallible, as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionable. But though God require not of us such unreasonable things, You do; and tell men, They cannot be saved, unless they believe your Proposals with an infal­lible Faith. To which end they must believe also your Propounder, your Church to be simply Infallible. Now how is it possible for them to give a rational assent to the Churches infallibility, unless they have some infal­lible means to know that she is infallible? Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this means, but by some other, and so on for [Page 101]ever: unless they can dig so deep as to come at length to the Rock, that is, to settle all upon something evident of it self, which is not so much as pre­tended. But the last resolution of all is into Motives, which indeed upon ex­amination will scarce appear probable, but are not so much as avouched to be any more than very credible. For example, if I ask you, Why you do believe Transubstantiation? What can you answer, but because it is a Re­velation of the Prime Verity. I demand again, How can you assure your self or me of that, being ready to embrace it if it may appear to be so? And what can you say, but that you know it to be so, because the Church says so, which is infallible? If I ask, What mean you by your Church? You can tell me nothing but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope. I demand then further: Why should I believe this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation? And then you tell me, that there are many Motives to induce a man to this belief. But are these Motives lastly infallible? No say you, but very credible. Well, let them pass for such, because now we have not leisure to examine them. Yet me­thinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only ve­ry credible, it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible; and as credible, and no more, perhaps somewhat less, that her proposals, particularly Transubstantiation, are Divine Revelations. And me-thinks you should require only a Moral, and modest assent to them, and not a Di­vine, as you call it, and infallible Faith. But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility, I hope you will give us leave to consider, and judge whether they be indeed Motives, and sufficient; or whether they be not Motives at all, or not sufficient; or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached, and opposed with Compulsives and en­forcements from it; or lastly, Whether these Motives which You use, be not indeed only Motives to Christianity, and not to Popery: give me leave for distinction-sake to call your Religion so. If we may not judge of these things, How can my judgment be moved with that which comes not with­in its cognizance? If I may, then at least I am to be a Judg of all these Con­troversies.

• 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church?
• 2. If to some, whether to Your?
• 3. If to Yours, whether suf­ficient, or insufficient?
• 4. Whether other Societies have not as many, and as great Motives to draw me to them?
• 5. Whether I have not greater reason to believe you do err, than that you cannot? And now Sir, I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions.

Am I a sufficient Judge of these Controversies, or no? If of these, why shall I stay here, why not of others? Why not of all? Nay, doth not the true examining of these few contain and lay upon me the examination of all? What other Motives to your Church have you, but your Notes of it? Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteen contains in it the examination of all Controversies; and not only so, but of all uncontroverted Doctrines. For how shall I, or can I, know the Church of Rome's conformity with the Ancient Church, unless I know first what the Ancient Church did hold, and then what the Church of Rome doth hold; and lastly, whether they be conformable, or, if in my judgment they seem not conformable, I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church, for want of the Note which she pretends, is proper, and perpetual to it. So that, for ought I can see, Judges we are, and must be of all sides; every one for himself, and God for us all.

[Page 102] 155. Ad §. 26. I answer; This Assertion, that Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith; if it be taken properly, is neither a Funda­mental nor Unfundamental point of Faith, nor no point of Faith at all, but a plain falshood. It is not a Judge of Controversies, but a Rule to judge them by; and that not an absolutely perfect Rule, but as perfect as a written Rule can be; which must always need something else, which is either evi­dently true, or evidently credible, to give attestation to it, and that in this case is Universal Tradition. So that Universal Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by. But then because nothing, besides Scripture, comes to us with as full a stream of Tradition as Scripture, Scripture alone, and no unwritten Doctrin, nor no Infallibility of any Church, having at­testation from Tradition truly Universal; for this reason we conceive, as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Judges of Con­troversies, so their Writings, now they are dead, are the only Rule for us to judge them by; There being nothing unwritten, which can go in upon half so fair cards, for the Title of Apostolike Tradition, as these things, which by the confession of both Sides are not so: I mean the Doctrine of the Millenaries, and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants.

156. Yet when we say, The Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Con­troversies by; me-thinks you should easily conceive, that we would be un­derstood, of all those that are possible to be judged by Scripture, and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture. For, if I had a Con­troversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no, I would not say, that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by; seeing that, doubting whe­ther there be a God or no, he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God: or, if he does not, he grants the Question, and is not the man we speak of. So likewise, if I had a Controversie about the Truth of Christ with a Jew, it would be vainly done of me, should I press him with the Authority of the New Testament which he believes not, until out of some principles common to us both, I had perswaded him that it is the Word of God. The New Testament therefore, while he remains a Jew, would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie; in as much as that which is doubted of it self, is not fit to determine other doubts. So likewise, if there were any that believed Christian Religion, and yet believed not the Bible to be the Word of God, though they believed the matter of it to be true, (which is no impossible supposition; for I may believe a Book S. Austin's to contain nothing but the Truth of God, and yet not to have been inspired by God himself,) against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible; because nothing in question can be a proof to it self. When therefore we say, Scripture is a sufficient means to deter­mine all Controversies, we say not this, either to Atheists, Jews, Turks, or such Christians (if there be any such) as believe not Scripture to be the Word of God. But among such men only, as are already agreed up­on this, that the Scripture is the Word of God, we say, All Controversies that arise about Faith, are either not at all decidable, and consequently not ne­cessary to be believed one way or other; or they may be determined by Scripture. In a word, That all things necessary to be believed are evi­dently contained in Scripture, and what is not there evidently contained, can­not be necessary to be believed. And our reason hereof is convincing, be­cause nothing can challenge our belief, but what hath descended to [Page 103]us from Christ by Original and Universal Tradition: Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us, Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief. Now then to come up closer to you, and to answer to your Question, not as you put it, but as you should have put it: I say, That this Position, Scripture alone is the Rule whereby they which believe it to be God's Word, are to judge all Controversies in Faith, is no fundamental point, Though not for your Reasons: For, your first and strongest reason, you see, is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I have done, and supposing in it, that the parties at variance, are agreed about this, That the Scripture is the Word of God; and consequently that this is none of their Controversies. To your second, That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority, We have said already, that Neces­sary Controversies may be and are decided. And, if they be not ended, this is not through defect of the Rule, but through the default of Men. And, for these that cannot thus be ended, it is not necessary they should be ended. For, if God did require the ending of them, he would have provided some certain means for the ending of them. And, to your Third, I say, that Your pretence of using these means, is but hypocritical; for you use them with prejudice, and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these means happily may suggest into you, if it any way cross your pre-conceived perswasion of your Churche's Infallibility. You give not your selves liberty of judgment in the use of them, nor suffer your selves to be led by them to the Truth, to which they would lead you, would you but be as willing to believe this Consequence, Our Church doth oppose Scripture, therefore it doth err, therefore it is not infallible; as you are resolute to believe this, The Church is infallible, therefore it doth not err, and therefore it doth not oppose Scripture, though it seem to do so never so plainly.

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

158. You add not only the Authority, but the Infallibility, not of God's Church, but of the Roman, a very corrupt and degenerous part of it: whereof. D. Potter never confessed, that it cannot err damnably. And which being a company made up of particular men, can afford you no help, but the industry, learning, and wit of private men: and, that these helps may not help you out of your errour, tell you, that you must make use of none of all these to discover any error in the Church, but only to maintain her impossibility of erring. And lastly, D. Potter assures himself that your Doctrine and Practices are damnable enough in themselves; On­ly he hopes (and spes est rei inceriae nomen) he hopes, I say, that the Truths which you retain, especially the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ, will be as an Antidote to you against the errors which you maintain; and that your superstruction may burn, yet they amongst you, qui sequuntur Absalonem in simplicitate cordis, may be saved, yet so as by fire. Yet his thinking so, is no reason for you or me to think so, unless you suppose him infallible; and, if you do, Why do you write against him?

[Page 104] 159. Notwithstanding, though not for these reasons, yet for others, I conceive this Doctrine not Fundamental: Because, if a man should believe Christian Religion wholely, and entirely, and live according to it, such a man, though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, no nor to be the Word of God, my opinion is, he may be saved; and my reason is, because he performs the entire condition of the new Co­venant, which is, that we believe the matter of the Gospel, and not that it is contained in these or these Books. So that the Books of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding; and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrin, as requisite to the wel-being of it, Irenaeus tells us (as M. K. acknowledg­eth) of some barbarous Nations, that believed the Doctrine of Christ, and yet believed not the Scripture to be the Word of God; for they never heard of it, and Faith comes by hearing: But these barbarous people might be saved: Therefore men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the Word of God; much more without believing it to be a Rule, and a perfect Rule of Faith. Neither doubt I, but if the Books of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church, where they had been before received, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by those bar­barous Nations, but still by the bare belief and practice of Christianity, they might be saved; God requiting of us under pain of damnation, on­ly to believe the verities therein contained, and not the divine Authority of the Books wherein they are contained. Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable, if a man should believe the matter of these Books, and not the Authority of the Books: and therefore, if a man should profess the not-believing of these, I should have reason to fear he did not believe that. But there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal reason. We have, I believe, as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eighth King of England, as that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate: yet this is necessary to be believed, and that is not so. So that, if any man should doubt of or d [...]sbelieve that, it were most unreasonably done of him, yet it were no mortal sin, nor no sin at all: God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe. Therefore as an Executor, that should perform the whole will of the dead, should fully satisfie the Law, though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will, which indeed is so: So I believe, that he, who believes all the particular Doctrines which integrate Christianity, and lives according to them, should be saved, though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists, or the Epistles by the Apostles.

160. This disourse, whether it be rational, and concluding or no, I sub­mit to better judgment; but sure I am, that the Corollary, which you draw from this Position, that this Point is not Fundamental, is very inconse­quent; that is, that we are uncertain of the truth of it, because we say, The whole Church, much more particular Churches and private men may err in points not Fundamental. A pretty sophism, depending upon this Prin­ciple, that whosoever possibly may err, he cannot be certain that he doth not err. And upon this ground, what shall hinder me from concluding, that seeing you also hold, that neither particular Churches, nor private men are [Page 105]infallible even in Fundamentals, that even the Fundamentals of Christiani­ty, remain to you uncertain? A Judge may possibly err in judgment, can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right? A Traveller may possibly mistake his way, must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber? Or can our London-Car­rier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? These, you see, are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like your own, as an egg to an egg, or milk to milk.

161. And, for the self same reason (you say) we are not certain, that the Church is not Judge of Controversies: But now this self same appears to be no reason; and therefore, for all this, we may be certain enough that the Church is no Judge of Controversies. The ground of this sophism is very like the former, viz. that we can be certain of the falshood of no proposi­tions, but these only which are damnable errors. But, I pray good Sir, give me your opinion of these: The Snow is black, the Fire is cold, that M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo, that the whole is not greater than a part of the whole, that twice two make not four: In your opinion, good Sir, are these damnable Heresies? Or, because they are not so, have we no certainty of the falshood of them? I beseech you Sir, to consider seriously, with what strange captions you have gone about to delude your King and your Coun­try; and, if you be convinced they are so, give glory to God, and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion, which stands upon such deceitful foundations.

162. Besides (you say) among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford, the year 1633. to the Questions, Whether the Church have Authority to deter­mine Controversies of F [...]ith? And to interpret holy Scripture? The Answer to both is [...]ffirmative. But what now if I should tell you, that, in the year 1632. among publique Conclusions defended in Doway, one was, That God predeterminates men to all their actions, good, bad, and indifferent? Will you think your self obliged to be of this opinion? If you will, say so: If not, do as you would be done by. Again, me-thinks, so subtil a man as you are, should easily apprehend a wide difference between Authority to do a thing, and an Absolute. The former, the Doctor, together with the Ar­ticle of the Church of England, attributeth to the Church, nay to particu­lar Churches; and I subscribe to his opinion; that is, an Authority of de­termining Controversies of Faith, according to plain and evident Scripture and Universal Tradition; and Infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule. As if there should arise an Heretique, that should call in que­stion Christ's Passion and Resurrection, the Church had Authority to de­cide this Controversie, and infallible direction how to do it, and to excom­municate this man, if he should persist in error. I hope, you will not de­ny but that the Judges have Authority to determine Criminal and Civil Controversies; and yet, I hope, you will not say, that they are absolutely infallible in their determination. Infallible while they proceed according to Law▪ and if they do so: but not infallibly certain that they shall ever do so. But that the Church should be infallibly assisted by God's Spirit to de­cide rightly all emergent Controversies, even such as might be held diversly of divers men, Salva compage fidei, and that we might be absolutely certain [Page 106]that the Church should never fail to decree the truth, whether she used means or no, whether she proceed according to her Rule or not; or lastly, that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her Rule, this the Defender of these Conclusions said not: and therefore said no more to your purpose, than you have all this while, that is, just nothing.

163. Ad §. 27. To the place of S. Austin alledged in this Paragraph, I Answer,

• First, that in many things you will not be tried by S. Augustin's judgement, nor submit to his Authority; not concerning Appeals to Rome, not concerning Transubstantiation, not touching the use and worshipping of Images, not concerning the State of Saint's souls before the day of Judgment, not touching the Virgin Marie's freedom from actual and ori­ginal sin, not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants, not touch­ing the damning Infants to hell that die without Baptism, not touching the knowledge of Saints departed, not touching Purgatory, not touching the fallibility of Councels, even general Councels; not touching perfecti­on and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation, not touch­ing Auricular Confession, not touching the half-Communion, not touching prayers in an unknown tongue; In these things, I say, you will not stand to S. Austin's judgment, and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter.
• 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists, and ransacking all places for Arguments against them, we oppose S. Austin out of this heat, delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmly and moderately; where he says, In iis quae apretè posita sunt in sa­cris Scripturis, omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem, moresque viven­di.
• 3. We say, he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholike Church, of far greater extent, and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the Roman Church.
• 4. He speaks of a point not expressed, but yet not con­tradicted by Scripture; whereas the errors we charge you with, are contra­dicted by Scripture.
• 5. He says not that Christ hath recommended the Church to us for an infallible definer of all emergent Controversies▪ but for a credible witness of ancient Tradition.

Whosoever therefore refuseth to fol­low the practice of the Church (understand of all places and ages) though he be thought to resist our Saviour, what is that to us, who cast off no practices of the Church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles, and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times. Lastly, it is evident, and even to Impudence it self undeniable, that upon this ground, of believing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ, Error was held; for example, the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants, and that in S. Austin's time, and that by S. Austin himself: and therefore without controversie this is no certain ground for truth, which may support falshood as well as truth.

164. To the Argument wherewith you conclude, I answer, That though the Visible Church shall always without fail propose so much of God's Revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven, for otherwise it will not be the visible Church; yet it may sometimes add to this revelation things superfluous, nay, hurtful, nay in themselves damnable, though not unpardonable; and sometimes take from it things very expedient and pro­fitable; and therefore it is possible, without sin, to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ. But you press us farther▪ and demand, What [Page 107]visible Church was extant, when Luther began, whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church? As if, it must of necessity either be Protestant or Ro­man; or Roman of necessity, if it were not Protestant. Yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your Disputers, by some specious Arguments to per­swade weak men, that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church; and thence to inferr, that without doubt it must be the Roman. But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it, and the Grecian ano­ther? And if one must be the whole, why not the Greek Church, as well as the Roman? there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own; unless it be; that she is poor, and oppressed by the Turk, and you are in glory and splendor.

165. Neither is it so easie to be determined as you pretend, That Lu­ther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith; neither is it so evident, that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed. And lastly, for calling the distincti­on of points into Fundamental and not Fundamental, an Evasion, I believe, you will find it easier to call it so, than to prove it so. But that shall be the issue of the Controversie in the next Chapter.

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

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

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

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

[Page 116] 4. If you say, you do agree in matters of Faith, I say this is ridiculous, for you define matters of Faith to be those wherein you agree. So that to say, you agree in matters of Faith, is to say, you agree in those things wherein you do agree. And do not Protestants do so likewise? Do not they agree in those things, wherein they do agree?

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

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

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

8. But then for means of the other kind, such as yours are, we have great abundance of them. For besides all the ways which you have devised, which we may make use of when we please, we have a great many more, which you yet have never thought of, for which we have as good [Page 117]colour out of Scripture, as you have for yours. For first, we could, if we would, try it by Lots, whose Doctrine is true, and whose false. And you know it is written,Pro. 16 33 The Lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposition of it is from the Lord. 2. We could referre them to the King, and you know it is written,Pro. 16.10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King; his mouth trans­gresseth not in judgement. Prov. 21 1. The Heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord. We could referre the matter to any Assembly of Christians assem­led in the Name of Christ, seeing it is written,Mat. 18.20. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. We may re­fer it to any Priest, because it is written,Mal. 2.7. The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge. Mat. 25.2. The Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses chair, &c. To any Prea­cher of the Gospel, to any Pastor, or Doctor, for to every one of them Christ hath promised,Mat. 28.20. He will be with them alwaies even to the end of the world: and of every one of them it is saidLuk. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. To any Bishop, or Prelate; for it is written,Heb. 13.17. Obey your Prelates, and again,Eph. 4.11. He hath given Pastors, and Doctors, &c lest we should be car­ryed about with every wind of Doctrin. To any particular Church of Christi­ans, seeing it is a particular Church which is called1 Tim. 3.15. The house of God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth: and seeing of any particular Church it is writ­ten,Mat. 18.17. He that heareth not the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or Publican. We might refer it to any man that prayes for Gods Spirit; for it is written,Mat. 7.8. Every one that asketh, receiveth: and again,Jam. 1.5. If any man want wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraid­eth not. Lastly, we might refer it to the Jews, for without all doubt of them it is written,Isa. 59.21, My Spirit that is in thee, &c. All these means of agreement, whereof not any one but hath as much probability from Scripture, as that which you obtrude upon us, offer themselves upon a sudden to me: haply many more might be thought on, if we had time, but these are enough to shew, that would we make use of voluntary and devised means to determine differences, we had them in great abundance. And if you say, These would fail us and contradict themselves: So, as we pretend, have yours. There have been Popes against Popes: Councels against Councels: Councels confirmed by Popes against Councels confirmed by Popes: Lastly, the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages.

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

10. But they are convinced sometimes even by their own confessions, that the Ancient Fathers taught divers Points of Popery: and then they reply, those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved, because those errors were not Fundamen­tall. And may not you also be convinced by the confessions of your own men, that the Fathers taught divers Points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome, and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome? Do not your Purging Indexes clip the tongues, and seal up the lips of a great many for such confessions? And is not the above-cited confession of [Page 118]your Doway Divines, plain and full to the same purpose? And do not you also, as freely as we, charge the Fathers with errors, and yet say they were saved? Now what else do we understand by an unfundamental error, but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved? So that still you proceed in con­demning others for your own faults, and urging Arguments against us, which return more strongly upon your selves.

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

12. As for that which in the next place you seem so to wonder at, That both Catholiques and Protestants, according to the opinion of Protestants, may be saved in their several professions, because, forsooth, we both agree in all Fundamental points. I Answer, this Proposition so crudely set down, as you have here set it down, I know no Protestant will justifie. For you seem to make them teach, that it is an indifferent thing, for the attainment of Salva­tion, whether a man believe the Truth or the Falshood; and that they care not in whether of these Religions a man live or dye, so he dye in either of them: whereas all that they say is this, That those amongst you which want means to find the Truth, and so dye in Error; or use the best means they can with industry, and without partiality to find the [Page 119]Truth, and yet dye in error, these men, thus qualified, notwithstanding these errors may be saved. Secondly, for those that have means to find the Truth, and will not use them, they conceive, though their case be dangerous, yet if they die with a general repentance for all their sins, known and unknown, their Salvation is not desperate. The Truths which they hold of Faith in Christ, and Repentance, being as it were an Antidote against their Errors, and their negligence in seeking the Truth. Especially, seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply, and indispensably ne­cessary to salvation.

13. But seeing we make such various use of this Distinction, is it not prodigi­ously strange that we will never be induced to give in a particular Catalogue what points be Fundamental? And why, I pray, is it so predigiously strange, that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand? God himself hath told us,Luk 22.48. That where much is given, much shall be required; where little is given, little shall be required. To Infants, Deaf-men, Mad-men, nothing, for ought we know, is given; and if it be so, of them nothing shall be required. Others perhaps may have means only given them to believe,Heb. 11.6. That God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek him; and to whom thus much only is given, to them it shal not be damnable, that they believe but only thus much. Which me thinks is very manifest from the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where having first said, That without Faith it is impossible to please God, he subjoyns as his reason, For whosoever cometh unto God, must believe that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek him. Where, in my opinion, this is plainly intimated, that this is the minimum quod sic, the lowest degree of Faith, wherewith, in men capable of Faith, God will be pleased: and that with this lowest degree he will be pleased, where means of rising higher are deficient. Besides, if without this belief, That God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek him, God will not be pleased, then his will is, that we should believe it. Now his will it cannot be, that we should believe a Falshood, It must be therefore true, that he is a Re­warder of them that seek him. Now it is possible, that they which never heard of Christ, may seek God: therefore it is true, that even they shall please him, and be rewarded by him; I say, rewarded, not with bring­ing them immediately to Salvation without Christ, but with bringing them according to his good pleasure, first, to Faith in Christ, and so to Salvation. To which belief the Story of Cornelius in the 10. Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and S. Peter's words to him, are to me a great inducement. For first it is evident he believed not in Christ, but was a meer Gentile, and one that knew not but men might be worshipped, and yet we are as­sured that his prayers and alms (even while he was in that state) came up for a memorial before God; That his prayer was heard, and his Alms had in remembrance in the sight of God, ver. 4. That upon his Then fearing God, and working righteousness, (such as it was) he was accepted with God. But how accepted? Not to be brought immediately to Salvation, but to be promoted to a higher degree of the knowledg of Gods will: For so it is in the 4. and 5. v. Call for Simon whose sirname is Peter, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do: and at the 33. v. We are all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. So that though even in his Gentilism, he was accepted in his present state, yet if he had continued in it, & refused to believe in Christ after the sufficient revelation of the Gospel [Page 120]to him, and God's will to have him believe it, he that was accepted before, would not have continued accepted still; for then that condemnation had come upon him, That light was come unto him, and he loved darkness more than light. So that (to proceed a step farther) to whom Faith in Christ is sufficiently propounded, as necessary to Salvation, to them it is simply necessary and fundamental to believe in Christ, that is, to expect re­mission of sins and Salvation from him, upon the performance of the conditions he requires; among which conditions one is, that we be­lieve what he hath revealed, when it is sufficiently declared, to have been revealed by him: For by doing so, we set to our seal, that God is true, and that Christ was sent by him. Now that may be sufficiently decla­red to one (all things considered,) which (all things considered) to ano­ther is not sufficiently declared: and consequently that may be fundamental and necessary to one, which to another is not so. Which variety of Cir­cumstances, makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fun­damentals, and proves your request as reasonable, as if you should desire us (according to the Fable) to make a coat to fit the Moon in all her changes; or to give you a garment that will fit all statures; or to make you a Dial to serve all Meridians; or to design particularly, what provision will serve an Army for a year: whereas there may be an Army of ten thou­sand, there may be of one hundred thousand. And therefore with­out setting down a Catalogue of Fundamentals in particular, (because none that can be given, can universally serve for all men, God requiring more of them to whom he gives more, and less of them to whom he gives less) we must content our selves by a general description to tell you what is Fundamental. And to warrant us in doing so, we have your own example §. 19. where being engaged to give us a Catalogue of Fundamentals, instead thereof you tell us only in general, That all is Fun­damental, and not to be disbelieved under pain of damnation, which the Church hath defined. As you therefore think it enough to say in general, That all is fundamental which the Church hath defined, without setting down in particular a compleat Catalogue of all things, which in any Age the Church hath defined (which, I believe, you will not undertake to do; and, if you do, it will be contradicted by your Fellows:) So in reason you might think it enough for us also to say in general, That it is sufficient for any mans salvation to believe that the Scripture is true, and contains all things necessary for salvation; and to do his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it: without delivering any particular Catalogue of the Fun­damentals of Faith.

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

[Page 121] 15. Ad §. 2. The effect of this Paragraph (for as much as concerns us) is this, That for any man to deny belief to any one thing, be it great or small, known by him, to be revealed by Almighty God for a Truth, is in effect to charge God with falshood: for it is to say, that God affirms that to be Truth, which he either knows to be not a Truth, or which he doth not know to be a Truth: and therefore without all controversie this is a damnable sin. To this I subscribe with hand and heart: adding withall, that not only he which knows, but he which be­lieves (nay, though it be erroneously) any thing to be revealed by God, and yet will not believe it nor assent unto it, is in the same case, and commits the same sin of derogation from Gods most perfect and pure Veracity.

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

17. Seeing therefore the crime of calling Gods Veracity into question, and consequently (according to your grounds) of erring Fundamentally, is chargeable upon those only, that believe the contrary of any one point known (not by others, but themselves) to be testified by God: I cannot but fear (though I hope otherwise) that your heart condemned you of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing Fundamental, and damnable Errors to dis­agreeing Protestants; Because forfooth, some of them disbelieve, and di­rectly, wittingly, and willingly oppose, what others do believe to be testified by the Word of God: The sophistry of your Discourse will be apparent, if it be contrived into a Syllogism: Thus therefore in effect you argue;

Whosoever disbelieves any thing known by himself to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God, and therefore errs fundamentally:

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

Therefore they impute falshood to God, and err Fundamentally.

Neither can you with any colour pretend, that in these words known to be testified by God, you meant, not by himself, but by any other: Seeing he only in fact affirms, that God doth deceive or is deceived, who denyes some things which himself knows or believes to be revealed by God, as before I have de­monstrated. For otherwise, if I should deny belief to some things which God had revealed secretly to such a man as I had never heard of, I should be guilty of calling Gods Veracity into Question, which is evidently false. Besides, how can it be avoided, but the Jesuits and Dominicans and Francis­cans must upon this ground differ Fundamentally, and one of them err dam­nably, seeing the one of them disbelieves, and willingly opposes, what the others believe to be the Word of God?

18. Whereas you say, that The difference among Protestants consists not in this, that some believe some points, of which others are ignorant, or not bound expresly to know: I would gladly know, whether you speak of Protestants dif­fering in profession only, or in opinion also. If the first, why do you say pre­sently after, that some disbelieve, what others of them believe? If they differ in opinion, then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions: it being impossible and contradictious, that a man should know one thing [Page 122]to be true, and believe the contrary; or know it, and not believe it. And if they do not know the truth of each others opinions, then, I hope, you will grant they are ignorant of it. If your meaning were, they were not ig­norant, that each other held these Opinions, or of the sense of the opinions which they held; I answer, This is nothing to the convincing of their understand­ings of the truth of them; and these remaining unconvinced of the truth of them, they are excusable if they do not believe.

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

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

21. You say, Not erring in points fundamental, is not sufficient for the pre­servation of the Church; because any Error maintained by it against Gods Re­velation is destructive. I answer. If you mean against Gods revelation known [Page 123]by the Church to be so, it is true; but impossible that the Church should should do so; for ipso Facto in doing it, it were a Church no longer. But, if you mean against some Revelation, which the Church by error thinks to be no Revelation, it is false. The Church may ignorantly dis-believe such a Revelation, and yet continue a Church; which thus I prove: That the Gospel was to be preached to all Nations, was a Truth revealed be­fore our Saviour's Ascension, in these words, Go and teach all Nations, Mat. 28.19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause, the Church disbelieved it, as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts, until the conversion of Cornelius; and yet was still a Church. There­fore to disbelieve some divine Revelation, not knowing it to be so, is not destructive of salvation, or of the being of the Church. Again, it is a plain Revelation of God, that1 Cor. 11.28. the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be ad­ministred in both kinds: and1 Cor. 14.15, 16, 26. that the publique Hymns and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification; yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing, by reason of the veil before their eye, their Churches supposed Infallibility; I hope, the denial of them shall not be laid to their charge, no otherwise than as building hay and stubble on the Foundation, not overthrowing the Foundation it self.

22. Ad § 2. In the beginning of this Paragraph, we have this Argu­ment against this Distinction; It is enough (by D. Potter's confession) to be­lieve some things negatively, i.e. not to deny them; Therefore all denial of any divine truth excludes Salvation. As if you should say, One Horse is enough for a man to go a journey: Therefore without a Horse no man can go a journey. As if some Divine Truths, viz. those which are plainly revealed, might not be such, as of necessity were not to be denied: and others, for want of sufficient declaration, deniable without danger. Indeed, if D. Pot­ter had said there had been no divine Truth, declared sufficiently or not declared, but must upon pain of damnation be believed, or at least not deni­ed; then might you justly have concluded as you do: but now, that some may not be denied, and that some may be denied without damnation, why they may not both stand together, I do not yet understand.

23. In the remainder you infer out of D. Potter's wórds, That all errors are alike damnable, if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different: which, for ought I know, all Protestants, and all that have sense must grant. Yet I deny your Illation from hence, That the distinction of points into Fundamental and Unfundamental, is vain and uneffectual for the purpose of Protestants. For though being alike proposed as divine Truths, they are by accident alike necessary, yet the real difference still remains be­tween them, that they are not alike necessary to be proposed.

24. Ad §. 5. The next Paragraph, if it be brought out of the clouds, will, I believe, have in it these Propositions.

• 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures.
• 2. The Nature of Faith is taken, not from the matter believed, for then they that believed different matters should haue different Faiths, but from the Motive to it.
• 3. This Motive is Gods Revelation.
• 4. This Re­velation is alike for all objects.
• 5. Protestants disagree in things equally reveal­ed by God: Therefore they forsake the formal motive of Faith: and therefore have no Faith nor Unity therein.

Which is truly a very proper and conveni­ent Argument to close up a weak Discourse, wherein both the Propositions are false for matter, confused and disordered for the form, and the Con­clusion [Page 124]utterly inconsequent. First, for the second Proposition; Who knows not that the Essence of all Habits (and therefore of Faith among the rest) is taken from their Act, and their Object? If the Habit be general, from the Act and Object in general; if the Habit be special, from the Act and Object in special. Then for the Motive to a thing; that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moves, who can doubt that knows that a Motive is an efficient cause, and that the efficient is always extrinsecal to the effect? For the fourth, that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects, It is am­biguous: and if the sense of it be, that his Revelation is an equal Motive to induce us to believe all objects revealed by him, it is true, but imperti­nent: If the sense of it be, that all objects revealed by God are alike (that is, alike plainly and undoubtedly) revealed by him, it is pertinent, but most untrue. Witness the great diversity of Texts of Scripture, whereof some are so plain and evident, that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them. Some are so obscure and ambiguous, that to say, this or this is the certain sense of them, were high presumption. For the fifth; Pro­testants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselves perhaps, but not equally to them, whose understandings by reason of their dif­ferent Educations are fashioned, and shaped for the entertainment of va­rious opinions, and consequently some of them, more enclined to believe such a sense of Scripture, others to believe another; which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions, is to di­sparage his goodness. But to what purpose is it, that these things are equal­ly revealed to both, (as the light is equally revealed to all blind men) if they be not fully revealed to either? The sense of this Scripture, Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead? and this, He shall be saved, yet so as by fire, and a thousand others, are equally revealed to you and to another Interpreter, that is, certainly to neither. He now conceives one sense of them, and you another; And would it not be an excellent Inference, if I should conclude now as you do; That you forsake the formal motive of Faith, which is Gods Revelation, and consequently lose all Faith and Unity therein? So likewise the Jesuits and Dominicans, the Franciscans and Dominicans, dis­agree about things equally revealed by Almighty God: and seeing they do so, I beseech you let me understand, why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all Faith and Unity therein? Thus you have failed of your undertaking in your first part of your Title, and that is a ve­ry ill omen, especially in points of so streight mutual dependance, that we shall have but slender performance in your second Assumpt. Which is, That the Church is infallible in all her Definitions, whether concerning Points Fundamental, or not Fundamental.

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

26. Ad §. 9, 10, 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sin, either deny any thing to be true, which she knows to be Gods Truth: or propose any thing as his Truth, which she knows not to be so. But that she may not do this by ignorance or mistake, and so without damnable sin, that you should have proved, but have not. But, say you, This excuse cannot serve: for if the Church be assisted only for Points Fundamental, she cannot but know that she may err in points not Fundamental. Answ. It does not follow, [Page 125]unless you suppose, that the Church knows that she is assisted no farther. But if, being assisted only so far, she yet did conceive by errour her assist­ance absolute and unlimited, or, if knowing her assistance restrained to Fundamentals, she yet conceived by errour, that she should be guarded, from proposing any thing but what was fundamental, then the consequence is apparently false. But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in propo­sing points not fundamental, to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith. Ans. Neither is this deduction worth any thing, unless it be understood of such unfundamental points, as she is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture. Indeed, if she propose such, as matters of Faith certain­ly true, she may well be questioned, Quo Warranto? She builds without a foundation, and says, Thus saith the Lord, when the Lord doth not say so: which cannot be excused from rashness and high presumption; such a pre­sumption, as an Embassadour should commit, who should say in his Masters name that for which he hath no Commission; Of the same na­ture, I say, but of a higher strain: as much as the King of Heaven, is grea­ter than any earthly King. But though she may err in some points not-fundamental, yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others; as for example, these, That Abraham begat Isaac, that S. Paul had a cloak, that Timothy was sick; because these, though not Fundamental, i. e. no essential parts of Christianity, yet are evidently, and undeniably set down in Scri­pture, and consequently, may be without all rashness proposed by the Church as certain divine Revelations. Neither is your Argument, conclu­ding, when you say, If in such things she may be deceived, she must be always uncertain of all such things. For, my sense may sometimes possibly deceive me, yet I am certain enough that I see what I see, and feel what I feel. Our Judges are not infallible in their judgments, yet are they certain enough, that they judge aright, and that they proceed according to the Evidence that is given, when they condemn a Thief, or a murderer to the Gallows. A Traveller is not always certain of his way, but often mistaken: and doth it therefore follow that he can have no assurance that Charing-cross is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall? The ground of your Error here is your not distinguishing between Actual Certainty and Absolute Infalli­bility. Geometricians are not infallible in their own Science: yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated. And Carpen­ters are not Infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their Rule and Square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain, that in all her Definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her Rule; yet being certain of the Infallibility of her Rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the Truth of some particular Decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true.

27. Ad § 12. But if the Church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing Scripture, and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been deceived already. The Church may err in her Proposition or custo­dy of the Canon of Scripture, if you understand by the Church, any present Church of one denomination; for example, the Roman, the Greek, or so. Yet have we sufficient certainty of Scripture, not from the bare testimony [Page 126]of any present Church, but from Universal Tradition, of which the testi­mony of any present Church is but a little part. So that here you fall into the Fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. For in effect this is the sense of your Argument: Unless the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty of Scripture from the Authority of the Church: There­fore unless the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty hereof at all. As if a man should say, If the Vintage of France miscarry, we can have no Wine from France: Therefore, if that Vintage miscarry, we can have no Wine at all. And, for the incorruption of Scripture; I know no other ra­tional assurance we can have of it, than such as we have of the incorrupti­on of other ancient Books, that is, the consent of ancient Copies: such, I mean for the kind, though it be far greater for the degree of it. And if the Spirit of God give any man any other Assurance hereof, this is not rational and discursive, but supernatural and infused. And Assurance it may be to him­self, but no Argument to another. As for the infallibility of the Church; it is so far from being a proof of Scriptures Incorruption, that no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of Scripture: which yet are as sub­ject to corruption as any other, and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been possible) than any other, and made to speak as they do, for the advantage of those men, whose ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their Authority. Now then, if any man should prove the Scri­ptures uncorrupted, because the Church says so, which is infallible: I would demand again touching this very thing, That there is an Infallible Church, seeing it is not of it self evident, how shall I be assured of it? And what can he answer, but that the Scripture says so, in these and these places? Hereupon I would ask him, how shall I be assured, that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these places? seeing it is possible, and not altogether impro­bable, that these men, which desire to be thought Infallible, when they had the government of all things in their own hands, may have altered them for their purpose. If to this he answer again, that the Church is infallible, and therefore cannot do so; I hope it would be apparent, that he runs round in a circle, and proves the Scriptures incorruption, by the Churches infal­libility, and the Churches infallibility, by the Scriptures incorruption; and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility, and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption.

28. Now for your Observation, that some Books, which were not always known to be Canonical, have been afterwards received for such. But never any Book or Syllable defined for Canonical, was afterwards questioned or re­jected for Apocryphal: I demand, touching the first sort, Whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonical, or not? If not, seeing the whole Faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church, and seeing, after the Apostles, the Church pretends to no new Revelations, How can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canonical? And how can you pretend, that your Church, which makes this an Article of Faith, is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not re­vealed by God? If they were, How then is the Church an infallible keep­er of the Canon of Scripture, which hath suffered some Books of Canoni­cal Scripture to be lost? and others to lose for a long time their being Cano­nical, at least, the necessity of being so esteemed, and afterwards, as it were by the law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canoni­calness [Page 127]unto them? If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church, the point was sufficiently discussed, and therefore your Churche's omission to teach it for some Ages, as an Article of Faith, nay degrading it from the number of Articles of Faith, and putting it among disputable pro­blems, was surely not very laudable. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to the Church, then can it be no Re­velation, and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such, is inex­cusable.

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

3. Ad. §. 13. We are told here, That the general promises of Infallibili­ty to the Church, must not be restrained only to points Fundamental; Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained. The Argu­ment put in form, and made compleat by supply of the concealed Propo­sition, runs thus;

[Page 128] The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any Age, is as absolute and unlimited, as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings:

But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamen­tals:

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

The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and Writing may be limited to Fundamentals, as well as the Infallibility of the present Church: But that is not to be done: Therefore this also is not to be done.

Now to this Argument, I answer, that, if by may be as well, in the Ma­jor Proposition, be understood, may be as possibly: it is true, but imperti­nent. If by it we understand, may be as justly and rightly, It is very perti­nent, but very false. So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentals, so another may limit the Apostles unto them also. He may do it de facto, but de jure he cannot; that may be done and done law­fully: this also may be done, but not lawfully. That may be done, and, if it be done, cannot be confuted: This also may be done, but, if it be done, may easily be confuted. It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph, by five words taken out of Scripture, All Scripture is divinely inspired. Shew but as much for the Church: Shew where it is written, That all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired; and the Controversie will be at end. Be­sides, there is not the same reason for the Churche's absolute Infallibility, as for the Apostles and Scripture's. For, if the Church fall into error, it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Do­ctrine and Scripture. But, if the Apostles have erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we have recourse, for the disco­vering and correcting their error? Again, there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation: and, if but wise men have the ordering of the building, they will make it much a surer thing, that the foundation shall not fail the building, than that the building shall not fall from the foundation. And though the building be to be of Brick, or Stone, and perhaps of Wood; yet, if it may be possibly, they will have a Rock for their Foundation, whose stability is a much more indubitable thing, than the adherence of the structure to it. Now the Apostles, and Prophets, and Canonical Writers, are the Foundation of the Church, ac­cording to that of S. Paul, Built upon the Foundation of Apostles and Pro­phets; therefore their stability in reason ought to be greater then the Churche's, which is built upon them. Again, a dependant Infallibility (especially if the dependance be voluntary) cannot be so certain as that on which it depends: But the Infallibility of the Church, depends upon the Infallibility of the Apostles, as the straitness of the thing regulated, upon the straitness of the Rule: and besides, this dependance is voluntary; for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule; being nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which every one hath free-will, and is subject to passions and error: Therefore the Churche's Infallibility, is not so certain as that of the Apostles.

31. Lastly, Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? If you be so Infal­lible as the Apostles were, shew it as the Apostles did; They went forth [Page 129](saith S. Mark) and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming their words with signs following. It is impossible that God should lye, and that the eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falshood, or of such Doctrine as is partly true, and part­ly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was in­tirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. I say, in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain divine Truth, and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles. For that the Apostles themselves, even after the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and, through inadvertence or prejudice, continued for a time in an errour, repugnant to a revealed Truth, it is, as I have already noted, unanswerably evident, from the Story of the Acts of the Apostles. For notwithstanding our Saviour's express Warrant and Injunction, To go and preach to all Nations, yet until S. Peter was better informed by a Vision from Heaven, and by the conversion of Cornelius; both he and the rest of the Church, held it unlawful for them, to go or preach the Gospel to any but the Jews.

32. And for those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence, and not as divine Revelations, why we should take them to be divine Revelations, I see no reason; nor how we can do so, and not contradict the Apostles▪ and God himself. Therefore when S. Paul says, in the 1. Epist to the Corinth. 7.12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord; And again, Concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I deliver my judgment: If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak, what S. Paul spake, and that his judgment was God's command­ment, shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul, and that Spirit by which he wrote? which moved him to write, as in other places, divine Revelations, which he certainly knew to be such; so in this place, his own judgment, touching some things which God had not particularly revealed unto him. And, if D. Potter did speak to this purpose (that the Apostles were Infallible only in these things which they spake, of certain knowledg) I cannot see what danger there were in saying so. Yet the Truth is, you wrong. D. Potter. It is not he, but D. Stapleton in him, that speaks the words you cavil at. D. Stapleton, saith he, p. 140. is full and punctual to this purpose: then sets down the effect of his discourse l. 8. Princ. Doct. 4. c. 15. and in that, the words you cavil at; and then p. 150. he shuts up this Paragraph with these words, Thus D. Stapleton. So that, if either the Doctrine, or the Reason, be not good, D. Stapleton not D. Potter is to answer for it.

33. Neither do D. Potter's ensuing words limit the Apostle's infallibili­ty to truths absolutely necessary to salvation, if you read them with any can­dor: for it is evident, he grants the Church infallible in Truths absolutely ne­cessary; and as evident, that he ascribes to the Apostles, the Spirit's gui­dance, and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than any since them. From whence, thus I argue: He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentals, and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible gui­dance of the Spirit, in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them, limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals; But D. Pot­ter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility, and ascribes to the A­postles, the Spirit's infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner; Therefore he limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals. I once knew a man out of courtesie help a lame dog over a stile, and he for requi­tal [Page 130]bit him by the fingers: Just so you serve D. Potter. He out of courtesie grants you, that those words, The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth, and shall abide with you ever, though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles, yet in a conditional, limited, moderate, secun­dary sense, they may be understood of the Church. But says, that if they be understood of the Church, All, must not be simply all, No, nor so large an All, as the Apostles all, but all necessary to salvation. And you, to requite his courtesie in granting you thus much, cavil at him, as if he had prescribed these bounds to the Apostles also, as well as the present Church. Whereas, he hath explained himself to the contrary, both in the clause fore-mentioned, The Apostles, who had the Spirit's guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them; and in these words ensuing, whereof the Church is simply ignorant; and again, wherewith the Church is not acquainted. But most clearly in those which being most incompatible to the Apostles, you with an &c, I cannot but fear, craftily have conceal­ed: How many obscure Texts of Scripture which she understands not? How many School-Questions which she hath not, happily cannot determine? And for matters of fact, it is apparent that the Church may err; and then concludes, That we must understand by All truths, not simply All, But (if you con­ceive the words as spoken of the Church) All Truth absolutely necessary to salvation. And yet, beyond all this, the negative part of his answer agrees very well to the Apostles themselves; for that All which they were lead in­to, was not simply All, otherwise S. Paul erred in saying, we know in part; but such an All as was requisite to make them the Churches Foundations. Now such they could not be, without freedom from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly, as certain revealed Truths. For, if we once suppose they may have erred in some things of this nature, it will be utterly undiscernable what they have erred in, and what they have not. Whereas though we suppose the Church hath erred in some things, yet we have means to know, what she hath erred in, and what she hath not. I mean by comparing the Doctrine of the present Church, with the Doctrin of the Primitive Church delivered in Scripture. But then, last of all, suppose the Doctor had said (which I know he never intended) that this promise in this place made to the Apostles, was to be understood only of Truths absolute­ly necessary to salvation; Is it consequent that he makes their Preaching and Writing not infallible in Points not Fundamental? Do you not blush for shame at this Sophistry? The Doctor says, no more was promised in this place; Therefore he says no more was promised! Are there not other places besides this? And may not that be promised in other places, which is not promised in this?

34. But, if the Apostles were Infallible in all things proposed by them as Di­vine Truths, the like must be affirmed of the Church, because D. Potter teach­eth the said promise to be verified in the Church. True, he doth so, but not in so absolute a manner. Now what is opposed to Absolute, but Limited, or restrained? To the Apostles then it was made, and to them only, yet the words are true of the Church. And this very promise might have been made to it, though here it is not. They agree to the Apostles in a higher, to the Church in a lower sense: to the Apostles in a more absolute, to the Church in a more limited sense. To the Apostles absolutely for the Churches di­rection: to the Church Conditionally by adherence to that direction, and so [Page 131]far as she doth adhere to it. In a word, the Apostles were lead into all Truths by the Spirit, efficaciter: The Church is led also into all Truth by the Apostles writings, sufficienter. So that the Apostles and the Church, may be fitly compared to the Star and the Wisemen. The Star was di­rected by the finger of God, and could not but go right to the place where Christ was: But the Wisemen were led by the Star to Christ; led by it, I say, not efficaciter or irresistibiliter, but sufficienter, so that if they would, they might follow it; if they would not, they might chuse. So was it be­tween the Apostles writing Scriptures, and the Church. They in their wri­ting were infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine Truth, but what was so. The Church is also led into all Truth, but it is by the intervening of the Apostles writings: But it is as the Wisemen were led by the Star, or as a Traveller is directed by a Mercurial Statue, or as a Pilot by his Card and Compass: led sufficiently, but not irresistibly: led as that she may follow, not so that she must. For, seeing the Church is a Society of men, whereof every one (according to the Doctrin of the Romish Church) hath freewill in believing, it follows, that the whole Aggregate hath freewill in believ­ing. And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible, that of so many whereof all may believe aright, not any should do so: I answer, It is true, if they did all give themselves any liberty of judgment. But if all (as the case is here) captivate their understandings to one of them, all are as likely to err as that one. And he more likely to err than any other, be­cause he may err and thinks he cannot, and because he conceives the Spirit absolutely promised to that succession of Bishops, of which many have been notoriously and confessedly wicked men, Men of the World: whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because he seeth him not, neither knoweth him. Besides, let us suppose, that neither in this nor in any other place, God had promised any more unto them, but to lead them into all Truth, necessary for their own and other mens salvati­tion: Doth it therefore follow that they were, de facto, led no farther? God indeed is obliged by his Veracity to do all that he hath promised, but is there any thing that binds him to do no more? May not he be better than his word, but you will quarrel at him? May not his Bounty exceed his Pro­mise? And may not we have certainty enough that oft-times it doth so? God at first did not promise to Solomon, in his vision at Gibeon, any more than what he askt, which was wisdom to govern his people, and that he gave him. But yet, I hope, you will not deny that we have certainty enough that he gave him something which neither God had promised, nor he had ask­ed. If you do, you contradict God himself: For Behold (saith God) because thou hast asked this thing, I have done according to thy word. Lo, I have given thee a Wise and an Understanding heart, so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour, so that there shall not be any among the Kings like unto thee in all thy days. God, for ought appears, never obliged himself by promise, to shew S. Paul those Unspeakable mysteries, which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him: and yet, I hope, we have certainty enough, that he did so. God promi­ses to those that seek his Kingdom, and the righteousness thereof, that all things necessary shall be added unto them, and in rigour by his promise he is obli­ged to do no more, and, if he give them necessaries he hath discharged his [Page 132]obligation: Shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us, as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of meer Necessity? So, though God had obliged himself by promise to give his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation; nevertheless it is utterly inconsequent, that he gave them no more, than by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to do; or that we can have no assurance of any farther assistance that he gave them: especially when he himself, both by his word, and by his works, hath assured us, that he did assist them farther. You see by this time that your chain of fearful consequences (as you call them) is turned to a rope of sand, and may easily be avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposals.

35. Ad §. 14. & 15 Doubting of a Book received for Canonical, may sig­nifie, either doubting whether it be Canonical; or supposing it to be Cano­nical, whether it be True. If the former sense were yours, I must then again distinguish of the term, Received; For it may signifie, either received by some particular Church, or by the present Church Universal, or the Church of all Ages. If you meant the word in either of the former senses, that which you say is not true. A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts, or some Book received by some particular Church, or by the Universal Church of this present time, whether it be Canonical or no: and yet have just reason to believe, and no reason to doubt, but that other Books are Ca­nonical. As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. James; the Church Rome, in Hieromes time, of the Epistle to the Hebrews. And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon, nor had reason to do so. If by Received, you mean Received by the Church of all Ages, I grant, he that doubts of any one such Book, hath as much reason to doubt of all. But yet here again I tell you, that it is possible a man may doubt of one such Book, and yet not of all: because it is possible men may do not according to reason. If you meant your words in the latter sense; then I confess, he that believes such a Book to be Canonical, i. e. the word of God, and yet (to make an impossible Supposition) believes it [...] not to be true, if he will do according to reason, must doubt of all the rest, and believe none. For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true, than because God hath said it, nor no other reason to believe the Scripture to be true, but only because it is Gods word; he that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God, hath as much reason to believe nothing that he sayes: and therefore, if he will do ac­cording to reason, neither must nor can believe any thing he sayes. And upon this ground you conclude rightly, that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Universal, and not confined to Points Fundamental.

36. And this Reason why we should not refuse to believe any part of Scripture, upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamental, you confess to be convincing. But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Univer­sal infallibility of the Church. For (say you) unless She be infallible in all things, we cannot believe her in any one. But by this reason your Proselytes, knowing you are not infallible in all things, must not, nor cannot believe you in any thing. Nay you your self must not believe your self in any thing, because you know that you are not infallible in all things. Indeed if you had said We could not rationally believe her for her own sake, and upon her own word and authority in any thing, I should willingly grant the consequence. For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my [Page 133]belief in any thing: and if it were in any thing, then this authority being one and the same in all proposals, I should have the same reason to believe all, that I have to believe one: and therefore must either do unreasonably in be­lieving any one thing, upon the sole warrant of this authority; or unreasona­bly, in not believing all things equally warranted by it. Let this therefore be granted; and what will come of it? Why then, you say, we cannot believe her in propounding Canonical Books. If you mean still (as you must do un­less you play the Sophister) not upon her own Authority, I grant it: For we believe Canonical Books not upon the Authority of the present Church, but upon Universal Tradition. If you mean, Not at all, and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonical, which the Church proposes, I deny it. There is no more consequence in the Argument than in this, The devil is not infallible, therefore if he sayes there is one God, I cannot believe him. No Geometrician is Infallible in all things, therefore not in these things which he demonstrates. M. Knot is not infallible in all things, there­fore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled, Charity Main­tained.

37. But though the Reply be good, Protestants cannot make use of it, with any good coherence to this distinction, and some other Doctrins of theirs: becau­se they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamental and what not; and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others, yet they might be sure it erred not in these. To this I answer. That if without dependance on Scripture, they did know what were Fundamental, and what not, they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentals, and erroneous in other things. But seeing they ground their belief, that such and such things only are Fundamentals, only upon Scripture, and goe about to prove their assertion true, only by Scripture, then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things, or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them, to believe this thing, that these only Points are Fundament­al. For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus, The Scrip­ture is true in something; the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fun­damental, therefore this is true, that these only are so! For every Fresh-man in Logick knows, that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly con­cluded. But on the other side, this reason is firme, and demonstrative, The Scripture is true in all things; But the Scripture sayes, that these only Points are the Fundamentals of Christian Religion; therefore it is true, that these only are so. So that the knowledge of Fundamentals being it self drawn from Scripture, is so far from warranting us to believe the Scripture is, or may be, in part True, and in part False; that it self can have no foundation, but the Universal truth of Scripture. For, to be a Fundamental Truth, pre­supposes to be a Truth; now I cannot know any Doctrin to be a Divine and supernatural Truth, or a true part of Christianity, but only because the Scrip­ture sayes so which is all true: Therefore, much more can I not know it to be a Fundamental Truth.

38. Ad. §. 16. To this Paragraph I answer. Though, the Church being not infallible, I cannot believe her in every thing she sayes; yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves, either by Scripture, Reason, or Universal Tradition, be it Fundamental, or be it not Fundamental. This you say, we cannot in Points not Fundamental, because in such we believe she may erre. But this I know, we can: because though she may erre in some things, [Page 134]yet she does not erre in what she proves, though it be not Fundamental. Again you say, We cannot do it in Fundamentals, because we must know what Points be Fundamental, before we go to learn of her. Not so. But seeing Faith comes by Hearing, and by hearing those who give testimony to it which none doth but the Church and the Parts of it; I must learn of the Church, or of some part of it, or I cannot know any thing Fundamental or not Fundamental. For how can I come to know, that there was such a man as Christ, that he taught such Doctrin, that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in Confir­mation of it, that the Scripture of GOD's Word, unless I be taught it? So then, the Church is, though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith, yet a necessary Introduction to it.

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

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

41. But you ask, If the Church be not an Infallible Teacher, why are we commanded to hear, to seek, to obey the Church? I answer. For Commands to seek the Church, I have not yet met with any; and, I believe, you, if you were to shew them, would be your self to seek. But yet, if you could pro­duce [Page 135]some such, we might seek the Church to many good purposes, without supposing her a Guide infallible. And then for hearing and obeying the Church, I would fain know, Whether none may be heard and obeyed, but those that are Infallible? Whether particular Churches, Governors, Pastors, Paretns be not to be heard and obeyed? Or whether all these be infallible. I wonder you will thrust upon us so often, these worn-out Objections, without taking notice of their Answers.

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

43. In the next place, you tell us out of him, That that which hath been alwaies kept, is most rightly esteemed to come from the Apostles: Very right, and what then? Therefore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controver­sies. Sir, I beseech you, when you write again, do us the favour to write no­thing but Syllogisms: for I find it still an extreame trouble to find out the concealed Propositions, which are to connect the parts of your Enthymems. As now for example, I profess unto you, I am at my wits end, and have done my best endeavour, to finde some glue, or sodder, or cement, or chain, or thred, or any thing to tye this antecedent and this consequent together, and at length am enforced to give it over, and cannot do it.

44. But the Doctrines; That Infants are to be baptized, and, those that are baptized by Heretiques, are not to re [...] baptized, are neither of them to be proved by Scripture: And yet according to S. Austine they are true Doctrines, and we may be certain of them upon the Authority of the Church, which we could not be, unless the Church were Infallible; therefore the Church is infallible. I answer▪ that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough, of the Universal Traditions of the ancient Church; such, as in S. Austins account, these were which here are spoken of, and yet not be certain enough, of the definitions of the present Church. Unless you can shew (which I am sure you can never do) that the Infallibility of the present Church, was alwaies a Tradition of the Ancient Church. Now your main business is to prove the present Church infallible, not so much in consigning ancient Tradition, as in defining emergent Controversies▪ Again, it follows not, because [Page 136]the Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some Doctrin, touching which the Scripture is silent; therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these, to which the Scripture seems repugnant. Now the Doctrines, which S. Austin received upon the Churches Authority, were of the first sort; the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches Infallibility, are of the second. And therefore though the Churches Authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austin laid upon it, yet haply it may not be strong enough, to bear that which you lay upon it. Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture, yet surely not against it. And last of all, to deal ingenuously with You and the World, I am not such an Idolater of S. Austin, as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he says it, not that all his sentences are Oracles; and particularly in this thing, that, whatsoever was practised or held by the Universal Church of his time, must needs have come from the Apostles. Though, considering the neerness of his time to the Apostles, I think it a good probable way, and therefore am apt enough to follow it, when I see no reason to the contra­ry. Yet, I profess, I must have better satisfaction, before I can induce my my self to hold it certain and infallible. And this, not because Popery would come in at this door, as some have vainly feared, but because by the Church Universal of some time, and the Church Universal of other times, I see plain contradictions held and practised. Both which could not come from the Apostles; for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood. And therefore the belief or practice of the present Universal Church, can be no infallible proof, that the Doctrine so believed, or the Custom so practised, came from the Apostles. I instance in the Doctrine of the Mille­naries, and the Eucharists necessity for Infants: both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some Ages, without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries: and were de­livered by them, not as Doctors, but as Witnesses, not as their own opi­nions, but as Apostolike Traditions. And therefore measuring the Doctrin of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinal Perron gives us for that purpose, both these Doctrins must be acknowledged to have been the Doctrins of the ancient Church of some Age or Ages; And that the con­trary Doctrines were Catholique at some other time, I believe you will not think it needful for me to prove. So that either I must say, the Apostles were Fountains of contradictious Doctrines, or that being the Universal Doctrin of the present Church, is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles. Besides, who can warrant us, that the Universal Tradi­tions of the Church were all Apostolical? seeing in that famous place for Traditions, in Tertullian, De Corona Militis. c. 3. & 4. Where having recounted sun­dry unwritten Traditions then observed by Christians, many whereof, by the way, (notwithstand­ing the Coun­cel of Trents profession, To receive them and the written Word with like affection of Pie­ty) are now re­jected and neglected by the Church of Rome: For ex­ample, Immer­sion in Baptism, Tasting a mix­ture of milk and honey presently after; Abstaining from Baths for a week after; Accounting it an impi [...]ty to pray, kneeling on the Lord's Day, or between Easter and Pentecost: I say, having reckoned up these and other Traditions in Chap 3. He adds another in the 4. of the Veiling of Women; And then adds, Since I find no law for this, it fol­lows, that Tra­dition must have given this obser­vation to custom, which shall gain in time, Aposto­lique Authority by the interpre­tation of the reason of it. By these examples therefore it is declared, That the observing of unwritten Tradition, being confirmed by custom, may be defended. The perseverance of the observation, being a good testimony of the goodness of the Tradition. Now Custom even in civil affairs where a Law is wanting, passeth for a Law. Neither is it material, on which it is grounded, Scripture or reason; seeing reason is commendation enough for a Law. Moreover, if Law be grounded on rea­son, all that must be Law, which is so grounded—A quocunque productum—Whosoever is the producer of it. Do ye think it is not lawful, Omni fideli, for every faithful man to conceive and constitute? Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will, what is conducible for discipline, and available to salvation? seeing the Lord says, Why even of our selves judge ye not what is right? And a little after, This reason now demand, saving the respect of the Tradition—A quocunque Traditore censetur, nec Authorem respiciens sed Authoritatem: From whatsoever Tradition it comes, neither regard the Author but the Authority. Quicunque Traditor, Any Author whatsoever is Founder good enough for them. And who can secure us that Humane inventions, and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time, gain the reputation of Apostolique! Seeing the Direction, then was,Hier. Pracepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat.

[Page 137] 45. No less, you say, is S. Chrysostom, for the infallible Traditions of the Church. But you were to prove the Church infallible, not in her Traditi­ons (which we willingly grant, if they be as Universal as the Tradition of the undoubted Books of Scripture is, to be as infallible as the Scripture is; for neither doth being written make the Word of God, the more infallible, nor being unwritten make it the less infallible:) Not therefore in her U­niversal Traditions, were you to prove the Church infallible, but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies. To this Point when you speak, you shall have an Answer; but hitherto you do but wander.

46. But let us see what S. Chrysostom says, They (the Apostles) delive­red not all things in writing, (who denies it?) but many things also without writing (who doubts of it?) and these also are worthy of belief. Yes, if we knew what they were. But many things are worthy of belief, which are not necessary to be believed: As, that Julius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief, being so well testified as it is, but yet it is not necessary to be believed; a man may be saved without it. Those many works which our Saviour did (which S. John supposes, would not have been contained in a world of Books) if they had been written, or if God by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them, had been as wor­thy to be believed, and as necessary, as those that are written. But to shew you how much more a faithful keeper Records are than Report, those few that were written are preserved & believed; those infinitely more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men. And see­ing God in his Providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them, he hath freed us from the Obligation of believing them: for every Obligation ceaseth, when it becomes impossible. Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians, to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written, either of themselves understood, or were instructed by the Apostles, touch­ing the sense of the obscure places of them? These Traditive Interpreta­tions, had they been written and dispersed, as the Scriptures were, had without question been preserved, as the Scriptures are. But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition, the Church of Rome hath been, or even the Catholique Church, for want of writing they are all lost, nay were all lost, within a few ages after Christ. So that if we consult the Anci­ent Interpreters, we shal hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them. Cardinal Perron, in his Discourse of Traditions, having alledged this place for them, Hold the Traditions, &c. tells us, We must not answer that S. Paul speaks here, only of such Traditions, which (though not in this Epist. to the Thess. yet) were afterwards written, and in other Books of Scripture: because it is upon occasion of Tradition (touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist) which was never writ­ten, that he lays this injunction upon them, to hold the Traditions. Well, let us grant this Argument good, and concluding; and that the Church of the Thessalonians, or the Catholique Church (for what S. Paul writ to one Church, he writ to all) were to hold some unwritten Traditions, and among the rest, what was the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist. But what if they did not perform their duty in this point, but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church? Shal we not conclude, that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to Salvation to be lost, and he hath suffered this Tradition to be lost, therefore the knowledge [Page 138]or belief of it, though it were a profitable thing, yet it was not necessary? I hope you will not challenge such Authority over us, as to oblige us to im­possibilities, to do that which you cannot do your selves. It is therefore re­quisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed, before you re­quire obedience unto it. Are you able then to instruct us so well, as to be fit to say unto us, Now ye know what witholdeth? Or, do you your selves know that ye may instruct us? Can ye, or dare you say, this or this was this hinderance which S. Paul here meant, and all men under pain of dam­nation are to believe it? Or if you cannot, (as I am certain you cannot) go then, and vaunt your Church, for the only Watchful, Faithful, Infal­lible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions; when here this very Traditi­on, which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church, you have utterly lost it, so that there is no foot­step or print of it remaining, which with Divine Faith we may rely up­on. Blessed therefore be the goodness of God, who, seeing that what was not written, was in such danger to be lost, took order, that what was necessary should be written! Saint Chrysostom's counsel therefore, of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief, we are willing to obey: And, if you can of any thing make it appear, that it is Tradition, we will seek no farther. But this we say withall, that we are perswaded you cannot make this appear in any thing, but only the Canon of Scri­pture; and that there is nothing now extant, and to be known by us, which can put in so good plea, to be the unwritten Word of God, as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture, to be the written Word of God.

47. You conclude this Paragraph with a sentence of S. Austins, who says, The Church doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do, these things which are against Faith or good life: and from hence you conclude, That it ne­ver hath done so, nor ever can do so. But though the argument hold in Lo­gick à non posse, ad non esse, yet I never heard, that it would hold back, à non esse, ad non posse. The Church cannot do this, therefore it does not, follows with good consequence: but The Church doth not this, therefore it shall never do it, nor can never do it, this, I believe, will hardly follow. In the Epistle next before to the same Januarius, writing of the same mat­ter, he hath these words, It remains, that the thing you enquire of, must be of that third kind of things, which are different in divers places. Let every one therefore do, that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes; for none of them is against Faith or good manners. And why do you not infer from hence, that no particular Church can bring up any Custom that is against Faith or good manners? Certainly this Consequence hath as good reason for it as the former. If a man say of the Church of England, (what S. Austin of the Church) that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor doth any thing against Faith or good manners, would you collect presently, that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible? Further­more, it is observable out of this, and the former Epistle, that this Church, which did not (as S. Austin, according to you, thought) approve or dis­semble, or do any thing against faith or good life, did yet tolerate and dis­semble vain superstitions, and humane presumptions, and suffer all places to be full of them, and to be exacted, as, nay more severely than, the Com­mandments of God himself. This Saint Austin himself professeth [Page 139]in this very Epistle. This (saith he) I do infinitely grieve at, that many most wholsom precepts of the divine Scripture, are little regarded; and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions, that he is more grievously found fault with, who during his octaves, toucheth the earth with his naked fooot, then he that shall bury his soul in drunkenness. Of these he sayes, That they were neither contained in Scripture, decreed by Councels, nor corrobora­ted by the Custom of the Universal Church. And though not against Faith, yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty, which made the condition of the Jews more tolerable then that of Christians. And therefore he professeth of them, Approbare non possum, I cannot approve them. And, Ubi facultas tri­buitur, resecanda existimo; I think they are to be cut off, wheresoever we have power. Yet so deeply were they rooted, and spread so far, through the in­discreet devotion of the people, alwayes more prone to superstition than true piety, and through the connivence of the Governors, who should have strangled them at their birth, that himself, though he grieved at them, and could not allow them, yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them, Multa hujusmodi, propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulenta­rum personarum scandala devitanda, liberius improbare non audeo. Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, I dare not freely disallow. Nay, the Catholique Church it self, did see and dissemble, and tolerate them; for these are the things of which he presently says after, The Church of God (and you will have him speak of the true Catholique Church) placed between Chaff and Tares, tolerates ma­ny things. Which was directly against the command of the holy Spirit, given the Church by S. Paul, To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free, and not to suffer her self to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens. Our Saviour tels the Scribes and Pharisees, That in vain they worshipped God, teaching for Doctrines mens Commandments: For that laying aside the Commandments of God, they held the Traditions of men, as the washing of pots, and cups, and many other such like things. Certainly, that which S. Austin complains of, as the general fault of Christians of his time, was parallel to this: Multa (saith he) quae in divinis libris saluberri­mè praecepta sunt, minus curantur; This, I suppose, I may very well ren­der in our Saviour's words, The Commandments of God are laid aside; And then, Tam multis praesumptionibus sic pleana sunt omnia, All things, or all pla­ces, are so full of so many presumptions, and those exacted with such severity, nay with Tyranny, that he was more severly censured, who in the time of his Octaves touched the earth with his naked feet, than he which drowned and bu­ried his soul in drink. Certainly, if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandments, I know not what is. And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said to worship God in vain, as well as the Scribes and Pharises. And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind, were then al­ready spread over the Church, being different in divers places. This is plain from these words of S. Austin concerning them, Diversorum locorum diver­sis moribus innumerabiliter variàntur; and apparent, because the stream of them was grown so violent, that he durst not oppose it, Liberiùs improbare non audeo, I dare not freely speak against them. So that to say, the Catholique Church tolerated all this, and for fear of offence, durst not abrogate or con­demn it, is to say (if we judge rightly of it) that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain. Now [Page 140]how this tolerating of Universal superstition in the Church, can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent Spirit to guard it from superstition, and with the accomplishment of that pretended Prophecy of the Church, I have set Watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night; Besides, how these Superstitions being thus nourished, cherished, and strengthened by the practice of the most, and urged with great violence upon others as the Commandments of God, and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any, might in time take such deep root, and spread their branches so far, as to pass for Universal Customs of the Church, he that does not see, sees nothing. Especially, considering the catching and contagious nature of this sin, and how fast ill weeds spread, and how true and experimented that Rule is of the Histo­rian, Exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt, sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. Nay, that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austin's time, prevailed so far, as to be Consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum, Who can doubt that con­siders, that the practice of Communicating Infants, had even then got the credit and authority, not only of an universal Custom, but also of an A­postolique Tradition.

48. But (you will say) notwithstanding all this, S. Austin here warrants us, that the Church can never either approve, or dissemble, or practise any thing against Faith or good life, and so long you may rest securely upon it. Yea, but the same S. Austin tels us in the same place, That the Church may tole­rate humane presumptions, and vain superstitions, and those urged more se­verely than the Commandments of God: And whether superstition be a sin or no, I appeal to our Saviour's words before cited, and to the consent of your Schoolmen. Besides, if we consider it rightly, we shall find, that the Church is not truly said only to tolerate these things, but rather, that a part, and far the lesser, tolerated and dissembled them in silence, and a part and a far greater, publiquely avowed and practised them, and urged them upon others with great violence, and yet continued still a part of the Church. Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church, and yet do so, as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it, and yet do so, I desire you to inform me.

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

50. Ad §. 17. That Abraham begat Isaac, is a point very far from being Fundamental; and yet, I hope, you will grant, that Protestants believing Scripture to be the Word of God, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say that the Catholique Church, and much more themselves may possibly err in some unfundamental points, is it there­fore consequent, they can be certain of none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle, may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive my [Page 141]certain that I understand him in some plain places, which carry their sense before them? And then for Points Fundamental, to what purpose do you say, That we must first know what they be, before we can be assured that we cannot err in understanding the Scriptures; when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty, that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether Fundamental or not Fundamental: That God is, and is a Rewarder of them that seek him: That there is no salvation but by faith in Christ: That by Repentance from dead works, and Faith in Christ, Remission of sins may be obtained: That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body? These we con­ceive both true, because the Scripture says so, and Truths Fundamental, be­cause they are necessary parts of the Gospel, whereof our Saviour says Qui non crediderit, damnabitur. All which we either learn from Scripture immediately, or learn of those that learn it of Scripture; so that neither Learned nor Unlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture. And therefore in imputing this to us, you cannot excuse your self from having done us a palpable injury.

51. Ad §. 18. And I urge you as mainly as you urge D. Potter and other Protestants, that you tell us that all the Traditions, and all the Definitions of the Church are Fundamental points, and we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such Traditions and Definitions, without which, no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental, and be capable of Salvation; (For, I hope, erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusive of Salvation than erring in yours.) And, which is most lamentable, instead of giving us such a Catalogue, you also fall to wrangle among your selves about the making of it; Some of you, as I have said above, holding some things to be matters of Faith, which others deny to be so.

52. Ad §. 19. I answer, That these differences between Protestants concerning Errors damnable and not damnable, Truths fundamental and not-fundamental, may be easily reconciled. For either the Errour they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary, or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary. If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault, the Error is it self sinful, and consequently in its own nature dam­nable; As, if by negligence in seeking the Truth, by unwillingness to find it, by pride, by obstinacy, by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends, by fear of mens ill opinion, or any other wordly fear, or any other wordly hope, I betray my self to any error contrary to any divine revealed Truth, that Error may be justly styled a sin, and con­sequently of it self to such a one damnable. But if I be guilty of none of these faults, but be desirous to know the Truth, and diligent in seeking it, and advise not at all with flesh and blood about the choice of my opini­ons, but only with God, and that Reason that he hath given me, if I be thus qualified, and yet through humane infirmity fall into error, that er­ror cannot be damnable. Again, the party erring may be conceived either to die with contrition for all his sins known and unknown, or without it; If he die without it, this errour, in it self damnable, will be likewise so un­to him: If he die with contrition (as his error can be no impediment but he may) his errour though in it self damnable, to him, according to your doctrine, will not prove so. And therefore some of those Authors whom you quote, speaking of Errors whereunto men were betrayed, or [Page 142]wherein they were kept by their Fault, or Vice, or Passion, (as for the most part men are:) Others speaking of them, as errors simply and purely invo­luntary, and the effects of humane infirmity: some, as they were retracted by Contrition (to use your own phrase); others, as they were not; no mar­vel though they have past upon them, some a heavier, and some a milder, some an absolving, and some a condemning sentence. The least of all these errours, which here you mention, having malice enough too fre­quently mixed with it, to sink a man deep enough into hell: and the great­est of them all, being according to your Principles, either no fault at all, or very Venial, where there is no malice of the will conjoyned with it. And if it be, yet, as the most malignant poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerful Antidote: so, I am confident, your own Doctrin will force you to confess, that whosoever dies with Faith in Christ, and Contrition for all sins known and unknown (in which heap all his sinful errors must be comprized) can no more be hurt by any the most malig­nant and pestilent error, than S. Paul by the Viper which he shook off in­to the fire. Now touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works, and Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the World, they all agree; and therefore you cannot deny, but they agree about all that is simply neces­sary. Moreover, though, if they should go about to chuse out of Scripture all these Propositions and Doctrines which integrate and make up the bo­dy of Christian Religion, peradventure there would not be so an exact agreement amongst them, as some say there was between the 70. Inter­preters, in translating the Old Testament; yet thus far without controversie they do all agree, that in the Bible all these things are contained, and therefore, that whosoever doth truly and sincerely believe the Scripture, must of necessity, either in hypothesi, or at least in thesi, either formally, or at least virtually, either explicitely, or at least implicitely, either in Act, or at least in preparation of mind, believe all things Fundamental: It being not-Fundamental, nor required of Almighty God, to believe the true sense of Scripture in all places, but only that we should endeavour to do so, and be prepared in mind to do so, whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us. Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consist­ing of twenty ingredients, and he, advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it, some of them telling him, that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary; some, that only some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse; lastly, some, that some only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest super­fluous, yet not hurtful; yet all with one accord agreeing in this, That the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health, and that, if he made use of it, he should infallibly find it successful: what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the reco­very of his health? Just so, these Protestant Doctors, with whose discords you make such Tragedies, agreeing in Thesi thus far, That the Scripture evidently conteins all things necessary to Salvation, both for matter of Faith, and of Practice, and that whosoever believes it, and endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to conform his life unto it, shall certainly perform all things necessary to Salvation, and undoubtedly be saved; agreeing, I say thus far, What matters it for the direction of men to Salvation, though they differ in opinion, touching what points are absolutely necessary, [Page 143]and what not? What Errors absolutely repugnant to Salvation, and what not? Especially considering that although they differ about the Question of the necessity of these Truths, yet for the most part they agree in this, that Truths they are, and profitable at least, though not simply necessary. And though they differ in the Question, Whether the contrary Errors be destructive of Salvation, or no: yet in this they consent, that Errors they are, and hurtful to Religion, though not destructive of Salvation. Now that which God requires of us, is this, That we should believe the Doctrins of the Gospel to be Truths, not all necessary Truths, for all are not so; and consequently; the repugnant Errors to be falshoods: yet not all such falshoods, as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them; for all do not so.

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

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

I said, of the truth of this Assertion, if it be true: Because I will not here enter into the Question of the truth of it, it being sufficient for my present purpose, that it may be true, and may be believed without any depen­dance upon a Catalogue of Fundamentals. And therefore, if this be all your reason, to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals, we can­not but think your demand unreasonable. Especially having your self ex­pressed the cause of the difficulty of it, and that is, Because Scripture doth de­liver Divine Truths, but seldom qualifies them, or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation. Yet not so seldom, but that out of it I could give you an abstract of the Essential parts of Christianity, if it were necessary, but I have shewed it not so, by confuting your reason, pre­tended for the necessity of it, and at this time I have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so troublesom to my self. Yet thus much I will promise, that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church-Proposals with one hand, you shall receive a particular Catalogue of what I conceive Fun­damental, with the other. For as yet, I see no such fair proceeding as you talk of, nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorous­ly you require on ours. For, as for the Catalogue which here you have given us, in saying, You are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatso­ever the Catholike visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Al­mighty God, it is like a covey of one Partridge, or a flock of one Sheep, or a Fleet composed of one Ship, or an Army of one man. The Author of Cha­rity mistaken, demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points; And [Page 144] We (say you) again and again demand such a Catalogue. And surely, If this one Proposition, which here you think to stop our mouths with, be a Cata­logue, yet at least such a Catalogue it is not, and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require. For, if to set down such a Proposition, wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation, will serve you instead of a Catalogue, you shall have Catalogues enough. As, we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God com­mands us to believe. There's one Catalogue. We are obliged under Pain of damnation, to believe all, whereof we may be sufficiently assured, that Christ taught it his Apostles, his Apostles the Church. There's another. We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word, and all con­tained in it to be true. There's a third. If these generalities will not satisfie you, but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular, what those Doctrins are which Christ taught his Apostles, and his Apostles the Church, what points are contained in Gods Word; Then I beseech you do us reason, and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church-proposals, without leaving out, or adding any, such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to, and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fun­damentals, I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Bankrupts.

54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue (as you call it) another main fault we find with it, that it is extreamly ambiguous; and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds, give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it. I would know therefore, whether by Be­lieving, you mean explicitely or implicitely? If you mean implicitely, I would know, Whether your Churches Infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely, or no? Whether any other point or points be­sides this, be under the same penalty, to be believed explicitely, or no? and if any, what they be? I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholike visible Church? In particular, whether the Decree of the Pope ex Cathedra, that is, with an intent to oblige all Christians by it, be a sufficient and an obliging Proposal? Whether men without danger of Damnation may examin such a Decree, and, if they think they have just cause, refuse to obey it? Whether the Decree of a Councel, without the Pope's Confir­mation, be such an obliging Proposal, or no? Whether it be so in case there be no Pope, or in case it be doubtful who is Pope? Whether the Decree of a general Councel confirmed by the Pope, be such a Proposal, and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise? Whether the Decree of a par­ticular Councel confirmed by the Pope, be such a Proposal? Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition? Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age, agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrin, not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries, be a sufficient Proposition? Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrin, or practice to be Tradition, or to be the Doctrin or practice of the Church, be a sufficient assurance that it is so? Whether we be bound under pain of damnation, to believe every Text of the vulgar Bible, now authorized by the Roman Church, to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets, and Evangelists, and Apostles, without any the least alteration? Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that? And if not of that, of what Bible they were bound to believe [Page 145]it? Whether the Catholike visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome? Whether every Christian, that hath ability and opportunity, be not bound to endevour to know ex­plicitely the Proposals of the Church? Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity, will not save him that actually and explicitely disbelieves some Doctrin of the Church, not knowing it to be so; and actually believes some damnable Heresie, as that God hath the shape of a man? Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church, when his Priest or ghostly Father assures him it is so? Whether his ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so, and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation, to believe an Errour? Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined, when a number of Priests, perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so? And what assurance he can have, that they neither erre, nor deceive him, in this matter? Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite faith in the Church? Whether when you say, Whatsoever the Church proposeth, you mean all that ever she proposed, or that only which she now proposeth; and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose? Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so, and proposed as such by the Apostles? And if not, from whom the Church had this Declaration afterward? If so, whether all men ever since the Apostles time, were bound under pain of damnation to be­lieve the Epistle of S. James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, to be Cano­nical; at least, not to disbelieve it, and believe the contrary? Lastly, why it is not sufficient for any mans Salvation to use the best means he can to in­form his conscience, and to follow the direction of it? To all these de­mands when you have given fair and ingenuous Answers, you shall hear farther from me.

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

[Page 146] 56. Yea, but you may say, (for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments) That this Church thus unerring in Fundamentals, when Luther arose, was by our confession the Roman; and therefore we ought not in wisdome to have departed from it in any thing. I answer, First, that we confess no such thing, that the Church of Rome was then this Church, but only a Part of it, and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible. Secondly, that if by ad­hering to that Church, we could have been thus far secured, this Argument had some shew of reason. But seeing we are not warranted thus much by any priviledge of that Church, that She cannot erre fundamentally, but only from Scripture, which assures us that she doth erre very haynously, we collect our hope, that the Truths she retains and the practice of them, may prove an Antidote to her against the Errors which she maintains in such Persons, as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalom; we should then do against the light of our conscience, and so sin damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errors though not Fundamental. Neither can we thus conclude, We may safely hold with the Church of Rome in all her Points, for she cannot erre damnably; For this is fals, she may, though per­haps she doth not: But rather thus; These Points of Christianity, which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sinnes and er­rors, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains; therefore we hope she errs not Fundamentally, but still remains a Part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she errs not Funda­mentally, assures us that in many things, and those of great moment, she errs very grievously. And these Errors though to them that believe them, we hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of them against consci­ence, could not but bring to us certain Damnation. As for the fear of depar­ting from some Fundamental truths withall, while we depart from her errors, Haply it might work upon us, if adhearing to her might secure us from it, and if nothing else could: But both these are false. For first, adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals: Because though de facto we hope she doth not erre, yet we know no priviledges she hath but she may erre in them her selfe: and therefore we had need have better security hereof than her bare Authority. Then secondly, without depen­dance on her at all, we may be secured that we do not erre Fundamentally; I mean by believing all things plainly set down in Scripture, wherin all necessary, and most things profitable, are plainly delivered. Suppose I were travelling to London, and knew two wayes thither, the one very safe and convenient, the other very inconvenient, and dangerous, but yet a way to London: and that I overtook a Passenger on the way, who himself believed, and would fain perswade me, there was no other way but the worse, and would perswade me to accompany him in it, because I confessed his way, though very inconvenient, and very dangerous, yet a way; so that going that way we might come to our journies end by the consent of both parties: but he believed my way to be none at all; and therefore I might justly fear, lest out of a desire of leaving the worst way, I left the true and the only way: If now I should not be more secure upon my own knowledge, than frighted by this fallacy, would you not beg me for a fool? Just so might you think of us, if we would be frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbear. For the only and the main reason why we believe you not to erre [Page 147]in Fundamentals, is your holding the Doctrins of Faith in Christ and Re­pentance: which knowing we hold as well as you, notwithstanding our de­parture from you, we must needs know that we do not erre in Fun­damentals, as well as we know that you in some sort do not erre in Funda­mentals, and therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary. Yet let us be more liberal to you, and grant that which can never be proved, that God had said in plain terms, The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foun­dation, but withall had said, that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it; That you should never hold any Errour destructive of salvation, but yet many that were prejudicial to Edification: I demand, Might we have dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errors in regard of the smalness of them? Or, had it not been a damnable sin to do so, though the Errors in themselves were not damnable? Had we not had as plain direction to depart from you in some things profitable, as to adhere to you in things necessary? In the beginning of your Book, when it was for your purpose to have it so, the greatness or smalness of the matter was not considerable, the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all. But here we must erre with you in small things, for fear of losing your direction in greater: and for fear of departing too far from you, not go from you at all, even where we see plainly that you have departed from the Truth.

57. Beyond all this, I say, that this which you say in wisdom we are to do, is not only unlawful, but if we will proceed according to reason, impossible. I mean to adhere to you in all things, having no other ground for it, but be­cause you are (as we will now suppose) infallible in some things, that is, in Fundamentals. For whether by skill in Architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow foundation, I know not; but sure I am, in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is foun­ded. And therefore if I consider what I do, and be perswaded that your In­fallibility is but limited, and particular, and partiall, my adherence upon this ground cannot possibly be absolute, and Universal, and Total. I am confident, that should I meet with such a man amongst you (as I am well assured there be many) that would grant your Church infallible only in Fundamentals, which what they are he knows not, and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things; I say that I am confident, that it may be demonstrated, that such a man adheres to you, with a fiducial and certain assent in nothing. To make this clear (because at the first hearing it may seem strange) give me leave, good Sir, to suppose you the man, and to propose to you a few questions, and to give for you such answers to them, as upon this ground you must of necessity give, were you present with me. First, supposing you hold your Church infallible in Fundamentals, obnoxi­ous to errour in other things, and that you know not what Points are Fun­damental, I demand, C. Why do you believe the Doctrin of Transubstanti­ation? K. Because the Church hath taught it, which is infallible. C. What? Infallible in all things, or only in Fundamentals? K. In Fundamentals only. C. Then in other pointsshe may erre? K. She may. C. And do you know what Points are Fundamental, what not? K. No, and therefore I believe her in all things, lest I should disbelieve her in Fundamentals. C. How know you then, whether this be a Fundamental Point or no? K. I know not. C. It may be then (for ought you know) an unfundamental Point? K. Yes, it may be so. C. And in these, you said, the Church may err? K. Yes, I did [Page 148]so. C. Then possibly it may erre in this? K. It may do so. C. Then what certainty have you that it does not erre in it? K. None at all, but upon this supposition, that this is a Fundamental. C. And this supposition you are uncertain of? K. Yes, I told you so before. C. And therefore you can have no certainty of that which depends upon this uncertainty, saving only a suppositive certainty, if it be a Fundamental truth; which is in plain English to say, you are certain it is true, if it be both true and necessary. Verily Sir, if you have no better Faith than this, you are no Catholique. K. Good words I pray! I am so, and God willing will be so. C. You mean in outward profession and practise, but in belief you are not, no more than a Protestant is a Catholique. For every Protestant yeelds such a kinde of assent to all the proposals of the Church, for surely they believe them true, if they be Fundamental truths. And therefore you must either believe the Church Infallible in all her proposals, be they foundations, or be they su­perstructions; or you must believe all Fundamental which she proposes, or else you are no Catholique. K. But I have been taught, that seeing I be­lieved the Church infallible in points necessary, in wisdom I was to believe her in every thing. C. That was a pretty plausible inducement, to bring you hither; but now you are here, you must go farther, and believe her infallible in all things, or else you were as good go back again, which will be a great disparagement to you, and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our Part, and even, with your own, the imputation of rashness and levity. You see, I hope by this time, that though a man did believe your Church infallible in Fundamentals, yet he hath no reason to do you the cur­tesie of believing all her Proposals; nay, if he be ignorant what these Fun­damentals are, he hath no certain ground to believe her, upon her Authori­ty, in any thing. And whereas you say, it can be no imprudence, to erre with the Church; I say, it may be very great imprudence, if the question be, Whether we should erre with the present Church, or hold true with God Almighty.

58. But we are, under pain of damnation, to believe and obey h [...] in greater things, and therefore cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in m [...]rs of less moment. Answ. I have told you already, that this is falsly to suppose, that we grant that in some certain points, some certain Church is infallibly assist­ed, and under pain of damnation to be obeyed: whereas all that we say is this, that in some place or other, some Church there shall be, which shall retain all necessary Truths. Yet if your supposition were true, I would not grant your Conclusion, but with this Exception, unless the matter were past suspition, and apparently certain, that in these things I cannot believe God, [...]nd believe the Church. For then I hope you will grant, that be the thing of never so little moment, were it, for instance, but that S. Paul left his cloak at Troas, yet I were not to gratifie the Church so far, as for her sake to dis­believe what God himself hath revealed.

59 Whereas you say, Since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe her in Fundamentals, and cannot know precisely, what those Fundamentals be, we can­not without hazard of our souls leave her in any Point; I answer, First, that this argument proceeds upon the same false ground with the former. And then, that I have told you formerly, that you feare where no fear is; And though we know not precisely, just how much is Fundamental, yet we know, that the Scripture containes all Fundamentals, and more too; and therefore [Page 149]that in believing that, we believe all Fundamentals and more too. And consequently, in departing from you, can be in no danger of departing from that which may prove a Fundamental Truth: For we are wel assured that certain Errors can never prove Fundamental Truths.

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

61. And for the Visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to Salvation, that we believe she cannot erre, I know no such tenet; unless by the Church, you mean the Roman Church, which you have as much reason to do, as that petty King in Africk hath, to think himself King of all the world. And there­fore your telling us, If she speak true, what danger is it, not to believe her? and if false, that it is not dangerous to believe her, is somewhat like your Pope's setting your Lawyers to dispute whether Constantine's Donation were valid or no; whereas the matter of fact was the far greater question, whether there were any such Donation, or rather when without question there was none such. That you may not seem to delude us in like maner, make it appear that the visible Church doth hold so as you pretend: and then whether it be true or false, we will consider afterwards. But for the present, with this in­visible Tenet of the visible Church, we will trouble our selves no far­ther.

62. The effect of the next Argument is this, I cannot without grievous sin disobey the Church, unless I know she commands those things which are not in her power to command: and how far this power extends, none can better in­form me then the Church. Therefore I am to obey, so far as the Church requires my obedience. I answer: First, that neither hath the Catholique Church, but only a corrupt part of it, declared her self, nor required our obedience, in the Points contested among us. This therefore is falsly, and vainly supposed here by you, being one of the greatest Questions amongst us. Then secondly, that God can better inform us, what are the limits of the Churches power, than the Church her self, that is, than the Roman Clergy, who being men subject to the same passions with other men, why they should be thought the best Iudges in their owne cause, I do not well understand! But yet we oppose against them, no humane decisive Judges, not any Sect or Per­son, but only God and his Word. And therefore it is in vain to say, That in following her, you shall be sooner excused, than in following any Sect or Man applying Scriptures against her Doctrin: In as much as we never went about to arrogate to our selves that Infallibility or absolute Authority, which we take away from you. But if you would have spoken to the [Page 150]purpose, you should have said, that in following her you should sooner have been excused, then in cleaving to the Scripture, and to God himself.

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

64. But, Not only others, but even Protestants themselves, whese example ought most to move us, pretending to reform the Church, are come to affirm that she perished for many ages: which D. Potter cannot deny to be a Funda­mental errour, against the Article of the Creed, I believe the Catholique Church, seeing be affirms, Donatists erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa. To this I answer, First, that the error of the Donatists was not, that they held it possible that some, or many, or most, parts of Christendome, might fall away from Christianity, and that the Church may lose much of her amplitude, and be contracted to a narrow compass in comparison of her former extent: which is proved not only possible, but certain, by irre­fragable experience. For who knows not that Gentilism, and Mahume­tism, mans wickedness deserving it, and Gods providence permitting it, have prevailed, to the utter extirpation of Christianity, upon far the greater part of the world? And S. Austin when he was out of the heat of Disputation, confesses the Militant Church to be like the Moon, sometimes increasing, and sometimes decreasing. This therefore was no errour in the [Page 151] Donatists, that they held it possible, that the Church, from a large extent, might be contracted to a lesser: nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa; (For why not to Africk then, as well as within these few Ages, you pretend it was to Europe?) But their error was, that they held de facto, this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so: and so, upon a vain pretence which they could not justifie, separated themselves from the communion of all other parts of the Church: and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church, that he should be of their communion, and divide himself from all other Communions from which they were divided: which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawful to be required, and therefore the exacting of it was directly oppo­site to the Churches Catholicism; in the very same nature with their Er­rors who required Circumcision, and the keeping of the Law of Moses, as necessary to salvation. For whosoever requires harder or heavyer conditions of men, than God requires of them, he it is that is properly an Enemy of the Churches Universality, by hindering either Men or Countries from ad­joyning themselves to it; which, were it not for these unnecessary and there­fore unlawful conditions, in probability would have made them members of it. And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good (for any hope of salvation they have) not be Christians, as not be Romane Catholiques; believe nothing at all, as not believe all which she imposes upon them; be absolutely out of the Churches Communion, as be out of her Communion, or be in any other, Whether she be not guilty of the same crime, with the Donatists and those Zelots of the Mosaical Law, I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason! This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument. But I adde moreover, that you neither have named those Protestants who held the Church to have perished for many Ages, who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the Church; not that the true Church, but that the pure Church perished: or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence, but from its purity and integrity, or perhaps from its splendor and visibility: Nei­ther have you proved by any one reason, but only affirmed it, to be a Fundamental Error, to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world, and abolished for a time from the face of the earth.

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

66. Ad §. 21. D. Potter saies, We may not depart from the Church abso­lutely, and in all things: and from hence you conclude, Therefore we may not depart from it; in any thing. And this Argument you call a Demon­stration. But, a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration. D. Potter says not, that you may not depart from any opinion or any practice of the Church: for you tell us in this very place, that he sayes, even the Catholique may err: and every man may lawfully depart from Error. He only says, You may not [Page 152]cease to be of the Church, nor depart from those things which make it so to be; and from hence you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing. Just as if you should argue thus: You may not leave your friend or brother, therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend, or the Errour of your brother. What he sayes of the Catholique Church, p. 75. the same he extends pre­sently after, to every true, though never so corrupted, part of it. And why do you not conclude from hence, that no particular Church (according to his judgment) can fall into any Error, and call this a Demonstration too? For, as he sayes, p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ, no more than from Christ himself; So p. 76. he tels you, That whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body, forsakes the whole. So that what he sayes of the one, he sayes of the other; and tels you, that neither Universal nor particular Church, so long as they continue so, may be forsaken; he means, Absolutely, no more than Christ himself may be forsaken absolutely: For the Church is the body of Christ, and whoso­ever forsakes either the body, or his coherence to any one part of it, must forsake his subordination, and relation to the Head. Therefore who­soever forsakes the Church, or any Christian, must forsake Christ himself.

67. But then he tels you plainly in the same place, That it may be lawful and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrins and Practi­ces: And this he would have said even of the Catholike Church, if there had been occasion, but there was none. For there he was to declare and justifie our departure, not from the Catholike Church, but the Roman; which we maintain to be a particular Church. But in other places, you con­fess his Doctrin to be, that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not Fundamental; which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself. And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words, as if he had said, We may not forsake the Church in any thing, no more than Christ himself: but only thus, We may not cease to be of the Church, nor forsake it absolutely and totally, no more than Christ himself. And thus we see sometimes, A mountain may travel, and the production may be a mouse.

68. Ad §. 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himself, or else must grant the Church infallible; Because, he saies, if we did not differ from the Roman, we could not agree with the Catholique: which saying supposes, the Catholique Church cannot erre. Answer. This Argument, to give it the right name, is an obscure and intricate Nothing. And to make it appear so, let us suppose, in contradiction to your supposition, either that the Catholique Church may erre, but doth not, but that the Roman actually doth: or, that the Ca­tholique Church doth erre in some few things, but that the Roman erres in many more. And is it not apparent in both these cases, (which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility) a man may truly say, Unless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church, I cannot agree with the Catholique? Either therefore you must retract you imputation laid upon D. Potter, or do that which you condemn in him, and be driven to say, that the same man may hold some errors with the Church of Rome, and at the same time with the Catholique Church not to hold but condemn them. For otherwise, in nei­ther of these cases is it possible for the same man, at the same time, to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique.

69. In all these Texts of Scripture, which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter, or in any one of them, or in any other, Doth God say [Page 153]clearly and plainly, The Bishop of Rome, and that Society of Christians which adheres to him, shall be ever the infallible guide of Faith? You will con­fess, I presume, he doth not; and will pretend, it was not necessary. Yet if the King should tell us, the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes; but should either not tell us at all, or tell us but doubtfully, who should be Lord-Keeper, should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions? Nay rather, would not the dissentions about the Per­son who it is, increase contentions, rather than end them? Just so it would have been, if God had appointed a Church to be Judge of Controversies, and had not told us which was that Church. Seeing therefore God doth no­thing in vain, and seeing it had been in vain, to appoint a Judge of Con­troversies, and not to tell us plainly who it is; and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly, no not at all who it is; Is it not evident he hath appointed none? Obj. But (you will say perhaps) if it be granted once, that some Church of one denomination, is the infallible Guide of Faith, it will be no difficult thing to prove, that yours is the Church, seeing no other Church pre­tends to be so. Answ. Yes, the Primitive and the Apostolique Church pre­tends to be so. That assures us, that the Spirit was promised, and given to them, to lead them into all saving truth, that they might lead others. Obj. But that Church is not now in the world, and how then can it pretend to be the Guide of Faith? Answ. It is now in the world sufficiently to be our Guide; not by the Persons of those men that were Members of it, but by their Writings, which do plainly teach us, what truth they were led into, and so lead us into the same truth. Object. But these writings, were the writings of some particular men; and not of the Church of those times: how then doth that Church guide us by these writings? Now these places shew that a Church is to be our Guide, therefore they cannot be so avoided. Answ. If you regard the conception and production of these writings, they were the writings of particular men: But if you regard the Reception and Approbation of them, they may be well called the writings of the Church, as having the attestation of the Church, to have been written by those that were inspired and directed by God. As a Statute, though penned by some one man, yet being ratified by the Parliament, is called the Act, not of that man, but of the Parliament. Object. But the words seem clearly enough to prove, that the Church, the Present Church of every Age, is Universally Infallable. Ans. For my part, I know I am as willing and desirous, that the Bishop or Church of Rome should be infallible, (provided I might know it) as they are to be so esteemed. But he that would not be deceived must take heed, that he take not his desire that a thing should be so, for a reason that it is so. For, if you look upon Scripture, through such spectacles as these, they will appear to you, of what colour pleases your fancies best: and will seem to say, not what they do say, but what you would have them. As some say, the Manna, wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wilderness, had in every mans mouth, that very tast which was most agreeable to his palate. For my part I profess, I have considered them a thousand times, and have looked upon them (as they say) on both sides, and yet to me they seem to say no such matter.

70. Not the first. For the Church may err, and yet the gates of hell not prevail against her. It may err, and yet continue still a true Church, and bring forth Children unto God, and send souls to Heaven. And therefore [Page 154]this can do you no service, without the plain begging of the point in Que­stion, viz. That every error is one of the gates of Hell. Which we abso­lutely deny, and therefore, you are not to suppose, but to prove it. Nei­ther is our denial without reason. For seeing you do, and must grant, that a particular Church, may hold some error, and yet be still a true Mem­ber of the Church: Why may not the Universal Church hold the same error, and yet remain the true Universal?

71. Not the Second or Third. For, the Spirit of Truth, may be with a Man, or a Church for ever, and teach him all Truth: And yet he may fall in­to some error, if this all, be not simply all, but all of some kind: which you confess to be so unquestioned and certain, that you are offended with D. Potter, for offering to prove it. Secondly, he may fall into some error, even contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficient­ly, and not irresistibly, so that he may learn it if he will, not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now, who can ascertain me, that Spi­rit's teaching is not of this nature; or, how can you possibly reconcile it, with your Doctrin of Freewill in believing, if it be not of this nature? Be­sides, the word in the Original is [...], which signifies, to be a guide and directer only, not to compel or necessitate. Who knows not, that a Guide may set you in the right way, and you may either negligently mistake, or willingly leave it? And to what purpose doth God complain so often, and so earnestly of some, that had eyes to see and would not see, that stopped their ears, and closed their eyes, lest they should hear and see? Of others that would not understand, lest they should do good: That the light shined, and the darkness comprehended it not: That he came unto his own, and his own re­ceived him not: That light came into the world, and men loved darkness more than light? To what purpose should he wonder, so few believed his report, and that to so few his Arm was revealed: And that when he comes, he should no find no Faith upon Earth, if his outward teaching were not of this nature, that it might be followed, and might be re­sisted. And if it be, then God may teach, and the Church not learn: God may lead, and the Church be refractory and not follow. And indeed, who can doubt, that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice, that God hath taught the Church of Rome, plain enough in the Epistle to the Corinthians, that all things in the Church are to be done for edification; and that in any publique Prayers, or Thanks-givings, or Hymns, or Les­sons of Instruction, to use a language, which the assistants gen [...]rally under­stand not, is not for edification? Though the Church of Rome will not learn this, for fear of confessing an error, and so overthrowing her Autho­rity; yet the time will come, when it shall appear, that not only by Scri­pture, they were taught this sufficiently, and commanded to believe it, but by reason and common sense. And so for the Communion in both kinds, who can deny but they are taught it by our Saviour, Joh. 6. in these words, according to most of your own expositions, Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you. (If our Saviour speak there, of the Sacrament, as to them he doth, because they conceive he doth so.) For though they may pretend, that receiving in one kind, they receive the blood together with the body, yet they can with no face pretend that they drink it: And so obey not our Saviour's injunction ac­cording to the letter, which yet they profess, is literally alwayes to be obeyed, [Page 155]unless some impiety, or some absurdity force us to the contrary: and they are not yet arrived to that impudence, to pretend, that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the Communion in both kinds. This therefore, they, if not others, are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place: But by S. Paul all without exception, when he says; Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this Chalice. This (a Man) that is to examine himself, is every man, that can do it: as is confessed on all hands. And therefore it is all one, as if he had said, Let every man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. They which acknowledge S. Paul's Epistles, and S. John's Gospel, to be the Word of God, one would think should not deny, but that they are taught these two Doctrines plain enough. Yet we see they neither do, nor will learn them. I conclude therefore, that the Spirit may very well teach the Church, and yet the Church fall into and continue in Error, by not regarding what she is taught by the Spirit.

72. But all this I have spoken upon a supposition only, and shewed un­to you, that though these Promises had been made unto the present Church of every Age (I might have said though they had been to the Church of Rome by name) yet no certainty of her Universal Infallibility could be built upon them. But the plain truth is, that these Promises are vainly ar­rogated by you, and were never made to you, but to the Apostles only. I pray deal ingenuously, and tell me, Who were they of whom our Savi­our says, These things have I spoken unto you being present with you, c. 14.25. But the Comforter shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have told you, v. 26? Who are they to whom he sayes, I go away and come again unto you; And I have told you before it come to pass, v. 28, 29. You have been with me from the beginning, c. 15. v. 27? And again; These things I have told you, that when the time shall come you may remember that I told you of them: and these things I said not to you at the beginning, because I was with you, c. 16. v. 4. And, Because I said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts, v. 6. Lastly, Who are they of whom he saith, v. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? Do not all these circumstances appropriate this whole dis­course of our Saviour to his Disciples, that were then with him, and, con­sequently, restrain the Promises of the Spirit of Truth, which was to lead them into all truth, to their Persons only? And seeing it is so, is it not an impertinent arrogance and presumption, for you to lay claim unto them, in the behalf of your Church? Had Christ been present with your Church? Did the Comforter bring these things to the Remembrance of your Church, which Christ had before taught, and she had forgotten? Was Christ then departing from your Church? And did he tell of his departure before it came to pass? Was your Church with him from the beginning? Was your Church filled with sorrow, upon the mentioning of Christ's de­parture? Or lastly, Did he, or could he have said to your Church, which then was not extant, I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? as he speaks in the 13 v. immediately before the words by you quoted. And then goes on, Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth. Is it not the same You he speaks to in the 13. v. and that he speaks to in the 14? And is it not apparent to any one that hath but half an eye, that in the 13▪ he speaks only to them that then [Page 156]were with him? Besides, in the very Text by you alledged, there are things promised, which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to. For there it is said, The Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth, but also will shew you things to come. Now your Church (for ought I could ever understand) doth not so much as pretend to the spirit of Prophecy, and knowledge of future events: And therefore hath as little cause to pre­tend to the former promise of being led by the Spirit into all Truth. And this is the Reason, why both You in this place, and generally, your Wri­ters of Controversies, when they entreat of this Argument, cite this Text perpetually by halfs; there being in the latter part of it, a clear, and con­vincing Demonstration, that you have nothing to do with the former. Unless you will say, which is most ridiculous, that when our Saviour said, He will teach you, &c. and he will shew you, &c. he meant one You in the former clause, and another You in the latter.

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

74. Object. But it is promised in the 14. Chap. that this Spirit shall abide with them for ever: Now they in their persons were not to abide for ever, and therefore the Spirit could not abide with them, in their Persons for ever, see­ing the coexistence of two things, supposes of necessity, the existence of either. Therefore the Promise was not made to them only in their Persons, but by them to the Church, which was to abide for ever. Answ. Your Conclusion is, not to them only, but your Reason concludes, either nothing at all, or that this Promise of abiding with them for ever, was not made to their Per­sons at all; or, if it were, that it was not performed, Or, if you will not say (as I hope you will not) that it was not performed, nor that it was not made to their Persons at all; then must you grant, that the word for ever, is here used in a sense restrained, and accommodated to the subject here entreated of; and that it signifies, not eternally, without end of time, but perpetually, without interruption, for the time of their lives. So that the force, and sense of the words is, that they should never want the Spi­rit's assistance, in the performance of their function: And that the Spirit would not (as Christ was to do) stay with them for a time, and afterwards leave them, but would abide with them, if they kept their station, unto the very end of their lives, which is mans for ever. Neither is this use of the word, for ever, any thing strange, either in our ordinary speech, wherein we use to say, This is mine for ever, This shall be yours for ever, without ever dreaming of the Eternity, either of the Thing or Persons. And then in Scri­pture, it not only will bear, but requires, this sense very frequently, as Ex­od. 21.6. Deut. 15.17. His master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever. Psal. 52.9. I will praise thee for ever, Psal. 61.4. I will abide in thy Tabernacle for ever, Psal. 119.111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as mine heritage for ever. And lastly, in the Ep. [Page 157]to Philemon, He therefore departed from thee for a time, that thou shouldst receive him for ever.

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

[Page 158] 76. You may take as much time as you think fit, to answer these Ar­guments. In the mean while I proceed to the consideration of the next Text alledged for this purpose by you; out of S. Paul, 1 Ep. to Timothy, where he saith, as you say, The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. But the truth is, you are somewhat too bold with S. Paul; For he says not in formal terms, what you make him say, The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, neither is it certain that he means so: for it is neither im­possible nor improbable, that these words, the pillar and ground of truth, may have reference not to the Church, but to Timothy, the sense of the place that thou maist know how to behave thy self, as a Pillar and Ground of the Truth, in the Church of God, which is house of the living God, which expo­sition offers no violence at all to the words, but only supposes an Ellipsis of the Particle [...], in the Greek very ordinary. Neither wants it some likeli­hood, that S. Paul comparing the Church to a house, should here exhort Timothy, to carry himself, as a Pillar in that house should do, according as he had given other principal men in the Church, the name of Pillars; rather then having called the Church a House, to call it presently a Pillar; which may seem somewhat heterogeneous. Yet if you will needs have S. Paul re­fer this not to Timothy, but to the Church, I will not contend about it any farther, then to say, Possibly it may be otherwise. But then secondly, I am to put you in mind, that the Church which S. Paul here speaks of, was that in which Timothy conversed, and that was a Particular Church, and not the Roman; and such you will not have to be Universally Infallible.

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

78. Fourthly and lastly, if we deal most liberally with you, and grant that the Apostle here speaks of the Catholike Church, calls it the Pillar and Ground of Truth, and that not only because it should, but because it al­ways shall and will be so, yet after all this, you have done nothing; your bridge is too short to bring you to the bank where you would be, unless you can shew, that by Truth here is certainly meant, not only all necessary to salvation, but all that is profitable, absolutely and simply All. For that the true Church always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessa­ry Truth, you know we grant, and must grant; for it is of the essence of the Church to be so, and any company of men were no more a Church without it, than any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. But as a man may be still a man, though he want a hand or an eye, which yet are profitable parts; so the Church may be still a Church, though it be de­fective [Page 159]in some profitable truth. And as a man may be a man that hath some biles and botches on his body; so the Church may be the Church, though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice.

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

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

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

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

80. Peradventure by he gave, you conceive, is to be understood, he pro­mised that he would give unto the worlds end. But what reason have you for this conceit? Can you shew that the word [...], hath this signification in other places, and that it must have it in this place? Or, will not this interpre­tation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that God hath not performed his promise? Unless you will say, which for shame I think you will not, that you have now, and in all Ages since Christ have had Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists: for as for Pastors, and Doctors alone, they will not serve the turn. For if God promised to give all these, then you must say, He hath given all, or else that he hath broke his promise. Neither may you pretend, that the Pastors and Doctors were the same with the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and therefore having Pastors and Doctors, you have all. For it is apparent, that by these names, are denoted several Orders of men, clearly distinguished and diversified by the Original Text; but much more plainly by your own Translations, for so you read it, some Apo­stles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors: and yet more plainly in the parallel place, 1 Cor. 12. to which we are referred by your Vulgar Translation, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers; therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you. Object. But how can they, which died in the first Age, keep us in Unity, and guard us from Error, that live now, perhaps in the last? This seems to be all one, as if a man should say, that Alexander, or Julius Caesar, should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spain's Army. Answ. I [Page 160]hope you will grant, that Hippocrates, and Galen, and Euclid, and Aristotle, and Salust, and Caesar, and Livie, were dead many Ages since; and yet that we are now preserved from error by them, in a great part of Physick, of Geometry, of Logick, of the Roman Story. But what if these men had writ by Divine Inspiration, and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they professed, and writ them plainly and perspicuously? You would then have granted, I believe, that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error, and from dissention in these matters. And why then should it be incongruous to say, that the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and Pastors, and Do­ctors, which Christ gave upon his Ascension, by their writings, which some of them writ, but all approved, are even now sufficient means, to conserve us in Unity of Faith, and guard us from error? Especially, seeing these wri­tings are, by the confession of all parts, true and divine, and, as we pretend and are ready to prove, contain a plain and perfect Rule of Faith; and as thePerron. Chiefest of you acknowledge, contain immediately, all the Principal and fundamental Points of Christianity, referring us to the Church and Tra­dition only for some minute particularities. But tell me I pray, the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Councel of Trent and the Pope that con­firmed them, are they means to conserve you in Unity, and keep you from Error, or are they not? Peradventure you will say, Their Decrees are, but not their Persons: but you will not deny I hope, that you owe your Unity, and freedome from Error, to the Persons that made these Decrees: neither will they deny, that the writings which they have left behind them, are suf­ficient for this purpose. And why may not then the Apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose, as the Decrees of your Doctors? Surely, their intent in writing was to conserve us in Unity of Faith, and to keep us from errour, and we are sure God spake in them: but your Doctors from whence they are, we are not so certain. Was the Holy Ghost then unwilling, or unable to direct them so, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing? For if he were both able and willing to do so, then certainly he did do so. And then their writings may be very sufficient means, if we would use them as we should do, to preserve us in Unity, in all necessary points of Faith, and to guard us from all pernitious Error.

81. If yet you be not satisfied, but will still pretend, that all these words by you cited, seem clearly enough to prove, that the Church is Universally Infal­lible, without which, Unity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrin: I answer, That to you which will not understand that there can be any means to conserve the Unity of Faith, but only that which conserves your Authority over the Faithful, it is no marvel that these words seem to prove, that the Church, nay that your Church is universally infallible. But we that have no such end, no such desires, but are willing to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others, we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit, he gave at his Ascension, and he promised to the worlds end. Besides, though you whom it concernes, may haply flatter your selves, that you have not only Pastors, and Doctors, but Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and those distinct from the former still in your Church; yet we that are disinter­essed persons, cannot but smile at these strange imaginations. Lastly, though you are apt to think your selves such necessary instruments for all [Page 161]good purposes, and that nothing can be well done unless you do it; that no unity or constancy in Religion can be maintained, but inevitably Christen­dom must fall to ruin, and confusion, unless you support it: yet we that are indifferent, and impartial, and well content, that God should give us his own favours, by means of his own appointment, not of our choosing, can easily collect out of these very words, that not the Infallibility of your, or of any Church, but the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, &c. which Christ gave upon his Ascension, were designed by him, for the compassing all these excellent purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by their wri­tings for ever. And if they faile hereof, the Reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the means, but the voluntary perversness of the subjects they have to deal with: who, if they would be themselves, and be content that others should be, in the choice of their Religion, the servants of God and not of men; if they would allow, that the way to heaven is no narrower now, then Christ left it, his yoak no heavier then he made it; that the belief of no more difficulties, is required now to Salvation, than was in the Primi­tive Church; that no error is in it self destructive, and exclusive from Salva­tion now, which was not then; if, instead of being zealous Papists, earnest Calvinists, rigid Lutherans, they would become themselves, and be content that others should be plain and honest Christians; if all men would believe the Scripture, and freeing themselves from prejudice and passion, would sincerely endeavour to finde the true sense of it, and live according to it, and require no more of others, but to do so; nor denying their Commu­nion to any that do so, would so order their publique service of God, that all which do so may without scruple, or hypocrisie, or protestation against any part of it, joyn with them in it: who doth not see that seeing (as we suppose here, and shall prove hereafter) all necessary truths, are plainly and evidently set down Scripture, there would of necessity be among all men, in all things necessary, Unity of Opinion? And, notwithstanding any other differences that are or could he, Unity of Communion, and Charity, and mutual toleration? By which means, all Schism and Heresie would be bani­shed the world, and those wretched contentions which now read and tear in pieces, not the coat, but the members and bowels of Christ, which mutual pride and Tyrannie, and cursing, and killing, and damning, would fain make immortal, should speedily receive a most blessed catastrophe. But of this hereafter, when we shall come to the Question of Schism, wherein I perswade my self, that I shall plainly shew, that the most vehement accusers, are the greatest offenders, and that they are indeed at this time, the great­est Schismatiques, who make the way to heaven narrower, the yoak of Christ heavier, the differences of Faith greater, the conditions of Ecclesiasti­call Communion harder, and stricter, then they were made at the begin­ning by Christ and his Apostles: they who talk of Unity, but ayme at Ty­raunie, and will have peace with none, but with their slaves and vassals. In the mean while, though I have shewed how Unity of Faith, and Unity of Charity too, may be preserved without your Churches Infallibility, yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence, not that your Church is, but only seems to be universally infallible, meaning to your self, of which you are a better Judge than I: Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion, and proceed.

[Page 162] 83. Whereas you say, That D. Potter limits those promises and privi­ledges to Fundamental points; The truth is, with some of them he meddles not at all, neither doth his adversary give him occasion: Not with those out of the Epistle to Timothy, and to the Ephesians. To the rest he gives other answer besides this.

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

84. But your interpretation is better than D. Potters, because it is literal. I answer, His is Literal as well as yours: and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literal sense; for to Restrained, Literal is not opposed, but unlimited or absolute; and to Literal, is not oppos'd Restrained, but Figurative.

85. Wheras you say, D. Potters Bretheren, rejecting his limitation, re­strain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles, implying hereby a contrariety between them and him: I answer, So doth D. Potter restrain all of them which he speaks of, in the pages by you quoted, to the Apostles, in the direct and primary sense of the words: Though he tels you there, the words in a more restrained sense are true, being understood of the Church Universal.

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

87. Whereas you say, you neither do, nor have any possible means to agree, as long as you are left to your selves: The first is very true, That while you differ, you do not agree. But for the second, That you have no possible means of agreement, as long as you are left to your selves i. e. to your own reasons and judgment, this sure is very false, neither do you offer any proof of it, unless you intended this, that you do not agree, for a proof that you cannot; which sure is no good consequence, not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it: D. Potter and I, by the use of these means by you mentioned, do agree concerning the sense of these places, therefore there is a possible means of agreement; and therefore you also, if you would [Page 163]use the same means, with the same minds, might agree so far as it is neces­sary, and it is not necessary that you should agree farther. Or if there be no possible means to agree about the sense of these Texts, whilst we are left to our selves, then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them, which was, That the Church is universally infallible. For if it were possi­ble for us to agree in this sense of them, then it were possible for us to agree. And why then said you of the self same Texts but in the page next before, These words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is Universally infal­lible. A strange forgetfulness, that the same man, almost in the same breath, should say of the same words, They seem cleerly enough to prove such a Conclusion true, and yet that three indifferent men, all presum'd to be lovers of Truth, and industrious searchers of it, should have no possible means, while they follow their own reason to agree in the Truth of this Conclusion!

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

[Page 164] 89. But if there be any infallible means to decide all differences, I be­seech you name them. You say, it is to consult and hear Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility. But suppose the differ­ence be (as here it is) whether your Church be infallible, what shall decide that? If you would say (as you should do) Scripture and Reason, then you foresee that you should be forced to grant, that these are fit means to decide this Controversie, and therefore may be as fit to decide others. Therefore to avoid this, you run into a most ridiculous absurdity, and tell us that this difference also, Whether the Church be infallible, as well as others, must be agreed by a submissive acknowledgment of the Churches Infallibility. As if you should have said, My Bretheren, I perceive there is a great Con­tention amongst you, whether the Roman Church be infallible? If you will follow my advice, I will shew you a ready means to end it; you must first agree that the Roman Church is infallible, and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible, will quickly be at an end. Verily, a most excellent advice, and most compendious way of ending all Controversies, even without troubling the Church to determine them! For why may not you say in all other differences, as you have done in this? Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church: That the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, is turned into the Body and Blood of Christ: That the Communion is to be given to Lay-men but in one kind:That Pictures may be worshipped: That Saints are to be invocated: and so in the rest: and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy, Transubstantiation, and all the rest, will speedily be ended. If you say, the advice is good in this, but not in other cases, I must request you, not to expect alwaies, to be belie­ved upon your word, but to shew us some reason, why any one thing, namely the Churches Infallibility, is fit to prove it self; and any other thing, by name the Popes Supremacy, or Transubstantiation, is not as fit? Or if for shame you will at length confess, that the Churches infallibility is not fit to decide this difference, Whether the Church be infallible, then you must con­fess it is not fit to decide all: Unless you will say, it may be fit to decide all, and yet not fit to decide this, or pretend that this is not comprehended under all. Besides, if you grant that your Churches Infallibility cannot possibly be well grounded upon, or decided by it self, then having professed before, that there is no possible means besides this, for us to agree hereupon, I hope you will give me leave to conclude, that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is infallible. For certainly, light it self is not more clear than the evidence of this Syllogism;

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

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

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

90. Lastly, to the place of S. Austin, wherein we are advis'd to follow the way of Catholique Discipline, which from Christ himself by the Apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity; I answer, [Page 165]That the way which S. Austin spake of, and the way which you commend, being divers wayes, and in many things clean contrary, we cannot possibly follow them both; and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vain equivocation. Shew us any way, and do not say, but prove it to have come from Christ and his Apostles down to us, and we are ready to fol­low it. Neither do we expect demonstration hereof, but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary. But if you bring in things into your now Catholique Discipline, which Christians in S. Austins time held abominable, (as the picturing of God,) and which you must, and some of you do confess to have come into the Church seven hundred yeers after Christ: if you will bring in things, as you have done the halfe Com­munion, with a non obstante, notwithstanding Christs Institution, and the pra­ctice of the Primitive Church, were to the contrary: If you will do such things as these, and yet would have us believe, that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles, this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make, or for wise men to grant.

The ANSWER to the FOURTH CHAPTER. Wherein is shewed, that the Creed contains all necessary Points of meer Belief.

1. AD §. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Concerning the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of Christianity, this is D. Potter's Assertion, delivered in the 207. p. of his Book. The Creed of the A­postles (as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholique Church) is esteemed a sufficient Summary or Catalogue of Fundamentals, by the best learned Romanists, and by Antiquity.

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

3. But these speculative Doctrines again he distinguisheth out of Aqui­nas, Occham, and Canus, and others, into two kinds: of the first are those which are the Objects of Faith, in, and for themselves, which by their own nature and God's prime intention, are essential parts of the Gospel: such as the Teachers in the Church, cannot without Mortal sin omit to teach the learners: such as are intrinsecal to the Covenant between God and man; and not only plainly revealed by God, and so certain truths, but also com­manded to be preacht to all men, and to be believed distinctly by all, and so necessary truths. Of the second sort are Accidental, Circumstantial, Occasional objects of Faith; millions whereof there are in holy Scripture; such as are to be believed, not for themselves, but because they are joyned with others that are necessary to be believed, and delivered by the same Authority which delivered these. Such as we are not bound to know to be divine Re­velations, (for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof, nay be­lieve the contrary;) such as we are not bound to examine, Whether or no [Page 173]they be divine Revelations: such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock, nor their Flock bound to know and remember: no nor the Pastors themselves to know them or believe them, or not to disbelieve them abso­lutely and always; but then only when they do see, and know them to be delivered in Scripture, as divine Revelations.

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 174] 9. Fourthly, because not to believe the Articles of the Creed in the true sense is damnable, therefore it is frivolous to say, the Creed contains all Funda­mentals, without specifying in what sense the Articles of it are fundamental.

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

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

12. Let the Reader peruse Charity Mistaken, and he shall find that this qualification, although both kinds of Points be equally proposed as revealed by God, is your addition, and no part of the demand. And if it had, it had been most unreasonable, seeing he and you know well enough, that (though we do not presently without examination, fall down and worship all your Churches Proposals, as divine Revelations) yet, we make no such distincti­on of known divine Revelations, as if some only of them were necessary to be believed, and the rest might safely be rejected. So that to demand a particular minute Catalogue of all Points that may not be disbelieved af­ter sufficient Proposition, is indeed to demand a Catalogue of all Points that are or may be, in as much as none may be disbelieved, after sufficient Pro­position, that it is a divine Revelation. At least it is to desire us, First, To transcribe into this Catalogue, every Text of the whole Bible. Second­ly, to set down distinctly, those innumerous millions of negative and posi­tive consequences, which may be evidently deduced from it: For these we say, God hath revealed. And indeed you are not ashamed in plain [Page 175]terms to require this of us. For having first told us, that the command was What points were necessary not to be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition that they are Divine Truths: you come to say, Certainly the Creed con­tains not all these. And this you prove by asking, How many Truths are there in holy Scripture, not contained in the Creed, which we are not bound to know and believe, but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject, as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture? So that in re­quiring a particular Catalogue of all Points not to be disbelieved, after suf­ficient Proposal, you require us to set you down all Points contained in Scripture, or evidently deducible from it. And yet this you are pleased to call a reasonable, nay, a most reasonable Demand: whereas having ingaged your self to give a Catalogue of your Fundamentals, you conceive your in­gagement very well satisfied by saying, All is Fundamental which the Church proposeth, without going about to give us an endless Inventory of her Pro­posals. And therefore from us, instead of a perfect Particular of Divine Revelations of all sorts, (of which with a lest Hyperbole than S. John useth, we might say, If they were to be written, the world would not hold the books that must be written;) me-thinks you should accept of this gene­ral, All Divine Revelations are true, and to be believed. Which yet I say, not as if I thought the belief of this General sufficient to Salvation; but because I conceive it as sufficient as the belief of your General: and there­fore I said not, Me-thinks all should accept of this General, but, Me-thinks you should accept of it.

13. The very truth is, The main Question in this business is not, What divine Revelations are necessary to be believed, or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed: for all without exception, all without question are so; But what Revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the belief of Christians, so that that Society, which doth propose, and indeed believe them, hath for matter of Faith, the essence of a true Church; that which doth not, hath not. Now to this Question, though not to yours, D. Potter's Assertion (if it be true) is apparently very pertinent. And though not a full and total satisfaction to it, yet very effectual, and of great moment to­wards it. For the main Question being, What Points are necessary to Sal­vation: and Points necessary to Salvation, being of two sorts, some of simple belief, some of Practice and Obedience, he that gives you a sufficient summary of the first sort of necessary Points, hath brought you half way to­wards your journies end. And therefore that which he doth, is no more to be slighted, as vain and impertinent▪ than an Architect's work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house, because he doth it not all himself. Sure I am, if his Assertion be true, as I believe it is, a Corolla­ry may presently be deduced from it, which, if it were embraced cannot in all reason, but do infinite service, both to the Truth of Christ, and the peace of Christendom. For seeing falshood and errour could not long stand against the power of Truth, were they not supported by Tyranny and worldly advantages, he that could assert Christians to that liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them, must needs do Truth a most Heroical service. And seeing the overvaluing of the differences among Christians, is one of the greatest maintainers of the Schisms of Christen­dom, he that could demonstrate, that only those Points of Belief are sim­ply necessary to Salvation, wherein Christians generally agree, should he [Page 176]not lay a very fair and firm foundation of the peace of Christendom? Now the Corollary, which, I conceive, would produce these good effects, and which flows naturally from D. Potter's Assertion, is this, That what Man or Church soever believes the Creed, and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily, cannot possibly (if also he believe the Scripture) be in any Error of simple belief which is offensive to God: nor therefore de­serve for any such Error to be deprived of his life, or to be cut off from the Churches Communion, and the hope of Salvation. And the production of this again would be this (which highly concerns the Church of Rome to think of,) That whatsoever Man or Church doth for any error of simple belief, de­prive any man so qualified as above, either of his temporal life, or livelihood, or liberty, or of the Churches Communion, and hope of Salvation, is for the first, unjust, cruel, and tyrannous: Schismatical, presumptuous, and unchari­table for the second.

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

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

15. To the Third I answer, That the certainty I have of the Creed, that [Page 177]it was from the Apostles, and contains the Principles of Faith, I ground it not upon Scripture, and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present, much less of your Church, but upon the Authority of the Ancient Church, and written Tradition, which (as D. Potter hath proved) gave this constant testimony unto it. Besides, I tell you, it is guilty of the same fault which D. Potter's Assertion is here accused of: having perhaps some colour to­ward the proving it false, but none at all to shew it impertinent.

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

18. Your fifth and last Objection stands upon a false and dangerous sup­position: That new Heresies may arise. For an Heresie being in it self no­thing else but a Doctrin Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith, to say that new Heresies may arise, is to say, that new Articles of Faith may arise: and so some great Ones among you stick not to profess in plain terms, who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrin is Catholique and Apostolique. So Salmeron: Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus, ut quaelibet aetas suis gaudeat veritatibus, quas prior aetas ignoravit. God hath not given all things to 'All: So that every Age hath its proper verities, which the former Age was ignorant of: Dis. 57. in Epist. ad Rom. And again in the Margent, Habet unumquodque saecu­lum [Page 178]peculiares revelationes divinas, Every Age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations. Where that he speaks of such Revelations, as are, or may by the Church be made matters of Faith, no man can doubt that reads him; an example whereof, he give us a little before in these words, Unius Au­gustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit. The Doctrin of Augustine only, hath brought into the Church the Worship of the Assumption of the Mother of God, &c. Others again mince and palliate the matter with this pretence, that your Church undertakes not to coyn new Articles of Faith, but only to declare those that want sufficient Declarati­on. But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any Doctrin an Ar­ticle of Faith, then this Doctrin, which before wanted it, was not before an Article of Faith; and your Church by giving it the Essential form, and last complement of an Article of Faith, makes it, though not a Truth, yet certainly an Article of Faith. But I would fain know, whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrin, which you pretend hath the matter, but wants the form of an Article of Faith, that is, sufficient declaration, whe­ther they knew it to be a necessary Article of the Faith, or no. If they knew it not to be so, then either they taught what they knew not, which were very strange; or else they taught it not: and if not, I would gladly be in­formed, seeing you pretend to no new Revelations, From whom you learned it? If they knew it, then either they concealed or declared it. To say, they concealed any necessary part of the Gospel, is to charge them with far greater sacriledge, than what was punished in Ananias and Saphira. It is to charge these glorious Stewards, and Dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ, with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward, which is Fi­delity. It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's, even to Angels, in case they should teach any other Doctrin, than what they had received from them, which sure could not merit an Anathema, if they left any necessary part of the Gospel untaught. It is in a word, in plain terms to give them the lye, seeing they profess plainly and frequently, that they taught Christians the whole Doctrin of Christ. If they did know and declare it, then it was a full and formal Article of faith; and the contrary a full and formal Heresie, without any need of further declaration; and then their Successors either continued the declaration of it, or discontinued it: If they did the latter, How are they such faithful Depositaries of Apostolique Doctrin as you pretend? Or, what assurance can you give us, that they might not bring in new and false Articles, as well as suffer the oldand true ones to be lost? If they did continue the declaration of it, and deliver it to their Successors, and they to theirs, and so on perpetually; then continued it still a full and formal Article of Faith, and the repugnant doctrin a full and formal Heresie, without and before the definition or declaration of a Councel. So that Councels, as they cannot make that a truth or falshood, which before was not so: so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith, or an Heresie, which before was not so. The supposition therefore on which this Argument stands, being false and ruinous, whatsoever' is built upon it, must together with it fall to the ground. This explication therefore, and restriction of this doctrin, (whereof you make your advantage) was to my understanding unneces­sary. The Fathers of the Church in after-times might have just cause to de­clare their judgment, touching the sense of some general Articles of the [Page 179]Creed: but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation, what warrant they had, I know not. He that can shew, either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority, or that it continu­ed in the Church for some Ages, and then expired: He that can shew ei­ther of these things, let him: for my part, I cannot. Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Councel, though not infallible, is yet so far directive, and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford it an outward submission for publique peace sake.

19. Ad §. 7, 8, 9. Were I not peradventure more fearful than I need to be of the imputation of tergiversation, I might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this Chapter: For in the Question there discussed, you grant (for ought I see) as much as D. Potter desires; and D. Potter grants as much as you desire: and therefore that I should disease my self, or my Reader with a punctual examination of it, may seem superfluous. First, that which you would have, and which your Arguments wholly drive at, is this, That the Creed doth not contain all main and principal points of Faith of all sorts, whether they be speculative, or practical, where they contain matter of simple belief, or whether they contain matter of practice and obedience. This D. Potter grants, page 215.235. And you grant that he grants it, §. 8. Where your words are, even by D. Potter's own confession, it (the Creed) doth not comprehend Agenda, or things belonging to practice, as Sacraments, Commandements, the Acts of Hope, and duties of Charity. And if you will inferr from hence, that therefore C.M. hath no reason to rest in the Apostles Creed, as a perfect catalogue of Fundamentals, and a full satisfaction to his demand, I have without any offence of D. Potter, granted as much, if that would content you. But seeing you go on, and, because his assertion is not (as neither is it pretended to be) a total satisfaction to the demand, casheer it as impertinent, and nothing towards it, here I have been bold to stop your proceeding, as unjust and unreasonable. For, as if you should request a Friend to lend you, or demand of a debtor to pay you, a hundred pounds, and he could or should let you have but fifty, this were not fully to satisfie your demand, yet sure it were not, to do nothing towards it: Or, as this re­joynder of mine, though it be not an answer to all your Book, but only to the First considerable Part of it, and so much of the Second as is material, and falls into the first, yet I hope you will not deal so unkindly with me [...] as for this reason, to condemn it of impertinence: So D. Potter being demand­ed a Catalogue of Fundamentals of Faith, and finding them of two kinds, and those of one kind summ'd up to his hand in the Apostles Creed, and this Creed consigned unto him for such a summary by very great Authority; if upon these considerations he hath intreated his Demander to accept of thus much in part of payment, of the Apostles Creed, as a sufficient Summary of these Articles of Faith, which are, meerly Creden­da, me-thinks he hath little reason to complain, that he hath not been fairly, and squarely dealt with. Especially, seeing, for full satisfaction, by D. Potter and all Protestants he is referred to Scripture, which we af­firm contains evidently all necessary points of Faith, and rules of obe­dience: and seeing D. Potter in this very place hath subjoyned, though not a Catalogue of Fundamentals, which (because to some more is Fun­damental, to others less, to others nothing at all) had been impossible, yet such a comprehension of them, as may serve every one that will [Page 180]make a conscionable use of it, instead of a Catalogue. For thus he says, It seems to be Fundamental to the Faith, and for the salvation of every Member of the Church, that he acknowledg and believe all such Points of Faith, whereof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrin of Jesus Christ. This general rule, if I should call a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I should have a President for it with you above exception, I mean your Self; for, Chap. 3. §. 19. just such another Proposition you have called by this name. Yet because it were a strange figure of speech, I forbear it; only I will be bold to say, that this Assertion is as good a Catalogue of Fundamentals, as any you will bring of your Church Proposals, though you take as much time to do it, as he that undertook to make an Ass speak.

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

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

22. And upon this grant, I will ask no leave to conclude, that, whereas you say, the Apostles Creed was intended for a comprehension of such heads of faith, as were most befitting and requisite, for preaching the faith of Christ, &c. You are now, for fear of too much debasing those high Doctrins of Repentance and Charity, to restrain your Assertion, as D. Potter doth his, and (though you speak indefinitely) to say you meant it, only of those heads of Faith, which are meerly Credenda. And then the meaning of it (if it have any) must be this, That the Creed is full for the Apostles intent, which was to comprehend all such general heads of Faith, which being points of sim­ple belief, were most fit and requisite to be preached to Jews and Gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembred. Neither I nor you, I believe, can make any other sense of your words then this. And upon this ground thus I subsume. But all the points of belief, which were necessary, under pain of damnation, for the Apostles to preach, and for those to whom the Gospel was preached, particularly to know and believe, were most fit and requi­site, nay more then so, necessary to be preached to all both Jews and [Page 181]Gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembred: Therefore the Apostle's intent by your confession was in this Creed, to comprehend all such points. And you say, The Creed is most full and compleat, for the purpose which they intended. The Major of this Syllogism is your own. The Minor, I should think, needs no proof, yet because all men may not be of my mind, I will prove it by its parts; and the first part thus,

There is the same necessity, for the doing of these things; which are commanded to be done, by the same Authority, under the same pe­nalty.

But the same Authority, viz. Divine, under the same penalty, to wit, of damnation, commanded the Apostles to preach all these Doctrins which we speak of, and those to whom they were preached, particu­larly to know and believe them: For we speak of those only, which were so commanded, to be preached and believed.

Therefore all these points were alike necessary to be preached to all both Jews and Gentiles.

Now that all these Doctrins we speak of, may be briefly and compen­diously set down, and easily learned and remembred, He that remembers, that we speak only of such Doctrins as are necessary to be taught and learn­ed, will require hereof no farther demonstration. For, (not to put you in mind of what the Poet say, Non sunt long a quibus nihil est quod demere possis,) who sees not, that seeing the greatest part of men are of very mean capacities, that it is necessary that that may be learned easily, which is to be learned of all? What then can hinder me from concluding thus,

All the Articles of simple belief, which are fit and requisite to be preach­ed, and may easily be remembred, are by your confession comprized in the Creed:

But all the necessary Articles of Faith are requisite to be preached, and easie to be remembred;

Therefore they are all comprized in the Creed:

Secondly, from grounds granted by you, I argue thus,

Points of belief in themselves Fundamental, are more requisite to be preached than those which are not so, (this is evident.)

But the Apostles have put into their Creed some Points that are not in in themselves Fundamental▪ so you confess, ubisupra.

Therefore if they have put in all, most requisite to be preached, they have put in all that in themselves are Fundamental.

Thirdly and lastly, from your own words, §. 26, thus I conclude for my purpose.

The Ap [...]stles intention was, particularly to deliver in the Creed such Ar­ticles as were fittest for those times, concerning the Deity, Trinity, and Messias; (Thus you: now I subsume,)

But all points simply necessary, by vertue of Gods command, to be preached and believed in particular, were as fit for those times as these here mentioned;

Therefore their intention was, to deliver in it particularly all the neces­sary points of Belief.

23. And certainly, he that considers the matter advisedly, either must say that the Apostles were not the Authors of it, or that this was their design [Page 182]in composing it, or that they had none at all. For whereas you say, Their intent was, to comprehend in it such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the Faith; and elsewhere, Particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times; Every wise man may easily see that your desire here was, to escape away in a Cloud of indefinite terms. For otherwise, instead of such general heads, and such Articles, why did not you say plainly, All such, or some such? This had been plain dealing, but I fear, cross to your design, which yet you have failed of. For that which you have spoken (though you are loath to speak out) either signifies no­thing at all, or that which I and D. Potter, affirm, viz. That the Apostles Creed contains all those Points of Belief, which were by Gods command, of necessity to be preached to all, and believed by all. Neither when I say so, would I be so mistaken, as if I said, that all points in the Creed are thus necessary: For Punies in Logick, know that universal affirmatives, are not simply converted. And therefore it may be true, that all such neces­sary points, are in the Creed; though it be not true, that all points in the Creed are thus necessary: which I willingly grant, of the points by you mentioned. But this rather confirms, than any way invalidates my Asserti­on. For how could it stand with the Apostles wisdom, to put in any points circumstantial and not necessary, and, at the same time, to leave out any that were essential and necessary for that end, which you say, they proposed to themselves, in making the Creed, that is, The preaching of the Faith to Jews and Gentiles?

24. Neither may you hope to avoid the pressure of these acknowledg­ments, by pretending as you do § that you do indeed acknowledge the Creed to contain all the necessary Articles of Faith; but yet so, that they are not either there expressed in it, or deducible from it, by evident consequence, but only by way of Implication or Reduction. For first, not to tell you, that no Proposition is implyed in any other, which is not deducible from it; nor secondly, that the Article of the Catholique Church, wherein you will have all implyed, implyes nothing to any purpose of yours, unless out of meer favour we will grant the sense of it to be, that the Church is infallible, and that yours is the Church: to pass by all this, and require no answer to it, this one thing I may not omit; that the Apostles intent was (by your own confession) particularly to deliver in the Creed such Articles of belief as were fittest for those times (and all necessary Articles I have proved were such:) now to deliver particularly, and to deliver only im­plicitely; to be delivered particularly in the Creed, and only to be re­ducible to it; I suppose are repugnancies hardly reconcileable. And there­fore, though we desire you, not to grant, that the Creed contains all Points of Faith of all sorts, any other way than by implication or reduction, no, nor so neither; yet you have granted, and must grant, of the Fundamental Points of simple belief, those which the Apostles were commanded in parti­cular to teach all men, and all men in particular to know and believe, that these are delivered in the Creed, after a more particular and punctual man­ner, than implication or reduction comes to.

25. Ad §. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. It is vain for you to hope, that the testi­monies of the Ancient and Modern Doctors, alleadged to this purpose by D. Potter in great abundance, will be turned off, with this general deceit­ful Answer, That the Allegation of them was needless to prove, that the [Page 183]Creed contains all Points of Faith, under pretence that you grant it in man­ner aforesaid. For what if you grant it in manner aforesaid, yet if you grant it not (as indeed you do but inconstantly) in the sense which their testimonies require, then for all this their testimonies may be alleadged to very good purpose. Now let any man read them, with any tolerable indifference, and he shall find they say plainly; that all Points of Faith, necessary to be particularly believed, are explicitely contained in the Creed; and that your Gloss of Implication and Reduction, had it been confronted with their sen­tences, would have been much out of countenance, as having no ground nor colour of ground in them. For example, If Azorius had thought thus of it, how could he have called it,Azor. part. 1. c 5. A brief comprehension of the Faith, and a sum of all things to be believed, and, as it were, a sign or cognizance whereby Christians are to be differenced and distinguished, from the impious and mis-believers, who profess either no faith, or not the right? If Huntly had been of this mind, how could he have said of it with any congruity,Cont. 2. c. 10. n. 10. That the rule of Faith is expresly contained in it, and all the prime foundations of Faith: And, That the Apostles were not so forgetful as to omit any prime principal foundation of Faith in that Creed which they delivered to be believed by all Christians. The words of Filiucius are pregnant to the same purpose,Moral. quest. Tr. 22. c. 2. n 34. There cannot be a fitter Rule, from whence Christians may learn what they are explicitely to believe, than that which is contained in the Creed. Which words cannot be justified, if all Points necessary to be believed explicite­ly, be not comprised in it. To this end (saith Putean)In 2.2. qu. 2. Art. 3. Dub­uit. was the Creed composed by the Apostles, that Christians might have a form whereby they might profess themselves Catholiques. But certainly, the Apostles did this in vain, if a man might profess this, and yet for matter of Faith be not a Catholique.

26. The words of Cardinal Richelieu Instruction du Christien Lecon pr [...]miere., exact this sense, and refuse your gloss as much as any of the former: The Apostles Creed is the Summary and Abridgement of that Faith which is necessary for a Christian; These holy persons being by the Commandement of Jesus Christ to disperse themselves over the world, and in all parts by preaching the Gospel to plant the Faith, esteemed it very necessary to reduce into a short sum, all that which Christians ought to know, to the end that being dispersed into divers parts of the world, they might preach the same thing in a short Form, that it might be the easier remembred. For this effect, they called this Abridgement a Symbole, which signifies a mark, or sign, which might serve to distinguish true Christians which imbraced it, from Infidels which rejected it. Now I would fain know how the composition of the Creed could serve for this end, and secure the Preachers of it, that they should preach the same thing, if there were other necessary Articles not comprized in it. Or how could it be a sign to distin­guish true Christians from others, if a man might believe it all, and for want of believing something else, not be a true Christian?

27. The words of theCh. 3. Con­fid. 1. Sect 5. p. 119. Author of the Consideration of four heads pro­pounded to King James, require the same sense, and utterly renounce your qualification. The Symbole is a brief yet entire Methodical sum of Christian Doctrin, including all Points of Faith, either to be preached by the Apostles, or to be believed by their Disciples: Delivered both for a Direction unto them, what they were to preach, and others to believe, as also to discern and put a dif­ference betwixt all faithful Christians and mis-believing Infidels.

[Page 184] 28. Lastly,2.2. dis. 1. q. 2. p. 4. in fin. Gregory of Valence affirms our Assertion even in terms: The Articles of Faith contained in the Creed, are, as it were, the first princi­ples of the Christian Faith, in which is contained the sum of Evangelical Do­ctrin, which all men are bound explicitely to believe.

29. To these Testimonies of your own Doctors, I should have added the concurrent Suffrages of the ancient Fathers, but the full and free ac­knowledgment of the same Valentia in the place above quoted will make this labour unnecessary. So judg (saith he) the holy Fathers affirming that this Symbole of Faith was composed by the Apostles, that all might have a short sum of those things which are to be believed, and are dispersedly contained in Scripture.

30. Neither is there any discord between this Assertion of your Do­ctors, and their holding themselves obliged to believe all the Points which the Council of Trent defines. For Protestants and Papists may both hold, that all Points of Belief necessary to be known and believed, are summed up in the Creed: and yet both the one and the other think themselves bound to believe whatsoever other Points they either know, or believe to be revealed by God. For the Articles which are necessary to be known that they are revealed by God, may be very few; and yet those which are necessary to be believed, when they are revealed and known to be so, may be very many.

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

32. Whereas therefore to disprove this Assertion, in divers particles of this Chapter, but especially the fourteenth, you muster up whole Armies of Doctrins, which you pretend are necessary, and not contained in the Creed; I answer, very briefly thus: That the Doctrins you mention, are ei­ther concerning matters of practice, and not simple Belief; or else they are such Doctrins wherein God hath not so plainly revealed himself, but that honest and good men, true Lovers of God and of Truth, those that desire above all things to know his will and do it, may err, and yet commit no sin at all, or only a sin of infirmity, and not destructive of Salvation; or lastly, they are such Doctrins which God hath plainly revealed, and so are necessary to be believed, when they are known to be divine, but not [Page 185]necessary to be known and believed; not necessary to be known for divine, that they may be believed. Now all these sorts of Doctrins are impertinent to the present Question. For D. Potter never affirmed either that the neces­sary duties of a Christian, or that all Truths piously credible, but not necessa­ry to be believed, or that all Truths necessary to be believed upon the sup­posal of divine Revelation, were specified in the Creed. For this he affirms, only of such speculative divine Verities, which God hath commanded par­ticularly to be preached to all, and believed by all. Now let the Doctrins objected by you be well considered, and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded; and then of all these Instances against D. Potter's Assertion, there will not remain so much as one.

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

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

35. Thirdly, These Doctrins, That Adam and the Angels sinned: that there are Angels good and bad: that those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church, are the Word of God: that S. Peter had no such Primacy as you pretend: that the Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith, and consequently that no necessary Doctrine is unwritten: that there is no one Society or Succession of Christians absolute­ly infallible: These to my understanding are Truths plainly revealed by God, and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so. but not so necessary, that every man and woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be divine Revelations, and explicitely to be­lieve them. And for this reason, these with innumerable other Points, are to be referred to the third sort of Doctrins above-mentioned, which were never pretended to have place in the Creed. There remains one only Point of all that Army you mustered together, reducible to none of these heads, and that is, that God is, and is a Remunerator, which you say is questioned by the de­nyal of Merit. But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence be­tween this Point and the Doctrine of merit, me-thinks with as much rea­son, and more charity you might conclude, That we hold Merit, because we hold this Point; than that we deny this Point, because we deny Merit. Be­sides, when Protestants deny the Doctrine of Merits, you know right-well, for so they have declared themselves a thousand times, that they mean no­thing else, but with David, that their well-doing extendeth not is not truly be­neficial, to God with our Saviour when they have done all which they are com­manded, they have done their duty only, and no curtesie: And lastly, with S. Paul, that all which they can suffer for God (and yet suffering is more then [Page 186]doing) is not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed. So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit, or you must discharge their Doctrin of this odious consequence, or you must charge it upon David, and Paul, and Christ himself. Nay you must either grant their denial of true Merit just and reasonable; or you must say, that our good actions are really profitable to God: that they are not debts already due to him, but voluntary and undeserved Favours: and that they are equal unto and well worthy of eternal glory which is prepared for them. As for the in­convenience which you so much fear, That the denial of Merit makes God a Giver only, and not a Rewarder; I tell you, good Sir, you fear where no fear is: And that it is both most true on the one side, that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternal glory make God a Rewarder only and not a Giver, contrary to plain Scripture, affirming that The gift of God is eternal life; And that it is most false on the other side, that the Doctrin of Protestants makes God a Giver only and not a Rewarder; In as much as their Doctrin is, That God gives not Heaven but to those which do something for it, and so his Gift is also a Reward; but withal, that whatsoever they do is due un­to God before-hand, and worth nothing to God, & worth nothing in respect of Heaven, and so mans work is no Merit, and Gods Reward is still a Gift.

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

37. In the next Paragraph you beat the air again, and fight manfully with your own shadow. The Point you should have spoken to, was this, That there are some Points of simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed, which yet are not contained in the Creed. Instead hereof you trouble your self in vain to demonstrate, That many important Points of Faith are not con­tained in it, which yet D. Potter had freely granted, and you your self take particular notice of his granting of it. All this pains therefore you have im­ployed to no purpose; saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very Point, because that which you speak to, at the first hearing, sounds somewhat near it. But such a one I must intreat to re­member, there be many more Points of Faith, than there be Articles of Sim­ple belief, necessary to be explicitely believed: And that though all of the former sort are not contained in the Creed, yet all of the latter sort may be. As for your Distinction between Heresies that have been, and Heresies that are, and Heresies that may be, I have already proved it vain; and that whatsoever may be an Heresie, that is so; and whatsoever is so, that al­wayes hath been so, ever since the publication of the Gospel of Christ. [Page 187]The Doctrine of your Church may like a Snow-ball increase with rowling, and again, if you please, melt away and decrease: But as Christ Jesus, so his Gospel, is yesterday, and today, and the same for ever.

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

39. Ad §. 16, 17. The saying of the most learned Prelate, and excellent man, the Arch-Bishop of Armach, is only related by D. Potter, p. 155. and not applauded: though the truth is, both the Man deserves as much applause as any man, and his saying as much as any saying; it being as great, and as good a Truth, and as necessary for these miserable times, as possibly can be uttered. For this is most certain, and I believe you will easily grant it, that to reduce Christians to Unity of Communion, there are but two ways that may be conceived probable: The one by taking away diversity of O­pinions touching matters of Religion: The other, by shewing that the di­versity of Opinions, which is among the several Sects of Christians, ought to be no hinderance to their Unity in Communion.

40. Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle, unless that could be done, which is impossible to be performed, though it be often pretended; that is, unless it could be made evident to all men, that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies, to whose judge­ment all men are to submit themselves. What then remains, but that the other way must be taken, & Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high Points of Faith and Obedience wherein they agree, than upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ; and understand, that agreement in those, ought to be more effectual to joyn them in one Com­munion, than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them? When I say, in one Communion, I mean, in a common Profession of those Articles of Faith, wherein all consent: A joynt-worship of God, after such a way as all esteem lawful; and a mutual performance of all those works of Charity, which Christians owe one to another. And to such a Commu­nion what better inducement could be thought of, than to demonstrate that what was universally believed of al Christians, if it were joyned with a love of truth, and with holy obedience, was sufficient to bring men to heaven? For why should men be more rigid then God? Why should any error ex­clude any man from the Churches Communion, which will not deprive him of eternal Salvation? Now that Christians do generally agree in all those Points of Doctrin, which are necessary to Salvation, it is apparent, because they agree with one accord in believing all those Books of the Old & New [Page 188]Testament, which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted Word of God. And it is so certain that in all these Books, all necessary Doctrins are evidently contained, that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable, but of S. Luke most apparent, that in every one of their Books they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospel of Christ. For what reason can be imagined, that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary, and yet (as apparently all of them have done) put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary? What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospel of Christ, would do so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion? Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospel of Christ for the Indians, think you he would have left out any Fundamental Doctrin of it? If not, I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Matthew, and S. Mark, and S. Luke, and S. John, as you do of Xaverius. Besides, if every one of them have not in them all necessary Doctrins, how have they complyed with their own design, which was, as the Titles of their Books shew, to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how have they not de­ceived us, in giving them such Titles? By the whole Gospel of Christ, I understand not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes up the Co­venant between God and man. Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospel of S. Mark, and S. John, I believe every considering man will be inclinable to believe that then without doubt, it is contained, with the ad­vantage of many other profitable things, in the larger Gospels of S. Matthew, and S. Luke. And that S. Mark's Gospel wants no necessary Ar­ticle of this Covenant, I presume you will not deny, if you believe Irenaeus, when he says, Matthew to the Hebrews in their tongue published the Scrip­ture of the Gospel: When Peter and Paul did preach the Gospel, and found the Church, or a Church at Rome, or of Rome, and after their departure Mark the scholar of Peter, delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by Peter; and Luke, and the follower of Paul, compiled in a Book the Gospel which was preached by him: And afterwards John, residing in Asia, in the City of Ephesus, did himself also set forth a Gospel.

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

42. Our next inquiry let it be touching S. John's intent in writing his Gospel, whether it were to deliver so much truth, as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to eternal life, or only part of it, and to leave part unwritten? A great man there is, but much less than the Apostle, who saith, that writing last, he purposed to supply the defects of the other Evangelists that had wrote before him: which (if it were true) would suf­ficiently [Page 189]justifie what I have undertaken, that at least all the four Evange­lists have in them, all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ. Neither will I deny, but S. John's secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels, in some things very profitable. But he that pretends, that any necessary Doctrine is in S. John, which is in none of the other Evangelists, hath not so well considered them as he should do, be­fore he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter. And for his prime in­tent in writing his Gospel, what that was, certainly no Father in the world understood it better than himself. Therefore let us hear him speak: Many other signs (saith he) also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book: But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his Name. By (these are written) may be understood either these things are written, or these signs are written. Take it which way you will, this conclusion will certainly follow, That either all that which S. John wrote in his Gospel, or less then all, and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them be­lieve that, which being believed with lively faith, would certainly bring them to eternal life.

43. This which hath been spoken (I hope) is enough to justifie my un­dertaking to the full, that it is very probable that every one of the four E­vangelists hath in his Book the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ. But for S. Luke, that he hath written such a perfect Gospel, in my judgment, it ought to be with them that believe him, no man­ner of question. Consider first the introduction to his Gospel, where he declares what he intends to write, in these words, For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the first, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. Add to this place, the entrance to his History of the Acts of the Apostles: The former Trea­tise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up. Weigh well these two places and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands.

• 1. Whether S. Luke doth not undertake the very same thing which he says, many had taken in hand?
• 2. Whether this were not to set forth in order, a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians?
• 3. Whether the whole Gospel of Christ, and every necessary Doctrine of it, were not sure­ly believed among Christians?
• 4. Whether they which were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word from the beginning, delivered not the whole Go­spel of Christ?
• 5. Whether he doth not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first?
• 6. Whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole Gospel of Christ?
• 7. Whe­ther he doth not undertake to write to Theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed?
• 8. And whether he had not been in­structed in all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ?
• 9 Whether in the other Text, All things which Jesus began to do and teach, must not at least imply, all the Principal and necessary things?
• 10. Whether this be not the very interpretation of your Rhemish Doctors, in their Anno­tation
• [Page 190]upon this place? 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith, without the belief whereof, no man can be saved, be not the Princi­cipal and most necessary things which Jesus taught?
• 12. And lastly, Whe­ther many things which S. Luke hath wrote in his Gospel, be not less prin­cipal, and less necessary, than all and every one of these? When you have well considered these proposals, I believe you will be very apt to think (if S. Luke be of credit with you) That all things necessary to salvation, are certainly contained in his writings alone.

And from hence you will not chuse but conclude, that seeing all the Christians in the world, agree in the belief of what S. Luke hath written, and not only so, but in all other Books of Canonical Scripture, which were never doubted of, in and by the Church, the Learned Arch-Bishop had very just and certain ground to say, That in these Propositions, which without Controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world, so much truth is contained, as, being joyned with holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Sal­vation; and that we have no cause to doubt, but that, as many as walk ac­cording to this rule, neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable Heresie thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy Faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation, peace shall be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

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

45. To the first I answer, what I conceive he would, whose words I here justifie, that he hath declared plainly in this very place, that he meant, not an absolute, but a limited Universality, and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all Professions of Christianity that are, but only, by all those several Professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world. By which words be excludes from the universality here spoken of, the deniers of the Doctrin of the Trinity, as being but a handful of men, in respect of all, nay in respect of any of these Professions which maintain it. And therefore it was a great fault in you, either willingly to conceal these words, which evacuate your Objection, or else negligently to oversee them. Especially seeing your friend, to whom you are so much beholding, Paulus Veridicus, in his scurrilous and sophistical Pamphler, against B. Usher's Sermon, hath so kindly offered to lead you by the hand to the observation of them, in these words: To consider of your Coinopista, or communiter Credenda, Articles, as you call them, universally believed of all these several Professions of Christianity, which have any large spread in the World: These Articles for example, may be the Unity of the Godhead, the Trinity of Persons, the immortality of the Soul, &c. Where you see that your friend, whom you so much magnifie, hath plainly confessed, that not­withstanding the Bishop's words, the denial of the Doctrin of the Trinity may exclude Salvation; and therefore in approving and applauding his Answer to the Bishop's Sermon, you have unawares allowed this Answer of mine to your own greatest Objection.

46. Now for the foul contradiction, which you say the Doctor might ea­sily have espyed in the Bishop's saying, he desires your pardon for his over­sight, [Page 191]sight, for Paulus Veridicus his sake; who though he set himself to find faults with the Bishop's Sermon, yet it seems this he could not find, or else questionless we should have heard of it from him. And therefore, if D. Potter, being the Bishop's friend, have not been more sharp-sighted than his enemies, this, he hopes, to indifferent Judges will seem no unpardonable offence. Yet this I say, not as if there were any contradiction at all, much less any foul contradiction, in the Bishop's words; but as Antipheron's picture, which he thought he saw in the air before him, was not in the air but in his disturbed phansie: so all the contradiction which here you de­scant upon, is not indeed in the Bishop's saying, but in your imagination. For wherein, I pray, lies this foul contradiction? In supposing (say you) a man may believe all Truths necessary to salvation, and yet superinduce a dam­nable Heresie. I answer, It is not certain that his words do suppose this: neither, if they do, doth he contradict himself. I say, it is not certain that his words import any such matter. For ordinarily men use to speak and write so, as here he doth, when they intend not to limit or restrain, but only to repeat, and press, and illustrate what they have said before. And I won­der, why with your Eagles eyes you did not espy another foul contradicti­on in his words as well as this; and say, that he supposes a man may walk according to the rule of holy obedience, and yet vitiate his holy Faith with a lewd and wicked Conversation? Certainly, a lewd Conversation is altogether as contradictious to holy Obedience, as a damnable Heresie to necessary Truth. What then was the reason that you espyed not this foul contradiction in his words as well as that? Was it because, according to the Spirit and Genius of your Church, your zeal is greater to that which you conceive true doctrin, than holy obedience; and think simple error a more capital crime than sins committed against knowledge and consci­ence? Or was it because your Reason told you, that herein he meant only to repeat and not to limit what he said before? And why then had you not so much candour to conceive that he might have the same meaning in the former part of the disjunction; and intend no more but this, Whoso­ever walks according to this rule of believing all necessary Truths and ho­ly Obedience, (neither poysoning his faith of those Truths which he holds, with the mixture of any damnable Heresie, nor vitiating it with a wicked life) Peace shall be upon him! In which words what man of any ingenui­ty will not presently perceive that the words within the parenthesis, are on­ly a repetition of, and no exception from, those that are without? S. A­thanasius in his Creed tels us, The Catholique Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance; and why now do you not tell him that he con­tradicts himself, and supposes that we may worship a Trinity of Persons, and one God in substance, and yet confound the Persons, or divide the sub­stance: which yet is impossible, because Three remaining Three, cannot be confounded, and One remaining One cannot be divided? If a man should say unto you, he that keeps all the Commandments of God, com­mitting no sin either against the love of God, or the love of his neighbour, is a perfect man: Or thus, he that will live in constant health had need be exact in his dyet, neither eating too much, nor too little: Or thus, he that will come to London, must go on straight forward in such a way, and neither turn to the right hand or to the left; I verily believe you would not [Page 192]find any contradiction in his words, but confess them as coherent and con­fonant as any in your Book. And certainly, if you would look upon this saying of the Bishop with any indifference, you would easily perceive it to be of the very same kind, and capable of the very same construction. And therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain. Neither can you assure us, that the Bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend. Neither, if he did suppose this (as perhaps he did) were this to contradict himself. For though there can be no damnable Heresie, unless it contradict some necessary Truth, yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once believe this Heresie and this Truth; because there is no contradicti­on that the same man, at the same time, should believe contradictions. For first, whatsoever a man believes true, that he may and must believe; But there have been some who have believed and taught that contradictions might be true, against whom Aristotle disputes in the third of his Meta­physicks; Therefore it is not impossible that a man may believe Contra­dictions. Secondly, they which believe there is no certainty in Reason, must believe that contradictions may be true: For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason; This contradicts Truth, therefore it is false. But there be now divers in the world, who believe there is no certainty in Rea­son, (and whether you be of their mind or no, I desire to be informed;) Therefore there be divers in the world who believe contradictions may be true. Thirdly, They which do captivate their understandings to the belief of those things which to their understanding seem irreconcileable contra­dictions, may as well believe real contradictions: (For the difficulty of be­lieving arises not from their being repugnant, but from their seeming to be so:) But you do captivate your understandings to the belief of those things which seem to your understandings irreconcileable contradictions; Therefore it is as possible and easie for you to believe those that indeed are so. Fourthly, some men may be confuted in their errors, and perswaded out of them; but no mans error can be confuted, who together with his error doth not believe and grant some true Principle that contradicts his Error: for nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing, neither can there be (as all men know) any rational discourse but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts. Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certain, that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions. Fifthly, It is evident, neither can you without extream madness and uncharitableness, deny that we believe the Bible, those Books, I mean, which we account Canonical: Otherwise why dispute you with us out of them, as out of a common Principle? Either therefore you must retract your opinion, and acknowledge that the same man at the same time may believe contradicti­ons, or else you will run into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to confess, that no part of our Doctrine contradicts the Bible. Sixthly, I de­sire you to vindicate from contradiction these following Assertions: That there should be Length and nothing long: Breadth, and nothing broad: Thickness, and nothing thick: Whiteness, and nothing white: Roundness, and nothing round: Weight, and nothing heavy: Sweetness, and nothing sweet: Moisture, and nothing moist: Fluidness, and nothing flowing▪ many Actions, and no Agent: many Passions, and no Patient: That is, that there should be a long, broad, thick, white, round, heavy, sweet moist, flowing, active, passive Nothing! That Bread should be turned into the [Page 193]substance of Christ, and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ; neither the matter, nor the form, nor the Accidents of Bread, be made either the matter, or the Form, or the Accidents of Christ. That Bread should be turned into nothing, and at the same time with the same action turned into Christ, and yet Christ should not be nothing. That the same thing at the same time should have its just dimensions, and just distance of its parts, one from another, and at the same time not have it, but all its parts together in one and the self same point. That the body of Christ, which is much greater, should be contained wholly and in its full dimensi­ons without any alteration, in that which is lesser, and that not once only, but as many times over as there are several points in the Bread and Wine. That the same thing at the same time should be wholly above it self, and wholly below it self, within it self, and without it self, on the right hand, and on the left hand, and round about it self. That the same thing at the same time should move to and from it self, and lie still: Or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space, and yet not move. That it should be brought from heaven to earth, and yet not come out of Heaven, nor be at all in any of the middle spaces between Hea­ven and Earth. That to be one, should be to be undivided from it self, and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it self. That a thing may be, and yet be no where. That a Finite thing may be in all places at once. That a Body may be in a place, and have there its dimensions, and colour, and all other qualities, and yet that it is not in the power of God to make it visible, and tangible there, nor capable of doing or suffering any thing. That there should be no certainty in our senses, and yet that we should know something certainly, and yet know nothing but by our senses. That that which is, and was long ago, should now begin to be. That that is now to be made of nothing, which is not nothing but something. That the same thing should be before and after it self. That it should be truly and really in a place, and yet without Locality. Nay, that he which is, Omnipotent, should not be able to give it Locality in this place, where it is, as some of you hold: Or, if he can, as others say he can, that it should be possible, that the same man, for example, You or I, may at the same time, be awake at London, and not awake but asleep at Rome: There run or walk, here not run or walk, but stand still, sit, or lie along: There study or write; here, do neither, but dine or sup: There speak, here be silent. That he may in one place freeze for cold, in another place burn with heat. That he may be drunk in one place, and sober in another: Valiant in one place, and a Coward in another: A Thief in one place, and honest in another. That he may be a Papist, and go to Mass in Rome; A Protestant and go to Church in England. That he may die in Rome, and live in England: or dying in both places may go to Hell from Rome, and to Heaven from Eng­land. That the Body and Soul of Christ should cease to be where it was, and yet not go to another place, nor be destroyed. All these, and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable, and most of them the acknow­ledged Consequences of your Doctrin of Transubstantiation, as is explain­ed one way or other by your School-men. Now I beseech you, Sir, to try your skill, and, if you can compose their repugnance. and make peace be­tween them, certainly, none but you shall be Catholique Moderator. But if you cannot do it, and that after an intelligible manner, then you must give [Page 194]me leave to believe, that either you do not believe Transubstantiation, or else, that it is no contradiction, that men should subjugate their understand­ings to the belief of contradictions.

47. Lastly, I pray tell me whether you have not so much Charity in store for the Bishop of Armach, and D. Porter, as to think that they them­selves believe this saying, which the one preacht and printed, the other re­printed, and, as you say, applauded? If you think they do, then certainly, you have done unadvisedly, either in charging it with a foul contradiction, or, in saying, it is impossible, that any man should at once believe contra­dictions. Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions, and that it is unreasonable to do so, I willingly grant: But to say, it is impossible to be done, is against every mans experience, and almost as unreasonable, as to do the thing which is said to be impossible. For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to believe a contradiction ex­pressed in terms; especially if he believe it to be a contradiction, yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition, to perswade themselves upon slight and trivial grounds, that these or these, though they seem contra­dictions, yet indeed are not so, and so to believe them: or if the plain re­pugnance of them, be veiled or disguised a little, with some empty unin­telligible non-sense distinction; or if it be not exprest but implyed, nor di­rect but by consequence, so that the parties, to whose faith the propositions are offered, are either innocently, or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the con­trariety of them: for men in such cases, easily to swallow and digest contra­dictions, he that denies it possible, must be a meer stranger in the world.

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

49. The first Untruth is, that D. Potter makes a Church, of men agreeing scarcely in one Point of Faith: of men concurring in some one or few Articles of Belief, and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory: Agreeing on­ly in this one Article, that Christ is our Saviour; but for the rest, like to the parts of a Chimaera, &c. Which I say is a shameless calumny, not only be­cause D. Potter in this Point delivers not his own judgment, but relates the opinion of others, M. Hooker, and M. Morton; but especially, because even these men (as they are related by D. Potter) to the constituting of the very Essence of a Church, in the lowest degree, require not only Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the World, but also submission to his Do­ctrin in mind and will. Now I beseech you Sir, tell me ingenuously, whe­ther the Doctrin of Christ may be called without blasphemy, scarcely one Point of Faith? or whether it consists only, of some one or few Articles of Belief? Or whether there be nothing in it, but only this Article, That Christ is our Saviour? Is it not manifest to all the world, that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent, in the belief of all those Books of Scripture, which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without dan­ger of damnation? Nay, is it not apparent that no man at this time, can with­out hypocrisie, pretend to believe in Christ, but of necessity he must do so? Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ, but he must have the same to believe the Scripture. I pray then read over the Scri­pture once more, or, if that be too much labour, the New Testament [Page 195]only; and then say, whether there be nothing there, but scarcely one Point of Faith? But some one or two Articles of Belief? Nothing but this Article only, That Christ is our Saviour? Say, whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities, Divine Preecepts, Divine Promises, and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered, that if any sees them not, it cannot be because he cannot, but because he will not! So plainly, that whosoever submits sincerely to the Doctrin of Christ, in mind and will, cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance. And in the rest, which it hath pleased God, for reasons best known to himself, to deliver obscurely or ambiguously, yet thus far at least they agree, that the sense of them in­tended by God, is certainly true, and that they are without passion or pre­judice to endeavour to find it out: The difference only is, Which is that true sense which God intended. Neither would this long continue, if the walls of separation, whereby the Devil hopes to make their Divisions e­ternal, were pulled down; and error were not supported against Truth, by humane advantages? But for the present, God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it! For whereas you looking upon their Points of dif­ference and agreement, through I know not what strange glasses, have made the first innumerable, and the other scarse a number: the truth is clean contrary; That those Divine Verities Speculative and Practical, wherein they universally agree (which you will have to be but a few, or but one, or scarcely one) amount to many millions, (if an exact account were taken of them:) And on the other side, the Points in variance, are in comparison but few, and those not of such a quality, but the Error in them may well consist with the belief and obedience of the entire Covenant, ratified by Christ between God and man. Yet I would not be so mistaken, as if I thought the errors even of some Protestants unconsiderable things, and matters of no moment. For the truth is, I am very fearful, that some of their opinions, either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, (though not of them­selves so damnable, but that good and holy men may be saved with them, yet) are too frequent occasions of our remisness, and slackness, in running the race of Christian Profession, of our deferring Repentance, and Conver­sion to God, of our frequent relapses into sin, and not seldom of security in sinning; & consequently, though not certain causes, yet too frequent occasi­ons of many mens damnation: and such I conceive all these Doctrins, which either directly or obliquely, put men in hope of eternal happiness, by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universal obedience, grounded upon a true and lively Faith. These errors therefore, I do not elevate or extenuate: an [...], on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed, do heartily wish, that the cement were made of my dear­est bloud, and only not to be an Anathema from Christ: Only this I say, that neither are their Points of agreement so few, nor their differences so many, as you make them; nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being Members of one Church Militant, and joynt-heirs of the glory of the Church Triumphant.

50. Your other palpable untruth is, that Protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith, than Catholique Divines (you mean your own) in Questions meerly Philosophical, or not determined by the Church. For neither do they differ at all, in matters of Faith, if you take the word in the highest sense, and mean, by matters of Faith, such Doctrins as are [Page 196] absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed, or not to be dis-believed. And then in those wherein they do differ, with what colour or shadow of Argument, can you make good, that they are more bold to disagree, than you are in Questions meerly Philosophical, or not determined by the Church? For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent, your affirmation and negation, your Est Est, Non Non, as there is between theirs? You follow your Reason, in those things which are not determined by your Church; and they theirs, in things not plainly determined in Scripture. And wherein then consists their greater, their far greater boldness? And what if they in their contradictory opinions, pretend both to relie upon the truth of God, doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more re­pugnant? I had always thought, that all contradictions had been equally contradictions, and equally repugnant; because the least of them are as far asunder as Est and Non est can make them, and the greatest are no far­ther. But then you in your differences, (by name, about Predetermination, the Immaculate Conception, the Pope's Infallibility) upon what other mo­tive do you relie? Do not you cite Scripture, or Tradition, or both, on both sides? And do you not pretend, that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God?

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

52. But I hope, Sir, you will not be difficult in granting, that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house: Now by Fundamental Articles, we mean all those which are necessary. And you your self, in the very leaf after this, take notice that D. Potter doth so. Where to this Question▪ How shall I know in particular which Points be, and which be not Fundamental? You scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer, Read my Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Charity Mi­staken, &c. There you shall find that Fundamental Doctrins are such Catholick Verities, as principally, and essentially pertain to the Faith, such as properly constitute a Church, and are necessary (in ordinary course) to be distinctly be­lieved by every Christian that will be saved. All which words he used, not to tell what Points be Fundamental, as you dishonestly impose upon him, but to explain what he meant by the word Fundamental. May it please you therefore now at last, to take notice, that by Fundamental, we mean all and only that which is necessary; and then I hope you will grant, that we may safely expect Salvation in a Church which hath all things Funda­mental to Salvation! Unless you will you say, that more is necessary, than that which is necessary.

53. Ad § 19. This long discourse, so full of un-ingenuous dealing with your adversary, perhaps would have done reasonably in a Farce or a Comedy, and I doubt not but you have made your self and your courteous Readers good sport with it. But if D. Potter, or I, had been by, when you wrote it, we should have stopt your carere at the first starting, and have put you in mind of these old School-Proverbs, Ex falso supposito sequitur quodlibet, and Uno absurdo dato, sequuntur mille. For whereas you suppose, first, that to a man desirous to save his soul, and requiring, whose direction he might rely upon? the Doctors answer would be, Upon the truly Catholick Church, I sup­pose [Page 197]upon better reason, because I know his mind, that he would advise him to call no man Master on Earth, but, according to Christs command, to rely upon the direction of God himself. If he should enquire, where he should find this direction? He would answer him; In his Word contained in Scripture. If he should enquire what assurance he might have, that the Scripture is the Word of God? He would answer him, that the doctrin it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God, nec vox hominem sonat, and that they which wrote and delivered it, confirmed it to be the Word of God by doing such works as could not be done, but by power from God himself. For assurance of the Truth hereof he would ad­vise him to rely upon that, which all wise men in all matters of belief re­ly upon; and that is the consent of Ancient Records, and Universal Tra­dition. And that he might not instruct him as partial in this advice, he might farther tell him, that a Gentleman that would be nameless, that has written a Book against him, called Charity maintained by Catholiques, though in many things he differ from him, yet agrees with him in this, that Tradi­tion is such a principle as may be rested in, and which requires no other proof. As indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as Julius Caesar, or Cicero, that there are such Cities as Rome or Constantinople, though he have no other assurance for the one or the other, but only the speech of people. This tradition therefore he would counsel him to rely upon, and to believe that the Book which we call Scripture, was confirmed abundantly by the works of God, to be the Word of God. Believing it the Word of God, he must of necessity believe it true: and if he believe it true, he must believe it contains all necessary direction to eternal happiness, because it affirms it self to do so. Nay, he might tell him that so far is the whole Book, from wanting any necessary direction to his eternal Salvation, that one only Author, that hath writ but too little Books of it, S. Luke by name, in the be­ginning of his Gospel, and in the beginning of his Story, shews plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary. And what they wrote, they wrote by Gods direction, for the direction of the world, not only for the Learned, but for all that would do their true endeavour to know the will of God, and to do it; therefore you cannot but conceive, that writing to all and for all, they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all. Besides that, here he should find, that God himself has engaged himself by promise, that if he would love him, and keep his Commandements and pray earnestly for his Spirit, and be willing to be di­rected by it, he should undoubtedly receive it, even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all truth; that is certainly, at least into all necessary Truths, and suffer him to fal into no pernicious error. The sum of his whole directi­on to him briefly would be this, believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, use your true endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it, and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternal happiness. This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case; and this is a way so plain, that fools, unless they will, cannot err from it. Because, not knowing absolutely all truth, nay not all profitable truth, and being feee from err our; but endeavouring to know the truth and obey it, and endeavouring to be free from err our, is by this way made the only condition of Salvation. As for your supposition That he would advise such a man to rely upon the Catholique Church for [Page 198]the finding out the doctrin of Christ; he utterly disclaims it, and truly very justly: There being no certain way to know that any Company is a true Church, but only by their professing the true doctrin of Christ. And there­fore as it is impossible I should know that such a company of Philosophers are Peripateticks, or Stoicks; unless I first know what was the doctrin of the Peripateticks, and Stoicks; so is it impossible that I should certainly know any company to be the Church of Christ, before I know what is the do­ctrin of Christ, the Profession whereof constitutes the visible Church, the Belief and Obedience the invisible. And therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the Catholique Church to the doctrin of Christ; the contrary rather is most certain and necessary, that by the fore-know­ledg of the doctrin of Christ, he must be directed to a certain assurance, which is the Catholique Church, if he mean not to choose at a venture, but desire to have certain direction to it. This supposition therefore, being the hinge whereon your whole Discourse turns, is the Minerva of your own Brain; and therefore, were it but for this, have we not great reason to ac­cuse you of strange immodesty, in saying as you do, That the whole Dis­course and Inferences which here you have made, are either D. Potters own direct assertions, or evident consequences clearly deduced from them? Espe­cially seeing your proceeding in it, is so consonant to this ill beginning, that it is in a manner wholly made made up, not of D. Potters assertions, but your own fictions obtruded on him.

54. To the next Question, Cannot General Councils err? You pretend he answers, They may err damnably. Let the Reader see the place, and he shall find, damnably is your addition. To the third Demand, Must I consult, (about my difficulties) with every particular person of the Catholick Church? You answer for him, (that which is most false) that it seems so by his words; The whole militant Church, that is, all the members of it cannot possibly err ei­ther in the whole faith, or any necessary Article of it: which is very certain, for should it do so, it should be the Church no longer. But what sense is there that you should collect out of these words, that every member of the mili­tant Church must be consulted with? By like reason, if he had said that all men in the world cannot err; If he said that God in his own person, or his Angels could not erre in these matters, you might have gathered from hence, that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt, to consult with Angels, or with God in his own person, or with All men in the world. Is it not evi­dent to all sober men, that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with, besides the understanding of the matter, it is absolutely requisite that they may be spoken with? And is it not apparently impossible, that any man should speak with all the members of the Militant Church? Or, if he had spoken with them All, know that he had done so? Nay does not D. Potter say as much in plain terms? Nay more, do not you take notice that he does so in the very next words before these, where you say, he affirms that the Catho­lique Church cannot be told of private injuries: unless you will perswade us there is a difference between the Catholique Church, and the whole Militant Church. For whereas you make him deny this of the Catholique Church united, and affirm it of the Militant Church dispersed into par­ticulars; The truth is, he speaks neither of united nor dispersed, but af­firms simply (as appears to your shame by your own quotations) that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries: and then, that the [Page 199] whole Militant Church cannot erre. But then besides, that the united Church cannot be consulted, and the dispersed may, What a wild imagina­tion is it? and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him? I beseech you Sir, to consider seriously, how far blind zeal to your superstiti­on hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion, and made you careless of speaking either truth or sense, so you speak against D. Potter!

55. Again, you make him say, The Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawful Council may erre damnably: and from this you collect, It remains then, for your necessary instruction you must repair to every particular mem­ber of the Universal Church spread over the face of the earth. And this is also Pergula pictoris, veri nihil, omnia ficta. The Antecedent false (not for the matter of it, but) that D. Potter says it, And the consequence as far from it as Gades from Ganges; and as coherent as a rope of Sand. A ge­neral Council may err; therefore you must travel all the world over, and consult with every particular Christian! As if there were nothing else to be consulted with: Nay, as if according to the Doctrin of Protestants, (for so you must say,) there were nothing to be consulted with, but only, a general Council, or all the World! Have you never heard that Prote­stants say, That men for their direction must consult with Scripture? Nay, doth not D. Potter say it often in this very Book which you are confuting? Nay more, in this very page out of which you take this piece of your Cento, A General Council may erre damnably? are there not these plain words, In searches of Truth (he means divine Truth) God ever directs us to the infallible Rule of Truth, the Scripture? With what conscience then, or modesty, can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence, and pretend that your whole discourse, is either his own direct assertions, or evident consequences, clearly deduced from them? You add, that yet he teaches (as if he contradicted himself) that the promises of God made to the Church for his assistance, are not intended to particular persons, but only to the Catholick Church: which sure agrees very well with any thing said by D. Potter. If it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely, what is that to him?

56. Neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation: unless it be such a one, as hath such a strong affection to this word, Church, that he will not go to Heaven, unless he hath a Church to lead him thither. For what though a Council may err, and the whole Church cannot be consulted with, yet this is not to send you on the Fool's Pilgrimage for Faith, and bid you go and conferre with every Christian soul, man and woman, by Sea and by Land, close prisoner or at liberty, as you dilate the matter: But to tell you very briefly, that Universal Tradition directs you to the Word of God, and the Word of God directs you to Heaven. And therefore here is no cause of desperation, no cause for you to be so vain, and tragical, as here you would seem. Yet upon Supposal (you say) of this miraculous pilgrimage for Faith, before I have the Faith of Miracles, how shall I proceed at our meet­ing? Or how shall I know the man, on whom I may securely rely? And here­unto you frame this Answer for the Doctor, Procure to know whether he believe all Fundamental Points of Faith: Whereas in all the Doctors Book, there is no such Answer to any such Question, or any like it. Nei­ther do you, as your custom is, note any Page where it may be found; [Page 200]which makes me suspect, that sure you have some private licence to use Heretiques (as you call them) at your pleasure, and make them answer a­ny thing to any thing.

57. Wherein I am yet more confirmed, by the Answer you put in his mouth to your next demand, How shall I know whether he hold all Fundamen­tal points or no? For, whereas hereunto D. Potter having given one Answer fully satisfactory to it, which is, If he truly believe the undoubted Books of Ca­nonical Scripture, he cannot but believe all Fundamentals; and another, which is but something towards a full satisfaction of it, That the Creed con­tains all the Fundamentals of simple Belief: you take no notice of the for­mer, and pervert the latter, and make him say, The Creed contains all Fun­damentals of Faith. Whereas you know, and, within six or seven lines after this, confess, that he never pretended it to contain all simply, but all of one sort, all necessary Points of simple belief. Which assertion because he modest­ly delivers as very probable (being willing to conclude rather less than more than his reasons require,) hereupon you take occasion to ask: Shall I haz­zard my soul on probabilities, or even wagers! As if, whatsoever is but pro­bable, though in the highest degree of probability, were as likely to be false as true! Or because it is but Morally, not Mathematically, certain that there was such a Woman as Q. Elizabeth, such a man as H. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable, therefore it were an even wager there were none such! By this reason, seeing the truth of your whole Religion depends final­ly upon Prudential motives, which you do but pretend to be very credible, it will be an even wager that your Religion is false. And by the same reason, or rather infinitely greater, seeing it is impossible for any man (according to the grounds of your Religion) to know himself, much less another to be a true Pope, or a true Priest; nay, to have a Moral certainty of it; because these things are abnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernable nullities, it will be an even wager, nay (if we proportion things indifferently,) a hundred to one, that every Consecration and Absolution of yours is void, and that whensoever you adore the Host, you and your Assistants commit Idolatry: That there is a nullity in any Decree that a Pope shall make, or any Decree of a Council which he shall confirm: Particularly, it will be, at least any even wager, that all the Decrees of the Council of Trent are void, because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope. If you mislike these Inferences, then confess you have in­jur'd D. Potter in this also, that you have confounded and made all one, Probabilities, and even Wagers. Whereas every ordinary Gamester can inform you, that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will hap­pen, yet it is not sure, but very probable.

58. To make the measure of your injustice yet fuller, you demand, If the Creed contains only points of simple belief, how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practise? D. Potter would have an­swered you in our Saviours words, Search the Scriptures. But you have a great mind it seems to be dispairing, and therefore, having proposed your Question, will not suffer him to give you Answer, but shut your ears and tell him, still he chalks out new paths for desperation.

59. In the rest of your interlude, I cannot but commend one thing in you, that you keep a decorum, and observe very well the Rule given you by the great Master of your Art,

One vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it, from the be­ginning to the end. Your next demand then is, Are all the Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamental? and the Answer, I cannot say so. Which Answer (though it be true) D. Potter no where gives it, nei­ther hath he occasion, but you make it for him, to bring in another question: and that is, How then shall I know, which in particular be, and which be not Fundamental? D. Potter would have answered, It is a vain question: be­lieve all, and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamental.

60. But what says now his prevaricating Proxy? What does he make him say? This which follows: Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet, in­tituled, Charity Mistaken: There you shall find that Fundamental doctrins, are such Catholique verities, as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith, such as properly constitute a Church, and are necessary in ordinary course, to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved. They are those Grand and Captital Doctrins which make up our Faith, that is, the Common Faith, which is alike pretious in all; being one and the same, in the highest Apostle, and the meanest believer, which the Apostle elsewhere cals, The first Principles of the Oracles of God, and, The form of sound words.

61. But in earnest, Good Sir, doth the Doctor in these places by you quoted, make to this question this same sottish answer? Or do you think that against an Heretique nothing is unlawful? Certainly, if he doth answer thus, I will make bold to say, he is a very fool. But if he does not, (as in­deed he does not) then—: But I forbear you, and beseech the Reader to consult the places of D. Potter's Book; and there he shall find, that, in the former half of these (as you call them) varyed words and phrases, he de­clared only what he meant by the word Fundamental, which was needful to prevent mistakes, and cavilling about the meaning of the word, which is metaphorical, and therefore ambiguous; and that the latter half of them, are several places of Scripture imployed by D. Potter, to shew that his di­stinction of Fundamental and not Fundamental hath express ground in it. Now of these two places, very pertinent unto two very good purposes; you have exceeding fairly patcht together a most ridiculous Answer, to a Question, that D. Potter never dreamed of. But the words, you will say, are in D. Potters Book, though in divers places, and to other purposes. Very true: And so the words of Ausonius his obscene Fescennine, are taken out of Virgil, yet Virgil surely was not the Author of this Poem. Besides in D. Potters book, there are these words, Dre [...]d Soveraign, amongst the ma­ny excellent vertues, which have made your Majesties person so dear unto God, &c. And why now may you not say as well, that in these he made Answer to your former question, what Points of the Creed were, and what were not Fundamentals?

62. But unl [...]ss this question may be answered, his doctrin (you say) serves only either to make men despair, or else to have recourse to these whom we call Rapists. It seems, a little thing will make you despair, if you be so sullen as to do so, because men will not trouble themselves to satisfie your curious que­stions. And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it, because, as before I told you, if you will believe all the Points of the Creed, you can­not choose but believe all the Points of it that are Fundamental, though [Page 202]you be ignorant which are so, and which are not so. Now, I believe, your desire to know which are Fundamentals, proceeds only from a desire to be assured that you do believe them; which seeing you may be assured of, without knowing which they be, what can it be but curiosity to desire to desire to know it? Neither may you think to mend your self herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists; for they are as far to seek as we in this Point, which of the Articles of the Creed are, for their nature, and matter, Fundamental, and which are not. Particularly, you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors, so adventurous as to tell you for a certain, Whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost, his being born of a Virgin, his Burial, his Descent into Hell, and the Com­munion of Saints, be Points of their own nature and matter Fundamental. Such I mean, as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved.

63. But you will say, at least they give this certain Rule, that all Points de­fined by Christ's visible Church, belong to the foundation of faith, in such sense, as, to deny any such, cannot stand with Salvation. So also Protestants give you this more certain Rule, That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture, which all the Christian Churches in the world acknow­ledge to be Canonical, and submits himself indeed to this, as to the rule of his belief, must of necessity believe all things Fundamental; and, if he live according to his faith, cannot fail of Salvation. But besides, What cer­tainty have you, that that rule of Papists is so certain? By the visible Church it is plain, they mean only their own: and why their own only should be the Visible Church, I do not understand: and as little, why all Points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith. These things you had need see well and substantially proved, before you rely upon them, otherwise you expose your self to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamental truths. But you will say, D. Pot­ter himself acknowledges, that you do not err in Fundamentals. If he did so, yet me-thinks you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security, whom you condemn of error in many other matters. Per­haps, excess of Charity to your persons, may make him censure your errors more favourably than he should do. But the truth is, and so I have often told you, though the Doctor hopes that your errors are not so unpardona­bly destructive, but that some men, who ignorantly hold them may be sa­ved, yet in themselves he professes and proclaims them damnable, and such as, he fears, will be certainly destructive to such as you are, that is, to all those, who have eyes to see and will not see them.

64. Ad §. 20, 21, 22, [...]. In the Remainder of this Chapter, you promise to answer D. Potter's Arguments against that which you said before. But presently forgetting your self, instead of answering his Arguments, you fall a confuting his Answers to your own. The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate, were two.

• 1. The Scripture is not so much as men­tioned in the Creed, therefore the Creed contains not all things necessary to be believed.
• 2. Baptism is not contained in the Creed, therefore not all things necessary.

To both which Arguments my answer shortly is this, that they prove something, but it is that which no man here denies. For. D. Potter (as you have also confessed) never said, nor undertook to shew, that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed, all Points absolutely, which [Page 203]we are bound to believe, or after sufficient proposal, not to disbelieve; which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him: But only that they purposed to comprize in it, all such doctrines purely speculative, all such matters of simple belief, as are in ordinary course, necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men. Now neither of these ob­jections do any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion. Not the first, because according to your own doctrin, all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonical. Nor the second, because Baptism is not a matter of Faith, but practice: not so much to be believed, as to be given, and received. And against these Answers, whe­ther you have brought any considerable new matter, let the indifferent Reader judge. As for the other things, which D. Potter rather glanceth at than builds upon in answering these objections, as the Creeds being collected out of Scripture, and, supposing the Authority of it, which Grege­ry of Valentia in the place above cited, seems to me to confess, to have been the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers: and the Nicene Creeds inti­mating the authority of Canonical Scripture, and making mention of Baptism: These things were said ex abundanti; and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them. Prove that D. Potter did affirm that the Creed contains all things necessary to be believed of all sorts, and then these objections will be pertinent, and deserve an an­swer. Or produce some Point of simple belief, necessary to be explicitely believed, which is not contained either in terms, or by consequence in the Creed, and then I will either answer your Reasons, or confess I cannot. But all this while you do but trifle, and are so far from hitting the Mark, that you rove quite beside the Butt.

65. Ad §. 23, 24, 25. D. Potter demands, How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the Apostles had, and the Church of their times? You Answer, That he trifles, not distinguishing between the A­postles belief, and that abridgment of some Articles of faith, which we call the Apostles Creed. I reply, that it is you which trifle, affectedly confounding (what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished) the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ, as it comprehends both what we are to do, and what we are to believe, with their belief of that part of it, which contains not duties of obedience, but only the necessary Articles of simple Faith. Now though the Apostles Belief be, in the former sense, a larger thing than that which we call the Apostles Creed: yet in the latter sense of the word, the Creed (I say) is a full comprehension of their belief, which you your self have formerly confessed, though somewhat fearfully, and inconstantly: and here again unwillingness to speak the truth, makes you speak that which is hardly sense, and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith. For I demand, these some Articles which you speak of, Which are they? Those that are out of the Creed, or those that are in it? Those that are in it, it comprehends at large, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them: Those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them. If you would call it now an abridgment of the Faith, this would be sense, and signifie thus much, That all the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith are comprised in it. For this is the proper duty of Abridgements, to leave out nothing necessary, and to take in no­thing unnecessary.

[Page 204] 66. Moreover, in answer to this demand you tell us, that the Doctor begs the Question, supposing that the Apostles believed no more than is con­tained in their Creed, I Answer, He supposes no such matter; but only that they knew no more necessary Articles of simple belief, than what are contained in their Creed. So that here you abuse D. Potter and your Rea­der, by taking sophistically without limitation, that which is delivered with limitation.

67. But this Demand of D. Potter's, was equivalent to a Negation, and intended for one: How can it be necessary for any Christian, to have more in his Creed, than the Apostles had? All one with this, It cannot be necessary, &c. And this negation of his, he inforces with many arguments which he proposes by way of interrogation, thus. May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to Heaven, narrower than our Saviour left it? Shall it be a fault to straiten and encumber the King's high way with publique nuisances; and is it lawful by adding new Articles to the Faith, to retrench any thing from the Latitude of the King of Heavens high way to eternal Happiness? The yoke of Christ, which he said was easie, may it be justly made heavier by the Governors of the Church in after-ages? The Apostles profess they re­vealed to the Church the whole Counsel of God, keeping back nothing need­ful for our Salvation: What tyranny then, to impose any new unnecessary matters on the Faith of Christians, especially (as the late Popes have done) under the high commanding form, Qui non crediderit, damnabitur? If this may be done, Why then did our Saviour reprehend the Pharises so sharply, for binding heavy burdens, and laying them on mens shoulders? And why did he teach them, that in vain they worshipped God, teaching for Doctrines mens Traditions? And why did the Apostles call it tempting of God, to lay those things upon the necks of Christians, that were not necessary?

68. All which Interrogations seem to me to contain so many plain and convincing Arguments of the premised Assertion; to all which (one ex­cepted,) according to the advice of the best Masters of Rhetorick in such Cases, you have answered very discreetly, by saying O. But when you write again, I pray take notice of them: and, if you can devise no fair, and satisfying Answer to them, then be so ingenuous as to grant the Conclusi­on, That no more can be necessary for Christians to believe now, than was in the Apostles time. A conclusion of great importance, for the decision of many Controversies, and the disburdening of the Faith of Christ from many incumbrances.

69. As for that one, which you thought you could fasten upon, ground­ed on the 20. Act. 27. let me tell you plainly, that by your An­swering this, you have shewed plainly that it was wisely done of you to de­cline the rest. You tell D. Potter, That needful for salvation is his gloss, which perhaps you intended for a piece of an Answer. But, good Sir, con­sult the place, and you shall find, that there S. Paul himself says that he kept back [...], not any thing that was profitable: and, I hope, you will make no difficulty to grant, that whatsoever is needful for salvati­on, is very profitable.

70. But then you say, This is no proof unless he beg the Question, and sup­pose, that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed. I Answer, it is not D. Potter that begs the Question, but you that mistake it: which is not here in this particular place, Whether all Points [Page 205]of simple Belief necessary for the salvation of the Primitive Christians, were contained in the Apostles Symbol? (for that and the proofs of it fol­low after, in the next §. p. 223. of D. Potter's Book): but, Whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to believe now, which was not so from the beginning? D. Potter maintains the Negative; and to make good his opinion, thus he argues S. Paul declared to the Ephesians the whole Counsel of God touching their Salvation; Therefore that which S. Paul did not declare, can be no part of the Counsel of God, and therefore not necessary. And again: S. Paul kept back nothing from the Ephesians that was profitable; Therefore he taught them all things necessary to salvati­on. Consider this, I pray, a little better, and then, I hope, you will ac­knowledge, that here was no Petitio principii, in D. Potter; but rather Ig­noratio Elenchi, in you.

71. Neither is it material, that these words were particularly directed by S. Paul, to the Pastors of the Church: For (to say nothing that the Point here issuable, is not, Whom he taught, whether Priests or Laymen? But how much he taught, and whether all things necessary?) it appears plainly out of the Text, and I wonder you should read it so negligently as not to observe it, that though he speaks now to the Pastors, yet he speaks of what he taught not only them, but also the Laity as well as them. I have kept back nothing (says S. Paul) that was profitable, but have shewed, and have taught you publikely, and from house, to house; Testifying (I pray observe) both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. And a little after, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God, shall see my face no more: Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am innocent from the blood of all men; for I have kept nothing back, but have shewed you all the Counsel of God. And again, Remember that by the space of three years I ceas­ed not to warn every one night and day with tears. Certainly, though he did all these things to the Pastors among the rest, nay above the rest, yet, with­out Controversie, they whom he taught publikely, and from house to house: The Jews and Greeks to whom he testified, (1.) preached Faith and Repentance: Those all, amongst whom he went preaching the king­dom of God: Those Every one, whom for three years together he warned, were not Bishops and Pastors only.

72. Neither is this to say, that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed, nothing of the Sacraments, Commandments, &c. for that is not here the point to be proved: but only, that they taught them all things necessary, so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them. But how much of this they put into their Creed, Whether all the necessary Points of simple Belief, as we pretend, or only as you say, I know not what, is another Question and which comes now to be farther examined. D. Potter in confirmation of it, besides the authorities which you formerly shifted off, with so egregious tergiversation, urges five several Arguments.

73. The sense of the first is this, If all the necessary Points of simple of Be­lief be not comprized in the Creed, it can no way deserve the name of the A­postles Creed, as not being their Creed in any sense, but only a part of it. To this you Answer §. 25. Upon the same affected ambiguity, &c. Answ. It is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent, but that was not the Question: But whether all the Points of simple belief which they taught [Page 206]as necessary to be explicitely believed, be not contained in it? And if thus much at least of Christian Religion, be not comprized in it, I again desire you to inform me, How it could be called the Apostles Creed!

74. Four other Reasons D. Potter urges to the same purpose, grounded upon the practice of the Ancient Church; The last whereof you answer in the second part of your Book. But to the rest, drawn from the ancient Churches appointing her Infants to be instructed (for matters of simple be­lief,) only in the Creed: From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptism: and of Strangers to her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed, you have not, for ought I can perceive, thought fit to make any kind of Answer.

75. The difficulties of the 27. and last §. of this Chapter, have been sa­tisfied. So that there remains unexamined only the 26. Section, wherein you exceed your self in Sophistry: Especially in that trick of Cavillers, which is to answer objections by other objections; an excellent way to make controversies endless! D. Potter desires to be resolved, Why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed, the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed, and be altogether silent of others? Instead of resol­ving him in this difficulty, you put another to him, and that it is, Why are some Points not Fundamental expressed in it, rather than others of the same quality? Which demand is so far from satisfying the former Doubt, that it makes it more intricate. For upon this ground it may be de­manded, How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Ar­ticles simply necessary, and put in others not necessary, especially if their intention were (as you say it was) to deliver it in such Articles as were fit­test for those times? Unless (which were wondrous strange) unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times, than necessary. But now to your Que­stion, the Answer is obvious: These unnecessary things might be put in because they were circumstances of the necessary; Pontius Pilate, of Christ's Passion; The third day, of the Resurrection. Neither doth the adding of them make the Creed ever a whit the less portable, the less fit to be under­stood, and remembred. And for the contrary reasons, other unnecessary things might be left out. Beside, who sees not, that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without af­fectation! And therefore not so great a fault, nor deserving such a censure, as the omission of any thing essential to the work undertaken, and neces­sary to the end proposed in it.

76. You demand again (as it is no hard matter to multiply demands) Why our Saviour's descent to Hell, and Burial was expressed, end not his Cir­cumcision, his manifestation to the three Kings, and working of Miracles? I answer: His Resurrection, Ascension, and Sitting at the right hand of God are very great Miracles, and they are expressed. Besides, S. John assures us, That the Miracles which Christ did, were done and written not for them­selves that they might be believed; but for a farther end, that we might be­lieve that Jesus was the Christ, and believing have eternal life. He there­fore that believe this may be saved, though he have no explicite and di­stinct faith of any Miracle that our Saviour did. His Circumcision and Manifestation to the Wise men (for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings) are neither things simply necessary to be known, nor have any neer relation to those that are so. As for his Descent into hell, it may [Page 207](for ought you know) be put in as a thing necessary of it self to be known. If you ask, why more than his Circumcision? I refer you to the Apostles for an answer, who put that in, and left this out of their Creed: and yet sure, were not so forgetful after the receiving of the Holy Ghost, as to leave out any prime and principal foundation of the Faith, which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus, Contr. 2. c. 10. num. Likewise his Burial was put in perhaps as necessary of it self to be known. But though it were not, yet hath it manifestly so near relation to these that are necessa­ry, his Passion, and Resurrection; (being the Consequent of the one, and the Antecedent of the other,) that it is no marvel if for their sakes it was put in. For though I verily believe that there is no necessary Point of this nature, but what is in the Creed, yet I do not affirm, because I cannot prove it, that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary. You demand thirdly, Why did they not express Scriptures, Sacraments, and all Funda­mental Points of Faith tending to practice, as well as those which rest in Be­lief? I answer; Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary Points which rest in Belief: which appears, because of practical Points there is not in it so much as one.

77. D. Potter subjoyns to what is said above, That as well, nay better, they might have given no Article but that of the Church, and sent us to the Church for all the rest: For in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all. This consequence you deny: and neither give reason against it, nor satisfie his reason for it, which yet in my judgment is good and concluding. The Proposition to be proved is this: That, if your Doctrin were true, this short Creed, I believe the Roman Church to be infallible, would have been better, that is, more ef­fectual to keep the believers of it from Heresie, and in the true Faith, than this Creed which now we have. A Proposition so evident, that I cannot see how either you, or any of your Religion, or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it. Yet because you make shew of doing so, or else, which I rather hope, do not rightly apprehend the force of the Rea­son, I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it, by com­paring the effects of these several supposed Creeds.

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

79. The latter Creed which now we have, is so uneffectual for these good purposes, that you your self tell us of innumerable, gross, damnable Heresies, that have been, are, and may be, whose contrary Truths are nei­ther explicitly, nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed: So that no man by the belief of this Creed without the former, can be possibly guar­ded from falling into them, and continuing obstinate in them. Nay, so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefs, that it is more likely to ensnare them into them, by seeming and yet not being a full com­prehension of all necessary Points of Faith: which is apt (as experience shews,) to mis-guide men into this (as you conceive it) pernitious error, [Page 208]That believing the Creed, they believe all necessary Points of Faith, where­as indeed, according to you, they do not so. Now upon these grounds I thus conclude: That Creed, which hath great commodities and no dan­ger, would certainly be better than that which hath great danger, and wants many of these great commodities. But the former short Creed propos'd by me, I believe the Roman Church to be infallible, (if your doctrin be true) is of the former condition, and the latter, that is, the A­postles Creed, is of the latter, Therefore the former (if your doctrin be true) would without controversie be better than the latter.

80. But (say you) by this kind of arguing, one might infer quite con­trary, If the Apostles Creed contain all Points necessary to Salvation, What need have we of any Church to teach us? And consequently what need of the Article of the Church? To which I answer, that having compared your in­ference and D. Potter's together, I cannot discover any shadow of resem­blance between them, nor any shew of Reason, why the perfection of the Apostles Creed, should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it. Much less why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the belief of a part of it unnecessary. As well (for ought I under­stand) you might avouch this inference to be as good as D. Potters: The A­postles Creed contains all things necessary, therefore there is no need to be­lieve in God. Neither doth it follow so well as D. Potter's Argument fol­lows, That if the Apostles Creed contains all things necessary, that all other Creeds and Catechisms, wherein are added divers other Particulars, are superfluous. For these other Particulars may be the duties of obedi­ence, they may be profitable Points of Doctrine, they may be good expo­sitions of the Apostles Creed, and so not superfluous; and yet for all this the Creed may still contain all Points of Belief that are simply necessary. These therefore are poor consequences, but no more like D. Potters than an apple is like an oister.

81. But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgra­ced it, at length you promise us news, and pretend to grant it. But what is that which you mean to grant? That the Apostles did put no Article in their Creed but only that of the Church? Or that, if they had done so, they had done better than now they have done? This is D. Potter's infe­rence out of your Doctrin: and truly, if you should grant this, this were news indeed? Yes, say you, I will grant it, but only thus far, that Christ hath referred us only to his Church. Yea, but this is clean another thing, and no news at all, that you should grant that, which you would fain have granted to you. So that your dealing with us is just as if a man should proffer me a courtesie, and pretend that he would oblige himself by a note under his hand, to give me twenty pound; and instead of it write, that I owe him forty, and desire me to subsctibe to it and be thankful. Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberal.

82. You tell us afterward (but how it comes in I know not) that it were a childish argument, The Creed contains not all things necessary; Ergo, It is not profitable! Or, The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some con­venient means: Ergo, She must teach us without means. These indeed are childish arguments; but, for ought I see, you alone are the father of them: for, in D. Potter's book, I can neither meet with them, nor any like them. He indeed tels you, that if (by an impossible supposition) your Doctrin were [Page 209]true, another and a far shorter Creed would have been more expedient: even this alone, I believe the Roman Church to be infallible. But why you should conclude, he makes this Creed which we have, unprofitable; be­cause he says another that might be conceived upon this false supposition, would be more profitable: or, that he lays a necessity upon the Church, of teaching without means: or, of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught; these things are so subtil that I cannot apprehend them. To my understanding, by those words, And sent us to the Church for all the rest, he does rather manifestly imply, that the rest might be very well, not only profitable but necessary, and that the Church was to teach this by Creeds, or Catechisms, or Councels, or any other means which she should make choice of; for, being Infallible, she could not chuse amiss.

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

84. Whereas you say, If we will believe we have all in the Creed when we have not all, it is not the Apostles fault but our own: I tell you plainly, if it be a fault, I know not whose it should be but theirs. For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whithersoever they lead me; Now, I say, they have led me into this perswasion, because they have given me great reason to believe it, and none to the contrary. The reason they have given me to believe it, is, because it is apparent and confest, they did pro­pose to themselves in composing it, some good end or ends: As that Christi­ans might have a form, by which (for matter of Faith) they might profess themselves Catholiques. So Putean out of Tho. Aquinas: That the faithful might know, what the Christian people is to believe explicitly. So Vincent Fili­ucius: That being separated into divers parts of the World, they might preach the same thing: And, that, that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Chri­stians from Infidels, So Card, Riclieu. Now for all these & for any other good [Page 210]intent, I say, it will be plainly uneffectual, unless it contain at least all Points of simple Belief, which are, in ordinary course, necessary to be ex­plicitly known by all men. So that, if it be a fault in me to believe this, it must be my fault to believe the Apostles, wise and good men: which I cannot do if I believe not this. And therefore, what Richardus de sancto Victore says of God himself, I make no scruple at all to apply to the A­postles, and to say, Si error est quod credo, à vobis deceptus sum: If it be an error which I believe, it is you, and my reverend esteem of you and your actions, that hath led me into it. For as for your suspition, That we are led into this perswasion, out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own, It is plainly uncharitable. I know no opinion I have, which I would not as willingly forsake as keep, if I could see sufficient rea­son to enduce me to believe, that it is the will of God I should forsake it. Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome, but I have more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it. For let but these Truths be granted: That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church, and dependent only in respect of us upon universal Tra­dition; That Scripture is the only Rule of Faith: That all things necessary to Salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture: Let, I say, these most cer­tain and Divine Truths be laid for Foundations, and let our superstructi­ons be consequent and coherent to them; and, I am confident, Peace would be restored, and Truth maintained against you, though the Apostles Creed were not in the World.

The ANSWER to the FIFTH CHAPTER. The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church, being upon just and necessary causes, is not any way guilty of Schism.

1. AD §. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. In the seven first Sections of this Chap­ter, there be many things said, and many things supposed by you which are untrue, and deserve a censure. As,

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

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

4. That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schism, it is certainly consequent, that all who persist in this Division must be so likewise. Which is not so certain as you pretend. For they, which alter without necessary cause the present government of any State, Civil or Ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault; whereof notwith­standing they may be innocent who continue this alteration, and to the ut­most of their power oppose a change though to the former State, when continuance of time hath once setled the present. Thus have I known some of your own Church, condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain, of the sin of Rebellion; yet absolve them from it [Page 228]who now being of your Religion there, are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the King of Spain.

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

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

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

8. Seventhly, That every Heretique is a Schismatique. Which you must acknowledge false in those, who though they deny, or doubt of some Point professed by your Church, and so are Heretiques; yet continue still in the Communion of the Church.

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

10. Ad §. 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacy; One, in supposing and taking for granted, that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fa­thers, must be true; whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falshood, which yet are maintained by more than thrice three Fathers. Another, in pretending their words to be spoken absolute­ly, which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases. For whereas you say S. Austin c. 62. l. 2. cont. Parm. inferrs out of the former pre­mises, That there is no necessity to divide Unity: to let pass your want of di­ligence, in quoting the 62. Chapter of that Book, which hath but 23. in it: to pass by also, that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter, are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend; this, I say, is evident, that he says not absolutely, that there never is, or can be any necessity to di­vide Unity (which only were for your purpose,) but only in such a speci­al case, as he there sets down: That is, When good men tolerate bad men, which can do them no spiritual hurt, to the intent they may not be separated from these, who are spiritually good; Then (saith he) there is no necessity to divide Unity. Which very words do clearly give us to understand, that it may fall out (as it doth in our case,) that we cannot keep Unity with bad men, without spiritual hurt, i.e. without partaking with them in their im­pieties, and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them: [Page 229]I mean, to break off conjunction with them in their impieties. Which that it was S. Austin's mind, it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same Book: where, to Parmenian demanding, How can a man remain pure, be­ing joyned with those that are corrupted? he answers, Very true, this is not possible, if he be joyned with them, that is, if he commit any evil with them, or favour them which do commit it. But if he do neither of these, he is not joyned with them. And presently after, These two things retained, will keep such men pure and uncorrupted; that is, neither doing ill, nor ap­proving it. And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Com­munion, a necessity of doing, or at least approving many things unlawful, certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing Unity, ei­ther with you, or with God; and whether of these is rather to be done, be ye Judges.

11. Irenaeus also says not simply (which only would do you service,) there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation, as to justifie a se­paration from them who will not reform: But only, they cannot make any corruption so great, as is the pernitiousness of a Schism: Now, They, here, is a relative, and hath an antecedent expressed in Irenaeus, which, if you had been pleased to take notice of, you would easily have seen, that what Irae­neus says, falls heavy upon the Church of Rome, but toucheth Protestants nothing at all. For the men he speaks of, are such as Propter modicas & quaslibet causas, for trifling or small causes, divide the body of Christ; such as speak of peace, and make war; such as strain at gnats and swallow Ca­mels. And these, saith he, can make no reformation of any such importance, as to countervail the danger of a division. Now, seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome, are (as we pretend, and are ready to justifie,) because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition, Idola­try, Impiety, and most cruel Tyranny, both upon the bodies and souls of men, Who can say, that the causes of our separation, may be justly esteemed Modicae & quaelibet causae? On the other side, seeing the Bishop of Rome, who was contemporary to Irenaeus, did (as much as in him lay) cut off from the Churches unity, many great Churches, for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter, upon a difference, Non de Catholico dogmate, sed de Ritu, vel Ritus potiùs tempore; Not about any Catholique doctrine, but only a Ceremony, or rather about the time of observing it? so Petavius values it: which was just all one, as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England, for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them. And seeing he was reprehended sharply and bitterly for it, by most of the Bishops of the world, as Eusebius testifies,Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 24. Perron Replic. 3. l. 2. c. and (as Cardinal Perron though mincing the matter, yet confesseth) by this very I­renaeus himself in particular admonished, that for so small a cause (propter tam modicam causam,) he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church: and lastly, seeing the Ecclesiastical Story of those times, mentions no other notable example of any such Schismatical pre­sumption, but this of Victor; certainly we have great inducement to ima­gine, that Irenaeus in this place by you quoted, had a special aim at the Bi­shop and Church of Rome. Once, this I am sure of, that the place fits him, and many of his successors, as well as if it had been made purposely for them. And this also, that be which finds fault with them who separate upon small causes, implies clearly, that he conceived, there might be such causes [Page 230]as were great and sufficient: And that then a Reformation was to be made, notwithstanding any danger of division that might ensue upon it.

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

13. Ad §. 9. In the next Paragraph you affirm two things, but prove neither, unless a vehement Asseveration, may pass for a weak proof. You tell us first, That the Doctrin of the total deficiency of the visible Church, which is maintained by divers chief Protestants, implies in it vast Absurdity, or rather sacrilegious Blasphemy. But neither do the Protestants, alledged by you maintain the deficiency of the Visible Church, but only of the Churches visibility; or of the Church as it is Visible, which so acute a man as you, now that you are minded of it, I hope, will easily distinguish: Neither do they hold, that the visible Church hath failed totally and from its Essence, but only from its purity: and that it fell into many corruptions, but yet not to nothing. And yet if they had held, that there was not only no pure vi­sible Church, but none at all: surely they had said more than they could justifie; but yet they do not shew, neither can I discover, any such Vast ab­surdity or Sacrilegious Blasphemy in this Assertion. You say secondly, that the Reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrin, was a desperate volun­tary necessity, because they were resolved not to acknowledge the Roman to be the true Church, and were convinced by all manner of evidence, that for di­vers Ages before Luther there was no other. But this is not to dispute but to divine, and take upon you the property of God which is to know the hearts of men. For why, I pray, might not the Reason hereof rather be, because they were convinced by all manner of evidence, as Scripture, Reason, Anti­quity, that all the visible Churches in the world, but above all the Roman, had degenerated from the purity of the Gospel of Christ, and thereupon did conclude there was no visible Church, meaning by no Church, none free from corruption, and conformable in all things to the doctrin of Christ.

14 Ad §. 10. Neither is there anyr epugnance (but in words only) between these as you are pleased to stile them, exterminating Spirits, & those other, whom out of Courtesie you intitle, in your 10. §. more moder [...]te Protestants. For these affirming the Perpetual Visibility of the Church, yet neither deny, nor doubt of her being subject to manifold and grievous corruptions, and those, of such a nature, as, were they not mitigated by invincible, or at least a very probable ignorance, none subject to them could be saved. And they, on the other side, denying the Churches Visibility, yet plainly affirm, that they conceive very good hope of the Salvation of many, of their ignorant [Page 231]and honest Fore fathers. Thus declaring plainly, though in words they deny­ed the Visibility of the true Church, yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity, but the perpetual purity & incorruption of the Visible Church.

15. Ad §. 11. Let us proceed therefore to your 11. Section, where though D. Potter and other Protestants granting the Churches perpetual Visibility, make it needless for you to prove it, yet you will needs be doing that which is needless. But you do it so coldly and negligently, that it is very happy for you, that D. Potter did grant it.

16. For, What if the Prophets spake more obscurely of Christ, than of the Church? What if they had fore-seen, that greater contentions would arise about the Church than Christ? Which yet, he that is not a meer stranger in the story of the Church must needs know to be untrue, and therefore not to be fore-seen by the Prophets. What if we have manifestly received the Church from the Scriptures? Does it follow from any, or all these things, that the Church of Christ must be always visible?

17. Besides, What Protestant ever granted (that which you presume up­on so confidently,) that every man for all the affairs of his soul must have recourse to some Congregation? If some one Christan lived alone among Pagans in some Countrey, remote from Christendom, shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved, because he cannot have recourse to any Congregation, for the affairs of his soul? will it not be sufficient, for such a ones salvation, to know the doctrin of Christ, and live according to it? Such fancies as these, you do very wisely to take for granted, because you know well, 'tis hard to prove them.

18. Let it be as unlawful as you please, to deny and dissemble matters of faith. Let them that do so, not be a Church, but a damned crew of Sycophants: What is this to the Visibility of the Church? May not the Church be Invisible, and yet these that are of it profess their faith? No, say you: Their profession will make them visible. Very true, visible in the places where, and in the times when they live, and to those persons, unto whom they have necessary occa­sion, to make their profession: But not visible to all, or any great, or consi­derable part of the world while they live, much less conspicuous to all ages after them. Now it is a Church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require: by whose splendour all men may be directed and drawn to repair to her, for the affairs of their souls: Neither is it the Visibility of the Church absolutely, but this degree of it, which the most rigid Prote­stants deny: which is plain enough out of the places of Napper, cited by you in your 9^•h. Part of this Chapter. Where his words are, God hath withdraw his visible Church from open Assemblies, to the hearts of particu­lar godly men. And this Church which had not open Assemblies, he calls The Latent and Invisible Church. Now, I hope, Papists in England will be very apt to grant, men may be so farr Latent and Invisible, as not to pro­fess their faith in open Assemblies, nor to proclàim it to the world, and yet not deny, nor dissemble it; nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of d [...]ssembling Sycophants.

19. But, Preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, can­not but make a Church visible: and these are inseparable notes of the Church. I answer, they are so far inseparable, that wheresoever they are, there a Church is: But not so, but that in some cases there may be a Church, where these notes are not. Again, these notes will make the Church visible: [Page 232]But to whom? Certainly not to all men, nor to most men: But to them only to whom the Word is preached, and the Sacraments are administred. They make the Church visible, to whom themselves are visible, but not to others. As where your Sacraments are administred, and your Doctrin preached, it is visible, that there is a Popish Church. But this may perhaps be visible to them only, who are present at these performances, and to others as secret, as if they had never been performed.

20. But S. Austin saith, It is an impudent, abominable, detestable speech, &c. to say, The Church hath perished. I answer;

• 1. All that S. Austin says, is not true.
• 2. Though this were true, it were nothing to your purpose, unless you will conceive it all one, not to be, and not to be conspicuously visible.
• 3. This very speech that the Church perished, might be false and impudent in the Donatists, and yet not so in the Protestants. For there is no incongrui­ty, that what hath lived 500 years, may perish in 1600. But. S. Austin deny­ed not only the actual perishing, but the possibility of it:

and not only of its falling to nothing, but of its falling into corruption. I answer: though no such thing appears out of those places, yet, I believe, heat of disputation against the Donatists, and a desire to over-confute them, transported him so far, as to urge against them more than was necessary, and perhaps more than was true. But were he now revived, and did but confront the doctrin of after­ages, with that; his own experience would enforce him to change his opini­on. As concerning the last speech of S. Austin, I cannot but wonder very much, why he should think it absurd for any man to say, There are sheep which he knows not, but God knows: and no less at you, for obtruding this sentence upon us as pertinent proof of the Churches visibility.

21. Neither do I see, how the Truth of any present Church depends upon the Perpetual Visibility, nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is past or fu­ture. For what sense is there, that it should not be in the power of God Al­mighty, to restore to a flourishing estate, a Church which oppression hath made Invisible? to repair that which is ruined; to reform that which was corrupted, or to revive that which was dead? Nay, what Reason is there, but that by ordinary means this may be done, so long as the Scriptures by Di­vine Providence are preserved in their Integrity and Authority? As a Com­mon-wealth though never so far collapsed and over-run with disorders, is yet in possibility of being reduc'd unto its Original state, so long as the An­cient Laws, and Fundamental Constitutions are extant, and remain invio­late, from whence men may be directed how to make such a Reformation. But S. Austine urges this very Argument against the Donatists, and therefore it is good. I answer, that I doubt much of the Consequence, and my Reason is, because you your selves acknowledge, that even General Councils (and therefore much more particular Doctors) though infallible in their deter­minations, are yet in their Reasons and Arguments, whereupon they ground them, subject to like Passions and Errors with other men.

22. Lastly, whereas you say, That all Divines define Schism, A Division from the true Church, and from thence collect, That there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart: I might very justly questi­on your Antecedent, and desire you to consider, whether Schism be not ra­ther, or at least be not as well a division of the Church, as from it? A separa­tion not of a part from the whole, but of some parts from the other. And if you liked not this definition, I might desire you to inform me in those many [Page 233]Schisms, which have hapned in the Church of Rome, which of the parts was the Church, and which was divided from it. But to let this pass, cer­tainly your consequence is most unreasonable. For though whensoever there is a Schism, it must necessarily suppose a Church existent there, yet sure we may define a Schism that is, declare what the word signifies (for De­fining is no more) though at this present there were neither Schism nor Church in the world. Unless you will say, that we cannot tell what a Rose is, or what the word Rose signifies, but only in the Summer when we have Roses: or that in the world to come, when men shall not marry, it is im­possible to know, what it is to marry: or that the Plague is not a disease, but only when some body is infected: or that Adultery is not a sin, unless there be Adulterers: or that before Adam had a Child, he knew not, and God could not have told him, what it was to be a Father. Certainly Sir, you have forgot your Metaphysicks, which you so much glory in, if you know not, that the connexions of essential predicates with their subjects, are eter­nal, and depend not at all upon the actual existence of the thing defined. This definition therefore of Schism, concludes not the existence of a Church, even when it is defined: much less the perpetual continuance of it, and least of all the continuance of it in perpetual visibility and purity, which is the on­ly thing that we deny, & you are to prove. By this time, you perceive I hope, that I had reason to say, that it was well for you, that D. Potter granted the Churches perpetual Visibility: for, for ought I can perceive, this Concession of his, is the best stake in your hedge, the best piller upon which this conclu­sion stands; which yet is the only ground-work of your whole Accusation.

23. Ad § 12.47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. The remainder of this Chap­ter, to convince Luther, and all that follow him to be Schismatiques, af­fords us Arguments of two sorts: the first drawn from the nature of the thing: the second from D. Potters words and acknowledgements. So that the former if they be good, must be good against all Protestants: the later only against D. Potter. I will examin them all, and doubt not to make it appear even to your self, if you have any indifference, that there is not any sound and concluding reason amongst them, but that they are all poor and miserable Sophisms.

24 First then to prove us Schismatiques, you urge from the nature of Schism this only Argument.

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

The Major of this Syllogism you leave naked without proof; and con­ceive it, as it should seem, able enough to shift for it self. The Minor or se­cond Proposition of this Argument, you prove by two other. The first is this.

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

The Major of this Syllogism you take for granted (as you have reason:) The Minor you prosecute with great pomp of words, and prove with plenty of Reasons, built upon the confessions of D. Potter, Luther, Calvin, and o­ther Protestants; and this you do in the 12 § of this Chapter.

[Page 234] The second Argument to prove the Assumption of your Syllogism, stands thus.

The Roman Church, when Luther and his followers made the separation, was the true visible Church of Christ: But Luther and his followers for­sook the external Communion of the Roman Church: Therefore they for­sook the external Communion of the true visible Church of Christ.

The Assumption of this Syllogism needs no proof: the Proposition which needs it very much, you endeavour to confirm by these Reasons.

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

The Antecedent is proved: Because D. Potter confesses she wanted nothing Fundamental or necessary to salvation: Therefore for the Substance of the matter she had these notes.

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

And this is the business of your 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55. Se­ctions of this Chapter.

25. Now to all this, I answer very briefly thus: That you have played the unwise builder, and erected a stately structure upon a false foundation. For whereas you take for granted as an undoubted Truth, That whosoever leave the external communion of the visible Church, are Schismatical, I tell you Sir, you presume too much upon us, and would have us grant, that which is the main point in Question. For either you suppose the external Communion of the Church corrupted, and that there was a necessity for them that would communicate with this Church to communicate in her cor­ruptions: Or you suppose her Communion uncorrupted. If the former, and yet will take for granted, that all Schismatiques, that leave her Communion though it be corrupted, you beg the Question in your Proposition. If the la­ter, you beg the Question in your supposition; for Protestants, you know, are Peremptory and Unanimous in the Denial of both these things: Both that the Communion of the Visible Church was then uncorrupted; And that they are truly Schismatiques, who leave the Communion of the Visible Church, if corrupted; especially, if the case be so (and Luther's was so) that they must either leave her Communion, or of necessity Communicate with her in her corruptions. You will say perhaps, That you have already proved it impossible, that the Church, or her Communion should be corrupted. And there­fore that they are Schismatiques, who leave the external Communion of the visible Church, because she cannot be corrupted. And that hereafter you will prove, that corruptions in the Churches Communion, though the belief & profes­sion of them be made the condition of her communion, cannot [...]ustifie a separation from it: & therefore that they are schismaticks, who leave the Churches com­munion [Page 235]though corrupted. I answer, that I have examined your proofs of the former, and found that a vein of Sophistry runs clean through them: And for the later it is so plain and palpable a falsehood, that I cannot but be confident, whatsoever you bring in proof of it, will, like the Apples of So­dom, fall to Ashes upon the first touch. And this is my first and main excep­tion against your former discourse: that accusing Protestants of a very great and horrible crime, you have proved your accusation only with a Fallacy.

26. Another is, that although it were granted Schism, to leave the ex­ternal Communion of the visible Church in what state or case so ever it be, and that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques, for leaving the ex­ternal Communion of all visible Churches: yet you fail exceedingly of clear­ing the other necessary point undertaken by you, That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church. For neither do Protestants (as you mistake) make the true preaching of the Word, and due administration of the Sacraments, the notes of the visible Church, but only of a visible Church: now these you know are very different things, the former signifying the Church Catholique, or the whole Church: the later a Particular Church, or a part of the Catho­lique. And therefore, suppose out of curtesie, we should grant, what by ar­gument you can never evince, that your Church had these notes, yet would it by no means follow, that your Church were the Visible Church, but only a Visible Church: not the whole Catholique, but only a part of it. But then besides, where doth D. Potter acknowledge any such matter as you pretend? Where doth he say, that you had for the substance, the true Preaching of the Word, or due Administration of the Sacraments? Or where does he say, that (from which you collect this) you wanted nothing Fundamental, or ne­cessary to Salvation? He says indeed, that though your Errors were in themselves damnable, and full of great impiety, yet he hopes, that those a­mongst you, who were invincibly ignorant of the truth, might by Gods great mercy, have their errors pardoned, and their souls saved: And this is all he says, and this you confess to be all he says, in divers places of your Book: which is no more than you your self do, and must affirm of Protestants: and yet I believe, you will not suffer us to inferr from hence, that you grant Pro­testants to have, for the substance, the true preaching of the Word, and due administration of the Sacraments, and want nothing fundamental or neces­sary to salvation. And if we should draw this consequence from your con­cession, certainly we should do you injury, in regard many things may in themselves, and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation, to those that have means to attain them, as your Church generally hath: which yet, by ac­cident, to these which were, by some impregnable impediment, debarred of these means, may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary.

27. Lastly, whereas you say, that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church, or name some other, disagreeing from yours and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrin, or acknowledge there was no visible Church. It is all one, as if (to use S. Paul's similitude) the head should say to the foot, Either you must grant that I am the whole body, or name some other member that is so, or confess that there is no body. To which the foot may answer; I acknowledge there is a body: and yet, that no member beside you is this body: nor yet that you are it, but only a part of it. And in like manner say we, We acknowledge a Church there was, cor­rupted indeed universally; but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gracious [Page 236]acceptance, was still a Church. We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church; and yet we see no reason, that can inforce us to con­fess that yours was the Church, but only a part of it, and that one of the worst then extant in the World. In vain therefore have you troubled your self in proving, that we cannot pretend, that either the Greeks, Waldenses, Wickliffites, Hussites, Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Abyssines, were then the visible Church. For all this discourse proceeds upon a false and vain supposition, and begs another point in Question between us, which is, that some Church of one denomination and one Communion (as the Roman, the Greek, &c.) must be always exclusively to all other Communions, the whole visible Church. And though, perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him, that there was to be always some Visible Church of one denomination, pure from all error in doctrin, might be wrought upon, & prevailed with by it, to forsake the Church of Protestants: yet why it should induce him to go to yours, rather than the Greek Church, or any other, which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours, that I do not understand; unless it be for the reason which Aeneus Sylvius gave, why more held the Pope above a Council, than a Council above the Pope: which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks, but Councils gave none, and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis, were not like to have their cause very well maintained. For put the case, I should grant of meer favour, that there must be always some Church of one Denomination and Communion, free from all errours in doctrin, and that Protestants had not always such a Church: it would follow indeed from thence, that I must not be a Protestant: But that I must be a Papist, certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this; If you will leave England, you must of necessity go to Rome. And yet with this wretched Fallacy, have I been sometimes abused my self, and known many other poor souls seduced, not only from their own Church, and Religion, but unto yours. I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth, that they may not always be held captive, under such miserable delusions.

28. We see then, how unsuccessful you have been in making good your accusation, with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing, and which may be urged in common against all Protestants. Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kind, which you build upon D. Potter's own words, out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Pro­testants of Schism.

29. But let the understanding Reader, take with him but three or four short Remembrances, and I dare say he shall find them upon examination, not only answerable, but already answered. The Memorandums I would commend to him, are these,

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

31. 2. That, Imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a ne­cessity of professing known errours, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation: and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome.

32. 3. That to leave the Church, and to leave the external Communion of a Church, at least as D. Potter understands the words, is not the same thing: That being done, by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to [Page 237]have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it, as faith and Obedience: This, by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Li­turgies and publike worship of God. This little Armour if it be rightly placed, I am perswaded, will repel all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious.

33. Ad § 13, 14, 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus, applyed to Luther thus. If the Church perished; what Church brought forth Donatus, (you say Luther)? If she could not perish, what madness moved the sect of Donatus to separate, upon pretence to avoyd the Communion of bad men? Whereunto, one fair answer (to let pass many others) is obvious out of the second observation: That this sentence though it were Gospel, as it is not, is impertinently applyed to Luther and Lutherans, whose pretence of sepa­ration (be it true, or be it false,) was not (as that of the Donatists) only to avoid the Communion of bad men: but to free themselves from a necessity (which but by separating was unavoidable,) of joyning with bad men in their impieties. And your not substituting Luther instead of Donatus in the later part of the Dilemma as well as in the former, would make a suspici­ous man conjecture that you your self took notice of this exception of di­sparity between Donatus and Luther.

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

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

36. Yes, you reply, To forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith, is the most formal and proper sin of Schism. [Page 238]Answ. Very true, but I would fain know wherein. I would gladly be informed, whether I be bound, for fear of Schism, to communicate with those that believe as I do, only in lawful things, or absolutely in every thing: whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry, and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree, but in a common dis­simulation or abjuration of it. This is that which you would have them do, or else, forsooth, they must be Schismatiques. But hereafter, I pray you re­member, that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Be­lievers in wicked actions. Nay, that there is a necessity herein to separate from them. And then I dare say, even you being their judge, the reason­ableness of their cause to separate shall, according to my first observation, justifie their separation from being schismatical.

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

38. Ans. I deny the Syllogism, it is no better than this:

The true Conclusion which issues out of these Premisses, should be this, Therefore he hath one Sympton of the Plague. And so likewise in the former, Therefore they have one property or one quality of Schismatiques. And as in the former instance, The man that hath one sign of the Plague, may by reason of the absence of other requisites, not have the plague: So these Protestants may have something of Schismatiques, and yet not be Schismatiques. A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure, and a just judge that condemns a malefactor, do both sentence a man to death, and so for the matter do both the same thing: yet the one does wickedly, the other justly. What's the reason? because the one hath cause, the other hath not. In like manner Schismatiques, either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate. The same do these Prote­stants, and yet are not Schismatiques. The reason: because Schismatiques do it, and do it without cause, and Protestants have cause for what they do. The impieties of your Church, being, generally speaking, damnable; unless where they are excus'd by ignorance, and expiated at least by a general re­pentance. In fine, though perhaps it may be true, that all Schismatiques do so: yet universal affirmatives are not converted, and therefore it follows not by any good Logick, that all that do so, when there is just cause for it, must be Schismatiques. The cause in this matter of separation is all in all, and that for ought I see, you never think of. But if these rigid Protestants have just cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation: How can the milder sort allow hope of Salvation to the Members of this Church? Ans. Di­stinguish the quality of the Persons censur'd, and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing. For your Church may be consi­dered either in regard of those, in whom, either negligence, or pride, or worldly fear, or hopes, or some other voluntary sin, is the cause of their ig­norance, which I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you: or in regard of those who owe their Errours from Truth, to want of capa­city, or default of instruction; either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not, or of those who would know the truth, but (all [Page 239]things considered) cannot: In respect of those that have eyes to see, and will not see; or those that would gladly see, but want eyes, or light. Con­sider the former sort of men, (which your more rigid censures seem especi­ally to reflect upon,) and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy. Con­sider the later, and the mildest will not be too mild. So that here is no diffe­rence but in words only, neither are you flatter'd by the one, nor uncha­ritably censur'd by the other.

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

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

41. Thus we may answer your Argument, though both your former Suppositions were granted. But then for a second answer, I am to tell you, that there is no necessity of granting either of them. For neither do these Pro­testants hold the failing of the Church from its being, but only from its visi­bility: which if you conceive all one, then must you conceive that the Stars fail every day, and the Sun every night. Neither is it certain that the do­ctrin of the Churches failing is repugnant to the Creed. For as the truth of the Article of the remission of sins, depends not upon the actual remission of any mans sins, but upon Gods readiness and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent; so that although unbelief or impenitence should be universal, and the Faithful should absolutely fail from the children of men, and the Son of Man should find no faith on the earth; yet should the Ar­ticle still continue true, that God would forgive the sins of all that repent: In like manner: It is not certain that the truth of the Article of the Catho­lique Church, depends upon the actual existence of a Catholique Church; but rather upon the right, that the Church of Christ, or rather (to speak properly) the Gospel of Christ hath to be universally believed. And there­fore the Article may be true, though there were no Church in the world. In regard, this notwithstanding, it remains still true, that there ought to [Page 240]be a Church, and this Church ought to be Catholique. For as, of these two Propositions, There is a Church in America, and, There should be a Church in America, the truth of the later depends not upon truth of the for­mer, so neither does it in these two: There is a Church diffused all the world over, and, There should be a Church diffused all the world over.

42. Thirdly, if you understand by errors not fundamental, such as are not damnable, it is not true, as I have often told you, that we confess your errors not fundamental.

43. Lastly, for your desire that I should here apply an authority of St. Cyprian alleaged in your next number I would have done so very willingly, but indeed I know not how to do it: for in my apprehension it hath no more to do with your present business of proving it unlawful, to communicate with these men, who hold the Church was not alwayes visible, than In nova fert animus. Besides, I am here again to remember you, that St. Cyprians words, were they never so pertinent, yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith. And therefore the urging of them, and such like authorities, serves only to make Books great, and Controversies endless.

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

45. Ans. But, Who are they that pretend, they forsook the Churches cor­ruptions, and not her external communion? Some there be that say, they have not left the Church, that is, not ceased to be members of the Church, but only left her corruptions: some, that they have not left the communion, but the corruptions of it; meaning the internal communion of it, and con­junction with it, by faith and obedience: which disagree from the former only in the maner of speaking: for he that is in the Church, is in this kind of communion with it: and he that is not in this internal communion, is not in the Church. Some perhaps, that they left not your external commu­nion in all things; meaning, that they left it not voluntarily being not fugi­tivi but fugati, Casau [...]um. in E [...] ad Card. Perron. as being willing to joyn with you in any act of piety; but were by you necessitated and constrained to do so, because you would not suffer them to do well with you, unless they would do ill with you. Now to do ill that you may do well, is against the will of God, which to every good man is a high degree of necessity. But for such Protestants, as pretend that, de facto, they fo [...]sook your corruptions only and not your external commu­nion, that is, such as pretend to communicate with you in your Confessions and Liturgies, and participation of Sacraments; I cannot but doubt very much, that neither you, nor I, have ever met with any of this condition. And if perhaps you were led into error, by thinking that to leave the Church, and to leave the external communion of it, was all one in sense and signifi­cation, I hope by this time you are disabus'd and begin to understand, that as a man may leave any fashion or custome of a Colledge, and yet remain still a member of the Colledge; so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practice of a Church, formerly common to himself and others, and con­tinue still a member of that Church: Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things, wherin the essence of the Church consists. Wheras per­adventure [Page 241]this practise may be so involved with the external communion of this Church, that it may be simply impossible, for him to leave this practise, and not to leave the Churches external communion.

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

47. Ans. A pretty Sophism, and very fit to perswade men that it is im­possible for them, to forsake any error they hold, or any vice they are subject to, either peculiar to themselves, or in common with others: Because, for­sooth, they cannot forsake Themselves; and Vices and Errors are things in­herent in themselves. The deceit lies, in not distinguishing between a Local and a Moral forsaking of any thing. For as it were an absurdity, fit for the maintainers of Transubstantiation to defend, that a man may Locally and properly depart from the Accidents of a subject, and not from the sub­ject it self: So is it also against reason to deny, that a man may (by an usual­phrase phrase of speech) forsake any custom or quality, good or bad, either pro­per to himself, or common to himself with any company, and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himself. Thus if all the Je­suits in the Society, were given to write Sophistically, yet you might leave this ill custom, and yet not leave your Society. If all the Citizens of a City, were addicted to any vanity, they might, either all, or some of them, forsake it, and yet not forsake the City. If all the parts of a mans body were dirty or filthy, nothing hinders but that all or some of them might clense themselves, and yet continue parts of the body. And what reason then in the world is there, if the whole Visible Church were over-run with tares and weeds of superstitions, and corruptions, but that some members of it might reform themselves, and yet continue still true members of the body of the Church, and not be made no members, but the better by their Reformation? Certain­ly it is so obvious and sensible a Truth, that this thing is possible, that no man in his wits, will be perswaded out of it, with all the Quirks & Metaphysicks in the world. Neither is this to say, that a man may keep company with Christo­pher Potter, and not keep company with the Provost of Qu. Colledge: Nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner, and at the same time be really present with the man who is the sinner: which we leave to those Protestants of your invention, who are so foolish, as to pretend, that a man may really separate himself from the Churches external Communion as she is corrup­ted, and yet continue in that Churches external Communion, which in this external Communion is corrupted. But we, that say only the whole Church being corrupted, some parts of it might and did reform themselves, and yet might and did continue parts of the Church, though separated from the ex­ternal communion of the other parts, which would not reform, need not trouble our selves to reconcile any such repugnance. For the case put by you, of keeping D. Potters company, and leaving the company of the Pro­vost of Queens Colledge; and of leaving a sinners company, and not the mans: are nothing at all like ours. But if you would speak to the point, you must shew, that D. Potter cannot leave being Provost of Q. Col­ledge, without ceasing to be himself: or, that a sinner cannot leave his sin, [Page 242]without ceasing to be a man: or that he that is part of any society, cannot renounce any Vice of that society, but he must relinquish the society. If you would shew any of these things, then indeed (I dare promise) you shall find us apt enough to believe, that the particular parts of the visible Church could not reform themselves, but they must of necessity become no parts of it. But until we see this done, you must pardon us, if we choose to believe sense rather than Sophistry.

48. In this Paragraph you bring in the sentence of S. Cyprian, whereto you refer'd us in the former: but, Why, in a controversie of faith, do you cite any thing, which is confessed on all hands, not to be a rule of faith? Besides, in my apprehension, this sentence of S. Cyprian, is, in this place, and to this purpose, meerly impertinent. S. Cyprians words are, The Church (he speaks of the particular Church, or Diocess of Rome) being one, cannot be within and without: If she be with Novatianus, she was not with Cornelius: But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawful Ordination, Nova­tianus is not in the Church. And now, having related the words, I am on­ly to remember the Reader, that your business was to prove it impossible, For a man to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church, and to re­quest him to tell me Whether, as I said, In nova fert animus, had not been as much to the purpose?

49. Toward the conclusion of this Section, you number up your Victo­ries and tell us, That out of your discourse it remaineth cleer, that this our chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question: confoundeth internal Acts of the understanding, with external dieds: doth not distinguish between Schism and Heresie, and leaves this demonstrated against us, that they (Pro­testants) divided themselves from the communion of the Visible Catholique Church, because they conceived that she needed Reformation. To which Tri­umphs, if any reply be needful, then briefly thus: We do not change the state of the Question, but you mistake it. For the Question was not, Whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church, and continue in her exter­nal communion, which we confess impossible, because these corruptions were in her communion: But the Question was, Whether they might for­sake sake the corruptions of the Church, and not the Church, but continue still the members of it. And to this Question, there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable.

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