YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

CHILLINGWORTH'S
RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
A SAFE ¥AY TO SALTATION.

TEN TEACTS AGAINST POPERY.

EDITED AND PUBLISHED IN MDCLXXXVII. Cf6t'7~ r
AT THE REQUEST OF THE LONDON CLERGY,
BY THE REV JOHN PATEICK, D.D.
MASTER OF THE CHARTER-HOOSE.
_ o, Cac-"'.- ,: iS^iX. J .Tim.... ,'"i-.i.i <-fc
A NEW EDITION,
WITH NOTES AND TRANSLATIONS.
t'r 14.141

LONDOX :
PRINTED FOR THOMAS TEGG, 73, CHEAPSIDE.
1845.

Eex arbitratur rerum absolute necessariarnm ad salutem non raagnum esse nume
rum. Quare existimat ejus Majestas, nuliam ad ineundam concordiam bre-
viorem viam fore, quam ai diligenter separentur necessaria a non-necessariis ;
et ut de necessariis conveniat omnis opera insumatur, in non-necessariis liber-
tati Christianae locus detur. Simpliciter necessaria rex appellat quae vel
express^ verbum Dei pr^cipit credenda faciendave, vel ex verbo Dei neces
saria consequentia vetus ecclesia elicuit. Si ad decidendas hodiernas contro
versias hsec distinctio adhiberetur, et jus divinum a positivo seu ecclesiastico
candide separaretur ; non videtur de iis quae sunt absolute necessaria, inter
pios et moderates viros, longa aut aeris contentio futura. Nam et pauca ilia
sunt, ut mod6 dicebamus, et fer6 ex sequo omnibus probantur, qui se Chris
tianos dici postulant. Atque istam distinctionem serenissimus rex tanti
putat esse momenti ad minuendas controversias, quse hodie eecl^iam Dei
tantopere exercent, ut omnium pacis studiosorum judicet officium esse, dili-
gentissirae hanc explicare, docere, urgere.^IsAACus Casaubonus in Spist.
n>J Cardinal. Perron. Regis Jacobi nomine scripta.

'R2.7

LONDON :
PRINTED BV JAMES NICHOLS,
HOXTON-SQOAHE.

TRANSLATION OF THE MOTTO FROM CASAUBON.
" The king is of opinion, that of those things which are abso
lutely necessary to salvation the number is not great. Wherefore
his Majesty thinks, that no shorter method can he devised for pro
moting concord [among different classes of professing Christians]
than a careful separation of those points wliich are necessary from
such as are not ; and that, in ojder to obtain a proper agreement
about those which are necessary, suitable endeavours should be used
for securing to every one the enjoyment of his Christian liberty in
those which are not absolutely necessary. The king designates as
simply necessary, either those things which the word of God ex
pressly command's io be believed or performed, or those which the
primitive church has by necessary consequence deduced from the
holy scriptures. — If this distinction were adopted in the decision of
modem controversies, and if due candour were observed in separating
divitie right from that which is imposed or ecclesiastical, it does not
appear that any long or acrimonious contention could arise, among
men of piety and mOdej'ation, with respect to those whiph ave abso
lutely necessary : for, as we have previously observed, these are few
in (ihemselves, and gain almost equal and general approval from all
those who claim the title of Christians. And his most Serene
Majesty considers this distinction to be of such vast importance in
diminishing the controversies which at present greatly distract the
church of God, that, according to his judgment, it is the bounden
duty of the lovers of peace to exert the utmost diligence in explain
ing, teaching, and urging this distinction." — Isaac Casaubon, in
his " Letter to Cardinal Perron," written in the name bf king
James I.
APPROBATIO.
Mandetur typis hic liber, cui titulus The Religion of Protestants
a safe Way to Salvation : foi quo nihil occurrit u, bonis moribus, a
doctrina ei disciplind in CcclesiSb Anglicani, assertis, alienum.
Rich. Baylie, Vicecan. Oxon.
Perlegi hunc librum, cui titulus est The Religion of Protestants
a safe Way to Salvation : in quo nihil reperio docirintB vel disciplince
ecclesiw Anglicance adversum, sed quamplurima quee fidem ortho
doxam egregie illustrani, ei adversantia glossemaia acute, perspicue,
et modest^ dissipani. Jo. Prideaux, S. T. P. Regius Oxon.
A 2

IV APPROBATIO.
Ego Sam UEL Fell, publicus Theologice Professor in Univ.
Oxon. et ordinarius Pralecior D. Marg. Cvimitiss. Richmondia,
perlegi librum cui titulus est The Religion of Protestants a safe
Way to Salvation : in quo nihil reperio doetrirue vel disciplina
ecclesia Anglicarue, aut bonis moribu,s adversum ; sed multa nervose
et modeste eventilaia contra adversarios nostra ecclesiee et veritatis
catholicas, quam feliciter tuetur. Dat. 14° Octob. An. 1637.
Samuel Fell.

Translation of the precedino Approbation of the
Vice-chancellor and the two Professors of
DiviNiTV IN the University op Oxford.
" Let this book, entitled The Religion of Protestants a safe Way
to Salvation, be printed : in which nothing occurs that is opposed to
correct morality, or in any way different from the doctrine and disci
pline maintained in the church of England. " Richard Baylie,
" Vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford."
" I have perused the whole of this book, the title of which is,
The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation : in which I
find nothing adverse to the doctrine or discipline of the church of
England ; but a very great number of things that wonderfully illus
trate the orthodox faith, and that, with much acuteness, perspicuity,
and modesty, dissipate the opposing glosses.
" John Prideaux,
" Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford."
" I, Samuel Fell, public Professor of Divinity in the Uni
versity of Oxford, and the Lady Margaret's (Ceuntess of Rich
mond's) Professor in ordinary, have carefuUy read the book whose
title is The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation: in
which I find nothing adverse to the doctrine or discipline of the
church of England ; but many things are proposed and discussed
with great terseness of style and modesty of manner against the
adversaries of our church and of catholic truth, which it ably and
successfully defends — Dated this fourteenth day of October, in the
year of our Lord 1 637. " Samuel Fell."

THE EDITOR'S PREFACE.

The two preceding pages contain the high appro
bation bestowed on Chillingworth's " Religion
of Protestants," by the three able divines who were
appointed " by authority " to examine it prior to its
publication; and the following " advertiseme>jt
concerning this edition," by Dr. John Patrick, exhi
bits the high estimation in which he held that valuable
work, and his reasons for presenting it to the world in a
form thus easy of perusal. The title which he gave to
it was : " Mr. Chillingwoeth's Book, called the
Meligion of Protestants a safe Wa^ to Sahation, made
more generally useful, by omitting personal Contests,
but inserting whatsoever concems the common Cause of
Protestants, or defends the Church of England. With
an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chilling-
worth never before printed."
It was published in 1687, only a few months before
the glorious Revolution ; when this nation, by the won
derful providence of God, was most miraculously deli-
verfid from all fear of the galling yoke of civil and
spiritual tyranny, which an infatuated Popish monarch
had attempted to fasten upon us, as well by artful fawn
ing as by the thunders of his intimidation. Tillotson,
Burnet, Stillingfleet, Tenison, both the Patricks, and
the great body of the London clergy were prepared, at
that momentous crisis, to " resist unto blood," while
nobly "striving against" the Man of "Sin." Not
only did several of them compose popular treatises
against the glaring corruptions of the Church of Rome,
but they also engaged Dr. John Patrick to edite this
book, and others of a similar tendency, in the same
year, in counteraction of the alarming progress of Anti
christian error and Romish influence. A large impres
sion of it had a speedy sale ; copies of it have con
sequently become rare and dear, and are eagerly bought
up by book-collectors, in preference to the original folio.

vi the editor s preface.
In this reprint Dr. Patrick's edition has been uni
formly followed, with the exception of an occasional
alight alteration in the pointing ; which, it is hoped,
the reader will find to be an improvement. A para
graph is added, which had been omitted in the quarto
copy, though the note which belonged to it was
inserted. All the Latin and Greek quotations are
translated ; and a few notes, explanatory of emergent
difficulties, are subjoined.
The ten " additional pieces " against Popery, which
first appeared in Dr. John Patrick's edition, are here
retained ; and, though in some parts they bear evident
marks of hasty composition, they will be found in every
respect worthy of the author from whose capacious
mind they proceeded. They are among the very best
of the brief answers that were ever published against
the lubricous arguments of men whose practice it is
alternately to laud the ancient Christian Fathers when
they can twist or corrupt any clause in their writings to
favour their own dogmas, and as violently to vituperate
them when they cannot be plausibly enlisted to fight
under their degrading banners.
A new edition of Des Maizeaux's " Historical
and Critical Account of the Life and Writings of
William Chillingworth, Chancellor of the Church of
Sarum," is now in the press, and will soon be pub
lished. To his elaborate and very satisfactory notes I
have appended some of my own, in defence of Chilling'i
worth against the wanton and insane attacks of a small
and impotent party in the Church of England ; some
of the members of which seem to write in utter igno
rance of the principles of that celebrated man, and of
the elevated position which he deservedly held among
the greatest lights of the national church before the
Interregnum.
J. N.
46, HoXTON-SaUARE,
July 1st, 1845.

DR. PATRICK'S ADVERTISEMENT
TO THE EDITION OF 1687.

I HOPE I shall incur no blame from those who
deservedly value this excellent book of Mr. Chilling-
worth, for having made it of a lesser bulk and an easier
purchase than before, after I have told them my way of
proceeding herein :
I have not epitomized it in the usual way, by con
tracting anywhere his sense, and giving it more briefly
in words of my own ; (which would have been indeed
an injury to him, who knew so well how to express his
own sense fully and perspicuously beyond most men,
without any redundancy of style ;) but by paring off
and leaving out some parts of it, which I thought might
be well spared, and make the reading of his book more
pleasant as well as more generally useful, when his
defence of the Protestant doctrine and the cause of the
Reformation lay more closely together, not being inter
rupted with so many pages spent to justify Dr. Potter
in the personal contests betwixt him and his adversary,
or in- detecting the sophistry, frauds, and falsities of the
Jesuit, where the matter was not of common concern.
But where I thought it was, I have been scrupulously
careful to omit nothing : so far from it, that I am apt
upon a review to think, that the pleasure of reading his
admirable confutation has bribed me to insert more
than was needful in pursuance of my first design.
The reason why the Jesuit's book which Mr. Chil
lingworth answers is riot here reprinted, was, partly,
because it is too tedious and wordy, abounding in

vm ADVERTISEMENT.
impertinent cavils, and affecting to fetch a great com
pass to amuse and lose the reader before he comes to
the point in question, which he scarce ever attempts
closely to prove ; and, chiefly, because Mr. Chillingworth
has commonly all along set down, in a different charac
ter, as much of his words as was needful to let the
reader see what it is he makes a reply to ; and where I
found any omission of this kind, I have transcribed out
of the Jesuit's book such passages and citations, as
might give further light to it : besides, that every one
who has a mind, or any doubt remaining about this
raatter, may easily consult the folio edition, and satisfy
himself. I have added a large table of contents at the end,
which was wanting before ; whereby the reader may
find any argument or head of discourse therein con
tained, with little or no trouble ; which table will serve
any edition of the book, because the numbers after the
chapter refer to the divisions of the chapters at the side,
not to the pages at the top.
As for the " Additional Pieces " that follow the
book, and were never before printed, he that reads them
will find, by the clearness of expression, the close way of
arguing, and strength of reasoning, sufficient to con
vince him that they are not spurious, but the genuine
productions of this great man : but yet, for his further
satisfaction, he may know, that the manuscript out of
which most of them were faithfully transcribed, is an
original of Mr. Chill ing worth's own handwriting, and
now in the custody of the Rev. Dr. Tenison, to whom
he is beholden for their present publication. Farewell. ,

1
DEDICATION.

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE,
CHARLES,
BY THE grace op GOD,
king op great BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
DEPENDER OP THB PAITH, &c.

May it please your most excellent Majesty,
I present, with all h-omility, to your most sacred
bands, a defence of that cause which is and ought to be
infinitely dearer to you than all the world ; not doubt
ing but, upon this dedication, I shall be censured for a
double boldness ; — both for undertaking so great a work,
so far beyond my weak abilities ; and again, for pre
senting it to such a patron, whose judgment I ought to
fear more than any adversary. But for the first, it is
a satisfaction to myself, and may be to others, that
I was not drawn to it out of any vain opinion of myself,
(whose personal defects are the only thing which I pre
sume to know,) but undertook it in obedience to Him
who said, Tw conversus cmifirma fratres,* not to St,
Peter only, but to all men ; being encouraged also to it
by the goodness of the cause, which is able to make a
weak man strong. To the belief hereof I was not led
partially or by chance, as many are, by the prejudice
and prepossession of their country, education, and such
like inducements, which, if they lead to truth in one
pkce, perhaps lead to error in a hundred ; but having,
• " When thou art thyself converted, strengthen thy brethren."
(Luke xxii. 32.) — Edit.
( B

2 DEDICATION.
with the greatest equality and indifferency, made
inquiry and search into the grounds on both sides,
I was willing to impart to others that satisfaction which
was given to myself. For my inscribing to it your
Majesty's sacred name, I should labour much in my
excuse of it from high presumption, had it not some
appearance of title to your Majesty's patronage and
protection, as being a defence of that book which,
by special order from your Majesty, was written some
years since, chiefly for the general good, but, peradven
ture, not without some aim at the recovery of one
of your meanest subjects from a dangerous deviation;-
and so due unto your Majesty, as the fruit of your own
high humility and most royal charity. Besides, it is,
in a manner, nothing else but a pursuance of, and a
superstruction upon, that blessed doctrine wherewith, I
have adorned and armed the frontispiece of my book ;
which was so earnestly recommended by your royal
father, of happy memory, to all the lovers of trath and
peace, (that is, to all that were like himself,) as the
only hopeful means of healing the breaches of Christen
dom, whereof the enemy of souls makes such pestilent
advantage.* The lustre of this blessed doctrine I have
here endeavoured to uncloud and unveil, and to free it
from those mists and fumes which have been raised
to obscure it, by that Order which envenoms even
poison itself, and makes the Roman religion much more
malignant and turbulent than otherwise it would be;
whose very rule and doctrme obliges them to make all
men, as much as lies in them, subjects unto kings and
servants unto Christ no farther than it shall please the
Pope. So that, whether your Majesty be considered
either as a pious son towards your royal father king
James, or as a tender-hearted and compassionate son
* See the passage from Isaac Casaubon, with a translation of it,
behind the title-page,— .Edit,

DEDICATION. 3
towards your distressed mother, the catholic church,
or as a king of your subjects, or as a servant unto
Christ, this work (to which I can give no other
commendation, but that it was intended to do you
service in all these capacities) may pretend, not unrea^
sonably, to your gracious acceptance. Lastly : being a
defence of that whole church and religion you profess,
it could not be so proper to any patron as to the great
Defender of it ; which style your Majesty hath ever so
exactly made good, both in securing it from all dangers,
and in vindicating it (by the well ordering and rec
tifying this church) from all the foul aspersions both of
domestic and foreign enemies ; of which they can have
no ground but their own malice and want of charity.
But it is an argument of a despairing and lost cause to
support itself with these impetuous outcries and cla
mours, the faint refuges of those that want better
arguments ; like that Stoic, in Lucian, that cried ^Q,
xarapare, " 0 damned villain ! " when he could say
nothing else. Neither is it credible the wiser sort
of them should believe this their own horrid assertion,
— that a God of goodness should damn to eternal
torments those that love him and love truth, for errors
which they fall into through human frailty ! But this
they must say; otherwise, tbeir only great argument
from their damning us, and our not being so peremp
tory in damning them, (because we hope unaffected
ignorance may excuse them,) would be lost ; and,
therefore, they are engaged to act om this tragical
part only to fright the simple and ignorant, as we
do little children, by telling them " That bites " which
we would not have them meddle with. And truly,
that herein they do but act a part, and know them
selves to do so, and deal with us here as they do
with the king of Spain at Rome, (whom they accurse
B 2

4 DEDICATION.
and excommunicate, for fashion's sake, on Maundy-
Thursday, for detaining part of St. Peter's patrimony,'
and absolve him, without satisfaction, on Good-Friday,)
methinks their faltering and inconsistency herein makes-
it very apparent. For though, for the most part, they
speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us, and
damn us all without mercy or exception ; yet some
times, to serve other purposes, they can be content
to speak to us in a milder strain, and tell us, as my
adversary does more than once, that they allow Pro
testants as much charity as Protestants allow them.
Neither is this the only contradiction which I have
discovered in this uncharitable work ; but have showed,
that, by forgetting himself, and retracting most of the
principal grounds he builds upon, he hath saved me the
labour of a confutation ; which yet I have not in
any place found any such labour or difficulty, but that
it was undertakable by a man of very mean — that is,
of my — abilities. And the reason is, because it is
truth I plead for ; which is so strong an argument
for itself, that it needs only light to discover it;
whereas it concerns falsehood and error to use dis
guises, and shadowings, and all the fetches of art
and sophistry; and, therefore, it stands in need of
abler men to give that a colour, at least, which hath no
real body to subsist by. If my endeavours in this
kind may contribute any thing to this discovery, and
the making plain that truth which my charity per
suades me the most part of them disaffect, only because
it has not been well represented to them, I have the
fruit of my labour and my wish ; who desire to live to
no other end than to do service to God's church and
your most sacred Majesty, in the quality of
Your Majesty's most faithful subject, and most
humble and devoted servant,
WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH.

THE

RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
A SAFE WAY TO SALVATION.

THE PREFACE TO THE AUTHOR OF
" CHARITY MAINTAINED."

AN ANSWER TO HIS PAMPHLET, ENTITULED
«A DIRECTION TO N. N."
Sis,
Upon the first news of the publication of your
book, I used all diligence with speed to procure it ;
and came with such a mind to the reading of it as
St. Austin, before he was a settled Catholic, brought to
his conference with Faustus the Manichee. For as he
thought, that, if any thing more than ordinary might
be said in defence of the Manichean doctrine, Faustus
was the man from whom it was to be expected ; so my
persuasion conceming you was, —
Si Pergama dextra defendi possunt,
Certe hac defensa videbo.
" If Troy by any power could stand,
'T would be defended by your hand."
I, For I conceived, that, among the champions of
the Roman chuich, the English, in reason, must b6
the best, or equal to the best, as being by most expert

6 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
masters trained up purposely for this war, and perpetu
ally practised in it. Among the English, I saw the
Jesuits would yield the first place to none ; and men so
wise in their generation as the Jesuits were, if they had
any Achilles among them, I presumed, would make
choice of him for this service. And besides, I had
good assurance, that, in the framing of this building,
though you were the only architect, yet you wanted not
the assistance of many diligent hands to bring you in
choice materials towards it, nor of many careful and
watchful eyes to correct the errors of your work, if any
should chance to escape you. Grreat reason, therefore,
Lad I to expect great matters from you, and that your
book should have in it the spirit and elixir of all
that can be said in defence of your church and doc
trine ; and to assure myself, that, if my resolution
not to believe it were not built upon the rock of
evident grounds and reasons, but only upon some sandy
and deceitful appearances, now the wind, and storm,
and floods were coming whicli would undoubtedly
overthrow it.
II. Neither truly were you more wUIing to effect
such an alteration in me than I was to have it efected.
For my desire is to go the right way to eternal happi
ness. But whether this way lie on the right hand,
or the left, or straight forwards; whether it be by
following a living guide, or by seeking my directions in
a book, or by hearkening to the secret whisper of some
private spirit; to me it is indifferent. And he that
is otherwise affected, and has not a traveller's indiffer
ence, (which Epictetus requires in all that would find
the truth,) but much desires, in respect of his ease,
or pleasure, or profit, or advancement, or satisfaction of
friends, or any human consideration, that one wa*
should be true rather than another, it is odds but

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. {
he will take his desire that it should be so, for an
assurance that it is so. But I, for my part, unless
I deceive myself, was, and still am, so affected as I
have made profession : not willing, I confess, to take
any thing upon trust, and to believe it without asking
myself why ; no, nor able to command myself (were I
never so willing) to follow, like a sheep, every shepherd
that should take upon him to guide me, or every flock that
should chance to go before me ; but most apt and most
willing to be led by reason to any way or from it ; and
always submitting all other" reasons to this one, — " God
hath said so, therefore it is true." Nor yet was I so unrea
sonable as to expect mathematical demonstrations froii^
you in matters plainly incapable of them, such as are tq
be believed, and, if we speak properly, cannot be
hnown ; such, therefore, I expected not. For, as he is
an unreasonable master who requires a stronger assent
to his conclusions than his arguments deserve ; so I
conceive him a froward and undisciplined scholar who
desires stronger arguments for a conclusion than the
matter will bear. But had you represented to my
understanding such reasons of your doctrine as, being
weighed in an even balance, held by an even hand, with
those on the other side, would have tumed the scale,
and have made your religion more credible than the
contrary, certainly I should have despised the shame of
one more alteration, and, with both mine arms and all
my heart, most readily have embraced it. Such was
my expectation from you, and such my preparation,
which I brought with me to the reading of your book.
IIL Would you know now what the event was .'' what
effect was wrought in me by the perusal and considera-.
tion of it ? To deal truly and ingenuously with you, I
fell somewhat in my good opinion both of your suffi
ciency and sincerity ; but was exceedingly confirmed in

8 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
the ill opinion of the cause maintained by you. I
found every where snares that might entrap, and colours
that might deceive, the simple ; but nothing that might
persuade, and very little that might move, an under
standing man, and one that can discern between dis
course and sophistry. In short, I was verily persuaded
that I plainly saw, and could make it appear to all dis
passionate and unprejudiced judges, that a vein of
sophistry and calumny did run clean through it, from
the beginning tO the end. And this I undertook with
a full resolution to be an adversary to your errors, but a
friend and servant to your person ; and so much the
more a friend to your person, by how much the severer
and more rigid adversary I was to your errors.
IV. In this work my conscience bears me witness, that
I have, according to your advice, proceeded always with
Jhis consideration, that I am to give a most strict
account of every Une and word that passeth under m^
pen; and, therefore, have been precisely careful for ihe
matter of my book to defend truth only, and only by
truth ; and then scrupulously fearful of scandalizing you
or any man with the manner of handling it.
VI. In your pamphlet of " Directions to N. N.," you
have loaded not only my person in particular, but all
the learned and moderate divines of the church of Eng
land, and all Protestants in general, nay, all wise men
of all religions but your own, with unworthy contume
lies, and a mass of portentous and execrable caJumnies.
• VII. To begin with the last : you stick not, in the
beginning of your first chapter, to fasten the imputation
0/ atheism and irreligion upon all wise and gallant
men that are not of your own religion. In which
uncharitable and unchristian judgment, void of all colour
or shadow of probability, I know yet, by experience,
that very many of the bigots of your faction are par-

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. &
takers with you. God forbid I should think the like of
you ! Yet if I should say, that in your religion there
want not some temptations unto, and some principles
of, irreligion and atheism, I am sure I could make
my assertion much more probable than you have done,
or can make, this horrible imputation.
VIII. For, to pass by, first, that which experience
justifies, — ^that where and when your religion hath most
absolutely commanded, there and then atheism hath.
most abounded : to say nothing, secondly, of your
notorious and confessed forging of so many false mira
cles, and so many lying legends, which is not unlikely
to make suspicious men to question the truth of all :
nor to object to you, thirdly, the abundance of your
weak and silly ceremonies and ridiculous observances in
your religion, which, in all probability, cannot but
beget secret contempt and scom of it in wise and con
sidering men, and, consequently, atheism and, impiety,
if they have this persuasion settled in them, (which is
too rife among you, and which you account a piece of
wisdom and gallamtry,) that if they be not of your reli
gion, they were as good be of none at all : nor to trou
ble you, fourthly, with this, — that a great part of your
doctrine, especially in the points contested, makes appa
rently for the temporal ends of the teachers of it ; which
yet, I fear, is a great scandal to many beaux esprits
among you : — only I should desire you to consider
attentively, when you conclude so often, from the dif
ferences of Protestants, that they have no certainty of
any part of their religion ; no, not of those points
wherein they agree, whethei you do not that which so
magisterially you direct me not to do, that is, proceed
a destructive way, amd object arguments against your
ad/eersa/ries, which tend to the overthrow of all religion ?.
And whether as you argue thus : Protestants differ in
B 5

10 THE iPEEFACE, WITH AN
mwny things; therefore they have no certainty of any
thing; so an atheist or a sceptic may not conclude as
well, " Christians, and the professors of all religions, dif
fer in many things ; therefore they have no certainty of
any thing?" Again: I should desire you to tell me
ingenuously, whether it be not too probable that your
portentous doctrine of transubstantiation, joined with
your fore-mentioned persuasion of no Papists no Ghris-
tiarn, hath brought a great many others, as well as bim-
self, to Averroe's resolution : Quandoquidem Christiani
adorant quod comedu/nt, sit anima, mea oum philosophis,
" Forasmuch as the Christians worship that which they
eat, let my soul be with the philosophers ?" Whether
your requiring men, upon only probable and prudential
motives, to yield a most eertain assent unto things in
human reason impossible, and telling them, as you do
too often, that tbey were as good not believe at all, as
believe with any lower degree of faith, be not a likely
way to make considering men scom your religion, (and,
consequently, all, if they know no other,) as requiring
things contradictory, and impossible to be performed ?
Lastly : whether your pretence, that there is no good
ground to believe Scripture, but your church's infalli
bility, joined with your pretending no ground for this
but some texts of Scripture, be not a fair way to make
them that understand themseilves believe neither church
nor Scripture ?
IX. Your calumnies against Protestants in general
are set down in these words : The very doctrine of Pro
testants, if it be followed closely, and with coherence to
itself, must of necessity induce Socinianism. This I
say confidenMy, and evidently prove, by instancing in
one error, which may well be termsd the capital and
mother-heresy, from which all other must follow at ease;
I mean, their heresy in affirming that the perpetml

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 11
visible church of Christ, descended by a never-inter
rupted succession from our Saviour to this day, is nof
infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed as

For if the infallibility qf such a public authority be
once impeached, what remains, but that every man is
givm over to his own wit and discourse ? And talk
not here of lioly Scripture ; for if the true church may
err in defining what Scriptu/res be canonical, or in deli
vering the sense and meaning thereof, we are still
devolved, either upon the private spirit, (a foolery nmo
exploded out of England, which, finally leamng every
man to his cwn conceits, ends in Sodnianism,) or else
upon natural wit and judgment, for examining and
determining what Scriptu/res contain true or false doc
trine, and in that respect ought to be received or rejected.
And, indeed, take away the authority of God''s church,
no man can be assu/red that any one book or parcel
of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration, or that
all the contents are infallibly true ; which are the direct
errors of Socinians. If it were but for this reason
alone, no man, who regards the eternal salvation of his
soul, would live or die in Protestancy, from which so
vast absurdities as these ofthe Socinians must inevitably
follow. And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to
all us Catholics, while we consider that none can deny
the infallible authority of our church, but jointly he
must be left to his own wit amd ways, and must aban
don all infused faith and true religion, if he do but
tmderstand himself aright. (Chap, ii., sec. 2.) In all
which discourse, the only true word you speak is. This
I say confidently; as for proving evidently, that, I
believe, you reserved for some other opportunity ; for
the present, I am sure, you have been very sparing
of it.

12

±tl£i JrltJ^jJ? Ai-lli, WllJtl AiV

X. You say, indeed, confidently enough, that the
denial of the church's infallibility is the mother-heresy,
from which all other must follow at ease ; which is so
far from being a necessary tmth, as you make it, that
it is indeed a manifest falsehood. Neither is it possi
ble for the wit of man, by any good, or so much as pto-^
bable, consequence, from the denial of the church's
infallibility, to deduce any one of the ancient heresies,
or any one error of the Socinians, which are the heresies
here entreated of ; for who would not laugh at him that
should argue thus : " Neither the churcb of Roriie nor
any other church is infallible ; ergo, the doctrine of
Arius^ Pelagius, Eutyches, Nestorius, Photinus, Mani-
chseus, was true doctrine ?" On the other side, il may
be truly said, and justified by very good and eflfectual
reason, that he that affirms with you the Pope's infeJli-
bility, puts himself into his hands and power to be led
by him, at his ease and pleasure, into all heresy, and
even to hell itself, and cannot with reason say, (so long
as he is constant to his grounds,) Domine, cur itafacisf
" Sir, why do you thus ?" but must believe white to
be black, and black to be white, virtue to be vice, and
vice to be virtue ; nay, (which is a horrible, but a most
certain, trath,) Christ to be antichrist, and antichrist to
be Christ, if it be possible for the Pope to say so ;
which, I say and will maintain, howsoever you daub and
disguise it, is indeed to make men apostate from Christ
to his pretended vicar, but real enemy ; for that name,
and no better, (if we may speak truth without offence,)
I presume he deserves, who, under pretence of inter
preting the law of Christ, (which authority, without any
word of express warrant, he hath taken upon himself,)
doth iu many parts evacuate and dissolve it ; so dethron
ing Christ from his dominion over men's consciences,
and, instead of Christ, setting up himself. Inasmuch

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 13
as he that requires that his interpretations of any law
should be obeyed as true and genuine, seem they to
men's understandings never so dissonant and discordant
from it, (as the bishop of Rome does,) requires indeed
that his intei-pretations should be the laws ; and he that
is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all
such interpretations without judging of them, and though
to his private judgment they seem unreasonable, is
indeed congruously disposed to hold adultery a venial
sin, and fornication no sin, whensoever the Pope and his
adherents shall so declare : and, whatsoever he -may
plead, yet, either wittingly or ignorantiy, he makes the
law and the law-maker both stales, and obeys only the
interpreter. As if I should submit to the laws of the
king of England, but should indeed resolve to obey
them in that sense which the king of France should put
upon them, whatsoever it were ; I presume every under
standing man would say, that I did indeed obey the
king of France, and not the king of England. If I
should pretend to believe the Bible, but that I would
understand it according to the sense which the chief
iriufti should put upon it, who would not say that I
were a Christian in pretence only, but indeed a
Mahometan ?
XI. Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend,
that the precepts of Christ are so plain that it cannot
be feared that any Pope should ever go about to dis
solve them, and pretend to be a Christian ; for, not to
say that you now pretend the contrary, to wit, that the
law of Christ is obscure, even in things necessary to be
beUeved and done ; and, by saying so, have made a fair
way for any foul interpretation of any part of it ; cer
tainly, that which the church of Rome hath already
done in this kind is an evident argument, (that if she
once had this, power unquestioned, and made expedite

14  , 
and ready for use, by being contracted to the Pope,)
she may do what she pleaseth with it. Who that had
lived in the primitive church would not have thought it
as utteriy improbable, that ever they should have
brought in the worshipping of images and picturing of
God, as now it is that they should legitimate fornica
tion ? Why may we not think, they may, in time, take
away the whole communion from the laity, as well as
they have taken away half of it ? Why may we not
think, that any text and any sense may not be accorded,
as well as the whole fourteenth chapter of the Epistle
of St. Paul to the Corinthians is reconciled to the
Latin service ? How is it possible any thing should
be plainer forbidden than the worship of angels, in the
Epistle to the Colossians ? than the teaching for doc
trines men's commands, in the Gospel of St. Mark .'
And, therefore, seeing we see these things done which
hardly any man would have believed that had not seen
them, why should we not fear that this unlimited power
may not be used hereafter with as little moderation ?
Seeing devices have been invented, how men may wor
ship images without idolatry, and kUl innocent men,
under pretence of heresy, without murder, who knows
not that some tricks may not be hereafler devised, by
which lying with other men's wives shall be no adultery,
taking away other men's goods no theft ? I conclude,
therefore, that if Solomon himself were here, and were
to determine the difference, — which is more likely to be
mother of all heresy, the denial of the Church's, or
the affirming of the Pope's, infallibility, — that he would
certainly say, " This is the mother ; give her the child."
XII. You say again confidently, that if this infallibi
lity be once impeached, every man is given over to hit
own wit and discourse : which, if you mean discourse
not guiding itself by Scripture, but only by principles of

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 15
nature, or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors,
and drawing consequences not by rule but chance, is by
no means trae. If you mean by discourse, "right reason,
grounded on Divine revelation and common notions,"
written by God in the hearts of all men, and deducing,
according to the never-failing rules of logic, consequent
deductions from them ;.— if this be it, which you mean by
discourse, it is very meet and reasonable and necessary
that men, as in all their actions, so especially in that of
greatest iraportance, the choice of their way to happi
ness, should be left unto it : and he that follows this in
all his opinions and actions, and does not only seem to
do so, follows always God ; whereas, he that followeth
a company of men may oft-times follow a company of
beasts. And in saying this, I say no more than St.
John to all Christians, in these words: " Dearly
beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits,
whether they be of God, or no : " and the rale he gives
them to make this trial by, is, to consider whether they
" confess Jesus to be the Christ ;" that is, the Guide of
their faith, and Lord of their actions ; not whether they
acknowledge the Pope to be his vicar : I say no more
than St. Paul, in exhorting all Christians " to try all
things, and to hold fast that which is good ;" than St.
Peter, in commanding all Christians " to be ready to
give a reason of the hope that is in them ;" than our
Saviour himself, in forewarning all his followers that, " if
they blindly followed blind guides, both leaders and
followers should fall into the ditch ;" and again, in
saying even to the people, " Yea, and why of your
selves judge ye not what is right ? " And though by
passion, or precipitation, or prejudice ; by want of
reason, or not using that they have ; men may be and
are oftentimes led into error and mischief; yet that
they cannot be misguided by discourse, truly so called,

16

r A LXI AJ^

such as I have described, you yourself have given them:
security. For what is discourse but drawing conclu
sions out of premisses by good consequence ? Now,
the principles which we have settled, to wit, the Scrip
tures, are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true.
And you have told us, in the fourth chapter of this
pamphlet, that, from truth no man can by good conse-
quence infer falsehood ; therefore, by discourse no man
can possibly be led to error : but if he err in his con
clusions, he must of necessity either err in his prin
ciples, (which here cannot have place,) or commit some
error in his discourse; that is, indeed, not discourse,
but seem to do so.
XIII. You say, thirdly, with sufficient confidence,
that if the true church may err in defining what Scrip
tures be canonical, or in delivering the sense thereof,
then we must follow either the private spirit, or else
natu/ral wit and judgment, amd by them examine what
Scriptu/res contain true or false doctrine, and, in that
respect, ought to be received or rejected: all which is
apparently untrue, neither can any proof of it be pre
tended. For though the present church may possibly
err in her judgment touching this matter, yet have
we other directions in it, besides the private spirit,
and the examination of the contents ; (which latter
way may conclude the negative very strongly, to
wit, that such or such a book cannot come from
God, because it contains irreconcilable contradic
tions ; but the affirmative it cannot conclude, because
the contents of a book may be all true, and yet the
book not written by Divine inspiration ;) other direction,
therefore, I say, we have, besides either of these three,
knd that is, the testimony ofthe primitive Christians.
XIV. You say, fourthly, with convenient boldness,
that ihis infallible authority of your church being

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 17
denied, no man can be assured, that any parcel of
Soriptwre was written by- Divine inspiration : which is
an untruth, for which no proof is pretended, and,
besides, void of modesty and full of impiety. The first,
because the experience of innumerable Christians is
against it, who are sufficiently assured that the Scripture
is divinely inspired, and yet deny the infallible autho
rity of your church or any other. The second, because
if I cannot have ground to be assured of the Divine
authority of Scripture, unless I first believe your church
infallible, then I can have no ground at all to believe
it : because there is no ground, nor can any be pre
tended, why I should believe your church infallible,
unless I first believe the Scripture Divine.
XVI. Had I a mind to recriminate now, and to
charge Papists, (as you do Protestants,) that they lead
men to Socinianism, I could certainly make a much
feirer show of evidence than you have done. For I
would not tell you, " You deny the infallibility of the
church of England, ergd, you lead to Socinianism,"
which yet is altogether as good an argument as this :
" Protestants deny the infallibility ofthe Roman church,
ergd, they induce Socinianism." Nor would I resume
my former argument, and urge you, that, by holding the
Pope's infallibility, you submit yourself to that capital
and mother heresy, by advantage whereof he may lead
you at ease to believe virtue vice, and vice virtue, to
believe antichristianity Christianism, and Christianity
antichristian ; he may lead you to Socinianism, to
Turcism, nay, to the devil himself, if he have a mind to
it. But I would show you, that divers ways the doctors
of your church do the principal and proper work of the
Socinians for them, undermining the doctrine of the
Trinity, by denying it to be supported by those pillars of
the faith which alone are fit and able to support it, I
mean Scripture, and the consent of the ancient doctors.

18 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
XVII. For Scripture, your men deny very plainly
and frequently, that this doctrine can be proved by it.
See, if you please, this plainly taught, and urged very
eamestly by cardinal Hosius, De Author, sac. Scrip,
lib. iii., p. 53 ; by Gordonius Huntlseus, Controv. tom.
i., controv. i. De Verbo Dei, c. 19 ; by Gretseras and
Taneras, in CoUoquio Matesbon: and also by Vega,
jPossevin, Wiekus, and others.
XVIII. And then for the consent of the ancients,
that that also delivers it not, by whom are we taught
but by Papists only ? Who is it that makes
known to all the world, that Eusebius, that great
searcher and devourer of the Christian libraries, was an
Arian ? Is it not your great Achilles, cardinal Perron,
in book iii., chap. 2, of his Reply to king James ?
Who is it that informs us that Origen (who never was
questioned for any error in this matter, in or near his
time) denied the Divinity of the Son and the Holy
Ghost .'' Is it not the same great cardinal, in his book
of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis, lib. ii., c. 7 ¦''
Who is it that pretends that Irenseus hath said those
things, which he that should now hold would be
esteemed an Arian .'' Is it not the same Perron, in his
Reply to king James, in the fifth chapter of his fourth
observation ? And does he not, in the same place,
peach Tertullian also, and in a manner give him away
to the Arians ? and pronounce generalTy of the
Fathers before the Council of Nice, that the Arians
would gladly be tried by them ? And are not your
fellow Jesuits also, even the prime men of your Order,
prevaricators in this point as well as others ? Doth not
your friend M. Fisher, or M. Fined, in his book of the
Nine Questions proposed to him by king James, speak
dangerously to the same purpose, in his discourse of
" the Resolution of Faith," towards the end ? giving
us to understand, that " the new reformed Arians bring

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 19
very many testimonies of the ancient Fathers, to prove
that in this point they did contradict themselves, and
were contrary one to another : which places whosoever
shall read will clearly see, that, to common people, they
are unanswerable, yea, that common people are not
capable of the answers that learned men yield unto such
obscure passages." And hath not your great antiquary
Petavius, in his notes upon Epiphanius in Hcer. 69,
been very liberal to the adversaries of the doctrine of
the Trinity ; and, in a manner, given them for patrons
and advocates, first, Justin Martyr, and then almost all
the Fathers before the Council of Nice, whose
speeches, he says, touching this point, cum orthodoxoB
fidei r0gul& minimi consentiunt, " are no way agree
able to the rule of orthodox faith ? " Hereunto I might
add, that the Dominicans and Jesuits between them, in
another matter of great importance, namely, God's
prescience of future contingents, give the Socinians the
premisses, out of which their conclusion doth unavoid
ably follow. For the Dominicans maintain, on the
"one side, that God can foresee nothing but what he
decrees : the Jesuits, on the other side, that he doth
not decree all things : and from hence the Socinians
conclude, (as it is obvious for them to do,) that he doth
not foresee all things. Lastly : I might adjoin this, that
you agree with one consent, and settle for a rule unques
tionable, that no part of religion can be repugnant to
reason, whereunto you in particular subscribe unawares in
saying, From truth no nmn can by good consequence infer
falsehood; which is to say, in effect, that reason can
never lead any man to error : and, after you have done so,
you proclaim to all the world, (as you in this pamphlet
do very frequently,) that if men follow their reason and
discourse, they will, if they understand themselves, be
led to Socinianism. And thus you see with what pro
bable matter I might furnish out and justify my accusa-

20 THE PEEFiiCE, WITH AN
tion, if I should charge you with leading men to
Socinianism ! Yet I do not conceive that I have
ground enough for this odious imputation. And much
less should you have charged Protestants with it,
whom you confess to abhor and detest it ; and who
fight against it, not with the broken reeds, and out of
the paper fortresses, of an imaginary infallibility, which
were only to make sport for their adversaries ; but with
the " sword of the Spirit, the word of God : " of which
we may say most traly, what David said of Goliath's
sword, offered him by Abimelech, Non est sitmt iste,
" There is none comparable to it." (1 Sam. xxi. 9.)
XIX. Thus Protestants in general, I hope, are
sufficiently vindicated from your calumny : I proceed
now to do the same service for the divines of England ;
whom you question first in point of leaming and suffi
ciency, and then in point of conscience and honesty, as
prevaricating in the religion which they profess, and
inclining to Popery. Their leaming, you say, consists
only in some superficial talent of precuihing^ languages,
and elocution ; and not in any deep knowledge of philo
sophy, especially of m£taphysics, and much less of that
most solid, prof table, subtle, and (0 rem ridimlam,
Cato, et jocosam I J succinct method of school divinity.
AVherein you have discovered in yourself the true
genius and spirit of detraction. For taking advantage
from that wherein envy itself cannot deny but they are
very eminent, and which requires great sufficiency of sub
stantial leaming, you disparage them as insufficient in all
things else. As if forsooth, because they dispute not
etemally, utrum chimcera bombinans in vacuo, possit
comedere secundas intentiones ? * whether a million of
" " Is it possible for a chimasra, whUe humming amidst a vacuum,
to eat up second intentions ? " — one of the foolish queries, not
unknown to those who have perused some of the minor Schoolmen.
— Edit.

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 21,
angels may not sit upon a needle's point? — because
they fill not their brains with notions that signify
nothing, to the utter extermination of all reason and
common sense, and spend not an age in weaving and
unweaving subtle cobwebs, fitter to catch fiies than
souls ; therefore they have no deep knowledge in the-
acroamatical part of learning ! But I have too much
honoured the poorness of this detraction to take notice,
of it.
XX. The other part of your accusation strikes
deeper, and is more considerable : and that tells us, that
Protestantism waxeth weary of itself : that the profes
sors of it, they especially of greatest worth, learning,
a/nd authority, love temper and moderation : and are
at this time more unresolved where to fasten, than
at the infancy of their chu/rch : that their chu/rches
begin to look with a new face : their walls to speak a
new language: their doctrine to be altered in many
things, for which their progenitors forsook the then visi
ble church of Christ. For example, the Pope not anti
christ : prayer for the dead : limbus patrum : pic
tures : that the church hath authority in determining
controversies of faith, and to interpret Scripture : about
free-will, predestination, universal grace : that all our
works are not sins : merit of good works : inherent
justice : faith alone doth not justify : charity to be
preferred before knowledge : traditions : commandments
possible to be kept : that their Thirty-nine Articles a/re
patient, nay, ambitious, of some sense wherein they may
seem catholic : tliat to allege the necessity of wife and
children in these days is but a weak plea for a married,
minister to compass a benefice : that Calvinism is at
length accounted heresy, and little less than treason ;,
that men in talk and vn-iting use willingly the once-s
fearful names of priests and altars : that they are now

22 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
put in mind, that, for exposition of Scripture, they are
by Canon bound to follow the Fathers : which if they
do with sincerity, it is easy to tell what doom will pass
against Protestants ; seeing, by the confession of Pro
testants, the Fathers are on the Papist^ side, which the
answerer to some so clearly demonstrated, that they
remained convinced : in fine, as the Sama/rita/ns saw «®
ihe disciples'' countenances, that they meant to go to
Jerusalem, so you pretend it is even legible in the fore
heads of these men, that they are even going, nay,
making haste, to Borne. Which scurrilous libel, void of
all truth, discretion, and honesty, what effect it may
have wrought, what credit it may have gained with
credulous Papists, (who dream what they desire, and
believe their own dreams,) or with ill-affected, jealous,
and weak Protestants, I cannot tell : but one thing I
dare boldly say, that you yourself did never believe it.
XXI. The truth is, they that run to extremes in
opposition against you, they that pull down your infal
libility and set up their own, they that declaim against
your tyranny, and exercise it themselves over others, are
the adversaries that give you the greatest advantage,
and such as you love to deal with ; whereas, upon men
of temper and moderation, such as will oppose nothing
because you maintain it, but will draw as near to you,
that they may draw you to them, as the truth will suffer
them ; such as require of Christians to believe only in
Christ, and will damn no man nor doctrine without
express and certain warrant from God's word ; upon
such as these you know not how to fasten ; but if you
chance to have conference with any such, (which yet, as
much as possibly you can, you avoid and decline,) you
are very speedily put to silence, and see the indefensi
ble weakness of your cause laid open to all men. And
this, I verily believe, is the true reason that you thus

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 23
rave and rage against them, as foreseeing your time of
prevailing, or even of subsisting, would be short, if
other adversaries gave you no more advantage than
they do.
XXII. In which persuasion also I am much con
firmed by consideration of the silliness and poorness of
those suggestions, and partly of the apparent vanity and
falsehood of them, which you offer in justification of
this wicked calumny. For what if, out of devotion
towards God, out of a desire that he should be worship
ped as in spirit and truth in the first place, so also " in
the beauty of holiness ? " what if, out of fear, that too
much simplicity and nakedness in the public service of
God may beget, in the ordinary sort of men, a dull and
stupid irreverence, and out of hope that the outward
state and glory of it, being well disposed and wisely
moderated, may engender, quicken, increase, and nou
rish the inward reverence, respect, and devotion which
is due unto God's sovereign majesty and power ? what
if, out of a persuasion and desire that Papists may be won
over to us the sooner, by the removing of this scandal
out of their way, and out of an holy jealousy, that
the weaker sort of Protestants might be the easier
seduced to them by the magnificence and pomp of their
church-service, in case it were not removed ? — I say
what if, out of these considerations, tbe governors of
our church, more of late than formerly, have set them
selves to adorn and beautify the places where God's
honour dwells, and to make them as heavenly as they
can with earthly ornaments ; — is this a sign that they
are warping towards Popery ? Is this devotion in the
church of England an argument that she is coming
over to the church of Rome ? Sir Edwin Sands, I
presume every man will grant, had no inclination that
way ; yet he, forty years since, highly commended this

24 THE PREFACE WITH AN
part of devotion in Papists, and makes no scruple of
proposing it to the imitation of Protestants ; little
thinking that they who would follow his counsel, and
endeavour to take away this disparagement of Protest
ants, and this glorying of Papists, should have been
censured for it, as making way and inclining to Popery.
His words to this purpose are excellent words ; and,
because they show plainly that what is now practised
was approved by zealous Protestants so long ago, I
will here set them down : —
XXIII. " This one thing I cannot but highly com
mend ill that sort and order : they spare nothing
which either cost can perform in enriching, or skill in
adorning, the temple of God, or to set out his service
with the greatest pomp and magnificence that can be
devised. And although, for the most part, much base
ness and childishness is predominant in the masters and
contrivers of their ceremonies, yet this outward state
and glory being well disposed, doth engender, quicken,
increase, and nourish the inward reverence, respect, and
devotion, which is due unto sovereign majesty and
power. And althougb I am not ignorant that many
men well-reputed have embraced the thrifty opinion of
that disciple, who thought all to be wasted that was
bestowed upon Christ in that sort, and that it were
much better bestowed upon him in the poor, (yet with
an eye, perhaps, that themselves would be his quarter
almoners,) notwithstanding, I must confess, it will never
sink into my heart, that, in proportion of reason, the
allowance for furnishing out of the service of God
should be measured by the scant and strict rule of mere
necessity, (a proportion so low that nature, to other
most bountiful in matter of necessity, hath not failed,
no, not the most ignoble creatures of the world,) and
that for ourselves.no measure of heaping but the most

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 25
we can get, no rule of expense but to the utmost pomp
we list : or that God himself had so enriched the lower
parts of the world with such wonderful varieties of
beauty and glory, that they might serve only to the
pampering of mortal man in his pride ; and that, in the
service of the high Creator, Lord, and Giver, (the out
ward glory of whose higher palace may appear by the
very lamps that we see so far off burning gloriously in
it,) only the simpler, baser, cheaper, less noble, less
beautiful, less glorious things should be employed.
Especially seeing as in princes' courts, so in the service
of God also, this outward state and glory being well
disposed, doth, as I have said, engender, quicken,
increase, and nourish the inward reverence, respect, and
devotion which is due to so sovereign majesty and
power. Which those whom the use thereof cannot
persuade unto, would easily by the want of it be
brought to confess ; for which cause, I crave leave to
be excused by them herein, if, in zeal to the common
Lord of all, I choose rather to commend the virtue of
an enemy than to flatter the vice and imbecility of a
friend." And so much for this matter.
XXIV. Again : what if the names of the priests
and altars, so frequent in the ancient Fathers, though
not in the now-Popish sense, be now resumed and more
commonly used in England than of late times they
were ; that so the colourable argument of their con
formity, which is but nominal, with the ancient church,
and our inconformity, which the governors of the
church would not have so much as nominal, may be
taken away from them ; and the church of England
may be put in a state, in this regard more justifiable
against the Roman than formerly it was, being hereby
enabled to say to Papists, (whensoever these names are
• " EuropcB Speculum : or, A View or Survey of Religion.''
C

26 THE PEEFACE, WITH AN
objected,) " We also use the names of priests and altars,
and yet belieVe neither the corporal presence, nor any
proper and propitiatory sacrifice ? "
XXV. What, if Protestants be now put in ipind,
that, for exposition of Scripture, they are bound by"a
canon to follow the ancient Fathers : which whosoever
doth with sincerity, it is utterly impossible he should he
a Papist ? And it is most falsely said by you, that
you know, that to some Protestants I clearly demon
strated, or ever so much as undertook or went about
to demonstrate, the contrary. What, if the Centurists
be censured somewhat roundly by a Protestant divine
for affirming, that " the keeping of the Lord's day was
a thing indifferent for two hundred years ? " Is there
in all this, or any part of it, any kind of proof of this
scandalous calumny ?
XXVI. As for the points of doctrine wherein you
pretend that these divines begin of late to falter, and
to comply with the church of Rome ; upon a due exa
mination of particulars, it will presently appear, first,
that part of them always have been, and now are, held
constantly one way by them, as the authority of the
church in determining controversies of faith, though
not the infallibility of it ; that there is inherent justice,
though so imperfect that it cannot justify ; that tiiere are
traditions, though none necessary ; that charity is to be
preferred before knowledge; that good works are not
properiy meritorious ; and, lastly, that faith alone justi
fies, though that faith justifies not which is alone. And,
secondly, for the remainder, that they, every one of
them, have been anciently, without breach of charity,
disputed among Protestants : such, for example, were
the questions about the Pope's being the antichrist, the
lawfulness of some kind of prayers for the dead, the
estate of the Fathers' souls before Christ's ascension ;

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 27
free-will, predestination, universal grace ; the possibility
of keeping God's commandments ; the use of pictures
in the chuich : — wherein that there hath been anciently
diversity of opinion amongst Protestants, it is justified
to my hand by a witness, with you beyond exception,
even your great friend M. Brerely, whose care, exact
ness, and fidelity, you say in your Preface, is so extra-
m-dinary great. Consult him therefore : Tract. 3,
sect. vii. of his " Apology ; " and in subdivisions 9, 10,
11, 14, 24, 26, 27, 37, of that section, you shall see,
as in a mirror, yourself proved an egregious calumni
ator, for charging Protestants with innovation and inclin
ing to Popery, under pretence, forsooth, that their doc
trine begins of late to be altered in these points.
Whereas, M. Brerely will inform you, they have been
anciently, and even from the beginning of the Reform
ation, controverted amongst them, though, perhaps, the
stream and current of their doctors run one way, and
only some brook or rivulet of them the other.
XXVII. It remains now, in the last place, that
I bring myself fairly off from your foul aspersions, that
so my person may not be any disparagement to the
cause, nor any scandal to weak Christians.
XXVIII. First, upon hearsay, you charge me with
a great number of false and impious doctrines, which I
will not name in particular, because I will not assist you
so far in the spreading of my own undeserved defama
tion ; but whosoever teaches or holds them, let him be
anathema ! The sum of them all is this. Nothing
ought or can be certainly believed, farther than it may
he proved by evidence of natu/ral reason ; (where I con
ceive natural reason is opposed to supernatural revela
tion ;) and whosoever holds so, let him be anathema !
And moreover, to clear myself, once for all, from all
imputations of this nature, which charge me injuriously
c 2

28 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
with denial of supematural verities, I profess sincerely,
that I believe all those books of Scripture, which the
church of England accounts canonical, to be the infel-
lible word of God ; I believe all things evidently con
tained in them, all things evidently or even probably
deducible from them : I acknowledge all that to be
heresy, which by the Act of Parliament primo of queen
Elizabeth is declared to be so, and only to be so : and
though in such points which may be held diversely of
divers men, salva fidei compage, I would not take any
man's liberty from him, and humbly beseech all
men, that they would not take mine from me ! Yet
thus much I can say, (which I hope will satisfy any
man of reason,) that whatsoever hath been held neces
sary to salvation, either by the catholic church of all
ages, or by the consent of Fathers, measured by Vin-
centius Lirinensis's rule, or is held necessary either by
the Catholic church of this age, or by the consent of
Protestants, or even by the church of England, that,
against the Socinians and all others whatsoever, I do
verily believe and embrace.
XXIX. But what are all personal matters to the
business in hand ? If it could be proved that cardmal
Bellarmine was indeed a Jew, or that cardinal Perron
was an atheist, yet, I presume, you would not accept of
this for an answer to all their writings in defence of your
religion. Let, then, my actions, and intentions, and opi
nions, be what they will, yet I hope trath is nevertheless
truth, nor reason ever the less reason, because I speak it.
And therefore the Christian reader, knowing that his sal
vation or damnation depends upon his impartial and
sincere judgment of these things, will guard himself, I
hope, from these impostures, and regard not the person,
but the cause and the reasons of it ; not who speaks,
but what is spoken ; which is all the favour I desire of

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 29
him, as knowing that I am desirous not to persuade him,
unless it be truth whereunto I persuade him.
XXX. The last accusation is, that I answer out
of principles which Protestants themselves will profess to
detest ; which indeed were to the purpose if it could be
justified : but, besides that it is confuted by my whole
book, and made ridiculous by the approbations premised
unto it,* it is very easy for me, out of your own mouth
and words, to prove it a most injurious calumny. For
what one conclusion is there, in the whole fabric of my
discourse, that is not naturally deducible out of this one
principle, — that " all things necessary to salvation are
evidently contained in Scripture ?" Or what one conclu
sion almost of importance is there in your book, which
is not by this one clearly confutable ? Grant this, and
it will presently follow, in opposition to your first con
clusion, and the argument of your first chapter, that,
amongst men of different opinions, touching the obscure
and controverted questions of religion, such as may with
probability be disputed on both sides, and such as are
the disputes of Protestants, good raen and lovers of
trath of all sides may be saved ; because all necessary
things being supposed evident, concerning them, with
men so qualified, there will be no difference ; there
being no more certain sign that a point is not evident,
than that honest, and understanding, and indifferent men,
and such as give themselves liberty of judgment, after a
mature consideration of the matter, differ about it.
XXXI. Grant this, and it will appear, secondly,
that the means whereby the revealed traths of God
are conveyed to our understanding, and which are
• The approbation of Dr. Richard Baylie, the Vice-Chancellor of
Oxford, of Dr. John Prideaux, Regius Professor of Divinity, and of
Dr. Samuel Fell, Margaret Professor of Divinity in that University,
the reader will find immediately after the title-page of this volume. —
Edit.

30 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
to determine all controversies in faith, necessary to be
determined, may be, for any thing you have said to
the contrary, not a church, but the Scripture ; which
contradicts the doctrine of your second chapter.
XXXII. Grant this, and the distinction of points
fundamental and not fundamental will appear very good
and pertinent. For those truths will be fundamental,
which are evidently delivered in Scripture, and com
manded to be preached to all men ; those not funda
menta], which are obscure : and nothing will hinder,
but that the catholic church may err in the latter kind
of the said points ; because traths not necessary to the
sahation, cannot be necessary to the being, of a church;
and because it is not absolutely necessary that God
should assist his church, any farther than to bring her
to salvation, neither will there be any necessity at all of
any infallible guide, either to consign unwritten tradi
tions, or to declare the obscurities of the faith : not for
the former end, because, this principle being granted
true, nothing unwritten can be necessary to be con
signed ; nor for the latter, because nothing that is
obscure can be necessary to be understood, or not mis
taken. And so the discourse of your whole third chap
ter will presently vanish.
XXXIII. Fourthly. For the Creed's containin
the fundamentals of simple belief, though I see not how
it may be deduced from this principle, yet the granting
of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the
Creed unnecessary; for if all necessary things of all sorts,
whether of simple belief or practice, be confessed to be
cleariy contained in Scripture, what imports it whether
those of one sort be contained in the Creed .''
XXXIV. Fifthly. Let this be granted, and the
immediate corollary, in opposition to your fifth chapter,
will be and must TSe, that not Protestants for rejecting.

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 31
but the church of Rome for imposing upon, the faith
of Christians, doctrines unwritten and unnecessary, and
for disturbing the church's peace, and dividing unity for
such matters, is, in a high degree, presumptuous and
schismatical. XXXV. Grant this, sixthly, and it will follow una
voidably, that Protestants cannot possibly be heretics,
seeing they believe all things evidently contained in
Scripture, which are supposed to be all that is necessary
to be believed ; and so your sixth chapter is clearly
confuted. XXXVI. Grant this, lastly, and it will be undoubt
edly consequent, in contradiction of your seventh chap
ter, that no man can show more charity to himself than
by continuing a Protestant, seeing Protestants are sup
posed to believe, and therefore may accordingly practise,
at least by their religion are not hindered from practising
and performing, all things necessary to salvation.
XXXVII. So that the position of this one princi
ple is the direct overthrow of your whole book ; and
therefore I needed not, nor, indeed, have I made use
of, any other. Now this principle, which is not only
the comer-stone, or chief pillar, but even the base, and
adequate foundation, of my answer ; and which, while
it stands firm and unmovable, cannot but be the sup
porter of my book, and the certain ruin of yours, is so
far from being, according to your pretence, detested by
all Protestants, that all Protestants whatsoever, as you
may see in their "Harmony of Confessions," unani
mously profess and maintain it. And you yourself
plainly confess as much, in saying, The whole edifice of
the faith of Protesta/nts is settled on these two principles:
These pa/rticular books are canonical Script-mre; and the
sense and meaning of them is plain amd evident, at least
in all points necessa/ry to sahation. (Chap, vi., sect. 30.)

32 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
XXXVIII. And thus your venom against me is;
in a manner, spent, saving only that there remain two
little impertinencies, whereby you would disable me
from being a fit advocate for the cause of Protestants :
The first, because I refuse to subscribe the Articles of
the church of England ; the second, because I have
set down in writing motives which some time induced
me to forsake Protestantism, and hitherto have not
answered them.
XXXIX. By the former of which objections it
should seem, that either you conceive the Thirty-nine
Articles the common doctrine of all Protestants, (and if
they be, why have you so often upbraided them with
their many and great differences ?) or else, that it is the
peculiar defence of the church of England, and not the
common cause of all Protestants, which is here under
taken by me ; which are certainly very gross mistakes.
And yet, why he who makes scruple of subscribing the
truth of one or two propositions may not yet be fit
enough to maintain, that those who do subscribe them
are in a saveable condition, I do not understand. Now,
though I hold not the doctrine of all Protestants abso
lutely true, (which with reason cannot be required of
me while they hold contradictions,) yet I hold it free
from all impiety, and from all error destractive of salva
tion, or in itself damnable : and this I think in reason
may sufficiently' qualify me for a maintainer of this
assertion, — that " Protestancy destroys not salvation."
For the church of England, I am persuaded that the
constant doctrine of it is so pure and orthodox, that
whosoever believes it, and lives according to it,
undoubtedly he shall be saved ; and that there is no
error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to
disturb the peace or renounce the communion of it.
This, in my opinion, is all intended by subscription ;

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 33
and thus much, if you conceive me not ready to
subscribe, your charity, I assure you, is much mis-

XL. Your other objection is yet more impertinent
and frivolous than the fonner ; unless, perhaps, it be a
just exception against a physician, that himself was
sometimes in, and recovered himself from, that disease
which he undertakes to cure ; or against a guide in a
way, that at first, before he had experience, himself
mistook it, and afterwards found his error and amended
it. That noble writer, Michael de Montaigne, was
surely of a far different mind ; for he will hardly allow
any physician competent, but only for such diseases as
himself had passed through : and a far greater than
Montaigne, even he that said, Tu conversus confirma
fratres, " When thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren," gives us sufficiently to understand, that they
which have themselves been in such a state as to need
conversion, are not thereby made incapable of, but
rather engaged and obliged unto, and qualified for, this
charitable function.
XLI. The motives, then, hitherto not answered,
were these : —
XLII. " 1. Because perpetual, visible profession,
which could never be wanting to the religion of Christ,
nor any part of it, is apparently wanting to Protestant
religion, so far as concerns the points in contestation.
" 2. Because Luther and his followers, separating
from the church of Rome, separated also from all
churches, pure or impure, true or false, then being in
the world ; upon which ground I conclude, that either
God's promises did fail of performance, if there were
then no church in the world which held all things neces
sary, and nothing repugnant, to salvation ; or else- that
Luther and his sectaries, separating from all churches
c 5

34 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
then in the world, and so from the trae, if there were
any true, were damnable schismatics.
" 3. Because, if any credit may be given to as credi
ble records as any are extant, the doctrine of Catholics
hath been frequently confirmed, and the opposite doc
trine of Protestants confounded, with supernatural and
Divine miracles.
" 4. Because many points of Protestant dottrine are
the damned opinions of heretics, condemned by the
primitive church.
"5. Because the prophecies of the Old Testament,
touching the conversion of kings and nations to the true
religion of Christ, have been accomplished in and by
the Catholic Roman religion, and the professors of it,
and not by Protestant religion, and the professors
of it.
" 6. Because the doctrine of the church of Rome is
conformable, and the doctrine of Protestants contrary,
to the doctrine of the Fathers of the primitive church,
even by the confession of Protestants themselves ; I
mean, those Fathers who lived within the compass of
the first six hundred years ; to whom Protestants them
selves do very frequently and very confidently appeal.
" 7. Because the first pretended Reformers had nei
ther extraordinary commission from God, nor ordinary
mission from the church, to preach Protestant doctrine.
"8. Because Luther, to preach against the mass,
(which contains the most material points now in contro
versy,) was persuaded by reasons suggested to him by
the devil himself disputing with him. So himself pro
fesseth in his book, De Missa Privata ; that all men
might take heed of following him who professeth him
self to follow the devil.
" 9. Because the Protestant cause is now, and hath
been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifi-

-\NSWKE TO A DIRECTION TO N. N 35
cations and calumnies ; whereof their prime controversy-
writers are notoriously, and in high degree, guilty.
" 10. Because, by denying all human authority,
either of Pope, or Councils, or church, to determine
controversies of faith, they have abolished all possible
means of suppressing heresy, or restoring unity to the
church." These are the motives ; now my answers to them fol
low briefly and in order.
XLIII. To the first : God hath neither decreed nor
foretold, that his true doctrine should, de facto, be always
visibly professed, without any mixture of falsehood.
To the second : God hath neither decreed nor fore
told, that there shall be always a visible company of
men free from all error in itself damnable. Neither is
it always of necessity schismatical to separate from the
extemal communion of a church, though wanting
nothing necessary ; for if this church supposed to want
nothing necessary require me to profess, against my con
science, that I believe some error, though never so small
and innocent, which I do not believe, and will not allow
me her communion but upon this condition : in this
case the church, for requiring this condition, is schis
matical, and not I for separating from the church.
To the third : if any credit may be given to records
far more creditable than these, the doctrine of Protest
ants, that is, the Bible, hath been confirmed, and the
doctrine of Papists, which is, in many points, plainly
opposite to it, confounded, with supernatural and Divine
miracles, which, for number and glory, outshine Popish
pretended miracles, as much as the sun doth an ignis
fatuus; those, I mean, which were wi-ought by our
Saviour Christ and his apostles. Now this book, by
the confession of all sides, confirmed by innumerous
miracles, foretells me plainly, that, in after-ages, great

36 THE PREFACE, WITH AN
signs and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of
false doctrine, and that I am not to believe any doc
trine which seems to my understanding repugnant to
the first, though an angel from heaven should teach it ;
which were certainly as great a miracle as any that was
ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine
of the church of Rome : but that true doctrine should,
in all ages, have the testimony of miracles, that I am
no where taught ; so that I have more reason to suspect
and be afraid of pretended miracles, as signs of false
doctrine, than much to regard them as certain argu
ments of the truth. Besides, setting aside the Bible,
and the tradition of it, there is as good story for
miracles wrought by those who lived and died in oppo
sition to the doctrine of the Roman church, (as by
St. Cyprian, Colmannus, Columbanus, Aidanus, and
others,) as there is for those that are pretended to be
wrought by the members of that church. Lastly. It
seems to me no strange thing, that God, in his justice,
should permit some true miracles to be wrought to delude
them who have forged so many, as apparently the pro
fessors of the Roman doctrine have, to abuse the world.
To the fourth : all those were not heretics which by
Philastrius, Epiphanius, or St. Austin, were put in the
catalogue of heretics.*
To the fifth : kings and nations have been, and may
be, converted by men of contrary religions.
To the sixth : the doctrine of Papists is confessed by
Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points.
To the seventh : the pastors of a church cannot but
bave authority from it to preach against the abuses of it,
whether in doctrine or practice, if there be any in it ;
• See this acknowledged by BeUarmine, De Scrip. Eccles. in Phi-
lastrioi by Petavius, Animad. in Epiph. de Inscrip. Operis i by St.
Austin, Lib. de Uteres. Hcer. 80.

ANSWER TO A DIRECTION TO N. N. 37
neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission
from God to do a necessary work of charity after a
peaceable manner, when there is nobody else that can
or will do it. In extraordinary cases, extraordinary
courses are not to be disallowed. If some Christian
layman should come into a country of infidels,- and
had ability to persuade them to Christianity, who would
say he might not use it for want of commission ?
To the eighth : Luther's conference with the devil
might be, for aught I know, nothing but a melancholy
dream : if it were real, the devil might persuade Luther
from the mass, hoping by doing so to keep him constant
to it ; or that others would make his dissuasion from it
an argument for it, (as we see Papists do,) and be
afraid of following Luther, as confessing himself to have
been persuaded by the devil.
To the ninth : Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra.*
Papists are more guilty of this fault than Protestants.
Even this very author, in this very pamphlet, hath
not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies.
To the tenth : let all men believe the Scripture, and
that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense,
and require no more of others ; and they shall find this
not only a better, but the only, means to suppress
heresy, and restore unity. For, he that believes the
Scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in
the trae sense, cannot possibly be a heretic : and if
no more than this were required of any man to make
him capable of the church's communion, then all men
so qualified, though they were different in opinion, yet,
notwithstanding any such difference, must be, of neces
sity, one in communion.
• " Ahke sedition, anger, lust, deceit,
Reign in the Trojan walls, and Grecian fleet."
Duncombe's " Horace."
— Edit.

ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

I. To Sections i., ii. — If beginnings be ominous,
(as they say they are,) Dr. Potter hath cause to look
for great store of uningenuous dealing from you ; the
very first words you speak of him, namely, that he hath
not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the
point in question, being a most unjust and immodest
imputation. II. For tbe point in question was not that which
you pretend : whether both Papists and Protestants can
be saved in their several professions f but, whether you
may without uncharitableness affirm, that Protestamy
wnrepented destroys salvation f For there is no incon
gruity but that it may be true, that you and we cannot
both be saved ; and yet as true, ihat without uncharita
bleness you cannot pronounce us damned. And, there
fore, though the author of "Charity Mistaken" had
proved as strongly as he hath done weakly, that one
heaven could not receive Protestants and Papists both,
yet certainly it was very hastily and unwarrantably,
and, therefore, uncharitably, concluded, that Protest
ants were the part that was to be excluded. As
though Jews and Christians cannot both be saved ; yet
a Jew cannot justly, and, therefore, not charitably, pro
nounce a Christian damned.
III. Neither may you or " Charity Mistaken " con
clude him from hence (as covertly you do) an enemy to

THE ANSWER TO THE PEEFACE. 39
iouls, by deceiving them with ungrounded, false hopes
of salvation ; seeing the hope of salvation cannot be
ungrounded which requires and supposes belief and
practice of all things absolutely necessary to salvation,
and repentance of those sins and errors which we fall
into by human frailty : nor a friend to indifferency in
religions; seeing he gives them only hope of pardon of
errors who are desirous, and, according to the pro
portion of their opportunities and abilities, industrious,
to find the trath, or, at least, truly repentant that they
have not been so. Which doctrine is very fit to excite
men to a constant and impartial search of truth ; and
very far from teaching them, that it is indifferent what
religion they are of; and, without all controversy, very
honourable to the goodness of God ; with which how it
can consist not to be satisfied with his servants' true
endeavours to know his will and do it, without full and
exact perforinance, I leave it to you and all good men
to judge. V. You say, he was loath to affirm plainly, that
generally both Catholics aiid Protestants may be saved ;
which yet is manifest he doth affirm plainly of Protest
ants throughout his book ; and of erring Papists that
have " sincerely sought the truth, and failed of it, and
die with a general repentance." (Pages 77, 78.) And
yet you deceive yourself, if you conceive he had any
other necessity to do so, but only that he thought
it true. For we may and do pretend, that, before
Luther, there were many true churches besides the
Roman, which agreed not with her ; in particular, the
Greek church. So that what you say is evidently true
is, indeed, evidently false. Besides, if he had had any
necessity to make use of you in this matter, he needed
not, for this end, to say, that , now in your church
salvation may be had, but only, that, before Luther's

40 THE ANSWER TO THE PEEFACE.
time, it might be ; then when your means of knowing
the truth were not so great, and when your ignorance
might be more invincible, and, therefore, more excusa
ble. So that you may see, if you please, it is not for
ends, but for the love of truth, that we are thus charita-
ble to you.
VI. Neither is it material what you allege, that they
a/re not fundamental errors ; and then what imports it
whether we hold them or no, forasmuch as concerns owr
possibility to be saved? as if we were not bound by
the love of God, and the love of trath, to be zealous in
the defence of all truths that are any way profitable,
though not simply necessary to salvation ; or as if any
good man could satisfy his conscience with being so
affected and resolved; our Saviour himself having
assured us, that " he that shall break one of his least
commandments," (some whereof, you pretend, are con
cerning venial sins, and, consequently, the keeping of
them not necessary to salvation,) " and shall so teach
men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven." VII. But then it imports very much, though not for
the possibility that you may be saved, yet for the
probability that you will be so ; because the holding of
these errors, though it did not merit, might yet occa.
sion, damnation ; as the doctrine of indulgences may
take away the fear of purgatory, and the doctrine of
purgatory the fear of hell ; as you well know it does
too frequently. So that, though a godly man might
be saved with these errors, yet, by m£ans of them,
many are made vicious, and so damned : by them, I
say, though not for them. No godly layman, who
is verily persuaded that there is neither impiety nor
superstition in the use of your Latin service, shall he
damned, I hope, for being present at it ; yet the want

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE,

41

of that devotion which the frequent hearing the offices
understood might happily beget in them, the want of
that instruction and edification which it might afford
them may very probably hinder the salvation of many
which otherwise might have been saved. Besides,
though the matter of an error may be only something
profitable, not necessary, yet the neglect of it may be a
damnable sin : as, not to regard venial sins is, in the
doctrine of your schools, mortal. Lastly : as venial
sins, you say, dispose men to mortal, so the erring from
some profitable, though lesser, truth may dispose a
man to error in greater matters. As for example :
the belief of the Pope's infallibility is, I hope, not
unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it ;
yet if it be a falsehood, (as most certainly it is,) it
puts a man into a very congruous disposition to believe
antichrist, if he should chance to get into that see.
VIII. To Section hi. — In Ms distinction of
points fundamental and not fundamental, he may seem,
you say, to have touched the point, but does not so
indeed ; because, though he says there are some points
so fundamental as that all are obliged to believe them
explicitly, yet he tells you not whether a man may
disbelieve any other points of faith which are suffi
ciently presented to his understanding as truths revealed
by Almighty God. Touching this matter of sufficient
proposal, if you mean by sufficiently presented to his
understanding as revealed hy God, that which, all things
considered, is so proposed to him, that he might, and
should, and would believe it to be trae, and revealed by
God, were it not for some voluntary and avoidable fault
of his that interposeth itself between his understanding
and the truth presented to it ; if you speak of truths
thus proposed and rejected, let it be as damnable
as you please to deny or disbelieve them. But it

42 the answer to the preface.
amazes me to hear you say, that Dr. Potter declines
this question ; seeing the light itself is not more clear
than Dr. Potter's declaration of himself, in pages 245,
246, &c., of his book, beginning his discourse thus:
*' It seems fundamental to the faith, and for the salva
ri tion of every member of the church, that he acknow-
¦"' ledge and believe all such points of faith as whereof he
^ may be convinced that they belong to the doctrine
"of Jesus Christ."
To this conviction he requires three things : " Clear
revelation, sufficient proposition, and capacity and
understanding in the hearer. For want of clear revela-
tion, he frees the church before Christ and the disciples
of Christ from any damnable error, though they believed
not those things which he that should now deny were
no Christian. To sufficient proposition he requires
two things : 1. That the points be perspicuously laid
open in themselves ; 2. So forcibly as may serve to
remove reasonable doubts to the contrary, and to
satisfy a teachable mind conceming it, against the
principles in which he hath been bred to the contrary.
This proposition," he says, "is not limited to the
Pope, or church, but extended to all means whatsoever
by which a man may be convinced in conscience, that
the matter proposed is Divine revelation; which he
professes to be done sufficiently, not only when his
conscience doth expressly bear witness to the truth,
but when it would do so, if it were not choked
and blinded by some unruly and unmortified lust in the
will ; the difference being not great between him that is
wilfully blind, and him that knowingly gainsayeth the
truth. The third thing he requires is capacity and
ability to apprehend the proposal and the reasons of it,
the want whereof excuseth fools and madmen, &c. ; but
where there is no such impediment, and the will of God

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 43
is sufficiently propounded, there," saith he, " he that
opposeth is convinced of error; and he who is thus
convinced is an heretic ; and heresy is a work of
the flesh, which excludeth from salvation : " he means,
without repentance. "And hence it followeth, that it
is fundamental to a Christian's faith, and necessary
for his salvation, that be believe all revealed truths of
God, whereof he may be convinced that they are from
God." Again : it is almost as strange to me, why you should
say. This was the only thing in question, whether a
man may deny or disbelieve any point of faith, suffi
ciently presented to his understanding as a truth
reoealed'iy God. For to say, that any thing is a thing
in question methinks, at the first hearing of the words,
imports, that it is by some affirmed, and denied by
others. Now you affirm, I grant, but wbat Protestant
ever denied, that it was a sin to give God the lie ?
which is the first and most obvious sense of these
words. Or which of them ever doubted, that to dis
believe is then a fault, when the matter is so proposed
to a man, that he might and should, and, were it not
for his own fault, would, believe it ? Certainly he that
questions either of these justly deserves to have his
wits called in question. Produce any one Protestant
that ever did so, and I wUl give you leave to say it is
the only thing in question. But then I must tell you
that your ensuing argument, namely. To deny a truth
•witnessed by God, is damnable ; but of two that dis
agree, one mvM of necessity deny some such truth, there
fore one only can be saved, is built upon a ground
clean different from this postulate. For though it be
always a fault to deny what either I do know, or should
know, to be testified by God ; yet that which by a
cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof, to deny

44 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
a truth witnessed by God simply, without the circum
stance of being known or sufficiently proposed, is so far
from being certainly damnable, that it may be many
times done without any the least fault at all. As if
God should testify something to a man in the Indies,
I, that had no assurance of this testification, should not
be obliged to believe it. For in such cases the rule of
the law has place : Idem est non esse et non apparere :
" Not to be at all and not to appear to me, is to me all
one." " If I had not come and spoken unto you," saith
our Saviour, " you had had no sin."
X. As little necessity is there for that which follows :
That of two disagreeing in a manner of faith, one mutt
deny some such truth ; whether by such you understand,
" testified at all by God ;" or, " testified and sufficiently
propounded." For, it is very possible, the matter in con
troversy may be such a thing wherein God hath not at all
declared himself, or not so fully and clearly as to oblige
all men to hold one way ; and yet be so overvalued by
the parties in variance, as to be esteemed a matter of
faith, and one of those things of which our Saviour
says, " He that believeth not, shall be damned." Who
sees not that it is possible two churches may excommu
nicate and damn each other for keeping Christmas ten
days sooner or later ; as well as Victor excommunicated
the churches of Asia for differing from him about
Easter-day ? And yet I believe you will confess, that
God had not then declared himself about Easter ; nor
hath now about Christmas. Anciently, some good Catho
lic bishops excommunicated and damned others for hold
ing there were antipodes : and in this question I would
fain know on which side was the sufficient proposal. The
Contra-Remonstrants differ from the Remonstrants about
the points of predetermination as a matter of faith : I
would know in this thing also, which way God hath

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 45
declared himself; whether for predetermination or
against it. Stephen, bishop of Rome, held it as a
matter of faith and apostolic tradition, that heretics
gave true baptism : others there were, and they as good
Catholics as he, that held that this was neither matter
of faith nor matter of truth. Justin Martyr and
Irenaeus held the doctrine of the millenaries as a matter
of faith : and though Justin Martyr deny it, yet you, I
hope, will affirm, that some good Christians held the
contrary. St. Augustine, I am sure, held the commu
nicating of infants, as much apostolic traditioUj, as the
baptizing of them : whether the bishop and the church
of Rome of his time held so too, or held otherwise, I
desire you to determine. But, sure I am, the church
of Rome at this present holds the contrary. The same
St. Austin held it no matter of faith, that the bishops
of Rome were judges of appeals from all parts of the
church Catholic, no, not in major causes and major
persons : whether the bishop or church of Rome did
then hold the contrary, do you resolve rae ; but now I
am resolved they do so. In all these differences, the
point in question is esteemed and proposed by one side
at least as a matter of faith, and by the other rejected
as not so ; and either this is to disagree in matters of
faith, or you will have no means to show that we do
disagree. Now, then, to show you how weak and
sandy the foundation is, on which the whole fabric both
of your book and church depends, answer me briefly to fi
this dilemma : — Either in these oppositions, one of the \
opposite parts erred damnably, and denied God's truth '
sufficiently propounded, or they did not. If they did,
then they which do deny God's truth sufficiently pro
pounded may go to heaven ; and then you are rash
and uncharitable in excluding us, though we were
guilty of this fault. If not, then there is no such

46 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
necessity, that of two disagreeing about a matter of
faith, one should deny God's truth sufficiently pro
pounded. And so the major and minor of your argu
ment are proved false. Yet, though they were as true
as gospel, and as evident as mathematical principles,
the conclusion (so impertinent is it to the premisses)
might still be false. For that which naturaUy issues
from these propositions is not, "Therefore one only can he
saved," but, " Therefore one of them does something that
is damnable." But with what logic or what charity you
can infer either as the immediate production of the
former premisses, or as a c^oljary from this conclusion,
" Therefore one only can be saved," I do nol understand ;
unless you will pretend that this consequence is good,
" Such a one doth something damnable, therefore he shall
certainly be damned ;" which, whether it be not to over
throw the article of our faith, which promises remission
of sins upon repentance, and consequently to rain the
gospel of Christ, I leave it to the Pope and the cardinals
to determine. For if against this it be alleged, that no
man can repent of the sin wherein he dies, this much I
have already stopped by showing, that, if it be a sin of
ignorance, this is no way incongruous.
XIII. To Section vi. — In your sixth paragraph
I let all pass saving only this, that a persuasion tliat
men of different religions (you must mean Christians of
different opinions or communions) 'may be saved, is a
most pernicious heresy, aiid eren a ground of atheism.
What strange extractions chemistry can make, I know
not ; but sure I am, he that by reason would infer this
conclusion, " that there is no God," from this ground,
that God will save men in different religions, must have
a higher strain of logic than you or I have hitherto
made show of. In my apprehension, the other part of
the contradiction, " that there is a God," should much

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 47
rather follow from it; and I say, and will maintain,
that to say, that Christians of different opinions and
communions (such, I mean, who hold all those things
that are simply necessary to salvation) may not obtain
pardon for the errors wherein they die ignorantiy, by a
general repentance, is so far from being a ground of
atheism, that to say the contrary, is to cross in diameter
a main article of our Creed, and to overthrow the
gospel of Christ.
XIV. To Section vii. — To what you say, , of
some Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to
prove a perpetual visible church distinct from yours,
I answer. Some, perhaps, undertake to do so, as a
matter of courtesy ; but I believe you will be much to
seek for any one that holds it necessary. For though
you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a
perpetual visible church ; yet you yourselves do not
pretend that he hath promised there shall be histories
and records, always extant, of the professors of it in all
ages ; nor that he hath any where enjoined us to read
those histories, that we may be able to show them.
XVII. To your ensuing demands, though some of
them may be very captious and ensnaring, yet I will
give you as clear, and plain, and ingenuous answers as
possibly I can.
XVIIL To Section xi. — To the first, then,
about the perpetuity ofthe visible church, my answer is.
That I believe our Saviour, ever since his ascension,
hath had, in some place or other, a visible true church
on earth ; I mean a company of men that professed, at
least, so much truth as was absolutely necessary for
their salvation. And I believe that there wUl be some
where or other such a church to the world's end. But
the contrary doctrine I do at no hand believe to be a
damnable heresy.

48 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
XIX. To Section xii. — To the second,
visible church there was before Luther disagreeing from
the Boman ? I answer, That before Luther there were
many visible churches in many things disagreeing frora
the Roman ; but not that the whole Catholic church
disagreed from her, because she herself was a part of
the whole, though much corrapted. And to undertake
to name a Catholic church disagreeing from her, is to
make her no part of it, which we do not, nor need not,
pretend. And for men agreeing with Protestants in all
points, we will then produce them when you shall
either prove it necessary to be done, which you know
we absolutely deny ; or when you shall produce a per
petual succession of professors, which in all points have
agreed with you, and disagreed from you in nothing.
But this my promise, to deal plainly with you, I con
ceive, and so intended it to be very like his who
undertook to drink up the sea, upon condition, that
he, to whom the promise was made, should first stop
the rivers from running in. For this unreasonable
request, which you make to us, is to yourselves so
impossible, that, in the very next age after the apostles,
you will never be able to name ^ roan, whom you can
prove to have agreed with you in all things; nay, (if
you speak of such whose works are extant and unques
tioned) whom we cannot prove to have disagreed
from you in many things. Which I am so certain
of, that I will venture my credit and my life upon it.
XX. To Section xiii. — To the third, whether,
seeing there cannot be assigned any visible true church
distinct from the Roman, it follows not that she erred
not fundamentally ? I say, in our sense of the word
" fundamental," it does follow. For if it be true,
that there was then no church distinct from the Roman,
then it must be either because there was no church at

the answer to the preface. 49
all, wliich we deny ; or, because the Roman church
was the whole church, which we also deny ; or, because
she was a part of the whole, which we grant. And if
she were a true part of the church, then she retained
those truths which were simply necessary to salvation,
and held no errors which were inevitably and unpardon
ably destractive of it. For this is precisely necessary
to constitute any man or any church a member of the
church catholic. In our sense, therefore, of the word
"fundamental," I hope she erred not fundamentally :
but in your sense of the word, I fear she did. That is,
she held something to be Divine revelation, which was
not ; something not to be, which was.
XXI. To Section xiv. — To the fourth : How it
could be damnable to maintain her errors, if they were
not fundamental ? I answer : 1. Though it were not
damnable, yet if it were a fault, it was not to be done.
For a venial sin, with you, is not damnable ; yet
you say, " It is not to be committed for the procuring
any good : " Non est faciendwm malitm vel minimum,
ut eveniat bonum vel maximum. 2. It is damnable to
maintain an error against conscience, though the error
in itself, and to him that believes it, be not damnable.
Nay, the profession not only of an error, but even of a
truth, if not believed, when you think on it again, I believe
you will confess to be a mortal sin ; unless you will say,
hypocrisy and simulation in religion is not so. 3.
Though we say, the errors of the Roman church were
not destructive of salvation, but pardonable even to
them that died in them, upon a general repentance ;
yet we deny not but in themselves they were damnable.
Nay, the very saying they were pardonable, implies they
needed pardon, and therefore in themselves were damn
able ; damnable meritoriously, though not effectually.
As a poison may be deadly in itself, and yet not kill

50 THE ANSWER TO THE PEEFACE.
him that, together with the poison, takes an antidote ;
or as felony may deserve death, and yet not bring it on
him that obtains the king's pardon.
XXII. To Section xv.— To the fifth : How they
can be excused from schism, who forsook her commumon
upon pretence of errors which were not damnable ? I
answer : AU that we forsake in you is only the belief,
and practice, and profession of your errors. Hereupon,
you cast us out of your communion. And then, with
a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy,
complain that we forsake it. As if a man should
thrust his friend out of doors, and then be offended at
his departure. But, for us not to forsake the belief of
your errors, having discovered them to be errors, was
impossible ; and therefore to do so could not be damn
able, believing them to be errors. Not to forsake the
practice and profession of tbem, had been damnable
heresy, supposing that (which you vainly run away with,
and take for granted) those errors in themselves were
not damnable. Now, to do so, and, as matters now
stand, not to forsake your communion, is apparently
contradictious ; seeing the condition of your commu
nion is, that we must profess to believe all your doc
trines, not only not to be damnable errors, (which will
not content you,) but also to be certain and necessary
and revealed truths. So that to demand why we for
sake your communion upon pretence of errors which
were not damnable, is iu effect to demand why we for
sook it upon our forsaking it ! For to pretend that
there are errors in your church, though not damnable,
is ipso facto to forsake your communion, and to do that
which both in your account, and, as you think, in God's
account, puts him as does so out of your communion.
So that either you must free your church from requir
ing the belief of any error whatsoever, damnable and

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 51
not damnable, or, whether you will or no, you must
free us from schism. For schism there cannot be in
leaving your communion, unless we were obliged to
continue in it. Man cannot be obliged, by man, but to
what either formally or virtuaUy he is obliged by God ;
for aU just power is from God. God, the etemal Truth,
neither can nor will oblige us to believe any tbe least
and the most innocent falsehood to be a Divine truth,
that is, to err ; nor to profess a known error, which
is to lie. So that if you require the belief of any error
among the conditions of your commimion, our obliga
tion to communicate with you ceaseth ; and so the impu
tation of schism to us vanisheth into nothing, but lies
heavy upon you for making our separation from you
just and necessary, by requiring unnecessary and unlaw
ful conditions of your communion. Hereafter, there
fore, I entreat you, let not your demand be, how could
we forsake your communion without schism, seeing you
erred not damnably ? but, how could we do so without
schism, seeing you erred not at all ? which if either
you do prove, or we cannot disprove it, we will (I at
least will for my part) retum to your communion, or
subscribe myself schismatic. In the mean time, fusvaifusv
wuTTif l(T\i,kv, " we continue where we are."
XXIII. Yet, notwithstanding all your errors, we do
not renounce your communion totally and absolutely,
but only leave communicating with you in the practice
and profession of your errors. The trial whereof will
be to propose some form of worshipping God, taken
wholly out of Scripture ; and herein if we refuse to join
with you, then, and not till then, may we justly say, we
have utterly and absolutely abandoned your communion.
XXV. To Section xvii. — To the seventh:
Whether error against any one truth sufficiently pro-
poumded as testified by God, destroy not the nature and
D 2

52 the ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
unity of faith, or, at least, is not a grievous offence
excluding salvation ? I answer : If you suppose, as you
seem to do, the proposition so sufficient, that the party to
whom it is made is convinced that it is from God, so that
the denial of it involves also with it the denial of God's
veracity ; any such error destroys both faith and salva
tion. But if the proposal be only so sufficient, not
that the party to whom it is made is convinced, but
only that he should, and but for his own fault would,
have been convinced of the Divine verity of the doc
trine proposed ; the crime then is not so great ; for the
belief of God's veracity may well consist with such an
error. Yet a fault I confess it is, and, without repent
ance, damnable, if, all circumstances considered, the pro
posal be sufficient. But then I must tell you, that the
proposal of the present Roman church is only pre
tended to be sufficient for this purpose, but is not so ;
especially all the rays ofthe Divinity, which they pretend
to shine so conspicuously in her proposals, being so
darkened and even extinguished with a cloud of contra
diction from Scripture, reason, and the ancient church.
XXVI. To Section xviii. — To the eighth:
How, of disagreeing Protestants, both parts may ho^
for salvation, seeing some of them needs err against
some truth testified by God ? I answer : 1. The most
disagreeing Protestants that are, yet thus far agree, that
these books of Scripture, which were never doubted of
in the church, are the undoubted word of God, and a
perfect rule of faith. 2. That the sense of them,
which God intended, whatsoever it is, is certainly true.
So that they believe implicitly even those very truths
against which they err ; and why an implicit faith in
Christ and hisword shouldnot suffice as well as an implicit
faith in your church, I have desired to be resolved by
many of your side, but never could. 3. That they are to

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 53
use their best endeavours to believe the Scripture in the
true sense, and to live according to it. This if they per
form (as I hope many on all si^es do) truly and sin
cerely, it is impossible but that they should believe aright
in all things necessary to salvation ; that is, in all those
things which appertain to the covenant between God
and man in Christ ; for so much is not only plainly but
frequently contained in Scripture. And believing
aright touching the covenant, if they for their parts per
form the condition required of them, which is sincere
obedience, why should they not expect that God will
perform his promise, and give them salvation ? For, as
for other things which lie without the covenant, and are
therefore less necessary, if by reason of the seeming
conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture, and rea^
son, and authority on the one side, and Scripture, reason,
and authority on the other ; if, by reason ofthe variety of
tempers, abilities, educations, and unavoidable prejudices,
whereby men's understandings are variously formed and
fashioned, theydo embrace several opinions, whereof some
must be erroneous ; to say that God will damn them for
such errors, who are lovers of him, and lovers of trath, is
to rob man of his comfort, and God of his goodness ; it is
to make man desperate, and God a tyrant. But they deny
truths testified by God, and therefore shall be damned.
Yes, if they knew them to be thus testified by him,
and yet would deny them ; that were to give God the
lie, and questionless damnable. But if you should
deny a trath which God had testified but only to a man
in the Indies, as I said before, and this testification you
had never heard of, or at least had no sufficient reason
to believe that God had so testified, would not you
think it a hard case to be damned for such a denial ?
Yet consider, I pray, a little more attentively the dif
ference between them, and you will presently acknow-

54 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
ledge, the question between them is not at any tirae,
or in any thing, whether God says true or no, or
whether he says this or no ; but supposing he says this,
and says true, whether he means this or no ? As for
example : between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwing-
lians, it is agreed that Christ spake these words, " This
is my body ; " and that whatsoever he meant in saying
so is true; but what he meant and how he is to be
understood, that is the question. So that though some
of them deny a trath by God intended, yet you can
with no reason or justice accuse them of denying the
truth of God's testimony, unless you can plainly show
that God hath declared, and that plainly and clearly,
what was his meaning in these words. I say, " plainly
and clearly ; " for he that speaks obscurely and ambi
guously, and no where declares himself plainly, sure he
hath no reason to be much offended if he be mistaken.
When therefore you can show, that, in this and all other
their controversies, God hath interposed his testimony
on one side or other ; so that either they do see it, and
will not ; or, were it not for their own voluntary and
avoidable fault, might and should see it, and do not ; let
all such errrors be as damnable as you please to make
them. In the mean while, if they suffer themselves
neither to be betrayed into their errors, nor kept in theni
by any sin of their wUl ; if they do their best endeavour
to free themselves from aU errors, and yet fail of it
through human frailty ; so well am I persuaded of the
goodness of God, that if in me alone should meet a
confluence of aU such errors of all the Protestants in
the worid, that were thus qualified, I should not be so
much afraid of them all, as I should be to ask pardon
for them. For, whereas that which you affright us with,
of calling God's veracity in question, is but a panic fear,
a fault that no man thus qualified is or can be guilty

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 55
of ; to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary errors
is tacitly to imply that God is angry with us for them,
and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of
"requiring brick, when he- gives no straw ; of expecting
to gather, where he strewed not ; to reap, where he
sowed not ; " of being offended with us for; not doing
what he knows we cannot do. This I say upon a sup
position, that they do their best endeavours to know
God's will and do it ; which he that denies to be possi
ble, knows not what, he says ; for he says in effect j that
men cannot do what they can do; for to do what a
man can do, is to do his. best endeavour. But because
this supposition, though certainly possible, is very rare
and admirable ; I say, secondly, that I am verily per
suaded, that God will not impute errors to them as sins
who use such a measure of industry in finding truth, as
human prudence and ordinary discretion (their abilities
and opportunities, their distractions and hinderances^
and all other things considered) shall advise them unto,
in a matter of such consequence. But if herein also
we fail, then our enors begin to be malignant, and
justly imputable as offences against God, and that love
of his truth which he requires in us. You will say
then, that "for those erring Protestants, which are in this
case, which evidently are far the greater part, they sin
damnably in erring, and therefore there is little hope of
their salvation." To which I answer, that the conse
quence of this reason is somewhat strong against a Pro
testant, but much weakened by coming out of the
mouth of a Papist ; for all sins, with you, are not dam-
nablci But yet, out of courtesy to you, we will remove
this rab out of your way, and, forthe present, suppose
them mortal sins ; and is there then no hope of salvation
for him that commits them ? " Not," you wiU say, " if
he die in them without repentance ; and such Protestants

56 thp; answer to the preface.
you speak of, who without repentance die in their errors r
Yea, but what if they die in their errors with repent
ance ? then I hope you will have charity enough to
think they may be saved. "Charity Mistaken" takes
it indeed for granted,* that this supposition is destractive
of itself; and that it is impossible and incongraous,
that a man should repent of those enors wherein he
dies, or die in those whereof he repents. But it was
wisely done of him to take it for granted ; for, most
certainly, he could not have spoken one word of sense
for tbe confirmation of it. For, seeing Protestants
believe, as well as you, God's infinite and most admira
ble perfections in himself more than most worthy of all
possible love ; seeing they believe, as well as you, his
infinite goodness to them, in creating them of nothing ;
in creating them according to his own image ; in cre
ating all things for their use and benefit ; in streaming
down his favours on them every moment of their lives ;
in designing them, if they serve him, to infinite and
eternal happiness ; in redeeming them, not with cor
ruptible things, but the precious blood of his beloved
Son : seeing they believe, as well as you, his infinite
goodness and patience towards them, in expecting their
conversion ; in wooing, alluring, leading, and, by all
means which his wisdom can suggest unto him, and
man's nature is capable of, drawing them to repentance
and salvation ; seeing they believe these things as well
as you, and, for aught you know, consider them as much
as you, (and if they do not, it is not their religion
but they that are to blame,) what can hinder, but that
the consideration of God's most infinite goodness
to them, and their own almost infinite wickedness
against him, God's Spirit co-operating with them, raay
raise them to a true, and sincere, and a cordial love of
* In the place above quoted.

the answer to the preface. 57
God ? And seeing sorrow for having injured or offended
the person beloved, or when we fear we may have
offended him, is the most natural effect of true love ;
what can hinder, but that love which hath oft-times con
strained them to lay down their lives for God, (which
our Saviour assures us is the noblest sacrifice we can
offer,) may produce in them an universal soitow for all
their sins, both which they know they have committed,
and which they fear they may have ? In which num
ber, their being negligent, or not dispassionate, or not
unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth, and, the
effect thereof, tbeir errors, if they be sins, cannot but
be comprised. In a word, what should hinder, but that
that prayer : Delicta sua quis inteUigit f " Who can
understand his faults ? Lord, cleanse thou me from my
secret sins," may be heard and accepted by God, as well
from a Protestant that dies in some errors, as from a
Papist that dies in some other sins of ignorance, which,
perhaps, he might more easily have discovered to be
sins, than a Protestant could his errors to be errors ?
as well from a Protestant, that held some enor, which
(as he conceived) God's word and his reason (which is
also, in some sort, God's word) led him unto ; as from
a Dominican, who, perhaps, took up his opinion upon
trust, not because he had reason to believe it true,
but because it was the opinion of his order ? for the
same man, if he had light upon another order, would,
in all probability, have been of the other opinion. For
what else is the cause, that generally all the Dominicans
are of one opinion, and all the Jesuits of the other ? I
say, " from a Dominican who took up his opinion upon
trust ; " and that such an opinion (if we believe the
writers of your order) as, if it be granted true, it were
not a point matter what opinions any man held, or what
actions any man did ; for the best would be as bad as 1
D 5

58 -the answer to the preface.
the worst, and the worst as good as the best; And yet
such is the partiality of your hypocrisy, that, of disagreeing
Papists, neither shall deny the trath testified by God, but
both may hope for salvation ; but, of disagreeing Prb-
testants, (though they differ in the same thing,) one
side must deny God's testimony and be incapable of
salvation : that a Dominican, through culpable negli
gence, living and dying in his enor, may repent of it,
though he knows it not ; or be saved, though he do not :
but if a Protestant do the very same thing, in the very
same point, and die in his enor, his case is desperate.
The sum of all that hath been said to this demand is
this : 1. That no ening Protestant denies any truth
testified by God, under this formality, as testified hy
him ; nor which they know or believe to be testified by
him. And, therefore, it is a horrible calumny in
you to say. They call God''s veracity in question.
For God's undoubted and unquestioned veracity is
to them the ground why they hold all they do hold :
neither do they hold any opinion so stiffly, but they
will forego it rather than this one, that all which God
says is true. 2. God hath not so clearly and plainly
declared himself in most of these things which are in
controversy between Protestants, but that an honest
man, whose heart is right to God, and one that is a true
lover of God, and of his truth, may, by reason of the
conflict of contrary reasons on both sides, very easily,
and therefore excusably, mistake, and embrace error for
truth, and reject truth for error. 3. If any Protestant
or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any enor, by any
sin of his will, (as it is to be feared many millions are,)
such error is, as the cause of it, sinful and damnable ;
yet not exclusive of all hope of salvation, but pardon
able, if discovered, upon a particular explicit repentance;
if not discovered, upon a general and implicit repentance

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 59
for all sins known and unknown ; in which number all
sinful errors must of necessity be contained.
XXVII. To Section xix. — To the ninth :
wherein you are so urgent for a particular catalogue
cf fundamentals : I answer, almost in your own words,
that we also constantly urge and require to have a par--
ticular catalogue of your fundamentals, whether they be
written verities, or unwritten traditions, or church defini
tions ; aU which, you say, integrate the material object
of your faith; in a word, of all such points as are
defined and sufficiently proposed ; so that whosoever
denies, or doubts of, any of them, is certainly in the
state of damnation. A catalogue, I say, in particular
of the proposals ; and not only some general definition
or description, under which you lurk deceitfully, of
what, and what only, is sufficiently proposed ; wherein
yet you do not very well agree : for many of you hold
the Pope's proposal, ex cathedra, to be sufficient and
obliging ; some, a Council without a Pope ; some, of
neither of them severally, but only both together ;
some, not this neither in matter of manners, which
Bellarmine acknowledges, and tells us it is all one, in
effect, as if they denied it sufficient in matter of faith ;
some, not in matter of faith, neither think this proposal
infallible without the acceptation of the church univer
sal ; some deny the infallibility of the present church,
and only make the tradition of all ages the infallible
propounder.* Yet if you were agreed what and what
only is the infallible propounder, this would not satisfy
us ; nor yet to say, that " all is fundamental which is
• This great diversity of opinions among you, touching this mat
ter, if any man doubt of it, let him read Franciscus Picus Mikan-
DULA m /. Theorem, in Exposit. Theor. quarti, and Tho. Wax,.
DENSis, tom. iii., De Sacramentalibus, Doct. 3, fol, 5 ; and he shall
be fully satisfied that I have done you no injury.

60 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE;
propounded sufficiently by him : " for, though agreeing
in this, yet you might still disagree " whether such or
such a doctrine were propounded or not ; or if pro
pounded, whether sufficiently or only insufficiently."
And it is so known a thing, that in many points you do
so, that I assure myself you will not deny it. There
fore we constantly urge and require a particular and
perfect inventory of all these Divine revelations, which
you say are sufficiently propounded, and that such a one
to which all of your church will subscribe as neither
redundant nor deficient ; which when you give in with
one hand, you shall receive a particular catalogue of
such points as I call "fundamental" with the other. Nei
ther may you think me unreasonable in this demand ;
seeing upon such a particular catalogue of your suffi
cient proposals as much depends, as upon a particular
catalogue of our fundamentals. As for example:
Whether or no a man do not en in some point defined
and sufficiently proposed ; and whether or no those that
differ among you, differ in fundamentals ; which if they
do, one heaven, by your own rule, cannot receire them
all. Perhaps you will here complain, that this is not
to satisfy your demand, but to avoid it, and to put you
off, as the Areopagites did hard causes, ad diem longis-
simum, and bid you come again a hundred years hence :
To deal truly, I did so intend it should be. Neither
can you say, my dealing with you is injurious, seeing I
require nothing of you but that (what you require of
others) you should show it possible to be done, and
just and necessary to be required : for, for my part, I
have great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor
the other. For whereas the verities which are delivered
in Scripture may be very fitly divided into " such as were
written because they were necessary to be believed," (of
which rank are those only which constitute and make

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 61
up the covenant between God and man in Christ,) and
then, " such as are necessary to be believed not in them
selves, but only by accident, because they were written ;"
of which rank are many matters of history, of prophecy,,
of mystery, of policy, of economy, and such like, which
are evidently not intrinsical to the covenant. Now, to
sever exactly and punctually these verities one from the
other, — what is " necessary in itself" and antecedently to
the writing, from what is but only profitable in itself, and
" necessary only because written," — is a business of ex
treme great difficulty, and extreme little necessity : for,
first, he that will go about to distinguish, especially in
the story of our Saviour, what was written because it was
profitable, from what was written because necessary,
shall find an intricate piece of business of it, and almost
impossible that he should be certain he hath done it,
when he hath done it : and then it is apparently unne
cessary to go about it, seeing he that believes all cer
tainly believes all that is necessary ; and he that doth
not believe all, (I mean, all the undoubted parts of the
undoubted books of Scripture,) can hardly believe any,
neither have we reason to believe he doth so. So that,
that Protestants give you not a catalogue of fundamen
tals, it is not from tergiversation, as you suspect, (who,
for want of charity to them, always suspect the worst,)
but from wisdom and necessity : for they may very
easily err in doing it ; because, though all which is
necessary be plain in Scripture, yet all which is plain is
not therefore written because it was necessary : for what
greater necessity was there that I should know St. Paul
left his cloak at Troas, than those worlds of miracles
which our Saviour did, which were never written ? And
when they had done it, it had been to no purpose ;'
there being, as matters now stand, as great necessity of
believing those truths of Scripture which are not funda-

62 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
mental, as those that are. You see, then, what reason
we have to decline this hard labour, which you, a rigid
{ taskmaster, have here put upon us. Yet, instead of
giving you a catalogue of fundamentals, with which, I
; dare say, you are resolved, before it come, never to be
' satisfied, I will say that to you which, if you please,
; may do you as much service ; and this it is : that it is
' sufficient for any man's salvation that he believe the
¦ Scripture ; that he endeavour to believe it in the true
sense of it, as far as concems his duty ; and that he
conform his life unto it, either by obedience or repent
ance : he that does so (and all Protestants, according
to the dictamen of their religion, should do so) may be
secure that he cannot en fundamentally ; and they that
do so cannot differ in fundamentals. So that, notwith
standing their differences and your presumption, the
same heaven may receive them all.
XXVIII. To Section xx. — Your tenth and last
request is, to know distinctly what is the doctrine of the
Protestant Fnglish church in these points, and what
my private opinion ; which shall be satisfied when the
church of England hath expressed herself in them, or
when you have told us what is the doctrine of your
church in the question of predetermination, or the
immaculate conception.
XXIX. To Sections xxi., xxii. — These answers,
I hope, in the judgment of indifferent men, are satis
factory to your questions, though not to you ; for I
have either answered them, or given you a reason why
I have not. Neither, for aught I can see, have I flitted
from things considered in their own nature, to acci
dental or rare circumstances ; but told you my opinion
plainly, what I thought of your enors in themselves;
and what as they were qualified or malignified with
good or bad circumstances.

PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE. 63

CHAPTER I.
THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPTER.
Showing that the Adversary grants the old Question, and pro
poseth a nevO One; and ihat thefe is no Reason 'why,a/mong
Men of different Opinions and Communions, one Side onh/.
can be sa/oed.
I. To Section i.-' — Protestants are here accused
of uncharitableness while they accuse you of it : and
you make good this charge in this manner : Protestants
charge the Boman chwrch with many and great errors,
judge reconciliation of their doctrine and ours impossi
ble ; and that for them who are convicted in conscience
of her errors, not to forsake her in them, or to he recon
ciled unto her, is da/mnable : therefore, if Boman
Catholics he convicted in conscience of the errors of
Protestants, they may and must judge a reconciliation
with them damnable ; and, consequently, to judge so is
no more uncharitable in them, than it is in Protestants
to judge as they do.
Chillingworth. All this I grant ; nor would any
Protestant accuse you of want of charity if you went
no further. If you be persuaded in conscience that our
religion is erroneous, the profession of it, though in
itself most trae, to you would be dajnnable ; for it is
no uncharitableness to judge hypocrisy a damnable sin.
Let hypocrites, then, and dissemblers on both sides,
pass ; it is not towards them, but good Christians ; not
to Protestant professors, but believers, that we require
your charity. What think you of those that 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

64 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
charity have you for them ? What think you of those
that, in the days of our fathers, laid down their lives for
it ? are you content that they shall be saved, or do you
hope they may be so ? Will you grant that, notwith
standing their enors, there is good hope they might die
with repentance ? and if they did so, certainly they are
saved. If you will do so, this controversy is ended.
No man will hereafter charge you with "want of charity."
This is as much as 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 he
saved, but Papists confess not so much of Protestants ;
therefore, yours is the safer way, and in wisdom and
charity to our own souls we are bound to follow it.
For, granting this, you grant as much hope of salvation
to Protestants, as Protestants do to you. If you will
not, but still affirm, as " Charity Maintained " does,
that Protestants, (not dissemblers, but believers,) with
out a particular repentance of their religion, cannot be
saved : this, I say, is a want of charity.
But, I pray. Sir, what dependence is there between
these propositions ? — " We that hold Protestant religion
false should be damned, if we should profess it ;"
" Therefore, they also shall be damned that hold it true."
Just as if you should conclude, " Because he that
doubts is damned if he eat ;" " Therefore, he that does
not doubt is damned also, if he eat." And, therefore,
though your religion to us, or ours to you, if professed
against conscience, would be damnable; yet may it
well be uncharitable to define it shall be so to them
that profess either this or that according to conscience.
III. To Sections lu.-vi. — Char. Main. Our
meaning is not, that ice give Protestants over to repro
bation; that we offer no prayers in hope of their

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 65
sahation ; that we hold their case desperate. God
forbid, Sj-c.
Chilling. I wish, with all my heart, that you had
expressed yourself 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 false
hood of his own, and the truth of the Roman, religion,
by the confession of his most rigid adversaries, may be
saved, notwithstanding any enor in his religion. 2.
That nothing hinders but that a Protestant, dying a
Protestant, may die with contrition for all his sins.
3. That if he die with contrition, he may and shall be
saved. IV. All these acknowledgments we have from you,
while you are, as you say, stating, but, as I conceive,
granting, the very point in question. So that, accord
ing to your doctrine, the heavy sentence shall remain
upon S'uch only as either were, or, but for their own
fault, might have been, sufficiently convinced of the
truth of your religion, and the falsehood of their ovm,
and yet die in it without contrition. Which doctrine
if you would stand to, and not pull down and pull
back with one hand what you give and build with the
other, this controversy were ended; and I should
willingly acknowledge that which follows in your fourth
paragraph, that you allow Protestants as much charity
as Dr. Potter allows you. But then I must entreat
you to alter the argument of this chapter, and not to
go about to give us reasons why, amongst men of differ
ent religions, one side only can be saved absolutely,
which your reasons drive at ; but you must temper the
cradeness of your assertion, by saying. One side only
can be saved, unless want of conviction, or else repent-

66 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
ance, 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 falsehood of it, or died with
contrition." And then, considering that you cannot
know, whether or no, all things considered, they were
convinced sufficiently of the trath of your religion, and
the falsehood of their own, you are obliged by charity
to judge the best, and hope tbey are not : considering
again, that, notwithstanding their enors, they may die
with contrition, and that it is no way improbable that
they do so, and the contrary you cannot be certain ofi
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 con
trition will serve without actual confession, hut atiritim
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 wUl accept of that repentance
which you are pleased to caU contrition, he will accept
of that which you call attrition ; for, though he like
best the bright, flaming holocaust of love, yet he rejects
not, he quenches not, "the smoking flax" of that
repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds
from hope and fear : — These things, I say, considered,
(unless you wiU have the charity of your doctrine rise
up in judgment against your uncharitable practice,) you
must not only not be peremptory in damning Protest
ants, 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

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 67
praying, giving alms, and offering sacrifice, which
usually you do for those of whose salvation you are well
and charitably persuaded : (for I believe you will never
conceive so well of Protestants as to assure yourselves
they go directly to heaven:) these things when you
do, I shall believe you think as charitably as you
speak ; but until then, as he said in the comedy, Quid
verba audiam cilm facta videam ? so may I say to you.
Quid verba audiam cilm 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 teU 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, hut, in your judgment, ours undoubtedly da/mnag-
ble; 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 kAow'no Protestant that hath any other hope of your
salvation but upon these grounds, that unaffected igno
rance may excuse you, or true repentance obtain pardon
for you; neither do the heavy censures which Protest
ants, you say, pass upon your enors any way hinder but
they may hope as well of you, upon repentance, as
I do. For the j^e/*ce<foc^iW which (God knows who)
teaches, that Christ, fw many ages hefore 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 corrap
tions, which, in your judgment, is all one with no
church. But the truth is, the corruption of the church,
and the destruction of it, is not all one. For, if a par-

68 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
ticular man or church may (as you confess they may)
hold some particular enors, and yet be a member of the
church universal, why may not the church hold some
universal enor, 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 itself.
And then for the English Protestants, though they
censure your enors deeply, yet, by your favour, with
their deepest censures, it may weU consist, that invinci
ble ignorance may excuse you from damnation for
them. For you yourself 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, page 19.
And again : with their heaviest censures it may well
consist, that your errors, though in themselves damna
ble, yet may prove not damning to you, if you die
with true repentance for all your sins known and
unknown. V. 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, hut that by ignorance or repentance salta
tion may he had on both sides; — though with a difference
that keeps Papists stUl 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 easy a rate as Papists,
yet (even Papists being judges) they may obtain it ;

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 69
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 isthmuses between them and salvation but
that contrition may make a way through them : all
their schism and heresy is no such fatal poison but
that, if a man join 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 " Charity Mistaken " be not
by his hyperaspist forsaken in the plain field, and the
point in question granted to Dr. Potter? — namely,
that Protestancy, even without a particular repentance,
is not destructive of salvation ; so that all the con
troversy remaining now is, not simply, whether Protest
ancy unrepented destroys salvation, as it was at first
proposed, but whether Protestancy in itself (that is,
abstracting from ignorance and contrition) destroys sal
vation? So that, as a foolish fellow, who gave a knight
the lie, desiring withal leave of him to set his knight
hood 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, con
ceiving, 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 persuade myself so much as in my most secret
consideration to divest you of these so needful qualifica
tions. But whensoever your enors, superstitions, and
impieties come into my mind, (and, besides the general
bonds of humanity and Christianity, my own particular

70 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
obligations to many of you, such and so great, that you
cannot perish without a part of myself,) my only com
fort 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 confi
dence of your innocence in point of doctrine, yet you
will be glad to stand in the eye of mercy, as ,weU
as your fellows, and not be so stout as to refuse either
God's pardon or the king's.
VI. 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 mahg-
nity (if not corrected by ignorance or contrition) as to
be in itself destructive of sahation. Which contro
versy I am content to dispute with you ; only remem
bering you, that the adding of this limitation, in itself,
hath made this a new question ; and that this is not the
conclusion for which you were charged with want of
charity.
VII. To Sections vii., viii. — Char. Main.
Now this is our gradation of reasons : Almighty God,
having ordained mankind to a supernatural end of
eternal felicity, hath, in his providence, settled competmt
means, 4"c.
Chilling. In your gradation, I shall rise so far
with you as to grant, t/iat Christ founded a visible
church, stored with all helps necessary to salvation, pa/r-
ticularly with sufficient means to beget and conserve
faith, to maintain unity, and compose schisms, to dis
cover and condemn heresies, and to determine all contro
versies in religion, which were necessary to be deter
mined. For all these purposes, he gave at the begin
ning, as we may see in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
" apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors,"
who, by word of mouth, taught their contemporaries,

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 71
and by writings (wrote, 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 achieved. And
these means the providence of God hath still preserved,
and so preserved, that they are sufficient for all these
intents. I say " sufficient," though, through the malice
of men, not always effectual ; for that the same means
may be sufficient for the compassing an end, and not
effectual, you must not deny, who hold that God gives
all men sufficient means of salvation, and yet that
all are not saved. I said also, " sufficient to determine
all controversies which were necessary to be determined."
For, if some controversies may, for many ages, be
undetermined, and yet, in the mean while, men be
saved, why should, or how can, the church's being
furnished with effectual means to determine all contro
versies in religion be necessary to salvation, the end
itself, to which these means are ordained being, as expe
rience shows, not necessary ? Plain sense will teach
every man, that the necessity of the means must always
be measured by, and can never exceed, the necessity of i
the end : as, if eating be necessary, only that I
may live ; then, certainly, if I have no necessity to live,
I have no necessity to eat. If I have no need to be at
London, I have no need of a horse to carry me thither.
If I have no need to fly, I have no need of wings.
Answer me, then, I pray, directly and categorically. Is
it necessary that all controversies in religion should
be determined, or is it not ? If it be, why is the
question of predetermination, of the immaculate con
ception, of the Pope's indirect power in temporalities,
so long undetermined ? if not, what is it but hypocrisy
to pretend such great necessity of such effectual means
for the achieving that end which is itself not necessary ?

72 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
Christians, therefore, have, and shall have, means suffi
cient, 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 raeans
to decide controversies in faith and religion must be
endued with a universal infallibility in whatsoever it
propoundeth for- a Divine trath. For, if it may he
false in any one thing of this nature, in any thing
which God requires men to believe, we can yield unto
it but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing.
These grounds, therefore, I grant very readily ; and give
you free leave to make your best advantage of them.
And yet, to deal traly, I do not perceive how, from
the denial of any of them, it would follow, that faith
is opinion ; or, from the granting them, that it is not
so. But, for my part, whatsoever clamour you have
raised against me, I think no otherwise of the nature of
faith (I mean, historical faith) than generally both Pro
testants 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, admits degrees;
and that, as there may be a strong and weak opinion, so
there may be a strong and weak faith. These things
if you wiU 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 dis
carded, and that, among the intellectual habits, you

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 73
should seek out some other genus for faith ; for I will
never contend with any man about words, who grants
my meaning.
VIII. But tliough the essence of faith exclude not all
weakness and imperfection, yet may it he inquired,
whether any certainty of faith, under the highest degree,
may he sufficient to please God and attain salvation ?
Whereunto I answer, that, though men are unreason
able, 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 propo
sition 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 great
ness of the promises of it, shows it, of all other reli
gions, most likely to come from the Fountain of good
ness : and, then, that a constant, famous, and very
general tradition, so credible that no wise man doubts
of any other, which hath but the fortieth part of the
credibility of this, — such and so credible a tradition tells

74 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
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 for
mer 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 woiser
part, if there be any worse ; and must be negative, par
ticular, 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, imless 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 he
stable, if any one of the necessary pillars thereof he
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 relator.
IX. Yet aU 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 wiU 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

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 75
know (though how they know not) what they did but
believe; and to be as fully and resolutely assured of
the Gospel of Christ, as those which heard it from
Christ himself with their ears, which saw it with their
eyes, which looked upon it, and whose hands handled
the word of life. He requires of all, that their faith
should be, as I have said, proportionable to the motives
and reasons enforcing to it. He will accept of the
weakest and lowest degree of faith, if it be living and
effectual unto true obedience. For he it is that " will
not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised
reed." He did not reject the prayer of that distressed
man that cried unto him, " Lord, I believe ! Lord, help
my unbelief." He commands us to " receive them
that are weak in faith," and thereby declares that he
receives tbem. 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 con
sidering and discoursing men is like to be cracked with
too much straining ; and that, being possessed with this
false principle, that it is in vain to believe the Gospel
of Christ, with such a kind or degree of assent as they
yield to other matters of tradition ; and finding that
their faith of it is to them undiscernible, from the
belief they give to the truth of other stories ; [they] 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 hap
piness. Consideration of this advantage which the
devil probably may make of this fancy, made me
E 2

76 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
willing to insist somewhat largely upon the reftitation
of it.
X. I retum now thither from whence I have
digressed, and assure you, conceming the grounds
afore-laid, — which were, that there is a rule of faith,
whereby controversies may be decided, which are neces
sary to be decided, and that this rale 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, hut by repentance or ignorance. I
answer by distinction of those terms, " two dissenting in
a matter of faith." For it raay be either in a thing
which is indeed a matter of faith, in the strictest sense,
that is, something the beUef 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 >o e.bscure 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 trae. 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 ;

IN CONDE.MNING PROTESTANTS. 77
" Therefore of two, that differ in any thing which they
esteem a matter of faith, one cannot be saved."
He that can find any connexion between these pro
positions, 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.
XI. Indeed, if the matter in agitation were plainly
decided by this infaUible means of deciding controver
sies, and the parties in variance knew it to be so, and
yet would stand out in their dissension ; this were, iu
one of them, direct opposition to the testimony of God, j
and undoubtedly a damnable sin. But if you take the
liberty to suppose wbat you please, you may very easUy ;
conclude what you list. For who is so foolish as to
grant you these unreasonable postulates ? — that every
emergent controversy of faith is plainly decided by the
means of decision which God hath appointed ; and that,
of the parties litigant, one is always such a convicted
recusant as you pretend. Certainly, if you say so,
having no better warrant than you have or can have for
it, this is more proper and formal uncharitableness than
ever was charged upon you. Methinks, with much more
reason, and much more charity, you might suppose, that
many of these controversies which are now disputed
araong Christians, (all which profess themselves lovers
of Christ, and traly desirous to know his will and do it,)
are either not decidable by that means which God hath ':
provided, and so not necessary to be decided ; or if
they be, yet not so plainly and evidently, as to oblige
all men to hold one way ; or, lastly, if decidable, and
evidently decided, yet you may hope that the erring
part, by reason of some veil before his eyes, some
excusable ignorance or unavoidable prejudice, does not

78 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
see the question to be decided against him, and so
opposes 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 inci-r
dent even to good and honest men very often ; and not
of such a gigantic disposition as you make it, — to fly
directly upon God Almighty, and to give him the lie
to his face,
XII. To Sections ix.-xvi. — In aU this long
discourse you only tell us what you wiU do, but d?
nothing, but reserve them to the chapters foUowing,
and there they shaU be examined. The sum of all
collected by yourself, section xvi., is this : —
That the infallible means of determining eonirover-
sies is the visible church.
That the distinction of points fundamental and not
fumdamental maketh nothing to the present question.
That to say the Creed containeth all fundamentals, w
neither pertinent nor true.
That whosoever persist in division frem tiie commur
nion and faith ef the Boman church are guilty of

That in regard of the precept of charity towards ones
self, Protestants are in a state of sin while they remai»
divided from the Boman chu/rch.
To all these assertions I wjU content myself, for th*
present, to oppose this one,— that not one of them all is
trae. Only I may not omit to tell you, that if the
first of them were as trae 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 hy the church, is injuriom to God'}
divine majesty, as if he could deceive or he deceived.
For though your church were indeed as infallible »

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 79
propounder of Divine traths 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,
Ag, though the Gospel of St. Matthew be the word of
God, yet if I neither knew it to be so, nor believed it,
I might believe in God, and yet think that 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 chwrch
<fB(me is the infallible propownder of Divine verities;
therefore, he that opposes her calls God''s truth in ques
tion ; 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 some
thing 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 revela
tions, yet until you know that we know she is so, you
cannot, without foul calumny, impute to us, that we
charge God hlasphemmmly with deceiving or being
deceived. You wUl say, perhaps, that this is directly
consequent from our doctrine, that the church may en,
which is directed by God in aU her proposals. Trae,
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 &xe justly cha/rgeable
with all the consequences of their opinions ? such con
sequences, I mean, as they do not own, but disclaim ;

80 PAPISTS UNCHARITABLE
and if there were a necessity of doing either, would
much rather forsake their opinion than embrace these
consequences. What opinion is there that draws after
it such a train of portentous blasphemies as that of the
Dominicans, by the judgment of the best writers of
your own Order? And will you say now, that the
Dominicans are justly chargeable with all these blas
phemies ? 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 teU us whether
you do in your heart believe, that we do indeed not
believe the etemal 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 heretics,
you will cease to do so ; and hereafter (as, if your
ground be trae, you may do with more truth and
charity) collect thus : " They only en damnably who
oppose what they know God hath testified ; but Pro
testants, sure, do not oppose what they know God hath
testified, at least we cannot with charity say they do :
therefore, they either do not en damnably, or with
charity we cannot say they do so."
XIII. To Section xvii. — Protestants, you say,
according to their own grounds, must hold, that, of per
sons contrary in whatsoever point of belief, one part only

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 81
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 con
tained. For to oppose in the first case, in a man that
believes the Scripture to be the word of God, is to give.
God the lie : to oppose in the second, is to be obsti
nate 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 overvalued 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, St. 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 conceming points wherein Scripture may
with so great probability be alleged on both sides,
£ 5

82 PAPISTS UNCHARITAULE
(which is a sure note of a point not necessary,) that
men of honest and upright hearts, trae 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 repugnances. Now, in all such questions,
one side or other, whichsoever it is, holds that which
indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which
God intended ; for it is impossible that God should
intend contradictions. But, then, this intended sense
is not so fully declared, but that they which oppose it
.may verily believe that they indeed maintain it, and
have great show 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 trath 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 trath, but
fail of it through human fraUty.
The ground being laid, the answer to your ensuing
interrogatories, which you conceive impossible, is very
obvious and easy.
XIV. To the first : Wliether it be not in any man
a grievous sin to deny any one truth contained in holy
writ ? I answer : Yes, if he knew it to be so, or have
no probable reason to doubt of it ; othermse, not.
XV. To the second : Whether there be in such
denial any distinction between fundamental and not
fundamental sufficient to excuse from heresy f I
answer : Yes, there is such a distinction. But the
reason is, because these points, either in themselves oi
by accident, are fundamental, which are evidently con
tained in Scripture, to him that knows them to be so ;

IN CONDEMNING PROTESTANTS. 83
those not fundamental, which are there-hence deducible
but probably only, not evidently.
XVI. To the third : Whether it be not impertinent
to allege 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 f I answer : It was
never alleged to any such purpose, but only as a suffi
cient, or rather more than a sufficient, summary of those
points of faith which were of necessity to be believed
actually and explicitly ; and that only of such which
were merely and purely credenda, and not agenda.
XVII. To the fourth, drawn as a corollary from the
former : Whether this be not to say, that, of persons con
trary 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 alleged with so great probability, as may justly
excuse either part from heresy and a self-condemning
obstinacy. And, therefore, though Dr. Potter do not
take it ill that you believe yourselves may be saved in
your religion ; yet, notwithstanding all that hath yet
been pretended to the contrary, he may justly condemn
you, and that out of your own principles, of uncharita
ble presumption, for affirming, as you do, that no man
can be saved out of it.

84 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE

CHAPTER II.
THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND CHAPTEB.
Concerning the Means whereby the remedied Truths of God are
convet/ed to owr Understanding; and which must determine
Controversies in Faith ami Religion.
I. Charity Maintained. Of owr estimation,
respect, and reverence to holy Scripture even Protest
ants themselves give testimony, while they possess it from
us, and take it upon the integrity ofour custody, 8^c.
To Section i. — Chillingworth. He that would
usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, •
need not piit himself to the trouble and difficulty of
abrogating and disannulling the laws made to maintain
the common liberty ; for he may frustrate their intent,
and compass his own design, as well, if he can get the
power and authority to interpret them as he pleases,
and add to them what he pleases, and to have his inter
pretations 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
men's consciences, needed not either to abolish or cor
rupt the holy Scriptures, the pillars and supporters of
Christian liberty ; which, in regard of the numerous
multitude of copies dispersed through all places, trans
lated into almost all languages, guarded with all sohci-
tous care and industry, had been an impossible attempt.
But the more expedite way, and therefore more likely
to be successful, was, to gain the opinion and esteem of
the public and authorized interpreter of them, and the
authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleased,
under the title of " traditions " or " definitions." For,

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 85'
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 hav-J
ing either her power limited, or her corruptions and
abuses reformed by them : this being once settled in the
minds of men, " that unwritten doctrines, if proposed
by her, were to be received with equal reverence to
those that were written ; and that the sense of Scrip
ture was not that which seemed to men's reason and
understanding to be so, but that which the church of
Rome should declare to be so, seemed it never so unrea
sonable and incongruous." The matter being once thus
ordered, and the holy Scriptures being made, in effect,
not your directors and judges, (no farther than you
please,) but your servants and instruments, always pressed
and in readiness to advance your designs, and disabled
wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach
them ; it is safe for you to put a crown on their head,
and a reed in their hands, and to bow before them, and
cry, " Hail, King of the Jews ! " to pretend a great
deal of esteem, and respect, and reverence to them, as
here you do. But to little purpose is verbal reverence
without entire submission and sincere obedience ; and,
as our Saviour said of some, so the Scripture, could it
speak, I believe, would say to you, " ' Why call ye me
Lord, Lord, and do not that which I command you ? '
Cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of infallibility,
which makes your errors incurable. Leave picturing
God, and worshipping him by pictures. ' Teach not
for doctrine the commandments of men.' Debar not
the laity of the testament of Christ's blood. Let your
public prayers, and psalms, and hymns be in such lan
guage as is for the edification of the assistants. Take

86 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
not from the clergy that liberty of marriage which
Christ hath left them. Do not impose upon men that
humUity of worshipping angels which St. Paul con
demns. Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but
one. Acknowledge them that die in Christ to be
'blessed,' and to 'rest from their labours.' Acknow
ledge the sacrament after consecration to be bread and
wine, as well as Christ's body and blood. Acknow
ledge the gift of continency without marriage not to be
given to all. Let not the weapons of your warfare be
carnal, such as are massacres, treasons, persecutions,
and, in a word, all means either violent or ficaudulent."
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.
II. For neither is that true which you pretend,
tliat we possess the Scripture from you, or take it upon
the integrity of you/r custody, but upon universal tradi
tion, of which you are but a little part. Neither, if it
were true that Protestants acknowledged the integrily
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 conupt them, as " it is a hard
thing to poison the sea ; " and then, having prevailed
so far with men as either not to look at all into them,
or but only through such spectacles as you should
please to make for them, and to see nothing in them,
though as clear as the sun, if it any way made against
you, you might keep them entire, without any thought
or care to conform your doctrine to them, or reform it
by them, (which were indeed to reverence the Scrip
tures !) but out of a persuasion that you could qualify

FOR JDDGlNG CONTROVERSIES. 87
them well enough with your glosses and interpretations,
and make them sufficiently conformable to your present
doctrine, at least, in their judgment who were preposr
sessed with this persuasion, " that your churcb was to
judge of the sense of Scripture, not to be judged by it."
III. Whereas you say, No cause imaginable could
avert your will from giving the function of supreme and
sole judge to holy writ, hut that the thing is impossible ;
and that by this means controversies are increased, and
not ended; what indifferent and unprejudiced man
may not easily conceive another cause which (I do not
say does, but certainly) may pervert your wUls, and
avert your understandings, from submitting your reli
gion and church to a trial by Scripture ? I mean, the
great, and apparent, and unavoidable danger which, by
this means, you would fall into of losing the opinion
yhich men bave of your infaUibility, and, consequently,
your power and authority over men's consciences, and
all that depends upon it ; so that, though " Diana of
the Ephesians " be cried up, yet it may be feared that,
with a great many among you, (though I censure or
judge no man,) the other cause, which wrought upon
Demetrius and the craftsmen, may have with you also
the more effectual, though more secret, influence ; and
that is, that " by this craft we have our living ; " by
this craft, I mean, of keeping your proselytes from an
indifferent trial of your religion by Scripture, and mak
ing them yield up and captivate their judgment unto
yours. As for the impossibUity of Scripture's being the sole
judge of controversies, that is, the sole rule for man to
judge them by, (for we mean nothing else,) you only
affirm it without proof, as if the thing were evident of
itself ; and therefore I, conceiving the contrary to be
more evident, might well content myself to deny it

88 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
without refutation. Yet I cannot but desire you to tell
me. If Scripture cannot be the judge of any controversy,
how shall that touching the churcb and the notes of it
be determined ? and if it be the sole judge of this
bne, why may it not of others ? why not of aU ?
those only excepted wherein the Scripture itself is tbe
subject of the question, which cannot be determined
but by natural reason, tbe only principle, beside Scrip
ture, which is common to Christians.
IV. Then for the imputation of increasing conten
tions, and not ending them. Scripture is innocent of it ;
as also this opinion, that controversies are to he decided
by Scripture. For if men did reaUy and sincerely sub
mit their judgments to Scripture, and that only, and
would require no more of any man but to do so,
it were impossible but that all controversies touching
things necessary and very profitable should be ended ;
and if others were continued or increased, it were no
matter. V. In the next words we have direct boy's-play ; a
thing given with one hand and taken away with the
other ; an acknowledgment made in one line and
retracted in the next. We acknowledge, say you. Scrip
ture to be a perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be
a rule ; only we deny that it earhtdes unwritten tradi
tion. As if you should have said, " We acknowledge it to
be as perfect a rule as a writing can be ; only we deny
it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be." Either,
therefore, you must revoke your acknowledgment, or
retract your retractation of it ; for both cannot possibly
stand together : for if you will stand to what you have
granted, that Scripture is as perfect a rule of faith as
a writing can be, you must then grant it both so com
plete that it needs no addition, and so evident that it
needs no interpretation ; for both these properties are

FOR JDDGING CONTROVERSIES. 89
requisite to a perfect rule, and a writing is capable of •
both these properties.
VI. 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, there
fore, that which wants any accession to make it a perfect
rule, of itself is not a perfect rule. And, then, the end
of a rule is to regulate and direct. Now, every instru
ment is more or less perfect in its kind, as it is more or
less fit to attain the end for which it is ordained ; but
nothing obscure or uneyident, while it is so, is fit to
regulate and direct them to whom it is so ; therefore,
it is requisite also- to a rule, so far as it is a rule, to be
evident ; otherwise, indeed, it is no rule, because it
cannot serve for direction. I conclude, therefore, that
both these properties are required to a perfect rule ;
" both to be so complete as to need no addition, and to
be so evident as to need no interpretation."
VII. 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
complete and evident rule of faith may be delivered by
word of mouth, as you pretend it may, and is ; and
whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be
written ; then such a complete and evident rule of faith
may also be written. If you will have more light
added to the sun, answer me, then, to these questions :
Whether your church can set down in writing all these,
which she pretends to be divine, unwritten traditions,
and add them to the verities already written ? and whe
ther she can set us down such interpretations of all
obscurities in the faith as shall need no farther inter-

90 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
pretations ? 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 infaUible inter
preter of obscurities in the faith ; for she cannot teach
us aU Divine verities, if she cannot write them down;
neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be
interpreted : If she can, let her do it, and then we shall
have a writing, not only capable of, but actuaUy endowed
with, both these perfections, — of being both so complete
as to need no addition, and so evident as to need no
interpretation. Lastly. Whatsoever your church can
do or not do, no man can, without blasphemy, deny,
that Christ Jesus, if he had pleased, could have writ us
a rule of faith so plain and perfect as that it should
have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity,
nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible:
and if Christ could have done this, then the thing might
have been done ; a writing there might have been,
endowed with both these properties. Thus, therefore,
I conclude : A writing may be so perfect a rale as to
need neither addition nor interpretation ; but the
Scripture you acknowledge a perfect rule, for as much
as a writing can be a rule ; therefore, it needs neither
addition nor interpretation.
VIII. You wUl say, that though a writing be neter
so perfect a rule of faith, yet it must be beholden, to
tradition to give it this testimony, — that it is a rule
of faith, and the word of God. I answer : First. There
is no absolute necessity of this ; for God might, if he
thought good, give it the attestation of perpetual mira
cles. Secondly. That it is one thing to be a perfect
rule of faith ; another, to be proved so unto us. And
thus, though a writing could not be proved to us to be
a perfect rule of faith by its own saying so ; for nothing
is proved true by being said or written in a book, but

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES.

91

only by tradition, which is a thing credible of itself ;
yet it may be so in itself, and contain all the material
objects, aU the particular articles, of our faith, without
any dependence upon tradition ; even this also not
excepted,— that this writing doth contain the rule of
faith. Now, when Protestants affirm against Papists, j
that " Scripture is a perfect rale 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 wUl deny these assertions when they ,
are spoken, wUl believe them never a whit the more
because you can show them written. But their meaning
is, that the Scripture, to them which pre-suppose it
Divine and a rule of faith, as Papists and Protestants
do, contains aU the material objects of faith, is a com
plete and total, and not only an imperfect and a partial,
rule. IX. But every hook, and chapter, and text of Scrips
ture is infallible, and wants no due perfection, and yet
excludes not the addition of other books of Scripture :
therefore, the perfection of the whole Scriptwre excludes
not the addition of unwritten tradition. I answer ;
Every text of Scripture, though it have the perfection
belonging to a text of Scripture, yet it hath not the
perfection requisite to a perfect rale of faith ; and that
only is the perfectioH which is the subject of our dis
course : 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 rale of faith, though there
be other parts of this rule besides the Scripture, and
though the Scripture be but a part of it."

92 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
X. The next argument to the same purpose is, for
sophistry, cousin-german to the former. When the first
books of Scripture were written, they did not exclude
unwritten tradition: therefore, now also, that all ihe
books of Scripture are written, traditions are nat
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 trath of Scripture, I grant
it ; but, without disparagement to the Scriptures being
a perfect rule, I deny it. And now the question is not
of the truth, but the perfection of it ; which are very
different things, though you would fein confound them.
-For Scripture might very weU be aU trae, though it
contain not all necessary Divine truth ; but unless it do
BO, it cannot be a perfect rule of faith ; for that which
wants anything is not perfect : for, I hope, you do not
imagine, that we conceive any antipathy 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 ; where
as, if he had pleased, he might so have disposed it, that
part might have been written and part unwritten ; but
then he would have taken order to whom we should
have had recourse for that part of it which was not
written ; which seeing he hath not done, as the progress
shall demonstrate, it is evident he hath left no part of it
unwritten. We know no man, therefore, that says, " It
were any injury to the written word to be joined with

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 93
the unwritten, if there were any wherewith it might be
joined ; " but that we deny. The fidelity of a keeper I
may very well consist with the authority of the thing \
committed to his custody : but we know no one society .
of Christians that is such a faithful keeper as you pre
tend. The Scripture itself was not kept so faithfully
by you, but that you suffered infinite variety of read
ings 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 St. Paul glances at, in his second Epistle
to the Thessalonians, of the cause of the hinderance of
the coming of antichrist, — are wholly lost and extin
guished ; so unfaithful or negligent hath been this
keeper of Divine verities, whose eyes, like the Keeper's
of Israel, you say, have " never slumbered nor slept."
Lastly. We deny not but a judge and a law might
well stand together ; but we deny that there is any such
judge of God's appointment. Had he intended any such j
judge, he would have named him, lest otherwise (as now ;
it is) our "judge of controversies " should be our great- '
est controversy.
XI. To Sections ii.-vi. — In your second para
graph, you sum up those arguments wherewith you
intend to prove, that Scripture alone cannot he judge in
controversies ; wherein I profess unto you beforehand,
that you will fight without an adversary. For, though
Protestants, being wananted by some of the Fathers,

94 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
have caUed Scripture the "judge of controversies," and
you, in saying here, that Scripture alone cannot- he
judge, imply that it may be caUed, in some sense, " a
judge," though not alone ; yet to speak properiy, (as
men should speak when they write of controversies in reli
gion,) the Scripture is not a judge of controversies, but
a rale only, and tbe only rale, for Christians to judge
them by. Every man is to judge for himself, with
the judgment of discretion ; and to choose either his
religion first, and then his church, as we say, or, as you,
" his church first, and then his religion." But, by the
consent of both sides, every man is to judge and
choose : and the rule whereby he is to guide his choice,
if he be a natural man, is reason ; if he be already
a Christian, Scripture, which, we say, is the rule to
judge controversies by : yet not all simply, but all the
controversies of Christians, of those that are already
agreed upon this first principle, — that the Scripture
is the word of God. But that there is any man, or any
company of men, appointed to be judge for all men,
that we deny; and that, I believe, you wUl 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 ; namely, that
Scripture is a perfect rule of faith, for as much as
a writing can he a rule. So that all your reasons,
whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this
office of judging, we might let pass, as impertinent
to the conclusion which we maintain and you have
already granted ; yet out of courtesy we will consider
them. XII. 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 wovM,
he without the judges ; therefore, though it may he a

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 95
ride, it cannot be a judge: which conclusion I have
already granted ; only my request is, that you will per
mit 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
joumey, and had a guide which could not en, I needed
not to know my way ; so, on the other side, if I know
my way, or have a plain rale to know it by, I shall
need no guide. Grant, therefore, Scripture to be such
a rale, 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 Scrip
ture, 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
tirae enough.
XIII. Your next encounter is with them who,
acknowledging the Scripture a rale only, and not a
judge, make the Holy Ghost, speaking in Scripture,
the Judge of controversies ; which you disprove, by
saying, thaf the Holy Ghost, speaking only in Soriptwre,
is no more intelligible to us than the Scripture in which
he speaks. But by this reason, neither the Pope nor
a councU can be a judge neither. For, first, denying
die Scriptures, the writings of the Holy Ghost, to be

96 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
judges, you wiU 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, wbat you. object against the
Holy Ghost, speaking in Scripture, to exclude him
from this office, the same I retum upon them and theu'
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 tbey, speaking in
their decrees, be judges, for the same reason. If ihe
Popis decrees, you will say, he 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 he
content, that those things of Scripture which are plain
should be so, and those which are obscure should
remain obscure, until be please to declare them.
Besides, he can (which you cannot warrant me of
the Pope or a Council) speak at first so plainly,
that his words shall need no farther explanation ; and
so, in things necessary, we believe, he has done. And if
you say, The decrees of Councils touching controversies,
though they be not the judge, yet they are the judgis
sentence ; so I say. The Scripture, though not the judge,
is the sentence of the Judge. When, therefore, you
conclude, tliat 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 Glwst
speaks in Scripture ; this, I grant, is true ; but I may
not grant, that a judge (such a one as we dispute of) is
necessary either to do the one or the other. For, if the

FOR JDDGING CONTROVERSIES. 97
Scripture (as it is iri things necessary) be plain, why
should it be more necessary to have a judge to interpret
them in plain places than to have a judge to interpret
the meaning of a council's decrees, and others to inter
pret their interpretations, and others to interpret theirs,
and so on for ever ? And where they are not plain,
there, if we, using diligence to find the truth, do yet
miss of it, and fall into error, there is no danger in it :
they that err, and they that do not err, may both
be saved. So that those places which contain .things
necessary, and wherein error were dangerous, need
no infallible interpreter, because they are plain ; and
those that are obscure need none, because they con
tain not things necessary, neither is error in them
dangerous. The law-maker, speaking in the law, I grant it, is
no more easily understood than the law itself, for his
speech is nothing else but the law : I grant it very
necessary that, besides the law-maker speaking in the
law, there should be other judges to determine civil and
criminal controversies, and to give every man that
justice which the law allows him. But your argument,
drawn from hence, to show a necessity of a visible
judge in controversies of religion, I say, is sophistical,
and that for many reasons : —
XIV. 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 ofthe 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.
XV. Secondly. To execute the letter of the law,
according to rigour, would be many times unjust ; and,

98 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
therefore, there is need of a judge to moderate it;
whereof in religion there is no use at all.
XV I. Thirdly. In civil and criminal causes, the parties
bave, 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
etemity. And such men, we conceive, wiU think it
highly concerns them to be of tbe trae religion ; hut
nothing at all, that this or that religion should be true.
And then we suppose, that all the necessary points
of religion are plain and easy, and, consequently, every
man in this cause to be a competent judge for himself,
because it concerns himself to judge right as much
as eternal happiness is worth ; and if, through his own
default, he judge amiss, he alone shaU suffer for it.
'XVIL Fourthly. In civil controversies, we are
obliged only to external passive obedience, and not
to an internal and active : we are bound to obey
the sentence of the judge, or not to resist it, but not
always to believe it just. But in matters of rehgion,
such a judge is required whom we should be obliged to
believe to have judged right. So that, in civil contro
versies, every honest, understanding man is fit to he a
judge ; but in religion, none but he that is infallible.
XVIII. Fifthly. In civil causes, there is means and
power, when the judge has decreed, to compel men to
obey his sentence ; otherwise, I believe, laws alone
would be to as much purpose for the ending of differ-

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 99
ences as laws and judges both. But all the power
in the world is neither fit to convince, nor able to
compel, a man's conscience to consent to any thing.
Worldly terror may prevail so far as to make men pro
fess 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.
XIX. Sixthly. In civil controversies, the case can
not be so put but there may be a judge to end it who
is not a party ; in controversies of religion, it is in
a manner impossible to be avoided but the judge must
be a party : for this must be the first, whether he be a
judge or no, and in that he must be a party. Sure I
am, the Pope, in the controversies of our time, is
a chief party ; for it highly concerns him, even as much
as his Popedom is worth, not to yield any one point of
his religion to be erroneous. And he is a man subject
to like passions with other men ; and, therefore, we
may justly decline his sentence, for fear temporal
respects should either blind his judgment, or make
him pronounce against it.
XX. Seventhly. In civU controversies, it is impos
sible Titius should hold the land in question, and
Sempronius too ; and, therefore, either the plaintiff
must injure the defendant, by disquieting his posses
sion, 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,
F 2

100 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
we may both of us hold our opinion, and yet do our
selves no harm ; provided the difference be not touchy
ing any thing necessary to salvation ; and that we love
trath so well as to be diligent to inform our conscience,
and constant in following it.
XXI. Eighthly. For the ending of civil controver
sies, who does not see it is absolutely necessary, that
not only judges should be appointed, but that it should
be known and unquestioned who they are ? Thus,
all the judges of our land are known men, known to be
judges, and no man can doubt or question but these are
the men : otherwise, if it were a disputable thing, who
were these judges, and they had no certain wanant 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 ?
XXII. Ninthly and lastly. For the deciding of
civil controversies, men may appoint themselves a
judge : but in matters of religion, this office may be
given to none but whom God hath designed for it ;
who doth not always give us those things which we
conceive most expedient for ourselves.
XXIII. 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, be would have
expressed himself about this matter ? He would have
said plainly, " The bishop of Rome I bave 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 con
sequences, he that can believe it, let him. AU these

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSI liS. 101
reasons, I hope, wUl 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 public authorized judge to
determine controversies in religion, nor any necessity
- there should be any.
XXIV. 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 a/nd pure. Very true : but this is no other
than the watchful eye of Divine Providence, the good
ness whereof will never suffer that the Scriptures should
be depraved and conupted ; 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 undiscernibly 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,
engages himself to see it preserved in sufficient purity :
and you need not fear but he will satisfy his engage
ment. You say, we can have no assurance of this hut
your church's vigilancy. But, if we had no other, we
were in a hard case ; for who could then assure us, that
your church has been so vigilant as to guard Scripture
from any the least alteration ? There being various
"lections in the ancient copies of your Bibles, what
security can your new-raised office of assurance give us,
that that reading is true which you now receive, and
that false which you reject ? Certainly, they that
anciently received and made use of these divers copies
were not all guarded by the church's vigilancy from
Jiaving their Scripture altered from the purity of the

102 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
I original in many places. For, of different readings, it is
'; not in nature impossible that all should be false;
'I but more than one cannot possibly be trae. 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 itself; 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, Ihe churcffs vigilancy, you are in a circle, proving
the Scriptures uncorrapted, by the church's vigilancy;
and the church's vigUancy, by the incorraption of some
¦places of Scripture ; and again, the incorraption of
those places, by the church's vigilancy. If you name
any other means, then that means which secures me of
the Scripture's incorraption in those places wUl 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 uncorrapted. For,
though I have a greater degree of rational and human
assurance of that than this, in regard of divers con
siderations, which make it more credible, that the
Scripture hath heen preserved from any material
alteration ; yet my assurance of both is of the same
kind and condition, both moral assurances, and neither
physical nor mathematical.
XXV. To the next argument, the reply is obvious:
that, though we do not believe the books of Scripture to
be canonical, hecause tliey say so ; (for other books that

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 103
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 credi
bUity of universal tradition, which is a thing credible
of itself, and, therefore, fit to be rested on ; whereas
the authority of your church is not so ; and, therefore,
your rest thereon is not rational, but merely voluntary*
I might as well rest upon the judgment of the next man
I meet, or upon a chance of a lottery, for it : for, by this
means, I only know I might err ; but by relying on
you, I know I should err. But yet, (to return you one
suppose for another,) suppose I should, for this, and all
other things, submit to her direction, bow could she
assure me that I should not be misled by doing
so ? She pretends, indeed, infaUibility herein ; but
how can she assure us that she hath it ? what, by
Scripture ? That, you say, cannot assure us of its own
infaUibUity ; and, therefore, not of yours. What then,
by reason ? That, you say, may deceive in other
things ; and why not in this ? How then wUl she
assure us hereof ? by saying so ? Of this very affirma
tion there wiU remain the same question still, how
it can prove itself to be infaUibly true. Neither
can there be an end of the like multiplied demands, till
we rest in something evident of itself, which demon
strates to the world, that this church is infaUible. And
seeing there is no such rock for the infaUibUity of this
church to be settled on, it must, of necessity, like the
Island of Delos, float up and down for ever. And yet
upon this point, according to Papists, all other contro
versies in faith depend.
XXVL To Sections vii.-xvi. — The sum and
substance of the ten next paragraphs is this : • that it
appears, by the confessions of some Protestants, and the
contentions of others, that the questions about the canon

104 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
of Scripture, what it is, and about the various reading
and tramslations of it, which is true and which not, are
not to be determined hy Scripture ; and, therefore, that all
controversies of religion are not decidable by Scriptwre. ,
XXVIL 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 concem
ing the Scripture itself. For, as that general saying of
Scripture, " He hath put all things under his feet," is
most trae ; — though yet St. Paul tells us, that " when
it is said, He hath put all things under him, it is mani
fest 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 gene
rality those whicli are touching the Scripture itself,
Just as a merchant, showing a ship of his own, may say,
" AU my substance is in this ship ;" and yet never
intended to deny, that his ship is part of his substance,
nor yet to say that his ship is in itself. 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 itself. Or, as you yourselves 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 nega
tive conclusion, therefore, that these questions touching
Scripture are not decidable by Scripture, you needed
hot have cited any authorities, nor urged any reason, to
prove it : it is evident of itself ; and I grant it without
more ado. But your corollary from it, which you
would insinuate to your u'n wary reader, that^ therefore.

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 105
they are to he decided hy your, or any visible, church.,
is a mere inconsequence, and very like his collection,
who, because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for
his wife, presently concluded that he must have her, — as '
if there had been no more men in the world but Pam
philus 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 nega
tively out of Scripture, by showing apparent and
irreconcUable contradictions between it and some other
book confessedly canonical, yet affirmatively it cannot,
but only by the testimoiiies of the ancient churches ;
any book being to be received as undoubtedly canoni
cal, 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 satisfy themselves in it as in the
questions which happen about the translation of any
other author, that is, skill in the language of the
original, and comparing translations with it; in which
way, if there be no certainty, I would know what
certainty you have, that your Douay 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
F 5

106 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
ours. Neither is there any reason imaginable why an
ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of the
translation of our church, that it is free from error, if
not absolutely, yet in matters of moment, as an igno
rant English Papist can be of his Rhemish Testament
or Douay 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 to be
confident that they are right ; where they differ, there
fore, to be prudent in the choice of the guides they
follow : which way of proceeding, if it be subject to
some possible error, is it the best that either we or you
have ; and it is not required that we use any better than
the best we have.
XXVIII. You will say, dependence on yow
chwrcKs 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 itself,
and seen by its own light, or could be reduced unto,
and settled upon, some principle that is so. But see
ing you yourselves do not so much as pretend to enforce
us to the belief hereof by any proofs infallible and con
vincing, 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 yourselves in building your house
upon an imaginary rock, when you yourselves see and
confess that this very rock stands itself, at the best, but
upon a frame of timber. I answer, secondly, that this
cannot be a better way, because we are infallibly certain
that your church is not infaUible, and indeed hath not
the real prescription of this privilege, but only pleaseth
herself with a false imagination and vain presumption of

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. M!7
it ; as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswer
able arguments.
XXXI. But, seeing the belief of the Scripture is a
necessary thing, and cannot be proved by Scripture,
how can the chwrch of England teach, as she doth.
Article vi., that all things necessary are contained in
Scriptwre ?
XXXII. 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
itself, but for the matter contained in it : so that if men
did believe the docirine contained in Scripture, it should
no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there
were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations
Irenseus speaks of were in this case, and yet no doubt
but they might be saved. The end that God aims at i,
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 sixth Article, you ,
must understand that, by " Articles of Faith," they .
mean the final and ultimate objects of it, and not the ,
means and instrumental objects.
XXXIII. But, Protestants agree not in assigning
the canon of holy Scripture. Luther and Illyricus
reject the Epistle of St. 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 Apocalypse : therfore, without

108 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
the authority of the chwrch, no certainty can he had
what Scripture is canonical.
XXXIV. 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 showed they knew no necessity of conforming
themselves herein to the judgment of your or any
church ; for, had they done so, they must have agreed
all with that church, and, consequently, among them
selves. Now, I pray, tell me plainly, had they suffi
cient certainty what Scripture was canonical, or had they
not ? If they had not, it seeins there is no such great
harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether
some books be canonical or no, as you require : if they
had, why may not Protestants, notwithstanding their
differences, have sufficient certainty hereof, as well as
the ancient Fathers and churches, notwithstanding
theirs ?
XXXV. You proceed: And whereas the Protest
ants of England, in the sixth Article, have these words:
" In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand
those books, of whose authority was never any doubt in
the church ; " you demand, what they mean hy them ?
iohether that hy the churcKs consent they are assured
what Scriptures he canonical ? I answer for them :
Yes, they are so. And whereas you infer from hence,
This is to make the church judge : I have told you
already, that " of this controversy we make the church
the judge ; " but not the present church, much less the
present Roman church, but the consent and testimony
of the ancient and primitive church ; which though it
be but a highly-probable inducement, and no demon
strative enforcement, yet, methinks, you should not
deny but it may be a sufficient ground of faith ; whose
faith, even of the foundation of all your faith,, yout

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 109
church's authority, is built lastly and wholly upon
prudential raotives.
XXXVI. But, hy this rule, the whole book of Esthet
must quit the canon, hecause it was excluded hy some iri
the church : by Melito, Athanasius, and Gregory,
Nazianzen. Then, for aught I know, he that should
think he had reason to exclude it now, might be still in
the church, as well as Melito, Athanasius, Nazianzen
were. And while you thus inveigh against Luther,
and charge him with Luciferian heresies, for doing that
which you in this very place confess that saints in hea
ven before him have done, " are you not partial, and a
judge of evU thoughts ? "
XXXVII. Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes, Job,
and the Prophets, though you make such tragedies with
them, I see none of thera but is capable of a tolerable
construction, and far from having in thera any funda
mental heresy. He that conderans hira for saying,
" The book of Ecclesiastes is not full, that it hath many
abrupt things," condemns him, for aught I can see, for
speaking truth ; and the rest of the censure is but a
bold and blunt expression of the same thing. The
book of Job may be a trae history, and yet, as many
true stories are, and have been, an argument of a fable
to set before us an example of patience. And though
the books of the prophets were not written by them
selves, but by their disciples, yet it does not follow that
they were written casually ; (though I hope you wUl not
damn all for heretics that say, " Some books of Scrip
ture 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 prophecy of
Jeremiah the less canonical for being written by Barach ?
Or because St. Peter, the master, dictated the Gospel,

110 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
and St. Mark, the scholar, writ it, is it the more likely
to be called in question ?
XXXVIII. But, leaving Luther, you return to our
English canon of Scripture ; and tell us, that in the
New Testament, by the above-mentioned rule, (of whose
authority was never any doubt in the church,) divers
hooks must he discanonized. Not so : for I may believe
even those questioned books to have been written by
the apostles, and to be canonical ; but I cannot in rea
son believe this of them so undoubtedly, as of those
books which were never questioned ; at least, I have no
wanant to damn any raan that shall doubt of them or
deny them now ; having the example of saints in hea
ven either to justify or excuse such their doubting or
denial. XXXIX. You observe, in the next place, that our
sixth Article, specifying by name all the books of the
Old Testament, shuffies over these of the New with this
generality : '¦'¦All the hooks of the New Testament, as
they are commonly received, we do receive, and account
them canonical : " and in this you fancy to yourself a
mystery of iniquity : but if this be all the shuffling that
the church of England is guilty of, I believe the church,
as well as the king, may give for her motto, Honi soit
qui mal y pense : for all the Bibles which, since the
composing of the Articles, have been used and allowed
by the churcb of England, do testify 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 tiUe in
the beginning, " The Books called Apocrypha ; " and
with this close or seal in the end, " The end of the

FOR JDDGING CONTROVERSIES. Ill
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.
XL. But if hy " commonly received,'''' she meant,
" hy the church of Bome^'' then, by the same reason,
must she receive divers hooks of the Old Testament
which she rejects.
XLI. Certainly a very good consequence. The
church of England receives the books of the New Tes- ¦
tament 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 wUl do
as we in one thing, you raust in all things. If you will
pray to God with us, you must pray to saints with us.
If you hold with us when we have reason on our side,
you must do so when we bave no reason."
XLIII. But, with what coherence can we say, in the
former part of the Article, that hy " Scripture'''' we
mean, " those hooks that were never doubted of; " and,
in tlie latter, say, " We receive all the hooks ofthe New
Testament as they are commonly received,'" wherea,s
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 author
ity 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 sufflcient to make
considering men receive them for canonical ; in which
number they may well reckon those epistles which were
sometimes doubted of by sorae, yet whose number and
authority was not so great as to prevail against the con
trary suffrages.
XLIV. But, if to he " commonly received'''' pass for

1X2 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
a good rule to know the canon of the New Testament
hy, why not ofthe Old ? You conclude many times very
well ; but still, when you do so, it is out of principles
which no man grants : for who ever told you, that to be
" commonly received" is a good rule to know the canon
of the New Testament by ? Have you been trained
up in schools of subtlety, 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 comraonly received" a rule or reason to
know the canon by ; but to say the forraer, doth no
more raake it a rule, than you should make the church
of England the rule of your receiving them if you
should say, as you may, " The books of the New Tes
tament we receive for canonical, as they are received
by the churcb of England."
XLV. 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 itself no more apparently
reasonable than our agreeing with you in part, and
in part with Luther. If you say your church's infaUi
bUity is your ground, I demand again some infaUible
ground both for the church's infaUibility and for this,
— that yours is the church ; and shall never cease
multiplying demands upon demands, untU you settle
me upon a rock ; I mean, give such an answer whose
trath is so evident that it needs no further evidence.
If you say. This is universal tradition, I reply : Your
church's infallibility is not built upon it, and that the
canon of Scripture, as we receive it, is. For we do

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 113
not profess ourselves 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. XLVI. The conclusion of your tenth section is, that
the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself
alone, hut hy some extrinsical 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 auTOTris-ov
that the Gospel of St. Matthew is the word of God, as
that all which your church says is true.
XLVII. That believers of the Scripture, by consi
dering the Divine matter, the exceUent precepts, the
glorious proraises contained in it, may be confirraed in
their faith of the Scripture's Divine authority ; and
that, among other inducements and enforcements here
unto, internal arguraents have their place and force,
certainly, no raan of understanding can deny. For my
part, I profess, if the doctrine of the Scripture were not
as good, and as fit to come from the Fountain of good
ness, 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 staggered in it.
Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in say
ing, " 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 raoved to, and strengthened in, his belief of it ;
and by this partly, not wholly ; by this, not alone, but
with the concunence of other arguments. He that will
quanel with him for saying so, must find fault with the
Master of the Sentences and all his scholars ; for they
all say the same.

114 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
XLVIII. In the next division, out of your libe^
rality you will suppose, that Scripture, like to a
corporal light, is by itself alone able to determine
and move our understanding to assent : yet, notwith
standing this supposal, faith still, you say, must go
before Scripture ; hecause, as the light is visible only tQ
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, originaUy proceed from Scripture, as the
effect from its proper cause. And the influence and
efflcacy 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 itself being able
(as here you suppose) to determine and move the
understanding to assent, that is, to believe them, and
the verities contained in them. Neither is this to say,
that the eyes with which we see are made by the light
by which we see : for you are mistaken much, if you
conceive, that, in this comparison, faith answers to the
eye. But, if you will not pervert it, the analogy 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 oi
believing, to the act of seeing. As, therefore, the light,
determining the eye to see^ though it presupposes the
eye which it determines, as every action doth the object
on which it is employed, yet itself is presupposed and

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 115
antecedent to the act of seeing, as the cause is always
to its effect ; so, if you will suppose, that Scripture,
like light, moves the understanding to assent, the
understanding (that is, the eye and object on which
it works) must be before this influence upon it ; but
the assent — that is, the belief whereto the Scripture
moves, and the understanding is moved, which answers
to the act of seeing — must come after. For, if it
did assent already, to what purpose should the Scrip
ture do that which was done before ? Nay, indeed,
how were it possible it should be so, any more than a
father can beget a son that he hath already ? or an
architect build a house that is built already ? or than
this very world can be made again before it be un
made ? Transubstantiation, indeed, is fruitful of such
monsters. But they that have not sworn themselves to
the defence of error will easily perceive, ih&i ja/m factum
facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossi
ble. But I digress.
XLIX. The close of this paragraph is a flt cover for
such a dish. There you tell us, that if there must
he some other means precedent to Scripture to beget
faith, this can he no other than the church. By " the
church," we know, you do and must understand the
Roman church ; so that, in effect, you say. No man
can have faith but he must be moved to it by your
church's authority. And that is to say, that the king,
and all other Protestants to whora you write, though
they verUy 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 infldels, and
believe nothing. The Scripture tells us, " The heart of
man knoweth no man, but the spirit of man which is in
him." And who are you, to take upon you to raake us
believe, that we do not believe what we know we do ?

116 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
But if I may think verily, that I believe the Scripture^
and yet not believe it, how know you that you believe
the Roman church ? I am as verily and as strongly
persuaded, that I believe the Scripture, as you are that
you believe the church ; and if I may be deceived,
why may not you ? Again : what more ridiculous, and
against sense and experience, than to afflrm, 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 imperfec-*
tion 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 churcb is very full of infidels.
Suppose Xaverius, by the holiness of his life, had con
verted 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 reraain as very Pagans after their conversion as
they were before ? Are they brought to assent in their
souls, and obey in their lives, the Gospel of Christ,
only to be tantalized, and not saved, and not benefited,
but deluded, by it, because, forsooth, it is a man, and
not the church, that begets faith in thera ? What, if
their raotive 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 iraprudently, perhaps, but yet they do
choose it : unless you wUl have us believe, that that
which is done is not done, because it is not done

FOR JDDGING CONTROVERSIES. 117
upon good reason ; which is to say, that never any man
living ever did a foolish action. But yet I know not
why the authority of one holy man, which apparently
has no ends upon me, joined with the goodness of
the Christian faith, raight not be a far greater and more
rational raotive to me to embrace Christianity, than any
I can have to continue in Paganism. And, therefore,
for sharae, if not for love of truth, you raust recant this
fancy, when you write again, and suffer true faith to be
many times where your church's infallibility has no
hand in the begetting of it ; and be content to tell us
hereafter, that we believe not enough ; and not go
about to persuade us we believe nothing, for fear, with
telling us what we know to be manifestly false, you
should gain only this, — not to be believed when you
speak truth. Some pretty sophisms you may happily
bring us, to make us believe we believe nothing : but
wise men know, that reason against experience is always
sophistical. And, therefore, as he that could not
answer Zeno's subtilties against the existence of motion,
could yet confute them by doing that which he pre
tended could not be done ; so if you should give me a
hundred arguraents to persuade me, because I do not
believe transubstantiation, I do not believe in God, and
the Knots of thera I could not untie, yet I should cut
them in pieces with doing that, and knowing that I do
so, which you pretend I cannot do.
LIII. It is superfluous for you to prove out of Sti
Athanasiusand St. Austin, that we must receive thesacred
canon upon the credit of God''s church ; understanding by
"church," as here you explain yourself, the credit of tradi
tion; and that not the tradition of the present church,
which we pretend may deviate from the ancient, but
such a tradition, which involves an evidence of fact, and
from hand to hand, from age to age, bringing us up to

118 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
the times and persons of the apostles, and owr Samovr
himself, cometh to be confirmed hy all these miracles amd
other arguments, whereby they convinced their docirine
to he true. Thus you. Now, prove the canon of
Scripture which you receive by such tradition, and
we wiU allow it. Prove your whole doctrine, or the
infaUibUity of your church, by such a tradition, and
we wUl yield to you in aU things. Take the aUeged
places of St. Athanasius and St. Austin in this sense,
(which is your own,) and they wUl not press us
any thing at all. We wUl say, with Athanasius,
" That only four Gospels are to be received, because
the canons of the holy and catholic church " (under
stand of all ages since the perfection of the canon)
" have so determined."
LIV. We wUl subscribe to St. Austin, and say,
that " we also would not believe the Gospel, unless the
authority of the catholic church did move us," meaning
by "the church," the church of all ages and that
succession of Christians which takes-in Christ himself
and his apostles. Neither would ZwingUus have
needed to cry out upon this saying, had he conceived,
as you now do, that by " the catholic church," ihe
church of all ages since Christ was to be understood.
As for the Council of Carthage, it may speak not
of such books only as were certainly canonical, and for
the regulating of faith, but also of those which were
only profitable and lawful to be read in the church;
which in England is a very slender argument, that the
book is canonical, where every body knows that apocry
phal books are read as well as canonical. But howso
ever, if you understand by " Fathers," not only theu
immediate fathers and predecessors in tbe Gospel, but
the succession of them from the apostles, they are right
in the thesis, that " whatsoever is received from these

FOE JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 119
fathers as canonical is to be so esteemed ;" though in
the application of it to this or that particular book, they
may happily [haply] en, and think that book received
as canonical which was only received as profitable to be
read, and think that book received always, and by
aU, which was rejected by some, and doubted of by
many. LV. But we cannot he certain in what language the
Scriptures remain uncorrupted.
Chilling. Not so certain, I grant, as of that I
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 St. Austin was, who, in his
second book of Baptism, against the Donatists, cap. iii.
plainly implies, the Scripture might possibly be cor
rupted : he means, sure, in matters of little raoraent,
such as concern not the covenant between God and
man. But thus he saith. The sarae St. Austin, in his
forty-eighth Epistle, clearly intiraates, that, in his judg
ment, " the only preservative of the Scripture's 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 Doc
tors were more exposed to danger in this kind ;" * but
the canonical Scripture, being by this means guarded
* Neque enim sic posuit integritas atque notitia literarum quamli
bet illustris episcopi, custodiri, quemadmodum Scriptura canonica tot
Unguarum literis et ordine et successione celebrationis ecclesiasticcB
custoditur ; contra quam non defuerunt tamen, qui sub nominibus
apostolorum multa confingerent. Frustra quidem; quia ilia sio
commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est. Verum quid possit adversiis
literas non canonic^, authoritate fundata^ etiam hinc demonstrabit
impicB conatus audacite, quod ef adversus eos quce tanta notititB mole
firmatm sunt, sese erigere non preetermisit. — Aug. Epist. 48, ad
Vincent, contra Donat. et Rogat.

120 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
-with universal care and diligence, was not obnoxious to
such attempts. And this assurance of the Scripture's
incorruption is common to us with hira ; we, therefore,
are as certain hereof as St. Austin was, and that, I
hope, was certain enough. Yet, if this does not satisfy
you, I say farther, we are as certain hereof as your own
Pope Sixtus Quintus was. He, in his Preface to his
Bible, teUs us, that " in the pervestigation of the true
and genuine text, it was perspicuously manifest to all
men, that there was no argument more firm and certain
to be relied upon than the faith of ancient books." *
Now this ground we have to build upon as well as
he had ; and, therefore, our certainty is as great, and
stands upon as certain ground as his did.
LVI. This is not all I have to say in this matter.
For I wUl add, moreover, that we are as certain in what
language the Scripture is uncorrupted, as any man
in your church was until Cleraent VIII. set forth
your own approved edition of your vulgar translation.
For you do not, nor cannot, without extreme impu
dence, deny, that, until then, there was great variety of
copies current in divers parts of your church, and those
very frequent in various lections ; all which copies
might possibly be false in some things, but more than
one sort of them could not possibly be true in all
things. Neither were it less impudence to pretend,
that any man in your church could untU Clement's
time have any certainty what that one true copy
and reading was, if there were any one perfectly true.
Some, indeed, that had got Sixtus's Bible, might,
after the edition of that, very likely think themselves
• In hac germani textus peruestigatione, satis perspicue inter
omnes constat, nullum argumentum esse certius ac firmius, qvam
antiquorum probatorum codicum Latinorum fidem, (Jc  Sic Sixtus
in Prcefat,

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. I2l
cock-sure of a perfect, true, uncorrupted translation,
without being beholden to Clement ; but how foully
they were abused and deceived that thought so, the edi
tion of Clemens, differing from that of Sixtus in a great
multitude of places, doth sufficiently demonstrate.
LVII. This certainty, therefore, in what language f
the Scripture remains uncorrapted, 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 fifteen hundred 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 unconupted in all
things." And now at this present, though some of you
are grown to a higher degree of presumption in this
point, yet are you as far as ever from any true, and
real, and rational assurance of the absolute purity of
your authentic translation : which I suppose myself to
have proved unanswerably in divers places.
LVIII. To Section xvi. — Char. Main, objects
to Protestants, That their translations of the Scripture
are very different, and by each other mutually con
demned. Luther's translation, hy ZwingUus, and others :
that of the Zwinglians, hy Luther : the translation of
CEcolampadius, by the divines of Basil : that of Cas
talio, hy Beza : that of Beza, hy Castalio : that of
Calvin, by Carolus Molinams : that of Geneva, by
M. Parks, and king James : and, lastly, one of our
translations, hy the Puritans.
LIX. Chilling. AU 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 St. Austin's, may be taken : " They
G

122 scripture the onlyi rule
which have translated the Scriptures -out of the Hebrew
into Greek, may be numbered, but the Latin interpret
ers are innumerable. For whensoever any one, in the
first times of Christianity, met with a Greek Bible, and
seemed to himself to have some abUity in both lan^
guages, 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 leam
from the same St. Austin, in chap. xv. of the same
book. " Amongst all these interpretations," saith hej
" let the Italian be prefened ; 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 abso
lute purity and perfection even of this best translation,
that St. Hierome thought it necessary to make anew
translation of the Old Testament, out of the Hebrew
fountain ; (which himself testifies in his book de Viris
Illustribus ;) and to conect the vulgar version of the
New Testament, according to the trath of the original
Greek ; amending many enors which had crept into it,
whether by the mistake of the author,' or the negligence
of the transcribers ; which work he undertook and per^
formed at the request of Damasi^, 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 araong 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 readinjr, I have so tem-
pered with my style the translation of the ancientsy
that, those things amended which did seem to change

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 123
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.
LXIL Char. Main. But the faith of Protestants
relies upon Scriptwre alone ; Scripture is delivered to
most of them hy translations ; tramslations depend upon
the skill and honesty of men, who certainly may err
hecause 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 uponfallihle and uncertain grounds, ,
LXIII. Chilling^ This objection, though it may
seera to do you great service for the present ; yet I fear"
you will repent the time that you ever urged it against'^-
us as a fault, — that we make raen's salvation depend"^
upon uncertainties. Por the objection returns upon'
you many ways; as, first, thus : the salvation of many
millions of Papists (as they suppose and teach) depends
upon their having the sacrament of penance truly
administered unto them ; this again, upon the minis
ter's being a true priest.- That such or such a man is
priest, not himself, much less, any other, can have
any possible certainty ; for it depends upon a great
many contingent and uncertain supposals. He that
will, pretend to -be certain of it must undertake to know
for a certain all these things that follow.
LXIV. 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;
G 2

124 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
(otherwise, believing the sacrament to be nothing, iri
giving it he could intend to give nothing;) nor a
Saraosatenian, nor an Arian : 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 adrainistration of the sacrament, nor, out of negli-j
gence or malice, omitted his intention.
LXV. Fourthly : He must undertake to know, that
the bishop which ordained him priest ordained him
completely with due matter, form, and intention ; and,
consequently, that he again was neither Jew, nor Moor,
nor Atheist, nor liable to any such exception as is'
unconsistent with due intention in giving the sacrament
of orders.
LXVI. 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, conse
quently, that there was again none of the former
nullities in his baptism, which might make him incapa
ble 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 concuning.
LXVII. 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 narae and shadow, can give nothing hut
• « He who possesses nothing himself, cannot have something to
bestow." — Edit.

POR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 125
lEi name and shadow ; — and so from age to age, from gene
ration to generation, being equivocal fathers, beget only
equivocal sons : no principle in geometry being more
Certain than this, — that the unsuppliable defect of any
necessary antecedent must needs cause a nullity of all
those consequences which depend upon it. In fine, to
Jiuow this one thing, you must first know ten thousand
others, whereof not any one is a thing that can be
known ; there being no necessity that it should be true
which only can qualify any thing for an object of
science,, but only, at the best, a high degree of probabi
lity that it is so. But then, that of ten thousand pro
bables no one should be false; that of ten thousand
requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should be
wanting ; this to me is extremely improbable, and even
cousin-german to impossible. So that the assurance
liereof is like a raachine composed of an innumerable
-multitude of pieces, of which it is strangely unlikely
but some will be out of order ; and yet, if any one
be so, the whole fabric, of necessity, falls to the
ground. And he that shall put 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 a hundred to one,
that, amongst a hundred seeming priests, there is not
one true one : nay, that it is not a thing very impro
bable, that, amongst those many millions which make
up the Romish hierarchy, there are not twenty true.
But, be the truth in this what it wUl be, once this
is certain, that they which make men's salvation (as you
do) depend upon priestly absolution ; and this again
("as you do) upon the trath and reality of the priesthood
jthat gives it; and this, lastly, upon a great multitude
of apparent uncertainties ; are not the fittest raen in
4he world to object to others, as a honible crime, that

126 scripture the only rule
they make merCs sahation depend upon ¦ fallible and
v/ncerfain foundations I And let this be the first retor
tion of your argument.
LXVIII. But suppose ¦ this difficulty assoiled, and
that an -angel from heaven should ascertain you, (for
other assurances you can have none,) that the person
you make use of is a true priest, and a competent
minister of the sacrament of penance ; yet stiU the
doubt will remain, whether he wUl do you that gwod
which he can do ; whether he wUl 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 complete
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 devU to give no
sacraments with - intention. Lastly: he may be, for
aught you can possibly know, a secret Jew, or Moor, or
Anti'trinitarian ; or, perhaps, such a one as is so far from
intending your forgiveness of sins and salvation by this
sacrament, that, in his heart, ' 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) befbre you
can, upon good grounds, assure yourself, 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 all 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 comfort
able 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, con-

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 127
sequently, believes, that, if he be not absolved really
by a true priest, he cannot possibly escape daranation !
Such a man, for his comfort, you tell, first, (you that
will have men's salvation -depend upon no uncertainties,)
that, though he verily believe, that his sorrow for sins is
a true sorrow, and his purpose of amendment a true pur
pose ; yet he may, deceive himself: perhaps it is not ;
and if it be not, he must be damned. Yet you bid him
hope well : hnb spes jest rei incertce nomen.* Yx)u tell
him, secondly, ; that, though the party he confesses to
seem to be a true priest, yet, for aught he. knows, or for
aught himself knows, by reason of some secret, undis
cernible 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 sacra
ment with due intention ; and if he does not, all is in
vain. Put [a] case, [that] a man, by these considerations,
should be cast into some agonies ; what advice, what
comfort would you give him ? VerUy I know not what
you could say to him, but this, — that, first, for the qua
lification required on his part, he might know that he
desired to have true sonow, and that that is sufficient.
But, then, if he should ask you why he might not know
his sonow to be a. true sorrow, as well as his desire to
be sonowful to be a true desire, I believe you would be
put to sUence. Then, secondly, to quiet his fears
conceming 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
human endeavours, were unavoidable: and, therefore,
though his priest were indeed no priest, yet to him he
• " Hope is but ftnot-her name for ' something uncertain.' " — Edit.

128 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
should be as if he were one ; and if he gave absolution
without intention, yet, in doing so, he should hurt him
self only, and not his penitent. This were some com
fort, indeed ; and this were to settle men's salvation
upon reasonable, certain grounds. But this, I fear,
you will never say ; for this were to reverse many
doctrines established by your church ; and besides, to
degrade your priesthood from a great part of their
honour, by lessening the strict necessity of the laity's
dependence upon them. For it were to say, that
the priest's intention is not necessary to the obtainmg
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 retuming ; so that,
in answering my objection, you should answer your
own : for then I should tell you, that it were altogether
as abhonent from the goodness of God, and as repug
nant to it, to suffer an ignorant layman's soul to
perish,, merely for being misled by an undiscernible false
translation, which yet was commended to him by the
church, which (being, of necessity, to credit some in
this matter) he had reason to rely upon, either above aU
other, or as much as any other, — as it is to damn a peni
tent 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 faU of salvation if he wUlnot,

I'OR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 129
for fear of inconveniences you must forbear : and
seeing you must, I hope you wUl corae down from
the pulpit, and preach no more against others for
making men's salvation depend upon fallible and uncer
tain grounds ; lest, by judging others, you make your
selves and your own church inexcusable, who are
strongly guUty 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
presumptions, — tying God and salvation to your sacra
ments, and the efficacy of them to your priests' qualifi
cations and intentions.
LXIX. Your making the salvation of infants depend
on baptism, (a casual thing, and in the power of man to
confer, or not confer,) would yield me a third of the
same nature ; and your suspending the sarae on the
baptizer's intention, a fourth ; and, lastly, your making
the real presence 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 sacra
ment, (which, according to your doctrine, for aught
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. '
LXX. Sixthly, therefore, I return it thus : The faith
.of Papists relies alone upon their church's infaUibility.
That there is any church infallible, and that theirs is it,
they pretend not to believe, but only upon prudential
motives ; dependence upon prudential motives they coii-
G 5

1.30 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY EULB
fess to be obnoxious to a possibility of ening. What
then remaineth but — truth, faith, salvation, and all, must
in thera rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground ?
LXXL-^Seventhly. The faith of Papists relies
upon the church alone : the doctrine of the church is
delivered to raost 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
possibUity to err. What, then, remaineth, but that
truth, faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon
a fallible and uncertain ground ?
iLXXII. Eighthly, thus : It is apparent and unde
niable, 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 -forefethers did so, and they were good
people ; sorae, because ; they were christened and
brought up in it; some, 'because it is the religion of
their country, where all other religions are persecuted
and proscribed ; some, because Protestants cannot show
a perpetual- succession of professors of all their doctrine;
some, because the service of your church is more stately,
and pompous, and magnificent ; some, because they
find comfort in it ; some, because your religion is
farther spread, and hath' more professors of it, than the
religion of Protestants; some, because your priests
compass sea and land to gain proselytes to it ; lastly,
an infinite number, by chance, and they know not why,
but only because they are sure they are in the right.
"This which I say is a most certain, experimented truth;
•and, if you will deal ingenuously, you will not deny it.
And, without question, he that buUds his fiiith upon
our English tranalation, goes upon a more pradent
ground than any of these can, with reason, be. pretended

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 131
to be. What then can you allege, but that, with you,
rather than with us, truth, and faith, and salvation, and
all, relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds ?
LXXHI. Ninthly. Your Rhemish and Doway
translations are delivered to your proselytes, (such, I
mean, that are dispensed with for the reading of them,)
for the -direction of their faith and lives : and the same
may be said of your translations of the Bible into other
national languages, in respect of those that are licensed
to read them. This, I presume, you wUl confess ; and,
moreover, that these translations came not by inspira
tion, but were the productions of human industry ; and
that not angels, but men, were the authors of them ; —
men, I say, mere men, subject to the same passions, and
to the same possibility of ening, 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 ?
LXXIV. Tenthly, and lastly, to lay the axe to the
root of 'the tree, the Helena which you so fight for, —
your vulgar translation, — though some of you believe,
or pretend to believe, it to be, in every part and parti
cle of it, the pure and unconupted word of God ; yet
others among you, and those as good and zealous
Catholics as you, are not so confident hereof.
LXXV. First. For all those who have made transla
tions of the whole Bible, or any part of it, different many
times in sense from the vulgar, as Lyianus, Cajetan,
Pagnine, Arias, Erasmus, Valla, Steuchus, and others,
it is apparent, and even- palpable, that they never dreamed
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 ?
LXXVI. Vega was present at the Council of

132 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY EUI/E
Trent when that decree was made, which made the
vulgar edition (then not extant any where in the world)
authentical, and not to be rejected upon any pretence
whatsoever. At the forming this decree, Vega, I say,
was present, understood the mind of the Council as well
as any man, and professes that he was instracted in it
by the President of it, the cardinal St. Grace. And
yet he hath written, that " the CouncU, in this decree,
meant to pronounce this translation free," not simply
from all error, " but only from such enors out of which
any opinion pemicious to faith and manners might be
collected : " this, Andradius, in his defence of that
CouncU, reports of Vega, and assents to it himself.
Driedo, in his book " Of the Translation of Holy
Scripture," hath these words, very pregnant and perti
nent to the same purpose : " The see apostolic hath
approved or accepted Hierom's edition, not as so wholly
consonant to the original, and so entire, and pure, and
restored in all things, that it may not be lawful for any
man, either by comparing it with the fountain to exa
mine it, or in some places to doubt, whether or no
Hierom did understand the trae sense of the Scripture ;
but only as an edition to be prefened 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 :
^' The faults of the vulgar edition are not approved by
the decree of the Council of Trent, a multitude whereof
we did collect from the variety of copies." And again:
" We maintain, that the Hebrew and Greek were by
no means rejected by the Trent Fathers ; and that the
Latin edition is indeed approved ; yet not so, as if they
did deny that some places might be translated more
plainly, some more properly ; whereof it were easy to

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 133
produce innumerable exaraples : " * and this he there
professes to have " leamed of Laines, the then general
of the society ; " who was a great part of that Council,
present at all the actions of it, and of very great
authority in it.
LXXVII. To this so great authority he adds a rea
son of his opinion ; which, with all indifferent men,
will be of a far greater authority. " If the Council,"
saith he, " had purposed to approve an edition in all
respects, and to make it of equal authority and credit
with the fountains, certainly they ought, with exact care,
first to have corrected the errors of the interpreter ; "
which certainly they did not.
LXXVIII. Lastly. Bellarmine hiraself, though he
will not acknowledge any iraperfection in the vulgar
edition, yet he acknowledges that the case may, and
does oft-times, so fall out, that " it is impossible to dis
cern which is the true reading of the vulgar edition, but
only by recourse unto the originals, and dependence
upon them." j-
LXXIX. From all which it may evidently be col
lected, that though sorae of you flatter yourselves 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 doubt
ful sometimes whether your vulgar translation be trae,
and sometimes whether this or that be your vulgar
translation, and sometiraes undoubtedly resolved that
your vulgar translation is no true translation, nor conso
nant to the original, as it was at first delivered. And
what, then, can be alleged, but that, out of your own
grounds, it may be inferred and enforced upon you,
• Pro Edit. Vulg., c. xxi. p. 99.
f Bellaumikus, De Verbo Dei, 1. ii. c. xi. p. 120.

184 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
that not only in your layraen, but your clergymen ancJ
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 show you how ill you have complied with your own
advice, which was, to take heed of urging arguments that
might he returned upon you. I should now, by a direct
answer, show, that it presseth not us at aU ; but I have,
in passing, done it already, in tbe end of the second retor
tion of this argument, and thither I refer the reader.
LXXX. 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 corrapted : And,
lastly, so careless of preserving the integrity of the
copies of her translation, as to suffer infinite variety of
readings to come into thera, without keeping any one
perfect copy, which might have been as the standard
andPolycletus's canon to conect the rest by ; so that,
which was the true reading, and which the fiilse, it was
utterly undiscernible, but only by comparing them with
the originals, which also she pretends to be corrupted.
LXXXIV. To Section xvii. — In this division
you charge us with great uncertainty concerning ihe
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 ofthe sense of many

FOR. judging controversies. 135
of them : " but -then we say, " There is no necessity
we should be certain ; for if God's will had been we
should 1 have understood him more certainly, he would
have spoken more plainly." And we say, besides, that
as we are uncertain, so are you too ; whichhe that doubts
of, let hira read your commentators upon the Bible, and
observe their various and dissonant interpretations, and
he. shall, in this point, need no further satisfaction.
LXXXV. -Objection. — -But, seeing "there are
contentions among us, we are taught by nature, and
Scripture, and experience," so you tell us out of Mr.
Hooker, " to seek for the ending of them, by submit
ting unto some judicial sentence ; whereunto neither
part may refuse to>stand."
-Answer. — This is very true. Neither should you
need topersuade 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 deraonstrate, that it hath
not been the pleasure of God to give to any man, or
society. of men, any such authority. And, therefore,
though we wish heartily that all controversies were
ended, as we do that-all sin were abolished, yet we
have Uttle hope of .the one -or the other till the worid
be ended; and, in the. mean while, think it best to
content ourselves with, and to persuade others unto, an
unity of charity . and mutual toleration ; seeing God
hath authorized • no man to force all men to unity of
opinion. Neither do • we think it fit to argue thus :
" To us it seems convenient there should be one judge of
all controversies for the whole world ; therefore, God
has appointed one : " but more modest and more reason-r

136 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
able to collect thus : " God hath appointed no such
judge of controversies ; therefore, though it seems to us
convenient there should be one, yet it is not so ; " or,
" Though it were convenient for us to have one, yet it
hath pleased God, for reasons best known to himself,
not to allow us this convenience."
LXXXV II. To Section xviit  That the trae
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 raore the trae sense of
Scripture, not only from the church, but from any
society of men ; nay, from any man whatsoever.
LXXXVIII. That the churcKs interpretation of
Scripture is always true ; that is it which you would
have said, and that, in some sense, may be also admit
ted ; namely, if you speak of that church which before
you speak of in section xiv. ; 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 Scrip
ture, and to believe it to he 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 fo the times and persons of the
apostles and our Saviour himself, cometh to he con
firmed by all those miracles and other arguments
whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true.
Wherefore, the ancient Fathers avouch that we must
receive the sacred Scripture upon the tradition of this
church. The tradition, then, of this church, you say,
must teach us what is Scripture ; and we are wiUing to
Iielieve 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 inter-

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 137
pretation of any Scripture, we are ready to embrace that
also. But now, if you will argue thus : " The church in
one sense tells us what is Scripture ; and we believe,
therefore, if the church, taken in another sense, tell us,
' This or that is the meaning of the Scripture,' we are to^
believe that also : " this is too transparent sophistry, to
take any but those that are wUling to be taken.
LXXXIX. 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 conupted
part, of the catholic church, is another. And, there
fore, 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.
XC. 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 Macca
bees, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first of
these you held not to be canonical in St. Gregory's
time, or else he was no member of your church ; for it
is apparent he held otherwise.* The second, you
rejected from the canon in St, Hierome's time, as it is
evident out of many places of his works.-f-
' • See Greg. Mor., 1. 19, c. 13.
t Thus he testifies, Com. in Esai,, c. 6, in these words : Unde et Pau
lus Apost, in Epist. ad Heb., quam Latina consuetuih non recipit ;
and again in c. 8, in these : In Ep. quce ad Hebraos scribitur, (licet
earn, Latina consuetude inter canonicas Scripturas nonrecipat,) ^c.
" Whence lilcewise the apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the
Hebrews, which the usage of the Latin church does not receive." —
" In the Epistle which is addressed to the Hebrews, (though the
usage of the Latin church does not receive it among the canonical
books of Scripture, &c.)''  Edit.

1,38 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
XCI. If you say, which is all you can, that " Hierome
spake this of the particular Roraan church, not of- the
Roman Catholic church ; " I answer : there was ncme
such in his time ; none that was called so. Secondly,
what he spake of the Roman church must be trae of
all other churches, if your doctrine of tbe necessity of
the conformity of all other churches to that churdi
were then catholic doctrine. Now, then, choose whe
ther you wUl, 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 fideles,* which cardinal Penon, and his trans-
ktress, so often translates false ; or,- if you say she was,
you will run into a greater inconvenience, and beforced to
say, that all the churches of that time rejected fromthe
canon the Epistle to the Hebrews, together with the Roman
church; and, consequently, that the catholic church may
err, in rejecting fromthe canon Scriptures traly canonical.
XCII. Secondly : How can we receive the Scrip
ture upon the authority of the Roman church, which
hath delivered at several times Scriptures, in raany places
different and repugnant, for authentical and canonical ?
which is most evident out of the place of Malachi,
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.
XCIII. Thus you see what reason we have to beHeve
* " AU churches, that is, all raen in every part who are believers,
must come together to this church.". — Edit.

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 139
your antecedent. That your church it is which must
declare what books he ¦ true Scriptwre. Now, for the
consequence, that certainly is as liable to exception as
the. antecedent. For if it were trae that God had pro
mised to assist you, for the delivering of true Scripture,
would this oblige him, or would it follow from hence
that he had obliged hiraself, to teach > you, not only
sufficiently, but effectually, and irresistibly, the trae
sense of Scripture ? God is not defective in things
necessary ; neither will he leave himself without witness,
nor the world without means of knowing his will, and
doing it. And, therefore, it ' was necessary that by his
providence he; should preserve the Scripture from any
undiscernible corraption, in those things which he
would have known ; otherwise, it is apparent, it had
not been his wUl that these things should .be known,
the only means of continuing the knowledge of them
being perished. But now neither is God lavish in
superfiuities, and therefore having given us means suffi
cient for our direction, and power sufficient to make use
of these means, he will not constrain or necessitate us to
make use of these means : for that- were to cross the
end . of our creation, which was to be glorified by our
free obedience ; whereas, necessity and freedom cannot
stand together. That were to reverse the law which he
hath prescribed to himself in his dealing -with- men, and
that is," to- set life: and death before him, and to leave
hira in the hands of his own counsel." God gave the
•wise men 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 chUdren of
" Israel a fire to lead them by -night, and a pUlar 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

140 , SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
to be believed or done, are plain and easy to be fol
lowed, like the wise men'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, inesistible 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
?dl other creatures to do those things which by mere
Necessity they must do, and cannot choose. Besides,
what an impudence is it to pretend, that yowr chwrch is
infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of
tlie Scripture ? whereas, there are thousands of places
in 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 conceming the true mean
ing of Scripture, why do not your Doctors follow her
infallible direction .-' And if they do, how comes such
difference among them in their interpretations ?
XCIV. Again : why does your church thus put her
candle under a bushel, and keep her talent of interpret
ing Scripture infallibly thus long wrapped up in nap
kins ? 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
«hould be interpreted ? It is blasphemous to say so.
The Scripture itself tells us : " All Scripture is profita
ble :" and the Scripture is not so much the words as
the sense. And, if it be not profitable, why does she
employ particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures falli
bly ; unless we must think, that fallible interpretations
of Scripture are profitable, and infallible interpretations
would not be so ?

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES,

14t

, XCV. 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 chwrch will do ii
when the Holy Ghost shall move her to do it ; I demand,
whether the Holy Ghost's moving ofthe church to such
works as these, be resistible by the church, or inesisti
ble. If resistible, then the Holy Ghost may move, and
the church may not be moved : as, certainly, the Holy
Ghost doth always move to an action, when he shows
us plainly that it would be for the good of men, and
honour of God ; (as he that hath any sense will acknow
ledge, that an infaUible 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 yourselves you cannot do it, and there
fore make excuses. But if the moving of the Holy
Ghost be irresistible, and you are not yet so moved to
go about this work, then I confess you are excused.
But, then, I would know, whether those Popes, which
so long deferred the calling of a Council for the reforma
tion of your church, (at length pretended to be effected
by the Council of Trent,) whether they may excuse
themselves, for that they were not moved by the Holy
Ghost to do it ? I would know, likewise, as this
motion is irresistible when it comes, so whether it be so
simply necessary to the moving of your church to any
such public action, that it cannot possibly move without
it? that is, whether the Pope now could not, if he
would, seat himself in cathedra, and fall to writing
expositions upon the Bible, for the directions of Chris
tians to the trae sense of it ? If you say, " He cannot,"
you wUl . make yourself 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 inesistible motion ? Why does he not

142 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
go about this noble work presently ? If he should not,
how shall we know that the calling of the Council of
Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion, or upon
human 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 Coun^
cil, is a secret thing ; which we cannot possibly know,
nor^ perhaps, the Pope himself.
XCVI. If you say, your meaning is only, that the
chwrch shall be infallibly guarded from giving any fake
sense of any Scripture, and nof infallibly assisted pod--
tively to give the true sense of all Scripture: I put to
you your own question : " Why should we beUeve the
Holy Ghost wiU stay there ? or, why may we not as
well think he will stay at the first thing, that is, in
teaching tbe 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 infaUibly
not only to guard them from aU errors, but to guide
them to all profitable truths, such as the trae senses of
all Scripture- would be. Neither coidd he stay there ;
but defend them inesistibly from all vices : Nor there
neither ; but infuse into them inesistibly all virtues ;
for all these things would be much for the benefit of
Christians. If you say, " He cannot do this without
taking away their free-wUl in living ;" I say. Neither can
He necessitate men to believe aright, without takmg
away their free-will in believing and in professing their
belief. XCVII. Objection. — To the place of St. Austin,
" I would not believe the gospel, unless the authority
of the church did move me." Contra Ep. Fund., c. 5.
Answer. — I answer, that not the authority of the

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 143
present church, much less of a part of it, (as the Roman
church is,) was that which alone moved St. Austin to
believe the gospel, but the perpetual tradition of the
church of all ages ; which you yourself have taught us
to be the only principle by which the Scriptwre is
proved, and which itself needs no proof; and to which
you have refened this very saying of St. Austin, Ega
vero evangeUo non crederem nisi, c^c, p. 55. And,.in
the next place which you cite out of his book, De Util.
Cred., c. 14, he shows,- that his "motives to believe
were fame, celebrity, consent, antiquity." And seeing
this tradition, this consent, this antiquity did as fully
and powerfully move him not to believe Manichseus, as
to believe the gospel, (the Christian tradition being as
full against Manichseus as it was for the gospel,) there
fore he did well to conclude upon these grounds, that he
had as much reason to disbelieve Manichseus, 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 Manichseus, you may do well to
apply the argument against them ; otherwise it wUl be
to little purpose to- substitute their names instead of
Manichseus, unless you can show the thing agrees to
them as well as him.
XCVIII. If you say, that St. Austin speaks liere of
the a/uthority of the present church, abstracting from con
sent with the ancient, and therefore you, seeing you have
the! present church on your side against Luther and Cal-
vinyas St. Austin against Manichseus, may urge the sarae
words against them which St. Austin did against him : —
XCIX. I answer, first, that it is a vain presumption
of yours, that the catholic church is of your side.
Secondly. That if St. Austin speak here of that present
church, which moved him to believe the gospel, without.

144 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
Consideration of the antiquity of it, and its both per
sonal and doctrinal succession from the apostles, his
argument wiU be like a buskin that will serve any leg.
It will serve to keep an Arian or a Grecian from being
a Roman Catholic, as well as a Catholic from being an
Arian or a Grecian. Inasmuch as the Arians and Gre
cians did pretend to the title of " Catholics " and " the
ehurch," as much as the Papists now do. If, then, you
should have come to an ancient Goth or Vandal, whom
the Arians converted to Christianity, and should have
moved him to your religion, might he not say the very
sarae words to you as St. Austin to the Manichseans?
*' I would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of
the church did move me. Them, therefore, whom I
obeyed, saying, 'Believe the gospel,' why should I not
obey, saying to me, ' Do not believe the Homoousians ? '
Choose what thou pleasest : if thou shalt say, ' BeUeve
the Arians,' they warn rae not to give any credit to you.
If, therefore, I believe thera, I cannot believe thee. If
thou say, ' Do not believe the Arians,' thou shalt not do
well to force me to the faith of the Homoousians,
because, by the preaching of the Arians, I believed the
gospel itself. If you say, 'You did well to believe them
commending the gospel, but you did not well to believe
them discommending the Homoousians ;' 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 easy to put these words into
the mouth of a Grecian, Abyssine, Georgian, or any
other of any religion. And I pray, bethink yourselves,
what you would say to such a one in such a case, and
imagine that we say the very same to you.
CI. And whereas you say, St. Austin may seem to
have spoken prophetically against Protestants, when he
said, " Why should I not most diligently inquire what

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 145
Christ commanded, of them hefore all others, by whose
authority Iwas moved to believe fhat Christ commanded
any good thing ?" —
Answer. I answer : Until you can show that Pro
testants believe that Christ commanded any good thing,
that is, that they believe the truth of Christian religion
upon the authority of the church of Borne, this place
must be wholly impertinent to your purpose ; which is,
to make Protestants believe your church to be the
infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of con
troversies : nay, rather, is it not directly against your
purpose ? For, why raay not a member of the church
of England, who received his baptisra, education, and
faith from the ministry of this church, say just so to
you as St. Austin here to the Manichees ? — " Why
should I not most dUigently inquire, what Christ com
manded, 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 (Fisher or
Knott, or whosoever you are) better declare to me what
He said, whom I would not have thought to have been or
to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by
you to me? This, therefore, (that Christ Jesus did
those miracles, and taught that doctrine which is con
tained evidently in the undoubted books of the New
Testament,) I 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 con
stant attestation to them. But every one may see that
you, so few, (in comparison of all those upon whose con
sent 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
H

146 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
the planting of your own doctrine, and the extirpation of
the contrary ;) lastly, so new, (in many of your doc
trines ; as in the lawfulness and expedience of debarring
the laity the sacramental cup, the lawfulness and expe
dience of your Latin 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 thera, (the con
sent of Christians which are now, and have been ever
since Christ, in the world,) that we ought to beheve
Christ ; but learn of us what Christ said,' (which contra
dict and daran all other parts of Christendom f) Why,
I beseech you ? Surely, if they were not at all, and
could not teach me any thing, I would more easfly per
suade myself, that I were not to believe in Christ, than
that I should leam any thing conceming him from any
other, than them by whom I believed him ;"* — at least,
than that I should leam what his religion was from you,
who have wronged so exceedingly his miracles and his
doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false miracles
for the confirmation of your new doctrine ; which might
give us just occasion, had we no other assurance of them
but your authority, to suspect the trae ones ; who, with
forging so many false stories, and false authors, have
taken a fair way to make the faith of all stories ques-
* This long paragraph contains St. Augustine's words as trans
lated by lilnott, who artfully enlisted them into the Popish service, as
if they had been written prophetically against Protestants. But
Chillingworth has, with still greater dexterity and reach of argument,
made the whole passage bear tremendously against the assumptions
of the Roman Catholics : I have distinguished within parentheses tlie
Amplif caticE" m'^'"'' '"¦ 'ntrnduced for this Bumose.  Edit.

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 147
twnable, if we had no other ground for our belief of
thera but your authority ; who have brought in doc
trines plainly and directly contrary to that which you
confess to be the word of Christ, and which, for the
most part, raake 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 human 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 reraain unconupted. For if you take this authority
upon you, upon the six ages last past, how shall we
know that the church of that tirae did not usurp the
same authority upon the authors of the six last ages
before thera, and so upwards until we come to Christ
hiraself? Whose questioned doctrines, none of them,
came from the fountain of apostolic tradition, but have
insinuated theraselves into the strearas, by little and
little, sorae in one age, and sorae in another, some more
anciently, some more lately, and some yet are embryos,
yet hatching, and in the shell : as the Pope's infaUi
bUity, the blessed Virgin's immaculate conception, the
Pope's power over the temporalities of kings, the doc
trine of predetermination, &c. ; all which yet are, or in
tirae may be, imposed upon Christians under the title
of " original and apostolic 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 corae
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 sorae points which the church
H 2

148 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
teaches me, and not others ; and some things which she
teaches to be ancient and certain, I plainly see to be-
new and false ; therefore, I will believe nothing at all."
Whether, I say, the foresaid grounds be not a ready
and likely way to make men conclude thus, and whether
this conclusion be not too often made in Italy, and
Spain, and France, and in England too, I leave it to
the judgment of those that have wisdom and experience.
Seeing, therefore, tbe 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, see
ing we receive not the knowledge of Christ and Scrip
tures from the church of Rome, neither from her must we
take his doctrine, or the interpretation of Scripture ?
CII. To Section xix. — In this number this argu
ment is contained : The judge of controversies ought to
he mtelligible to learned and unlearned ; the Scriptwre
is not so, and the chwrch is so ; therefore, the church is
the judge, amd not the Scripture.
CIII. To this I answer : As to be understandable is
a condition requisite to a judge, so is not that alone
sufficient to make a judge ; otherwise you might make
yourself judge of controversies, by arguing, " The Scrip
ture is not intelligible by aU, 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 section.
Such is the church, and the Scripture is not such ? but
that you would leave it to them to infer in the end,
(which, indeed, was more than you undertook in the
beginning,) " Therefore, the church is judge, and the
Scripture not ! " I say, secondly, that you stUl run upon
a false supposition ; that God hath appointed some
jud,::" "f all controversies that mav happen among

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 149
Christians, about the sense of obscure texts of Scripture ;
whereas, he has left every one to his liberty herein, in
those words of St. Paul, Quisque ahundet in sensu suO,
4"c.* I say, thirdly, whereas some Protestants make the
Scripture judge of controversies, that they have the
authority of Fathers to warrant their manner of speaking,
as of Optatus.-f
CIV. But, speaking truly and properly, the Scrip
ture 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 un
learned. 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 enor
and human frailty, is to make God a tj-rant, and to say
that he requires us certainly to attain that end, for the
attaining whereof we have no certain means ; which is
to say, that, like Pharaoh, he gives no straw, and
requires brick ; that he reaps where he sows not ; that
he gathers where he strews not ; that he wUl not be
' This is the Vulgate translation of Romans xiv. 5 : " Let every
one abound in his own sense.'* Our authorized translation from the
Greek is, with greater correctness : " Let every man be fuUy per
suaded in his own mind," or " fully assured," as it is given in the
marginal version. It is evidently quoted by Chillingworth in an
accommodated sense ; and, being a favourite scrap of Scripture with
the Papists, it is thus brought to operate against them, as a liind of
argumentum ad homines.  Edit.
-)- Contra Parmen. 1. 5, in principio.

150 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY Ri:LE
pleased with our utmost endeavours to please him, with-*
out 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
wisdora, and with his word, I leave it to honest raen 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, raeeting often
with such places where the road is divided into several
ways, whereof every one is as likely to be true, and as
likely to be false, as any other — should at length mistake
and go out of the way, would not any man say that I
were an irapotent, foolish, and unjust master, if I should
be offended with hira for doing so ? And shall we not
tremble to irapute that to God, which we would take in
foul scorn if it were imputed to ourselves ? Certainly,
I, for ray part, fear I should not love God, if I should
think so strangely ©f hira.
CV. Again : when you say, iJiat unlearned and
ignorant men cannot understand Scripture, I would
desire you to come out of the clouds, and tell us what
you raean : whether, that they cannot understand all
Scripture, or that they cannot understand any Scripture,
or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient
for their direction to heaven. If the first : I believe the
learned are in the 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 salvation : I ask
-you, first, Why then doth St. Paul say to Timothy,
" The Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salva-

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 151
•tion ? " Why does St. Austin say, Ea quce manifeste
posita sunt in sacris Scripturis, omnia continent quce
pertinent ad fidem moresque vivendi ? * Why does
every one of the four evangelists entitle their book,
" The Gospel," if any necessary and essential part ofthe
gfospel were left out of it ? Can we iraagine that either
they omitted something necessary, out of ignorance, not
knowing it to be necessary ? or, knowing it to be so,
maliciously concealed it ? or, out of negligence, did the
work they had undertaken by halves ? 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
foUows, that every one of them wrote the whole gospel
,of Christ, I mean, all the essential and necessary parts
of it : so that, if we had no other book of Scripture but
one of them alone, we should not want any thing
necessary to salvation. And what one of them has more
than another, it is only profitable and not necessary :
necessary, indeed, to be believed, because revealed ; but
not therefore revealed, because necessary to be believed.
CVL 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 wUl 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 beUeved by us.
CVII. And whereas you pretend it is so easy and
obvious, both for the learned and ignorant, both to
• " Those things which have an obvious place in the holy Scriptures,
• .toatain all the doctrmes that concern our faith and practice." — Edij-.

152 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
know which is the church, and what are the decrees tf
the church, and what is the sense of those decrees; 1 say,
this is a vain pretence.
CVIII. For, first, how shall an unleamed man,
whom you have supposed now ignorant of Scripture,
how shall he know which of all the societies of Chris-
tiahs is indeed the chUrch ? You will say, perhaps.
He must examine them by the notes ofthe chwrch, which
are perpetual visibility, succession, conformity with the
ancient church, S^c. But how shall he know, first, that
these are the notes of the church, unless by Scripture,
which, you say, he understands not ? You may say,
perhaps, he may be told so. But, seeing men may
deceive and be deceived, and their words are no demon
strations, how shall he be assured that what they say is
true ? So that at the first he meets with an impreg
nable difficulty, and cannot know the church but by Such
notes which, whether they be the notes of the church,
he cannot possibly know. But let us Suppose this
isthmus digged through, and that he is assured these
are the notes of the true church ; how can he possibly be
a competent judge Which society of Christians hath title
to these notes, and which hath not ? seeing this trial, of
necessity, requires a great sufficiency of knowledge ofthe
monuments of Christian antiquity, which no unlearned
can have, because he that hath it cannot be un
learned. As, for example : How shall he possibly he
able to know whether the church of Rorae hath had
a perpetual succession of visible professors which held
always the sarae doctrine which they now hold, without
holding any thing to the contrary, unless he hath first
examined what was the doctrine of the church in the
first age, what in the second, and so forth ? And
whether this be not a more difficult work than to stay
at the first age, and to examine the church by the con-

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 153
formity of her doctrine with the doctrine of the first age,
— every man of ordinary understanding may judge.
Let us imagine him advanced a step farther, and
to know which is the church : How shall he know what
that church hath decreed ? seeing the church hath not
been so careful in keeping of her decrees, but that many
are lost, and many corrupted. Besides, when even the
learned among you are not agreed conceming 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 hira to understand ? especiaUy seeing the
decrees of divers Popes and councils are conceived
so obscurely, that the learned cannot agree about the
sense of thera. And then they are written all in such
languages which the ignorant understand not, and,
therefore, must, of necessity, rely herein upon the
uncertain and fallible authority of some particular men,
who inform them that there is such a decree. And if
the decrees were translated into vulgar languages, why
the translators should not be as fallible as you say the
translators of Scripture are, — who can possibly imagine ?
CIX. Lastly : How shall an unleamed 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 councU, unless it
be confirmed by a trae 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 trae Pope, unless he were baptized ; and
baptized he was not, unless the minister had due inten
tion. So likewise, he cannot be a true Pope, unless he
were rightly ordained priest : and that again depends
H 5

154 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
upon the ordainer's secret intention, and also upon his
having the episcopal character. AU which things, as I
have formerly proved, depend upon so many uncer
tain suppositions, that no human judgraent can possibly
be resolved in them. I conclude, therefore, that not
the learnedest man araongst you all, no, not the Pope
himself, can, according to the grounds you go upon,
have any certainty that any decree of any councU
is good and valid ; and, consequently, not any assur
ance that it is indeed the decree of a councU.
ex. To Section xx. — Char. Main. By refer
ring controversies to Scripture alone, all is finally
reduced to the internal private spirit.
Chilling. If by a. private spirit you mean a parti
cular persuasion that a doctrine is true which some men
pretend, but cannot prove, to come from the Spirit
of God ; I say, to refer controversies to the Scripture is
not to refer tbem to this kind of private spirit. For, is
there not a manifest difference between saying, "The
Spirit of God tells me that this is the meaning of such
a text," (which no man can possibly know to be true, it
being a secret thing,) and between saying, " These and
these reasons I have to show, that this or that is trae
doctrine, or that this or that is the meaning of such a
Scripture ? " reason being a public and certain thing, and
exposed to all men's trial and examination. But now, if
by private spirit you understand every raan's particular
reason, then your first and second inconvenience will
presently be reduced to one, and shortly to none at all.
CXI. To Section xxi. — Char. Main. By tak
ing the office of judicature from the church, if is confer
red upon every particular man.
Chilling. And does not, also, giving the office of
judicature to the church come to confer it upon every
particular man ? For, before any man beheves the

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 155
(ihurch infallible, must he not have reason to induce
him to believe it to be so ? and must he not judge of
those reasons, whether they be indeed good and firm, or
captious and sophistical ? or would you have all men
believe all your doctrine upon the church's infallibility,
and the church's infallibility they know not why ?
CXII. 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 yourselves give a great many notes, which
you pretend, first, to be certain notes of the church, and
then, to be peculiar to your church, and agreeable to
none else : but you do not so much as pretend, that
either of those pretences is evident of itself; and,
therefore, you go about to prove them both by reasons :
and those reasons I hope every particular raan is to
judge of, whether they do indeed conclude and con
vince that which they are aUeged for; that is, that
these marks are indeed certain notes of the church ;
and then, that your church hath them, and no other.
CXIII. One of these notes, indeed the only note
of a true and unconupted church, is, conformity with
antiquity ; I mean, the most ancient church of all, that
is, the primitive and apostolic. Now, how is it possible
any man should exaraine your church by this note ? But
he must, by his own particular judgment, find out what
was the doctrine of the primitive church, and what
is the doctrine of the present church, and be able to
answer all these arguments which are brought to prove
repugnance between them. Otherwise, he shall but
pretend to make use of this note for the finding the
trae church, but indeed make no use of it, but receive
the church at a venture, as the most of you do, not one
, in a hundred being able to give any tolerable reason for
it. So that, instead of reducing men to particular rea-

156 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
son, you reduce them to none at all, but to chanoe, and
passion, and prejudice, and such other ways, which
if they lead one to the truth, they lead hundreds, nay,
thousands, to falsehood. But it is a pretty thing to
consider how these men can blow hot and cold out
of the same mouth, to serve several purposes. Is there
hope of gaining a proselyte ? Then they wUl tell you,
God hath given every man reason to follow ; and " if
the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch :"
That it is no good reason for a man's religion, that he
was bom 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 dis
cretion, which if they will make use of, they shall
easily find, that the true church hath always such and
such marks ; and that their church has them, and
no otlier but theirs. But then, if any of theirs be
persuaded to a sincere and sufficient trial of their
church, even by their own notes of it, and to try
whether they be indeed so conformable to antiquity
as they pretend, then their note is changed : " You must
not use your own reason, nor your judgment, but refer
all to the church, and believe her to be conformable to
antiquity," though they have no reason for it, nay,
though they have evident reason to the contrary. For
my part, I am certain that God hath given us our
reason to discern between truth and falsehood ; and he
that makes not this use of it, but believes things he
knows not why, I say, it is by chance that he believes the
truth, and not by choice ; and that I cannot but fear,
that God wUl not accept of this " sacrifice of fools."
CXIV. But you that would not have men foUow
their reason, what would you have them to foUow?
their passion ? or pluck out their eyes, and go blind
fold ? Noy you say, you would have them folkw

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 157
authority. On God's name, let them ; we also would
have thera 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 tum, and then to
come to it again ? and to do that which you condemn
in others ? it being, indeed, a plain impossibUity for
any man to submit his reason but to reason ; for he
that does it to authority, must of necessity think him
self to have greater reason to believe that authority :
tiierefore, the confession cited by Brerely, you need not
think to have been extorted from Luther and the rest.
It came very freely from thera ; and what they say, you
practise as much as they.
CXV. And whereas you say, that a Protestant
admits of Fathers, councils, church, as far as they
agree with Scripture, which, upon the matter, is him
self; I say, you admit neither of them, nor the Scrip
ture itself, 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 Protest
ants, all is finally resolved into your own reason.
CXVI. Nor do heretics only, but Romish Catholics
also, set up as many judges as there are men and women
in the Christian world : for do not your men and
women judge your religion to be true, before they
believe it, as well as the men and woraen of other reli
gions ? O, but you say. They receive it not becautse
they think it agreeable to Scripture, but hecause the
church tdls them so ! But, then, I hope they believe
the church, because their own reason tells them they are
to do so. So that the difference between a Papist and
a Protestant is this, — ^not that the one judges, and the

158 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
other does not judge, — but that the one judges his
guide to be infallible, the other, his way to be manifest.
This same pernicious doctrine is taught hy Brentius,
Zanchius, Cartwright, and others. It is so, in very
deed ; but it is taught also by sorae others, whom you
little think of : it is taught by St. Paul, where he says,
" Try all things, hold fast that which is good : " it is
taught by St. John, in these words : " Believe not
every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God
or no : " it is taught by St. Peter, in these : " Be ye
ready to render a reason of the hope that is in you : "
lastly, this very pernicious doctrine is taught by our
Saviour, in these words : " If the blind lead the blind,
both shall fall into the ditch ; " and, " Why of yoiir-
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 con
fess myself to understand nothing. Lastly, not to be
infinite, it is taught by Mr. Knott himself, not in one
page only or chapter of his book, but all his book
over ; the very writing and publishing whereof suppos
eth this for certain, that the readers are to be judges
whether his reasons which he brings be strong and con
vincing ; of which sort we have, hitherto, met with
none ; or else captious, or impertinencies, as indifferent
men shall, as I suppose, have cause to judge them.
CXVII. But you demand. What good statesmen
would they he, who should ideate or fancy such a com
monwealth, as these men liave framed to themsdves a
church ? Truly, if this be all the fault they have, that
they say, " Every man is to use his own judgment in
the choice of his religion, and not to beUeve this or that
sense of Scripture, upon the bare authority of any
leamed man or men, when he conceives he has reasons
to the contrary, which are of more weight than their

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 150
authority ; " I know no reason but, notwithstanding all
this, they might be as good statesmen as any of the
society. But what has this to do with commonwealths,
where men are bound only to external obedience unto
the laws and judgments of courts, but not to an internal
approbation of them ; no, nor to conceal their judg
ment of them, if they disapprove them ? As if I con
ceived I had reason to mislike the law of punishing
simple theft with death, as sir Thoraas More did, I
might profess lawfully my judgment, and represent my
reasons to the king or commonwealth i'h a Parliament,
as sir Thomas More did, without committing any fault,
or fearing any punishment.
CXVIII. To that place of St. Austin you cite :
(Contra Faust., lib. xxxii :) You see that you go
about to overthrow all authority of Scripture ; and that
every maris mind may be to himself a rule, what he is
to allow or disallow in every scripture ; I shall need
^ve 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 Scrip
ture 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 dis
allow the contrary? For God's sake. Sir, tell me plainly:
in those texts of Scripture which you allege for the
infallibility of your church, do not you allow what sense
you think true, and disallow the contrary ? and do you
not this by the direction of your private reason ? If
you do, why do you condemn it in others ? If you do

160 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
not, I pray you teU me what direction you foUow ? 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 wUl say, " the church's authority ; "
and that will be to dance finely in a round, thus : To
believe the church's 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 cried out at it, Ecce quas
gyros, quos mwandros ? * And to what end was this
going about, when you might as weU, at first, have con
cluded the church infallible because she says so ; as
thus to put in Scripture for a mere stale, and to say,
" The church is infaUible, because the Scripture says so;
and the Scripture means so, because the church says so,
which is infallible ? " Is it not most evident, therefore,
to every inteUigent man, that you are enforced of neces
sity to do that yourself, which so tragically you declaim
against in others ? The church, you say, is infallible :
I ara very doubtful of it : how shall I know it ? The
Scripture, you say, affirras it, as in Isaiah lix. : " My
Spirit that is in thee," &c. Well, I confess, I find
there these words ; but I am still doubtful, whether
they be spoken ofthe church of Clirist ; and if they be,
whether they mean as you pretend. You say, " The
church says so, which is infallible." Yea, but that is
the question, and, therefore, not to be begged, but
proved. Neither is it so evident as to need no proof;
otherwise, why brought you this text to prove it ? Not
* " Look here ! what meandering circles, what deceiving laby
rinths !." — Edit.

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 161
is it of such a strange quality, above all other proposi
tions, as to be able to prove itself. 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 woraan to rely on that, in the
choice of their religion, and in the interpreting of Scrip
ture, you say, is a horrible absurdity ; and, therefore,
must neither make use of your own in this matter, nor
desire me to make use of it.
CXIX. But universal tradition, you Say, and so do
I too, is of itself credible ; and that has, in all ages,
taught the churcK's infallihility with full consent. If it
have, I am ready to believe it : but that it has, I hope
-you would not have me take upon your word ; for that
were to build myself upon the church, and the church
upon you. Let, then, the tradition appear ; for a
secret tradition is somewhat like a silent thunder. You
-will, perhaps, produce, for the confirmation of it, some
sayings of some Fathers, who, in every age, taught this
doctrine ; (as Gaulterius, in his Chronology, undertakes
to do, but with so ill success, that I heard an able man
of your religion profess, that, "in the first three cen
turies, there was not one authority pertinent ; ") but
how will you warrant that none of them teach the con
trary ? Again : how shall I be assured that the places
have indeed this sense in them ? seeing there is not
one Father, for five hundred years after Christ, that
does say, in plain terms, " The church of Rome is infal
lible." What ! shall we believe your church, that this
is their meaning ? But this will be again to go into ;
the circle, which made us giddy before : to prove the
church infallible because tradition says so, — tradition to
say so, because the Fathers say so, — the Fathers to say

162 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
SO, because the church says so, which is infaUible.
Yea, hut reason will show this to be the meaning of
them. Yes, if we raay use our reason, and rely upon
it ; otherwise, as light shows nothing to the blind, or to
him that uses not his eyes, so reason cannot prove any
thing to him that either has not, or uses not, his reason
to judge of them.
CXX. Thus you have excluded yourself from all
proof of your church's infaUibUity, from Scripture or
tradition ; and if you fly, lastly, to reason itself for suc
cour, raay not it justly say to you, as Jephthah said to
his brethren, " Ye have cast me out, and banished me,
and do you now come to me for succour ? " But if
there be no certainty in reason, how shall I be assured
of the certainty of those which you allege for this pur
pose ? Either I may judge of them, or not ; if not,
why do you propose thera ? If I raay, 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 aU question,
none but unreasonable men can deny to have been the
chiefest end why reason was given them.
CXXI. To Section xxii. — " A heretic he is,"
saith Dr. 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 layman ;
be it by reading Scripture, or hearing them read."
And frora hence you infer, that he makes all these safe
propounders of faith. A most strange and iUogical
deduction ! For may not a private man, by evident
reason, convince another man, that such or such a doc
trine 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

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 163
their sermons, do they not propose to men Divine reve
lations ; and do they not sometiraes convince raen in
conscience, by evident proof from Scripture, that the
things they speak are Divine revelations ? And who
soever, being thus convinced, should oppose this Divine
revelation, should he not be a heretic, according to
your own grounds, for calling God's own trath into
question ? And would you think yourself 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 wUl, suffi
cient or insufficient, worthy of credit or not worthy,
though it were, if it were possible, the barking of a dog,
or the chirping of a bird, or were it the discourse of the
devil himself, yet if I be, I wUl not say con/vinced, but
persuaded, though falsely, that it is a Divine revelation,
and shall deny to believe it, I shall be a formal, though
not a material, heretic. For he that believes, though
falsely, any thing to be Divine revelation, and yet will
not believe it to be true, must of necessity believe God
to be false ; which, according to your own doctrine, is
the formality of a heretic.
CXXII. And how it can be any way advantageous
to civil government, that men without warrant from
God should usurp a tyranny over other men's consci
ences, and prescribe unto them without reason, and
sometimes against reason, what they shall believe, — you
must show 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, fhat a
man may he a passionate and seditious creature, from
whence you would have us infer, that he may make use
of his interpretation to satisfy his passion, and raise
sedition ; there were some colour in this consequence,
if we (as you do) made private men infallible interpre-

164 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
ters for others ; for then, indeed, they might lead disciples
after them, and use them as instruraents for their vUe
purposes ; but when we say, they can only interpret for
themselves, what harm they can do by their passionate
or seditious interpretations, but only endanger both
their temporal and eternal happiness, I cannot imagine.
For though we deny the Pope or church of Rome to
be an infallible judge, yet we do not deny but that
there are judges which may proceed with certainty
enough against all seditious persons, such as draw men
to disobedience either against church or state, as weU as
against rebels, and traitors, and thieves, and murderers.
CXXIII. To Section xxiii. The next section
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 ; there
fore there was then an infallible judge. Just as if I
should say, " York is not my way from Oxford to
London; therefore Bristol is :" or, "A dog is not a horse ;
therefore he is a man." As if God had no other ways
of revealing hiraself to men, but only by Scripture and
an infallible church ! St. Chrysostom * and Isidorus
Pelusiota conceived he might use other means. And
St. Paul telleth us, that the yvcoiTTov too ©sou [" that
which may be known concerning God " ¦}-] " might be
known by his works ; " and that " they had the law
written in their hearts." Either of these ways might
make some faithful men without either necessity of
Scripture or church.
•See Chrysostom, Hom. 1. in Mat. ; Isidore Pelus., lib. iii.
ep. 106 ; and also Basil, in Psahn xxviii., and then you shall con
fess, that by other means beside these, God did communicate himSelf
unto men, and made them receive and understand his laws ; see also,
to the same purpose, Heb. i. 1.
t Romans i. 19, 20 ; ii. 14, 15  Edit.

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 165
CXXIV. But Dr. Potter says, (you say,) ' In the
Jewish church there was a living judge, endowed with
an absolute infallihle 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. Dr. 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
privilege which you chaUenge. But it is that, not this,
which the Doctor attributes to the Jews. As a man
may truly say, " The wise men had an infallible direc
tion to Christ," without saying or thinking that they
were constrained to follow it, and could not do other
wise. CXXV. But either the church retains still her
infallihility, or it was divested of it upon the receiving
of holy Scripture; which is absurd. An argument,
methinks, like this : " Either you have homs, or you have
lost them ; but you never lost them, therefore you have
them stUl." If you say you never had homs ; so say I,-
" For aught [which] appears by your reasons, the church
never had infaUibUity."
CXXVI. But some Scriptures were received in some
places and not in others ; therefore if Scriptures were
the judge of controversies, some chwrches 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

166 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
books of Scripture which were received by those
that received fewest, had as much of the doctrine of
Christianity in them, as they all had which were
received by any ; all the necessary parts of the gospel
being contained in every one of the four Gospels, as I
have proved : so that they which had all the books of
the New Testament had nothing superfluous : for it
was not superfluous, but profitable, that the same thing
should be said divers times, and be testified by divers
witnesses : and they that had but one of the four
Gospels wanted nothing necessary ; and therefore it is
vainly inferred by you, that with months and years, as
new canonical Scriptures grew to be published, the
church altered her rule of faith and judge of con
troversies. CXXVII. Heresies, you say, would arise after the
apostles'' time, and after the writing of Scriptures :
these cannot he discovered, condemned, and avoided,
unless the church be infallihle ; therefore there must he
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 rale
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 heresy: seeing heresy is nothing but a
raanifest deviation frora, and an opposition to, the faith.
That which is straight wUl plainly teach us what is
crooked ; and one contrary cannot but manifest the
other. If any one should deny that there is a God;.
that this God is omnipotent, omniscient, good, just,
true, merciful, a rewarder of them that seek him, a
punisher of them that obstinately offend him ; that-
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the
world ; that it is he, by obedience, to whora men
must look to be saved ; — if any man should deny either

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 167
his birth, or passion, or resunection, or ascension, or
sitting at the right hand of God ; his having all power
given him in heaven and earth ; that it is he whom God
hath appointed to be Judge of the quick and the dead ;
that all men shall rise again at the last day ; that they
which believe and repent shall be saved ; that they
which do not believe or repent shall be damned ; — if a
man should hold, that either the keeping of the
Mosaical law is necessary to salvation, or that good
works are not necessary to salvation ; — in a word, if any
man should obstinately contradict the truth of any
thing plainly delivered in Scripture, who does not see,
that every one which believes the Scripture hath a suffi
cient means to discover, and condemn, and avoid that
heresy, without any need of an infallible guide ? If
you say, that the obscure places of Scriptwre contain
matters of faith : I answer, that it is a matter of faith
to believe that the sense of thera, whatsoever it is,
which was intended by God is true ; for he that does
not do so, calls God's trath into question. But to believe
this or that to be the true sense of them, or, to believe
the true sense of thera, and to avoid the false, is not
necessary either to faith or salvation. For, if God
would have had his raeaning in these places certainly
known, how could it stand with his wisdom, to be so
wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely ?
or, how can it consist with his justice, to require of
men to know certainly the meaning of those words
which he himself hath not revealed ? Suppose there
there were an absolute monarch, that, in his own absence
from one of his kingdoras, 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 dUigence

168 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
to find his meaning in them, and obey them according
to the sense of them which they conceived; should
this king either with justice or wisdom be offended
with these subjects, if, by reason of the obscurity of
them, they mistook the sense of them, and fail of per
formance, by reason of their enor ?
CXXVIII. But, It is more useful and fit, you say,
for the deciding of controversies, to have, besides an
infallihle rule to go hy, a living infallible judge to
determine them : and from hence you conclude, that cer
tainly there is such a judge. But why then may not
another say, that it is yet more useful for many excel
lent purposes, that all the patriarchs should be infaUi
ble, 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 use
ful, if all the bishops in every diocess 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 exceUent, if all tbe fathers of &milies were
so ? and, lastly, another, that it were much more to be
desired, that every man and every woman were so?
just as rauch as the prevention of controversies is better
than the decision of thera, and the prevention of here
sies better than the condemnation of them ; and upon
this ground conclude, by your own very consequence,
That not only a general council, nor only the Pope,
but all the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, pastors,
fathers, nay, aU the men in the world are infallible ! If
you say now, as I ara sure you will, that " this conclu
sion is most gross, and absurd against sense and expe
rience," then must also the ground be false from which
it evidently and undeniably follows ; namely, that that
course of dealing with men seems always more fit to

FOE JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 169
Divine Providence, which seems most fit to human'
reason. CXXIX. And so, like-wise, that there should men
succeed the apostles, which could show theraselves to
be their successors, by doing of miracles, by speaking
aU kind of languages, by delivering men to Satan, as
SL Paul did Hymenseus and the incestuous Corinthian,
it is manifest in huraan reason it were incomparably
more fit and useful for the decision of controversies,
than that the successor of the apostles should have none
of these gifts, and, for want of the signs of apostle-
ship, be justly questionable whether he be his succes
sor or no : and will you now conclude, that the Popes
have the gift of doing miracles, as well as the apostles
had? CXXX. It were in all reason very useful and requi-
a.te, that the Pope should, by the assistance of God's
Spirit, be freed from the vices and passions of men,
lest otherwise the authority given him for the good of
the church he might employ (as divers Popes, you well
know, have done) to the disturbance, and oppression,
and mischief of it. And will you conclude from hence,
that Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of
other men? that there never have been ambitious,
covetous, lustful, tyrannous Popes ?
CXXXL Who sees not, that for men's direction,
it were much more beneficial for the church, that infalli-
biUty should be settled in the Pope's person, than in a
general council ? that so the means of deciding contro
versies might be speedy, easy, and perpetual ; whereas
that of general councUs is not so. And will you hence
infer, that not the church representative, but the Pope,
as indeed the infallible judge of controversies ? Cer
tainly, if you should, the Sorbonne Doctors would not
think this a good conclusion.

170 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
CXXXII. It had been very commodious (one
would think) that, seeing either God's pleasure was
[that] the Scripture should be translated, or else in his
Providence he knew it would be so, that he had
appointed sorae 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.
CXXXIII. 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.
CXXXIV. It had been most requisite (one would
think) that the copies of the Bibles should have been
preserved free from variety of readings ; which makes
men very uncertain, in many places, which is the word
of God, and which is the error or presumption of mau :
and yet, we see, God hath not thought fit so to provide
for us.
CXXXV. Who can conceive, but that an apostolic
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 Chris
tians would not accept of the Pope for the judge of
controversies : and yet, we see, God hath not so ordered
the matter.
CXXXVI. Who doth not see, that, supposing the
bishop of Rome had been appointed head ofthe church
and judge of controversies, that it would have been
infinitely beneficial to the church, perhaps as rauch as
all the rest of the Bible, that, in some book of Scripture
which was to be undoubtedly received, this one propo-

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 171
sition had been set down in terras .'' — " The bishops of
Rorae shall be always raonarchs of the church, and
they, either alone or with their adherents, the guides
of faith, and the judges of controversies that shall
arise araongst Christians." This, if you will deal
ingenuously, you cannot but acknowledge ; for then
all true Christians would have subraitted to hira, as wil
lingly as to Christ hiraself ; neither needed you and your
feUows have troubled yourself to invent so many so
phisms for the proof of it. There would have been
no raore doubt of it among Christians than there is of
the nativity, passion, resurrection, or ascension of Christ.
You were best now [to] rub your forehead hard, and
conclude upon us, that, because this would have been
so useful to have been done, therefore it is done. Or
if you be (as I know you are) too ingenuous to say so,
then must you acknowledge, that the ground of your
argument, which is the very ground of all these absur
dities, is most absurd ; and that it is our duty to be
hurably thankful for those sufficient, nay, abundant,
means of salvation which God hath of his own good
ness granted us ; and not conclude, he hath done that
which he hath not done, because, forsooth, in our vain
judgraents it seems convenient he should have done so.
CXXXVII. But you deraand what repugnance
there is betwixt infallibilityin the church, and existence
of Scripture, ihat fhe 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
jio repugnance between the Scripture's existence and the
church's infallibility ; therefore, the church is infallible."
Which consequence will then be good, when you can
show, that nothing can be untrue but that only which is
impossible; that whatsoever maybe done, that also is
done. Which, if it were true, would conclude boik
I 2

172 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
you and me to be infallible, as well as either your
church or Pope : inasrauch as there is no more repug
nance between the Scripture's existence and our infalli-»
bility, than there is between theirs.
CXXXVIII. Objection. But if Protestants
will have the Scripture alone for their judge, let them
first produce some Scripture, affirming, that, hy tha
entrance thereof, infallihility went out of the church.
Answer. This argument put in form rans thus :
" No Scripture affirms, that, by the entering 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 entering of it, infaUibility
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 infaUible guides.
CXLI. But the Jewish chwrch retained infallihility
in herself; and therfore it is unjust to dqn-ivi ihe
church of Christ of it.
Answer. That the Jews had sometimes au infaUi
ble miraculous direction from God, in some cases Of
moment, he * doth affirra and had good warrant : but
that the synagogue was a.bsolutely infallible, he no
where affirms, and therefore it is unjustiy and unwor
thily done of you to obtrude it upon him. And,
indeed, how Can the infallibility of the synagogue be
conceived, but Only by settling it in the high priest,
and the company adhering and subordinate unto him ?
and whether the high priest was infallible, when he
• Dr. Potter.— Edit.

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 173
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 logic constrain him
to appoint such a one to Christians also, or say unto
him, that in wisdom he could not do otherwise ? Vain
man, that will be thus always tying God to your imagi
nations ! It is well for us that he leaves us not without
directions to him ; but if he wUl do this sometimes by
living guides, sometimes by written rules, what is that
to you ? May not he do what he will do with his
own ?
CXLIV. To Section xxiv.- — Neither is this dis
course (if you mean your conclusion, that your church
is the infallible judge in controversies) confirmed by
Irenseus at all. For neither has Irenseus 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 tradi
tion ? " and in saying, " That to this order many
nations yield assent, who believe in Christ, having sal
vation written in their hearts, by the Spirit of God, with
out letters or ink, and diligentiy keeping ancient tradi
tion : " (Iren. lib. iii. cap. 3 :) doth he not plainly show,
that the tradition he speaks of is nothing else but the
very same that is written ; nothing but to believe in
Christ ? To which, whether Scripture alone, to them
that believe it, be not a sufficient guide, I leave it to
you to judge. And are not his words just as if a man
should say ?— " If God had not given us the light of the
sun, we must have made use of candles and torches ; if
we had had no eyes, we must have felt out our way ; if we

174 scripture the only rule
had [had] no legs, we must have used crutches." And
doth not this in effect iraport, that, while we have the
sun, we need no candles ; whUe we have our eyes, we
need not feel out our way ; while we enjoy our legs,
we need not crutches ? And by like reason, Irenseus,
in saying, " If we had no Scripture, we must have fol
lowed 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 contam
evidentiy the whole tradition. Which whether Irenseus
believed or no, these words of his may inforra you, Non
en'lm per alios, S^-c. " We have received the disposi
tion of our salvation from no others, but from them by
whom the Gospel carae 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
Bellarraine'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 doc
trine, sorae things are simply necessary for the salvation
of all raen ; as the knowledge of the articles of the
Apostles' Creed ; and, besides, the knowledge of the
Ten Coraraandments, and some of the sacraments.
Other things not so necessary, but that a roan raay be
saved without the explicit knowledge, and belief, and
profession of them." His second note is, " That those
things which were simply necessary, the apostles were
wont to preach to all men ; but of other things not all
to all, but something to aU, 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.

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 175
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 Irenseus says, that the
apostles wrote what they preach in the world, it is
true," saith he, " and not against traditions, because
they preached not to the people aU things, but only
those things which were necessary or profitable for
them."* CXLV. 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 suppo
sition, — 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 con
trary. CXLVI. Neither — because (as he says) it was " then
easy to receive the trath from God's church," then, in
the age next after the apostles, then, when all the
ancient and apostolic churches were at an agreement
about the fundamentals of faith — will it therefore follow
that now, sixteen hundred years after, when the ancient
churches are divided almost into as many religions as
they are churches, every one being the chwrch to itself,
ahd heretical to all other, that it is as easy, but ex
tremely difficult or rather irapossible, to find the church,
first, independently of the trae doctrine, and then to
find the truth by the church.
CXLVIII. Neither wUl the "apostles depositing
with the church all things belonging to truth," be any
proof that the church shaU 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,
" Beliaem., de Verbo Dei, lib. iv., cap. 11.

176 scripture the only rule
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 Tiraothy, and by him consigned to other
faithful men ; and yet St. Paul thought it not super
fluous, 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 Irenseus says,
" The apostles fully deposited in the church all trath,"
yet he says not, neither can we infer from what he says,
that the church should always infaUibly keep this d^o-
situm entire without the loss of any trath, and sincere
without the mixture of any falsehood.
CLXIX. To Section xxv. — Charity Main
tained proceeds and tells us. That, beside all this,
the doctrine of Protestants is destructive of itself. For
either they have certain and infallihle 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 deter
mine all controversies of faith ; and so they may he
and are judges of controversies, although they 'use the
Scripture as a rule : and thus, against their own doc
trine, they constitute another judge of controversies
beside Scripture alone.
Chilling. And may not we with as much reason
substitute "chuich and Papists," instead of Scripture and
Protestants, and say unto you ? — " Beside all this, the
doctrine of Papists is destructive of itself. For either
they have certain and infaUible means not to en, in the
choice of the church, and interpreting her decrees, or
they have not : if not, then the church to them cannot

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 177
be a sufficient — but merely a fantastical — ground for
infallible faith, nor a meet judge of controversies : for
unless I be infallibly sure that the church is infaUible,
how can I be upon her authority infallibly sure that
any thing she says is infallible ? If they have certain
infaUible means, and so cannot err in the choice of their
church, and in interpreting her decrees, then they are
able with infaUibUity 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 contro
versies, besides tbe church alone." Nay, every one
makes himself a chooser of his own religion, and of his
own sense of the church's decrees : which very thing in
Protestants they so highly condemn, and so, in judging
others, condemn themselves.
CL. Neither, in saying thus, have I only cried quit
tance with you : but that you may see how much you
are in my debt, I wUl show unto you, that, for your
sophism against our way, I have given you a demon
stration against yours. First, I say, your argument
against us is a transparent faUacy. The first part of it
lies thus : " Protestants have no means to interpret,
without error, obscure and ambiguous places of Scrip-
ture ; therefore plain places of Scripture cannot be to
them a sufficient ground of faith." But though we
pretend not to certain means of not ening in interpret
ing all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure
and ambiguous, yet this methinks should be no impedi
ment 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
I 5

lio SCnii'TURE THE ONLY RULE
understand what I or any man else says ? They thaf
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 thera ? If they could, why m.ay we
not be as well assured, that we understand sufficiently
what we conceive plain in their writings ?
CLI. Again : I pray tell us, whether you do cer
tainly 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 ?
CLII. And now, to corae to the other part of your
dileraraa : in saying. If they have certain means, and
so cannot err, methinks you forget yourself very much,
and seera to make no difference between having certain
means to do a thing, and the actual doing of it: As if
you should conclude, " Because all men have certain
means of salvation, therefore, all men certainly must be
saved, and cannot do otherwise : " as if whosoever had a
horse must presently get up and ride : whosoever had
means to find out a way could not neglect those means,
and so mistake it ! God be thanked that we have suffi
cient raeans to be certain enough of the truth of our
fciith. But the privUege of not being in possibiUty of
erring, — thatwe chaUenge not; because we have as Uttle
reason as you to do so, and you have none at aU. If
you ask, "Seeing we may possibly err, how can we be

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 179
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 dreamed.
But this I am sure of, as sure as that God is good, —
that he wiU require no impossibilities of us, not an
infiiUible nor a certainly-unening belief, unless he hath
^ven us certain means to avoid enor ; and if we use
those which we have, will never require of us that we
use that which we have not.
CLIII. Now, from this mistaken ground, that it is
all one to have means of avoiding enor, and to be in no
danger nor possibility of enor, you infer upon us as
an absurd conclusion, that we make oursehes able to
determine controversies of faith with infallihility, and
judges of controversies. For the latter part of this
inference, we acknowledge and embrace it ; we do
make ourselves 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 crirae, is coraraon
to us with you, as I have proved above; and the differ
ence is, not that we are choosers, and you not choosers,
but that we, as we conceive, choose wisely, but you,
bemg wilfuUy blind, choose to follow those that are so
too, not remembering what our Saviour hath told you ;
" When the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into
the ditch." But then again I must tell you, you have
done Ul to confound together judges and infaUible
judges ; unless you will say, either that we have no
judges in our courts of civU judicature, or that they
are all infallible.
CLIV. Thus have we cast off your dUemma, and
broken both the horns of it. But now my retortion

180 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
lies heavy upon you, and will not be tumed off. For,
first, you content not yourselves with a moral certainty
of the things you believe ; nor with such a degree
of assurance of them as is sufficient to produce obe
dience 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 raan 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 church's infallibility, unless they
have some infallible means to know that she is infalli-r
ble ? Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility
of this means but by some other, and so on for ever ;
unless they can dig so deep as to corae at length to the
rock, that is, to settle all upon soraething evident of itself,
which is not so much as pretended. But the last reso
lution of all is into motives, which, indeed, upon exami
nation, wUl scarce appear probable, but are not so much
as avouched to be any raore than very credible. For
example : if I ask you why you do believe transubstan
tiation, what can you answer, but, "Because it is a revela
tion of the prime verity ? " I demand again. How can
you assure yourself of 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

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 181
the church says so which is infallible ?" Ifl ask, What
mean you by your " church ? " you can tell me nothing
but " the company of Christians which adhere to the
Pope." I deraand, then, lastly. Why should I believe
this company to be the infaUible propounder of Divine
revelation ? And then you tell me, that " there are
many motives to induce a man to this belief." But aie
these motives, lastiy, infallible ? " No," say you ; " but
very credible." Well, let them pass for such, because
now we have not leisure to exaraine thera. Yet,
methinks, seeing the motives to believe the church's
infallibility are only very credible, it should also be but
as credible that your church is infaUible ; and as credi
ble, and no more, perhaps somewhat less, that her
proposals, particularly transubstantiation, are Divine
revelations. And methinks you should require only
a moral and modest assent to them, and not a Divine,
as you call it, and infallible faith. But then, of these
motives to the church's infallibility I hope you wUl
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 im
peached, and opposed with compulsives and enforce
ments 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's sake,
to call your religion so. If we may not judge of these
things, how can my judgraent be moved with that
which comes not within its cognizance ? If I may,
then, at least I am to be a judge of all these controver
sies : 1. Whether every one of these motives be indeed
a motive to any church. 2. If to some, whether to
yours. 3. If to yours, whether sufficient, or insuffi
cient. 4. Whether other societies have not as many

182 SCRIPTURE THE OXLY RULE
and as great motives to draw me to them. 5. Whe
ther 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 suffi
cient 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 fourteen or
fifteen. 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 judgraent, 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 pro
per and perpetual to it. So that, for aught I can see,
judges we are and must be of all sides, every one for
himself,- and God for us all.
CLV. To Section xxvi. — Char. Main. Task,
whether this assertion (Scripture alone is judge of all
controversies in faith) be a fundamental point of faith
or no ?
Chilling. I answer: This assertion, that ^Scrjptore
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
falsehood. It is not a judge of controversies, but a rale
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 evi-

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 183
dently true, or evidentiy 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 Scrip
ture, Scripture alone, and no unwritten doctrine, nor
no infaUibility of any church, having attestation from
tradition truly universal ; — for this reason, we conceive, as
the apostles' persons, while they were living, were the
only judges of controversies ; so their writings, now
they are dead, are the only rule for us to judge them
by ; there being nothing unwritten which can go in
upon half so fair cards for the title of apostolic tradition
as these things which, by the confession of both sides,
are not so ; I mean, the doctrine of the Millenaries,
and of the necessity of the eucharist for infants.
CLVI. Yet when we say, " The Scripture is the
only rule to judge all controversies by," methinks you
should easily conceive, that we would be understood of
all those that are possible to be judged by Scripture,
and of those that arise among such as believe the
Scripture. For if I had a controversy 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 raust needs
doubt whether the Scripture be the word of God ; or,
if he does not, he grants the question, and is not the
man we speak of. So likewise, if I had a controversy
about the truth of Christ with a Jew, it would be
vainly done of me should I press him with the autho
rity of the New Testament, which he believes not,
until, out of some principles common to us both, I had
persuaded him that it is the word of God. The New
Testament, therefore, while he remains a Jew, would
pot be a fit rule to decide this controversy ; inasmuch

184 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
as that which is doubted of itself, 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 sup
position ; for I may believe a book of St. Austin 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 itself.
When, therefore, we say, " The Scripture is a sufficient
means to determine all controversies," we say not this
either to atheists, Jews, Turks, or such Christians (if
there be any such) as believe not Scripture to be the
word of God. But araong 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 deterrained by Scripture : in a word : that aU
things necessary to be believed are evidently contained
in Scripture ; and what is not there evidently contained
cannot be necessary to be believed. And our reason
hereof is convincing : " Because nothing can challenge
our belief but what hath descended to us from Christ
by original and universal tradition ; now, nothing but
Scripture hath thus descended to us ; therefore,
nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief." Now
then, to come up closer to you, and to answer to your
question, not as you put it, but as you should have put
it, I say, that this position, " Scripture alone is the
rule whereby they which believe it to be God's word
are to judge all controversies in faith," is no funda
raental point, though not for your reasons : for, your
first and strongest reason, you see, is plainly voided

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 185
and cut off, by ray 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 he 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
sorae 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 pre
judice, and with a settled resolution not to believe
any thing which these means happily may suggest into
you, if it any way cross your preconceived persuasion
of your church's infallibility. You give not yourselves
liberty of judgment in the use of them, nor suffer 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.
CLVII. You pray, but it is not that God would
bring you to the trae religion, but that he would con
firm you in your own. You confer places, but it is
that you may confirm, or colour over with plausible dis
guises, your erroneous doctrine ; not that you may
judge of them and forsake them, if there be reason
for it. You consult the originals, but you regard

186 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
them not when they make against your doctrine or
translation. CLIX. Notwithstanding, though not for these rea
sons, yet for others, I conceive this doctrine not funda
mental ; because, if a man should believe Christian
religion wholly and entirely, and live according to ,it,
such a man, though he should not know or not believe
the Scripture to be a rule of faith, no, nor to be the
word of God, my opinion is, he may be saved ; and my
reason is, because he performs the entire condition of
the new covenant, which is, that we believe the matter
of the Gospel, and not that it is contained in these or
these books : so that the books of Scripture are not so
much the objects of our faith as the instruments of con
veying it to our understanding ; and not so rauch of the
being of the Christian doctrine, as requisite to the well-
being of it. Irenseus tells us (as Mr. Knott acknow
ledgeth) 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
miglit be saved ; therefore, men might be saved with
out believing the Scripture to be the word of God,
much more without believing it to be a rule, and a per
fect rale, 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 prac
tice of Christianity, they might be saved ; God requir
ing 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

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES. 187
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 VIIL, king of England, as that
Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius PUate ; yet this is
necessary to be believed, and fhat is not so. So that if
any man should doubt of or disbelieve that, it were most
unreasonably done of hira ; yet it were no mortal sin, nor
no sin at all, — God having no where coraraanded men
under pain of daranation to believe all which reason
induceth them to believe. Therefore, as an executor,
that should perform the whole will of the dead, should
fully satisfy the law, though he did not believe that
parehinent to be his written will, which indeed is. so;
so, I believe that he who believes all the particular doc
trines which integrate Christianity, and lives according
to thera, should be saved, though he neither believed
nor knew that the Gospels were written by the evan
gelists, or the epistles by the apostles.
CLX. This discourse, whether it be rational and
concluding or no, I submit to better judgraent; but
sure I ara, that the corollary which you draw from this
position, thaf 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, raay err in points not
fundaraental." A pretty sophism, depending upon this
principle, that whosoever possibly may en, he cannot be
certain that he doth not err ! And, upon this ground,
what shall hinder me from concluding, that, seeing you
also hold, that neither particular churches nor private
men are infallible even in fundamentals, that even the

188 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RULE
fundamentals of Christianity remain to you uncertain ?
A judge may possibly err in judgment ; can he there
fore never have assurance that he hath judged right ? A
traveller may possibly mistake his way ; must I there
fore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from ray
hall to my chamber ? Or can our London canier 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.
CLXIII. To Section xxvii.— Char. Main.
St. Austin plainly affirms, that to oppose the chvrcVs
definitions is to resist God himself, (speaking of the
controversy of rebaptization, " De Unit. Eccl.,
cap. xxii.) where he saith, that Christ bears witness to
his church ; and whosoever refuseth to follow the prac
tice ofthe church, doth resist our Saviour himsdf, who,
hy his testimony, recommends the church, Sfc.
Chilling. I answer : First, that in many things you
will not be tried by St. Augustine's judgment, nor sub
mit to his authority ; — not conceming appeals to Rome ;
not concerning transubstantiation ; not touching the use
and worshipping of images ; not concerning the state of
saints' souls before the day of judgraent ; not touching
the Virgin Mary's freedora from actual and original sin ;
not touching the necessity of the eucharist for infants ;
not touching the damning infants to hell that die with
out baptism ; not touching the knowledge of saints
departed ; not touching purgatory ; not touching the
fallibUity of councils, even general councils ; not touch
ing perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters
necessary to salvation ; not touching auricular confes
sion ; not touching the half communion ; not touching
prayers in an unknown tongue. In these things, I say, you

FOR JUDGING CONTROVERSIES.

189

will not stand to St. Austin's judgraent ; and, therefore,
can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this
matter. 2. To St. Augustine in heat of disputation
against the Donatists, and ransacking all places for
arguments against them, we oppose St. Austin out of
this heat, delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmly
and moderately; where he says. In iis quce aperte
posita sunt in sacris Scripturis, omnia ea reperiuntur
quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi.* 3. We say, He
speaks not of the Roman but the catholic church, of
far greater extent, and therefore of far greater credit and
authority, than the Roman church. 4. He speaks of a
point not expressed, but yet not contradicted, by Scrip
ture ; whereas, the errors we charge you with are con
tradicted by Scripture. 5. He says not, that Christ has
recommended the church to us for " an infaUible 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 ageis,") though he be thought to resist
our Saviour, what* that to us, who cast off no practices
of the church, but such as are evidentiy post-nate to the
time of the apoStles, and plainly contrary to the prac
tice of former and purer times ? Lastly, it is evident,
and even to impudence itself undeniable, that, upon this
ground (of believing all things taught by the present
church as taught by Christ) enor was held; for
example, the necessity of the eucharist for infents, and
that in St. Austin's time, and that by St. Austin him
self: and, therefore, without controversy, this is no
certain ground for trath, which may support falsehood as
well as truth.
CLXIV. To the argument wherewith you conclude
* For a translation, see the note in page 151.

190 SCRIPTURE THE ONLY RCLE, &C.
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 raay sometimes add to
this revelation things superfluous, nay, hurtful, nay, in
theraselves damnable, though not unpardonable ; and
sometimes take from it things very expedient and profit
able ; 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 visible church was
extant when Luther hegan, whether it were the Boman
or Protestant churdi ? as if it must of necessity
either be Protestant or Roman, or Roraan of necessity,
if it were not Protestant ! Yet this is the raost usual
fallacy of all your disputers, — by some specious argu
ments to persuade weak men that the church of Pro
testants cannot be the true church ; and thence to infer,
that, without doubt, it must be the Roraan. But why
may not the Roraan 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 ; tinless it be, that
she is poor, and oppressed by the Turk, and you are in
glory and splendour.

POINTS FUNDAMENTAL & NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 191
CHAPTER III.
THE ANSWER TO THE THIRD CHAPTER.
Wherein it is maintained, that the Distinction of Points Fun-
dammtal and not Fundamental, is, in this present Contro
versy, good and pertinent : and that (lie catholic Church
may err in the latter Kind ofthe said Points.
' I, This distinction is employed by Protestants to
many purposes, and, therefore, if it be pertinent and
good, (as they understand and apply it,) the whole
edifice built thereon must be either firra and stable, or,
if it be not, it cannot be for any default in this dis
tinction. II. If you object to them discords in matter of faith
without any means of agreement, they wUl answer you,
that they want not good and solid means of agreeraent
in matters necessary to salvation, namely, their belief of
all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly deli
vered in Scripture ; (which whoso believes must, of
necessity, believe all things necessary to salvation ;) and
their mutual suffering one another, " to abound in their
several sense," in matters not plainly and undoubtedly
there delivered. And for their agreement in all contro- j
versies of religion, either they have raeans to agree
about thera, or not : if you say they have, why did you
before deny it ? If they have not raeans, why do you
find fault with them for not agreeing ?
III. You wiU say that their fault is, that, by remain
ing Protestants they exclude themselves from the means
of agreement, which you have, and which, by submis
sion to your church, they raight have also. But if you
have means of agreement, the raore shame for you that
you still disagree ! For who, I pray, is more inexcusa-

192 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
bly guilty, for the omission of any duty ; — they that
either have no raeans to do it, or else know of none
they have, which puts them in the same case as if they
had none ; — or they which profess to have an easy and
expedite means to do it, and yet still leave it undone ?
" 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."
IV. If you say, you do agree in matters of faith, I
say. This is ridiculous : for you define matters of iaith 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 i" Do not they agree in those things wherein
they do agree ?
V. But you are all agreed tiiat only those things
wherein you do agree are matters of faith. And Pro
testants, if they were wise, would do so too. Sure I
am, they have reason enough to do so ; seeing all of
them agree with explicit faith in all those things which
are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture, that
is, in all which God hath plainly revealed ; and with an
implicit faith in that sense of the whole Scripture
which God intended, whatsoever it was. Secondly, that
which you pretend is false ; for else, why do some of
you hold it against faith, to take or allow the Oath of
AUegiance ? others as learned and honest as they, that
it is against faith and unlawful to refuse it and aUow
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 defide,
that the blessed Virgin was free from actual sin, others
that it is not so ; some, that the Pope's indirect power
over princes in temporalities is de fide, others the
contrary ; some, that it is universal tradition, and con-

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 193
sequentiy de fide, that the Virgin Mary was conceived
in original sin, others the contrary.
VI. But what shall we say now ? If you be not agreed
touching your pretended raeans of agreeraent, how then
can you pretend to unity, either actual or potential,
more than Protestants raay ? Some of you say, the
Pope alone, without a council, may determine all con
troversies ; but others deny it. Some, that a general
councU, without a Pope, may do so ; others deny this.
Some, both in conjunction are infallible determiners ;
others, again, deny this. Lastiy : sorae araong you
hold the acceptation of the decrees of councils by the
universal church to be the only way to decide contro
versies ; which others deny, by denying the church to
be infallible. And, indeed, what way of ending contro
versies can this be, when either part raay pretend that
they are part of the church, and they receive not the
decree, therefore the whole church hath not received it ?
VII. Again : means of agreeing differences are either
rational and well-grounded, and of God's appointment,
or voluntary, and taken up at the pleasure of raen.
Means of the forraer nature, we say, you have as little
as we ; for where hath God appointed that the Pope, or
a council, or a council confirmed by the Pope, or that
society of Christians which adhere to him, shall be the
infallible judge of controversies ? I desire you to show
any one of these assertions plainly set down in Scrip
ture, (as, in all reason, a thing of this nature should be,)
or at least delivered with a full consent of Fathers, or
at least taught in plain terms by any one Father, for
four hundred years after Christ. And if you cannot do
this, as I am sure you cannot, and yet will still be
obtruding yourselves upon us for our judges, who will nol
cry out, periisse frontem de rebus, " that you have lost
all modesty ? " K

194 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
VIII. But, then, for raeans of the other kind, such
as yours are, we have great abundance of them. For,
besides all the ways which you have devised, which we
may make use of when we please, we have a great many
more which you yet have never thought of, for which
we have as good colour out of Scripture, as you have
for yours. For, first, we could, if we would, try it by
lots, whose doctrine is true, and whose false. And you
know it is written : " The lot is cast into the lap ; but
the whole disposition of it is from the Lord." (Prov.
xvi. 33.) Secondly : we could refer them to the king,
and you know it is written : " A divine sentence is in
the lips of the king : his mouth transgresseth not in
judgment." (Prov. xvi. 10.) " The heart of the king
is in the hand of tbe Lord." (Prov. xxi. 1.) We
•could refer the matter to any assembly of Christians
asserabled in the name of Christ, seeing it is written :
" Where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the raidst of them." (Matt.
xviii. 20.) We raay refer it to any priest, because it is
written : " The priests' lips shallpreserve knowledge ; "
(Mal. ii. 7;) "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in
Moses's chair," &c. (Matt, xxiii. 2.) — To any preacher
of the gospel, to any pastor, or doctor ; for to every one
of them Christ hath promised, " He wUl be with them
always, even to the end of the world ; " (Matt, xxviii.
20 ;) and of every one of thera it is said, " He that
heareth you, heareth rae," &c. (Luke x. 16.) — To any
bishop or prelate ; for it is written : " Obey your pre
lates :" (Heb. xin. 17:) and, again : " He hath given
pastors and doctors, &c., lest we should be carried
about with every wind of doctrine." (Eph. iv. 11.) —
To any particular church of Christians, seeing it is a
particular church which is called " the house of God, a
pillar and ground of truth ; " (1 Tim. iii. 15 ;) and

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 195
seeing of any particular church it is written : " He that
heareth not the church, let him be unto thee as a
Heathen or a publican." (Matt, xviii. 17.) We might
refer it to any man that prays for God's Spirit ; for it is
written: "Every one that asketh receiveth;" (Matt.
vii. 8 ;) and, again : " If any man want wisdom, let hira
ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and
upbraideth not." (James i. 5.) Lastly : we might refer
it to the Jews ; for, without all doubt, of them it is
written : " My Spirit that is in thee," &c. (Isaiah
lix. 21 .) All these means of agreement, whereof not
any one but hath as much probability from Scripture,
as that which you obtrude upon us, offer themselves
upon a sudden to me. Haply many more might be
thought on, if we had time ; but these are enough to
show, that would we make use of voluntary and devised
means to deterraine differences, we had thera in great
abundance. And if you say, these would fail us, and
contradict theraselves ; so, as we pretend, have yours.
There have been Popes against Popes, councils
against councils, councils confirmed by Popes against
councUs confirraed by Popes ; lastly, the church of
sorae ages against the church of other ages.
IX. Lastly : whereas you find fault, that Protestants,
upbraided with their discords, answer that they differ
only in points nof 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 yourselves their more
and greater differences from you ?
X. But they are convinced sometimes even hy their
X 2

196 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
own confessions, that fhe ancient Fathers faught divers
points of Popery : and then fhey reply, those Fathers
may nevertheless he saved, hecause those errors were not
fundamental. And may not you also be convinced by
the confessions of your own men, that the Fathers
taught divers points held by Protestants against the
church of Rorae, 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 con
fession of your Doway divines plain and full to the
sarae 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 an one with which a man
may possibly be saved ? So that stiU you proceed in
condemning others for your own faults, and urging
arguments against us, which retum more strongly upon
yourselves. XI. But your will is, we should remember that
Christ must always have a visible chwrch.
Answer. Your pleasure shall be obeyed, on condi
tion you wUl 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
catholic church cannot perish, yet that she may and did
err in points not fundamental ; and that Protestants were
obliged to forsake these errors of the church, as they
did, though not the church for her enors ; for that they
did not, but continued stUl members of the church.
For it is not all one, (though you perpetually confound
them,) to forsake the errors of the church, and to fer-
sake the church : or to forsake the church in her errors,
and simply fo forsake the church : no more than it is
for rae to renounce my brother's or my friend's vices or

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 197
errors, and to renounce ray brother or ray friend. The
former, then, was done by Protestants, the latter was
not done. Nay, not only not from the catholic, but
not so much as from the Roman, did they separate per
omnia, but only in those practices which they con
ceived superstitious or impious. If you would at this
time propose a forra of Liturgy, which both sides hold
lawful, and then they would not join with you in this
Liturgy, you raight have sorae colour then to say, they
renounce your communion absolutely. But, as things
are now ordered, they cannot join with you in prayers,
but they must partake with you in unlawful practices ;
and, for this reason, they (not absolutely, but thus far)
separate from your communion : and this, I say, they
were obliged to do under pain of damnation. Not as
if it were damnable to hold an error not da/mnable, but
because it is damnable outwardly to profess and main
tain it, and to join with others in the practice of it,
when inwardly they did not hold it. Now had they
continued in your comraunion, that they must have
done ; namely, have professed to believe and extemally
practised your enors, whereof they were convinced that
they were errors : which though the matters of the
enors had been not necessary, but only profitable,
whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and
hypocrisy, I leave it to you to judge. You yourself
tell us, within two pages after this, that you are obliged
never to speak any one least lie against your knowledge :
(sect, ii.) now what is this but to live in a perpetual
lie? XII. As for that which in the next place you seem
so to wonder at, that both Catholics and Protestants,
according to the opinion of Protestants, may he saved
in iheir several professions, hecause, forsooth, we both
agree in all fimdammtal points : I answer, This propo-

198 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
sition so crudely set down, as you have here set it
down, I know no Protestant will justify. For you
seem to make them teach, that it is an indifferent
thing, for the attainment of salvation, whether a man
believe the trath or the falsehood ; and that they care
not in whether of these religions a man live or die, so
he die in either of them : whereas all that they say is
this, that those amongst you which want means to find
the truth and so die in error, or use the best means
they can with industry, and without partiality, to find
the truth, and yet die in enor, these men, thus quali
fied, notwithstanding these enors, may be saved. Se
condly, 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 traths 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 indispen
sably necessary to salvation.
XIII. Objection. But seeing we make such vari
ous use of this distinction, is it not prodigiously strange,
that we will never be induced to give in a particular
catalogue, what points he fundamental ?
Answer. And why, I pray, is it so "prodigiously
strange" that we give no answer to an unreasonable
demand ? God himself hath told us, that " where
much is given, much shall be required ; where little is
given, littie shall be required." (Luke xii. 48.) To
infants, deaf men, madmen, nothing, for aught we
know, is given ; and if it be so, of them nothing shaU
be required. Others perhaps may have means only
given them to believe, " that God is, and that he is a

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 199
rewarder of them that seek him ;" (Heb. vi. 11 ;) and
to whom thus rauch only is given, to them it shall not
be damnable, that they believe but only thus much.
Which methinks is very manifest from the apostle, in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, where having first said,
that " without faith it is irapossible to please God,"
he subjoins as his reason, " for whosoever coraeth unto
God, must believe that God is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that seek him." Where, in ray opi
nion, 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 wUl not be pleased, then his
will is that we should believe it. Now his wUl it can
not be, that we should believe a falsehood : it must be
therefore true, " that he is a rewarder of them that
seek him." Now it is possible that they which never
heard of Christ, may seek God ; therefore it is true that
even they shall please hira, 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 Cor
nelius, in the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,
and St. Peter's words to him, are to me a great induce
ment. For, first, it is evident he believed not in
Christ, but was a mere Gentile, and one that knew not
but men might be worshipped ; and yet we are assured,
" that his prayers and alms," even whUe 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;" (verse 4;) that, upon his then

200 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
"fearing God and working righteousness," such as it
was, "he was accepted with God." But how ac
cepted ? Not to be brought immediately to salvation,
but to be proraoted to a higher degree of the know
ledge of God's will : for so it is in verses 4, 5 : " CaU
for Siraon, whose sumarae is Peter : he shall tell thee
what thou oughtest to do ;" and at verse 33 : " We are
all here present before God, to hear all things that are
coraraanded thee of God." So that though, even in
his Gentilism, be was accepted in his present state;
yet, if he had continued in it, and refused to believe in
Christ after the sufficient revelation of the gospel to
hira, and God's will to have him believe it, he that was
accepted before would not have continued accepted
still ; for then that conderanation had corae 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 neces
sary 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 ; araong which conditions one is, that we
believe what he has revealed, when it is sufficientiy
declared to have been revealed by him : for by doing
so " we set to our seal, that God is trae," and that
Christ was sent by him. Now that may be suffici
entiy declared to one, all things considered, which, all
things considered, to another is not sufficiently de
clared : and, consequently, that may be fundamental and
necessary to one, which to another is not so. Which
variety of circurastances 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

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 201
in aU 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
wUl 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 cata
logue of fundamentals in particular, — because none that
can be given can universaUy 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
ouiselves by a general description to tell you what is
fiindamental. And to wanant us in doing so, we have
your own example, (sec. xix.) where, being engaged
to give us a catalogue of fundamentals, instead thereof
you tell us only in general, that all is fumdamental,
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 fandamervtal
which the church has defined, without setting down in
particular a complete catalogue of all things, which in
any age the church has defined ; — ^which I believe you
will not undertake to do, and if you do, it wUl be con
tradicted by your fellows ; — so in reason you might
think it enough for us also to say in general, that " it
is sufficient for any man's salvation, to beheve that the
Scripture is trae and contains aU things necessary for
salvation, and to do his best endeavour to find and
beUeve the trae sense of it : " without deUvering any
particular catalogue ofthe fundamentals of fiiith. ^
XIV. Neither doth the want of such a catalogue
leave us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pre
tend. For though, perhaps, we cannot exactly distin
guish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is
necessary, from what is necessary, consequently and
accidentally, merely because it is revealed ; yet we are
R 5

202 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
sure enough, that aU that is necessary any way is
there ; and, therefore, in believing aU that is there, we
are sure to believe aU that is necessary. And if we
err from the trae and intended sense of sorae, nay,
of many, obscure or ambiguous texts of Scripture,
yet we raay be sure enough, that we en not daranably ;
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 daran him for enor that desires and endeavours to
find the truth.
XV. To Section ii. — The effect of this para
graph (for as much as concerns us) is this : That for any
man to deny belief fo any one thing, be it great or
small, known by him to be revealed hy Almighty God
for a truth, is, in effed, to charge God with falsehood :
for, it is to say, thaf God affirms that to he truth,
which he either knows to be Tiot a trufh, or which he
doth not know fo be a truth : and, therefore, without
all controversy, this is a damnable sin. To this I
subscribe vrith hand and heart; adding withal, that
not only he which knows, but he which believes,
(nay, though it be erroneously,) any thing to be
revealed by God, and yet wUl not believe it, nor
assent unto it, is in the same case, and commits the
same sin of derogation from God's most perfect and
pure veracity.
XVI. To Section hi. — I said purposely, " known
by himself," and " believes himself." For as, without any
disparageraent of a man's honesty, I may believe some
thing to be false, which he affirms of his certain know
ledge to be true, provided I neither know nor believe that
he has so affirraed ; so, without any the least dishonour to
God's eternal, never-faUing veracity, I may doubt of or

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 203
deny some truth revealed by hira, if I neither know
nor believe it to be revealed by him.
XIX. But ignorance of what we are expressly
bound to know, is itself a fault, and, therefore, cannot
be an excuse : and, therefore, if you could show, the
Protestants differ in those points the truth whereof
(which can be but one) they were bound expressly
to know, I should easUy yield that one side must of
necessity be in a mortal crime. But, for want of proof
of this, you content yourself only to say it ; and,
therefore, I also might be contented only to deny it ;
yet, I will hot, but give a reason for my denial. And
my reason is, because our obligation expressly to know
any Divine trath must arise from God's raanifest
revealing of it, and his revealing unto us that he has
revealed it, and that his will is, we should believe it.
Now, in the points controverted araong 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 hira 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 raanifest revealing of the
truth of either side, I cannot well understand. Be
sides, though we grant that Scripture, reason, and
authority, were all on one side, and the appearances
of the other side all answerable ; yet if we consider
the strange power that education, and prejudices
instilled by it, have over even excellent understandings,
we may well iraagine, that many truths which in them
selves are revealed plainly enough are yet, to such or
such a man, prepossessed with contrary opinions, not
revealed plainly. Neither doubt I but God, who

204 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
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.
XX. Objection. But till fundamentals, say you,
he sufficiently proposed, (as revealed by God,) it is not
against faith to reject them ; or, rather, it is not possi
ble prudently to believe them : and points unfunda/mental
being thus sufficiently proposed as Divine truths, may
not be denied ; therefore, you conclude, there is no dif
ference between them.
Answer. A circumstantial point may by accident
become fundamental, because it may be so proposed
that the denial of it will draw after it the denial of
this fundamental truth, — that aU which God says is
true. Notwithstanding, in themselves there is a main
difference between them : points fundamental being
those only which are revealed by God, and commanded
to be preached to all, and believed by aU : points
circumstantial being such, as though God hath revealed
thera, 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.
XXI. Objection. You say. Not erring in points
fundamental, is not sufficient for the preservation of
the church ; because any error maintained hy it
against God''s revelation is destructive.
I answer: If you mean against God's revelation
known by the church to be so, it is trae ; but impos
sible that the church should do so ; for, ipso facto, in
doing it, it were a church no longer. But if you
mean against some revelation, which the church by
error thinks to be no revelation, it is false. The
church may ignorantiy disbelieve such a revelation,

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 205
and yet continue a church ; which thus I prove : That
the gospel was to be preached to all nations, was a truth
revealed before our Saviour's ascension, in these words :
" Go and teach all nations." (Matt, xxviii. 19.) Yet
through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause,
the church disbelieved it, as it is apparent out of Acts
xi., xii., until the conversion of Cornelius, and yet
was still a church. Therefore, to disbelieve some
Divine revelation, not knowing it to be so, is not
destructive of salvation, or of the being of the church.
Again : it is a plain revelation of God, that the sacra
ment of the eucharist should be administered in both
kinds ; (1 Cor. xi. 2 ;) and that the public hymns
and prayers of the church should be in such a language
as is most for edification ; (1 Cor. xiv. 15 ; xvi. 26 ;)
yet these revelations the church of Rome not seeing,
(by reason of the veil before their eyes, their church's
supposed infallibility,) I hope the denial pf them shall
not be laid to their charge, no otherwise than as
building hay and stubble on the foundation, not over
throwing the foundation itself.
XXIV. To Section v. — This paragraph, if it
be brought out of the clouds, will, I believe, have in
it these propositions : 1. Things are distinguished by
their different natures. 2. The nature of faith is
taken, nof from the matter believed, (for then they
that believed different matters should have different
faiths,) hut from the motive to it. 3. This motive is
God's revelation. 4. TMs revelation is alike for all
objects. 5. Protestants disagree in things equally
revealed hy God; therefore, they forsake the formal
motive of faith ; and, therefore, have no faith nor unity
therein. Which is traly a very proper and convenient
argument to close up a weak discourse ; wherein both
the propositions are false for matter, confused and

206 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
disordered for the form, and the conclusion utteriy incon
sequent. First, for the second proposition, who knows
not that the essence of aU habits (and therefore of faith
among the rest) is taken from their act, and their ob
ject ? 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 raotive
is an efficient cause, and that the efficient is always
extrinsical to the effect ? For the fourth, that God^s
revelation is alike for all objects, it is arabiguous : and,
if the sense of it be, that his revelation is an equal
motive to induce us to believe aU objects revealed by
him, it is true, but irapertinent : 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 raost untrue. Witness the great cUver-
sity of texts of Scripture : whereof some are so plain
and evident, that no man of ordinary sense can mistake
the sense of them ; sorae are so obscure and ambigu
ous, that to say, " This or this is the certain sense of
thera," were high presumption. For the fifth, Protect
ants disagree in things equaUy revealed hy God ! " in
themselves," perhaps, but not equally to them ; whose
understandings, by reason of their different educations,
are fashioned and shaped for the entertainment of
various opinions, and, consequently, some of them
more inclined to believe such a sense of Scripture,
others to believe another ; which to say that God wUl
not take into his consideration in judging men's opi
nions, is to disparage his goodness. But to what pur
pose 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

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 207
Scripture, " Why are they then baptized for the dead ?"
and this, " He shall be saved, yet so as by fire," and
a thousand others, is equally revealed to you and to
another interpreter ; that is, " certainly " to neither. He
now conceives one sense of them, and you another ;
and would it not be an excellent inference, if I should
conclude now as you do, — that you forsake the formal
motive of faith, which is God's revelation, and, conse
quently, lose all faith and unity therein ? So, likewise,
the Jesuits and Dominicans, the Franciscans and Do
minicans, 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 faded of your undertaking
in your first part of your title ; and that is a very ill
omen, especially in points of so straight rautual depend
ence, that we shall have but slender perforraance in
your second assurapt : which is. That the church is
infallihle in all her definitions, whether concerning
points fundamental, or not fundamental.
XXVL To Sections ix.-xi. — 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 he 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
^sisted only for points fundamental, she cannot hut
know that she may err in points not fundamental.
Answer. It does not follow ; unless you suppose,
that the church knows that she is assisted no farther.
But if, being assisted only so far, she yet did conceive by
enor her assistance absolute and unliraited; or if.

208 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentals, she yet
conceived by error that she should be guarded from
proposing any thing but what was fundamental ; then
the consequence is apparently false.
But, at least, she cannot be certain that she cannot
err ; and, therefore, cannot he excused from headlong and
pernicious temerity in proposing points not funda-
mental to he believed by Christians as matters of faith.
Answer. Neither is this deduction worth any thing ;
unless it be understood of such fundamental points, as
she is not wananted to propose by evident text of Scrip
ture. Indeed, if she propose such, as matters of faith cer
tainly 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 presump
tion ; such a presumption as an ambassador should
commit, who should say in his master's 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 fundaraental, yet may
she have certainty enough in proposing others ; as, for
exaraple, these, That " Abraham begat Isaac ; " that
" St. Paul had a cloak ; " that " Timothy was sick ; "
because these, though not fundamental, that is, no
essential parts of Christianity, yet are evidently and
undeniably set down in Scripture ; and, consequently,
raay be without all rashness proposed by the church as
certain Divine revelations. Neither is your arguraent
concluding when you say. If in such things she may be
deceived, she must he 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,
* " By what warrant or authority ? " — Edit.

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 209
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 does it
therefore follow, that he can have no assurance that
Charing-cross is his right way from the Temple to
Whitehall ? The ground of your error here, is your
not distinguishing between actual certainty, and abso
lute infaUibility. 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 pro
ceed according to it, she raay be certain of the truth
of sorae particular decrees, and yet not certain that she
shall never decree but what is true.
XXVII. To Section xii. — Objection. But
if the church may err in points nof fundamental, she
may err in proposing Scripture ; and so we cannot he
assured whether she have not been deceived already.
Answer. The church raay en in her proposition or
custody of the canon of Scripture ; if you understand
by " the church," any present church of one denomina
tion ; for example, the Roman, the Greek, or so. Yet
have we sufficient certainty of Scripture, not from the
bare testimony of any present church, but from uni
versal tradition, of which the testimony of any present
church is but a little part. So that here you fall into

210 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
the fallacy, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum sim
pliciter.* For in effect this is the sense of your argu
ment : " Unless the church be infallible, we can have
no certainty of Scripture from the authority of the
church : therefore, unless the church be infaUible, we
can have no certainty hereof at all." As if a mau
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 con
sent 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 super
natural and infused. An assurance it may be to him
self, but no argument to another. As for the infaUi
bility of the church, it is so far from being a proof of
the Scripture's incorruption, that no proof can be
pretended for it, but inconupted 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 raade to speak as they
do, for the advantage of those men whose arabition it
hath been a long tirae to bring aU under their autho
rity. Now, then, if any man should prove the Scrip
tures uncorrapted, because the church says so, which is
infallible ; I would deraand again, touching this very
thing, that there is an infallible church, seeing it is not
of itself evident, How shall I be assured of it ? And
what can he answer, but that " the Scripture says so in
these and these places ? " Hereupon I would ask him,
• " The application, to^ne case in particularN of what was asserted
cdiiCefiitHf all generali y.'CjEDiT. - "y

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 211
" How shall I be assured, that the Scriptures are incor
rupted in those places ? seeing it is possible, and not
altogether improbable, that these raen, which desire to
be thought infallible, when they had the govemment of
all things in their own hands, may have altered them
for their purpose." If to this he answer again, that "the i
church is infallible, and therefore cannot do so ; " I hope
it would be apparent, that he runs round in a circle, and
proves the Scripture's incorraption by the church's
infaUibility, and the church's infallibility by the Scrip
ture's incorraption ; and that is, in effect, the church's
infallibility by the church's infallibility, and the Scrip
ture's incorruption by the Scripture's incorruption.
XXVIII. Now for your observation, that some
hooks which were not always known to he canonical
liave heen afterwards received for such. But never
any hook or syllable defined for canonical was after
wards questioned or rejected for apocryphal : I deraand,
touching the first sort, whether they were comraended
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 thera canonical ? And
how can you pretend, that your church, which makes
this an article of faith, is so assisted as not to propose
anything as a divine truth which is not revealed by
God ? If they were, how then is the church an infal
lible keeper of the canon of Scripture, which hath
suffered sorae books of canonical Scripture to be lost ?
and others to lose for a long tirae their being canoni
cal ; at least, the necessity of being so esteeraed ; and
afterwards, as it were by the law of postliminium, hath
restored their authority and canonicalness unto thera ?
, If this was delivered by the apostles to the church, the

212 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
point was sufficiently discussed ; and therefore your
church's omission to teach it for some ages as an article
of faith, nay, degrading it from the number of articles
of faith, and 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 pre
sumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable.
XXIX. And then for the other part of it, that
never any hook or syllable defined for canonical was
afterwards questioned or rejected for apocryphal : cer
tainly it is a bold asseveration, but extremely false.
For I demand : The book of Ecclesiasticus and Wis
dom, 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 doctrine is apostolical ?
especially seeing it is evident that this point is not
deducible by rational discourse from any other defined
by them. If they were approved by them, this I hope
was a sufficient definition ; and therefore you were best
[to] 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 hooks which were nof always known to
be canonical have heen afterwards received ? Then, for
the book of Maccabees, I hope you wUl say, it was
defined for canonical before St. Gregory's time : and
yet he, citing a testimony out of it, prefaceth to it after
this manner : " Concerning which matter we do not
araiss if we produce a testimony out of books, although
not canonical, yet set forth for the edification of the
church. For Eleazer, in the book of Maccabees,"
&c. (Moral., lib. 19, cap. 13.) Which, if it be not to
reject it from being canonical, is, without question, at

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 213
least to question it. Moreover, because you are so
punctual as to talk of words and syllables, I would
know, whether before Sixtus Quintus's time your
church had a defined canon of Scripture or not. If
not, then was your church, surely, a raost vigilant keeper
of Scripture, that for fifteen hundred years had not
defined what was Scripture, and what was not ! If it
had, then I demand, Was it that set forth by Sixtus, or
that set forth by Clement, or a third, different from
both ? If it were that set forth by Sixtus, then is it
now condemned by Clement ; if that of Cleraent, it
was conderaned, I say, but sure you wUl say, contra
dicted and questioned, by Sixtus ; if different from
both, then was it questioned and condemned by both,
and stUl lies under the condemnation. But then,
lastly, suppose it had been true, that both some book
not known to he canonical had heen received, and that
never any, after receiving, had heen 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 argu
ments ; and that thus to catch at shadows and bul-
rashes, is a shrewd sign of a sinking cause.
XXX. To Section xiii. — We are told here,
that the general promises of infallihility to the church
must not be restrained only to points fundamental;
hecause then the apostles'' words and uiritings may also
he so restrained.
Answer. This also may be done ; but if it be
done, may easUy be confuted. It is done to our hand
in this very paragraph,, by five words taken out of
Scripture : " AU Scripture is divinely inspired." Show
but as much for the church : show where it is written.

214 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
" that all the decrees of the church are divinely
inspired ; " and the controversy wUl be at an end.
Besides, there is not the same reason for the church's
absolute infallibility, as for the apostles' and Scripture's.
For if the church fall into enor, it raay be reformed by
comparing it with the rule of the apostles' doctrine, and
Scripture. But if the apostles have erred in deliver
ing the doctrine of Christianity, to whom shaU we have
recourse for the discovering and conecting their error ?
Again : there is not so much strength required in the
edifice as in the foundation : and if but wise raen have
the ordering of the building, they will make it much a
surer thing, that the foundation shall not feU the
building, than that the building shall not fall from the
foundation. And though the buUding 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 St. Paul, " Built
upon the foundation of apostles and prophets ; " there
fore their stabUity, in reason, ought to be greater than
the church's, which is built upon them. Again: a
dependent infallibility (especiaUy if the dependence be
voluntary) cannot be so certain as that on which it
depends. But the infallibility of the church depends
upon the infallibility of the apostles ; and the straight
ness of the thing regulated, upon the straightness of the
rule. And besides, this dependence is voluntary ; for
it is in the power of the church to deviate frora this
rule ; being nothing else but an aggregation of men,
of which every one has free-will, and is subject to
passions and error. Therefore the church's infallibility
is not so certain as that of the aposties.

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 215
XXXI. Lastly : Quid verba audiam, cum facta
videam ? * If you be so infallible as the aposties were,
show it as the apostles did. " They went forth," saith
St. Mark, " and preached everywhere, the Lord working
with them, and confirming their words with signs fol
lowing." It is impossible that God should lie, and
that the Etemal Truth should set his hand and seal to
the confirmation of a falsehood, or of such doctrine as
is partly true and partly false. The apostles' doctrine
was thus confirmed ; therefore it was entirely true, and
in no part either false or uncertain. I say in no part
of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain
Divine truth, and which had the attestation of Divine
miracles. For that the apostles themselves, even after
the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and, through
inadvertence or prejudice, continued for a time, in an
error, repugnant to a revealed truth, it is, as I have
already noted, unanswerably evident, from the story of
the Acts of the Apostles. For notwithstanding our
Saviour's express wanant and injunction, " to go and
preach to all nations," yet until St. Peter was better
informed by a vision from heaven, and by the conver
sion of Comelius, both he and the rest of the church
held it unlawful for them to go, or preach the Gospel
to any but the Jews.
XXXII. And for those things which they profess
to deliver as the dictates of huraan reason and pru
dence, and not as Divine revelations, why we should
take them to be Divine revelations, I see no reason ;
nor how we can do so, and not contradict the apostles,
and God himself. Therefore when St. Paul says, in
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, vii. 12, " To the rest
speak I, not the Lord ; " and again, " Concerning
• "Why should I listen to mere verbiage, when I look only at
facts ? "—Edit.

216 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I deU
ver my judgment ;" if we wUl pretend, that the Lord
did certainly speak what St. Paul spake and that his
judgraent was God's coramandraent, shall we not plainly
contradict St. Paul, and that Spirit by which he wrote ?
which moved hira 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.*
XXXIV. Objection. But if the apostles were
infallible, in all things proposed by them as Divine
truths, the like must he affirmed of the church, because
Protestants teach the promise (of leading into all
truth) to be verified in fhe chwrch.
Answer. It is true that to the apostles the pro
mise was made, and to them only ; yet the words are
true also of the church. But they agree to the aposties
in a higher — to the church in a lower — sense : to the
apostles in a raore absolute — ^to the church in a more
liraited — sense. To the apostles absolutely, for the
church's direction : to the church conditionally, by
adherence to that direction, and so far as she doth
adhere to it. In a word, the apostles were led into all
truths, by the Spirit, efficaciter : the church is led also
into aU truth, by the apostles' writings, sufficienter. So
* " But would the Divine Spirit," says an excellent theologian,
" have moved the apostle to write Ais own judgment, if that judgment
had been wrong, or unsuitable to the occasion ? May we not there
fore rather conclude, that his judgment in this case was agreeable to
the mind of that Spirit which moved him to write it ? This very
acute author is not singular in supposing, that the apostle, in this
chapter, makes a distinction between the precepts which he had
received by Divine inspiration, and those which arose from his own
prudence. For my own part, I incline to those who think the dis
tinction to be between what the apostle commanded under a Divine
influence, and what our Lord himself had commanded in his own
person while here on earth." — Edi t.

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 217
that the apostles and the church may be fitiy com
pared to the star and the wise raen. The star was
directed by the finger of God, and could not but go
right to the place where Christ was : but the wise raen
were led by the star to Christ ; led by it, I say, not
efficaciter, or irresistibilifer, but sufficienter,* so that if
they would, they might follow it ; if they would not,
they raight choose. So was it between the apostles'
writing Scriptures, and the church. They in their
writing were infaUibly assisted to propose nothing as a
Divine truth, but what was so. The church is also led
into all trath ; but it is by the intervening of the apos
tles' writings ; but it is, as the wise men were led by the
star, or as a traveller is directed by a Mercurial statue,
or as a pilot by his card and corapass ; led sufficiently,
but not irresistibly ; led so that she may follow, not so
that she must. For seeing the church is a society of
men, whereof every one (according to the doctrine of
the Romish church) hath free-will in believing, it fol
lows, that the whole aggregate has free-will in believ
ing. And if any man say, that " at least it is morally
impossible, that of so raany 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 under
standings to one of thera, all are as likely to err as that
one ; and he more likely to err than any other,
because he may err and thinks he cannot, and because
he conceives the Spirit absolutely promised to the suc
cession of bishops, of which raany have been notori
ously and confessedly wicked raen, "men of the
worid:" whereas this Spirit is "the Spirit of truth,
whom the worid cannot receive, because he seeth him
not, neither knoweth him."
• " Neither effectually nor irresistibly, but sufficiently." — Edit.
L

218 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
XXXVIII. To Section xvi.— To this para
graph, which pretends to show, that if the catholic
chwrch he fallible in some points, it follows, fhat no
true Protestant can with assurance believe fhe universal
church in any one point of doctrine : —
I answer : Though, the church being not infallible, I
cannot believe her in every thing she says, yet I can and
must believe her in every thing she proves, either by
Scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it funda
mental, or be it not fundaraental. This, you say, we
cannot, in points not fundamental, hecause in such we
believe she may err. But this, I know, we can : because
though she may err in some things, yet she does not
err in what she proves, though it be not fundaraentaL
Again: you say, we cannot do it in fundamentals,
hecause we must know what points he fundamental,
before we go to learn of her. Not so ; but I must
learn of the church, or of some part of the church, or I
cannot know any thing fundamental or not fundaraental.
For how can I corae to know, that there was such a
man as Christ, that he taught such doctrine, that he and
his apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it, that
the Scripture is God's word, unless I be taught it ? So
then the church is, though not a certain foundation and
proof of my faith, yet a necessary introduction to it.
XXXIX. But the churcFs infallible direction
extending only to fundamentals, unless I know them
hefore I go to learn of her, I may he rather deluded
f than instructed by her. The reason and connexion of
J 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 funda
mentals of her, but also " learn of her what is funda
ments^ "^'"^ ^nl'-*^ -ill for fundamental which she delivers

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 219
to be such." In the perforraance whereof, if I knew
any one church to be infallible, I would quickly be of
that church. But, good Sir, you raust needs do us this
favour, to be so acute, as to distinguish between being
"infallible in fundaraentals," and being an "infallible
guide in fundamentals." That there shall be always
" a church infallible in fundaraentals," we easily grant ;
for it coraes to no raore but this, " that there shall be
always a church." But that there shall be always such
a church, which is " an infallible guide in fundaraentals,"
this we deny. For this cannot be without settling a
known infallibility in some one known society of Chris
tians, as the Greek, or the Roman, or some other
church; by adhering to which guide, raen 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 raan 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 be
tween these two ; and therefore I raust beseech you not
to confound thera, nor to take the one for the other.
XL. But they that know what points are funda
mental, otherwise than hy the churcK's authority, learn
not of the chwrch. Yes, they may learn of the church,
that the Scripture is the word of God, and from the
Scripture, that such points are fundamental, others are
not so ; and consequently learn, even of the church,
even of your church, that all is not fundamental, nay,
all is not true, which the church teacheth to be so.
Neither do I see what hinders, but a man may learn of a '
church, how to confute the errors of that church which
taught him : as well as of my master in physic or the
L 2

220 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
mathematics I may learn those rales and principles, by
which I may confute ray raaster's enoneous conclusions.
XLI. But you ask. If the church be not an infalli
ble teacher, why are we commanded to hear, to seek, to
obey the church ? I answer : For coraraands to seek the
church, I have not yet met with any ; and, I believe,
you, if you were to show thera, would be yourself to
seek. But yet if you could produce some such, we
might seek the church to raany good purposes, without
supposing her a guide infallible. And then for hear
ing and obeying the church, I would fain know, whether
none raay be heard and obeyed, but those that are
infallible ? whether particular churches, governors,
pastors, parents, be not to be heard and obeyed ? or
whether all these be infallible ? I wonder you will
thrast upon us so often these worn-out objections,
without taking notice of their answers.
XLII. Your arguraent from St. Austin's first place,
is a fallacy, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpli
citer.* 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 frora hence you infer : If ihe
whole church practise any thing, to dispute whether it
ought to he done, is insolent madness. As if there were
no difference between any thing, and any of these
things. Or as if I raight not esteem it pride and folly,
to contradict and disturb the church for matter of
order, pertaining to the tirae and place, and other cir
cumstances of God's worship ; and yet account it nei
ther pride nor folly, to go about to reform sorae enors,
which the church hath suffered to corae in, and to
vitiate the very substance of God's worship. It was a
practice of the whole church in St. Austin's tirae, and
" A general application of what is said in reference to one thing
in particifitant, — =!!.«.. .:„

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 221
tsteeraed an apostolic tradition, even by St. Austin
hiraself, " that the eucharist should be adrainistered to
infants." TeU rae. Sir, 1 beseech you, had it been
insolent madness to dispute against this practice, or
had it not ? If it had, how insolent and mad are you,
that have not only disputed against it, but utterly
abolished it ? If it had not, then, as I say, you must
understand St. Austin's words, not simply of all things,
but (as indeed he himself restrained them) " of these
things, — of matter of order, decency, and uniformity."
XLIV. Objection. But the doctrines, that «'»-
fants are fo he baptized, and those that are baptized
hy heretics are not to he re-haptized, are neither of
them fo be proved by Scripture : and yet, according to
St. Austin, they are true doctrines, and we may he cer
tain of them upon the authority of the church, which we
could not be, unless the church were infallihle ; there
fore 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 St. Austin's account, these
were which here are spoken of, and yet not be certain
enough of the definitions of the present church.
Unless you can show (which I am sure you can never
do) that the infaUibility of the present church was
always a tradition of the ancient church. Now your
main business is to prove the present church infallible,
not so much in consigning ancient traditions, as in
defining emergent controversies. Again: it foUows not,
because the church's authority is warrant enough for
us to believe some doctrine, touching which the Scrip
ture is silent, therefore it is warrant enough to believe
these, to which the Scripture seems repugnant. Now
the doctrines which St. Austin received upon the
church's authority, were of the first sort ; the doctrines
for which we deny your church's iuMlibUity are of the

222 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
second. And therefore, though the church's authority
might be strong enough to bear the weight which St.
Austin laid upon it, yet haply it may not be strong
enough to bear that which you lay upon it. Though
it may support some doctrines without Scripture, yet
surely not against it. And, last of all, to deal ingenu
ously with you and the world, I am not such an idola
ter of St. Austin, as to think a thing proved sufficiently
because he says it, nor that all his sentences are ora
cles ; and particularly in this thing, that whatsoever
was practised or held by the universal church of his
tirae must needs have come from the apostles.
Though, considering the nearness of his tirae 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 satis
faction, before I can induce myself to hold it certain
and infaUible. And this, not because Popery would
come in at this door, as some have vainly feared, but
because, by the church universal of some tirae, and the
church universal of other tiraes, I see plain contradic
tions held and practised. Both which could not come
from the apostles, for then the apostles had been
teachers of falsehood. And therefore the belief or
practice of the present universal church can be no
infallible proof, that the doctrine so believed, or the
custom so practised, came from the aposties. I
instance in the doctrine of the JNlillenaries, and the
eucharist's necessity for infants : both which doctrines
have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers
of sorae ages, without any opposition from any of their
conteraporaries : and were delivered bv thera, not as
Doctors, but as witnesses, not as their own opinions,
but as apostolic traditions. And, therefore, raeasuring
the doctrine of the church by all the rules which cardif
nal Perron ffives us for that purpose, both these doct

FCNDAMENTAL AN.'l NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 223
Irines muirt be acknowledged to have been the doctrines
of the ancient church of some aq<:, or ages ; and tliat
the contrary doctrines were catholic at some other time,
I believe you wUl not think it needful for me to provf-.
So that either I must say, the apostles were fountains
of contradictious doctrines, or tliat being the universal
doctrine of the present clmrch i3 uo sufficient proof
that it carne originally from the apostles. Beside.?,
who ean wanant us, that the universal traditions of the
church were all apostolical ? seeing in that famous
place for traditions, in Tertullian,* qwccmque traditor,
• De Corwux MUitin, cap. 3, 4. AVhere having recoirated sundry
unwritten tradr.iim* dien obMTved by (Jhrixliattf., many whereof by
tlie way, (notwilhstanding flie Ckmncil of Trent's profetsioD "to
leedTe diem and the wiittea word with the like afi^ction of piety,")
are now rqe-.ted and neglected by the church of Borne : for example,
" immeixion in baptism ; lasting a mixture of milk and honey pre
fently after ; abctajniog from bathe toi a week after ; acconnting it
an impiety to pray kneeling on the Ixrd's day, or between Easter and
Pernteco-t ;" — I »ay, having r.-;ckoned up these and othiir traditions
in the third c\utfta, he a4ds atxather, in the fourth, of " the veiling of
women 4 " and then adds : " Since I find no law &r this, it follows
that tra/'hir/n ri.tat. have giren this observation to custom, which
shall gain in time apostolic authority by the interpretation of the
niMm of it. By tiiese examples therefore it is declared, that tbe
oi^»,eriing of unwritten tradition, being confirmed by custom, may be
defoided ; the pcr'^verance of the observation bring a good testi
mony of the goodness of the tradition. Now custom, even in civil
aSa,a*, whoe 3 law is wanting, passes for a law. Neither is it mutt-
rid whether it be grounded on 8criptare or rearon ; seeing reason is
commendation enough for a law. Moreover if law be grounded on
reason, all that mtt«t be law which is so grounded, a quocun^/ue
productum, who«>ever is the producer of it. Do ye think it is not
lawful, i/mni fideli, for every &itbful man to conceive and constitute K
provided he constitute only ».hat is not repugnant to Ood's win,
what is eonducible &r discipline and available to salvation ; seeing
the Lord says, ' Why even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right ? ' "
And a Uttle after : " This reason now demand, saving the respect of
the tradition, a tpMCurujue trwlitore censetur, nee avM'frem retjneieru
led axictoriUitem ; 'trom wliatdoever traditor it comet i neither
regard the author but the authority.' "

224 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
any author whatsoever is founder good enough for
them. And who can secure us, that human inventions,
and such as carae a quocunque traditore, raight not, in
a short time, gain the reputation of apostolic ? seeing
the direction then was, Precepta majorum apostolicos
traditiones quisque existimat. (St. Jerome. j*
XLVI. But let us see what St. Chrysostom says,
"They" (the apostles) "delivered not all things in
writing," (who denies it ?) " but raany things also with
out writing," (who doubts of it ?) " and these also are
worthy of belief." Yes, if we knew what they were.
But raany things are worthy of belief which are not
necessary to be believed : as that Julius Csesar was
emperor of Rorae, 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, St. John
supposes, would not have been contained in a world of
books,) if they had been written, or if God, by some
other means, had preserved the knowledge of them, had
been as worthy to be believed, and as necessary as
those that are written. But to show you how much a
more faithful keeper records are than report, those few
that were written are preserved and 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 ceases, when it
becoraes irapossible. Who can doubt but the primi
tive Christians, to whom the Epistles of the apostles
were written, either of theraselves understood, or were
instracted by the apostles, touching the sense of the
• " Every one esteems the precepts of the Fathers as apostolic
traditions." — Edit.

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 225
obscure places of them ? These traditive interpreta
tions, had they been written and dispersed, as the
Scriptures were, had, without question, been preserved,
as the Scriptures are. But, to show how excellent a
keeper of the tradition the church of Rome hath been,
or even the catholic church, — for want of writing they
are all lost, nay, were all lost within a few ages after
Christ. So that if we consult the ancient interpreters,
we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the
sense of any one of them. Cardinal Perron, in his
discourse of traditions, having alleged this place for
thera, "Hold the traditions," &c., tells us, " We must not
answer, that St. Paul speaks here only of such tradi
tions, which (though not in this Epistle to the Thessa
lonians 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 thera, to hold the traditions." Well,
let us grant this arguraent good, and concluding ; and
that the church of the Thessalonians, or the catholic
church, (for what St. Paul writ to one church he writ
to all,) were to hold some unwritten traditions, and,
among the rest, what was the cause of the hinderance
of the coraing of antichrist. But what, if they did not
perforra their duty in this point, but suffered this tradi
tion to be lost out of the memory of the church?
Shall we not conclude, that, seeing God would not
suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost, and
he has suffered this tradition to be lost, therefore the
knowledge or belief of it, though it were a profitable
thing, yet it was not necessary ? I hope you will not
challenge such authority over us, as to oblige us to im-
possibUities, to do that which you cannot do yourselves.
It is therefore requisite that you make this command
L 5

226 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
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 withr
holdeth ? " Or do you yourselves know that ye may
instruct us ? Can ye, or dare you, say, " This or this
was this hinderance which St. Paul here meant, and all
men under pain 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, infal
lible 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 dan
ger to be lost, took order, that what was necessary
should be written. St. Chrysostom's counsel, there
fore, of " accounting the church's traditions worthy of
belief," we are willing to obey : and if you can of any
thing raake it appear that it is tradition, we wUl seek
no farther. But this we say withal, that we are per
suaded 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-ui
so good plea to be the unwritten word of God, as the
unquestioned books of canonical Scripture to be the
written word of God.
XLVII. You conclude this paragraph with a sen
tence of St. Austin's, who says, " The church doth not
approve, nor dissemble, nor do these things which are
against faith or good life ;" and from hence you con
clude, tliat it never hath done so, nor never can do so.
But though the argument hold in logic a non posse, ad
non esse, yet I never heard that it would hold back
again, a non esse, ad non posse. " The church cannot do

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 227 1
this, therefore it does it not," follows with good conse^
quence: but, "The church does not this, therefore it shall
never do it, nor can never do it ;" — this, I believe, will
hardly follow. In the epistle next before, to the same
Januarius, writing of the same matter, he hath these
words : " It remains that the thing you inquire of, must
be of that third kind of things which are different in
divers places. Let every one, therefore, do that which
he finds done in the church to which he comes ; for
none of them is against faith or good manners." And
why do you not infer from hence, that " no particular
church can bring up any custom that is against faith or
good manners ? " Certainly, this consequence has as
good reason for it as the former. If a raan say of the
church of England, (what St. Austin of the church,)
that she neither approves, nor disserables, nor does aty
thing against faith or good raanners, would you collect
presently, that this raan did either raake or think the
church of England infallible ? Furtherraore, it is
observable out of this, and the former epistle, that
this church, " which did not" (as St. Austin, according
to you, thought) " approve or dissemble, or do any
thing against faith or good life," did yet tolerate and
dissemble vain superstitions, and human presumptions,
and suffer all places to be full of them, and to be
exacted as, nay raore severely than the comraandraents
of God himself. This St. Austin himself professeth in
this very epistle. " This," saith he, " I do infinitely
grieve at, that maay most wholesome precepts of the
Divine Scripture are little regarded ; and, in the mean
time, all is so full of so many presumptions, that he is
more grievously found fault with who, during his
octaves, toucheth the earth with his naked foot, than he
that shall bury his soul in drunkenness." Of these he
says, " that they were neither contained in Scripture,
decreed by CouncUs, nor conoborated by the custom

228 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
of the universal church ; and, though not against
faith, yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty,
which made the condition of the Jews more tolerable
than that of Christians." And therefore he professes of
them, Approhare non possum, " I cannot approve
them ;" and, Ubi facultas tribuitur, resecanda existi
mo, " I think they are to be cut off, wheresoever we
have power." Yet so deeply were they rooted, and
spread so far, — through the indiscreet devotion of the
people, always more prone to superstition than true
piety, and through the connivance of the govemors,
who should have strangled them at their birth, — that
himself, though he grieved at them, and could not
allow thera, yet, for fear of offence, he durst not speak
against them : Multa hujusmodi, propter nonnuUarum
vel sanctarum vel turhulentarum personarum scandala
devifanda, Uberius improhare 'non autdeo : " Many of
these things, for fear of scandalizing many holy persons,
or provoking those that are turbulent, I dare not freely
disallow." Nay, the catholic church itself did see, and
dissemble, and tolerate them ; for these are the things of
which he presently says after, " The church of God,"
(and you will have him speak of the true catholic
church,) " placed between chaff and tares, tolerates
many things." Which was directly against the com
mand of the Holy Spirit, given the church by St.
Paul : " To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ
hath made her free, and not to suffer herself to be
brought in bondage to these servUe burdens." Our
Saviour tells the scribes and Pharisees, " that in vain
they worshipped God, teaching for doctrines men's
commandments : for that, laying aside the command
ments of God, they held the traditions of raen, as the
washing of pots, and cups, and many other such like
things." Certainly that which St. Austin complains
of, as the general fault of Christians of his tirae, was

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 229
parallel to this : Multa, saith he, quce in divinis libris
saluberrima prcecepta sunt, minus curanfur : this, I
suppose, I may very well render, in our Saviour's words,
" The coraraandments of God are laid aside ;" and
then, Tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia,
" All things, or all places, are so full of so many pre
sumptions, and those exacted with such severity, nay,
with tyranny, that he was more severely censured who,
in the time of his octaves, touched the earth with his
naked feet, than he which drowned and buried his soul
in drink." Certainly, if this be not " to teach for doc
trines men's commandments," I know not what is.
And therefore these superstitious Christians might be
said " to worship God in vain," as well as scribes and
Pharisees. And yet " great variety of superstitions of
this kind were then already spread over the church,
being different in divers places." This is plain from
these words of St. Austin of them : Diversorum locorum
diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur ; and appa
rent, because the streara of thera was grown so violent
that he durst not oppose it, liheriils improhare non
audeo, " I dare not freely speak against thera." So
that to say, the catholic church tolerated all this, and,
for fear of offence, durst not abrogate or condemn it, is
to say, (if we judge rightly of it,) that the church with
sUence and connivance generally tolerated Christians to
" worship God in vain." Now, how this tolerating of
universal superstition in the church can consist with
the assistance and direction of God's omnipotent Spirit
to guard it from superstition, and with the accomplish
ment 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

230 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
with great violence upon others as the coraraandments
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 : espe
cially, considering the catching and contagious nature
of this sin, and how fast ill weeds spread, and how true
and experimented that rale is of the historian : Exempla
noil consistunt ubi incipiunt, sed quamlibet in tenuem
recepta tramitem latissime evagandi sibi faciunt potes
tatem : " Exaraples do not stay where they begin ; but,
though at first pent up in a nanow track, they make
themselves room for extravagant wanderings." Nay,
that some such superstition had not already, even in
St. Austin's time, prevailed so far as to be consuetudine
universal ecclesias rohoratum, " confirmed bythe custom
of the universal church," who can doubt that considers,
that the practice of communicating infants had even
then got the credit and authority, not only of an uni
versal custom, but also of an apostolic tradition ?
XLIX. But now, after all this ado, what, if St.
Austin says not this which is pretended of the church,
namely, that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor
practises any thing against faith or good life, but only
of good raen in the church ? Certainly, though some
copies read as you would have it, yet you should not
have disserabled, that others read the place otherwise ;
namely, Ecclesia multa tolerat; et tamen, qua sunt
contra fidem et bonam vitam, nec bonus approhat, Sfc.
" The church tolerates raany things ; and yet what is
against faith or good life a good man wUl neither
approve, nor dissemble, nor practise."
L. To Section xvii. — That " Abraham begat
Isaac " is a point very far from being fundamental ; and
yet I hope you wUl grant, that Protestants, believ-

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 231
ing Scripture to be the word of God, may be certain
enough of the truth and certainty of it. For, what,
if they say, that " the catholic church, and much more
themselves, may possibly en in sorae unfundamental
points," is it therefore consequent, they can be- certain
of none such ? What, if a wiser raan than I raay
mistake the sense of sorae obscure place of Aristotle,
may I not, therefore, without any arrogance or inconse
quence, conceive myself certain that I understand him
in some plain places which carry their sense before
them ? And then, for points fundaraental : to what
purpose do you say, tliat we must first know what they
he, hefore we can he assured that we cannot err in
understanding the Scripture ? when we pretend not at
all to any assurance that we cannot err ; but only to a
sufficient certainty, that we do not en, but rightly
understand those things that are plain, whether funda
raental or not fundamental : — that " God is, and is
a rewarder of thera that seek him ;" that " there is no
salvation but by faith in Christ ;" that by " repentance
and faith in Christ remission of sins may be obtained ;"
that " there shall be a resurrection of the body."
These we conceive both 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 leam from Scripture immediately, or learn of
those that learn it of Scripture ; so that neither learned
nor unleamed pretend to know these things independ
ently of Scripture. And, therefore, in imputing this to
us, you cannot excuse yourself from having done us
a palpable injury.
LII. To Section xix. — To that which is here
urged of the differences amongst Protestants conceming
• "He that believeth not, shall be damned." — Edit.

232 POINTS rightly distinguished into
many points, I answer, that those differences between
Protestants concerning enors damnable and not damna
ble, truths fundamental and not fundamental, may be
easily reconciled. For, either the enor 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 enor is
itself sinful, and, consequently, in its own nature damn
able : as, if by negligence in seeking the truth, by
unwillingness to find it, by pride, by obstinacy, by
desiring that religion should be true which suits best
with my ends, by fear of men's ill opinion, or any
other worldly fear, or any other worldly hope, I betray
myself to any error contrary to any Divine, revealed
trath, that error may be justly styled " a sin," and, conse
quently, of itself, to such a one, damnable. But if I be
guilty of none of these faults, but be desirous to know
the truth, and diligent in seeking it, and advise not at
all with flesh and blood about the choice of my opinions,
but only with God, and that reason that he hath given
me; if I be thus qualified, and yet, through human
infirmity, fall into error, that error cannot be damnable.
Again : the party erring may be conceived either to die
with contrition for all his sins known and unknown,
or without it : if he die without it, this error, in itself
damnable, will be likewise so unto him ; if he die with
contrition, (as his error can be no irapediinent but
he raay,) his error, though in itself damnable, to him,
according to your doctrine, will not prove so. And,
therefore, some of those authors whora you quote
speaking of errors whereunto men were betrayed, or
wherein they were kept by their fault, or vice, or
passion ; (as for the most part men are ;) others
speaking of them as errors simply and purely invo
luntary, and the effects of human infirraity; some, as

fundamental and not FUNDAMENTAL.

233

diey were retracted by contrition; (to use your own
phrase ;) others, as they were not ; no marvel though
they have passed upon them, some a heavier and some
a milder, some an absolving and sorae a conderaning,
sentence ! the least of all these errors, which here
you mention, having malice enough too frequently
mixed with it to sink a man deep enough into hell ;
and the greatest of thera all being, according to your
principles, either no fault at all, or very venial, where
there is no malice of the wUl conjoined with it. And
if it be, yet, as the most malignant poison wUl not
poison hira that receives with it a more powerful
antidote; so I am confident your own doctrine will
force you to confess, that whosoever dies with faith
in Christ, and contrition for all sins known and un
known, (in which heap all his sinful errors must be
comprised,) can no more be hurt by any the most
malignant and pestilent error, than St. Paul by the
viper which he shook off into the fire. Now, touching the
" necessity of repentance from dead works, and faith in
Christ Jesus, the Son of God, and Saviour of the
worid," they all agree ; and, therefore, you cannot deny
but they agree about all that is simply necessary.
Moreover, though, if they should go about to choose
out of Scripture all these propositions and doctrines
which integrate and make up the body of Christian
religion, peradventure there would not be so exact
agreement amongst them, as some say there was
between the Seventy Interpreters in translating the
Old Testament ; yet thus far, without controversy, they
do all agree, that in the Bible all these things are
contained; and, therefore, that whosoever does traly
and sincerely believe the Scripture must of necessity
either in hypothesi, or at least, in thesi, either forraally,
or at least virtually, either explicitly, or at least irapli-

2-34 POINTS rightly DISTINGUISHED INTO
citly, either in act, or at least in preparation of mind,
believe all things fundaraental ; it being not funda
menta], nor required of Alraighty God, to believe the
true sense of Scripture in all placfes ; 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 raedicine consisting of twenty ingre
dients, and he, advising with physicians, should find
thera differing in opinion about it; some of them telling
him, that all the ingredients were absolutely neces
sary ; some, that only some of thera were neces
sary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius
esse ; * lastly, sorae, 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 raade use of it, he should
infallibly find it successful ; what wise man would
not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to
the recovery of his health ? Just so these Protestant
Doctors, with whose discords you make such tragedies,
agreeing in thesi thus far, that " the Scripture evidently
contains all things necessary to salvation," both for
matter of faith and of practice, and that whosoever
believes it, and endeavours to find the true sense of it,
and to conform his life unto it, shall certainly perforin
all things necessary to salvation, and undoubtedly he
saved ; "f- — agreeing, I say, thus far, what matters it for
the direction of men to salvation, though they differ in
opinion touching what points are absolutely necessary,
and what not ? what errors absolutely repugnant to
salvation, and what not? especially considering, that,
although they differ about the question of the necessity
" " To make it still better." f See page 198  Edit.

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 235
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 destruc
tive of salvation, or no ; yet in this they consent, that
errors they are, and hurtful to religion, though not
destructive of salvation. Now, that which God requires
of us is this, that we should believe the doctrines of the
Gospel to be truths, (not all necessary truths, for all are
not so,) and, consequently, the repugnant errors to be
falsehoods, yet not all such falsehoods as unavoidably
draw with them damnation upon all that hold them, for
all do not so.
LIII. 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 salva
tion. This I utteriy deny, as a thing evidently false ;
and I wonder you should content yourself 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 explicitiy all that is expressed in Scripture, and
implicitiy all that is contained in them : now, he that
believes aU 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, consequentiy, that my
faith is sufficient. I said, " of the trath of this asser
tion, if it be true;''"' because I will not here enter into
the question of the truth of it, it being sufficient for my

236 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
present purpose, that it may be true, and may be
believed without any dependence upon a catalogue of
fundamentals. And, therefore, if this be all your
reason to deraand a particular catalogue of funda
raentals, we cannot but think your deraand unreason
able ; especially having yourself expressed the cause of
the difficulty of it, and that is, because Scripture doth
deliver Divine truths, but seldom quaUfies fhem, or
chares whether they be or he 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 Chris
tianity, if it were necessary ; but I have showed it not
so, by confuting your reason, pretended for the neces
sity of it ; and at this tirae I have no leisure to do you
courtesies that are so troublesorae to myself. Yet thus
much I wiU proraise, that when you deliver a parti
cular catalogue of your church-proposals with one hand,
you shall receive a particular catalogue of what I con
ceive fundaraental with the other. For as yet I see no
such fair proceeding as you talk of, nor any perform
ance 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 beUeve ichatsoever the
catholic 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 array of one man. The author of " Charity Mis
taken " " deraands a particular catalogue of fundamental
points ;" and we (say you) again and again demand
such a catalogue. And surely if this one proposition,
which here you think to stop our mouths with, be a
catalogue, yet, at least, such a catalogue it is not ; and,
therefore, as yet, you have not performed what you re
quire. For, if to set down such a proposition, wherein

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 237
are coraprised all points taught by us to be necessary
to salvation, will serve you instead of a catalogue,
you shaU have catalogues enough. As, We are obliged
to believe all, under pain of daranation, which God
commands us to believe : There is 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
is another. We are obliged, under pain of damnation, to
believe God's word, and aU contained in it, to be true :
There is a third. If these generalities wUl not satisfy
you, but you will be iraportuning us to tell you, in
particular, what they are which Christ taught his
apostles, and his apostles the church, what points are
contained in God's word ; then I beseech you do us
reason, and give us a particular and exact inventory of
all your church-proposals, without leaving out or adding
any, such a one which all the Doctors of your church
will subscribe to ; and if you receive not then a catalogue
of fundamentals, I, for ray part, will give you leave to
proclaira us bankrupts.
LIV. Besides this deceitful generality of your cata
logue, (as you call it,) another raain fault we find with
it, that it is extreraely 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 raean explicitly
or implicitly. If you mean implicitly, I would know
whether your church's infallibility be, under pain of damn
ation, to be believed explicitly, or no : whether any one
point or points besides this be. under the same penalty,
to be believed explicitly, or no : and, if any, what
they be. I would know what you esteera the proposals
of the Catholic visible church ; in particular, whether
the decree of a Pope ex cathedra, that is, with an

238 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
intent to oblige all Christians by it, be a sufficient and
an obliging proposal : whether raen, without danger of
damnation, may examine such a decree, and, if they
think they have just cause, refuse to obey it : whether
the decree of a council, without the Pope's confirma
tion, be such an obliging proposal, or no : whether
it be so in case there be no Pope, or in case it be
doubtful who is Pope : whether the decree of a general
council, confirmed by the Pope, be such a proposal ;
and whether he be a heretic that thinks otherwise:
whether the decree of a particular councU, 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 raost eminent Fathers of any age, agreeing in the
affirmation of any doctrine, (not contradicted by any of
their contemporaries,) be a sufficient proposition : whether
the Fathers' testifying such or such a doctrine or practice
to be tradition, or to be the doctrine or practice of the
church, be a sufficient assurance that it is so : whether
we be bound, under pain of damnation, to believe every
text of the vulgar Bible, now authorized by the Roman
church, to be the true translation of the originals of
the prophets, and evangelists, and apostles, without any
the least alteration : whether they that lived when the
Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound, under pain of
damnation, to believe the same of that ; and, if not of
that, of what Bible they were bound to believe it:
whether the Catholic visible church be always that
society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of
Rome : whether every Christian, that hath ability and
opportunity, be not bound to endeavour to know expli
citly the proposals of the church : whether implicit faith
in the church's veracity will not save him that actually
and explicitiy disbelieves some doctrine of the church,

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 239
not knowing it to be so ; and actually believes some
damnable heresy, as, that God has the shape of a raan :
whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point
to be decreed by the church when his priest or ghostly
father assures hira it is so : whether his ghostly father
may not en in telling him so ; and whether any man
can be obliged, under pain of damnation, to believe an
error : whether he be bound to believe such a thing
defined when a number of priests, perhaps, ten or
twenty, tell hira it is so ; and what assurance he can
have, that they neither err nor deceive him in this
matter: why implicit faith in Christ or the Scriptures
should not suffice for a man's salvation, as well as
implicit faith in the church : whether, when you say,
Whatsoever the church proposeth, you mean, all that |
ever she proposed, or that only which she now pro- .
poseth ; and whether she now proposeth all that ever '
she did propose : whether all the books of canonical
Scripture were sufficiently declared to the church to be
so, and proposed as such by the apostles ; and if not,
from whom the church had this declaration afterwards ;
if so, whether all men, ever since the apostles' tirae,
were bound, under pain of damnation, to believe the
Epistle of St. James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews,
to be canonical ; at least, not to disbelieve it, and
believe the contrary : lastly, why it is not sufficient for
any man's salvation to use the best means he can to
inform his conscience, and to follow the direction of it.
To all these demands, when you have given fair and
ingenuous answers, you shall hear further from me.
LV. To Section xx. — At the first entrance
into this paragraph, frora our own doctrine, that " the
church cannot err 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

240 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
answer, first, that the supposition, as you understand it,
is falsely imposed upon us, and, as we understand it,
it will do you no service. For when we say, that there
shall be a church always, somewhere or other, unerring
in fundamentals, our meaning is but this, that there
shall be always a church, to the very being whereof it is
repugnant that it should err 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 privilege to any one church of any
one denoraination, as the Greek or the Roraan church :
which if we bad done, and set up some settled, certain
society of Christians, distinguishable from aU others by
adhering to such a bishop for our guide in fundaraentals,
then indeed, and then only, raight you, with some
colour, though with no certainty, have concluded that
we could not in wisdora 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, *aeaning no
more but this, that there shall be alway.-?, in some place
or other, some church that errs not in fundamentals ;
will you conclude from hence, that we cannot in wisdom
forsake this or that, the Roman or the Greek church,
for fear of erring in fundamentals ?
LVI. Yea, but you may say, (for I will make the
best I can of all your arguments,) that this church thus
unerring in fundamentals, when Luther arose, was by
our confession the Roman ; and therefore we ought not
in wisdom to have departed from it in any thing. I
answer, first, that we confess no such thing, that the
church of Rorae was then this church, but only a part
of it, and that the raost corrupted and most inconigible.
Secondly, that if by adhering to that church, we could

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 241
have been thus far secured, this arguraent had some
show of reason. But seeing we are not warranted thus
much, by any privUege of that church that she cannot
err fundamentally, but only from Scripture (which
assures us that she doth err very heinously) collect our
hope, that the truths she retains and the practice of
thera may prove an antidote to her against the errors
which she raaintains, in such persons as in simplicity of
heart follow this Absalom ; we should then do against
the light of our conscience, and so sin daranably, if we
should not abandon the profession of her errors, though
not fundamental. Neither can we thus conclude : " We
may safely hold with the church of Rome in all her
points, for she cannot err daranably ; " for this is false ;
she may, though perhaps she does not : but rather thus :
" These points of Christianity, which have in thera the
nature of antidotes against the poison of all sins and
enors, the church of Rome, though otherwise much
corrupted, still retains ; therefore we hope she errs not
fundamentaUy,* but stUl 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
• According to ClilUingworth, (p. 234,) the only fundamental point
is, to believe the Scriptures to be true, to endeavour to find out the
sense of it, and to hve according to its precepts. But the church
of Rome avers, that this is not sufficient, and makes the behef of her
traditions as fundamental a point as the belief of the Scriptures them
selves, and will not suifer the two to be disjoined ; making herself,
in brief, the prompter of all necessary points of faith ; therefore,
according to his own reasoning, the church of Rome does err in
fundamentals  E dit. M

242 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
bring us to certain damnation. As for the fear of
departing from some fundamental truths withal, while
we depart from her errors, haply it might work upon
us, if adhering to her might secure us from it, and if
nothing else could : but both these are false. For, first,
adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from
erring in fundamentals : because though de facto we
hope she does not err, yet we know no privUeges she
has but she may err in them herself; and therefore we
had need have better security hereof than her bare
authority. Then, secondly, without dependence on her
at all, we may be secured that we do not en fundamen
tally ; I mean, by believing all those things plainly set
down in Scripture, wherein all things necessary, and
most things profitable, are plainly delivered. Suppose I
were travelling to London, and knew two ways thither;
the one very safe and convenient, the other very incon
venient and dangerous, but yet a way to London : and
that I overtook a passenger on the way, who himself
believed, and would fain persuade me, there was no
other way but the worse, and would persuade me to
accompany hira in it, because I confessed his way,
though very inconvenient, yet a way ; so that going
that way we could not fail of our journey's end, by the
consent of both parties : but he believed my way to be
none at all : and therefore I might justly fear, lest, out
of a desire of leaving the worst way, I left the tme and
the only way. If now I should not be more secure
upon my own knowledge, than frighted by this faUacy,
would you not beg rae for a fool ? Just so raight 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 en in funda
mentals, is your holding the doctrines of faith in Christ
and repentance : which knowing we hold as well as you,

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 243
notwithstanding our departure from you, we must needs
know that we do not err in fundamentals, as well as we
know that you do not err in some fundamentals, and
therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary. Yet let us
be more liberal to you, and grant that which can never
be proved, — that God had said in plain terms, " The
church of Rome shall never destroy the foundation," but
withal had said, that " it might and would lay much hay
and stubble upon it ;" that you should never hold any
error destructive of salvation, but yet many that were
prejudicial to edification : I demand, Might we have dis
pensed with ourselves in the believing and professing
these enors in regard of the smallness of them ? or had
it not been a damnable sin to do so, though the errors
in theraselves were not daranable ? Had we not had as
plain direction to depart frora you in sorae things pro
fitable, as to adhere to you in things necessary ? In
the beginning of your book, when it was for your pur
pose to have it so, the greatness or smallness of the
matter was not considerable, the evidence of the revela
tion was all in all : but here we must err with you
in small things, for fear of losing your direction in
greater; and, for fear of departing too far frora you,
not go from you at all, even where we see plainly that
you have departed frora the truth.
LVII. 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, irapossible : I
mean, to adhere to you in all things, having no other
ground for it, but because you are (as we will now sup
pose) infallible in sorae things, that is, in fundaraentals.
For, whether by skill in architecture a large structure \
may be supported by a nanow foundation, I know not ; J
but, sure I am, in reason no conclusion can be larger
than the principles on which it is founded. And, •
M 2

244 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
therefore, if I consider what I do, and be persuaded,
that your infaUibility is but liraited, and particular, and
partial, ray adherence upon this ground cannot possibly
be absolute, and universal, and total. I ara confident,
that should I raeet 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 rae 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 rae. First : Supposing you hold your
church infallible in fundamentals, obnoxious to error
in other things, and that you know not what points are
fundamental, I demand, —
Chillingworth. — ^Vhy do you believe the doc
trine of transubstantiation ?
Knott. — Because the church hath taught it, which
is infaUible. Chil. — What ! infallible in all things, or only in
fundaraentals ?
Knott. — In fundaraentals only.
Chil. — Then in other points she may err ?
Knott. — She may.
Chil. — And do you know what points are funda
mental, what not?
Knott. — No ; and, therefore, I believe her in all
things, lest I should disbelieve her in fundamentals.
Chil. — How know you then, whether this be a fun
damental point or no ?

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL.

245

Knott. — I know not. ;
Chil. — It may be, then, (for aught you know,) an :
unfundamental point ?
Knott. — Yes, it may be so.
Chil. — And in these you said the church may
en? Knott. — Yes, I did so.
Chil. — Then, possibly, it may en in this ? ,
Knott. — It may do so.
Chil. — Then, what certainty have you, that il does ,
not en in it ?
Knott. — None at all, but upon this supposition,
that this is a fundaraental.
Chil. — And this supposition you are uncertain of?
Knott. — Yes, I told you so before.
Chil. — And, therefore, you can have no certainty
of that which depends upon this uncertainty, saving
only a suppositive certainty, if it be a fundaraental
truth ; which is in plain English to say, you are cer
tain it is trae, if it be both trae and necessary. Verily,
Sir, if you have no better faith than this, you are no
catholic. Knott. — Good words, I pray ! I am so, and, God
willing, will be so.
Chil. — You mean, in outward profession and prac"
tice ; but in belief you are not, no more than a Protest
ant is a catholic. For every Protestant yields such a
kind of assent to all the proposals of the church ; for
surely they believe them true, if they be fundamental
truths. And, therefore, you must either believe the
church infallible in all her proposals, be they founda
tions, or be they superstructions, or else you must
believe all fundaraental which she proposes, or else you
are no catholic.
Knott, — But I have been taught, that seeing I

246 points rightly distinguished into
believed the church infallihle in points necessary, in
wisdom I was to believe her in every thing.
Chil. — That was a pretty plausible inducement,
i to bring you hither ; but, now you are here, you must
; go farther, and believe her infaUible 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
J with your own, the imputation of rashness and levity.
j You see, I hope, by this time, that though a man did
believe your church infallible in fundaraentals, yet he
; has no reason to do you the courtesy of beliering all
her proposals ; nay, if he be ignorant what these
fundamentals are, he has no certain ground to be
lieve her, upon her authority, in any thing. And
whereas you say, it can be no imprudence to en with
the church ; I say, it may be very great iraprudence,
if the question be, whether we should en with the
present church, or hold true with God Alraighty.
LX. — Whereas you add, that tlmt visible church
which cannot err in fundamentals, propounds all her
definitions without distinction to he believed under
anathemas :
Answer. Again you beg the question, supposing
untruly, that there is any tliat visible church ; I mean,
any visible church of one denomination, which cj>nnot err
in points fundamental. Secondly, proposing definitions to
be believed under anathemas, is no good argument, that
the propounders conceive themselves infallible ; but
only, that they conceive the doctrine they condemn is
evidently daranable. A plain proof hereof is this,
that particular councils, nay, particular men, have been
very liberal of their anathemas, which yet were never
conceived infallible, either by others or themselves.
If any man should now deny Christ to be the Saviour

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 247
of the world, or deny the resunection, I should make
no great scruple of anathematizing his doctrine, and
yet ara very far from dreaming of infallibility.
LXII. The effect of the next arguraent is this : /
cannot, without grievous sin, disobey the church, unless
I know she commands those things which are not in her
power fo command ; and how far this power extends,
none can hetter inform me than the church. Therefore,
I am to obey, so far as the church requires my obedience.
I answer : First, that neither hath the catholic church,
but only a corrupt part of it, declared herself, nor
required our obedience, in the points contested among
us. This, therefore, is falsely and vainly supposed here
by you, being one of the greatest questions araongst
us. Then, secondly, that God can better inform us,
what are the liraits of the church's power, than the
church herself, that is, than the Roman clergy, who,
being men subject to the same passions with pther men, v
why they should be thought the best judges in their ¦
own cause, I do not well understand ! But yet we
oppose against them no human decisive judges, not
any sect or person, but only God and his word. And,
therefore, it is in vain to say, that in following her, you
shall be sooner excused, than in following any sect or
mam, applying Scriptures against her doctrine: inas
much as we never went about to arrogate to ourselves
that infaUibiUty or absolute authority, which we take
away from you. But, if you would have spoken to the
purpose, you should have said, that, in foUowing her,
you should sooner have been excused, than in cleaving
to the Scripture, and to God himself.
LXIII. Whereas you say, The fearful examples of
innumerable persons, wlio, forsaking the church, upon
pretence of her errors, have failed even in fundamental
points, ought to deter all Christians from opposing her

248 POINTS rightly distinguished into
in any one doctrine or practice ; this is just as if you
should say, " Divers men have faUen into Scylla, with
going too far from Charybdis : be sure, therefore, ye
keep close to Charybdis. Divers, leaving prodigality,
have fallen into covetousness : therefore, be you constants
to prodigaUty. Many have fallen from worshipping
God perversely and foolishly, not to worship him at all ;
from worshipping many gods, to worship none : this,
therefore, ought to deter men from leaving superstition
or idolatry, for fear of falling into atheism and impiety."
This is your counsel and sophistry : but Gkid says clean
contrary : " Take heed you swerve not, either to
the right hand or to the left : you must not do evil
that good may come thereon ;" therefore, neither that
you raay avoid a greater evil, you raust not be obstinate
in a certain error, for fear of an uncertain. What, if
sorae, forsaking the church of Rorae, have forsaken
fundamental truths ! was this because they forsook
the church of Rome ? No : sure, this is non-causa
pro causa: for, else, all that have forsaken that
church should have done so ; which, we say, they
have not. But because they went too far from
her, the golden mean, the nanow way is hard to be
found, and hard to be kept ; hard, but not impossi
ble ; hard, but yet you must not please yourself out of
it, though you err on the right hand, though you offend
on the milder part ; for this is the only way that leads
to life, 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 persuade any man to leave it. But we
protest and proclaira the contrary, and that -n'e 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

F^Xl>A3IEXTAI. AND NOT FUSDAHEXTAI.. 240
dmcii ; and, flierefne, cannot bat coneeive those feais
to be most fotdishand ridiailoas -wiiicii peisiiade men to
be eoi^tant in one way to hell : lest, baplj, if iliey
leave it, fliey sboold Sdl into another.
LXJV. OsjscTios. SemePraiegtaa^pretmdimgio
rrfarm ike dmnA, are came to ixffirm Aat ^ periled
fifmaagags; wUdtaAgn amaatdeagtoheafkada-
maOal error agmtsi ike artxde rf Ae ated, " I h-iUe-re
fib aOkeUc daarA ;~ aad <^Sn% fib Jkmeiuig mred
fimdame^aBf, iu earfauMg it to .^nta.
To iMs I answff : Fiisfc, tfeat tIse enw of fte Dma-
tkl^ was not, that fliej hdd it posaMe t^t sonse, or
many, va most parts of C^ii^eDdom. m^it &II asay
from C%ik&aiity, and that the cii?!^ ii^j lo^ muck
of her amplkode, and be erafaacted to a nanow eran-
pass, in compariKai of ber SHmec extent; vfcid s
poTed, not only po^lde, but certain, byin^sgd^
espenoiee. For, who Inows not, that Gsidlan and
Mah<nnetain^i (man's vi^edness desening^ if,aBd God's
pofjdenee petmittiiig it) bare pieiaikd, to tbe ^inicT
extjipatiim of Om^anifj, upon hst die peaf^ part of
flie worid .^ And SL Anstin, vben be vas out 'A
flie heat of di^otatioii, eniKseesflie railftain dmdt to
foe ''like the moon,^ scmetim^ ineiEasn? and some
times deeieaang. This, fltes^se, was no ems in Ae
Bonatistg, that fliej bdd it posaUe flirt tbe e%mc^
from a l»ga extent, mighi be ciattiacsed to a lei^? ;
or that fliey beld it poeaUe to be zednced to Alriea :
{fin-, -why not to Afrie then, S3 weU as iiithin &ess:
few ages, yoa peetend, it w^ to Europe.-^ bat tbeir
oror was, that flbej beJd, de fad», the was done wbea
they bad no jn^ groimd or reason to do so ; and s<r,
npon a tsb ^i^^Ke, which fliey conld not jostiiy,
separated fltemselves from the eamnranion of all otha
parts of tbe dmidi: and that they leqoiied it, as
M 3

250 POINTS rightly distinguished into
a necessary condition to make a man a member of
the church, that he should be of their communion, and
divide hiraself from all other communions from which
they were divided ; which was a condition both unne
cessary, and unlawful to be required ; and, therefore,
the exacting of it was directly opposite to the church's
Catholicism ; in the very same nature with their errors
who required circumcision, and the keeping of the law
of Moses, as necessary to salvation. For, whosoever
requires harder or heavier conditions of men than God
requires of them, he it is that is properly an enemy of
the church's universality, by hindering either men or
countries from adjoining themselves to it ; which, were
it not for these unnecessary, and therefore unlawful,
conditions, in probability, would have made them mem
bers of it. And seeing the present church of Rome
persuades men they were as good (for any hope of
salvation they have) not to be Christians, as not to
be Roman Catholics ; believe nothing at all, as not to
believe all which they impose upon them ; be abso
lutely out of the church's communion, as be out
of their communion, or be in any other ; whether they
be not guilty of the sarae crime with the Donatists and
those zealots of the Mosaical law, I leave it to the
judgment of those that understand reason. This is
sufficient to show the vanity of this argument. But I
add, moreover, that you neither have named those
Protestants who held the church to have perished for
many ages ; who perhaps held not the destruction bul
the conuption 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
splendour and visibility. Neither have you proved by
any one reason (but only affirmed) it to be a fun-

fundamental and not fundamental.

251

damental 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.
LXIX. To Section xxiii. — In all these texts of
Scripture, which are here alleged in this last section of this
chapter, or in any one of them, or in any other, doth God
say clearly and plainly, "The bishop of Rome, and
that society of Christians which adheres to hira, shall be
ever the infaUible g-uide of faith ?" You wiU confess,
I presurae, he doth not ; and will pretend, it was not
necessary. Yet, if the king should teU us, the lord-
keeper should judge such and such causes ; but should
either not teU us at aU, or tell us but doubtfuUy,
who shoiQd be lord-keeper ; should we be any thing the
nearer, for hira, to an end of contentions ? nay, rather,
would not the dissensions about the person, who it is,
increase contentions, rather than end thera ? Just so it
would have been, if God had appointed a church to be
judge of controversies, and had not told us which was
that church. Seeing, therefore, God does nothing in
vain ; and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a judge
of controversies, and not to tell us plainly who it is ;
and seeing, lastly, he hath not told us plainly, no, not
at all, who it is ; is it not evident he hath appointed
none ?
Orjection. But you will say, perhaps. If it be
granted once, that some church of one denomination is
the infallible guide of faith, it will he no difficult thing
to prove that yours is the church, seeing no other church
pretends to he so.
Answer. Yes, the priraitive and the apostolic
church pretends to be so. That assures us, that the
" Spirit was promised, and given to them, to lead them
into all saving trath," that they might lead others.
Objection. But that church is not now in th^

252 points rightly distinguished into-
world, and how then can it pretend fo be fhe guide
of faith ?
Answer. It is now in the world sufficiently to be
our guide ; not by the persons of those raen that were
merabers of it, but by their writings, which do plainly
teach us what trath they were led into, and so lead us
into the same truth.
Objection. But tiiese writings were the writings
of some particular men, and not of ihe church of those
times ; how then doth that church guide us by these
writings ? Now, these places show thaf a church is be
our guide ; therefore, they cannot he so avoided.
Answer. If you regard the conception and pro
duction of these writings, they were the writings of
particular men ; but if you regard the reception and
approbation of thera, they raay 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 bysome
one man, yet, being ratified by the Parliament, is called
" the act," not of that raan, but " of the Parliament."
Objection. But the words seem clearly enough to
prove that the church, the present church of every age,
is universally infallihle.
Answer. For ray part, I know, I ara as willing
and desirous that the bishop or church of Rorae should
be infallible, (provided I raight know it,) as they are to
be so esteeraed. 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
wUl appear to you of what colour pleases your fancies
best ; and will seera to say, not what they do say, but
what you would have thera : as some say, the manna,
wherewith the Israelites were fed in the wUderness, had

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL.

25-3

in every man's mouth that very taste whidi 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 vet to me
they seem to say no such matter.
LXX. Not the first. (Matt. xvi. 18.) For the
"church" n.ay en, and yet "the gates of heU not
prevail against" her. It may en. and vet continue
still a trae church, and bring forth chUdren nnto God,
and send souls to heaven. And theiefoie this can do
you no service, without the plain begging of the point in
question ; namely, that every err<» 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 stiU a true member of the church ; why may not
the universal church hold the same error, and vet
remain the true universal ?
LXXI. Not the second or third. (John xiv.
16, 17; xvi. 1-3.) For "the Spirit of trath"' may
be with a man or a church " for ever," and teach him
" all trath ;" and yet he may faU into some error, if
this " all " be not simply aU, but aU of some kind.
Secondly : He may faU into some error, even contrary
to the trath which is taught him, if it be taught him
only sufficiently and not inesistibly, so that he mav
learn it if he wUl, not so that he must and shall, whe
ther he wUl or no. Now, who can ascertain me that
the Spirit's teaching is not of this nature ? Or, how
can you possibly reconcUe it with your doctrine of free-
wUl in believing, if it be not of this nature ? Besides,
the word in the original is 'Ar,yr,7u, which signifies, " to
be a guide and director only," not to compel or necessi
tate. Who knows not, that a guide may set you in the

254 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
right way, and you may either negligently mistake br
wiUingly leave it ? And to what purpose doth God
complain so often and so eamestly 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 ? " tiiat " he came unto his own,
and his owu 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 bis " arm was revealed ? "
and that when he comes, he should find no faith upon
earth ? if his outwaid teaching were not of this nature,
that it raight be followed and might be resisted ? And
if it be, then God may teach, and the church not leam ;
God may lead, and the chmch be refractory, and not
follow. And, indeed, who can doubt, that hath not his
eyes veiled with prejudice, that God hath taught the
church of Rome plain enough, in the [first] Epistle to
the Corinthians, that " all things in the chuich are to be
done for edification," and that, in any public prayers, or
thanksgivings, or hymns, or lessons of instraction, to
use a language which the assistants generally understand
not, is not for edification ? Though the church of
Rome will not learn this, for fear of confessing an error,
and so overthrowing ber authority ; yet the time wiU
come when it shall appear, that not only by Scripture
they were taught this sufficientiy, and commanded to
believe, but by reason and common sense. And so for
the comraunion in both kinds, who can deny but they
are taught it by our Saviour, (John vi.,) in these words,
according to most of your own expositions : " Unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of many and drink his
blood, you have no life in you ? " (If our Saviour speak

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 255
there of the sacrament, as to them he does, because they
conceive he does so.) Though they may pretend that
receiving in one kind they receive the blood, together
with the body ; yet they can with no face pretend that
they drink it ; and so obey not our Saviour's injunction
according to the letter, which yet they " profess is, lite
raUy, always to be obeyed, unless some irapiety or some
absurdity force us to the contrary ;" and they are not
yet arrived to that impudence to pretend that either
there is irapiety or absurdity in reoei\-ing the commu
nion in both kinds. This, therefore, they, if not
others, are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place :
but, by St. Paul, all without exception, when he says,
" Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this
bread and drink of this chalice." 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 St. Paul's Epistles and St. John's
Gospel to be the word of God, one would think, should
not deny but that they are taught these two doctrines
plain enough. Yet we see they neither do nor will
leam them. I conclude, therefore, that the Spirit may
very well teach the church, and yet the church faU into
and continue in error, by not regarding what she is
taught by the Spirit.
LXXI I. But all this I have spoken upon a suppo
sition only, and showed unto you, that though these
promises had been raade 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 infaUibUity could be built upon them. But
the plain truth is, that these promises are vainly arro
gated by you, and were never made to you, but to the

2.56 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
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. " (John xiv. 25.) " But the Comforter shall teach
you all things, and bring all things to your remem
brance, whatsoever I have told you." (Verse 26.) Who
are they to whom he says ? — " I go away, and come again
unto you ; and I have told you before it come to pass."
(Verses 28, 29.) " You have been with me from the
beginning." (John xv. 27.) And again: "These things
I have told you, that, when the time shall come, you
may remeraber that I told you of them : and these
things I said not to you at the beginning, because I
was with you." (John xvi. 4.) " And because I said
these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts."
(Verse 6.) Lastly : who are they of whom he saith .'' —
" I have yet raany things to say unto you, but ye can
not bear them now." (Verse 12.) Do not all these cir
cumstances appropriate this whole discourse of our
Saviour to his disciples that were then with hira, and
consequently restrain the proraises of the Spirit of
truth, which was " to lead thera into all truth," to their
persons only ? And seeing it is so, is it not an imper
tinent anogance and presumption for you to lay claim
unto them, in the behalf of your church ? Had Christ
been present with your church ? Did the Com
forter bring these things to the reraerabrance 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, lastiy,
did he or could he have said to your church, which
then was not extant ? — " I have yet many things to say

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 257
unto you, but ye cannot bear them now ; " as he speaks
in verse 13, immediately before the words by you
quoted ; and then goes on ; " Howbeit, when the
Spirit of truth is corae, he will guide you into all
truth." Is it not the sarae you be speaks to in verse 13,-
and that he speaks to in verse 14 ? And is it not appa
rent to any one that has but half an eye, that in
verse 13 he speaks only to thera that then were with
hira ? Besides, in the very text by you alleged, there
are things proraised, which your church cannot with
any modesty pretend to. For there it is said, " The
Spirit of truth," not only " wUl guide you into all
truth," but also " wUl show you things to come." Now
your church (for aught I could ever understand) does
not so rauch as pretend to the Spirit of prophecy, and
knowledge of future events ; and therefore hath as littl«
cause to pretend to the forraer proraise of being " led
by the Spirit into all truth." And this is the reason, j
why both you in this place, and generally your writers '
of controversies, when they entreat of this argument, cite !
this text perpetuaUy by halves, there being in the latter i
part of it a clear and convincing demonstration, that
you have nothing to do with the forraer; imless you
will say, which is raost ridiculous, that when our Saviour
said, " He will teach you," &c., and, " He will show j
you," &c., he raeant one you in the forraer clause, !
and another you in the latter. >
LXXIII. Objection. But this is to confine Gods
Spirit to the apostles only, or ta the disciples, that then
were present with him : which is directly contrary to
many places of Scripture,
Answer. I confess, that to confine the Spirit of God
to those that were then present with Christ, is against
Scripture. But I hope it is easy to conceive a difference \
between confining the Spirit of God to them, and con- I

258 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
fining the promises made in this place to them. God may
do many things which he does not promise at all ; much
more, which he does not promise in such or such a place.
LXXIV. Objection. But it is promised ini o}ai
xiv,, that this Spirit sliall abide with them for ecer :
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 co-existence of two
things supposes of necessity the existence of either.
Therefore the promise was not made to them only in
their persons, but hy fhem to the church, which was to
abide for ever.
Answer. Your conclusion is, not to them only,
but your reason concludes either nothing at aU, or that
this promise of abiding with them for ever was not
made to their persons at aU ; or, if it were, that
it was not performed. Or if you wUl not say, (as I
hope you wiU 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 eternaUy, with
out end of tirae, hxit perpetually, without interraption,
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 perforraance of their fimction ; 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 man's " for ever."
Neither is this use of the word " for ever " any thing
strange, either in our ordinary speech, wherein we
use to say, " This is mine for ever : " " This shall be
yours for ever," without ever dreaming of the eternity
either of the thing or persons. And then in Scrip-

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL, 259
ture it not only will bear, but requires, this sense-
very frequently ; as in Exodus xxi. 6 ; Deut. xv. 17 : ,
" His master shall bore his ear through with an awl,;
and he shall serve hira for ever." Psalm Iii. 9 :
" I will praise thee for ever." Psaira Ixi. 4 : "I will
abide in thy tabernacle for ever." Psalm cxix. Ill :
" Thy testimonies have I taken as raine heritage for
ever." And, lastly, in the Epistle to PhUemon : " He ,
therefore departed from thee for a time, that thou .
shouldest receive him for ever."
LXXV. And thus, I presume, I have showed suffi
ciently, 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
pUlar of your church's infaUibUity, prove, upon trial, an
engine to batter and overthrow it, at least, (which is all
one to my purpose,) to take away all possibUity 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 generaUy all
your writers of controversy 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
sacrilege and honible impiety, (somewhat like Pro-
crustes's craelty,) 3'ou perpetually cut off the head and
foot — the beginning and end — of it ; and, presenting
to your confidants (who usuaUy read no more of the
Bible than is aUeged by you) only these words, " I will
ask my Father, and he shall give you another Para
clete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the
Spirit of trath," 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 expressly conditional ; being, both in

260 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
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 style by
the narae of " the world," that is, as the very antithesis
gives us plainly to understand, to all wicked and worldly
men. Behold the place entire, as it is set down in
your own Bible : " If ye love rae, keep my command
ments ; and I wUl ask my Father, and he shall give
you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for
ever, even the Spirit of the trath, whom the world can
not 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 infal
libility of your church but upon this supposition, that
your Popes are infallible in confirming the decrees of
general councils ; we can have no certainty hereof but
upon this supposition, that the Spirit of truth is pro
mised to him, for his direction in this work; and of
this again we can have no certainty but upon supposal,
that he performs the condition whereunto the promise
of the Spirit of truth is expressly limited, namely,
that he " love God and keep his coraraandments ;" and
of this, finally, not knowing the Pope's heart, we can
have no certainty at all ; therefore, from the first to the
last, we can have no certainty at all of your church's
infallibility. This is my first arguraent. From this
place another follows, which will charge you as home as
the former : If raany of the Roraan see were such men
as could not receive the Spirit of truth, even men
of the world, that is, worldly, wicked, carnal, diabolical
men, then the Spirit of truth is not here promised, but
ffatly denied, thera ; and, consequently, we can have no
certainty neither of the decrees of councils, which these
Popes confirra, nor of the church's infaUibility, which is
guided by these decrees. But many of the Roman

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 261
see, even by the confession of the most zealous defend
ers of it, were such raen ; therefore, the Spirit of truth
is not here proraised, but denied, them ; and, conse
quentiy, we can have no certainty neither of the decrees
which they confirra, nor of the church's infallibility,
which guides herself by these decrees.
LXXVI. 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 alleged
for this purpose by you, out of St. Paul, 1 Tim.
iii. 15, where he saith, (as you say,) " The church
is the pUlar and ground of trath." But the truth is,
you are soraewhat too bold with St. Paul ; for he says
not in forraal terras what you raake him say, " The
church is the pillar and ground of truth ;" neither is it
certain that he raeans so ; for it is neither impossible
nor improbable that the words " the pillar and ground
of truth " may have reference not to the church but to
Timothy; the sense ofthe place [being], " That thou
mayest know how to behave thyself, as a pillar and ground
of trath, in the church of God, which is the house
of the living God :" which exposition offers no violence
at all to the words, but only supposes an ellipsis of the
particle di;, in the Greek very ordinary. Neither
wants it some likelihood, that St. Paul, coraparing the
church to a house, should here exhort Tiraothy 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 " pUlars ;" rather thin, having called the
church " a house," to call it presently " a pillar ;"
which may seem somewhat heterogeneous. Yet, if you
wiU needs have St. Paul refer this not to Timothy, but
the church, I will not contend about it any farther than
to say. Possibly it may be otherwise. But then,
secondly, I am to put you in mind, that the church,

262 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
which St. Paul here speaks' of, was that in which
Timothy conversed, and that was a particular church,
and not the Roman ; and such you will not have to be
universally infallible.
LXXVII. Thirdly : If we grant you, out of cour
tesy, (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 Scrip
ture are not notes of performance, but of duty, and
teach us, not what the thing or person is of necessity,
but what it should be. " Ye are the salt of the earth,"
said our Saviour to his disciples ; not that this quaUty
was inseparable from their persons, but because it was
their office to be so. For, if they must have been
so of necessity, and could not have been otherwise,
in vain had he put them in fear of that which follows :
"If the salt hath lost his savour, wherewith shaU it
be salted ? It is thenceforth good for nothing, hut
to be cast forth, and to be trodden under foot." So
the church may be by duty the pUlar and ground, that
is, the teacher, of trath, of all trath, not only necessary,
but profitable, to salvation ; and yet she may neglect and
violate this duty, and be, in fact, the teacher of some
enor. LXXVIII. Fourthly and lastly : If we deal most
liberally with you, and grant that the apostle here
speaks of the catholic church, calls it the "pillar
and ground of truth," and that not only because it
should, but because it always shall and will, be so ;
yet, after all this, you have done nothing ; your bridge
is too short to bring you to the bank where you would
be, unless you can show that by "truth" here is
certainly meant, not only all necessary to salvation, but
all that is profitable, absolutely aud simply all. For,
that the true church always shall be the maintainer and

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL.

263

teacher of aU 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 stUl a church, though
it be defective in some profitable truth. And as a
man may be a man that has some boUs and botches
on his body, so the church may be the church, though
it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice.
LXXIX. And thus, you see, we are at liberty from
the forraer places; having showed that the sense of
thera either must or may be such as wUl do your
cause no service. But the last, you suppose, will be a
Gordian knot, and ties us fast enough. The words
are : " He gave some apostles, and sorae prophets,"
&c., " to the consummation of saints, to the work of
the rainistry," &c. " until we all meet into the unity
of faith," &c. " that we be not hereafter chUdren,
wavering and carried up and down with every wind of
doctrine ;" (Ephes. iv. 11 — 13 ;) out of which words,
this is the only argument which you coUect, or I can
collect for you : There is no means to conserve
unity of faith against every wind of doctrine, unless
it be a church universally infallible : But it is impious
to say, there is no raeans to conserve unity of faith
against every wind of doctrine : Therefore, there must
be a church universally infallible. Whereunto I an
swer, that your major is so far from being confirmed,
that it is plainly confuted, by the place alleged. For,
that tells us of another means for this purpose, to wit,
the " apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pas
tors, and doctors," which Christ gave upon his ascen
sion ; and that their " consummating the saints, doing

264 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
the work of the ministry, and edifying the body of
Christ," was the means to bring those (which are there
spoken of, be they who they wUl) to " the unity of
faith, and to perfection in Christ," that they might not
be " wavering, and carried about with every wind of
false doctrine." Now, the apostles, and prophets, and
evangelists, and pastors, and doctors, are not the
present church. Therefore, the church is not the only
means for this end, nor that which is here spoken of.
LXXX. Peradventure, by "he gave," you con
ceive, is to be understood, he proraised that he would
give unto the world's end. But wbat reason have you
for this conceit ? Can you show that the word Uwxe
hath this signification in otber places, and that it must
have it in this place ? Or wUl 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 proraised 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 pro
phets, and evangelists ; and, therefore, having pastors
and doctors, you have all. For, it is apparent, that by
these naraes are denoted several orders of raen, clearly
distinguished and diversified by the original text ; hut
much raore 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 raore plainly in the parallel place,
1 Cor. xii., to which we are referred by your vulgar
translation : " God hath set some in the church, first,

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 265
apostles, secondarily, prophets, thirdly, teachers : "
therefore, this subterfuge is stopped against you.
Objection. But how can they which died in the
first age keep us in unity and guard us from error that
Uve now, perhaps in fhe last ? This seems to be all one
as if a man should say, that Alexander or Julius Cwsar
should quiet a mutiny in the king of Spain''s army.
Answer. I hope you will grant, that Hippocrates,
and Galen, and Euclid, and Aristotle, and Sallust, and
Csesar, and Livy, were dead many ages since ; and yet
that we are now preserved from error by them in a
great part of physic, of geometry, of logic, of the
Roman story. But what, if these men had writ by
Divine inspiration, and writ complete bodies of the
sciences they professed, and writ them plainly and
perspicuously ! you would then have granted, I believe,
that their works had been sufficient to keep us from
error, and from dissension, in these matters. And why
then should it be incongruous to say, that the aposties,
and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, and doctors,
which Christ gave upon his ascension, by their writings,
which sorae of thera writ, but all approved, are even
now sufficient means to conserve us in unity of faith,
and guard us from error ? especially seeing these
writings are, by the confession of all parts, true and
Divine, and, as we pretend, and are ready to prove,
contain a plain and perfect rule of faith ; and, as the
chiefest of you acknowledge, " contain immediately all
the principal and fundamental points of Christianity," *
referring us to the church and tradition only for sorae
minute particularities. But tell me, I pray, the bishops
that composed the decrees of the Council of Trent, and
the Pope that confirmed them, — are they means to
conserve you in unity, and keep you from enor, or are
" Perron. ¦•
N

266 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
they not ? Peradventure, you will say, " Their decrees
are, but not their persons ;" but you will not deny,
I hope, that you owe your unity, and, freedom from
error, to the persons that made these decrees ; neither
will you deny that the writings which they have left
behind them are sufficient for this purpose. And why
may not, then, the apostles' -writings be as fit for such a
purpose as the decrees of your doctors ? Surely, their
intent in writing was to conserve us in unity of faith,
and to keep us from enor; and we are sure God
spake in thera ; but your doctors, frora 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 raay 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
pernicious error.
LXXXI. If yet you be not satisfied, but wUl stil!
pretend, that all these words hy you cited seem clearly
enough to prove, that the church is universally infallihle,
without which, unity of faith could not be conserved
against every wind of doctrine : I answer, that to you,
whioh will not understand that there can be any means
to conserve the unity of faith, but only that which con
serves 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 diffi
culty to discern between dedit and promisit, " he gave at
his ascension," and " he promised to the worid's end."

FCKDAMENTAl AND NOT FCNBAMENTAX. 2SJ
Besides, though you. whom it concems may haply
£att« yourselves, that you have not only pastors and
doctors, bnt prophets and aposties, and evangehsts, (and
those distinct fiom the former,) stUl in your church ; yet
we that aze disinterested persons cannot but smUe at
these strange imaginations. Lastly : though you are
apt to think yourselves such necessary instruments
for all good purposes, and that nothing can be well
^one unless you do it ; that no unity or constancy in
leligion can be maintained, but inevitably Christendom
mnst ML to ruin and confusion, unless you support it :
yet we that are indifferent and impartial, and weU con-
teat that God should give us his own favours, by means
of his own appointment, not of our choosing, can easUy
coUect out of these very words, that not the infaUibUity
Q^ vour or of any chnrch, but the aposili?, and pro
phets, and evangelists, ^c, which Christ gate upon his
ascension, were designed by him, for the compassing all
these exceUent pmposes, by their preaching while they
lived, and by their writings for ever. And if they fail
hereof, the reason is not any insufficiency or in vaUdity in
the means, but the volontaiy perverseness 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 aUow, that the way to heaven is no nanower
now than Christ left it, his yoke no heavier than he
made it ; that the belief of no more difficulties is
required now to salvation, than was in the primitive
chnich ; that no enor is in itself destractive, and excln-
sive from salvation now, which was not then ; if, instead
of being zealous Papists, eamest Calvinists, rigid
Lutherans, they would become theraselves, and be con
tent that others should be, plain and honest Christians ;
if all men would beheve the Scripture, and, freeing

268 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
themselves from prejudice and passion, would sincerely
endeavour to find the trae sense of it, and live accord
ing to it, and require no more of others but to do so ;
nor denying their comraunion to any that do so, would
so order their public serviee of God, that all which do
so raay, without scruple or hypocrisy, or protestation
against any part of it, join with them in it ; — who does
not see that seeing (as we suppose bere, and shall prove
hereafter) all necessary truths are plainly and evidently
set down in Scripture, there would of necessity be
among aU men, in all things necessary, unity of opi
nion ? and, notwithstanding any other differences that
are or could be, unity of communion and charity and
mutual toleration ? By which means, all schism and
heresy would be banished the world ; and those
wretched contentions which now rend and tear in pieces,
not the coat, but the members and bowels, of Christ,
which mutual pride, and tyranny, and cursing, and kill
ing, and damning, would fain make iraraortal, should
speedUy receive a most blessed catastrophe. But of this
hereafter, when we shall come to the question of schism,
wherein I persuade myself, that I shall plainly show, that
the raost vehement accusers are the greatest offenders ;
and that they are indeed at this time the greatest schis
matics, who make the way to heaven narrower, the yoke
of Christ heavier, the differences of faith greater, the
conditions of ecclesiastical communion harder and
stricter, than they were made at the beginning hy
Christ and his apostles ; they who talk of unity, hut
aira at tyranny, and will have peace with none, but with
slaves and vassals. In the meanwhile, though I have
showed how unity of faith, and unity of charity too,
may be preserved without your church's infallibility,
yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence, not that
your church is, but only seems to be, universaUy infalli-

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 269
ble, meaning to yourself, of which you are a better
judge than I ; therefore I wiUingly grant your conclu
sion, and proceed.
LXXXVI. As for your pretence, that, to find ihe
meaning of those places, you confer divers texts, you
consult originals, you examine translations, and use
all tlie means by Protestants appointed; I have
told you before, that all this is vain and hypocritical,
if (as your manner and your doctrine is) you give
not yourself liberty of judgment in the use of these
means ; if you raake not yourselves judges of, but only
advocates for, the doctrine of your church, refusing to
see what these means show you, if it any way raake
against the doctrine of your church, though it be as
clear as the light at noon. Reraove prejudice, even the
balance, and hold it even ; make it indifferent to you
which way you go to heaven, so you go the true ; which
religion be true, so you be of it ; then use the means
and pray for God's assistance, and, as sure as God is
true, you shall be led into all necessary truth.
LXXXVIII. Whereas you say, that it were great
impiety to imagine that God, fhe Lover of souls, liath
left no certain infallible means to decide both this and
all other differences arising about the interpretation of
Scripture, or upon any other occasion : I desire you to '
take heed you commit not an impiety, in making more '
impieties than God's commandments make. Certainly ,
God is no way obliged, either by his promise or his love,
to give us all things that we raay imagine would be con
venient for us, as forraerly I have proved at large. It
is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to
salvation. Deus non deficit in necessariis, nec re
dundat in superfiuis : * so Dr. Stapleton. But that
* " God manifests neither a deficiency in things necessary, nor
any redundancy in superfluities," — Epit.

270 POINTS RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED INTO
the ending of all controversies, or having a certain
means of ending them, is necessary to salvation, that
you have often said and supposed, but never proved,
though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse.
So little care you take how slight your foundations are,
so your building make a fair show ; and as little care,'
how you comrait those faults yourself, which you con--
demn in others. For you here charge thera with great
impiety, who imagine that God, the Lover of souls, hath
left no infallihle means to determine all difference
arising about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon
any other occasion : and yet afterwards, being demanded
by Dr. Potter, " why the questions between the Jesuits
and Dominicians reraain undetermined," you return
hira this cross interrogatory : Who hath assured yow
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 infallihle means to
decide all differences ; I may answer. It seems you do
not believe yourself. For in this controversy, which is
of as high consequence as any can be, you seem to be
doubtful whether there be any means to determine it.
On the other side, when you ask Dr. Potter, who
assured him that there is any means to determine this
controversy, I answer for hira, that you have, in call
ing 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
a'tiy other occasion. For what trick you can devise to
show that this difference, between the Dorainicans 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 othei

FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL. 2?^
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, hut
somdimes with exceptions and limitations.
LXXXIX. But if there be any infaUible means to
decide aU differences, I beseech you narae them. You
say, It is to consult and hear Gods visible church with
stibmissi've acknowledgment of her infalUbility. But
suppose the difference be, (as here it is,) " whether
your church be infalUble," what shall decide that ? If
you would say, (as you should do,) " Scripture and
reason," then you foresee that you should be forced to
grant that these are fit means to decide this controversy,
and therefore may be as fit to decide others. There- !
fore, to avoid this, you ran into a raost ridiculous
absurdity, and teU us that this difference also, whether J
the church be infeUible, as well as others, raust be ;
agreed by a submissive acknowledgment of the churcK's
infallihility. As if you should have said, " ]SIy brethren, ,'
I perceive this is a great contention araongst you, whe
ther the Roraan church be infalUble. If you wiU
follow my advice, I wUl show you a ready means to end
it ; you must first agree that the Roman church is infiil-
Kble, and then your contention whether the Roman
church be infalUble wUl quickly be at end." Verily a
most exceUent advice, and most compendious way of
ending all controversies, even without troubling the
chiuch to determine them ! For why may not you say
in all other differences, as you have done in this ?
Agree that the Pope is supreme head of the church :
that the substance of bread and wine in the sacrament
is tumed into the body and blood of Christ : that the
communion is to be given to laymen but in one kind r
that pictures may be worshipped : that saints are to be
inyocated ; and so in the rest ; and then your differences

272 POINTS FUNDAMENTAL & NOT FUNDAMENTAL.
about the Pope's supremacy, transubstantiation, and all
the rest, wUl speedUy be eiided. If you say, " The advice
is good in this, but not in other cases," I must request
you not to expect always to be believed upon your
word, but to show us sorae reason why any one thing,
naraely, the church's infallibility, is fit to prove itself;
and any other thing, by narae, the Pope's supreraacy, or
transubstantiation, is not as fit. Or if, for shame, you
will at length confess, that the church's infallibity is not
fit to decide this difference, whether the church be
infaUible, then you must confess it is not fit to decide
all : unless you will say, " It may be fit to decide all,
and yet not fit to decide this," or pretend that this is not
comprehended under " all." Besides, if you grant that
your church's infallibility cannot possibly be well
grounded upon, or decided by, itself, then, having pro
fessed before, that there is no possible means besides this
for us to agree hereupon, I hope you wUl give rae leave
to conclude, that it is irapossible upon good ground fof
us to agree that the Roman church is infallible. For
certainly light itself is not more clear than the evidence
of this syllogism : " If there be no other means to make
men agree upon your church's infallibility, but only this,
and this be no means, then it is simply impossible for men
upon good grounds to agree that your church is infalli
ble : but there is (as you have granted) no other possi
ble raeans to raake men agree hereupon, but only a
subraissive acknowledgraent 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."
XC. Lastiy, to the place of St. Austin, wherein we
are advised to follow the way of Catholic discipline, which,
from Christ himself by the apostles, hath come down even
to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity:

THE CREED CONTAINS ALL POINTTS OF BELIEF. 271
I answer, that the way which St. Austin speaks of
and the way which you commend, being divers
ways, and in many things clean contrary, we cannol
possibly follow them both ; and, therefore, for you tc
apply the same words to them is a vain equivocation,
Show 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 raore probable
than the contrary. But if you bring in things into your
now-catholic discipline which Christians in St. Austin's
tirae held abominable, (as the picturing of God,) and
which you must confess to have come into the church
seven hundred years after Christ ; if you will bring in
things, as you have done the half-communion, with a
non-ohstante, '¦^notwithstanding'"'' Christ'' s institution, and
the practice of the primitive church, were to the contrary;
— if you will do such things as these, and yet would have
us believe that your whole religion came from Christ
and his apostles, this we conceive a request too unrea
sonable for modest men to raake, or for wise men to
grant.

' CHAPTER IV.
THE ANSWER TO THE FOURTH CHAPTER.
Wherein is showed, that the Creed contains all necessary Points
of mere Belief.
I. To Sections i-vi. — Concerning the Creed's con
taining the fundamentals of Christianity, this is Dr.
Potter's assertion, delivered in page 207 of bis book :
" The Creed of the Apostles, as it is explained in the
N 5

274 THE creed contains ALL NECESSARY
latter Creeds of the catholic church, is esteeraed a suffi
cient summary or catalogue of fundamentals, by the best^
learned Romanists and by antiquity."
II. 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 faitii,) but
" the fundamental doctrines of faith ;" such as, though
they have influence upon our lives, as every essential
doctrine of Christianity hath, yet we are commanded to
believe thera, and not to do them. The assent of our
understandings is required to them, but no obedience
from our wUls.
III. But these speculative doctrines again he distin
guishes 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 essen
tial parts of that Gospel ; such as the teachers in the
church cannot, without mortal sin, omit to teach the
learners ; such as are intrinsical to the covenant between
God and man ; and not only plainly revealed by God,
and so certain truths, but also commanded to he
preached to all men, and to be believed distinctiy hy
all, and so necessary truths. Of the second sort are
" accidental, circumstantial, occasional" objects of faith,
miUions whereof there are in holy Scripture ; such as
are to be believed, not for themselves, but because they
are joined with others that are necessary to be believed,
and delivered by the sarae authority which delivered
these ; such as we are not bound to know to be Divine
revelations; (for, without any fault, we raay be igno
rant hereof, nay, believe the contrary ;) such as we are
not bound to eKamine whether or no they be Divine
revelations ; such as pastors are not bound to teach

POINTS' OT MERIT BELIEF. 275
their flock, nor their flock bound to know and reraem
ber; no, nor the pastors themselves to know thera, or
believe them, or not to disbelieve thera absolutely and
always ; but then only when they do see and know
them to be deUvered in Scripture as Divine revelations.
IV. 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 oa
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 shoidd be a daranable sin in any learned man actually
to disbelieve any one particular histori-cal verity con
tained 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 ddigenee he had perased it.
To make, therefore, any points necessary to be believed,
it is requisite that either we actually know thera to be
Divine revelations ; and these, though they be not
articles of faith, nor necessary to be believed in and for
themselves, yet indirectiy, and by accident, and bv con
sequence, they are so ; the necessity of believing them
being enforced upon us by a necessity of believing this
essential and fundamental article of faith,^ " that all
Divine 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, firsts
actuaUy revealed by God ; secondly, coraraanded,
under pain of damnation, to be particularly known,
^I mean, known to be Divine revelations,) and distinctiy
to be believed. And of this latter sort of speculative
Divine verities, Dr. Potter affirmed, "that the Apos-

276 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL .NECESSARY
ties' Creed was a sufficient summary ;" yet he affirmed
it, not as his own opinion, but as the doctrine of the
" ancient Fathers and your own doctors." And,
besides, he affirmed it not as absolutely certain, but
very probable.
V. In brief, all that he says is this : " It is very pro
bable, that, according to the judgment of the Roman
doctors and the ancient Fathers, the Apostles' Creed is
to be esteemed a sufficient suramary of all those doc
trines which, being raerely credenda, and not agenda,
all men are ordinarily, under pain of daranation, bound
particularly to believe."
VI. Now, this assertion (you say) is neither pertinent
to the question in hand, nor in itself true. Your rea
sons to prove it " impertinent," put into form and
divested of impertinencies, are these: 1. Because the
question was not, what points were necessary to he expli
citly believed, hut what points were necessary not to he
disbelieved after sufficient proposal. And, therefore, to
give a catalogue of points necessary fo he explicitly
believed, is impertinent.
VII. Secondly : Because errors may he damnable, though
the contrary truths he not of themselves fundamental ;
as that Pontius Pilate was our Saviours judge, is not
in itself a fundamental truth; yet to believe fhe contrary,
were a damnable error. And, therefore, to give a cata
logue of truths in themselves fundamental, is no pertineat
satisfaction to this demand. What errors are damnable ?
VIII. 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 ihe
church ; and if the church be universally infallihle, it
is damnable to oppose her declaration in any thing,
though not contained in the Creed.
IX. Fourthly: Because not to believe the articles ofthe

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 277
Creed in the true sense, is damnable ; therefore it is fri
volous to say, " The Creed contains all fundamentals,^''
without specifying in what sense fhe articles of it are
fundamental. X. Fifthly: Because the Apostles'' Creed (as Dr.
Potter himself confesses) was not a sufficient catalogue,
till if was explained by the first council ; nor then,
until it was declared in the second, S^c, by occasion of
emergent heresies: therefore now, also, as new heresies
may arise, it will need particular explanation ; and so
is not yd, nor ever will he, a complete catalogue of
fundamentals. XI. 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
subtle 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 sarae circumstances, necessary to be be
lieved. 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 revela
tions. But then, I raust needs say, you do very
strangely in saying, that the question was. What points
might lawfully he disbelieved, after sufficient proposition
thaf they are Divine revelations ? You affirra that
none may, and so does Dr. Potter, and, with hira, 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

278 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
and lawfully be rejected and disbelieved, under pretencd-
that they are not fundamental ? Which of us ever
taught, that it was not daranable either to deny, or so
much as doubt of, the truth of any thing whereof we
either know or believe that God hath revealed it ?
What Protestant ever taught, that it was not damnable
either to give God the lie, or to call his veracity into
question ? Yet you say. The demand of " Charity
Mistaken'' was, (and it was most reasonable,) that a
Ust of fundamentals should be given, the denial whereof
destroys salvation ; whereas the denial of other points.,
may stand with salvation, although both kinds he equally
proposed as revealed hy God.
XII. Let the reader peruse " Charity Mistaken," and
he shall find that this qualification, although both kinds
of points he equaUy proposed as revealed hy Gad, is
your addition, and no part of the demand. And if it
had, it had been raost unreasonable ; seeing he and you
know well enough, that, though we do not presently,
without examination, fall down and worship all your
church's proposals as Divine revelations, yet we make
no such distinction of known Divine revelations, as if
some only of them were necessary to be believed, and
the rest might safely be rejected. So that to demand a
particular rainute catalogue of all points that may not
be disbelieved after sufficient proposition, is indeed to
deraand a catalogue of all points that are or may be,
inasrauch 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
distinctiy those innumerous millions of negative and
positive consequences, which raay be evidentiy deduced
frora it: for these, we say, God hath revealed. And,
indeed, you are not ashamed, in plain terms, to require

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 279

tills of US ; for, having first told us, that th
was. What points were necessary not to be disbelieved,
after sufficient proposition that they are Divine truths ;
you come to say. Certainly fhe 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 hound to know and believe, hut
are bound, under pain of da/mnation, not to reject, as
soon as we come to know fhat they are found in holy
Scripture ? So that, in requiring a particular catalogue
of all points not to be disbelieved after sufficient pro
posal, you require us to set you down all points con
tained in Scripture, or evidently deducible from it.
And yet this you are pleased to call a reasonable, nay,
a most reasonable, demand; whereas, having engaged
yourself to give a catalogue of your fundaraentals, you
conceive your engagement very well satisfied by saying,
All is fundamental which the church proposes, without
going about to give us an endless inventory of her pro
posals. And, therefore, frora us, instead of a perfect
particular of Divine revelations of all sorts, (of which,
with a less hyperbole than St. John useth, we might
say, " If they were to be written, the worid would not
hold the books that must be written,")- raethinks you
should accept of this general, "All Divine revelations are
true and to be believed."
XIII. The very tratii 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 ques
tion, are so ;) but, " What revelations are simply and
absolutely necessary to be proposed to the belief of
Christians, so that that society which does propose, and
indeed believe, them hath, for matter of faith, the
essence of a true church ; that which does not,, has not .? ""

280 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
Now, to this question (though not to yours) Dr.'
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 moraent towards
it. For, the main question being, " What points are
necessary to salvation ?" and points necessary to salva
tion being of two sorts, some of simple belief, some of
practice and obedience ; he that gives you a sufficient
summary of the first sort of necessary points, hath
brought you half-way towards your journey's end.
And, therefore, that which he does is no more to
be slighted, as vain and impertinent, than an architect's
work is to be thought impertinent towards the raaking
of a house, because he does it not all himself. Sure I
am, if his assertion be true, (as I believe it is,) a
corollary raay 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 falsehood and error could
not long stand against the power of truth, were they
not supported by tyranny and worldly advantages, he
that could assert Christians to that liberty which Christ
and his apostles left them, must needs do truth a most
heroical service. And, seeing the overvaluing of the
differences among Christians is one of the greatest
maintainors of the schism of Christendom, he that could
demonstrate that only these points of belief are simply
necessary to salvation wherein Christians generaUy
agree, should he not lay a very fair and firm foun
dation of the peace of Christendom ? Now, the corol
lary which I conceive would produce these good eSects,
and which flows naturaUy from Dr. 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

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 281
Scripture) be in any enor of simple belief which is
offensive to God ; nor, therefore, deserve, for any such
error, to be deprived of his life, or to be cut off from
the church's communion, and the hope of salvation."
And the production of this again -would be this, (which
highly concems the church of Rome to think of,) — "that
whatsoever man or church does, for any enor of simple
belief, deprive any man so qualified as above, either
of his temporal life, or livelihood, or liberty, or of the
church's communion, and hope of salvation, is, for the
first, unjust, cruel, and tyrannous ; schismatical, pre
sumptuous, and uncharitable, for the second."
XIV. Neither yet is this (as you pretend) to take
away the necessity of believing those verities of Scrip
ture which are not contained in the Creed, when once
we come to know that they are written in Scripture ;
but rather to lay a necessity upon men of believing all
things written in Scripture, when once they know them
to be there written. For, he that believes not all
known Divine revelations to be true, how does he
believe in God ? unless you will say, that the same
man at the same time may not believe God, and
yet believe in him. The greater difficulty is, how it
will not take away the necessity of believing Scripture
to be the word of God. But that it wUl not, neither.
For, though the Creed be granted a sufficient suramary
of articles of mere faith, yet no raan pretends that it
contains the rules of obedience ; but, for thera, all men
are referred to Scripture. Besides, he that pretends
to believe in God, obligeth himself to believe it neces
sary to obey that which reason assures him to be the
will of God. Now, reason will assure hira that believes
the Creed, that it is the will of God he should believe
the Scripture ; even the very sarae reason which moves
him to believe the Creed ; universal and never-faUing

282 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
tradition having given this testiraony 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
arguraent ; the length whereof will be the raore excus
able, if I oblige myself to say but little to the rest.
XV. I come, then, to your second ; and, in answer
to it, deny flatly, as a thing destractive of itself, that
any error can be daranable, unless it be repugnant,
immediately or mediately, directly or indirectly, of
itself or by accident, to some truth for the matter of it
fundaraental. And to your example of Pontius Pilate
being judge of Christ, I say, the denial of it in him
that knows it to be revealed by God is manifestly
destructive of this fundamental trath, that all Divine
revelations are true.. Neither will you find any enor so
much as by accident damnable, but the rejecting of
it will be necessarUy laid upon us, by a real belief
of all fundamentals, and siraply necessary truths. And'
I desire you would reconcile with this, that which you
have said in section xv. : 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, S;e.
XVI. To the third I answer, that the certainty
I have of the Creed, that it was from the apostles, and
contains the principles of faith, I ground it, not upon
Scripture, and yet not upon the infallibility of any
present (much less of your) church, but upon the autho
rity of the ancient church, and written tradition, which
(as Dr. Potter hath proved) gave this constant testi
mony unto it. Besides, I tell you, it is guilty of the
same fault which Dr. Potter's assertion is here accused
of; having perhaps some colour toward the proving
it false, but none at all to show it impertinent.

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 283
XVII. To the fourth I answer plainly thus, that
you find fault with Dr. Potter for his virtues ; — you are
offended with him for not usurping the authority which
he hath not ; in a word, for not playing the Pope.
Certainly, if Protestants be faulty in this matter, it is
for doing it too much, and not too little. This pre
sumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the
Words of God, — the special senses of raen upon the
general words of God, — and laying them upon men's con
sciences together, under the equal penalty of death and
daranation ; this vain conceit, that we can speak of the
things of God better than in the word of God ; this
deifying our own interpretations, and tyrannous enforc
ing thera upon others ; this restraining of the word of
God frora that latitude and generality, and the under
standings of raen from that liberty, wherein Christ and
the apostles left them ; is, and hath been, the only
fountain of all the schisms of the church, and that
which makes them iraraortal ; the coraraon incendiary
of Christendora, and that which (as I said before) tears
into pieces, not the coat, but the bowels and merabers,'
of Christ : * Bidente Turca, nec dolenfe Judceo.'f
Take away these walls of separation, and all wUI
quickly be one : take away this persecuting, burning,
cursing, daraning, of raen, for not subscribing to the
words of men, as the words of God ; require of Chris
tians only to believe Christ, and to call no man master

• This persuasion is no singularity of mine, but the doctrine
which I have learned from divines of great learning and judgment.
Let the reader be pleased to peruse the seventh book of Acontiu?,
De Stratag. Satancs ; and Zanchius's last "Oration," delivered
by him after the composing of the discord between him and Amer-
bachius ; and he shall confess as much.
t "While the Turk is delighted, and the Jew does not weep."-—
£dit.

284 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
but him only : let those leave claiming infaUibUity that
have no title to it ; and let them that in their words
disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their actions : in
a word, take away tyranny ; — which is the devil's
instrument to support errors, and superstitions, and
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 mode
rated, may quickly reduce Christendora to trath and
unity. These thoughts of peace, I am persuaded, may
come from the God of peace ; and to his blessing
I commend them, and proceed.
Your fifth and last objection stands upon a false and
dangerous supposition, — that new heresies may arise.
For,' a heresy being in itself nothing else but a doe-
trine 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 doctrine is catholic and apostolic. So Salmeron :
Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus : ut quwlibet cetas
suis gaudeat veritatihus, quas prior aias ignoravit.^''
" God hath not given all things to all : so that every
age hath its proper verities, which the forraer age was
ignorant of." (In Epist. ad Bom., disput. Ivu.) And
again, in the margin : Habet unumquodque swculum
peculiares revdationes 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

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 285
.example whereof he gives us a little before in these
words : Unius Augustini do,ctrina assumptionis Beatce
Deiparce cultum in ecclesiam introduxit : " The doc
trine 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 coin
new articles of faith, but only to declare those that
want sufficient declaration. But if sufficient decla
ration be necessary to make any doctrine an article
of faith, then this doctrine which before wanted it was
not before an article of faith ; and your church, by
giving it the essential form and last coraplement of an
article of faith, makes it, though not a truth, yet
certainly an article of faith. But I would fain know
whether Christ and his apostles knew this doctrine, —
which you -pretend hath the matter but wants the form
of an article of faith, that is, 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 sacrilege than what
was punished in Ananias and Sapphira : it is to charge
these glorious stewards and dispensers of the mysteries
of Christ witii want of the great virtue requisite in
a steward, which is fidelity : it is to charge them with
presumption for denouncing anathemas even to angels,
in case they should teach any other doctrine than what
they had received frora them ; which, sure, could not merit
an anathema, if they [the apostles] left any necessary

286 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
part of the gospel untaught : it is, in a word, in plain
terms, to give them the lie, seeing they profess plainly
and frequently, that they taught Christians " the whole
doctrine of Christ." If they did know and declare
it, then was it a full and formal article of faith, and the
contrary a full and forraal heresy, without any need of
further declaration. And then their successors either
continued the declaration of it, or discontinued : if they
did the latter, how are they such faithful depositaries of
apostolic doctrine as you pretend ? or what assurance
can you give us, that they might not bring-in new and
false articles, as well as suffer the old and true ones
to be lost ? If they did continue the declaration of it,
and deliver it to their successors, and they to theirs,
and so on perpetually, then continued it stUl a full and
forraal article of faith, and the repugnant doctrine a full
and formal heresy, without and before the definition
or declaration of a council. So that councUs, as they
cannot make that a trath or falsehood which before was
not so, so neither can they raake or declare that to be
an article of faith or an heresy 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 doctrine,
(whereof you raake your advantage,) was, to my under
standing, unnecessary. The Fathers of the church in
after-times raight have just cause to declare their judg
ment touching the sense of some general articles of the
Creed ; but to oblige others to receive their decla
rations, under pain of damnation, what wanant they
had, I know not. He that can show either that the
church of all ages was to have this authority, or that it
continued in the church for some ages, and then
expired; he that can show eitber of these things-,

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 287
let him ; for my part, I cannot. Yet I willingly con
fess, the judgment of a council, though not infallible, is
yet so far directive and obliging, that, without apparent
reason to the contrary, it raay be sin to reject it, at
least not to afford it an outward subraission for public
peace' sake.
XX. To Sections vii,-ix. — I come now to show
that you also have requited Dr. Potter with a mutual
courteous acknowledgment of his assertion, that the
Creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary arti
cles of faith, which are merely credenda.
XXI. First, theu, Section viii, you have these
words : That it cannot he denied that the Creed is most
full and complete to that purpose, for which the holy
apostles, inspired hy God, meant thaf it should serve,
and in that manner as they did intend it, which was,
not to comprehend all particular points of faith, hut
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 sd down, and
easily learnt and remembered. These words, I say,
being fairly exarained, without putting them on the
rack, will amount to a full acknowledgment of Dr.
Potter's assertion. But before I put them to the
question, I raust crave thus much right of you, to
grant me this most reasonable postulate, that the doc
trine of " repentance from dead works," which, St. Paul
saith, was one of the two only things which he preached,
and the doctrine of charity, " without which " (the same
St. Paul assures us that) " the knowledge of all mysteries,
and all faith, is nothing," were doctrines more necessary
and requisite, and therefore more fit to be preached to
Jews and GentUes, than these, — under what judge our
Saviour suffered, that he was buried, and what time he
rose again: which you have taught us, (cap. iu. sec. U.,)

288 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
for their matter and nature in themselves not to be
fundamental. XXII. And upon this grant, I will ask no leave to
conclude, that, whereas you say. The Apodles Creed was
intended for a comprehension of such heads of faith as
were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith
of Christ, &SC. : you are now, for fear of too much
debasing those high doctrines of repentance and charity,
to restrain your assertion, as Dr. Potter does his, and
(though you speak indefinitely) to say, you meant it
only of those heads of faith which are merely cre
denda. And then the raeaning of it (if it have any)
must be this, that the Creed is full for the aposties'
intent, which was to comprehend all such general heads
of faith, which, being points of siraple belief, were most
fit and requisite to be preached to Jews and GentUes,
and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and
easily learnt and remembered. Neither I nor you, I
believe, can make any other sense of your words than
this. And, upon this ground, thus I subsume : "But
all the points of belief which were necessary, under pain
of damnation, for the apostles to preach, and for those
to whom the gospel was preached, particularly to know
and believe, were most fit and requisite, nay, more tiian
so, necessary, to be preached to all, both Jews and Gen
tUes, and inight be briefly and compendiously set down,
and easily learnt and remembered ; therefore the
apostles' intent, by your confession, was in this Creed
to comprehend all such points." And you say. The Creed
is most full and complete, for fhe purpose which they
intended. The major of this syllogism is your own.
The rainor, 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,

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 289
which are coraraanded to be done, by the same autho
rity, under the same penalty : But the same authority,
namely. Divine, under the same penalty, to wit, of
damnation, commanded the apostles to preach all these
doctrines which we speak of, and those to whom they
were preached, particulariy 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 GentUes." Now that all these doctrines we speak
of raay be briefly and compendiously set down, and
easily learned and remembered, he that remembers
that we spake only of such doctrines as are necessary to
be taught and learned, will require hereof no farther
demonstration. For, (not to put you in mind of what
the poet says, Non sunt longa quibus nihil est quod
demere possis,*) who sees not, that seeing the greatest
part of men are of very mean capacities, that it is
necessary that that may be leamed 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 reraerabered, are by your confession comprised
in the Creed : But all the necessary articles of faith are
requisite to be preached, and easy to be reraerabered :
Therefore they are all comprised in the Creed." Secondly,
frora grounds granted by you, I argue thus : " Points of
belief in theraselves fundamental, are more requisite to
be preached than those which are not so : (this is evi
dent :) But the apostles have put into their Creed some
points that are not in themselves fundaraental : (so you
confess, uhi supra :) Therefore if they have put in all
most requisite to be preached, they put in all that in them-
* " Those things cannot be accounted long from which you con
ceive it an impossibility for any thing to be subtracted." — Edit.
O

290 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
selves are fundamental." Thirdly and lastly : from your
own words, sec. xxvi., thus I conclude ray purpose : " The
apostles'' intention was, particularly to deliver in the
Creed such articles as were fittest for those times, concem
ing the Deity, Trinity, and Messias : (thus you [say] :
now I subsume :) But all points simply necessary, by
virtue of God's command, to be preached and believed
in particular, were as fit for those times as these here
mentioned: Therefore their intention was, to deUver in it
particularly all the necessary points of beUef."
XXIII. And, certainly, he that considers the matter
advisedly, either must say that the aposties were not the
authors of it, or that this was their design in composing
it, or that they had none at aU. For whereas you say.
Their intent was, to compreh end 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 easUy see
that your desire here was, to escape away in a cloud of
indefinite terms. For otherwise, instead of such gene
ral heads, and such articles, why did not you say plainly,
' ' all such," or " sorae such ? " This had been plain deal
ing, 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 aU ,
or that which I and Dr. Potter affirra ; namelv, that the
Apostles' Creed contains all those points of belief which
were, by God's comraand, of necessity to be preached to
all, and believed by all. Neither when I say so,
would I be so raistaken, as if I said, that all points in
\ the Creed are thus necessary : for punies in logic
know, that universal affirraatives are not simply con
verted. And therefore it may be trae, that all such
necessary points are in the Creed ; though it be not
true, that aU points in the Creed are thus necessary ;

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 291
which I will -wiUingly 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 circumstan
tial 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 f
XXXI. To Sections xi.-xt. — Objection. jSmbj-
maries and abstracts ai'e not intended to specify all the
particulars ofthe science or subject to which they belong.
Answer. Yes, if they be intended for perfect
summaries, they raust not orait any necessary doctrine
of that science whereof they are summaries ; though
the iUustration and reasons of it they may omit. If
this were not so, a raan might set down forty or fifty of
the principal definitions, and divisions, and rules of
logic, and call it " a sumraary or abstract of logic." But,
sure, this were no raore 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 parti
culars were not cast up. Now the Apostles' Creed, — you
here intimate that it was intended for a sumraary :
otherwise why talk you here of summaries, and tell us
that they need not contain all the particulars of their
science ? And of what, I pray, may it be a summary,
but of the fundamentals of Christian faith ? Now
you have already told us, that it is most full and com
plete to that puipose 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
fimdamentals of the Christian faith ; and what the duty
of a perfect summary is, I have already told you.
XXXII. Whereas, therefore, to disprove this asser-
o 2

292 THE creed contains all necessary
tion, in divers particles of this chapter, but especiaUy
the fourteenth, you muster up Whole armies of doctrines,
which you pretend are necessary, and not contained in
the Creed ; I answer very briefly thus : That the doc
trines you mention are either conceming matters of
practice, and not simple belief; or else they are such
doctrines wherein God has not so plainly revealed him
self, 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 en, and yet commit no sin at
all, or only a sin of infirmity, and not destractive of
salvation ; or, lastly, they are such doctrines which God
hath plainly revealed, and so are necessary to be
believed when they are kno-wn to be Divine, but not
necessary to be known and believed, not necessary to
be known for Divine that they may be believed. Now
all these sorts of doctrines are irapertinent to the pre
sent question.
XXXIII. First : Tbe questions touching the condi
tions to be performed by us to obtain reraission of sins ;
the sacraments ; the coraraandments, and the possibility
of keeping them ; the necessity of imploring the assist
ance of God's grace and Spirit for the keeping of them ;
how far obedience is due to the church ; prayer for the
dead ; the cessation of the old law ; — are all about
agenda, and so cut off upon the first consideration.
XXXIV. Secondly : The question touching funda
mentals is profitable, but not fundamental. He that
believes all fundaraentals cannot be damned for any
error in faith, though he believe more or less to be fun
damental than is so. That also of the procession of
the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son ; of pur
gatory ; of the church's visibility ; of the books of the
New Testament which were doubted of by a consider-,
able part of the primitive church ; until I see better

POINTS OP MERE BELIEF. 293
reason for the contrary than the bare authority of men,
I shall esteera of the same condition.
XXXV. Thirdly : These doctrines, — that Adam and
the angels sinned ; that there are angels good and bad ;
that those books of Scripture which were never doubted
of by any considerable part of the church, are the word
of God ; that St. Peter had no such primacy as you-
pretend ; that the Scripture is a perfect rule of faith,
and consequently that no necessary doctrine is un
written ; that there is no one society or succession of
Christians absolutely infaUible ; — these to my under
standing are truths plainly revealed by God, and neces
sary to be believed by them who know they are so ;
but not so necessary, that every man and woman is
bound, under pain of damnation, particularly to know
them to be Divine revelations, and explicitly to believe
them. And, for this reason, these, with innumerable
other points, are to be referred to the third sort of doc
trines 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 denial
of merit. But if there were such a necessary indisso-^
luble coherence between this point and the doctrine of
merit, methinks with as much reason and more charity
you might conclude, that we hold merit, because we
hold this point ; than that we deny this point, because we
deny merit. Besides, when Protestants deny the doc
trine of raerits, 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 ex-
tendeth not," is not traly beneficia], " to God :" with our
Saviour, " when they have done all which they are com
manded, they have done their duty only," and no cour-

294 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
tesy : and, lastly, with St. Paul, that " all which they
can suffer for God " (and yet suffering is more than
doing) " is not worthy to be compared to the glory
that shall be revealed." So that you must either mis
understand their meaning in denying merit, or you must
discharge their doctrine of this odious consequence, or
you must charge it upon David, and Paul, and Christ
hiraself. Nay, you raust 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 raerit raakes 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 etemal glory,
make God a rewarder only, and not a giver, contrary to
plain Scripture, affirming that " the gift of God is
eternal life ; " and that it is most false, on the other side,
that the doctrine of Protestants makes God a giver
only, and not a rewarder ; inasmuch as their doctrine is,
that God gives not heaven but to those which do some
thing for it, and so his gift is also a reward ; but withal
that whatsoever they do is due unto God beforehand,
and worth nothing to God, and worth nothing in respect
of heaven ; and so man's work is no merit, and God's
reward is stUl a gift.
XXXVI. Put the case, [that] the Pope, for a reward
of your service done him in writing this book, had given
you the honour and means of a cardinal ; would you
not (not only in humUity, but in sincerity) have pro
fessed, that you had not merited such a reward ? And
yet the Pope is neither your creator, nor redeemer, nor

POINT OF MERE BELIEF. 295
.preserver, nor, perhaps, your very great benefactor ;
sure I ara, not so great as God Alraighty ; and, there
fore, hath no such right and title to your service, as
God hath, in respect of precedent obligations. Besides,
the work you have done hira hath been really advanta
geous to hira ; and, lastly, not altogether unpropor-
tionable to the fore-raentioned reward : and, therefore,
if by the same work you wUl pretend, that either you
have, or hope to have, deserved immortal happiness, I
beseech you, consider well whether this be not to set a
higher value upon a cardinal's cap, than a crown
of immortal glory, and, with that cardinal, to prefer a
part in Paris before a part in paradise.
XXXVII. 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 he an heresy, that is so ; and whatso
ever is so, that always hath heen so, ever since the pub
lication of the gospel of Christ. The doctrine of your
church may, like a snow-ball, increase with rolling ; and
again, if you please, melt away and decrease ; but as
" Christ Jesus," so his gospel, " is yesterday, and to
day, and the same for ever."
XXXVIII. 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 com
mission at large to teach what she pleases, and call it
" the gospel of Christ," let her produce her letters
patents from heaven for it. But if this be all you
have, then must you give me leave to esteem it both
great sacrilege in you to forbid any thing, be it never

296 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
SO small or ceremonious, which Christ hath coraraanded,
as, the receiving of the coramunion in both kinds ; and
as high a degree of presuraption, to enjoin men to
believe that there are, or can be, any other fundamental
articles of the gospel of Christ than what Christ himself
commanded his apostles to teach all men ; or any
damnable heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to
these prirae verities.
XXXIX. To Sections xvi., xvu. — The saying of
the most learned prelate and excellent man, the arch
bishop of Armagh, (which shall be set down at the end
of No. XLIII.)* is as great and as good a truth, and as
necessary for these miserable times, as can possibly he
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 cok-
ceived probable : the one, by taking away diversity of
opinions touching matters of religion ; the other, by
showing that the diversity of opinions which is among
the several sects of Christians, ought to be no hinder
ance to their unity in communion.
XL. Now, the forraer of these is not be to hoped for
without a miracle, unless that could be done which is
irapossible to be perforraed, though it be often pre
tended ; that is, unless it could be raade evident to aU
men, that God hath appointed some visible judge of
controversies, to whose judgment all men are to submit
themselves. What then remains, but that the other
way must be taken, and Christians must be taught to
-set a higher value upon these high points of faith and
obedience wherein they agree, than upon these matters
of less moment wherein they differ ; and understand,
that agreement in those ought to be more effectual to
join them in one comraunion, than their difference in
• See page 301. — Edit.

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 297
other things of less moment to divide them ? When I
say, " in one coraraunion," I mean, in a common pro
fession of those articles of faith wherein all consent, a
joint wor.ship of God after such a way as all esteem
lawful, and a rautual performance of all those works of
charity which Christians owe one to another. And to
such a communion, what better inducement could be
thought of than to demonstrate, that what was univer
saUy believed of all Christians, if it were joined with a
love of truth, and with holy obedience, was sufficient
to bring men to heaven ? For why should men be
more rigid than God ? Why should any error exclude
any raan frora the church's communion which will not
deprive him of etemal salvation ? Now, that Chris
tians do generally agree in all those points of doctrine
which are necessary to salvation, it is apparent, because
they agree with one accord in believing all those books
of the Old and New Testament, which in the church
were never doubted of to be the undoubted word of
God. And it is so certain, that in all these books all
jiecessary doctrines are evidently contained, that, of all
the four evangelists, this is very probable, but of St.
Luke most apparent, that in every one of their books
jthey 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 apparentiy all of
them have done) put in many things which they knew
to be only profitable and not necessary ? What wise
and honest man that were now to write the gospel of
Christ, would do so great a work of God after such a
negligent fashion ? Suppose Xaverius had been to
write the gospel of Christ for the Indians : think you he
would have left out any fundamental doctrine of it ?
If not, I must beseech you to conceive as well of St.
o5

298 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECF:sSA.RY
Matthew, and St. Mark, and St. Luke, and St. John, as
you do of Xaverius. Besides, if every one of them
have not in them all necessary doctrines, how have they
complied with their own design ? which was, as the
titles of their books show, to write " the gospel of
Christ," and not a part of it. Or how have they not
deceived us, in giving thera 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 con
tained in the Gospel of St. Mark and St. John, I
believe, every considering man wUl be inclinable to
believe, that then, without doubt, it is contained, with
the advantage of many other very profitable things, in
the larger gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. And
that St. Mark's Gospel wants no necessary article of this
covenant, I presume you will not deny, if you believe
Irenseus when he says, " Matthew, to the Hebrews in
their tongue, published the Scripture of the Gospel ;
when Peter and Paul did preach the gospel, and found
the church, or a church, at Rome, or of Rome, and,
after their departure, Mark, the scholar of Peter,
delivered to us in writing those things which had been
preached by Peter ; and Luke, the follower of Paul,
compUed, in a book, the Gospel which was preached by
hira ; and, afterwards, John, residing in Asia, in the
city of Ephesus, did himself also set forth a Gospel."
XLI. In which words of Irenaeus, it is remarkable,
that they are spoken by hira against some heretics, that
pretended (as you know who do now-a-days) that
" some necessary doctrines of the gospel were un
written ; " 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
* Lib. iii., cap. 2.

POINTS OP MERE BELIEF. 299
" That part ofthe gospel which was preached by St. Peter
was written by St. Mark, and so other necessary parts
of it omitted," had been to speak irapertinently, and
rather to confirm than confute their enor. It is plain,
therefore, that he must mean, as I pretend, that all the
necessary doctrine of the gospel which was preached by
St. Peter was written by St. Mark. Now, you wUl
not deny, I presume, that St. Peter preached all; there
fore, you raust not deny that St. Mark -wrote aU.
XLII. Our next ' inquiry, let it be touching St.
John's intent in -writing his Gospel, whether it were to
dehver so much trath as, being believed and obeyed,
would certainly bring men to etemal life, or only part
of it, and to leave part unwritten. A great man there
is, but much lese 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 trae, would sufficiently justify what I have under
taken, that, at least, all the four evangelists have in them
all the necessary parts of the gospel of Christ. Neither
•will I deny but St. John's secondary intent raight 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 St. John which is in none of
the other evangelists, hath not so weU considered them
as he should do, before he pronounce sentence of so
weighty a matter. And for his prirae intent in writing
his Gospel, what that was, certainly no Father in the
worid understood it better than hiraself. Therefore,
let us hear him speak : " Many other signs," saith he,
" also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are
not written in this book; but these are written, that
you may believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God,
and that belie-ving you may havf life in his name." By
" these are written " may be understood, either " these

300 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NEfiESSAET
things " are -written, or " these signs " are written.
Take it which way you will, this conclusion will cer
tainly follow, — that either all that which St. John wrote
in his Gospel, or less than all, and therefore all much
more, was sufficient to make tbem believe that which,
being believed with lively faith, would certainly bring
them to eternal life.
XLIII. This which hath been spoken, I hope, is
enough to justify my undertaking to the full, that it 'it
very probable that every one of the four evangelists has
in his book the whole substance, all the necessary parts,
of the gospel of Christ. But for St. Luke, that he hath
-written such a perfect gospel, in my judgment, it ought
to be, with them that believe him, no manner of question.
Consider, first, the introduction to his Gospel, where he
declares what he intends to write, in these words : " Foras
much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a
declaration of those things which are most surely beUeved
amongst us, even as they delivered unto us, which from
the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the
word ; it seeraed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of things from the first, to -write to thee
in order, most exceUent TheophUus, 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 TheophUus, of aU that Jesus
began both to do and teach, until the day in which he
was taken up." Weigh weU these two places, and then
answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands :
1. Whether St. Luke does not undertake the very
same thing which, he says, " many had taken in hand ? "
2. Whether this were not " to set forth in order a
declaration of those things which are most surely
believed amongst Christians ?" 3. Whether the whole

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 301
gospel of - Christ, aud every necessary doctrine of it,
were not surely believed among Christians ? 4. Whc
ther they which were " eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word from the beginning," delivered not the whole
gospel of Christ ? 5. Whether he does not under
take 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 TheophUus of all those things " wherein he had been
instracted ? " 8. And whether he had not been
instructed in all the necessary parts of the gospel of
Christ ? 9. Whether in the other text, " AU things
which Jesus began to do and teach," must not at
least imply all the principal and necessary things ?
10. Whether this be not the very interpretation of
your Rhemish doctors, in their annotation upon this
place ? 11. Whether all these articles of the Chris
tian faith, without the belief whereof no man can be
saved, be not the principal and most necessary things
which Jesus taught ? 12. And lastly, whether many
things which St. Luke has wrote in his Gospel, be not
less principal and less necessary than all and every one
of these ? When you have well considered these pro
posals, I beUeve you will be very apt to think, (if St.
Luke be of credit with you,) that all things necessary
to salvation are certainly contained in his writings
alone. And from hence you will not choose but con
clude, that — seeing all the Christians in the world agree
in the beUef of what St. Luke hath written, and not
only so, but in all other books of canonical Scripture,
which were never doubted of in and by the church — the
leamed archbishop had very just and certain ground to
say, " that in these propositions, which, without con
troversy, are universally received in the whole Christian

302 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
world, SO much truth is contained, as, being joined with
holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to
everlasting salvation ; and that we have no cause to
doubt, but that as many as walk according to this rale,
neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by
superinducing any damnable heresy thereupon, nor
otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and
wicked conversation, peace shall be upon them, and
upon the Israel of God."
XLIV. Against this you object two things : The one,
that, by this rule, seeing the doctrine of the Trinity is
not received universaUy among Christians, the denial of
if shall not exclude sahation : The other, that the
hishop contradicts himself in supposing a man may
believe all necessary truths, and yd superinduce some
damnable heresies.
XLV. To the first I answer, what I conceive he
would, whose words I here justify, that he hath declared
plainly in this very place, that he meant, not an absolute,
but a limited, universality ; and speaks not of proposi
tions universally believed by all professions of Christianity
that are, but only by all those several professions of
Christianity that have any large spread in any part of
the world. By which words he excludes, frora the uni
versality here spoken of, the deniers of the doctrine of
the Trinity, as being but a handful of men, in respect
of aU, nay, in respect of any, of these professions which
maintain it. And, therefore, it was a great fault in
you, either wUlingly to conceal these words, which
evacuate your objection, or else negligently to oversee
thera. XLVI. Now for the foul contradiction ; wherein, I
pray, does it lie ? In supposing (say you) a man may
believe all truths necessary to salvation, and yd super
induce a damnable heresy. I answer : It is not certain

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 303
that his words do suppose this ; neither, if they do, do^s
he contradict hiraself. I say, it is not certain that his
words import any such raatter ; for, ordinarily, men
use to speak and -write so as here he does, when they
intend not to limit or restrain, but only to repeat, and
press, and iUustrate, what they have said before.
St. Athanasius, in his Creed, tells us, " The catholic
faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity ; neither confounding the persons nor
dividing the substance." And why now do you not
teU 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 remain
ing one cannot be divided ? If a man should say unto
you, "He that keeps all the commandments of God, com
mitting no sin either against the love of God or the love
of his neighbour, is a perfect man ;" or thus, " He that
wiU Uve in constant health had need be exact in his diet,
neither eating too much nor too little ;" or thus, " He
that -wUl come to London raust go on straight forward in
such a way, and neither turn to the right hand nor to
the left ;" I verily believe, you would not find any con
tradiction in his words, but confess them as coherent
and consonant as any in your book. And, certainly, if
you would look upon this saying of the bishop with any
indifference, you would easUy perceive it to be of the
very same kind, and capable of the very same constrac-
tion. 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 heresy, unless it contradict some neces-

304 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
sary trath, yet there is no contradiction but the same
man may at once believe this heresy and this truth ;
because there is no contradiction that the same man, at
the same time, should believe contradictions- For,
first, whatsoever a raan believes true, that he may and
must believe ; but there have been some who have
believed and taught that contradictions might be trae,
against whom Aristotle disputes in the third of his
Metaphysics ; therefore, it is not impossible that a man
may believe contradictions. Secondly: They which
believe there is no certainty in reason, must beUeve that
contradictions may be true ; for, otherwise, there will he
certainty in this reason, " This contradicts truth, there
fore 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 raind or no, I desire to be informed;)
therefore, there be divers in the world who believe con
tradictions may be true. Thirdly : They which do capti
vate their understandings to the belief of those things
;which to their understanding seem irreconcilable contra
dictions, may as well believe real contradictions ; (for
the difficulty of believing arises, not from their being
repugnant, but from their seeming to be so ;) but you
do captivate your understandings to the belief of those
things which seem to your understandings irreconcilable
contradictions ; therefore it is as possible and easy for
you to believe those that indeed are so. Fourthly:
Some raen may be confuted in their enors, and per
suaded out of thera ; but no man's enor can be con
futed, 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 dis
course but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts.
Therefore it is not impossible, but absolutely certain.

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF.

305

that the same man at the same time may believe contra- 1
dictions. Fifthly : It is evident, (neither can you, 'i
without extreme madness and uncharitableness, deny,)
that we believe the Bible ; those books, I mean, which
we believe canonical : otherwise, why dispute you with
us out of thera, as out of a common principle ? Either,
therefore, you must retract your opinion, and acknow
ledge that the same raan at the same time may believe
contradictions, or else you will run into a greater incon
venience, and be forced to confess, that no part of our
doctrine contradicts the Bible. Sixthly : I desire yon '
to vindicate from contradiction these following asser-"
tions : that there should be length, and nothing long ;"
breadth, and nothing broad ; thickness, and nothings
thick ; whiteness, and nothing white ; roundness, and„
nothing round ; weight, and nothing heavy ; sweetness, '
and nothing sweet ; moisture, and nothing moist ; "
fluidness, and nothing flowing ; many actions, and no
agent ; many passions, and no patient : that is, that
there should be a long, broad, thick, white, round,
heavy, sweet, moist, flowing, active, passive, nothing .'
That bread should be turned into the substance of
Christ, and yet not any thing of the bread become any
thing of Christ ; neither the matter, nor the form, nor
the accidents of bread be made either the matter, or the
form, or the accidents of Christ : That bread should be
tumed 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-sarae
point : That the body of Christ, which is rauch greater,
should be contained, wholly and in its full diraensions,
without any alteration, in that which is lesser, and that

306 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
not once only, but as many times over as there are
several points in the bread and wine : That the same
thing at the same time should be wholly above itself
and wholly below itself, within itself and without itself,
on the right hand, and on the left hand, and round
about itself: That the same thing at the same time
should move to and from itself, and lie. still; or, that it
should be canied from one place to another through the
middle space, and yet not move : That it should be
brought frora heaven to earth, and yet not come out of
heaven ; nor be at all in any of the middle space
between heaven and earth : That to be one, should be
to be undivided from itself, and yet that one and the
same thing should be divided from itself : 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 raade of
nothing which is not nothing, but something : That
the same thing should be before and after itself:
That it should be truly and really in a place, and yet
without locaUty : Nay, that He which is omnipotent
should not be able to give it locality in this place,
where it is, as sorae 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

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 307
do neither; but dine or sup: there speak, here be
silent : That he may in one place freeze for cold, in
another bum 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, 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. — AU these, and
raany other of the like nature, are the unavoidable, and
most of them the acknowledged, consequences of your
doctrine of transubstantiation, as is explained one where
or other by your schoolmen. Now, I beseech you. Sir,
to try your skUl ; and, if you can, corapose their repug
nance, and make peace between them : certainly, none
but you shall be " catholic moderator." But if you
cannot do it, and that after an intelligible manner, then
you must give me leave to believe, that either you do
not beUeve transubstantiation, or else that it is no con
tradiction that men should subjugate their understand
ings to the belief of contradictions.
XLVIII. To Section xviii. — This paragraph
consists of two immodest untruths, obtruded upon us
without show or shadow of reason ; and an evident !
sophism, grounded upon an affected mistake of the
sense of the word "fundaraental." '
XLIX. The first untruth is, that some Protestants
make a church of men scarcely agreeing in one point of
faith ; of men concurring in some one or few articles
of belief, and in ihe rest holding conceits plainly con
tradictory ; agreeing only in this one article, — ihat
Christ is our Saviour, ^c.

308 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
Answer. This is a shameless calumny ; because
even these men, to the constituting of the very essence
of a church, in the lowest degree, require not only
" faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of
the world," but also " submission to his doctrine in
mind and will." Now, I beseech you. Sir, tell me
ingenuously, whether the doctrine of Christ may be
called, without blasphemy, scarcely one point of faith ?
or whether it consists only of some one or fern articles of
belief? or whether there be nothing in it, but only this
article, thaf Christ is our Saviour ? Is it not manifest
to all the world, that Christians of all professions do
agree, with one consent, in the belief of all those books
of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient
church, without danger of damnation ? Nay, is it not
apparent, that no man at this time can, without hypo
crisy, pretend to believe in Christ ; but of necessity he
must do so ? seeing he can have no reason to believe in
Christ, but he must have the same to believe the Scrip
ture. I pray, then, read over the Scripture once more ;
or, if that be too much labour, the New Testament
only ; and then say whether there be nothing there but
scarcely one point of faith ; but some one or two articles
of belief; nothing but this article only, that Christ is
our Saviour. Say whether there be not there an infi
nite number of Divine verities. Divine precepts. Divine
promises ; and those so plainly and undoubtedly deli
vered, 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 doctrine 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 hiraself, to
deliver obscurely or ambiguously, yet thus far, at least,
they agree, that the sense of them intended by God is

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF.

309

certainly true, and that they are without passion or pre
judice to endeavour to find it out. The difference only
is, which is that true sense which God intended ? Nei
ther 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 huraan advantages. But, for the present, God
forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it ! for,
whereas you, looking upon their points of difference and
agreement through I-know-not-what strange glasses,
have made the first innumerable and the other scarce a
number, the truth is clean contrary, — that those Divine
verities, speculative and practical, wherein they uni
versally agree, (which you will have to be but a
few, or but one, or scarcely one,) araount to " many
raillions," if an exact account were taken of them.
And, on the other side, the points in variance are in
coraparison but few, and those not of such a quaUty
but the enor in thera may well consist with the belief
and obedience of the entire covenant ratified by Christ
between God and raan. Yet I would not be so mis
taken, as if I thought the errors even of some Protest
ants 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 reraissness and slack
ness in running the race of Christian perfection, of our
defening repentance and conversion to God, of our fre
quent relapses into sin, and not seldom of security in
sinning; and, consequently, though not certain causes,
yet too frequent occasions, of many men's daranation :
and such I conceive all these doctrines, which either
directly or obliquely put men in hope of etemal happi-

310 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
ness by any other means saving only the nanow way of
sincere and universal obedience, grounded upon a trae
and lively faith. These enors, therefore, I do not
elevate or extenuate ; and, on condition the ruptures
made by thera raight be coraposed, do heartUy wish
that the cement were made of my dearest blood, and
only not to be an anathema from Christ ! Only this I
say, that neither are their points of agreement so few,
nor their differences so many, as you make thera, nor so
great as to exclude the opposite parties from being
members of one church militant, and joint heirs of the
glory of the church triumphant.
L. Your other palpable untruth is, that Protestants
are far m,ore hold to disagree, even in matters of faith,
than catholic divines, (you mean your own,) in questions
merely philosophical, or not determined hy the church.
For neither do they differ at all, in matters of faith, if
you take the word in the highest sense, and mean by
"matters of faith," such doctrines as are absolutely neces
sary to salvation, to be believed, or not to be disbelieved.
And then, in those wherein they do differ, -with what
colour or shadow of argument can you make good, that
they are more hold to disagree than you are in questions
merely philosophical, or not determined by the church ?
For is there not as great repugnancy between your
assent and dissent, your affirmation and negation, your
est est, non non,* as there is between theirs ? You fol
low your reason in those things which are not deter
mined by your church ; and they theirs, in things not
plainly determined in Scripture. And wherein, then,
consists their greater, their far greater, boldness ? And
what, if they, in their contradictory opinions, pretend
both to rely upon the truth of God, doth this make
their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant?
" Your " Yea," and your " Nay."  Edit.

POINTS OP MERE BELIEF.

311

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 wow est can
make them, and the greatest are no farther. But then
you, in your differences, (by name, about predetermina
tion, the immaculate conception, the Pope's infaUi
bUity,) upon what other motive do you rely ? Do not
you cite Scripture, or tradition, or both, on both sides .'
And do you not pretend, that both these are the infal
lible traths of Almighty God ?
LI. You close up this section with a fallacy, proving,
forsooth, that we destroy, hy our confession, the church,
which is the house of God, hecause we stand only upon
fundamental articles, which cannot make up fhe whole
fabric of the faith, no more than the foundation of a
house alone can he a hou,se.
LII. But I hope. Sir, you will not be difficult in
granting, that that is a house which hath all the neces
sary parts belonging to a house : now, by " fundamental
articles," we mean all those which are necessary ; and
then, I hope, you will grant that we may safely expect
salvation in a church which hath all things fundamental
to salvation ; unless you will say, that more is necessary
than that which is necessary.
LIII. To Section xix. — This long discourse is to
show, that Protestants give unavoidable occasion of des
peration to poor souls ; and brings in a man desirous to
save his soul, asking questions of Dr. Potter, and makes
answers for him. As, first, if he required whose
directions he inight rely upon ? he says, the doctor's
answer would be, Upon the truly catholic church.
But, I suppose, upon better reason, because I know
his mind, that he would advise him to " call no man
master upon earth;" but, according to Christ's com
mand, to rely upon the direction of God himself. If

312 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
he ask, where he should find this direction ? he would"
answer him, " In his word contained in Scripture." If he
should inquire what assurance he might have that the
Scripture is the word of God ? he would answer him,
that the doctrine itself is very fit and worthy to be
thought to come from God, (nec vox hominem sonat,*)
and that they which wrote and delivered it confirmed it
to be the word of God, by doing such works as could
not be done but by power from God himself. For
assurance of the truth hereof, he would advise him to
rely upon that which all wise men, in all matters of
belief, rely upon ; and that is, the consent of ancient
records and universal tradition. No wise man doubts
but there was such a man as Julius Csesar or Cicero ;
that there are such cities as Rorae or Constantinople,
though he have no other assurance for the one or
the other, but only the speech of people. This tradi
tion, 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 ti'ue, he
must believe it contains all necessary directions unto
eternal happiness, because it affirras itself to do so..
Nay, he might tell him, that, so far is the whole book
from wanting any necessary direction to his etemal sal
vation, that one only author, that hath writ but two
little books of it, St. Luke by name, in the beginning of
his Gospel, and in the beginning of his story, shows
plainly that he alone hath written at least so rauch as is
necessary. And what they wrote, they wrote by God's
direction, for the direction of the world ; not only for
the leamed, but for all that would do their trae endea
vour to know the wUl of God and to do it ; therefore;
* " Nor does its sound resemble the voice of man."  Edit.

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 3l3
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. Beside that, here he should find
that God himself has engaged himself by promise, that
if he would love him, and keep his comraandraents, 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 hira into all
truth ; " that is, certainly into all necessary trulh^, and
suffer him to fall into no pemicious error, TheVura of
his whole direction to him briefly would be this : " Be
lieve the Scripture to be the word of God, use your
true endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live
according to it, and then you may rest securely that
you are in the true way to eternal happiness." This is
the substance of that answer which the Doctor would
make to any man in this case ; and this is a way so
plain that fools, unless they will, cannot err from it ;
because, not knowing absolutely all truth, nay, not all
profitable truth, and not being free from error ; but
endeavouring to know the truth and obey it, and endea
vouring to be free from error, is by this way made the
only condition of salvation.
LVI. Neither is this to drive any raan to despera
tion, 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 en, and the whole church
cannot be consulted with, yet this is not to send you on
the fool's pilgrimage for faith, and bid you go and
confer with every Christian soul, man and woman, by
sea and hy land, close prisoner or at liberty, as you
dUate 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.

314 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
LVII. To the next deraand. How shall I
whether he hold all fumdamental points or no ? when
Protestants answer, " If he truly believe the undoubted
books of canonical Scripture, he cannot but believe all
fundamentals ; and that it is very probable that the
Creed contains all the fundaraentals of siraple belief;"
the Jesuit takes no notice of the forraer; but takes
occasion frora the latter to ask. Shall I hazard my soul
on probabilities, or even wagers ? as if whatsoever is
but probable, though in the highest degree of probabi
lity, were as likely to be false as trae ! or because it is
but morally, not raatheraatically, certain that there was
such a woraan as Queen Elizabeth, such a man as
Henry VIIL, (that is, in the highest degree probable,)
therefore it were an even wager there were none such J
By this reason, seeing the trath 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 impos
sible for any man, according to the grounds of your
religion, to know hiraself, much less another, to be a
true Pope or a true priest ; nay, to have a moral cer
tainty of it, because these things are obnoxious to innu
raerable secret and undiscernible nullities,) it wUl 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 coramit idolatry ; that
there is a nullity in any decree that a Pope shall make,
or any decree of a council which he shall confirra : par
ticularly it will be at least an even wager, that all the
decrees of the Council of Trent are void, because it is
at raost but very probable that the Pope which con
firraed them was true Pope.

POINTS OF JtlCRE BELIEF. .jl-l
LXII. Objection. But unless this question be
answered, (what points of the Creed are, and what are
not, fundaraentals ?) fhe Protestant doctrine serves only
either to make men despair, or else fo have recourse to
Ikose called Papists.
Answer. It seems, a little thing will make you
despair, if you be so sullen as to do so because men
will not trouble themselves to satisfy your curious ques
tions. And, I pray, be not offended with me for so
esteeming it, because, as before I told you, if you wUl
believe all the points' of the Creed, you cannot choose
but believe all the points of it that are fundaraental,
though you be ignorant which are so, and which are not
so. Now, I believe your desire to know which are fun
damentals proceeds only frora a desire to be assured
that you do believe them ; which seeing you may be
assured of without knowing which they be, what can it
be but curiosity to desire to know it ? Neither may
you think to mend yourself herein one whit by having
recourse to thera whora 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, fundaraental,
and which are not. Particularly, you will scarce meet
with any araongst 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 coramunion of
saints, be points of their own nature and raatter funda
mental ; such, I mean, as, without the distinct and
explicit knowledge of them, no man can be saved.
• LXIII. Objection. We give- this certain rule :
that all points defined by Christ's visible church, belong
to the foundation of faith, in this sense, — that to deny
any such, cannot stand with salvation.
Answer. So also Protestants give you this more
p 2

316 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
certain rale, — 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 faU of salvation. But
besides, what certainty have you, that that rale of
Papists is so certain ? By the visible church, it is plain,
they mean only their own; and why their own only
should be the visible church, I do not understand ; and
as little, why all points defined by this church should
belong to the foundation of faith. These things you
had need see well and substantially proved, before you
rely upon them, otherwise you expose yourself to
danger of embracing damnable enors, instead of fun
damental truths.
LXVII. To Sections xxiii.-xxv. — Dr. Potter
demands, " How can it be necessary for any Christian to
have more in his creed than the apostles had ? " And
this he enforces with many arguments, thus : " May
the church of after-ages make the nanow way to heaven
narrower than our Saviour left it ? Shall it be a fault
to straiten and encumber the king's highway with public
nuisances ; and is it lawful, by adding new articles to
the faith, to retrench any thing from the latitude of the
King of heaven's highway to eternal happiness ? The
yoke of Christ, which he said was easy, may it be justiy
made heavier by the govemors of the church in after-
ages ? The apostles profess they revealed to the church
the whole counsel of God, keeping back nothing need
ful 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, damnabi
tur ! ' He that believeth not, shall be damned ! ' If

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 317
this may be done, why then did our Saviour reprehefld
the Pharisees so sharply, for binding heavy burdens, and
laying them on men's shoulders ? And why did he
teach thera, that in vain they worshipped God, teaching
for doctrines men's traditions ? And why did the
apostles call it tempting of God, to lay those things
upon the necks of Christians, that were not necessary ?"
LXVIII. All which intenogations seem to me to
contain so many plain and convincing arguments of the
premised assertion ; and if you can devise no fair and
satisfjdng answer to them, then be so ingenuous as to
grant the conclusion, " that no more can be necessary
for Christians to believe now, than was in the apostles'
time : " a conclusion of great importance, for the
deciding of many controversies, and the disburdening
of the faith of Christ from many encumbrances.
LXX. The Doctor, to make good this conclusion,
argues further thus : " St. Paul declared to the Ephesians
the whole counsel of God touching their salvation :
therefore that which St. Paul did not declare can be
no part of the counsel of God, and therefore not neces
sary." And again : "St. Paul kept back nothing from
the Ephesians that was profitable ; therefore he taught
them all things necessary to salvation."
LXXI. Neither is it material, that these words
were particularly directed by St. Paul to the pastors of
the church : for, (to say nothing that the point here
issuable, is not, whom he taught, whether priests or
lajnmen; 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 St. Paul, " that was profitable ; but have showed,

318 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
and have taught you publicly, and frora 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 preach
ing the kingdora of God, shall see ray face no more ;
wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am inno
cent from the blood of all men ; for I have kept
nothing back, but have showed you all the counsel of
God." And again : " Remeraber, 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 araong the rest, nay, above the rest,
yet, without controversy, they whom he taught publicly,
and from house to house, the " Jews and Greeks " to
whom he testified, (that is, preached faith and repent
ance,) those " all " amongst whom he went preaching the
kingdom of God, those "every one" whora for three
years together he warned, were not bishops and pastors
only. LXXH. Neither is this to say, that the apostles
taught Christians nothing but their Creed, nothing ofthe
sacraraents, coraraandments, &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 neces
sary which they did not teach them. But how much
of this they put into their Creed, whether " all the
necessary points of siraple belief," as we pretend, or
only, as you say, / know not what, is another question
now to be exarained.
LXXIII. We urge against you, " that if all neces
sary points of simple belief be not comprised in the
Creed, it can no way deserve the narae of the Aposties'
Creed, as not being their Creed in any sense, but only a
part of it."

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 319
To this you say, thai the faith of the apostles is of
larger extent than their Creed.
Answer. It is very trae that their whole faitii was
of a larger extent, but that was not the question ; but
whether all points of simple belief which they taught
as necessary to be explicitly believed, be not contained
in it ? And if thus much at least of Christian religion
be not comprised in it, I again desire you to inform me
how it conld be called the Apostles' Creed .'
LXXIV. To other reasons, grounded upon the
practice of the ancient church, — appointing her infants
to be instructed (for matters of simple belief) only in
the Creed ; from her admitting catechumens unto bap
tism, and of strangers unto her comraunion, upon their
only profession ofthe Creed, — you have not, that I per
ceive, thought fit to make any kind of answer.
LXXV. To Section xxvi. — In this section you
practise that trick of a caviller, which is, to answer
objections by other objections; an excellent way to
make controversies endless ! Dr. Potter desires to be
resolved, " Why, amongst many things of equal
necessity to be believed, the apostles should distinctly
set down some in the Creed, and be altogether silent of
others ? " Instead of resolving him in this difficulty,
you put another to hira, and that is, Why are some
jjoints not f'undamental exjrressed in it, rather than
others of the same quality ? Which demand is so far
from satisfying the former doubt, that it makes it more
intricate. For upon this ground it may be demanded.
How was it possible that the apostles should leave out
any articles simply necessary, and put in others not
necessary, especially if their intention were (as you say
it was) to deliver in it such articles as were fittest for
those times ? unless (which were wondrous strange)
unnecessary articles were fitter for those times than

320 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
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 [being a circumstance] of Christ's
passion, the third day, of the resunection ; neither doth
the adding of them make the Creed ever a whit the less
probable, the less fit to be understood and remembered.
And, for the contrary reasons, other unnecessary things
might be left out. Besides, who sees not that the addi
tion 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.
LXXVI. You demand again, (as it is no hard
matter to multiply demands,) Why was our Saviourh
descent into hell, and burial, expressed, and not his cir
cumcision, his manifestation to the three kings, and
icorking of miracles ? I answer : His resunection,
ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God, are
very great miracles, and they are expressed. Besides,
St. John assures us, " that the rairacles which Christ
did were done and written, not for themselves, that
they raight be believed," but, for a further end, — that
" we might believe that Jesus was the Christ, and,
believing, have eternal life." He, therefore, that
believes this may be saved, though he have no explicit
and distinct faith of any miracle that our Saviour did.
His circuraeision and manifestation to the wise men,
(for I know not upon what grounds you call them
kings,) are neither things simply necessary to be known,
nor have any near relation to those that are so. As for
his descent into hell, it may (for aught you know) be
put in as a thing necessary of itself to be known. If you
ask, " Why more than his circumcision ? " I refer you to

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 321
the aposties for an answer, who put that in, and left
this out of their Creed : and yet, sure, were not so
" forgetftU after the receiving of the Holy Ghost, as to
leave ont any prime and principal foundation of the
feith ; " — which are the very words of your own Gordo
nius Huntlseus, Cont. 2, cap. x. num. 10. Likewise his
burial was put in, perhaps, as necessary of itself to be
kno-wn. 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 beUeve
that there is no necessary point of this nature but what
is in the Creed, yet I do not afiSrm, 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 praMice, as well as those
which rest in bdirf? I answer : Because their purpose
was to comprise in it only those necessaiy points which
rest in beUef; which appears, because of practical
points there is not in it so much as one.
LXXVII. We afiSrm, that if your doctrine were
trae, this short Creed, namely, " I believe the Roman
chnrch to be infallible," would have been better, that is,
more effectual to keep the believers of it from heresy,
and in the trae faith, than this Creed which now we
have : A proposition so evident, that I cannot see how
either you, or any of your reUgion, or indeed any sensi
ble man, can fiom his heart deny it. Yet because
you make a show of doing so, or else, which I rather
hope, do not rightly apprehend the force of the reason,
I wUl endeavour, briefly, to add some light and strength
to it, by comparing the effects of these several supposed
Creeds. p 5

322 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL NECESSARY
LXXVIII. The former Creed therefore would cer-
tuinly produce these effects in the believers of it : an
irapossibility of being in any forraal heresy ; a necessity
of being prepared in mind to come out of all enor in
faith, or material heresy ; which certainly you will not
deny, or if you do, you pull down the only pillar of
your church and religion, and deny that which is in
effect the only thing you labour to prove through your
whole book.
LXXIX. The latter Creed which now we have, is
so uneffectual for these good purposes, that you yourself
tell us of innumerable, gross, damnable heresies, that
have been, are, and may be, whose contrary traths are
neither explicitly, nor by consequence, comprehended in
this Creed : so that no man, by the belief of this Creed
witiiout the former, can be possibly guarded from fall*
ing into them, and continuing obstinate in them. Nay,
so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mis
chiefs, that it is raore 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 experi
ence shows) to misguide men into this pernicious error,
••^that; believing the Creed,, they believe all necessary
points of faith ; whereas, indeed, they do not so. Now,
upon these grounds, I thus conclude : That Creed which
hath great commodities and no danger, would certainly
be better than that which hath great danger, and wants
many of these great commodities ; but the former. short
Creed proposed by rae, " I believe the Roman
church to be infallible," (if your doctiine be true,) is of
the former condition ; and the latter, that is, the Apos
tles' Creed, is of the latter ; therefore, the former (if
your doctrine be true) would, without controversy, be
better than the latter.
LXXXIII. Whereas you say. If the apostles had

POINTS OF MERE BELIEF. 323
expressed no article hut that of the catholic church, she
must have taught us ihe other articles in particular, hy
Creeds or other means : This is very true, but no way
repugnant to the truth of this which follows, — that the
apostles (if your doctrine be true) had done better ser
vice to the church, though they had never made this
Creed of theirs which now we have, if, instead thereof,
they had commanded in plain terras that, for men's per
petual direction in the faith, this short Creed should be
taught all men, " I believe the Roraan church shall be
for ever infallible." Yet you raust 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 h&,ve 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 doctrine
which they did preach,^ and done all other things as
they have done, besides the composing their Symbol : I
say, if your doctrine 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
iraperfect coraprehension of the necessary points of
siraple 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 deli
vered this one proposition, which would have been cer
tainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and
purposes : " The Roraan church shall be for ever infal
lible in all things which she proposes as matters of
faith." LXXXIV. Whereas you say. If we will believe we
have all in the Creed when we have not all, it is not the
apostles' fault, hut our own : I tell you plainly, if it he

.'324 THE CREED CONTAINS ALL POINTS OF BELIEF.
a fault, I know not whose it should be but theirs ; for,
sure, it can be no feult in me to follow such guides
whithersoever they lead me. Now, I say, they have
led me into this persimsion, 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 confessed they did propose to them
selves 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 catho
lics : " so Putean, out of Thomas Aquinas. "That
the faithful might know what the Christian people is to
believe explicitly : " so Vincent Filiucius. " That,
being separated into divers parts of the world, they
raight preach the same thing ; and that that might
serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from
infidels : " so Cardinal Richelieu. Now, for all these,
and for any otber good intent, I say, it -will be plainly
uneSectUal, 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 beHeve this, it must be my fault to believe the
aposiles wise and good men, which I cannot do if I
believe not this. And, therefore, what Bicardus de
Sancto Videre says of God himself, I make no scrapie
at all to apply to the apostles, and to say. Si error est
qtted eredoi a vobis deceptvs 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
fjr your suspicion, that we are led into this persuasion
ouf of a hope that we may the better maintain by it
some opinions ofour own, it is plainly uncharitable. I
know no opinion I have which I would not as wiUingly
forsake as keep, if I could see sufficient reason to induce-
me to beUeve that it is the wiU of God I should forsake

SEPARATION FROM CATHOLICS, NOT SCHISM. 325
it. Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the
church of Rome, but I have more evident grounds than
this whereupon to build it; for, let but these traths be
granted, — that the authority of the Scripture is inde
pendent 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 trath maintained against you, though the Apostles'
Creed were not in the world.

CHAPTER V.
THE ANSWER TO THE FIFTH CHAPTER.
Sliowing thai the Separation of Protestants from the Roman
Church, heina-upon just and necessai-y Causes, is not any
tcai/ guiUy ofSchism.
I. To Sections i.— tit. — In the seven first sec
tions of this chapter there be many things said and many
things supposed by you which are untrue, and deserve a
censure. As,
II. First : That schism could nat be a division from
the church, or that a division from the church could not
happen, unless there always had been and should he a
visible church. Which assertion is a manifest false
hood ; for, although there never had been any church
visible or invisible before this age, nor should be ever
after, vet this eould not hinder but that a schism might

326 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
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 insunection
against sovereign authority.
III. That it is a point to be granted by all Chris
tians, that in all ages there hath heen a visible congre
gation of faithful people. Which proposition, how-
soever 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 Pro
testants, with one consent, affirm it to be false; and,
therefore, without proof to take it for granted is to beg
the question.
IV. That supposing Luther and they which did first
separate from the Boman church were guilty of schism,
it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this
division must be so likewise. Which is not so certam
as you pretend ; for they which alter without necessary
cause the present govemment of any state, civU or eccle
siastical, do commit a great fault ; whereof, notwith
standing, 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 settled the present. Thus have I
known some of your own church condemn the Low-
Countrymen, who first revolted from the king of Spain,
of the sin of rebellion ; yet absolve them from it who
now, being of your religion there, are yet faithful main
tainors of the comraon liberty against the pretences of
the king of Spain.
V. That all those which a Christian is to esteem
neighbours do concur fo make one company, which is the
ahurch ; which is false ; for a Christian is to esteem

NOT GUILTY Oi SCHISM, 327
those his neighbours Avho are not members of the true
church. VI. That all the members of the visible chwrch are hy
charity united into one mystical body ; which is mani-
festiy untrue ; for many of them have no charity.
VII. That the catholic 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;
qhurch. VIII. That every heretic is a schismatic ; which you
must acknowledge false in those who, though they deny
or doubt of sorae point professed by your church, and sa
are heretics, yet continue still in the coramunion of the,
church. IX. That all the members of the catholic church
must of necessity he united in external communion ; *
which, though it were much to be desired it were so, yet
certainly cannot be perpetually true : for, a man unjustly
excommunicated is not in the church's communion ;
yet he is still a raeraber of the church : and divers times
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 thera separated from
the other, and yet both have continued members ofthe
catholic church. These things are, in those seven sec
tions, either said or supposed by you untruly, without
all show or pretence of proof. The rest is an imperti
nent common-place, wherein Protestants and the cause
in hand are absolutely unconcerned ; and therefore I
pass to the eighth section.
* To say, as the Papists do, that " this external comrmmion consists
in using the same liturgy, rites, and ceremonies, and in o-wning one
visible head," is a real begging of the question. — Ed rr.

328 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
X. To Section viii. — Here you obtrade upon us
a double fallacy : one in supposing and taking for
granted that whatsoever is aflSrmed by three Fathers
must be true ; whereas yourselves make no scruple of
condemning many things of falsehood, which yet are
maintained by more than thrice three Fathers : another,
in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely,
which by them are limited and restrained to some par
ticular cases. Thus the words of St. Austin, (Contra
Parm., lib. ii., cap. 62,) " that there is no necessity to
divide unity," are not spoken absolutely, that there
never is nor can be any necessity to divide unity, (which
only were for your purpose,) but only in such a special
case as he there sets down ; that is, " When good men
tolerate bad men, which can do them no spiritual hurt,
to the intent they may not be separated from those who
are [spiritually good ; then," saith he, " there is no
necessity to divide unity : " which very words do clearly
give us to understand, that it may fall out (as it dotii
in our case) that we cannot keep unity with bad men
without spiritual hurt, that is, -without partaking with
them iu their impieties, and that then there is a neces
sity to divide unity from them ; I mean, to break off
conjunction with them in their impieties : which that it
was St. Austin's mind, it is most evident out of the
twenty-first chapter of the same book ; where, to
Pamrenian, demanding, " How can a man remain pure,
being joined with those that are corrapted ?" he answers,
" Very trae, this is not possible, if he be joined with
them ; that is, if he commit any evil with them, or
favour them which do comrait it. But if he do neither
of these, he is not joined with them." And, presently
after, " These two things, retained, will keep such men
pure and unconupted ; that is, neither doing iU, nor
approving it." And, therefore, seeing you impose upon

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 329
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.
XI. Irenseus also says not simply, (which only would
do you service,) There cannot possibly be any so impor
tant reformation as to justify a separation from them
who will not reform ; but only, " They cannot make any
corruption so great as is the perniciousness of a
schism." Now, " they " here is a relative, and hath
an antecedent expressed in Irenseus ; which if you had
been pleased to take notice of, you would easily have
seen, that what Irenseus says falls heavy upon the
church of Rome ; but toucheth Protestants nothing at
all : for the men he speaks of are such as, propter modi-
cas et quaslihet 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 iraportance as to countervail the danger of a
division." Now, seeing the causes of our separation
frora the church of Rorae are (as we pretend, and are
ready to justify) because we will not be partakers with
her in superstition, idolatry, impiety, and raost cruel
tyranny, both upon the bodies and souls of men, who
can say that the causes of our separation may be justly
esteemed modicw et quwlibet cwusob ? * On the other
side, seeing the Bishop of Rome, who was contemporary
to Irenseus, did, as much as in him lay, cut off from the
church's 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 potius tempore,
* f Trifling and small causes," — Edit,

330 SEPARATISTS FROM. THE CHURCH OF ROME,
" not about any catholic doctrine, but only a ceremony,
or, rather, about the time of observing it ;" (so Petavius
values it ; which was just all one as if the church of
France should excoraraunicate those of their o-wn reU
gion in England, for not keeping Christmas upon the
same day with thera ;) and seeing he was reprehended
sharply and bitterly for it by raost of the bishops of the
world, as Eusebius testifies,* and, as Cardinal Penon,
though raincing the matter, yet confesseth, by this very
Irenseus himself in particular admonished, that " for so
small a cause " (propter tam m,odicam causam) he should
not have cut off so raany provinces from the body of the
church : and, lastly, seeing the ecclesiastical story of
those tiraes raentions no other notable exaraple of any
such schisraatical presuraption but this of Victor, cer
tainly we have great induceraent to iraagine that
Irenseus, in this place by you quoted, had a special aim
at the bishop and church of Rome. Once [more], this
I am sure of, that the place fits him and many of his suc
cessors as well as if it had been made purposely for
thera : and this also, that he which finds fault with
thera " who separate upon small causes," implies clearly
that he conceived there might be such causes as were
great and sufficient ; and that then a reforraation was to
be made, notjvithstanding any danger of division that
might ensue upon it.
XII. Lastly, St. 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 raight be remedied." But then, I am
to tell you that he says not, AU things should rather " be
done," but only. All things should rather " be endured
* Eusebius, Hist., lib. v., cap. 24. Perhon Replic., lib. iii.,
cap. 2.

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 3.31
or suffered ; " wherein he speaks not of the evil of sin,
but of pain and misery ; not of tolerating either enor
or sin in others, (though that may be lawful,) much less
of joining with others, for quietness' sake, (which only
were to your purpose,) in the profession of error and
practice of sin ; but of suffering any affliction, nay,
even martyrdom in our own persons, rather than consent
to the division of the church. Omnia incommoda, so
your own Christophorson, enforced by the circum
stances of the place, translates Dionysius's words :
All " miseries should rather be endured, than we should
consent to the church's division."
XIII. To Section ix. — In this paragraph you tell
us, first, that fhe doctrine of the total deficiency of the
visible church, maintained hy many chief Protestants,
implies in it vast absurdity, or rather sacrilegious
blasphemy. Answer. But neither do the Protestants alleged by
you, maintain the deficiency of the visible church, but
only of the church's visibility, or of thp church as it is
visible ; neither do they hold that the visible church
hath failed totally from its essence, but only from its
purity ; and that it fell into many corruptions, but yet
not to nothing. You say, secondly, fhat the reason
which cast them upon this wicked doctrine, was a des
perate voluntary necessity, because they were resolved
not to acknowledge the Boman to he the true chwrch, and
were convinced hy all manner of evidence, that for
divers ages hefore 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 evi
dence, (as Scripture, reason, antiquity,) that all the
•visible churches in the world, but, above all, the Roman

332 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
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 corrap
tion, and conformable in all things to the doctrine of
Christ? XIV. To Section x. — Neither is there any repug
nance (but in words only) between these (as you are
pleased to style them) " exterminating spirits," and those
other, whom out of courtesy you entitle, in section x.,
" more moderate Protestants." For these, affirming the
perpetual visibility of the church, yet neither deny nor
doubt of her being subject to raanifold 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 church's -visibUity,
yet plainly affirm, that they conceive very good hope of
the salvation of many of their ignorant and honest
forefathers ; thus declaring plainly, though in words
they denied the visibility of the true church, yet their
meaning was not to deny the perpetuity, but the per
petual purity and inconuption, of the visible church.
XVII. To Section xi. — You ask. To what con
gregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of
his soul, if upon earth there he no visible church of
Christ ?
Answer. If some one Christian lived alone among
Pagans in some country remote frora 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 an one's salvation, to know the doctrine of
Christ, and live according to it ?
XVIII. Objection. To imagine a company of
men believing one thing in their heart, and with their

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 333
mouth professing the contrary, (as they must be supposed
to do, for if they had professed what they believed, fhey
would have become visible,) is to dream of a damned
crew of dissembling sycophants, hut not to conceive
aright of the church of Christ.
Answer. 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 neces
sary 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 con
spicuously visible that you require; by whose splen
dour, all men may be directed and drawn to repair to
her, for the affairs of their souls ; neither is it the visi
bility 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 part ix. of this chapter, where his words are,
" God hath withdrawn 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 far latent and invisible, as not to profess their
faith in open assemblies, nor to proclaim it to all the
world, and yet not deny nor dissemble it ; nor deserve
to be esteemed a " damned crew of dissembling syco-
,Dtoi^." Jt9bjection. But preaching of the word, and admir
nistration of the sacraments, cannot but make a church
visible ; and these are inseparable notes of the church.

3-34 separatists from the church of rome,
I answer : They are so far inseparable, that where-,
soever 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 raake the church
visible : " but to whora ? certainly not to all raen, nor to
most men ; but to them only to whom the word is
preached, and the sacraments are administered. They
make the church visible to whom themselves are visible,
but not to others. As, where your sacraraents are admi
nistered, and your doctrine preached, it is visible that
there is a popish church. But this raay perhaps be
visible to them only who are present at these perform
ances, and, to others, as secret as if they had never
been performed.
XX. Objection. But St. Austin saith. It is an
impudent, abominable, detestable speech, ^c, fo say. The
church hath perished.
Answer. 1. All that St. Austin says is not trae.
2. Though this were true, it were nothing to your pur
pose, 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 five
hundred years may perish in one thousand six hundred.
XXI. Objection. While Protestants deny the
perpetuity of a visible church, they destroy their own
present church.
Answer. I do not see, how the truth of any pre
sent church depends upon the perpetual visibUity, 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 Alraighty, to restore to a flourishing
estate a church which oppression hath raade invisible ?
to repair that which is ruined, to reform that which

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 335
was conupted, or to revive that which was dead ? Nay,
what reason is there, but that by ordinary raeans this
raay be done, so long as the Scriptures by Divine Pro
vidence are preserved in their integrity and authority ?
As a comraonwealth, though never so far collapsed and
overrun with disorders, is yet in possibUity of being
reduced unto its original state, so long as the ancient
laws and fundamental constitutions are extant, and
remain inviolate, from whence men may be directed
how to raake such a reforraation. But St. Austin
urges this very argument against fhe 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 infalli
ble in their determinations, are yet in their reasons and
arguments, whereupon they ground thera, subject to
like passions and errors with other men.
XXII. Objection. Lastly, whereas you say, that
all divines define schism a division from the true
church, and from thence collect, that there must he a
known church from which it is possible for men to
depart : —
Answer. I might very justly question your ante
cedent, and desire you to consider, whether schism be
not rather, or at least be not as well, a division of
the church, as frora it, a separation not of a part
frora the whole, but of some parts from the other ?
And if you liked not this definition, I might desire you
to inforra me, in those many schisms which have
happened in the church of Rome, which of the parts
was the church, and which was divided from it. But,
to let this pass, certainly your consequence is most
unreasonable. For though whensoever there is a
schism, it must necessarily suppose a church existent
there, yet, sure, we raay define a schism, that is, declare

336 separatists from the church of rome,
what the word signifies, (for defining is no more,) though
at this present there were neither schism nor church in
the world. Unless you wUl say, that we cannot teU what
a rose is, or what the word " rose " signifies, but only in
the suraraer when we have roses ; or that, iu the world
to come, when men shall not many, it is impossible to
know what it is to many ; or that the plague is not a.
disease, but only when somebody is infected ; or that
adultery is not a sin, unless there be adulterers ; or thai,
before Adam had a chUd, he knew not, and God could
not have told him, what it was to be a father. Certainly,
sir, you have forgot your metaphysics, which you so
much glory in, if you know not, that the connexions of
essential predicates with their subjects, are etemal, and
depend not at all upon the actual existence in the thing
defined. This definition, therefore, of sdiism conclude
not the existence of a church, even when it is defined;
much less the perpetual continuance of it, and lea^ of
all the continuance of it in perpetual visibiUty and
purity ; which is the only thing that we deny, and you
are to prove.
XXIII. To Sections xn., xlvix.-lv. — The re
mainder of this chapter offers arguments to con'rince
Luther and all that follow him to be schismatics.
XXIV. First then, to prove us schismatics, you
urge from the nature of schism thus : —
Whosoever leave the external commimion ofthevisibk
church, are schismatics ; hut Luther and his followers
left the external communion of the visible church tof
Christ ; therefore they are schismatics.
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 visi-.
ble churches, must needs forsake the external commv/mm,
ofthe true visible church of Christ. But Luther and his.
followers forsook the external communion of all visiMs,

NOT GUILTy OF SCHISM. 337
churches : therefore they forsook the external communion
of the true visible church.
The second argument stands thus : —
The Boman church, when the separation was made
by Luther, ^c, was the true visible church of Christ :
But Luther, ^c, forsook the external communion of
the Boman church : Therefore they forsook the external
communion of the true visible church of Christ.
The proposition you confirm by these reasons : —
1. The Boman church had the 'notes of the church
assigned by Protestants ; namely, the true preaching of
fhe word, and due adminidration of the sacraments ;
therefore she was the true church.
2. Either the Boman church was the true visible
church, or Protedants can name and prove some other
disagreeing from the Boman, and agreeing with Pro
testants in their particular doctrines : or else they must
say there was no visible church ; hut they will not say,
there was no church : they cannot name and prove any
other disagreeing from the Boman, and agreeing with
the Protestants in their particular doctrines ; because
this cannot be the Greek church, nor that of the Wal-
denses, Wickliffites, Hussites, nor that of the Muscovites,
Armenians, Georgians, ^Ethiopians: (which you confirm
hy several arguments :) therefore they must grant, that
the Boman chu/rch was fhe true visible church.
XXV. Now, to all this I briefiy answer thus : That
you have played the unwise builder, and erected a
stately stracture upon a false foundation. For whereas ;
you take for granted as an undoubted truth, that who
soever 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 extemal communion of the church corrupted, and
a

338 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
that there was a necessity for them that would commii*
nicate with this church, to coraraunicate in her conup-
tions : or you suppose her comraunion uncorrapted. If
the former, and yet will take for granted that aU are
schismatics that leave her communion, though it be cor--
rupted, you beg the question in your proposition. If
the latter, you beg the question in your supposition ; for
Protestants, you know, are peremptory and unanimous
in the denial of both these things : both that the com
munion of the visible church was then uncorrapted ;
and that they are truly schismatics, who leave the com
raunion of the visible church, if corrupted ; especiaUy,
if the case be so, (and Luther's was so,) that they must
either leave her communion, or of necessity communi
cate with her in her conuptions.
XXVI. Besides, although it were granted schism, to
leave the extemal coraraunion of the visible church in
what state or case soever it be, and that Luther and his
followers were schismatics for leaving the external com
munion of all visible churches ; yet you faU exceed
ingly of clearing the other necessary point undertaken
by you, that the Boman church was then the visible
church. For neither do Protestants (as you mistake)
make the true preaching of the word, and due adminis
tration ofthe sacraments, the notes of the visible church,
but only of a visible church : now these, you know, are
very different things, the forraer signifying the church
catholic, or the whole church ; the latter, a partioit-
lar church, or a part of the catholic. And, therefore,
suppose, out of courtesy we should grant, what by
argument you can never evince, that your church had
these notes, yet would it by no raeans follow, that your
church were the visible church, but only a visible
church ; not the whole catholic church, but only apart
of it.

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. -339
XXVII. 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 doc
trine, or acknowledge there was no visible church ; it
is all one, as if (to use St. Paul's similitude) the head
should say to the foot, " Either you must grant that I am
the whole body, or narae sorae other member that is so,
or confess that there is no body." To which the foot
might answer : " I acknowledge there is a body ; and
yet, that no meraber beside you is this body ; nor yet
that you are it, but only a part of it." And in like
raanner say we. We acknowledge, a church there was,
corrupted indeed universally, but yet such an one as we
hope, by God's gracious acceptance, was still a church.
We pretend not to name any one society that was this
church, and yet we see no reason that can enforce us to
confess that yours was the church, but only a part of it,
and that one of the worst then extant in the world. In
vain, therefore, have you troubled yourself in proving,
that we cannot pretend, that either the Greeks, Wal-
denses, Wickliffites, Hussites, Muscovites, Armenians,
Georgians, Abyssines, were then the visible church.
For all this discourse proceeds from 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 Roraan, the Greek, 8ec.)
mud be always, exclusively to all other coraraunions,
the whole visible church. And though, perhaps, some
weak Protestant, having this false principle settled in
him, — that there was to be always some visible church of
one denomination, pure from all error in doctrine, —
might be wrought upon, and prevaUed with by it, to
forsake the church of Protestants ; yet why it should
induce him to go to yours, rather than [to] the Greek
q2

340 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
church, or any other which pretends to perpetual suc
cession as well as yours, that I do not understand ;
unless it be for the reason which ^neas Sylvius gave,
why more held the Pope above a councU, than a coun
cil above the Pope ; which was, because Popes did give
bishoprics, and archbishoprics, but councils gave none,
and therefore, suing 'va. forma pauperis, were not like to
have their cause very well maintained. For, put the
case, I should grant of mere favour, that there must be
always some church of one denomination and commu
nion, free from all enors in doctrine, and that Pro
testants had not always such a church ; it would
follow indeed from thence, that I must not be a Pro
testant; but that I raust be a Papist, certainly it would
follow by no better consequence than this : If you will
leave England, you raust of necessity go to Rome.
And yet with this wretched fallacy have T been some
times abused myself, and known many other poor souls
seduced, not only from their own church and religion,
but unto yours. I beseech God to open the eyes of all
that love the truth, that they may not always be held
captive under such miserable delusions.
XXVIII. Let us come now to the arguments which
you build upon Dr. Potter's own words, out of which
you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Pro
testants of schism.
XXIX. But these reasons will easily be answered,
if the reader will take along with him these three short
meraoranduras : —
XXX. First : That not every separation, but only a
causeless separation, from the external coraraunion of
any church, is the sin of schism.
XXXI. Secondly: That imposing upon men, under
pain of excoraraunication, a necessity of professing
known errors, and practising known corruptions, is a

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 341
sufficient and necessary cause of separation ; and that
this is the cause which Protestants allege to justify their
separation from the church of Rorae.
XXXII. Thirdly : That to leave the church, and to
leave the extemal coramunion of a church, is not the same
thing ; that being done by ceasing to be a raember of it,
by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute
a man a raeraber of it, as faith and obedience : this, by
refusing to coraraunicate with any church in her Litur
gies and public worship of God. This arraour, if it be
rightly placed, will repel all those batteries which you
threaten shall be so furious.
XXXIII. To Sections xiii.-xv. — The first is
a sentence of St. Austin against Donatus, applied to
Luther thus : — If the church perished, what church
brought forth Donatus ? [ You say, Luther ?] If she
could not perish, what madness moved the sect of
Donatus to separate, upon pr dence to avoid the commu
nion of had men ? Whereunto one fair answer (to let
pass many others) is obvious out of the second obser
vation : That this sentence, though it were gospel, as it
is not, is impertinently applied to Luther and
Lutherans ; whose pretence of separation, be it trae
or be it false, was not (as that of the Donatists) only to
avoid the comraunion of bad raen ; but to free them
selves from a necessity (which but by separating was
unavoidable) of joining with bad men in their impieties.
XXXIV. To Section xvi. — Your second onset
drives only at those Protestants who hold, ihe true church
was invisible for many ages. Which doctrine (if by
the true church be understood the pure church, as you
do understand it) is a certain truth, and it is easier.for you
to declaim (as you do) than to dispute against it. But
these men, you say, must be heretics, because they separated
from the communion of the visible church ; and there-

342 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
fore also from the communion of that which they say
was invisible, inasmuch as tlie invisible church commu
nicated with the visible.
XXXV. Answer. I might very justly desire some
proof of that which so confidently you take for granted:
That there were no persecuted and oppressed main
tainors of the truth in the days of our fwefathers, 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 raore probable, than you can make
your negative. We read in Scripture, that Elias con
ceived " there was none left besides himself in the
whole kingdora of Israel," who had not revolted from-
God ; and yet God hiraself assures us, that he was
deceived. And if such a man, a prophet, and one of
the greatest, erred in his judgraent touching his own
time, and his o-wn country, why may not you, who are
certainly but a man, and subject to the same passions as
Elias was, mistake in thinking, that, in former ages, in
some country or other, there were not always sorae good
Christians, which did not so much as externally bow
their knees to your Baal ? But this answer I am con
tent you shall take no notice of, and think it sufficient
to tell you, that if it be true, that this supposed invi
sible church did hypocritically communicate with the
visible church in her corruptions, then Protestants had
cause, nay, necessity, to forsake their comraunion also ;
for otherwise they must have joined with them in the
practice of impieties ; and, seeing they had such cause to
separate, they presume their separation cannot be schis
matical. XXXVI. 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^

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 343
Answer. Very true; but I would fain know
wherein. I would gladly be informed, whether I be
bound, for . fear of schisra, to communicate with those
that believe as I do only in lawful things, or absolutely
in everything ; whether I ara to join with theni in
superstition and idolatry, and not only in a coramon
profession of the faith wherein we agree, but in a
coramon dissiraulation or abjuration of it. This is
that which you would have them do, or else, forsooth,
they must be schismatics. But hereafter, I pray, reraem
ber, that there is no necessity of coraraunicating 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 reasonable
ness of their cause to separate shall, according to my
first observation, justify their separation from being
schismatical. XXXVII. Argument. Butthe property of schism,
according to Dr. Potter, is fo cut off from the hope of
sahation the church from which it separates ; and
these Protestants have this property ; therefore they are

XXXVIII. Answer. I deny the syllogism : it is
no better than this : " One symptom of the plague is a
fever ; but such a raan hath a fever ; therefore he hath the
plague." The true conclusion which issues out of these
premisses should be this : " Therefore he hath one symp
tom of the plague." And so likewise in the forraer :
'? Therefore they have one property, or one quality, of
schismatics." And as, in the former instance, the man
that hath one sign of the plague raay, by reason of the
absence of other requisites, not have the plague : so
these Protestants may have something of schismatics,
and yet not be schismatics. A tyrant sentencing a
man to death for his pleasure, and a just judge that

344 SEP.\RATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
condemns a raalefactor, do both sentence a man to
death, and so for the matter do both the same thing :
yet the one does wickedly, the other justly. What is
the reason ? Because the one hath cause, the other hath
not. In like manner schismatics, either always or gene
rally, denounce daranation to thera from whom they
separate. The same do these Protestants, and yet are
not schismatics. The reason : because schismatics 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 ex
cused by ignorance, and expiated at least by a general
repentance. In fine : though perhaps it may be true, that
all schismatics do so ; yet universal affirmatives are not
converted, and therefore it follows not by any good
logic, that all that do so, when there is just cause for it,
must be schismatics. The cause in this matter of sepa
ration is all in all ; and that, for aught I see, you never
think of.
But if these rigid Protedants 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 ?
Answer. Distinguish the quality of the persons
censured, and this seeming repugnance of their cen
sures will vanish into nothing. For your church may
be considered either in regard of those in whom either
negligence, or pride, or worldly fear or hopes, or some
other voluntary sin, is the cause of their ignorance, which
I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst
you ; or in regard of those who owe their errors from
truth to want of capacity, or default of instruction ;
either in respect of those that might know the truth and
wUl not, or of those who would know the truth but
(all things considered) cannot; iu respect of those

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 345
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 raore rigid censures
seera especially to reflect upon,) and the heaviest sen
tence will not be too heavy. Consider the latter, and
the mildest wUl not be too raUd. So that here is no
difference but in words only ; neither are you flattered
by the one, nor uncharitably censured by the other.
XXXIX. Your next blow is directed against the
milder sort of Protestants, who, you say, involve them
selves in the sin of schism hy communicating with those
(as you call them) exterminating spirits, whom. you
conceive yourself fo have proved schismatics ; and now
load them further with the crime of heresy. For, say
you, if you held yourselves obliged, under pain of
damnation, to forsake the communion of the Boman
church hy reason of her errors, (which yet you confess
were not fundamental,) shall it not be much more
damnable, to live in confraternity with those, who
defend an error of the failing of the church, which
in the Donatists you confess to have heen properly
heretical ?
XL. Answer. You mistake in thinking, that
-Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communi
cate with you, only or principaUy by reason of your
errors and corruption. For the true reason, according
to my third observation, is not so much because you
maintain errors and corruptions, as because you impose
thera ; and will allow your coramunion to none but to
those that will hold them with you; and have so
ordered your communion, that either we must commu
nicate with you in these things, or nothing. And for
this very reason, though it were granted, that these
Protestants held this doctrine which you impute to
them, and though this error were as damnable and as
ft 5

•346 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,.
much against the Creed as you pretend; yet, after aH
this, this disparity between you and them might make
it more lawful for us to communicate with them than
you, because what they hold they hold to themselves,
and refuse not (as you do)- to communicate with thera'
that hold the contrary.
XLI. Thus we may answer your argument, though
both your forraer 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 frora its visibility ; which if you
conceive all one, then must you conceive that the stars
fail every day, and the sun every night. Neither is it
certain that the doctrine of the church's faiUng is
repugnant to the Creed. For as the trath of the
article of the remission of sins depends not upon the
actual remission of any raan's sins, but upon God's
readiness and resolution to forgive the sins of all that
believe and repent ; so that, altiiough unbelief or impe
nitence should be universal, and " the faithful should
absolutely fail from the children of men, and the Son of
mah 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 cer
tain that the truth of the article of the catholic church
depends upon the actual existence of a catholic church,
but rather upon the right, that the church of Christ, or
rather" (to speak properiy)' the Gospel of Christ, hath to
be universaUy believed. And therefore the article may
be true, though there were no church in the world ; in
regard, this notwithstanding, it remains still true that
there ought to be a church, and this church ought to be
catholic. For as, of these two propositions, " There is a
cliurch in- America," and, " There should be a church in

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM.

347

America," the truth of the latter depends not upon the
truth of the former ; so neither does it in these two :
I" There is a church diffused all the world over," and,
" There should be a church diffused all the world over."
XLIV. To Section xvn. — The ijext section in
three long leaves delivers us this short sense : That
those Protestants which say ihey have nof left ihe
churcKs external communion, hut only her corruptions,
pretend to do that which is impossible ; because these
corruptions were inherent in the churcK's external
communion ; and therrfore he that forsakes them cannot
but forsake this.
XLV. Answer. But who are they that pretend
they forsook the church's conuptions, and not her
external communion ? Sorae there be that say, they
have not left the church, that is, not ceased to be raem
bers of the church, but only left her conuptions : Sorae,
that they have not left the coraraunion, but the corrup
tions, of it ; meaning the internal communion of it,
and conjunction with it by faith and obedience ; which
disagree from the forraer only in the manner of speak
ing; for he that is in the church is in this kind of
coraraunion with it ; and he that is not in this internal
comraunion is not in the churcb : Sorae perhaps, that
they left not your external communion in all things ;
raeaning, that they left it not voluntarily, being not i
fugifivihvit fugati,* as being willing to join with you in |
any act of piety ; but were by you necessitated and con
strained to do so, because you would not suffer thera to
do well with you, unless they would do ill with you.-f-
Now, to do ill that you raay do weU, is against the will
of God, which to every good raan is a high degree of
* Not fugitives who willingly left, but fugati, " such as were
driven away." — Edit.
\ Casaubon. in Epistola ad Cardinal, Perron,

348 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
necessity. But, for such Protestants as pretend that,
de facto, " they forsook your conuptions 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 enor,
by thinking that to leave the church, and to leave the
external communion of it, was all one in sense and sig
nification, I hope by this tirae you are disabused, and
begin to understand, that as a raan raay leave any
fashion or custom of a college, and yet reraain stiU a
meraber of the college ; so a raan raay possibly leave
some opinion or practice of a church formerly common
to himself and others, and continue still a raember of
that church : provided that what he forsakes be not one
of those things wherein the essence of the church con
sists. Whereas, peradventure this practice may be so
involved with the external coraraunion of this church,
that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this
practice, and not to leave the church's external com
munion. XLVI. You will reply perhaps, that the difficulty
lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the
churcKs corruptions, and not the church, as against
those who say, fhey forsook the churcKs corruptions, and
not her external communion ; and that the reason ii
still the same ; hecause these supposed corruptions were
inherent in the whole church, and therefore, hy like
reason with the former, could not he forsaken hut if
the whole church were forsaken.
XLVII. Answer. A pretty sophism, and very fit to
persuade men that it is impossible for thera to forsake any
error they hold, or any vice they are subject to, either
peculiar to themselves, or in common with others; because.

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 349
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 for-r
saking 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 itself;
so is it also against reason to deny, that a raan raay (by
an usual phrase of speech) forsake any custora or
quality, good or bad, either proper to hiraself, or com
mon to hiraself with any corapany, 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 custora,
and yet not leave your society. If all the citizens of a
city were addicted to any vanity, they raight either
all or some of them forsake it, and yet not forsake the
city. If all the parts of a man's body were dirty or
filthy, nothing hinders but that all or some of them
might cleanse themselves, and yet continue parts of the
body. And what reason, then, in the world is there, if
the whole visible church were overcome with tares and
weeds of superstitions and conuptions, but that some
raembers of it raight reform themselves, and yet con
tinue still true merabers of the body of the church, and
not be made no merabers, but the better, by their
reformation ?
L. We acknowledge, that we cannot (as matters now
stand) separate from your corruptions, hut 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 extemal communion with all the other parts of

850 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF HOME,
it ; taking for granted, that which is certainly false,
that no two raen or churches divided in external
coraraunion, can be both true parts of the catholic
ehurch. LI. We are not fo learn the difference bdween
schism and heresy ; for heresy we conceive " an obstinate
j defence of any error against any necessary article of
I the Christian faith ; " and schisra, " a causeless separation
,5 of one part of the church frora another." But this we
say, that if we convince you of enors and corruptions,
professed and practised in your coraraunion, then we
cannot be schisraatics for refusing to join with you in
the profession of these errors, and the practice of these
' corruptions. And therefore you must free yourselves
from error, or us frora schism.
LII. Lastly : Whereas you say, that you have
demonstrated against us, that Protestants divided them
sdves from the external communion of the visible
church, — add, which external communion was corrupted,
and we shall confess the accusation, and glory in it.
But this is not that quod erat demonstrandum,* but
that we divided ourselves from the church, that is,
made ourselves outlaws from it, and no merabers of it.
And moreover, in the reason of our separation from
the external comraunion of your church you are mis
taken : for it was not so much because she, your church,
as because your church's external communion, was cor
rupted, and needed reformation. -f-
LIII. That a pretence of reformation will acquit no
• " Which was to be demonstrated."  Edit.
f Chillingworth's meaning probably is : " Not so much because
you had errors among you in matters of belief, as because you made
our partaking in corrupt practices, or profession of errors in matters
of belief, a necessary part or condition of external communion with
you." — Edit.

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 351
man from schism, we grant very wUlingly, and there
fore say, that it concerns every raan who separates from
any church's coramunion, even as much as his salvation
is worth, to look most carefully to it that the cause of
his separation be just and necessary : for unless it be
necessary, it can very hardly be sufficient. But, whe
ther a true reformation of ourselves frora enors, super
stitions, and irapieties, wUl not justify our separation in
these things ; our separation, I say, from them who
will not reforra themselves, and, as much as in them .
lies, hinder others from doing so : — this is the point
you should have spoken to, but have not. As for
the sentences of the Fathers, to which you refer us
for the determination of this question, I suppose, by
what I have said above the reader understands, by
alleging thera you have gained Uttle credit to your
cause or person ; and that, if they were com
petent judges of this controversy, their sentence is
against you, much rather than for you.
LVI. But your argument, you conceive, will be
more convincing, if we consider that when Luther ap
peared, there were not two d'istinct visible true churches,
(one pure, the other corrupted,) hut one church only.
Answer. The ground of this is no way certain, nor
here sufficiently proved. For, whereas you say, " His
tories are sUent of any such matter ;" I answer: There is
no necessity that you or I should have read all histories
that may be extant of this matter ; nor that all should be
extant that were written, much less extant unconupted ;
especially considering your church, which had lately all
power in her hands, hath been so perniciously indus
trious, in corrupting the raonuraents of antiquity that
raade against her x nor that all records should reraain
which were written; nor that aU should be recorded
which was done.

352 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Lastly : Whereas you say, that, supposing a visible
pure church, Luther must be a schismatic, who sepa
rated from all visible churches ; I tell you, if you wiU
suppose a visible church extant before and when Luther
arose, conforraable to hira in all points of doctrine
necessary and profitable, then Luther separated not
from this church, but adjoined himself to it : not,
indeed, in place, which was not necessary ; not in exter
nal communion, which was impossible ; but by the
union of faith and charity. Upon these grounds, I
say that the ground of this argument is no way made
certain ; yet, because it is not manifestly false, I am
content to let it pass. And, for aught I see, it is very
safe for me to do so ; for you build nothing upon it
which I raay not fairly grant. For what do you con
clude frora hence, but that, " seeing there was no visible
church but conupted, Luther, forsaking the extemal
communion of the conupted church, could not but for
sake the external communion of the catholic church ? "
Well, let this also be granted ; what will come of it ?
What ! that " Luther must be a schismatic ? " By no
means; for, not every 'separation, but only a causeless
separation, from the communion ofthe church, we main
tain to be schismatical. Hereunto may be added, that
though the whole church were corrapted, yet, properly
speaking, it is not true that Luther and his foUowers
forsook the whole corrupted church, or the external
comraunion of it ; but only that he forsook that part of
it which was corrupted, and still would be so ; and for
sook not, but only reformed, another part, which part
they themselves were ; and, I suppose, you will not go
about to persuade us that they forsook themselves or
their own communion. And if you urge, that they
joined themselves to no other part, therefore, they sepa
rated frora the whole ; I say. It foUows not, inasmuch as

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM.

353

themselves were a part of it, and stiU continued so ;
and, therefore, could no more separate from the whole
than from themselves. Thus, though there were no
part of the people of Rome to whom the plebeians
joined themselves when they made their secession into
the Aventine Hill, yet they divided theraselves from
the patricians only, and not from the whole people,
because themselves were a part of this people, and they
divided not frora themselves.
LVII. To Section xviii. — Here you prove, that
which no man denies, that corruption in manners yields
no sufficient cause to leave the church ; yet, sure, it yields
sufficient cause to cast them out of the church that are,
after the church's public admonition, obstinate in noto
rious impieties. Neither doth the cutting off such raen
from the church lay any necessity upon us either to go
out of the world or out of the church ; but rather puts
these men out of the church into the world, where we
may converse with thera freely, without scandal to the
church. Our blessed Saviour foretold, you say, that
there should be in the church tares with choice corn.
Look again, I pray, and you shall see, that the field he
speaks of is not the church, but the world ; and, there
fore, neither do you obey our Saviour's coraraand,
" Let both grow up till the harvest," who teach it to be
lawful to root these tares (such are heretics) out of .the
world ; neither do Protestants disobey it, if they eject
manifest heretics and notorious sinners out of the church.
LVIII. To Section xix. — In section xix. you
are so courteous as to suppose corruptions in your
doctrine, and yet undertake to prove, that neither could
they afford us any sufficient cause or colourable necessity
to depart from them. Your reason is, because damn
able errors there were none in your church, hy Dr.
Potter's confession ; neither can it be damnable, in re-

.354 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
sped of error, fo remain in any churcKs communion
whaie errors are not damnable : for if the error he not
damnable, the belief thereof cannot.
Answer. Dr. Potter confesseth no such matter;
but only that " he hopes that your enors, though in
themselves sufficiently damnable, yet, by accident, did
not damn all that held them ;" such, he raeans aud
says, as were excusably ignorant of truth, and, amongst
the number of their unknown sins, repented daily of
their unknown errors. The truth is, he thinks as Ul of
your enors and their desert as you do of ours ; only he
is not so peremptory and presumptuous in judging your
persons, as you are in judging ours ; but leaves them to
stand or fall to their own Master, who is infinitely mer
ciful, and, therefore, will not damn them for mere
enors who desire to find the trath and cannot ; and,
withal, infinitely just and therefore, is it to be feared,
will not pardon them who might easUy have come to
the knowledge of the truth, and, either through pride,
or obstinacy, or negligence, would not.
LIX. To your minor also, I answer, almost in your
own words, section xiii. of this chapter : I thank you
for your courteous supposal, that your church may en ;
and, in recompence thereof, will do you a charity, by
putting you in mind into what labyrinths you east your
self by supposing that the church may err in some of
her proposals, and yet denying it lawful for any man,
though he know this which you suppose, to oppose her
judgment, or leave her communion. Will you have
such a raan dissemble against his conscience, or exter
nally deny that which he knows true ? No ; that you
will not ; for, thera that do so, you yourself have pro
nounced a damned crew of dissembling sycophants..
Or would you have him continue in your communion,
and yet profess your church to err ? This you your»

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 355
selves have made to him impossible. Or would you
have hira believe those things true which, together with
him, you have supposed to be errors ? This, in such an
one as is assured or persuaded of that which you here
suppose, that your church doth err, (and such only, we
say, are obUged to foi-sake your communion,) is, as
schoolmen sjieak, implicatio in terminis, " a contradic
tion so plain, that one word destroyeth another ;" as if
one should say, "a living dead man." For it is to
require that they which believe some part of your doc
trine false, should withal believe it all trae. Seeing,
therefore, for any man to believe your church in error
and profess the contrary, is damnable hypocrisy ; to be
lieve it and not believe it, a manifest repugnancy ; and,
thirdly, to profess it and to continue in your commu
nion, (as matters now stand,) a plain impossibility ;
what reraains but that whosoever is supposed to have
just reason to disbelieve any doctrine of your church,
must of necessity forsake her coraraunion ? unless you
would remit so far from your present rigour as to allow
them your church's communion who publicly profess
that they do not believe every article of her established
doctrine ! Indeed, if you would do so, you might,
with some coherence, suppose your church in error, and
yet find fault with men for abandoning her communion,
because they might continue in it, and suppose her in
error. But to suppose your church in enor, and to
excommunicate all those that believe your own supposi
tion, and then to complain that they continue not in
your communion, is the most ridiculous incongruity that
can bo iraagined. And, therefore, though your corrup
tions in doctrine, in theraselves, (which yet is false,)
did not — yet your obliging us to profess your doctrine
uncorrupted against knowledge and conscience, may —
induce an obligation to depart frora your comraunion^.

356 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
As if there were any society of Christians that held
there were no antipodes ; notwithstanding this enor, I
might coraraunicate with thera. But if I could not do
so without professing rayself of their belief in this mat
ter, then, I suppose, I should be excused from schism,
if I should forsake their coramunion, rather than profess
myself to believe that which I do not believe. Neither
is there any contradiction, or shadow of contradiction,
that it may be necessary for my salvation to depart
frora this church's communion ; and that this church,
though erring in this matter, wants nothing necessary to
salvation. LX. " That there might be necessary cause to
depart from the church of Rome in some doctrine and
practices, though she wanted nothing necessary to sal
vation," as Dr. Potter holds, and you call a contradic
tion, wUl appear by setting down his words, which are
these : " To forsake the enors of that church, and not
to join with her in those practices which we account
erroneous, we are enforced by necessity ; for though, in
the issue, they are not daranable to them which beUeve
as they profess, yet for us to profess and avow by oath
(as the church of Rome enjoins) what we believe not,
were, without question, daranable. And they, -with
their errors, by the grace of God, might go to heaven ;
when we, for our hypocrisy and dissiraulation," (he
raight have added, and perjury,) " should certainly be
condemned to hell."
LXI. To Section xx. — Objection. But a
church not erring in fundamentals, though erring in
other mafters, doeth what our Saviour e.vacts at her
hands, doeth as much as lies in her power to do ; there
fore the communion of such a church is not, upon pre
tence of error, to he forsaken. The consequence is
manifest. The antecedent is proved ; because " God,"

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 357
by Dr. Potter's confession,* " hath promised his assist
ance no further, nor is it in her power to do more than
God doth assist her to do."
Answer. The promise of Divine assistance is two
fold ; absolute, or conditional. That there shall be, by
Divine Providence, preserved in the world, to the world's
end, such a company of Christians, who hold all things
precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation, and
nothing inevitably destractive of it : this, and no raore,
the Doctor affirras that God hath proraised absolutely.
Yet he neither doubts nor denies but that a farther
assistance is conditionally proraised us, even such an
assistance as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it
and ourselves, into all not only necessary, but very pro
fitable, truth ; and guard us frora all not only destruc
tive, but also hurtful, errors. This, I say, he neither
denies nor questions ; and, should he have done so, hfe
might have been confuted by evident and express texts
of Scripture. When, therefore, you say, that a church
not erring in fundamentals, doth as much as, by God''s
assistance, lies in her power to do, this is manifestly
untrue ; for God's assistance is always ready to promote
her farther. It is ready, I say, but on condition the
church does implore it ; on condition that, when it is
offered in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason,
the church be not negligent to follow it. If, therefore,
there be any church which, retaining the foundation,
buUds hay and stubble upon it ; which, believing what
is precisely necessary, errs shamefully aud dangerously
in other things very profitable ; this by no means argues
defect of Divine assistance in God, but neglect of this
assistance in the church. Neither is there any reason
why such a church should please herself too much for
retaining fundamental truths, while she remains so
• Pages 151—155,

358 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
regardless of others ; for though the siraple defect of
sorae traths profitable only, and not simply necessary,
may consist with salvation, yet who is there that can
give her sufficient assurance that the neglect of such
traths is not daranable ? Besides, who is there that
can put her in sufficient caution, that these enors about
profitable matters may not, according to the usual
fecundity of enor, bring forth others of a higher quality,
such as are pemicious and pestilent, and undermine, by
secret consequences, the very foundations of religion and
piety ? Lastly : who can say that she hath sufficiently
discharged her duty to God and man, by avoiding only
fundamental heresies, if in the mean tirae she be negli
gent of others, which, though they do cot plainly
destroy salvation, yet obscure and hinder, and only not
block up, the way to it ? which, though of themselves
and immediately they damn no man, yet are causes and
occasions that many men run the race of Christian piety
more remissly than they should, raany defer their
repentance, raany go on securely in their sins, and so at
length are damned by means and occasion of these
enors, though not for them. Such enors as these,
(though those of the Roman church be much worse,
even " in themselves damnable, and by accident only
pardonable," yet,) I say, such errors as these, if any
church should tolerate, dissemble and suffer them to
reign, and neglect to reform thera, and not permit them
to be freely, yet peaceably, opposed and impugned ;
wUl any wise man say, that she hath sufficiently dis
charged her duty to God and raan ? that she hath, with
due fidelity, dispensed the Gospel of Christ ? that she
hath done what she could, and what she ought ? What
shall we say, then, if these enors be taught by her, and
commanded to be taught ? what, if she thunder out
her curses against those that wUl not believe them ?

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 359
what, if she rave and rage against thera, and persecute
them with fire and sword, and all kinds of most exqui
site torments ? Truly I do much fear, that from such
a church (though it hold no enor absolutely uncon
sistent vrith salvation) the candlestick of God either is
already removed, or will be very shortly ; and, because
she is negligent of profitable truths, that she will lose
those that are necessary ; and, because she will not be
led into all truths, that in short tirae she shall be led
into none. And although this should not happen, yet
what raortal man can secure us, that not only a probable
unaffected ignorance, nor only a mere neglect of profit
able truths, but also a reckless, supine negligence,
manifest contempt, dissimulation, opposition, oppression
of them, may consist with salvation ? I truly, for my
part, though I hope very well of all such as, seeking all
trath, find that which is necessary ; who, endeavouring
to free theraselves frora all enors any way contrary to
the purity of Christianity, yet fail of perforraance, and
remain in some : yet if I did not find in rayself a love
and desire of all profitable truth ; if I did not put away
idleness, and prejudice, and worldly affections, and so
exaraine to the bottom all my opinions of Divine mat
ters, being prepared in raind to follow God, and God
only, which way soever he shall lead me ; if I did not
hope, that I either do, or endeavour to do, these
things, certainly I shovUd have little hope of obtaining
salvation. LXII. Objection. But to oblige any man under
pain of damnation to forsake a church by reason of
such errors, against which Christ thought it superfiuous
to promise his assidance, and for which he neither
denies his grace here, nor his glory hereafter, what is it
hut to make the narrow way fo heaven narrower than
Christ left it f

360 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Answer. It is not ; for Christ himself hath obUged-
us hereunto : he hath forbidden us under pain of damna
tion to profess what we believe not ; and, consequently,
under the same penalty, to leave that communion, in
which we cannot remain without this hypocritical pro
fession of those things which we are convinced to be
erroneous. But then, besides, it is here falsely sup
posed, as hath been showed already, that Christ hath not
promised assistance to those that seek it, but only in
matters simply necessary. Neither is there any reason
why any church, even in this world, should despair of
victory over all errors pernicious or noxious ; provided
she hurably and earnestly implore Divine assistance,
depend wholly upon it, and be not wanting to it;
though a triumph over all sin and error, that is,
security that she neither doth nor can en, be rather to
be desired than hoped for on earth, being a felicity
reserved for heaven.
LXIII. To Section xxi. — Objection. But, at
least, the Boman church is as infallihle as Protestants,
and Protestants as fallible as the Boman church ; there
fore, to forsake the Boman church for errors, what is it
but to flit from one erring society fo another ?
Answer. The inconsequence of this arguraent is too
apparent : " Protestants raay err as weU as the church of
Rorae ; therefore, they did so." Boys in the schools
know, that a posse ad esse,* the argument follows not.
He is equally fallible that believes twice two to be four,
as he that believes them to be twenty ; yet, in this he
is not equally deceived, and he may be certain that he
is not so. One architect is no more infallible than ano
ther ; and yet he is raore secure that his work is right
and straight who hath raade it by the level, than he
who hath made it by guess and by chance. So he that
* " From what is possible to that which actually is."  Edit.

NOT GUlLTy OF SCHISM.

361

forsakes the errors of the church of Rome, and there
fore renounceth her communion, that he may renounce
the profession of her errors, though he knows hiraself falli
ble, as well as those whom he hath forsaken, yet he may
be certain, as certain as the nature of the thing will bear,
that be is not herein deceived ; because he may see the
doctrine forsaken by hira repugnant to Scripture, and
the doctrine embraced by hira consonant to it. At
least, this he may know, that the doctrine which he
hath chosen to hira seeras true, and the contrary which
he hath forsaken seeras false ; and, therefore, without
remorse of conscience, he may profess that, but this he
cannot. LXIV. Objection. But we are to remember that,
according to Dr. Potter, the visible church hath a bless
ing, not to err in fundamentals, in which any private
Beformer may fail ; therefore, there was no necessity of
forsaking the church, out of whose communion they were
exposed to danger of faUing into many more, and even
into damnable, errors.
Answer. The visible church is free indeed from all
errors absolutely destractive and unpardonable, but not
from all error which in itself is damnable ; not from all
which will actually bring damnation upon them, that
keep themselves in thera, by their own voluntary and
avoidable fault.
Besides, any private man who truly believes the
Scripture, and seriously endeavours to know the will of
God, and to do it, is as secure as the visible church,
more secure than your church, from the danger of erring
in fundamentals ; for, it is irapossible that any man, so
qualified, should fall into any error which to him will
prove damnable. For God requires no more of any
man to his salvation, but his true endeavour to be
saved. Lastly, abiding in your church's communion is

362 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
SO far from securing me or any man from damnable
enor, that if I should abide in it, I am certain I could
not be saved. For, abide in it I cannot, without pro
fessing to believe your entire doctrine trae ; profess this
I cannot, but I must lie perpetually, and exulcerate my
conscience. And though your errors were not in them
selves damnable, yet to resist the known trath, and to
continue in the profession of known enors and false
hoods, is certainly a capital sin, and of great affinity
with the sin which shall never be forgiven.
LXV. Objection. But neither is the Protestant
church free from corruptions and errors ; and what
mail of judgment will he a Protestant, since that church
is confessedly a corrupted one ?
Answer. And yet you yourself make large dis
courses in this very chapter, to persuade Protestants to
continue in the church of Rome, though supposed to
have some corraptions. And why, I pray, may not a
man of judgment continue in the comraunion of a
church confessedly conupted, as well as in a church
supposed to be conupted ? especially when this church,
supposed to be conupted, requires the beUef and pro
fession of her supposed conuptions, as the condition of
her communion ; which this church, confessedly cor
rupted, doth not. What man of judgment wUl thmk it
any disparagement to his judgment, to prefer the better,
though not siraply the best, before that which is stark
naught ? to prefer indifferent good health, before a
diseased and corrupted state of body ? to prefer a
field not perfectly weeded, before a field that is quite
overrun with weeds and thorns ? And, therefore, though
Protestants have some errors, yet seeing they are neither
so great as yours, nor iraposed with such tyranny, nor
maintained with such obstinacy; he that conceives it
any disparageraent to his judgraent, to change your
coramunion for theirs, though confessed to have some

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 363
conuptions, it may well be presumed that he hath but
littie judgment.
LXVI. To Section xxii. — Objection. But,
Protestants say, " It is comfort enough for the church to
be secured from all capital dangers, which can only
arise from error in fundamental points, and not hope to
triumph over all sin and error, till she he in heaven ; "
why, therefore, were not theflrd Befor mer s content with
enough, but would dismember the church, out of greedi
ness of more than enough ?
Answer. I have already showed sufficiently, how
capital danger may arise from errors, though not fiinda
mental. I add, now, that what may be enough for men
in ignorance, may be to knowing men not enough ;
according to that of the Gospel, " To whom much is
given, of him much shall be required ; " that the same
error may be not capital to those who want means of
finding the truth, and capital to others who have means,
and neglect to use them ; that to continue in the pro
fession of enor discovered to be so, may be damnable,
though the enor be not so. These, I presume, are
reasons enough; and enough why the first Reformers
might think, and justly, that not enough for themselves
ichich yet to some of their predecessors they hope
might be enough. This very argument was objected to
St. Cyprian * upon another occasion, and also by the
* St. Cyprian, Ep. 63, in these words : Si guisde antecessorihus
nostris, vel ignoranter vel simpliciter, non hoe observavii, et tenuit
quod nos Domin-us facere exemplo et magisterio suo docuit, potest
simplicitati ejus, de indulgentia. Domini, venia concedi ; nobis verb
non potest ignosci, qui nunc a Domino admoniti et instructi sum-us.
" If, through ignorance or simpUcity, any of our predecessors has
not observed this, and has not retained that which the Lord, by his
own example and teaching, has taught us to do, through the indul
gent kindness of our Lord pardon may, in this case, be granted to his
simplicity. But we, whom our Lord has now admonished and
instructed, cannot expect to be thus forgiven." — Edit.
R 2

364 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
British quartodeciraans,* to the maintainers of the doc
trine of your church ; and, by both, this very answer
• Wilfridus to Abbot Colman, alleging that he followed the
example of his predecessors, famous for holiness, and famous for
miracles, in these words : De patre vestro Columba. et sequacibus
ejus, quorum sanctitatem vos imitari et regvlam ac priecepta ccelestilms
signis confirmata sequi perhibetis, possum respondere : Quia multis in
judicio dicentibus Domini) q-uod in nomine ejus propketaverint et
dcemonia ejecerint, et virtutes multas fecerint, respomsurus sit Dominus,
quia nunquam eos noverit. Sed absit ut de patribus vestris hoc
dicam, quia justiiis multo est de tncognitis bonum credere quum
malum. Unde et Ulos Dei fajmuJos et Deo dilectos esse non nego, qui
s'lmplicitate ructica, sed intentione pia, Deum dileserunt : neque illis
multum obesse Paschce talem reor observantiam, quandiu nullus
advenerat qui eis institut perfections decreta qua sequereniur,
ostenderet. Quos utique credo, si quis tunc ad eos catholicas calcu
lator adveniret, sic ejus monita fuisse secuturos, quomodo ea quis
noverant ac didicerunt Dei mandata, probantur fuisse secuti. Tu
autem et sooii tui si audita decreta sedis apostolicie, imo uruuersalis
ecclesia, et hae literis sacris confirmata contemnitis, absque ulla
dubietate peccatis.
"As to what you say conceming your Father Columba and his
followers, of whose sanctity you avow yourselves to be imitators, and
to whose rules and precepts, confirmed as they have been by Divine
signs and tokens, you profess to adhere, I can return you this
answer : Because many -will boldly declare to the Lord in the day of
judgment, that they have prophesied in his name, and in his name have
cast out devils, and have done many mighty works. He will reply to
them, ' I never knew you.* But though this -will be the answer which
they will then receive, far be it from me to speak thus in reference to
your Fathers ; since it is much more just and equitable to entertain a
favourable, than an unfavourable, opinion conceming those of whom
we have no personal knowledge. Wherefore I do not deny, that
those who in rustic simplicity, but with a pious intention, evince
their love to God, are not only his servants, but also his beloved ones.
Nor can such an observance of Easter be prejudicial to them, so long
as no one has come among them, who might show them the decrees
of a more perfect institution, which they ought to follow. These
being my lenient thoughts respecting them, I further believe, that if
any catholic instructor were to visit them, they would follow his
admonitions as fully, as they are proved to have followed those com
mands of God of which they had previously obtained some knowledge
and in wiiich they had been instructed. But, after you and your

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 365
was returned; * and, therefore, I cannot but hope that,
for their sakes, you will approve it.
LXVII. Objection. But if no church may hope
to triumph over error till she he in heaven, then we
must either grant, that errors not fundamental cannot
yield sufficient cause fo forsake the church, or affirm,
that all communities may and ought to be forsaken.
Answer. We do not say, that no church may hope
to be free from all error, either pernicious or any way
noxious ; but, that no church may hope to be secure
from all error siraply ; for this were indeed traly to
triumph over all. But then we say not, that the com
munion of any church is to be forsaken for errors un
fundamental, unless it exact withal either a dissimula
tion of them being noxious ; or a profession of them
against the dictate of conscience, if they be mere errors.
This if the church does, (as certainly yours doth,) then
her communion is to be forsaken, rather than the sin of
hypocrisy to be comraitted. Whereas, to forsake the
churches of Protestants for such enors, there is no
necessity ; because they en to themselves, and do not,
under pain of excoraraunication, exact the profession of
their errors.
LXVIII. Objection. But the church may not be
left hy reason of sin ; therefore, neither hy reason of
errors not fundamental ; inasmuch as both sin and
error are impossible to he avoided till she he in heaven.
Answer. The reason of the consequence does not
appear to me. But I answer to the antecedent : Neither
for sin nor enors ought a church to be forsaken, if she
does not irapose and enjoin them ; but if she do, (as the
associates have heard the decrees of the apostolic see, even those of
the church universal, coniirmed by the holy Scriptures, if you con
temptuously neglect them, you are most assuredly grievous oiTenders,"
— Edit.
* Beda, Eccl. Hist., lib. iii. c. 25.

366 separatists from the church of rome,
Roraan does,) then we must forsake men rather than
God ; leave the church's comraunion rather than com
mit sin, or profess known enors to be Divine traths.
For the prophet Ezekiel hath assured us that, to say,
" The Lord hath said so," when the Lord hath not said
so, is a great sin and a high presumption, be the mat
ter never so small.
LXIX. To Section xxiii. — Objection. But
neither the quality nor the number of your churcKs
errors, could warrant our forsaking of it. Not the
quality, hecause we S'uppose fhem not fundamental : not
the number, because the foundation is strong enough to
support them.
Answer. Here, again, you vainly suppose, that we
conceive your errors in theraselves not daranable;
though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable :
but to say they are pardonable, is indeed to suppose
them damnable. Secondly, though the errors of your
church did not warrant our departure, yet your tyran
nous imposition of them would be our sufficient justifi
cation. For this lays necessity on us, either to forsake
your company, or to profess what we know to be false.
LXX. Objection, Our blessed Saviour hath
declared his will, that we forgive a private offender
seventy-senen times ; that is, without limitation of
quantity of time, or quaUty of trespasses : and then
how dare we allege his command, that we must not
pardon his church for errors acknowledged to be nof
fundamental ?
Answer. He that commands us to pardon our bro
ther sinning against us so often, will not allow us for his
sake to sin with him so much as once. He wUl have
us do anything but sin, rather than offend any man :
but his will is also, that we offend all the world, rather
than sin in the least matter. And, therefore, though

not guilty op schism. 367
his wUl were, and it were in our power, (which yet is
false,) to pardon the errors of an erring church ; yet
certainly it is not his will that we should err with the
church, or, if we do not, that we should against consci
ence profess the errors of it.
LXXI. To Section xxiv. — Objection. But
schismatics from the church of England, or any other
church, with this very answer, that " they forsake not
the church, but the errors of it,'''' may cast off from them-
sehes the imputation of schism.
Answer. True, they may make the same answer,
and the same defence as we do ; as a murderer can cry,
" Not guUty," as well as an innocent person, but not so
traly nor so justly. The question is, not what may be
pretended, but what can be proved, by schismatics.
They may object errors to other churches, as well as we
do to yours ; but that tbey prove the accusation so
strongly as we can, that appears not. To the priests
and elders of the Jews, imposing that sacred silence
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter and
St. John answered, they must " obey God rather than
men." The three children to the king of Babylon
gave, in effect, the sarae answer. Give me now any
factious hypocrite who makes religion the pretence and
cloak of his rebellion, and who sees not that such a one
may answer for himself, in those very formal words
which the holy apostles and martyrs made use of? And
yet, I presurae, no Christian will deny but this answer
was good, in the mouth of the apostles and martyrs,
though it were obnoxious to be used by traitors and
rebels. Certainly, therefore, it is no good consequence
to say, " Schisraatics raay make use of this answer, there
fore all that do make use of it are schismatics." But,
moreover, it is to be observed, that the chief part of our
defence, that you deny your communion to all that

368 separatists from the church of rome,.
deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine, cannot with
any colour be employed against Protestants ; who
grant their comraunion to all who hold with them, not
all things, but things necessary, that is, such as are in
Scripture plainly delivered.
LXXII. Objection. But the forsaking the
Boman church opens a way to innumerable sects and
schisms ; and therefore it must not he forsaken.
Answer. We must not do evil to avoid evil:
neither are all courses presently lawful, by which incon
veniencies may be avoided. If all men would submit
themselves to the chief mufty of the Turks, it is appa
rent there would be no divisions ; yet unity is not to-
be purchased at so dear a rate. It were a thing much
to be desired, that there were no divisions ; yet differ
ence of opinions touching points controverted is rather
to be chosen tiian unanimous concord in damned
enors : as it is better for men to go to heaven by
diverse ways, or rather by divers paths of the same wajv
than in the same path to go on peaceably to hell.
Arnica pax, magis arnica Veritas. " Peace is dear to
me, but truth is dearer."
LXXIV. To Sections xxvi., xxvii. — Here you
make Dr. Potter to say, that Protestants did well to
forsake the church of Bome, because they judged she
retained all means necessary to sahation.
Answer. Who was ever so stupid as to give this
ridiculous reason ? Dr. Potter vindicates Protestants
for schism two ways : the one is, because they had just
and great and necessary cause to separate, which schis
matics never have ; because they that have it are no
schisraatics ; for schisra is always a causeless separation.
The other is, because they did not join, with their sepa
ration, an uncharitable damning of all those from whom
tiicy did divide themselves, as the manner of schismatics

KOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 369
is. Now, that which he intends for a circumstance of
our separation, you raake hira make the cause of it, and
the motive to it. And whereas he says, " Though we
separate from you in some things, yet we acknowledge
your church a member of the body of Christ, and there
fore are not schismatics ; " you make him say raost
absurdly. We did weU to forsake you, because we judged
you a member of the body of Chrid. Just as if a bro
ther should leave his brother's corapany in some ill
courses, and should say to him, " Herein I forsake you,
yet I leave you not absolutely, for I acknowledge you
still to be ray brother, and shall use you as a brother : "
and you, perverting his speech, should pretend that he
had said, " I leave your company in these ill courses,
and I do well to do so, because you are my brother : "
so raaking that the cause of his leaving hira, which
indeed is the cause that he left him no farther.
LXXV. Objection. But you say. The very reason
for which he acquitteth himself from schism, is hecause
he holds that the church which they forsook is not cut
off from fhe body of Christ.
Answer. This is trae : but can you not perceive
a difference between justifying his separation from
schism by this reason, and making this the reason of
his separation ? If a man, denying obedience in sorae
unlawful matter to his la-wful sovereign, should say to
hira, " Herein I disobey you ; but yet I am no rebel,
because I acknowledge you my sovereign lord, and am
ready to obey you in all things lawful ;" should not he
be an egregious sycophant, that should accuse him as if
he had said ? — " I do well to disobey you, because I
acknowledge you my lawful sovereign." Certainly,
he that joins this acknowledgment with his necessitated
disobedience, does well ; but he that makes this consi
deration the reason of his disobedience, doth ill.
R 5

370 separatists from the church of ROME,
LXXVI. Objection. If is an unspeakable crnif ort
to Catholics, you say, that we cannot clear oursehes from
schism otherwise, than hy acknowledging that we do not,
nor cannot, cut off yoiir church from the hope of salvation.
Answer. I beseech you to take care that this false
comfort cost you not too dear. For, why this good
opinion of God Almighty, that he wUl not damn men
for enor, who were, without their own fault, ignorant of
the truth, should be any consolation to them who,
having the key of knowledge, will neither use it them
selves, nor permit others to use it ; who have eyes to
see, and will not see ; who have ears to hear, and will
not hear ; this, I assure you, passeth my capacity to
apprehend. Neither is this to make our salvation
depend on youi's, but only ours and yours not despe
rately inconsistent. Nor to say, " We must be damned
unless you may be saved ;" but that we assure ourselves,
if our lives be answerable, we shall be saved by our
knowledge ; and that we hope, (and I teU you again
spes est rei incertw nomen,*) that some of you may pos
sibly be the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected
ignorance. LXXX. To Sections xxviii., xxix. — Whereas
Dr. Potter says, " There is a great difference between a
schism from them, and a reformation of ourselves:"
this, you say, is a quaint subtilty hy which aU schism
and sin may he as well excused.
Answer. It seems, then, in your judgment, that
thieves, and adulterers, and murderers, and traitors may
say, with as much probabUity as Protestants, that they
did no hurt to others, but only reform themselves. But
then, methinks, it is very strange that all Protestants
should agree with oUe consent in this defence of them
selves from the iraputation of schism ; and that to this
* " Hopeh but another name for 'something uncertain.'"  Edit.

NOT GUILTY OP SCHISM.

S71

day, never any thief or murderer should have been
heard of to make use of this apology ! And then for
schisraatics, I would know, whether Victor, bishop "of
Rome, who excommunicated the churches of Asia for
not conforming to his church in keeping Easter ; whe
ther Novatian, that divided from Cornelius, upon pre
tence that himself was elected bishop of Rome, when
indeed he was not ; whether Felicissimus and his crew,
that went out of the church of Carthage, and set up altar
against altar, because, having fallen in persecution, they
might not be restored to the peace of the church pre
sently upon the intercession of the confessors ; whether
the Donatists, who divided from, and damned all, the
world, because all the world would not excoramunicate
them who were accused only and not convicted to have
been traditors of the sacred books ; whether they who
(for the slips and infirmity of others, which they might
and ought to tolerate, or upon some difference in
matters of order and ceremony, or for some error in
doctrine, neither pemicious nor hurtful to faith or
piety) separate themselves from others, or others from
themselves ; or, lastly, whether they that put them
selves out of the church's unity and obedience, because
their opinions are not approved there, but reprehended
and confuted, or because, being of impious conversation,
they are impatient of their church's censure ; — I would
know, I say, whether all, or any, of these raay, with any
face or without extreme impudency, put in this plea of
Protestants, and pretend, with as much likelihood as
they, that they did not separate from others, but only
reform theraselves ? But suppose they were so impu
dent as to say so in their own defence falsely, doth it
follow, by any good logic, that therefore this apology is
not to be eraployed by Protestants, who may say so
truly ? " We make," say they, "no schism from you.

372 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
but only a reformation of ourselves : " This, you reply,
is no good justification, hecause it may be pretended hy
any schismatic. Very true ; any schismatic that can
speak may say the same words ; (as any rebel that
makes conscience the cloak of his impious disobedience,
may say, with St. Peter and St. John, " We must obey
God rather than men;") but then the question is, whether
any schismatic raay say so truly ? And to this ques
tion you say just nothing : but conclude, because this
defence may be abused by some, it must be used by
none. As if you should have said, " St. Peter and St.
John did ill to raake such an answer as they made,
because impious hypocrites raight make use of the same
to palliate their disobedience and rebellion against the
lawful commands of lawful authority."
LXXXI. Objection. But seeing their pretended
reformation consisted in forsaking the churcKs cor
ruptions, their reformation of themselves, and their
division from you, falls out to be one and the same
thing. Answer. Just as if two men, having been a long
whUe companions in drunkenness, one of them should
turn sober ; this reformation of hiraself and desertion of
his corapanion in this ill custom, would be one and the
same thing ; and yet there is no necessity that he
should leave his love to hira at all, or his society in
other things. So Protestants, forsaking their own for
mer corraptions, which were coraraon to thera with you,
could not choose but withal forsake you in the practice
of these corruptions : yet this they might, and would
have done, without breach of charity towards you ; and
without a renunciation of your company, in any act of
piety and devotion confessedly lawful. And there
fore, though both these were by accident joined toge
ther, yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 373
at was not a separation from you, but a reformation of
themselves. LXXXII. Neither doth their disagreement in the
particulars of the Beformation, (which yet, when you
measure it without partiality, you will find to be far
short of infinite,) nor their symbolizing in the general
of forsaking your corruptions, prove any thing to tbe
contrary, or any way advantage your design, or raake for
your purpose. For it is not any sign at all, much less an
evident sign, that they had no settled design, but only
to forsake the church of Rome : for nothing but malice
can deny that their intent at least was, to reduce reli
gion to that original purity from which it was fallen.
The declination from which, some conceiving to have
begun (though secretly) in the apostles' tiraes, (" the
raystery of iniquity being then in work,") and, after
their departure, to have showed itself more openly :,
others again believing, that the church continued pure
for some ages after the apostles, and then declined :
and, consequently, some aiming at an exact conformity
with the apostolic times : others thinking they should
do God and men good service, could they reduce the
church to the condition of the fourth and fifth ages :
some taking their direction in this work of reformation
only from Scripture ; others frora the writings of Fathers
and the decrees of councUs of the first five ages : — cer
tainly it is no great marvel, that there was, as you say,
disagreeraent between them in the particulars of their
reformation ; nay, morally speaking, it was impossible
it should be otherwise. Yet, let me tell you, the
'^difference between them (especially in coraparison of
)jour church and religion) is not the difference betweem
good and bad, but between good and better : and
they did best that followed Scripture, interpreted by
catholic written tradition ; which rule the Reformers

374 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
of the church of England proposed to themselves to
follow. LXXXIII. To Sections xxx.— xxxii. — Dr. Pot
ter, pages 81, 82 of bis book, speaks thus : " If a
monastery should reform itself, and should reduce into
practice ancient good discipline when others would not :
in this case could it be charged with schism from others,
or with apostasy from its rule and order ? So, in a
society of men universally infected with some disease,
they that should free theraselves from it, could they be
therefore said to separate from the society ? " He
presumes they could not, and from hence concludes,
"that neither can the Reformed churches be traly
accused for making a schism, (that is, separating from
the church, and making themselves no members of it,)
if all they did was (as indeed it was) to reform them
selves." LXXXIV. Now, instead of these two instances,
which plainly showed it possible in other societies, and,
consequently, in that of the church, to leave the faults
of a society, and not leave being of it ; you disingenu
ously foist in two other instances, clean cross to the
Doctor's purpose, of men, under colour of faults, aban
doning the society wherein they lived.
LXXXV. But, that no suspicion of teigiversation
may be fastened upon me, I am content to deal with
you a little at your own weapons. Put the case,
then, though not just as you would have it, yet with as
much favour to you as in reason you can expect, that a
monastery did observe her substantial vows, and all prin
cipal statutes, but yet did generally practise, and also
enjoin, the violation of some lesser, yet obliging,
observances, and had done so time out of mind ; and
that some inferior monks, more conscientious than the
rest, discovering tiiis abuse, should first, with all ear-

NOT GUILTY OP SCHISM. 875
nestness, solicit their superiors for a general and Orderly
reformation of these, though small and venial, corrup
tions, yet corraptions ; but, finding they hoped and
laboured in vain to effect this, should reform these
faults in themselves, and refuse to join in the practice of
them, with the rest of their confraternity, and, persisting
resolutely in such a refusal, should by their superiors be
cast out of their monastery ; and, being not to be
re-admitted without a promise of remitting from their
stiffness in these things, and of condescending to others
in the practice of their small faults, should choose
rather to continue exiles than to re-enter upon such con
ditions : — I would know whether you would condemn
such men of apostasy from the order ? Without doubt
if you should, you would find the stream of your casu
ists against you, and, besides, involve St. Paul in the
same condemnation, who plainly tells, that we may not
do the least evil, that we may do the greatest good.
Put [a] case again : You should be part of a society uni
versally infected with some disease, and, discovering a
certain reraedy for this disease, should persuade the
whole corapany to raake use of it, but find the greatest
part of thera so far in love with their disease, that they
were resolved to keep it ; and, besides, should make a
decree, that whosoever would leave it should leave their
company. Suppose, now, that yourself and sorae few
others should, notwithstanding their injunction to the
contrary, free yourselves frora this disease, and there
upon they should absolutely forsake and reject you ; I
would know, in this case, who deserves to be con
demned, whether you of uncharitable desertion of your
company, or they of a tyrannical peevishness ? And if
in these cases you will (as I verily believe you wUl)
acquit the inferiors and conderan the superiors, absolve
the minor part and condemn the major, then can you,

376 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
with no reason, condemn Protestants for choosing
rather to be ejected from the communion of the Roman
church, than with her to persist (as of necessity they
were to do, if they would continue in her communion)
in the profession of errors, though not destractive of sal
vation, yet hindering edification, and in the practice, or,
at least, approbation, of raany (suppose not raortal but)
venial corruptions !
LXXXVI. Besides, you censure too partially the
corrupt estate of your church, in comparing it to a
monastery, which did confessedly observe their substan
tial vows, and all principal statutes of their order ; and,
moreover, was secured hy an infallihle assistance, for
the avoiding of all substantial corruptions ; for of your
church we confess no such raatter, but say plainly, that
she not only raight fall into substantial conuptions, but
did so ; that she did not only generally violate, but of
all the raerabers of her coramunion, either in act or
approbation, require and exact the violation of many
substantial laws of Christ, both cereraonial and moral,
which though we hope it was pardonable in them who
had not means to know their error, yet of its own
nature, and to them who did or might have known their
enor, was certainly damnable ; and that it was not the
tithing of mint, and anise, and curarain, the neglect
whereof we irapute unto you, but the " neglect of judg
ment, justice, and the weightier matters of the law."
LXXXVII. Again : you compare Protestants to
such a company as acknowledge that themselves, as soon
as they were gone out of the monastery that deferred to
reform, must not hope to he free from those or the like
errors and corruptions for which they left their brethren.
Which is very strange, seeing this very hope, and
nothing else, moved them to leave your communion ;
and this speech of yours, so far as it concerns the same

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. - 377
errors, plainly destroys itself. For how can they pos
sibly fall into the same errors by forsaking your commu
nion, which that they raay forsake, they do forsake your
coramunion ? And then, for other errors of the like
nature and quality, or more enormous than yours,
though they deny it not possible but, by their negli
gence and wickedness, they may fall into them, yet they
are so far from acknowledging that they have no hope
to avoid this mischief, that they proclaim to all the
world that it is most prone and easy to do so to all
those that fear God and love the truth ; and hardly
possible for them to do otherwise, without supine negli
gence and extreme impiety.
LXXXIX. Objection. But when Luther began,
he, being hut one, opposed himself to all, as well subjects
as superiors.
Answer. If he did so in the cause of God, it was
heroically done of him. This had been, without hyper
bolizing, Mundus contra Athanasium, and Athanasius
contra mundum ; " The world against Athanasius, and.
Athanasius against the world : " neither is it impossible
that the whole world should so far lie in wickedness, as
St. John speaks, that it may be lawful and noble for
one man to oppose the world. But yet, were we put to
our oaths, we should surely not testify any such thing
for you ; for how can we say properly, and without
straining, that "he opposed hiraself to aU," unless we
could say also, that " all opposed themselves to hira ? "
And how can we say so, seeing the world can witness
that so many thousands, nay, millions, followed his
standard as soon as it was advanced ?
XC. But none that lived immediately hefore him
thought or spake as he did. This, first, is nothing to
the purpose. The church was then conupted ; and, sure,
it was no dishonour to him to begin the Refomiation.

378 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
In the Christian warfare every man ought to strive to
be foremost. Secondly : It is more than you can jus
tify ; for, though no man before him lifted up his voice
like a trumpet, as Luther did, yet who can assure us
but that raany before hira both thought and spake in
lower voice of petitions and reraonstrances, in many
points, as he did ?
XCI. Objection. Many chief learned Protestants
are forced to confess the antiquity of your dodrine and
pradice. Answer. Of mauy doctrines and practices of yours,
this is not true ; for, I pray, inform me what confessions
of Protestants have you for the antiquity of the doctrine
of the communion in one kind ; the lawfulness and
expedience of the Latin Service ; for the present use of
indulgences ; for the pope's power in temporalities over
princes ; for the picturing of the Trinity ; for the law
fulness of the worship of pictures ; for your beads and
rosary, and Lady's Psalter ; and, in a word, for your
whole worship of the blessed Virgin ; for your oblations
by way of consumption, and therefore in the quaUty of
sacrifices to the Virgin Mary and other saints ; for your
saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds to the honour of
saints, and of Ave-Marias to the honour of other saints
besides the blessed Virgin ; for infaUibility of the
bishop or church of Rome ; for your prohibiting the
Scripture to be read publicly in the church, in such lan
guages as all may understand ; for your doctrine of the
blessed Virgin's immunity from actual sin, and for your
doctrine and worship of her immaculate conception ; for
the necessity of auricular confession ; for tiie necessity
of the priest's intention to obtain benefit by any of your
sacraraents ; and, lastiy, (not to trouble myself with
finding out more,) for this very doctrine of licentious
ness, that " though a man live and die without the

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 379
practice of Christian virtues, and with the habits of
many damnable sins unmortified, yet if he, in the last
moment of life, have any sorrow for his sins, and join
confession -with it, certainly he shall be saved ? " Be
sides, though some Protestants confess some of your
doctrine to be ancient, yet this is nothing, so long as it
is evident, even by the confession of all sides, that
many errors (I instance in that of the MUlenaries, and
the coraraunicating of infimts) were more ancient. Not
any antiquity thereof, unless it be absolute and pri
mitive, is a certain sign of true doctrine : for if the
church were obnoxious to conuption, (as we pretend it
was,) who can possibly warrant us, that part of this cor
ruption might not get in and prevail in the fifth, or
fourth, or third, or second age ? especially seeing the
apostles assure us, that the mystery of iniquity was
working, though more secretly, even in their times. If
any man ask. How could it become universal in so short
a time ? let him tell rae how the enor of the Millenaries
and the coraraunicating of infants becarae so soon uni
versal ; and then he shall acknowledge, what was done in
some was possible in others. Lastly, to cry quittance
with you : As there are Protestants who confess the
antiquity, but always post-nate to apostolic, of some
points of your doctrine ; so there want not Papists who
acknowledge as fi-eely the novelty of many of them, and
the antiquity of ours : a collection of whose testimony
we have (without thanks to you) in your Indices Ex-
purgatorii : the Divine Pro-vidence blessedly abusing,
for the readier manifestation of the truth, this engine
intended by you for the subversion and suppression of
it. Here is no place to stand upon particulars ; only
one general ingenuous confession of that great Erasmus
may not be passed over in silence : Non desunt magni
theologi qui non verentur affirmare, nihil esse in

380 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Luther 0 quin per probatos authores defendi possit ; *
" There want not great divines which stick not to
affirm, that there is nothing in Luther which may not
be defended by good and allowed authors."
XCII. After this you corapose a heap of vain sup
positions, pretended to be grounded on our confessions ;
as, first, that your diseases, which we forsook, neither
were nor could he mortal ; whereas we assure ourselves,
and are ready to justify, that they are and were mortal
in theraselves,' and would have been so to us, if, when
light carae to us, we had loved darkness raore than
light. Secondly : That we had no hope to avoid other
diseases, like those for which we forsook your company,
nor to he secure out of it from damnable errors ; where
as, in truth, the hope hereof was the only motive of our
departure ; and we assure ourselves, that the means to
be secured from damnable error is, not to be secure as
you are, but carefully to use those means of avoiding it
to which God hath promised, and wUl never fail to give,
a blessing. Thirdly : That those innumerable mischiefs
which followed upon the departure of Protestants, were
caused hy it as by a proper cause ; whereas their doc
trine was no otherwise the occasion of them, than the
gospel of Christ was of the division of the worid : the
only fountain of all these mischiefs being indeed no
other than your pouring out a flood of persecutions
against Protestants, only because they would not sin
and be damned with you for company : unless we may
add the impatience of some Protestants, who, not endur
ing to be torn in pieces like sheep by a company of
wolves without resistance, chose rather to die like
soldiers than martyrs.
XCVI. Objection. But they endeavoured to fm-ce
' EiiASMi Epistol., lib. xv. Ep. ad Godeschalcum. Ros,

, not guilty of SCHISM. 381'
the society, whereof they were parts, to he healed and
reformed as they were ; and if it refused, they did,
when they had power, drive them away, even their supe
riors both spiritual and temporal, as is notorious. The
proofs hereof are wanting, and, therefore, I might defer
my answer until they were produced ; yet take this
beforehand : If they did so, then herein, in my opinion,
they did amiss ; for I have learnt from the ancient
Fathers of the church, that " nothing is more against
religion than to force religion ;" and of St. Paul, " The
weapons of the Christian warfare are not carnal." And
great reason ; for human violence may make men coun
terfeit, but cannot make them believe, and is therefore
fit for nothing but to breed form without and atheism
within. Besides, if this means of bringing men to
embrace any religion were generally used, (as if it may
be justly used in any place by those that have power,
and think they have truth, certainly they cannot, with
reason, deny but that it may be used in every place, by
those that have power as well as they, and think they
have truth as well as they,) what could follow but the
maintenance, perhaps, of truth, but, perhaps, only of
the profession of it in one place, and the oppression of
it in a hundred? What will follow from it but the
preservation peradventure of unity, but peradventure
only of uniforraity in particular states and churches ;
but the iraraortalizing the greater and more lamentable
divisions of Christendom and the world? And, there
fore, what can follow frora it but, perhaps, in the judg
ment of carnal policy, the temporal benefit and tranquil
lity of temporal states and kingdoms ; but the infinite
prejudice, if not the desolation, of the kingdom of
Christ ? And, therefore, it well becomes them who
have their portions in this life, who serve no higher
state than that of England, or Spain, or France, nor

382 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
this neither any further than they may serve themselves
by it ; who think of no other happiness but the preserva
tion of their o-wn fortunes and tranquiUity in this world ;
who think of no other means to preserve states but human
power and Machiavillian policy ; and believe no other
creed but this, Begi aut civitati imperium hahenti nihil
injustum, quod tifile ; " that to a king or city that has
ruling power, nothing that is profitable is unjust." Such
men as these it may become to raaintain, by worldly
power and violence, their state-instraraent, religion ; for
if all be vain and false, (as, in their judgraent, it is,) the
present, whatsoever, is better than any, because it is
already settled ; and alteration of it raay draw with it
change of states, and the change of state the subversion
of their fortune. But they that are indeed servants and
lovers of Christ, of truth, of the church, and of man
kind, ought with all courage to oppose themselves
against it, as a coramon enemy of all these. They that
know there is a King of kings and Lord of lords, by
whose will and pleasure kings and kingdoms stand and
fall, they know, that to no king or state any thing cau
be profitable which is unjust ; and that nothing can be
more evidently unjust than to force weak men, by the
profession of a religion which they believe not, to lose
their own eternal happiness, out of a vain and needless
fear, lest they may possibly disturb their temporal
quietness. There is no danger to any state from any
man's opinion, unless it be such an opinion by which
disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or
licensed ; (which sort, I confess, may justly be punished
as well as other faults ;) or unless this sanguinary doc
trine be joined with it, that " it is lawful for him, by
human violence, to enforce others to it." Therefore, if
Protestants did offer violence to other men's con
sciences, and compel them to embrace their Reforma-

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 383
tion, I excuse them not ; much less if they did so to the
sacred persons of kings, and those that were in authority
over them, who ought to be so secured from violence,
that even their unjust and tyrannous violence, though it
may be avoided, (according to that of our Saviour,
" When they persecute you in one city, fly into an
other,") yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence
against it. Protestants, therefore, that were guilty of
this crime, are not to be excused ; and blessed had they
been, had they chosen rather to be martyrs than mur
derers, and to die for their religion rather than to fight
for it. But, of all the men in the world, you are the
most unfit to accuse them hereof, against whom the
souls of martyrs from under the altar cry much louder
than against all their other persecutors together ; who,
for these many ages together, have daily sacrificed heca
tombs of innocent Christians, under the name of here
tics, to your blind zeal and furious superstition ; who
teach plainly, that you may propagate your religion
whensoever you have power, by deposing of kings and
invasion of kingdoms, and think, when you kill the
adversaries of it, you do God good service. But, for
their departing corporally frora them whora mentally
they had forsaken ; for their forsaking the external com
munion and company of that part of the unreformed part
of the church, in their superstitions and impieties : thus
much of your accusation we embrace, and glory in it ;
and say, though some Protestants might offend in the
manner or the degree of their separation, yet certainly
their separation itself was not schismatical, but inno
cent, and not only so, but just and necessary.
XCIX. To Section xxxvi. — What you cite out
of Optatus, (Contra Parm., lib. U.,) " Thou canst not
deny but that thou knowest, that in the city of Rome
there was first an episcopal chair placed for Peter,

384 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
wherein Peter, the head of the apostles, sat, wliereof
also he was called Cephas ; in which one chair unity was
to be kept by all, lest the other apostles might attribute
to themselves each one his particular chair ; and that he
should be a schismatic and sinner, who against that
one single chair should erect another." All this is
impertinent, if it be well looked into. The truth is,
the Donatists had set up at Rome a bishop of their
faction ; not with intent to raake him bishop of the
Tvhole church, but of that church in particular. Now
Optatus, going upon St. Cyprian's ground, " of one
bishop in one church," proves them schismatics for so
doing, by this arguraent : " St. Peter was first bishop of
Rome, neither did the apostles attribute to themselves
each one his particular chair ;" (namely, in thaf city :
for in other places others, I hope, had chairs besides St.
Peter ;) " and therefore he is a schismatic who, against
that One single chair, erects another," (namely, in that
place,) " making another bishop of that diocess besides
hira who was lawfully elected to it."
C. Objection. But he styles St. Pder head of
the Apostles, and says that from thence he was called
Cephas. Answer. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion,
by thinking Cephas derived frora the Greek word xsfaX^,
" a head : " whereas it is a Syriac word, and signifies " a
stone." Besides, St. Peter might be head of the apos
tles, that is, first in order and honour araong them, and
not have supreme authority over them. And indeed, that
St. Peter should have authority over all the apostles, and
yet exercise no one act of authority over any one of
them, and that they should show to him no sign of sub
jection, methinks, is as strange, as that a king of Eng^
land for twenty-five years should do no act of regality,
nor receive any one acknowledgment of it. As strange

NOT GUILTY OP SCHISM. 385
methinks it is, that you, so many ages after, should
know this so certainly, as you pretend to do, and that
the apostles (after that those words were spoken in their
hearing, by virtue whereof St. Peter is pretended to
have been made their head) should still be so ignorant
of it, as to question " which of them should be the
greatest ; " yet more strange that our Saviour should
not bring them out of their enor, by telling them St.
Peter was the man, but rather confirm it by saying,
" The kings of the GentUes exercise authority over
them, but it should not be so among them." No less
a wonder was it that St. Paul should so far forget St.
Peter and himself, as that, first, mentioning him often,
he should do it without any title of honour. Secondly :
Speaking of the several degrees of men in the church,
he should not give St. Peter the highest, but place him
in equipage with the rest of the apostles, and- say,
" God hath appointed" — not "first Peter, then the
rest" of the apostles, but — "first apostles, secondly,
prophets." Certainly if the apostles were " all first,"
to me it is very probable, that no one of them was
before the rest. For by " first," all men understand
either that which is before all, or that before which is
nothing. Now in the former sense, the apostles could'
not be all first, for then every one of thera must
have been before every one of the rest. And
therefore they raust be first in the other sense : and
therefore, no man, and therefore not St. Peter,
must be before any of thera. Thirdly, and lastiy :
that, speaking of hiraself in particular, and perhaps
coraparing hiraself with St. Peter in particular, rather
than any other, he should say in plain terras, " I
am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest apostles."
But besides all this, though we should grant, against all
these probabUities and many more, that Optatus meant

386 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
that St. Peter was head of the apostles, not in our, but
in your, sense, and that St. Peter indeed was so ; yet
still you are far from showing, that, in the judgment of
Optatus, the bishop of Rorae was to be at all, much
less by divine right, successor to St. Peter in this his
headship and authority. For what incongraity is there
if we say, that he raight succeed St. Peter in that part
of his care, the govemraent of that particular church,
(as sure he did, even while St. Peter was living,) and
yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in
his apostieship, nor in his govemment of the church
universal ? especiaUy seeing St. Peter and the rest of
the apostles, by laying the foundations of the church,
were to be the foundations of it, and accordingly are so
called in Scripture. And therefore as in a building it
is incongruous that foundations should succeed founda
tions ; so it may be in the church, that any other
apostles should succeed the first.
CI. To Section xxxvii. — Objection. What
you here cite out of St. Austin, if it be applied to
Luther's separation, is impertinent. For it is one thing
to separate from the communion of the whole world,
another to separate frora all the communions in the
world ; one thing to di-vide from them who are united
among theraselves, another to divide from thera who are
divided among theraselves. Now the Donatists sepa
rated frora the whole world of Christians, united in one
coramunion, professing the same faith, serving God
after the same manner ; which was a very great argument,
that they could not have just cause to leave them ;
according to that of Tertullian, Variasse debuerat
error ecclesiarum ; quod autem apud multos unum est,
non est erratum sed traditum.* But Luther and his
* " In this instance there ought to have been a diversity of error
among the churches ; but since there is an union of many in senti
ment and opinion, it is not an enor, but a tradition."  Edit.

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 387
foUowers did not so. The world, I mean of Christians
and catholics, was divided and subdivided long before
he divided from it ; and by their divisions had much
weakened their own authority, and taken away from
you this plea of St. Austin, which stands upon no
other foundation but the unity of the whole world's
coramunion. cn. To Section xxxviii. — Objection. If
Luther were in the right, most certain those Pro
tedants fhat differed from him were in the wrong.
Answer. But that either he or they were schis
matics, it follows not. Or if it does, then either the
Jesuits are schismatics frora the Dominicans, or they
from the Jesuits ; the Canonists frora the Jesuits, or
the Jesuits from the Canonists ; the Scotists from the
Thomists, or they from the Scotists ; the Franciscans
from the Dominicans, or the Dominicans from the
Franciscans. For between all these, the world knows,
that, in point of doctrine, there is plain and irrecon
cUable contradiction, and therefore one part must be in
error, at least not fundamental. Thus your argument
returns upon yourself; and if it be good, proves the
Roman church in a manner to be made up of schis
matics. But the answer put to it is, that it begs this
very false and vain supposition, — that whosoever ens in
any point of doctrine is a schismatic.
CIII. To Section xxxix. — In the next place
you number up your victories, and tell us, thaf out of
these premisses this conclusion follows : That Luther and
'his followers were schismatics from the visible church,
the Pope, the diocess wherein they were baptized, from
the Bishop under whom they lived, from the country to
which they belonged, from their religious order wherein
they were professed, from one another ; and, lastly,
from a marCs self, hecattse the self-same Protestant is
s 2

388 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
convicted to-day, that his yederday''s opinion was an
error. To which I answer, that Luther and his fol
lowers separated from many of these, in sorae opinions
and practices ; but that they did it without cause, which
only can raake them schismatics, that was the only thing
you should have proved, and to that you have not
urged one reason of any moment. All of them, for
weight and strength, were cousin-germans to this pretty
device, wherewith you will prove them schismatics from
themselves, " because the self-sarae Protestant to-day is
convicted in conscience, that his yesterday's opinion
was an error." It seems then that tbey that hold errors
must hold them fast, and take especial care of being
convicted in conscience that they are in enor, for fear
of being schismatics ! Protestants must continue Pro
testants, and Puritans Puritans, and Papists Papists,
nay, Jews, and Turks, and Pagans must remain
Jews, and Turks, and Pagans, and go on constantiy
to the devil ; or else, forsooth, they must be schisriiatics,
and that from themselves ! And this perhaps is the
cause that makes Papists so obstinate, not only in
their coraraon superstition, but also in adhering to the
proper fancies of their several sects ; so that it is a miracle
to hear of any Jesuit that hath forsaken the opinion of
the Jesuits, or any Dominican that hath changed his
for the Jesuits'.
But, sure, the forsaking of error cannot be a sin,
unless to be in error be a virtue. And therefore, to do
as you do, — to damn raen for false opinions, and to call
them schismatics for leaving them ; to make pertinacy in
error, that is, an unwillingness to be convicted, or a reso
lution not to be convicted, the form of heresies ; and to
find fault with men for being convicted in conscience
that they are in error, — is the most incoherent and con
tradictious injustice that ever was heard of. But, Sir,

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 389
if this be a strange matter to you, that which I shall tell
you will be much stranger. I know a man that of a
raoderate Protestant turned a Papist ; and the day that
he did so, (as all things that are done are perfected
some day or other,) was convicted in conscience that
his yesterday's opinion was an error, and yet thinks he-
was no schismatic for doing so, and desires to be informed
by you, whether or no he was mistaken. The sarae raan-
afterwards, upon better consideration, became a doubt
ing Papist, and, of a doubting Papist, a confirmed Pro
testant. And yet this man thinks hiraself no more to
blame for all these changes than a traveller, who, using
all dUigence to find the right way to some remote city,
where he never had been, (as the party I speak of had
never been in heaven,) did yet mistake it, and after
find his error, and amend it. Nay, he stands upon his
justification so far, as to maintain that his alterations,
not only to you, but also from you, by God's mercy,
were the most satisfactory actions to hiraself that ever
he did, and the greatest victories that ever he obtained
pver himself, and his affections to those things which in.
this worid are most precious ; as wherein, for God's
sake, and (as he was verily persuaded) out of love to
the trath, he went upon a certain expectation of those
inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all-
most terrible. So that though tiiere were much weak
ness in sorae of these alterations, yet certainly there
was no wickedness. Neither does he yield his weak
ness altogether without apology, seeing his deductions
were rational, and out of principles comraonly received
by Protestants as well as Papists, and which by
his education had got possession of his understand
ing.
CVII. To Section xli. — Objection. Though
the first Beformer shad conceived their own opinions to he

390 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
true, yd they might and ought to hare doubted, whether
they were certain ; since they affirm, that infallihility
was nof promised to particular persons or churches.
Answer. This is to say, that they ought to have
doubted of the certainty of Scripture, which, in formal
and express terras, contains many of these opinions.
And your reason is vain ; for though they had not an
absolute infalUbility promised unto them, yet may they
be of Some things infallibly certain. As Euclid, sure, was
not infallible ; yet he was certain enough, that twice two
were four, and that every whole was greater than a part
of that whole. And so, though Calvin and Melancthon
were not infallible in all things, yet they might and did
know well enough, that your Latin service was con
deraned by St. Paul, and that the coraraunion in both
kinds was taught by our Saviour.
Objection. But your church was in peaceable
possession, (you must mean of her doctrine and the pro
fessors of it,) and enjoyed prescription, for many ages.
Answer. The possession which the governors of
your church held, for sorae ages, of the party governed,
was not peaceable, but got by fraud and held by
violence. CVIII. Objection. You say that a pretence of
conscience will not serve to justify s^arat ion from being

Answer. This is very true, but little to the pur
pose, seeing it is not an erroneous persuasion, much
less an hypocritical pretence, but a true and well-
grounded conviction of conscience, which we allege to
justify Protestants from being schismatical. And there
fore, though seditious men in church and state may
pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion ; yet
this I hope hinders not but that an honest raan ought
to obey his rightly-informed conscience, rather than the

not guilty of schism. 391
unjust comraands of his tyrannous superiors. Other
wise with what colour can you defend either your own
refiising the oaths of aUegiance and supremacy ? or the
ancient martyrs, and apostles, and prophets, who often
times disobeyed the commands of men in authority, and
for their disobedience made no other but this apology,
" We must obey God rather than men ? " It is there- 1
fore most apparent, that this answer must be merely |.
impertinent ; seeing it will serve against the martyrs, f
and apostles, and prophets, and even against yourselves, i
as well as against Protestants. To as little purpose is ;
your rule out of Lirinensis against them that followed
Luther, seeing they pretend, and are ready to justify,
that they forsook not, with the doctors, the faith, but
only the corruption, of the church. As vain altogether
is that which follows ; that in cases of uncertainty we
are not to leave our superior, or cast off his obedience,
nor pubUcly oppose his decrees. From whence it wUl
follow very evidently, that, seeing it is not a matter of
faith, but a disputed question araong you, whether the
oath of aUegiance be lawful, that either you acknow
ledge not the king your superior, or do against con
science, in opposing his and the kingdom's decree,
requiring the taking of this oath. This good use, I
say, may very fairly be raade of it, and is by men of
your own religion.
CIX. To Section xlii. — Objection. It is not
fit, you say, for any private man to oppose his judgment
to the public.
Answer. Not his own judgment and bare author
ity ; but occasions may happen, wherein it may be very
wanantable, to oppose his reason or the authority of
Scripture against it ; and is not then to be esteemed to
oppose his own judgraent to the public, but the judg
ment of God to the judgment of men.

392 SEPARATISTS FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME,
- Neither will Mr. Hooker's words you cite, do yoa
any service. For though he says, " that men are bound
to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final deci
sion shall determine ; " (Pref. to Ecoles. Polit., sect. vi.
page 28;) as it is plain, men are bound to yield such
an obedience to all courts of civU judicature: yet he
says not, they are hound to think that determinaticm
la-wful, and that sentence just. Nay, it is plain, he says,
that " they raust do according to the judge's sentence,
though in their private opinion it seem unjust." As if
I be wrongfully cast in a suit at law, and sentenced to pay
a hundred pounds, I am bound to pay the money, yet I
Jjnow no law of God or man that binds me in conscience
to acquit the judge of error in his sentence. Neither
is there any necessity, as you say, tliat he mud either;
acknowledge the universal infallihility of the chwr,ch,
pr drive men into dissembling against their conscience ;
seeing nothing hinders but I may obey the sentence of
a judge, paying the money he awards me to pay, or
foregoing the house or land which he hath judged from
me, and yet withal plainly profess, that in my conscience I
conceive his judgment erroneous. To which purpose,
they have a saying in France, that " whosoever is cast
in any cause, hath liberty, for ten days after, to rail at
his judges."
ex. But observe, I pray, that Mr. Hooker says not,
absolutely and in all their causes ; but only " in litigi
ous causes, of the quality of those whereof he " there
treats : in such raatters as have plain Scripture or
reason neither for them nor against them, and wherein
men are persuaded this or that way, "upon, their own
only probable coUection ; " in such cases, " this per
suasion," saith he, "ought to be fuUy settled in men's
hearts, that the will of God is, that tbey should not
disobey the certain commands of their lawful superiors

NOT GUILTY OF SCHISM. 393
upon uncertain grounds ; but do that which the sentence
of judicial and final decision shall determine." For the
purpose : a question there is, whether a surplice raay be
wom in Divine service ? The authority of superiors
enjoins this ceremony, and neither Scripture nor reason
plainly forbids it. Sempronius, notwithstanding, is, by
sorae induceraents, which he confesses to be only
probable, led to this persuasion, — ^that the thing is
unlawful. The query is, whether he ought for raatter
of practice follow the injunction of authority, orbis own
private and only probable persuasion? Mr. Hooker
resolves for the former, upon this ground, that the
" certain commands of the church we live in are to
be obeyed, in all things not certainly unlawful."
, As for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedi
ence to ecclesiastical decisions, universally and in all
cases, even when plain text or reason seems to control
thera, Mr. Hooker is as far from making such an idol
of ecclesiastical authority, as the Puritans whom he
writes against. " I grant," saith he, " that proof
"^ derived from the authority of man's judgraent is not
'^ able to work that assurance which doth grow by a
V stronger proof. And therefore, although ten thousand
> general councils would set down one and the sarae defi-
¦<- nitive sentence, concerning any point of religion what-
> soever, yet one demonstrative reason alleged, or one
r manifest testimony cited from the word of God him-
v- self, to the contrary, could not choose but over-weigh
r them all ; inasmuch as for them to be deceived it is
' not impossible ; it is [irapossible] that demonstrative
<¦ reason or Divine testimony should deceive." And
again : " Whereas it is thought, that — especially with
' the church, and those that are caUed — man's authority
- ought not to prevail ; it must and doth prevail even
¦ with them, yea, with them especially, as far as equity
s 5

394 SEPARATION FROM CATHOLICS, NOT SCHISM,
requireth, — and farther we raaintain it not. For men
to be tied and led by authority, as it were with a kind
of captivity of judgment, and, though there be reason
to the contrary, not to listen to it, but to follow, like
beasts, the first in the herd ; this were bratish." Again :
" That authority of men should prevail with raen, either
against or above reason, is no part of our belief. Com
panies of learned men, be they never so great and
reverend, are to yield unto reason, the weight whereof is
no whit prejudiced by the siraplicity of his person which
doth allege it ; but being found to be sound and good,
the bare opinion of men to the contrary must of neces
sity stoop and give place." Thus Mr. Hooker, in his
seventh section of his second book.
CXII. To Section XLIII. — The next section hath
in it sorae objections against Luther's person, but none
against his cause, which alone I have undertaken to jus
tify, and therefore I pass it over. Yet this I promise,
that when you, or any of your side, shall publish a good
defence of all that your Popes have said and done,
especially of thera whom Bellarmine believes, in such a
long train, to have gone to the devU; then you shall
receive an ample apology for all the actions and words
of Luther. In the mean tirae, I hope, all reasonable and
equitable judges will esteem it not unpardonable in the
great and heroical spirit of Luther, if, being opposed,
and perpetuaUy baited with a world of furies, he were
transported sometiraes, and made somewhat furious.
As for you, I desire you to be quiet, and to demand no
more, whether God be wont to send such furies to
preach the Gospel? unless you desire to hear of your
kUling of kings ; massacring of people ; blowing up of
parliaments ; and have a mind to be asked, whether it
be probable, that that should be God's cause which
needs to be maintained by such devUish means !

the nature of faith. 395

CHAPTER VI.

THE ANSWER TO THE SIXTH CHAPTER.

Shovnng ihat Protestants are not Heretics. j

^^

V

I. To Section i. — tHe that will accuse any one ¦
man, much more any great multitude of men, of any
great and horrible crime, should in all reason and justice
take care that the greatness of his evidence do equal,
if not exceed, the quality of the crime. And such an
accusation you would here make show of, by pretend
ing, first, to lay such grounds of it as are either
already proved, or else yielded on all sides : and, after,
to raise a firm and stable structure of convincing argu
ments upon them. But both these I find to be mere
and vain pretences ; and having considered this chapter
also without prejudice or passion, as I did the former, I
am enforced, by the light of truth, to pronounce your
whole discourse a painted and ruinous building upon a
weak and sandy foundation.
II. To Sections ii., hi. — First for your grounds,
a great part of them is falsely said to be either proved
or granted. It is true indeed, that man hy his natural
wit and indudry could never have attained to the knowr
ledge of God's will to give him a supernatural and
dernal happiness, nor of the means by which his plea
sure was to bestow this happiness upon him. And
therefore your first ground is good. That it was requi
site his understanding should he enabled to apprehend
that end and means hy a knowledge supernafWral. I
say. This is good, if you mean by " knowledge " an
apprehension or belief.

896 THE nature of FAlTHi
III. But then, whereas you add, that if such a hum'
ledge were no mare than probable, it could not be able
sufficiently to overhear our will, and encounter with
human probabilities, heing backed with the strength of
flesh and blood ; and therefore conclude, thaf it was
farther necessary that this supernatural knowledge
should he most certain and infallihle : To this I
answer, that I do heartily acknowledge and believe the
articles of our faith be in themselves traths, as certain
and infallible as the very coramon principles of geo
metry and metaphysics. But, that there is required of us
a knowledge of them, and an adherence to them, as cer
tain as that of sense or science ; that such a certainty is
required of us, under pain of daranation, so that no man
can hope to be in the state of salvation, but he that
finds in hiraself such a degree of faith, such a strength
of adherence ; — this I have already deraonstrated to be
a great enor, and of dangerous and pemicious con
sequence. And because I am more and more con
firraed in my persuasion, that the truth which I there
delivered is of great and singular use, I will here confirm
it with more reasons ; and, to satisfy you that this is no
singularity of ray own, ray raargin presents you with a
Protestant divine of great authority,* and no way sin-

• Mr. Hooker, in his answer to Travers's Supplication : " I have
taught that the assurance of things which we believe by the word is
not so certain as of that we perceive by sense : and is it as certain ?
¦Yea, I taught that the things which God doth promise in his word
are surer unto us than any thing we touch, handle, or see ; but are
we so sure and certain of them ? If we be, why doth God so often
prove his promises unto us, as he doth by arguments taken from our
sensible experience ? We must be surer of the proof than the thmg
proved, otherwise it is no proof. How is it, that if ten men do all
look upon the moon, every one of them knows it as certainly to be
the moon as another ; but, many believing one and the same proniises,
all have not one and the same fulness of persuasion ? How falleth it

THE NAT0EE OF FAITH. 397
gular in his opinions, who hath long since preached and
justified the same doctrine.
rv. I say, that every text of Scripture which makes
mention of any that were weak, or of anv that were
strong, in faith ; of any that were of Uttie, or any that
were of great, feith ; of any that abounded, or any that
were rich, in feith ; of increasing, growing, rooting,
grounding, establishing, confirming, in feith ; — every
such text is a demonstrative refutation of this vain
fencT ; proving that feith, even trae and saving faith, is
not a thing consisting in such an indivisible point of
perfection as you make it, but capable of augmentation
and diminution. Every prayer you make to God to
increase your faith, or (if you conceive such a prayer
derogatory fiom the perfection of your feith) the apos
tles' prajring to Christ to increase their faith, is a convinc
ing argument of the same conclusion. Moreover, if
this doctrine of yours were trae, then, seeing not any the
least doubting can consist with a most infeUible cer
tainty, it wUl foUow that every least doubting in any
matter of feith, though resisted and involuntary, is a
damnable sin, absolutely destractive, so long as it lasts,
of aU' true and sa-ving faith ; which you are so fei fiom
granting, that you make it no sin at aU, but only an
occasion of merit ; and if you should esteem it a sin,
then must you acknowledge, contrary to your own prin
ciples, that there are actnal sins merely involuntary.
The same is furthermore invincibly confirmed by every
deliberate sin that any Christian commits, by any pro
gress in charity that he makes ; for seeing, as St. John
oat, that men, beiiig assured of any tdhing by sense, can be no surer of
it than Ihey are ? whereas the strongest in Mth that liveth optm the
earth had always need to labour, and scrive, and praj, that hii
assurance ccmceming heavenly aad spiritual thin^ may grow,
increase, and be augmented."

398 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
assures us, " our faith is the victory which overcomes
the world," certainly if the faith of all trae believers
were perfect, (and if trae faith be capable of no imper
fection, if all faith be a knowledge most certain and
infallible, all faith must be perfect ; for the most imper
fect that is, according to your doctrine, if it be trae,
must be most certain, and sure the most perfect that is
cannot be more than most certain,) then, certainly,
their victory over the world, and therefore over the
flesh, and therefore over sin, must of necessity be per
fect, and so it should be impossible for any true believer
to commit any deliberate sin ; and, therefore, he that
comraits any sin, raust not think himself a true be
liever. Besides, seeing faith worketh by charity, and
charity is the effect of faith ; certainly, if the cause
were perfect, the effect would be perfect; and, con
sequently, as you make no degrees in faith, so there
would be none in charity, and so no man could possibly
make any progress in it ; but aU true believers should be
equal in charity, as in faith you make them equal ;
and from thence .it would follow, unavoidably, that
whosoever finds in himself any trae faith must presently
persuade himself that he is perfect in charity; and
whosoever, on the other side, discovers in his charity
any iraperfection must not believe that he hath any
true faith. These, you see, are strange and portentous
consequences, and yet the deduction of them from your
doctrine is clear and apparent ; which shows this doc
trine of yours (which you would fain have true, that
there inight be sorae necessity of your church's infaUi
bility) to be indeed plainly repugnant, not only to
truth, but even to all religion and piety, and fit for
nothing but to make men negligent of making any pro
gress in faith or charity.
V. As for that one single reason which you produce

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 399
to confirm it, it wUl appear, upon examination, to be
resolved finally into a groundless assertion of your own,
contrary to aU trath and experience, and that is, that no
degree of faith, less than a most certain and infallible
knowledge, can be able sufficiently to overhear our will,
and encounter with human prohahilities, being backed
with the strength of flesh and blood : for who sees not,
that many mUUons in the world forego many times their
present ease and pleasure, undergo great and toilsome
labours, encounter great difficulties, adventure upon
great dangers, and aU this, not upon any certain expecta
tion, bnt upon a probable hope, of some future gain and
comraodity, and that not infinite and etemal, but finite
and temporal ? Who sees not, that many men abstain
from many things they exceedingly desire, not upon any
certain assurance, but a probable fear, of danger that
may come after ? What man ever was there so madly
in love with a present penny, but that he would -wUl
ingly spend it upon any Uttle hope that, by doing so,
he might gain a hundred thousand pounds ? And I
would fain know " what gay probabiUties" you could
devise, to dissuade hira from this resolution. And if
you can devise none, what reason, then, or sense is there
but that a probable hope of infinite and etemal happi
ness provided for all those that obey Christ Jesus, and
much more a firm faith, though not so certain in some
sort as sense or science, may be able to sway our wUl to
obedience, and encounter -with all those temptations
which flesh and blood can suggest to avert us from it ?
Men may, therefore, talk their pleasure of an absolute
and most infallible certainty ; but did they generaUy
believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to
present and etemal feUcity, but as fimnly and undoubt
edly as that there is such a city as Constantinople, nay,
but as much as Caesar's Commentaries, or the History of

400 THE NATURE OF FAITH,
Sallust, I believe the lives of most men, both Papists
and Protestants, would be better than they are. Thus,
therefore, out of your own words I argue against you :
" He that requires to true faith an absolute and infaUible
certainty for this only reason, hecause any less degree
could not he able to overhear our will, S^c, imports,
that if a less degree of faith were able to do this, then a
less degree of faith may be trae, and Divine, and saving
faith ; but experience shows, and reason confirms, that a
firm faith, though not so certain as sense or science, may
be able to encounter and overcome our will and' affec
tions ; and, therefore, it follows, from your own reason,
that . faith which is not a most certain and infalUble
knowledge, raay be trae, and Divine, and saving faith."
VI. All these reasons I have employed to-show, that
such a most certain and infallible faith as here you talk
of is not so necessary, but that, without such a high de
gree of it, it is possible to please God. And, therefore,
the doctrines delivered by you, section xxv., are most
presumptuous and uncharitable, namely, That such a
most certain and inf allihle faith is necessary to salvation,
necessitate finis, or medii ; * so necessary, that after a
man is come to the use of reason, no man ever was or
can be saved without it, W^herein you boldly intrade
into the judgment-seat of God, and damn men for
breaking laws, not of God's, but your own, making.
But, withal, you clearly contradict yourself, not only where
you affirra, fhat your faith depends finally upon the tra
dition of age to age, of father to son, which cannot be a
fit ground, but only for a moral assurance ; nor only
where you pretend, that not alone hearing and seeing,
but also histories, letters, relations of many, (which cer
tainly are things not certain and infallible,) are yet
' " Either through necessity of tlie end or of the means."  Edit.

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 401
foundations good enough to support your faith ; which
doctrine, if it were good and allowable, Protestants
might then hope that their histories, and letters, and
relations might also pass for means sufficient of a suffi
cient certainty, and that they should not be excluded
from salvation for want of such a certainty. But,
indeed, the pressure of the present difficulty compelled
you to speak here what I believe you wUl not justify,
and with a pretty tergiversation, to show Dr. Potter
your means of moral certainty ; whereas the objection
was, that you had no means or possibility of infaUible
certainty, for which you are plainly at as great a loss,
and as far to seek, as any of your adversaries: and,
therefore, it concerns you highly not to damn others for
want of it, lest you involve yourselves in the same con
demnation ; according to those terrible words of St.
Paul, Inexcusahilis es, 8fc.* In this, therefore, you
plainly contradict yourself. And, lastly, most plainly,
in saying as you do here, you contradict and retract
your pretence of charity to Protestants in the beginning
of your book ; for there you make profession, that you
have no assurance hut that Protestants, dying Protest
ants, may possibly die with contrition, and he saved ;
and here you are very peremptory, that they cannot but
want a means absolutely necessary to salvation, and,
wanting that, cannot but he damned.
VII. The third condition you require to faith is, that
our assent to Divine traths should not only he unknown
and unevident hy any human discourse, but that abso
lutely also it should be obscure in itself, and, ordinarily
speaking, be void even of supematural evidence ; which
* " Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art
that judgest : for wherein thou judgest another, thou condenmest
thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things thyself."
(Rom. ii, 1.) — Edit.

402 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
words must have a very favourable construction, or else
they will not be sense : for who can make any thing of
these words, taken properly, that faith mud he an unr
known, unevident assent, or an assent ahsohitdy obscure ?
I had always thought, that known and unkno-wn, obscure
and evident, had been affections, not of our assent, but
the object of it ; not of our belief, but the thing
believed : for well may we assent to a thing unknown,
obscure, or unevident ; but that our assent itself should
be called therefore unknown or obscure, seems to me as
great an impropriety, as if I should say, your sight
were green or blue, because you see soraething that is
so. In other places, therefore, I answer your words ;
but here I must answer your meaning; which I con
ceive to be, that it is necessary to faith that the objects
of it, the points which we believe, should not be so evi
dently certain as to necessitate our understandings to an
assent, that so there might be some raerit in faith, (as
you love to speak, who will not receive, no, not from
God himself, but a pennyworth for a penny,) but, (as
we [speak],) some obedience in it, which can hardly
have place where there is no possibility of disobe
dience, as there is not where the understanding does aU
and the will nothing. Now, seeing the religion of Pro
testants, though it be much more credible than yours, yet
is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or
demonstration ; therefore, I might let this doctrine pass
without exception, for any prejudice that can redound to
us by it. But yet I raust not forbear to tell you, that
your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to
the merit, but yet not to the essence, of faith : without
it faith were not an act of obedience, but yet faith may
be faith without it ; and this you must confess, unless
you will say, either the apostles believed not the whole
gospel which they preached, or that they were not eye-

THE NATURE OF FAITH.

403

witnesses of a great part of it ; unless you will question
St. John for saying, " That which we have seen with
our eyes, and which our hands have haindled," &c.,
" declare we unto you ;" nay, our Saviour himself, for
saying, " Thomas, because thou seest thou believest :
blessed are they which have not seen, aind yet have
believed." Yet, if you wiU say that, in respect of the
things which they saw, the apostles' assent was not pure
and proper and mere faith, but soraewhat more ; an
assent containing faith, but superadding to it ; I will not
contend with you, for it will be a contention about
words. But then, again, I must crave leave to teU you,
that the requiring this condition is, in my judgment, a
plain revocation of the former ; for, had you made the
matter of faith either naturally or superuaturally evi
dent, it raight have been a fitly-attempered and duly-
proportioned object for an absolute certainty, natural or
supematural; but requiring, as you do-, thaf faith
should he an absolute knowledge of a thing not abso
lutely known, an infallihle certainty of a thing which,
though it is in itself, yd is it nof made to appear to us,
to be infallibly certain, to my understanding you speak
impossibilities : and, traly, for one of your religion to
do so, is but a good decorum : for, the matter and
object of your faith being so full of contradictions, a
contradictious faith may very well becorae a contradic
tious religion. Your faith, therefore, if you please to
have it so, let it be a free, necessitated, certain, uncer
tain, evident, obscure, prudent and foolish, natural and
supematural, unnatural assent. But they which are
unwiUing to believe nonsense theraselves, or to persuade
others to do so, it is but reason they should make the
faith wherewith they believe an inteUigible, compossi-
ble, consistent thing, and not define it by repugnances.
Now, nothing is more repugnant than that a man

'404 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
should be required to give most certain credit unto that
which cannot be raade appear most certainly cre
dible ; and if it appear to him to be so, then is it not
obscure that it is so : for if you speak of an acquired,
rational, discursive faith, certainly these reasons which
make the object seem credible, must be the cause of it ;
and, consequently, the strength and firmity of my assent
must rise and fall together with the apparent credibUity
of the object. If you speak of a supernatural, infused
faith, then you either suppose it infused by the former
means, and then that which was said before must be
said again ; for, whatsoever effect is wrought merely by
means, must bear proportion to, and cannot exceed, the
virtue of the means by which it is wrought : as nothing
by water can be made more cold than water, nor by fire
more hot than fire, nor by honey more sweet thau
honey, nor by gall more bitter than gall : or, if you will
suppose it infused without means, then that power
which infuseth into the understanding assent, which
bears analogy to sight in the eye, must also infuse evi
dence (that is, visibUity) into the object : and look, what
degree of assent is infused into the understanding, at
least the same degree of evidence must be infused into
the. object. And for you to require a strength of credit
beyond the appearance of the object's credibUity, is all
one as if you should require me to go ten miles an hour
upon a horse that will go but five ; to discern a man
certainly through a mist or cloud that makes him not
certainly discernible ; to hear a sound more clearly than
it is audible ; to understand a thing more fully than it
is intelligible ; and he that doth so, I may weU expect
that his next injunction will be, that I must see some
thing that is invisible, hear sometiiing inaudible, under
stand something that is wholly unintelligible. For he
that demands ten of me, knowing I have but five, does,

THE NATURE OF FAITH.

405

in effect, as if he demanded five, knowing that I have
none ; and, by like reason, you, requiring that I should
see things farther than they are visible, require I should
see something invisible ; and in requiring that I believe
soraething more firmly than it is made to rae evidently
credible, you require, in effect, that I believe something
which appears to me incredible, and whUe it does so. I
deny not but that I am bound to believe the truth of
many texts of Scripture, the sense whereof is to me
obscure, and the truth of many articles of faith, the
manner whereof is obscure and, to huraan understand
ings, incoraprehensible ; but, then, it is to be observed,
that not the sense of such texts, not the manner of these
things, is that which I am bound to believe, but the
truth of thera. But that I should believe the truth of
any thing, the trath whereof cannot be raade evident
with an evidence proportionable to the degree of faith
required of rae, this, I say, for any raan to be bound
to, is unjust and unreasonable, because to do it is
impossible. VIII. To Sections iv.-xii. — Yet though I deny
that it is required of us to be certain in the highest
degree, infallibly certain, of the truth of the things
which we believe, (for this were to know and not believe,)
neither is it possible, unless our evidence of it (be it
natural or supematural) were of the highest degree ; yet
I deny not, but ought to be and may be infallibly cer
tain, that we are to believe the religion of Christ.*
For, first, this is most certain, that we are in all things
to do according to wisdora and reason, rather than against
it. Secondly. This is as certain, that wisdom and reason
require that we should beUeve these things, which are by
many degrees more credible and probable than the con-
* This is the reading ofthe second edition, folio, — Edit.

406 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
trary. Thirdly. This is as certain, that to every man who
considers impartially what great things may be said for
the truth of Christianity, and what poor things they are
which raay be said against it, either for any other reli
gion or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many
degrees more credible that Christian religion is trae,
than the contrary. And, from all these premisses, this
conclusiou evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain
that we are firmly to believe the trath of Christian
religion. IX. Your discourse, therefore, touching the fourth
requisite to faith, which is pradence, I admit so far as
to grant, first, that if we were required to beUeve
with certainty (I mean a moral certainty) things no way
represented as infallible and certain, (I mean morally,) an
unreasonable obedience were required of us. And so
likewise were it, were we required to believe as abso
lutely certain, that which is no way represented to us
as absolutely certain. Secondly. That whom God
obligeth to believe any thing, he -wUl not fail to furnish
their understandings with such inducements as are
sufficient, if they be not negligent or perverse, to per
suade them to believe. Thirdly. That there is an
abundance of arguments exceedingly credible, inducing
men to believe the truth of Christianity ; I say, so cre
dible, that though they cannot make us evidently see
what we believe, yet they e-vidently convince that, in
true wisdom and pradence, the articles of it deserve
credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by
God. Fourthly. That without such reasons and in
duceraents, our choice even of the true faith is not to be
commended as prudent, but to be condemned of rash
ness and levity.
X. But theu for your making pradence, not only a
commendation of a believer, and a justification of his

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 407
faith, but also essential to it, and part of the definition
of it ; in that, questionless, you were mistaken, and
have done as if, being to say what a raan is, you should
define hira, " a reasonable creature that hath skill in
astronomy." For, as all astronomers are men, but all I
raen are not astronoraers, and, therefore, astronomy
ought not to be put into the definition of men, where
nothing should have place but what agrees to all men ;
so though all that are traly wise, that is, wise for eter
nity, will believe aright, yet raany raay believe aright
which are not wise. I could wish with all my heart, as ¦
Moses did, "that all the Lord's people could pro
phesy;" that all that believe the true religion "were
able," according to St. Peter's injunction, " to give a
reason of the hope that is in them," a reason why they
hope for etemal happiness by this way rather than any
other : neither do I think it any great difficulty, that
men of ordinary capacities, if they would give their
mind to it, might quickly be enabled to do so. But
should I affirm, that all true believers can do so, I
suppose it would be as much against experience and
modesty, as it is against truth and charity, to say as
you do, that they which cannot do so either are nof at
all, or to no purpose, true believers. And thus we see,
that the foundations you buUd upon are ruinous and
deceitful, and so unfit to support your fabric that they
destroy one another. I corae now to show that your
arguments, to prove Protestants heretics, are all of the
same quality with your former grounds ; which I will
do by opposing clear and satisfying answers in order to
them. XI. To Section xiii. — To the first, then, deli
vered by you, section xiii : That Protedants must he
herdics, hecause they opposed divers truths propounded
for Divine by the visible church; I answer, first. It

408 THE nature of faith.
is not heresy to oppose any trath propounded by the
church, but only such a trath as is an essential part of the'
Gospel of Christ. Secondly. The doctrines which Pro
testants opposed were not truths, but plain and impious
falsehoods : neither, thirdly, were they propounded as
truths by the visible church, but only by a part of
it, and that a conupted part.
XII. To Section xiv. — The next argument, in
the next particle, tells us, that every error againd any
doctrine revealed hy God is damnable heresy. Now
either Protestants or the Boman church must err
againd the word of God: but the Boman church, we
grant, perforce, doth not err damnably, neither can she,
because she is the catholic church, which we, you say,
confess cannot err damnably : therefore, Protestants
must err against God's word, and consequently are
guilty of formal heresy. Whereunto I answer plainly,
that there be in this argument almost as raany felse-
hoods as assertions. For, first, neither is every error
against any doctrine revealed by God a damnable heresy,
unless it be revealed publicly, and plainly with a com
mand that all should believe it. Secondly. Dr. Potter no
where grants, that the errors of the Boman church are
not in themsdves damnable, though he hopes by acci
dent they may not actuaUy damn some men amongst
you : and this you yourself confess in divers places of
your book, where you tell us, that he allows no hope of
salvation to those amongst you whom ignorance cannot
excuse. Thirdly. You beg the question twice in taking
for granted, first, that the Boman church is the
ti-uly catholic church ; which without much favour can
hardly pass for a part of it : and again, that the catho
Uc church cannot fall into any error of itself damna
ble: for it may do so, and still be the catholic church,
if it retain those truths which may be an antidote.

THE NATURE OF FAITH.

409

against the malignity of this enor, to those that held it
out of a simple, unaffected ignorance. Lastly, though
the thing be trae, yet I might well requfre some proof
of it from you, that either Protestants or the Boman
church mud err against God''s word. For if their con
tradiction be your only reason, then also you, or the
Dominicans, must be heretics, because you contradict
one another as much as Protestants and Papists,
XIII, To Section xv, — The third argument pre
tends that you have showed aheady, that the visible
church is judge of controversies, and therefore infalli
ble ; from whence you suppose that it follows, fhat to
appose her is to oppose God, To which I answer, that
you have said only, and not showed, that the visible
church is judge of controversies. And, indeed, how can
she be judge of them, if she cannot decide them?
And how can she decide them, if it be a question whe
ther she be judge of them ? That which is questioned
itself, cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to
decide other questions ; and much less this question,
whether it have authority to judge and decide all ques
tions, 2. If she were judge, it would not foUow that
she were infallible; for we have many judges in our
courts of judicature, yet none infallible. Nay, you
cannot with any modesty deny, that every man in the
world ought to judge for himself, what religion is
truest ; and yet you wUl not say, that every man is
infallible. 3, If the church were supposed infaUible,
yet it would not foUow at all, much less manifestly,
that to oppose her declaration is to oppose God:
unless you suppose also, that, as she is infallible, so by
her opposers she is known or believed to be so.
Lastly : If all this were trae, (as it is all most false,)
yet were it to little purpose, seeing you have omitted
to prove that the visible church is the Roman.

410 THE NATURE OP FAITH.
XIV. To Section xvi. — Instead of a fourth
argument this is presented to us : That if Luther were
an heretic, then fhey that agreed with him must he so.
And that Luther was a forraal heretic, you endeavour
to prove by this most formal syllogism : To say. The
visible church is not universal, is properly an heresy ;
but Luther's Beformation was not universal ; therefore,
it cannot be excused from formal heresy, Whereunto I
answer, first, to the first part, that it is no way impossi
ble that Luther, had he been the inventor and first
broacher of a false doctrine, (as he was not,) might
have been a formal heretic, and yet that those who
follow him may be only so materially and improperly^
and indeed no heretics. Your o-wn men, out of St.
Augustine, distinguish between hceretici and hcerdico^
rum sequaces : * and you yourself, though you pro
nounce the leaders among the Arians formal herdics,
yet confess that Salvian was at least doubtful whether
these Arians, who in siraplicity followed their teachers,
might not be excused by ignorance. And about this
suspension of his, you also seem suspended; for yott
neither approve nor condemn it. Secondly : To the
second part I say, that had you not presumed upon our
ignorance in logic, as well as metaphysics and school
divinity, you would never have obtraded upon us this
rope of sand for a formal syllogism. It is even cousin-
german to this : " To deny the resurrection is properly
an heresy ; but Luther's Reformation was not universal ;
therefore it cannot be excused from formal heresy."
Or to this : "To say the visible church is not universal,
is properly an heresy ; but the preaching of the Gospel
at the beginning was not universal ; therefore it cannot
be excused from formal heresy." For as he whose
Reformation is but particular, may yet not deny thq
• " Heretics and their followers."  Edit.

THE NATURE OF FAITH, 411
resurrection, so may he also not deny the church's uni
versality. And as the apostles who preached the Gos
pel in the beginning, did believe the church universal,
though their preaching at the beginning -was not so :
so Luther also might and did believe the church uni
versal, though his Reformation were but particular, I
say, he did believe it universal, even in your own sense,
that is, universal dejure, though not de facto. And as
for universality in fact, he believed the churcb much
more universal than his Reformation : for he did con
ceive (as appears by your own allegations out of him)
that not only the part reformed was the true church, but
also that they were part of it who needed reformation.
Neither did he ever pretend to make a new church,
but to reform the old one. Thirdly and lastly : To
the first proposition of this unsyllogistical syllogism, I
answer, that to say, The trae church is not always de
facto universal, is so far from being an heresy, that it is
a certain truth known to all those that know the world,
and what religions possess far the greater part of it.
Donatus, therefore, was not to blarae for saying that
the church might possibly be confined to Afric ; but
for saying without ground, that then it was so. And
St, Austin, as he was in the right, in thinking that the
church was then extended farther than Afric; so was
he in the -wrong, if he thought that of necessity it
always must be so ; but most palpably mistaken in
concei-ving that it was then spread over the whole earth,
and kno-wn to all nations : which, if passion did not
trouble you, and make you forget how lately alraost
half the world was discovered, and in what estate it was
then found, you would very easUy see and confess.
XVI. The Donatists might do ill in calling the
chair of Bome the chair of pestilence, and the Boman
church an harlot ; and yet, the state of the church being
T 2

412 THE NATURE OF FAITH,
altered, Protestants might do well to do so ; and there
fore, though St. Audin might, perhaps, have reason to
persecute the Donatists for detracting from the church,
and calling her harlot, when she was not so ; yet you
may have none to threaten Dr. Potter that you would
persecute him, (as the application of this place intimates
you would,) if it were in your power : plainly showing
that you are a cursed cow, though your homs be short,
seeing the Roman church is not now what it was in St.
Austin's time. And hereof the conclusion of your
own book affords us a very pregnant testimony : where
you tell us, out of St. Austin, that one grand impedi
ment which, among many, kept the seduced foUowers
of the faction of Donatus from the church's communion,
was a visible calumny raised against the cathoUcs, that
they did set some strange thing upon their altar. " To
how many," saith St, Austin, " did the reports of iU
tongues shut up the way to enter, who said that we put
I know-not-what upon the altar ! " Out of detestation
of the calumny, and just indignation against it, he
would not so much as narae the irapiety wherewith they
were charged, and therefore, by a rhetorical figure, calls
it, " I know-not-what." But corapare -with him
Optatus, writing of the sarae matter, and you shall
plainly perceive that this " I know-not-what," pre
tended to be set upon the altar, was indeed a picture,
which the Donatists (knowing how detesta'ole a thing it
was to all Christians at that time, to set up any pictures
in a church to worship them, as your new feshion is)
braited abroad to be done in the churches of the
catholic church. But what answer do St. Austin and
Optatus raake to this accusation ? Do they confess
and maintain it ? Do they say, as you would now ? —
" It is true, we do set pictures upon our altar, and that
not only for ornament or memorv, but for worship also ;

THE NATURK OF FAITH. 413
but we do weQ to do so, and this ought not to trouble
TOU, or affiight you fiom our eommnnion." What
other answer your church conld now make to such an
olgectioii, is very hard to imagine : and, therefore, were
your doctrine the same -with the doctrine of the Fathers
in this point, ihey must have answered so likewise. But
they, to the contrary, not only deny the crime, but
abhor and detest it. To Uttle purpose, therefore, do
you hunt afto' these poor shadows of resemblances
between u.s and the Donatifts ; unless you conld show
an exact resemblance between the present church of
Some and the ancient: which, seeing by this, and
many other paiticnlais, it is demonstrated to be impos
sible : that chnrch, which was then a Tiigin, may be
now a hadot, and that -which -was a detraction in the
Donatists. may be in Protestants a jnst accusation.
XVIII. Bnt the main point you say is, that since
Luther's Beformed church was not in being for divers
centuria before Luther, and yet was in tie apostles'
time, they must of nece^ity affirm heretieally with the
Donatists, tiat tie true, nn^atted durci of Chri^
periled, and iiot sie which remained on earth was
(O hU^lem^ I) an harlot. By which words it seeins
yon aie lesolnte perpetnaDy to confound true and
unspotted; and to put no difference between a cor
rupted church aud none at aU. But what is this, but
to make no difference between a diseased and a dead
man ? Nay, what is it but to contradict yoniselves.
who cannot deny bnt that ans are as great stains and
spots and defonniries in the sight of God, as errors ;
and confess your dinidi to be a congi^arion of men,
-whereof every particular, not one excepted, (and conse
quently the generaUty, which is nothing but a coUec
tion of them,) is poOuted and defiled with sin ?
XIX. 1. ou ask, HoiB can the church ¦more truly b6

414 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
said to perish, than when she is permitted to maintain
a damnable heresy ? I answer. She may be more truly
said to perish, when she is not only permitted to do so
but de facto doth maintain a damnable heresy. Again :
she may be more traly said to perish when she fallsinto
an heresy, which is not only damnable in itself, and ex
natura rei,* as you speak ; but sueh an heresy, the belief
of whose contrary truth is necessary, not only necessi
tate prcBcepti, but medii,'\ and therefore, the heresy so
absolutely and indispensably destractive of salvation,
that no ignorance can excuse it, nor any general repent
ance, without a dereliction of it, can beg a pardon for
it. Such an heresy if the church should fall into, it
might be raore truly said to perish, than if it fell only
into sorae heresy of its own nature daranable. For in
that state, all the members of it without exception, aU
without mercy, must needs perish for ever. In this,
although those that might see the trath and would not,
cannot, upon any good ground, hope for salvation, yet,
without question, it might send many souls to heaven,
who would gladly have embraced the truth, but that
they wanted raeans to discover it. Thirdly, and lastly :
she may yet raore truly be said to perish when she apos
tates from Christ absolutely, or rejects even those truths
out of which her heresies may be reformed ; as if she
should directly deny " Jesus to be the Christ," or the
Scripture to be the word of God. Towards which state
of perdition it may well be feared that the church of
Rome doth somewhat incline, by her superinducing,
upon the rest of her errors, the doctrine of her o'wn
infaUibUity, whereby her errors are made incurable;
and by her pretending, that the Scripture is to be inter-
* " From the very nature ofthe thing."  Edit.
f " Through necessity not only of the precept, but likewise of the
means. "—Edit,

THE NATURE OP FAITH. 415
pireted according to her doctrine, and not her doctrine
to be judged of by Scripture, whereby she makes the
Scripture uiieffectual for her reformation.
XX. To Section xvm. — I was very glad when I
heard you say. The holy Scripture and ancient Fathers
do assign separation from fhe visible church as a mark
of heresy : for I was in good hope that ho Christian
would so belie the Scripture, as to say so of it, unless
he could have produced sorae one text at least, wherein
this was plainly affirraed, or from whence it might be
undoubtedly and undeniably collected. For, assure
yourself, good sir, it is a very heinous crime to say,
" Thus saith the Lord," when the Lord doth not
say so. I expected, therefore, sorae scripture should
have been alleged, wherein it should have been said,
"Whosoever separates from the Roraan church is an
heretic : " or, " The Roraan church is infallible," or
" the guide of faith : " or, at least, " There shall be
always some visible church infallible in matters of
feith." Some such direction as this I hoped for : and
I pray, consider whether I had not reason ! The evan
gelists aud apostles who wrote the New Testament, we
all suppose, were good men, and very desirous to direct
us the surest and plainest way to heaven ; we suppose
them, likewise, very sufficiently instracted by the Spirit
of God, in all the necessary points of the Christian
feith ; and therefore certainly not ignorant of this unum
necessarium, " this most necessary point of all others,"
without which, as you pretend and teach, all faith is no
faith, that is, that " the church of Rorae was designed
by God tbe guide of faith." We suppose them, lastly,
wise men, especially being assisted by the Spirit of wis
dora, and such as knew that a doubtful and question
able guide was, for men's direction, as good as none
at all,. And, after all these suppositions, which, I

416 THE NATURE OP FAITH.
presume, no good Christian will call into question, is
it possible that any Christian heart can believe, that not
one amongst them all should ad rei memoriam * write
this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once ? Cer
tainly, in all reason, they had provided much better for
the good of Christians if they had wrote this, though
they had writ nothing else. Methinks the evangelists,
undertaking to write the gospel of Christ, could not
possibly have omitted, any one of them, this most
necessary point of faith, had they kno-wn it necessary ;
St. Luke especiaUy, who plainly professeth that " his
intent was to -write all things necessary." Methinks
St. Paul, writing to the Roraans, could not but have
congratulated this their privilege to them ! Methinks,-
instead of saying, " Your faith is spoken of, all the world
over," (which you have no reason to be very proud of,'
for he says the very same thing to the Thessalonians,) he
could not have failed to have told them once at least in
plain terms, that " their faith was the rule for aU the
world for ever." But then, sure, he would have forborne
to put them in fear of an impossibUity, as he doth in his
eleventh chapter, that they also, nay, the whole church
of the Gentiles, " if they did not look to their standing,
raight fall away to infidelity," as the Jews had done.
Methinks, in all his other Epistles, at least in some, at
least in one of them, he could not have feUed to have
given the world this direction, had he kno-wn it to be a
trae one, that "all men were to be guided by the
church of Rome, and none to separate from it under pain
of daranation." Methinks, -writing so often of heretics
and antichrist, he should have given the world this (aS
you pretend) only sure preservative from them. How
was it possible that St. Peter, writing two catholic
• " To assist in the recollection of the affair."  Edit.

THE. NATURE OF FAITH; 417
Epistles, mentioning his own departure, writing to pre
serve Christians in the faith, should, in neither of them,
commend them to the guidance of his pretended suc
cessors, the bishops of Rorae ? How was it possible
that St. James, and St, Jude, in their catholic Epistles,
should not give this catholic direction ? Methinks St.
John, instead of saying, " He that beUeveth that Jesus
is the Christ, is bom of God," (the force of which
direction, your glosses do quite enervate, and make
unavailable to discern who are the sons of God,) should
have said, " He that adheres to the doctrine of the
Roman church, and lives according to it, he is a good
Christian, and by this mark ye shall know him ! ''
What man, not quite out of his wits, if he consider, as
he should, the pretended necessity of this doctrine, that,
without the belief hereof, no raan ordinarily can be
saved, can possibly force himself to conceive that all
these good and holy men, so desirous of raen's salva
tion, and so well assured of it, (as it is pretended,)
should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it, and not '
one say it plainly so much as once, but leave it to be
collected from uncertain principles, by many more
uncertain consequences ? Certainly, he that can judge
so uncharitably of them, it is no marvel if he censure
other inferior servants of Christ as atheists, and hypo
crites, and what he pleases. Plain places, therefore, I
did and had reason to look for, when I heard you say,
The holy Scripture assigns separation from the visible
church as a mark of heresy. But, instead hereof,
what have you brought us, but mere impertinencies ?
St. John saith, of some who pretended to be Christians
and were not so, and therefore, when it was for their
advantage, forsook their profession, " They went out
from us ; but they were not of us ; for if they had been
of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.''
T 5

418 THE NATURE OF FAITH-
Of some, who, before the decree of the councU to the
contrary, were persuaded, and accordingly taught, that
the convert GentUes were to keep the law of Moses, it
is said, in the Acts, " Some who went out from us."
And again, St. Paul, in the same book, forewarns the
Ephesians, that " out of them should arise men speak
ing perverse things." And from these places, which, it
seems, are the plainest you have, you coUect, that
separation from the visible church is assigned hy Scrip
ture as a mark of heresy. Which is certainly a strange
and unheard-of strain of logic. Unless you wUl say,
that every text wherein it is said, that some body goes
out from some body, affords au argument for this pur
pose ! For the first place, there is no certainty that it
speaks of heretics, but no Christians, of antichrists, of
such as deny " Jesus to be the Christ : " see the place,
and you shall confess as much. The second place, it is
certain, you must not say it speaks of heretics ; for it
speaks only of some who believed and taught an error,
while it was yet a question, and not evident, and there
fore, according to your doctrine, no formal heresy.
The third says, indeed, that, of the professors of Chris
tianity, some shall arise that shall teach heresy : but no
one of them all that says or intimates, that whosoever
separates from the visible church, in what state soever, is
certainly an heretic. Heretics, I confess, do always do so ;
but they that do so are not always heretics ; for, perhaps,
the state of the church may make it necessary for them
to do so; as rebels always disobey the command of
their king, yet they which disobey a king's command
(which, perhaps, may be unjust) are not presentiy
rebels. XXII. In the xix. Section, we have the
authority of eight Fathers urged to prove that the
separation from the church of Bome as it is the see of

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 419
St, Peter, (I conceive, you mean, as it is the particular
church,) is the mark of heresy. Which kind of argu
ment I might well refuse to answer, unless you would
first proraise me, that whensoever I should produce as
plain sentences, of as great a number of Fathers, as
ancient, for any doctrine whatsoever, that you wUl sub
scribe to it, though it fall out to be contrary to the doc
trine of the Roraan church. For I conceive nothing in
the world more unequal or unreasonable, than that you
should press us with such authorities as these, and think
yourselves at liberty from them ; and that you should j
account them Fathers when they are for you, and ]
children when they are against you. Yet I would not
you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance,
that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at
the tribunal of the Fathers, nay, not of the Fathers
whose sentences are here alleged. Let us consider
them in order ; and I doubt not to make it appear, that
far the greater part of them, nay, all of them that are
any way considerable, fall short of your purpose.
XXIII. Objection. St. Hierome (you say) pro
fesses, / am in the communion of the chair of Peter,
^c. (Ep. 57, ad Damasum.) But then I pray consider;
he saith it to pope Damasus ; and this will rauch
weaken the authority with them who know how great
over-truths men usually write to one another in letters.
Consider again, that he says only, that he was " then
in comraunion with the chair of Peter," not that he
always would, or of necessity raust, be so : for his reso
lution to the contrary is too evident out of that which
he saith plsewhere, which shall be produced hereafter.
He says, that the " church at that present was built J
upon that rock ; " but not that only, nor that always, i
Nay, his judgraent, as shall appear, is express to the
contrary. And so likewise' the rest of his expressions

420 THE NATURE OF FAITH.'
(if we mean to reconcUe Hierome with Hierome) Uiusfc
be conceived as intended, by him, of that bishop and
see of Rome, at that present time, and in the present
state, and in respect of that doctrine which he there
in treats of. For otherwise, had he conceived it neces
sary for him and all men to conform their judg'ments,
in matters of faith, to the judgment of the bishop
and church of Rome, how came it to pass, that he
chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrews
canonical, upon the authority of the eastem church,
than to reject it from the canon upon the authority of
the Roman ? How comes it to pass that he dissented
from the authority of that church touching the canon of
the Old Testament ? For if you say, that the church
then consented with St. Hierome, I fear you wiU lose
your fort, by raaintaining your outworks, and, by avoid
ing this, run into a greater danger of being forced to
confess the present Roman church opposite herein to the
ancient. How was it possible, that he should ever
believe that Liberius, bishop of Rome, either was or
could have been wrought over by the solicitation of
Portunatianus, hishop of Aqmleia, and brought, after
two years'' banishment, to subscribe heresy ? * which act of
Liberius though some fondly question, being so vain
as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but
yesterday, thfrteen hundred years almost after the thing
is said to be done, and speaking for themselves in their
own cause, rather than the disinterested time-fellows or,
imraediate successors, of Liberius himself: yet I hope
they will not proceed to sueh a degree of immodesty,
as once to question whether St. Hierome thought so.
And if this cannot be denied, I demand then, if he had
lived in Liberius's time, could he or would he have
* HiEROji. De Scrip. Eccle. tit. Fortunatianus.

.THE NATURE OF FAITlt. 421
written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus .^ "Would
he have said to him ? — " I am in the communion of the
chair of Peter : I know that the church is built Upon
this rock: whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth."
Would he then have said, the Roman faith and the
catholic were the same; or, that the Roman faith
received no delusions, no, not from an angel ? 1 sup.'
pose he could not have said so with any coherence to
his own belief; and therefore conceive it undeniable
that what he said then to Damasus, he said it (though
perhaps he strained too high) only of Damasus ; and
never conceived that his words would have been extended
to all his predecessors and all his successors.
XXIV. Objection. St. Arabrose saith of his
brother Satyras,.that " inquiring for a church wherein
to give thanks for his delivery from shipwreck, he
called fo him the hishop, and he asked him whdher
he agreed with the catholic bishops; that is, with the
Boman church? And when he u/nderdood that he
was a schismatic ; that is, separated from the Boman
church, he dhdained from communicating with him.''''
(De Ohitu Satyri Fratris.)
Answer. No more can be certainly concluded from
it, but that the cathoUc bishops and the Roman church
were then at unity ; so that whosoever agreed with the
latter could not then but agree with the former. But
that this rule was perpetual, and that no man could ever
agree with the catholic bishops but he must agree with
the Roman church ; this he says not, nor gives you any
ground to conclude from him. Athanasius, when he
was excommunicated by Liberius, agreed very ill with
the Roman church ; and yet you wUl not gainsay but he
agreed weU enough with the catholic bishops.
XXV. Objection. St. Cyprian saith, " They are
hold to sail to the chair of St. Peter, and to the princi-

422 THE NATURE OP FAITH.
pal church, from whence priestly unity hath sprung'.
Neither do they consider fhat they are Bomans, whose
faith was commended hy the preaching of the apostle^
to whom falsehood cannot have access.'''' (Ad Cornel.
Epist. 55.)
Answer. For St. Cyprian, all the world knows
that he resolutely opposed a decree of the Roman
bishop,* and all that adhered to him in the point of
re-baptizing, which that chm'ch at that time delivered
as a necessary tradition : — so necessary, that, by the
bishop of Rorae, FfrraUianus and other bishops of Cap
padocia, Cilicia, and Galatia, and generally all who
persisted in the contrary opinion,"^ were therefore
deprived of the church's coramunion, (which excommu
nication could not but involve St. Cyprian, who
defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firrailianus,
though Cardinal Perron magisterially, and without aU
colour of proof, affirm the contrary,) and Cyprian in
particular so far cast off, as, for it, to be pronounced by
Stephen, " a false Christ ! " — again : so necessary that
the bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Afric to
Rome, were not admitted to the communion of ordi
nary conference ; but all men who were subject to the
bishop of Rome's authority were commanded by him,
not only to deny them the church's peace and commu
nion, but even lodging and entertainment : manifestly
declaring, that they reckoned them among those whom
St. John forbids " to receive to house, or to say God
speed to them." All these terrors notwithstanding, St.
Cyprian holds still his former opinion, and though, out
of respect of the church's peace,| " he judged no man,
• It is confessed by Baronius, anno 238, i\r. 41 ; by Bel-
LARM. lib. iv. De R. Pont., c. 7, sec. Tertia ratio.
f Confessed by Baronius, anno 258, N. 14, et 15; by
Card. Perron. Repl., lib. 1. ; c. 25. Ibid.
X Vide Con, Carth, apud Sur. tom. 1.

THE NATURE OP FAITH. 423
nor cut off any man from the right of communion, for
thinking otherwise than he held ; " yet he conceiv
ed Stephen and his adherents to hold a pemicious
enor.* And St. Austin (though, disputing with the Do -
natists, he useth some tergiversation in the point) yet
confesseth elsewhere, that " it is not found that Cyprian
did ever change his opinion." And so far was he from
conceiving any necessity of doing so, in subraitting to
the judgraent of the bishop and church of Rome, that
he plainly professeth that no other bishop, " but our
Lord Jesus only, had power to judge" (with authority)
" of his judgment," and as plainly intimates that
Stephen, for usurping such a power, and making himself
" a judge over bishops, was little better than a tyrant; "
and as heavily almost he censures him, and perempto
rily opposes him as obstinate in enor, in that very
place where he deUvers that femous saying : " How can
he have God for his Father, who hath not the church for
his mother?" little doubting, it seems, but a man
might have the church for his mother, who stood in
opposition to the church of Rome, and far from think
ing what you fondly obtrude upon him, that to be
united to the Roman church, and to the church, was aU
one, and that separation from St. Peter's chafr was a
mark, I mean a certain mark, either of schism or
heresy !
XXVI. But you have given a false, or at least a
strained, translation of St. Cyprian's fore-cited words ;
for Cyprian saith not, " to whom falsehood cannot have
access," as if he had exempted the Roman chm-ch from
a possibUity of enor, but to whom " perfidiousness
cannot have access," meaning those perfidious schis
matics whom he there complains of ; and of these, by a
• Bell., lib, ii, De Cone., t. 5, Aue,, ep. 48, et lib, i, De
Bapl., c 18.

424 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
rhetorical insinuation, he says that, " with such good
Christians as the Romans were, it was not possible they
should find favourable entertainment." As for his joiui.
ing the principal church and the chair of Peter, how
that will serve to prove separation from the Roman
church to be a raark of heresy, it is hard to understandi
Though we do not altogether deny but that the church
bf Rome might be called " the chair of St. Peter," m
regard he is said to have preached the gospel there;
and " the principal church," because the city was the prin
cipal and iraperial city ; which prerogative of the city, if
we believe the Fathers of the councU of Chalcedon,
was the ground and occasion why the Fathers of former
tiraes (I pray, observe) confened upon this church this
prerogative above other churches.
XXVII. Objection, But, in another place, St.
Cyprian makes communicating with Cornelius, (the
bishop of Rorae,) and with the catholic church, to be
the same. (Epist, 52.)
Answer. This does not prove, that to communicate
with the church and pope of Rome, and to communi
cate with the catholic church, is always (for that you
assume) one and the same thing. St. Cyprian speaks
not of the church of Rome at all. but of the bishop
only, who, when he doth communicate -with the catholic
church, as Cornelius at that time did, then whosoever
comraunicates with him cannot but communicate with
the catholic church ; and then, by accident, one may
truly say, " Such a one comraunicates with you," that is,
with the catholic church, and that to communicate with
hina, is to communicate with the catholic church. As,
if Titiu and Sempronius be together, he that is in
company with Titius cannot but be at that time in
company with Serapronius I As, if a general be march
ing to some place with an army, he that then is with

THE NATURE OF PAITH. 425
the general must at that time be with the army ; and a
man may say, without absurdity, " Such a time I was with
the geheral ; " that is, with the array, and that to be with
the general is to be with the array ! Or, as, if a man's \
hand be joined to his body, the finger which is joined i
to the hand is joined to the body ; and a man may [
say truly of it, " This finger is joined to the hand ; " that
is, to the body ; and to be joined to the hand is to be
joined to the body ; because all these things are by acci
dent trae. And yet I hope you would not deny but the ;
finger might possibly be joined to the hand, and yet not
to the body, the hand being cut off from the body ;
and a man might another time be with his general and
not with his array, he being absent from the army, And^ ,
therefore, by like reason, your collection is sophistical, i
being in effect but this : " To coraraunicate with such a '
bishop of Rome, who did communicate with the catholic ;
church, was to communicate with the catholic church ;
therefore absolutely and always it must be true, that to
coraraunicate with him is, by consequent, to communicate i
with the catholic church, and to be divided from the '
communion is to be an heretic."
XXX. Objection. St. Irensus saith, "Be
cause it were long to number the successions of all
churches, we declaring the tradition of the most great,
most ancient, and known church, founded by the two
glorious apostles, Pder and Paul, which tradition it
hath from the apodles, coming to us hy Succession of
bishops, we confound all those who any way, either hy
vainglory, blindness, or ill opinion, do gather otherwise
than they ought ; for to this church, for a more power
ful principality, it is necessary that all churches resort,
that is, all faithful petrie (-undique) ' of what place
soever ;' in which (Roman church) the tradition from
the apostles hath always been conserved from those who

426 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
are (undique) ' every where.'' " (Contr. Hcer., lib. iu.
cap. 3.)
Answer. Though, at the first hearing, the glorious
attributes here given (and that justly) to the church of
Rome, the confounding heretics with her tradition, and
saying it is necessary for all churches to resort to her,
may sound like arguments for you ; yet he that is atten
tive, I hope, will easily discover, that it might be good
and rational in Irenseus, having to do with heretics who,
somewhat like those who would be the only catholics,
declining a trial by Scripture, as not containing the
truth of Christ perfectly, and not fit to decide con
troversies without recourse to tradition : I say, he wUl
easily perceive that it might be rational in Irenseus to
urge them -with any tradition of more credit than theu
own, especially a tradition consonant to Scripture, and
even contained in it ; and yet that it may be irrational
in you to urge us, who do not decline Scripture, but
appeal to it as a perfect rule of faith, -with a tradition
which we pretend is many ways repugnant to Scripture,
and repugnant to a tradition far more general than
itself; which gives testimony to Scripture ; and, lastly,
repugnant to itself, as giving attestation both to Scrip
ture and to doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture.
Secondly : That the authority of the Roman church was
then a far greater argument of the trath of her tradition,
when it was united with all other apostolic churches,
than now when it is divided from them, according to
that of Tertullian : " Had the churches ened, they
would have varied ; but that which is the same in aU,
cannot be error, but tradition :" and, therefore, though
Irenseus's argument may be very probable, yet yours
may be worth nothing. Thirdly : That fourteen hun
dred years may have made a great deal of alteration in
the Roman church ; as rivers, though, near the fountain,

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 427
they may retain their native and unmixed sincerity, yet
in long progress cannot but take in much mixture that
came not frora the fountain. And, therefore, the;
Roraan tradition, though then pure, may now be cor
rupt and impure ; and so this argument (being one of
those things which are the worse for wearing) might in
Irenseus's tirae be strong and vigorous, and, after declin
ing and decaying, raay long since have fallen to nothing :
especially considering that Irenseus plays the historian
only, and not the prophet, and says only, that "the
apostolic tradition had been always there, as in other
apostolic chmches, conserved or observed," choose you
whether ; but that it should be always so, he says
not, neither had he any warrant. He knew well enough
that there was foretold a great falling away of the
churches of Christ to antichrist ; that the Roman church
in particular was forewamed that she also, "nay, the
whole church of the Gentiles, might fall, if they look
not to their standing ;" and, therefore, to secure her
that she should stand for ever, he had no reason nor
authority. Fourthly : That it appears manifestly, out
of this book of Irenseus quoted by you, that the doc
trine of the Chiliasts was, in his judgment, apostolic
tradition, as also it was esteemed (for aught appears to
the contrary) by all the doctors, and saints, and martyrs
of or about his time ; for all that speak of it; or whose
judgraents in the point are any way recorded, are for it ;
and Justin Martyr professeth, that "all good and
orthodox Christians of his tirae beUeved it ;" and those
that did not, he reckons araongst heretics. Now, I
demand, Was this tradition one of those that was con
served and observed in the church of Rorae, or was it
not ? If not, had Irenseus known so much, he must
have retracted this commendation of that church. If it
was, then the tradition of the present church of Rome

428 THE NATURE OF PAITH.
contradicts the ancient, and accounts it heretical ; and
then, sure, it can be no certain note of heresy to depart
from them who have departed from themselves, and
prove theraselves subject unto enor by holding contra
dictions. Fifthly and lastly : That out of the story of
the church it is as raanifest as the light at noon, that
though Irenseus did esteem the Roman tradition a great
argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and
defends against the heretics of his time, namely, " that
there was one God," yet he was very far from thinking
that church was, and ever should be, a safe keeper, and
an infallible witness of tradition in general ; inasmuch
as in his own life his action proclaimed the contrary :
for when Victor, bishop of Rome, obtraded the Roman
tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian
bishops, under the pain of excommunication and damna
tion, Irenseus, and all the other western bishops, though
agreeing with him in his observation, yet sharply repre
hended him for excommunicating the Asian bishops for
their disagreeing ; plainly showing that they esteemed
that not a necessary doctrine and a sufficient ground of
excommunication which the bishop of Rome and his
adherents did so account of; for, otherwise, how could
they have reprehended him for excommunicating them,
had they conceived the cause of his excoraraunication
just and sufficient ? and, besides, evidently declaring
that they esteemed not separation from the Roman
church a certain mark of heresy, seeing they esteerned
not them heretics, though separated and cut off from
the Roman church.
XXXI. Objection. St. Austin saith, " It grieves
m to see you so to lie cut off. Number the priests eren
from the see of Peter, and consider in that order of
Fathers who succeeded, to whom she is the rock which
the proud gates of hell do not overcome ; " (In Psahn,

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 429
contra Partem Donati ;) where he seems to say, thab
the succession in the see of Peter was the rock which
our Saviour means when he said, " Upon this rock will
I build my church."
Answer. I answer, first : We have no reason to be
confident of the truth hereof, because St. Austin himself
was not, but retracts it as uncertain, and " leaves to the
reader whether he will think that or another more pro
bable." {Bdrac. lib. i. cap. 26.) Secondly : What he
says of the succession in the Roraan church in this
place, he says it elsewhere of all the successions in all
other apostolic churches. Thirdly : That as in this
place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the
Roman church, as an arguraent of their error, so else-'
where he presseth thera with their separation frora other
apostolic churches ; nay, more from these than from
that, because in Rome the Donatists had a bishop,
though not a perpetual succession of them ; but in
other apostolic churches they wanted both. " These
scattered men," saith he of the Donatists, (Epist. clxv.,)
" read in the holy books the churches to which the
apostles wrote, and have no bishop in them ; but what
is more perverse and mad than to the lector's reading
these epistles, to say, ' Peace with you ! ' and to sepa
rate from the peace of these churches, to which these
episties were written ? " So Optatus, having done you
(as it might seem) great service in upbraiding the
Donatists as schisraatics, because they had not coramu
nion with the church of Rome, overthrows and undoes
it aU again, and, as it were with a sponge, wipes out all
that he had said for you, by. adding after, that they
were schisraatics, because " they had not the fellowship
of communion with the seven churches of Asia, to which
St. John writes ;" whereof he pronounces confidently,
(though I know not upon what ground,) Extra septem

430 THE nature of faith.
ecclesias quicquid foris est, aUenum est.* Now, I pray
tell me. Do you esteem the authority of these Fathers a
sufficient assurance that separation from these other
apostolic churches was a certain mark of heresy, or not ?
If so, then your church hath been for raany ages here
tical. If not, how is their authority a greater argument
for the Roman than for the other churches ? If you
say, they conceived separation from these churches a
note of schisra, only when they were united to the
Roman; so also they might conceive of the Roman,
only when it was united to them. If you say, they
urged this only as a probable, and not as a certain,
argument ; so also they might do that. In a word,
whatsoever answer you can devise to show that these
Fathers made not separation from these other churches
a mark of heresy, apply that to your own argument, and
jt will be satisfied.
XXXII. Objection. In another place, speaking
of Csecilianus, St. Augustine saith, " He might contemn
the conspiring multitude of his enemies, hecause he knew
himself to he united, hy communicatory letters, both to
the Boman church, in which the principality of the see
apostolic did always flourish, and to other countries
from whence the gospel came flrst into Africa.'" (Epist,
162.) Answer. This place is evidently impertinent to the
present question ; nor is there in it any thing but this,
— that CcEcilian might contemn the multitude of his
adversaries, hecause those that were united with him
were more, and of more account, than those that were
againd him. Had St. Austin preferred the Boman
church alone before CsecUian's enemies, this had been
littie, but something. But when other countries, from
' " Every thing must be accounted foreign which is not within
the circle of the seven cliurches,"  Edit,

the nature op faith.

431

tbhieh the gospel came first into Africa, are joined in
this patent with the church of Rome, how she can
build any singular privilege upon it, I am yet to learn !
Neither do I see what can be concluded from it, but
that in the Boman church was the principality of an
apostolic see,* which no man doubts: or, that the
Roraan church was not the mother church, because the
gospel came first into Africa, not from her, but from
other churches.
XXXIII, You see St, Austin's words make very
little, or indeed nothing, for you : but now his action,
(which, according to Cardinal Penon's rule, is much
more to be regarded than his words, as not being so
obnoxious to misinterpretation,) I mean his famous
opposition of three bishops of Rome in succession,
touching the great question of appeals ; wherein he and
the rest of the African bishops proceeded so far in the
first or second MUevitan CouncU, as to " decree any
African excommunicate that should appeal to any man out
of Afric," ¦\ and therein continued resolute unto death ; .
I say, this famous action of his makes clearly, and evi-
* You do ill to translate it, " the prindpality of the see apostolic," as
if there were but one ; whereas St. Austin, presently after, speaks of
apostolical churches in the plural number, and makes the bishops of
them joint commissioners for the judging of ecclesiastical causes.
¦f- The words of the decree (which also Bellarmine, De Matrim.,
lib. 1. cap. 17, assures us to have been formed by St. Austin) are
these : Si qui (Afrieani) ab episcopis provocandum putaverirti, non
nisi ad Africana provocent concUia, vel ad primates provinciarum
suarum. Ad transmarina autem., qui putaverit appeUandum, a nullo
intra Africam in communionem suscipiafur. ['' If any Africans
consider it desirable to enter an appeal from the decision of their own
bishops, let them prefer their appeal to none but African councils, or
to the archbishops of their own provinces. But if any man think it
proper to lodge an appeal before councils beyond sea, let him not be
received into communion by any one within the boundaries of
AfKca." — Edit.] This decree is, by Gratian, most impudently
corrupted ; for, whereas the Fathers of that council intended it par-

432 the nature of faith,
dently, and infinitely against you ; for had Boniface,
and the rest of the African bishops, (a great part
whereof were saints and martyrs,) believed, as an article
of faith, that union and conformity with the doctrine of
the Roman church, in all things which she held neces
sary, was a certain note of a good catholic, and, hy
God's command, necessary to salvation, how was it pos
sible they should have opposed it in this ? unless you
will say, they were all so foolish as to believe at once
direct contradictions, namely, that conformity to the
Roman church was necessary in aU points, and not
necessary in this ; or else so horribly impious, as, believ
ing this doctrine of the Roman church true, and her
power to receive appeals derived from Divine authority,
notwithstanding to oppose and condemn it, and to ana
thematize all those Africans, of what condition soever,
that should appeal unto it. I say, " of what condition
soever ; " for it is evident that they concluded in their
determination bishops, as well as the inferior clergy and
laity ; and Cardinal Penon's pretence of the contrary is
a shameless falsehood, repugnant to the plain words of
the remonstrance of the African bishops to Celestine,
bishop of Rome,*
ticularly against the church of Rome, he telU us, they forbad appeals
to all, excepting only the church of Rome.
* The words are these : Prtefato debito salutationis officio,
impendio deprecamur ; ut deinceps ad aures vestras hinc venientes,
non facilius admittatis ; nec a nobis eacommunicatos ultra in commu
nionem velitis recipere, quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio defirutum
facile advertet venerabilitas tua. 2\''am si de inferioribtis clericis vel
laicis videtur id pracaveri, quanto magis hoc de episcopis voliat,
observari. [" After tendering our salutations to your Reverence, which is a part
of our duty, we most earnestly entreat that hereafter you will not tap
readily [admittatis ad aures vestras] receive into your confidence those
who come to you out of these regions ; and, moreover, that you will
not admit into communion with you those whom we have excommu:

the nature of faith. 433
XXXIV. Objection. Tertullian saith, " If thou
he near Italy, thou hast Bome, whose authority is near
at hand to us ; a happy church, into which the apostles
have poured all doctrine, togdher with their blood.''''
(ProBscrip., cap. xxxvi.) ,
Answer. Your allegation of Tertullian is a raanifest '
conviction of your want of sincerity ; for you produce,
with great ostentation, what he says of the church of
Rorae : but you and your fellows always conceal and
disserable, that imraediately before these words he attri
butes as rauch, for point of direction, to any other apos
tolic church ; and that as he sends thera to Rorae who
lived near Italy, so those near Achaia he sends to
Corinth ; those about Macedonia, to Philippi and
Thessalonica ; those of Asia, to Ephesus. His words
are : " Go to now, thou that wilt better eraploy thy
nicated ; because your Reverence will easily observe, that this has
been defined [as forbidden] even by the council of Nice. For if it
was deemed needful to make such a provision in reference to the
inferior clergy or laity, how much more ought it to be observed in
the case of bishops ! " [Unable, through absence, to consult any pro
per authority, I think it highly probable, that the Latin text contains
two errors. ITt deinceps ad aures vestras hinc venientes nonfacili-us
admittatis, is, at least, an unusual form of construction ; but, when the
juxta-position of its particles is observed, every critic conversant with
the style of the Latin ecclesiastic writers will be favourable to the
subjoined reading : Ut deinceps ad oras vestras hinc venientes, ^c.
" That you will not receive (within your pale) those who come out of
our country into yours." The other error seems to lie in the particle
ultra, which holds a very anomalous place in the sentence. When
changed into ultro, it will convey a meaning most appropriate and
significant, and the clause may then be rendered : " And that you
will not, of your own accord, (without consulting us,) admit into
communion with you those whom we have excommunicated." Such
scholars as are practically acquainted with the involutions and con
tractions common to ancient manuscripts in all languages, will be
inclined to look with indulgence, if not with approval, on the two
emendations which I here respectfully submit to the judgment of the
learned. — Edit.] U

434 THE nature op faith.
¦" curiosity in the business of thy salvation ; ran over the
^' apostolical churches, wherein the chairs of the aposties
*"' are yet sat upon in their places, wherein their authentic
Ce epistles are recited, sounding out the voice, and repre-
" senting the face, of every one .' Is Achaia near thee ?
*¦' there thou hast Corinth ; if thou art not far from Mace-
« donia, thou hast Philippi, thou hast Thessalonica; if
• - thou canst go into Asia, there thou hast Ephesus ; if
'^' thou be adjacent to Italy, thou hast Rome, whose
'< authority is near at hand to us ; (in Afric ;) a happy
'• church, into which the apostles poured forth all their
" doctrine, together with their blood," &c. Now, I pray,
Sir, tell me, if you can for blushing, why this place
might not have been urged by a Corinthian, or Phihp-
pian, or Thessalonian, or an Ephesian, to show that, in
the judgment of Tertullian, separation from any of their
churches is a certain mark of heresy, as justly and
rationally as you allege it to vindicate this privilege to
the Roman church only ! Certainly, if you will stand
to TertuUian's judgment, you must either grant the
authority of the Roman church, (though, at that time,
a good topical arguraent, and, perhaps, a better than
any the heretics had, especially in conjunction with
other apostolic churches ; yet, I say, you raust grant it
perforce but a fallible guide, as well as that of Ephesus,
and Thessalonica, and PhUippi, and Corinth,) or you
must maintain the authority of every one of these infal
lible, as well as the Roman : for though he make a
panegyric of the Roman church in particular, and of the
rest only in general, yet, as I have said, for point of
direction, he makes them all equal; and, therefore,
makes them (choose you whether) either all fallible, or
all infallible. Now, you will and must acknowledge,
that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the
churches of Ephesus, or Corinth ; or, if he did, that (as
experipncft sliows~l he erred in doinc so : and what can

the nature of faith. 435
hinder but tiien we may say also, that he never intended
to attribute infiillibility to the Roman church, or, if he
did, that he erred in doing so ?
XXXVIII. To Sections xx.-xxm. — The sum
of your discourse in tiiese sections, if it be pertinent to
the question, must be this : Want of sucwss/on of bishops
and pastors holding ahcays tlie samt' doctrine, and of
the forms of ordiining bishops and priests ichich arc in
use in the Boman church, is a certain mark of hiresy :
but Protestants want allfhiSi- things; tht'rtforc\ they are
heretics. To which I answer, that nothing but want of
truth and holding error can make or prove any man or
church heretical ; for if he be a true Aristotelian, or
Platonist, or Pyrrhonian, or Epicurean, who holds the
doctrine of Aristotie, or Plato, or Pyrrlio, or Epicurus,
although he cannot assign any that held it before him,
for many ages together, why sliould I not be made a
true and orthodox Christian, by believing all the doc
trine of Christ, though I cannot derive my descent from
a perpetual succession that believed it before me ? By
this reason you should say as well, that no man can be
a good bisliop or pastor, or king, or raagistrate, or father,
that succeeds a bad one : for if I may conform mv will
and actions to the coramandments of God, why mav I
not embrace his doctrine with mv understandiusr,
although my predecessor do not so ? You have above,
iu this chapter, defined faith a free, infallihh; obacure,
supernatural assent to Dirine truths, because they arc
rcnalfd by God, atid suffi'c/ently propounded. This
definition is very fimtastical ; but, for the present, I wUl
let it pass, and desire you to give me some piece of
shadow or reason why I may not do all this without a
perpetual succession of bishops and pastors that have
done so before me ? You may judge as uncharitably,
and speak as maliciously, of me as your blind zeal to

436 THE nature of faith.
your superstition shall direct you ; but certainly I know,
(and, with all your sophistry, you cannot make me
doubt of what I know,) that I do believe the gospel of
Christ, as it is delivered in the undoubted books of
canonical Scripture, as verily as that it is now day, that
I see the light, that I ara now -writing ; and I believe it
upon this motive, — because I conceive it .sufficiently,
abundantly, superabundantly proved to be divine revela
tion ; and yet in this I do not depend upon auy succes
sion of men that have always believed it, without any
mixture of enor ; nay, I am folly persuaded, there hath
been no such succession, and yet do not find myself any
way weakened in my faith by the want of it ; but so
fully assured of the truth of it, that not only though
your devils at Loudun * do tricks against it, but though
an angel from heaven should gainsay it or any part of
it, I persuade myself that I shotdd not be moved. This
I say, and this I am sure is trae ; and if you wUl be so
hyper-sceptical as to persuade me that I am not sure that
I believe all this, I desire you to teU rae, how are you
sure that you believe the churcb of Rome ? For if a
man may persuade himself he doth believe what he doth
not believe, then may you think you believe the church
of Rome, and yet not believe it ; but if no man can en
conceming what he believes, then you must give me
leave to assure rayself that I do believe, and, conse
quently, that any man may believe, the aforesaid truths
* This is an aUusion (then well understood) to the infatuated and
immoral inmates of the convent of Ursulines at Loudun, in the ancient
French province of Poitou, who accused the canon Urban Grandier,
a very handsome and eloquent preacher, of haring bewitched them,
and filled them with unclean spirits. " Upon the evidence of Asta-
roth, a devil ofthe order ot the Seraphims; of Easas, Celsus, Acaos,
Eudon, and Asmodeus, of the order of the Thrones, &c, (that is, on
the evidence of the Ursuline nuns, who asserted that they were pos
sessed with those devils,)" on Aug. 18th, 1634, the unhappy Gran
dier, having been thus summarily convicted of the crimes alleged,
was '^ -T-* -'=-• • '•- o-Jp- .^e-k-.f, .„„i„„ c„^o,=»;t;„„„ ;„,i„p<,  Edit.

tiie nature of PAITH. 437
iipon the aforesaid motives, without any dependence
upon any succession that hath believed it always : and, as
frora your definition of faith, so, frora your definition of
heresy, this fancy raay be refuted ; for, questionless, no
man can be an heretic but he that holds an heresy, and
an heresy, you say, is a voluntary error ; therefore, no
man can be necessitated to be an heretic whether he will
or no, by want of such a thing that it is not in his power
to have. But that there should have been a perpetual
succession of believers in all points orthodox, is not a
thing which is in your power ; therefore, our being or
not being heretics depends not on it. Besides, what is
more certain than that he may make a straight line who
hath a rule to make it by, though never man in the
world had made any before ? and why then may not he
that believes the Scripture to be the word of God and
the rule of faith, regulate his faith by it, and, conse
quently, believe aright, without much regarding what
other men either will do or have done ? It is true,
indeed, there is a necessity that if God will have his
words believed, he, by his providence, raust take order,
that, either by succession of raen, or by some other
means, natural or supernatural, it be preserved and deli
vered, and sufficiently notified to be his word ; but that
this should be done by a succession of men that hold
no enor against it, certainly there is no more necessity
than that it should be done by a succession of men that
coramit no sin against it : for if men may preserve the
records of a law, and yet transgress it, certainly they
may also preserve directions for their faith, and yet not
follow thera. I doubt not but lawyers at the bar do
find, by frequent experience, that raany raen preserve
and produce evidences which, being exarained, oft-times
make against themselves. This they do ignorantiy, it
being in their power to suppress, or perhaps to alter,
them. And why then should any man conceive it

4-38 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
strange that an erroneous and corrupted church should
preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrapted, when,
indeed, for many reasons, which I have formerly
aUeged, it was impossible for them to conupt them ?
Seeing, therefore, this is all the necessity that is pre
tended of a perpetual succession of men orthodox in all
points, certainly there is no necessity at all of any such,
neither can the want of it prove any man or any church
heretical. XXXIX, When, therefore, you have produced
some proof of this, (which was your major in your
forraer syllogisra,) that want of succession is a certain
mark of heresy, you shall then receive a full answer to
your rainor. We shall then consider whether your
indelible character be any reality, or whether it he a
creature of your own making, a fancy of your own ima
gination ; and if it be a thing, and not only a word,
whether our bishops and priests have it not as well as
yours ; and whether some raen's persuasion that there is
no such thing can hinder them from having it, or prove
that they have it not, if there be any such thing ; (any
more than a man's persuasion that he has not taken
physic or poison, wUl make him not to have taken it if
he has, or hinder the operation of it ;) and whether
Tertullian, in the place quoted by you, speak of a
priest raade a lay-man, by a just deposition or degrada
tion, and not by a voluntary desertion of his order ; and
whether, in the sarae place, he set not some mark upon
heretics that will agree to your church : whether all the
authority of our bishops in England, before the Reform
ation, was conferred on them by the pope ; and if it
were, whether it were the pope's right, or an usurpation i
if it were his right, whether by Divine law or ecclesias
tical ; and, if by ecclesiastical only, whether he might
possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to lose it ;

THE NATURE OF FAITH, 439
he had deserved to lose it, those that deprived him of it
had power to take it from him ; or, if not, whether they
had power to suspend him from the use of it, untU good
caution were put in, and good assurance given, that if
he had it again, he would not abuse it as he had for
merly done ; whether, in case they had done unlawfully
that took his power fi'om him, it raay not (things being
now settled, and the present govemment established) be
as unlawful to go about to restore it ; whether it be not
a fallacy to conclude, because we believe the pope hath
no power in England, now when the king and state and
church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it,
therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his
deprivation : whether, without schism, a man may not
withdraw obedience from an usurped authority com
raanding unlawful things : whether the Roraan chm-ch
might not give authority to bishops and priests to
oppose her enors, as well as a king gives authorit-v' to a
judge to judge against him if his cause be bad ; as well
as Trajan gave his sword to his prefect, vrith this com
mission, that " if he governed weU, he should use it for
hira ; if Ul, against : " whether the Roman church
gave not authority to her bishops and priests to preach
against her corraptions in raanners ; and, if so, why not
against her errors in doctrine, if she had any : whether
she gave them not authority to preach the whole Gospel
of Christ, and, consequentiy, against her doctrine, if it
should contradict any part of the Gospel of Christ :
whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the church of
Rome for any lay-man or woman, that has ability, to
persuade others, by word or by writing, from enor, and
unto trath ; and why this liberty may not be practised
against their reUgion, if it be false, as well as for it, if it
be true : whether any man need any other commission
or vocation than that of a Christian to do a work of
¦charity ; and ^ whether it be not one of. the greatest

440 THE NATURE OF PAITH.
works of charity (if it be done after a peaceable manner,
and without any unnecessary disturbance of order) to
persuade men out of a false, unto a trae, way of etemal
happiness ; especially, the apostle having assured us,
that " he " (whosoever he is) " who converteth a sinner
frora the error of his way, shall save a soul from death,
and shall hide a multitude of sins : " whether the first
Reformed bishops died all at once, so that there were
not enough to ordain others in the places that were
vacant : whether the bishops of England may not con
secrate a metropolitan of England, as well as the cardi
nals do the pope : whether the king or queen of Eng
land, or they that have the govemment in their hands
in the minority of the prince, may not lawfully com
mend one to them to be consecrated, against whom
there is no canonical exception : whether the doctrine,
that the king is suprerae head of the church of England,
(as the kings of Judah and the first Christian emperors
were of the J ewish and Christian church,) be any new
found doctrine : whether it be not true, that bishops,
being made bishops, have their authority unmediately
from Christ, though this or that man be not made
bishop without the king's authority ; as well as you say,
the pope, being pope, has authority imraediately from
Christ ; and yet this or that man cannot be made pope
without the authority of the cardinals : whether you do
well to suppose, that Christian kings have no more
authority in ordering the affairs of the church, than the
great Turk, or the Pagan emperors : whether the king
may not give authority to a bishop to exercise his func
tion in some part of his kingdom, and yet not be capa
ble of doing it himself; as well as a bishop may give
authority to a physician to practise physic in his diocess,
which the bishop cannot do hiraself : whether if Nero
the emperor would have coraraanded St. Peter or
St, Paul to preach the arosnel of Christ, and to exercisp

THE NATURE OF P.\ITH.- 441
the office of a bishop of Rome, whether they would
have questioned his authority to do so : whether there
were any law of God or man that prohibited king James
to give commission to bishops, nay, to lay his injunc
tion upon them, to do any thing that is lawful : whe
ther a casual irregularity raay not be lawfully dispensed
with : whether the pope's irregularities, if he should
chance to incur any, be indispensable ; and, if not, who
is he, or who are they, whom the pope is so subject
unto, that they may dispense with him : whether that
be certain which you take for granted, that your ordina
tion imprints a character, and ours doth not : whether
the power of consecrating and ordaining by iraposition
of hands may not reside in the bishops, and be derived
unto them, not from the king, but God ; and yet the
king have authority to command them to apply this
power to such a fit person, whom he shall commend unto
them ; as well as if sorae architects only had the faculty
of architecture, and had it iraraediately by infusion from
God himself; yet, if they were the king's subjects, he
wants not authority to command them to build him a
palace for his use, or a fortress for his service ; or, as
the king of France pretends not to have power to raake
priests hiraself, yet, I hope you wUl not deny him
power to command any of his subjects that has this
power, to ordain any fit person priest, whom he shall
desire to be ordained : whether it do not follow, that
whensoever the king commands an house to be built, a
message to be delivered, or a murderer to be executed,
that all these things are presentiy done, without inters
vention of the architect, messenger, or executioner ; as
well as, that they are ipso facto ordained and conse
crated who, by the king's authority, are coramended to
the bishop to be ordained and consecrated ; especially
seeing the king wUl not deny but that these bishops
u 5

442 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
may refuse to do what he requires to be done, lawfuUy*
if the person be unworthy, if worthy unlawfully indeed,-
but yet de facto they may refuse ; and, in case they
should do so, whether justly or unjustly, neither the
king himself, nor anybody else, would esteem the person
bishop upon the king's designation : whether many
popes, though they were not consecrated bishops by
any temporal prince, yet might not or did not receive
authority from the emperor to exercise their episcopal
function in this or that place ; and whether the empe
rors had not authority, upon thefr desert, to deprive
them of their jurisdiction, by imprisonment or banish
ment : whether Protestants do indeed pretend that theu
Reformation is universal : whether in saying. The Donat-
isti sed was confined to Africa, you do not forget your
self, and contradict what you said above, in section xvii.
of this chapter, where you tell us. They had some of thdr
sect resid'ing in Bome : whether it be certain, that none
ean admit of bishops willingly but those that hold them
of Divine institution : whether they may not be wUling
to have them, conceiving that way of govemment the
best, though not absolutely necessary : whether all
those Protestants that conceive the distinction between
priests and bishops not to be of Divine institution, be
schismatical and heretical for thinking so : whether your
form of ordaining bishops and priests be essential to the
constitution of a true church : whether the forms ofthe
church of England differ essentially from yovu forms :
whether in saying, that the true church cannot subsist
without undoubted true bishops and priests, you have
not overthrown the truth of your o-wn church ; wherein
I have proved it plainly impossible, that any man
should be so much as morally certain either of his own
priesthood or any other man's : lastly, whether any one
kind of these extemal forms and orders and government
be so necessary to the being of a church, but that they

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 443
may not be diverse in divers places ; and that a good
and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit him
self to the government of the place where he lives,
whatsoever it be? — all these questions wUl be neces
sary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the
minor proposition of your former syllogism, and your
proofs of it ; and I will promise to debate thera fairly
with you, if first you wUl bring sorae better proof of the
major, that want of succession is a certain note of
heresy, which, for the present, remains both unproved
and unprobable.
XL. Objection. You say. The Fathers assign
succession as one mark of the true church.
Answer, I confess they did urge tradition as au '
argument ofthe trath of their doctrine, and ofthe false
hood of the contrary ; and thus far they agree with
you. But now see the difference : they urged it not
against all heretics that ever should be, but against
thera who rejected a great part of the Scripture, for
no other reason but " because it was repugnant to their
doctrine, and corrapted other parts with their additions
and detractions, and perverted the reraainder with divers
absurd interpretations : " so Tertullian, not a leaf before
the words by you cited. Nay, they urged it against
thera, who, " when they were confuted out of Scripture,
fell to accuse the Scriptures theraselves, as if they were
not right, and came not from good authority, as if they
were various one from another, and as if truth could
not be found out of them, by those who know not tra
dition, for that it was not delivered in writing,"" (they
did raean wholly,) " but by word of mouth ; and that
thereupon Paul also said, ' We speak wisdom amongst
the perfect.'" So Irenseus in the very next chapter before
that which you allege. Against these raen, being thus
necessitated to do so, they did urge tradition ; but what
or whose tradition was it ? Certainly no other but the

444 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
joint tradition of all the apostolic churches, with one
mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine ; or,.
if for brevity sake they produce the tradition of any
one church, yet is it apparent, that that one was then in
conjunction with all the rest : Irenseus, TertulUan,
Origen, testify as much in the words cited ; and St.
Austin, in the place before alleged by me. This tra-.
dition they did urge against these men, and in a time,
in coraparison of ours, almost contiguous to the, apos
tles : so near, that one of them, Irenseus, was scholar
to one who was scholar to St. John the apostle. Ter
tuUian and Origen were not an age reraoved frora him ;
and the last of them all, little more than an age froia
them. Yet, after all this, they urged it not as a demon
stration, but only as a very probable argument, far
greater than any their adversaries could oppose against
it. So Tertullian in the place above quoted, section v. :
'^ How is it likely that so many and so great churches
should err in one faith ?" (It should be, " should have
erred into one faith.") And this was the condition of
this arguraent as the Fathers urged it. Now if you,
having to deal with us, who question no book of Scrip
ture, which was not anciently questioned by some whom
you yourselves esteem good catholics ; nay, who refuse
not to be tried by your own canons, your own trans
lations ; who, in interpreting Scriptures, are content to
allow of all those rules which you propose, only except
that we will not allow you to be our judges ; if you
will corae fifteen hundred years after the apostles,-^
a fair time for the purest church to gather much dross
and corruptions, and for tbe mystery of iniquity to
bring its work to some perfection, which in the aposties'
time began to work ; if, I say, you wiU corae thus long
after and urge us with the single tradition of one of these
churches, being now catholic to itself alone, and heretical
to all the rest ; nay, not only with her ancient original

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 445
traditions, but also with her postnate and introduced
definitions, and these, as we pretend, repugnant to Scrip
ture and ancient tradition, and all this to decline an
indifferent trial by Scripture, under pretence (wherein
also you agree with the calurany of the old heretics)
"that all necessary truth cannot be found in thera with
out recourse to tradition ;" — if, I say, notwithstand
ing all these differences, you wUl still be urging us with
this argument, as the very same, and of the sarae force,
with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urged
the old heretics, certainly this must needs proceed from
a confidence you have, not only that we have no school-
divinity or metaphysics, but no logic or comraon sense,
that we are but pictures of raen, and have the definition
of "rational creatures" given us in vain.
XLI. But now suppose I should be liberal to you, |
and grant what you cannot prove, that the Fathers !
make succession a certain and perpetual mark of the
true church ; I beseech you, what wUl come of it ?
What, that want of succession is a certain sign of an
heretical corapany ? Truly, if you say so, either you
want logic, which is a certain sign of an ill disputer ;
or are not pleased to use it, which is a worse. For
speech is a certain sign of a living raan, yet want of
speech is no sure arguraent that he is dead ; for he may
be dumb and yet living still, and we raay have other
evident tokens that he is so, as eating, drinking,
breathing, moving : so, though the constant and uni
versal delivery of any doctrine by the apostolic churches
ever since the aposties, be a very great argument of the
trutii of it, yet there is no certainty, but that truth, even
divine trath, may, through men's wickedness,be contracted
from its universality, and intenuptedin its perpetuity, and
so lose this argument, and yet not want others to justify
and support itself. For it may be one of those princi-

446 THE NATURE OF FAITH,
pies which God hath written in all men's hearts, or a
conclusion evidently arising from them ; it may he
either contained in Scripture in express terms, or dedu
cible from it by apparent consequence. If, therefore,
you intend to prove want of a perpetual succession of
professors a certain note of heresy, you raust not con
tent yourself to show, that having it is one sign of
truth ; but you must show it to be the only sign of it,
and inseparable frora it. But this, if you be well
advised, you wUl never undertake. First, because it is
an irapossible atterapt ; and then, because if you do it
you will raar all ; for by proving this an inseparable
sign of catholic doctrine, you will prove your own,
which apparently wants it in raany points, not to be
catholic. For whereas you say. This succession requires
two things, agreement with the apodlei doctrine, and an
uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that chal
lenge if : it will be proved against you, that you faU in
both points ; and that sorae things wherein you agree
with the apostles, have not been held always, — as your
condemning the doctrine of the ChiUasts, and holding
the eucharist not necessary for infants ; and that in
many other things you agree not with them, nor with
the church for many ages after. For examjile : in muti
lation of the communion, in having your service in
such a language as the assistants generally understand
not, your offering to saints, your picturing of God, your
worshipping of pictures.
XLII. To Section xxiv. — Objection. The
true church must have universality of place, which Pro
testants wanting cannot avoid the just note of heresy.
Answer. You have not set down clearly and
univocally what you mean by it, whether universaUty
of fact or of right ; and if of fact, whether absolute or
comparative ; and if comparative, whether of the church

THE NATURE OP FAITH. 447
in comparison of any other religion, or only of here
tical Christians ; or, if in comparison of these, whether
in comparison of aU other sects conjoined, or in compa
rison only of any one of them. Nor have you proved
it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain
mark of heresy : for those places of St. Austin do not
deserve the name. And, traly, in my judgment you
have done advisedly in proving it no better. For as
for universality of right, or a right to universality, all
religions claim it ; but only the true has it ; and which
has it, cannot be determined, unless it first be deter
mined which is the trae. An absolute universality, and
diffusion through all the world, if you should pretend
to, aU the world would laugh at you. If you should
contend for latitude with any one religion, Mahometan-
ism would carry the victory from you. If you should
oppose yourselves against all other Christians besides
you, it is certain you would be cast in this suit also.
If, lastly, being hard driven, you should please your
selves with being more than any one sect of Christians, it
would presently be replied, that it is uncertain whether
now you are so, but raost certain that the time has been
when you have not been so : — Then when the " whole
world wondered that it was become Arian : " * then
when " Athanasius opposed the world, and the world
Athanasius : " then when your Liberius, having the
contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him
as a note of enor, answered for himself : "f " There was
^ a time when there were but three opposed the decree of
"^ the king, and yet those three were in the right, and the
^' rest in the -wrong : " then when the professors of error
surpassed the number of the professors of trath in propor
tion, as the sands of the sea do the stars of the heaven :
* HiEHONYMUS Contra Luciferianos.
f In Theodoreti Historia, lib. ii, c. 16.

448 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
(as St. Austin acknowledgeth :*) then when Vincen-
tius confesseth, " that the poison of the Arians had con
taminated, not now sorae certain portion, but almost the
whole world : " "j- then when the author of Nazianzen's
Life testifies, " that the heresy of Arius had possessed,
in a manner, the whole extent of the world ; " | and
when Nazianzen found cause to cry out, " Where are
they who reproach us with our poverty, who define the
church by the - raultitude, and despise the little flock ?
They have the people ; but we the faith : " § and,
lastly, when Athanasius was so overborne with shoals
and floods of Arians, that he was enforced to write a
treatise on purpose against those " who judge of the
truth only by plurality of adherents :" || — So' that if
you had proved want of universality, even thus restrained,
to be an infallible note of heresy, there would have
been no reraedy but you must have confessed, that the
tirae was when you were heretics. And besides, I see
not how you would have avoided this great inconveni
ence, of laying grounds and storing up arguments fot
antichrist, against he comes, by which he may prove his
company the true church. For it is evident out of
Scripture, and confessed by you, that, though his time
be not long, his dominion shall be very large ; and that
the true church shall be then " the woraan driven into
the wilderness."
XLV. To Sections xxv., xxvi. — You endea
vour to prove that the faith of Protestants is no faith,
being destitute of its due qualifications.
Objection. First, you s&y, their beUef wanteth cer
tainty, hecause they, denying the universal infallibility
ofthe church, can have no certain ground to know what
objects are revealed or testifled by God.
' In Ep. 48. ad Vincentium. -|- Commonitorii, lib. i. c. 4,
$ In VitS, Nax. % In Orat. Arian. et pro seipso. || Tom. 2.

THE NATURE OP FAITH, 449
Answer, But if there be no other ground of
certainty but your church's infallibility, upon what
certain ground do you know that your church is
infallible ? Upon what certain ground do you know
all those things which must be known before you
can know that your church is infallible ? as, that
there is a God ; that God hath proraised his assistance
to your church in all her decrees ; that the Scripture
wherein this promise is extant is the word of God ;
that those texts of Scripture which you allege for your
infallibility are inconupted ; that that which you pre
tend is the trae sense of them ! When you have pro
duced certain grounds for all these things, I doubt not
but it will appear, that we also may have grounds cer
tain enough to believe our whole religion, which is
nothing else but the Bible, without dependence on the
church's infallibility. Suppose you should meet with a.
man that, for the present, believes neither church, nor
Scripture, nor God, but is ready and wUling to believe
them all, if you can show some sufficient grounds to
build his faith upon ; will you tell such a raan, there
are no certain grounds by which he raay be converted,
or there are ? If you say the first, you raake all reli
gion an uncertain thing : if the second, then either you
must ridiculously persuade, that your church is infalli
ble, because it is infallible, or else that there are other
certain grounds besides your church's infaUibUity,
XLVI, Objection, The holy Scripture is in itself
most true and infallible ; hut without the direction and
declaration of the church we can neither have certain
means to know what Scripture is canonical, nor what
translations he faithful, nor what is the true meaning of
Scripture. Answer, But all these things must be known,
before we can know the direction of your church to be

450 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
infallible ; for no other proof of it can be pretended,
but only some texts of canonical Scripture, traly inter
preted ; therefore either you are mistaken in thinking
there is no other means to know these things but
your church's infallible direction, or we are excluded
from all means of knowing her direction to be
infallible. XLVII. Objection. But Protestants, though
they are persuaded their oum opinions are true, and
that they have used such m,eans as are wont to he pre
scribed for understanding the Scripture, as prayer, con
ferring of texts, 4"c. ; yd hy their disagreement show,
thaf some of them are deceived. Now they hold all the
articles of their faith upon this only ground of Scrip
ture, interprded hy these rules ; and therefore it is clear
that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point
at all.
Answer. The first of these suppositions must needs
be true ; but the second is apparently false : I mean,
that every Protestant is persuaded that he hath used
those means which are prescribed for understanding of
Scripture. But that which you collect from these sup
positions is clearly inconsequent ; and by as good logic
you might conclude, that logic and geometry stand upon
no certain grounds, that the rales of the one, and the
principles of the other, do soraetimes fail, because the
disagreement of logicians and geometricians show, that
some of thera are deceived. Might not a Jew conclude
as well against all Christians, that they have no certain
ground whereon to rely in their understanding of Scrip
ture, because their disagreements show that sorae are
deceived ; because sorae deduce frora it the infaUibUity
of a church, and others no such matter ? So likewise a
Turk might use the same argument against both Jews
and Christians, and an Atheist against all religions, and

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 451
a sceptic against all reason. Might not the one say,
" Men's disagreement in religion shows that there is no
certainty in any ;" and the other, that " experience of
their contradictions teacheth, that the rules of reason do
sometimes faU ? " Do not you see and feel how void of
reason and how full of irapiety your sophistry is ?
and how, transported with zeal against Protestants, you
urge arguments against them, which, if they could not
be answered, would overthrow not only your own, but
all religion ? But, God be thanked, the answer is easy
and obvious ! For let men but remeraber not to irapute
the faults of men but only to men, and then it wUl easily
appear, that there may be sufficient certainty in reason,
in religion, in the rules of interpreting Scripture, though
men, through their faults, take not care to make use of
them, and so run into divers errors and dissensions.
XLVIII. Objection. But Protestants cannot
determine what points he fundamental, and therefore
must remain uncertain, whether or no they be not in
some fundamental error.
Answer. By like reason, since you acknowledge
that every enor, in points defined and declared by your
church, destroys the substance of faith, and yet cannot
determine what points be defined, it followeth that you
must remain uncertain, whether or no you be not in
some fundamental enor, and so want the substance of
faith, without which there can be no hope of salvation.
But though we cannot perhaps say in particular,
" Thus rauch, and no raore, is fundamental," yet, believ
ing aU the Bible, we are certain enough that we believe
all that is fundamental. As he that in a receipt takes
twenty ingredients, whereof ten only are necessary ;
though he know not which those ten are, yet, taking
the whole twenty, he is sure enough that he has taken
all that are necessary.

452 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
XLIX, To Section xxix. — Objection. It is
generally delivered by catholic divines, that he who err-
eth against any one revealed truth, loseth all divine faith.
Now certainly some Protedants must do so, because they
hold contradictions, which cannot all be true. There
fore, some of them at least have no divine faith.
Answer. I pass by your weakness in urging Pro
testants with the authority of your divines. Yet if the
authority of your divines were even canonical, certainly
nothing could be concluded from it in this raatter, there
being not one of thera who delivers for trae doctrine
this position of yours, thus nakedly set down, that any
error against any one revealed truth destroys all divine
faith. For they all require (not yourself excepted)
that this trath raust not only be revealed, but revealed
publicly, and (all things considered) sufficiently pro
pounded to the erring party, to be one of those which
God, under pain of damnation, commands all men to
believe. But if the reader will be at the pains, he may see
this vain fancy confuted, out of one of the most
rational and profound doctors of your own church ; I
mean Estius, upon the third book of the Sentences,
beginning thus : " It is disputed whether, in hira who
¦< believes sorae of the articles of our faith, and disbe-
'' lieves others, or perhaps some one, there be faith, pro
perly so caUed, in respect of that which he does
believe." (Distinct, xxiii., sect. 13.)
L. But if Protestants liave certainty, they want
obscurity, and so have not that faith which, as the
apostle saith, is of things not appearing. This argu
ment you prosecute in the next paragraph ; but I can
find nothing in it to convince or persuade me that
Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required
to faith, of an object not so evident as to beget science.

the nature of faith.

453

If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the high
est degree, then you are to blame for requiring to faith
contradicting conditions. If certainty and obscurity
will stand together, what reason can be imagined that a
Protestant raay not entertain them both as well as a
Papist ? Your bodies and souls, your understandings
and wUls, are, I think, of the same condition with ours :
and why then may not we be certain of an obscure
thing as well as you ?
LI. But then besides, I am to tell you, that you are
here, as everywhere, extreraely, if not affectedly, rais
taken in the doctrine of Protestants ; who, though they
acknowledge that the things which they believe are in
theraselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible
verities, yet pretend not that their certainty of adher
ence is most perfect and absolute, but such as may be
perfected and increased as long as they " walk by faith,
and not by sight." And consonant hereunto is their
doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto
they adhere. For you abuse the world and them, if
you pretend that they hold the first of your two princi
ples, that " these particular books are the word of God,"
(for so I think you mean,) either to be in itself evi
dently certain, or, of itself, and being divested of the
motives of credibility, evidently credible : for they are
not so fond as to be ignorant, nor so vain as to pretend,
that all men do assent to it, which they would if it were
evidently certain ; nor so ridiculous as to imagine, that
if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture
should by chance find a Bible in his own language, and
were able to read it, that upon the reading it he would
certainly, without a miracle, believe it to be the word of
God ; which he could not [but] choose if it were evidently
credible. What then do they affirm of it ? Certainly
no more than this, that whatsoever man that is not of a"

454 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
perverse mind shall weigh, with serious and mature
deliberation, those great moraents of reason which may
incline him to beUeve the divine authority of Scripture,
and compare them with the light objections that in
pradence can be made against it, he shall not choose
but find sufficient, nay, abundant, induceraents to yield
unto it firra faith and sincere obedience. Let that
learned raan, Hugo Grotius, speak for all the rest, in
his book, " Of the Truth of Christian Religion ; " which
book whosoever attentively peruses shall find, that a
man may have great reason to be a Christian without
dependence upon your church for any part of it : and
that your religion is no foundation of, but rather a
scandal and an objection against, Christianity. He
then, in the last chapter of his second book, hath these
excellent words : " If any be not satisfied with these
"¦ arguments abovesaid, but desires more forcible reasons
'' for confirmation of the excellency of Christian religion,
'¦' let such know, that as there are variety of things which
¦¦' be true, so there are divers ways of proving or raanifest-
'¦' ing the truth. Thus is there one way in raatheraatics,
^- another in physics, a third in ethics, and lastiy, another
^' kind when a raatter of fact is in question; wherein,
'¦' verily, we raust rest content with such testimonies as are
'¦' free from all suspicion of untruth ; otherwise, down
', goes all the frarae and use of history, and a great part
¦' of the art of physic, together with all dutifulness that
<r ought to be between parents and children : for
'< matters of practice can no way else be kno-wn but by
¦¦, such testimonies. Now it is the pleasure of Almighty
'i God, that those things which he would have us to
c, believe (so that the very belief thereof raay be iraputed
'' to us for obedience) should not so evidently appear, as
'' those things which are apprehended by sense and plain
'I demonstration, but only be so far forth revealed as may

THE NATURE OF FAITH. 455
t
'' beget faith, and a persuasion thereof, in the hearts and
'' minds of such as are not obstinate : that so the gospel
"¦¦- may be as a touchstone for trial of raen's judgraents,
<> whether they be sound or unsound. For seeing these
'< arguments, whereof we have spoken, have induced so
<-, many honest, godly, and wise men to approve of this
f religion, it is thereby plain enough, that the fault of
¦-r other men's infidelity is not for want of sufficient testi-
•r mony, but because they would not have that to be had
r, and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilful
<•, desires ; it being a hard matter for them to relinquish
'i their honours, and set at nought other commodities ;
r, which thing they know they ought to do, if they admit
r, of Christ's doctrine, and obey what he hath commanded.
<-r And this is the rather to be noted of thera, for that
'f many other historical narrations are approved by them
<¦- to be true, which, notwithstanding, are only manifest by
'¦' authority, and not by any such strong proofs, and per-
<? suasions, or tokens, as do declare the history of Christ
', to be trae ; which are evident, partly by the confession
<-, of those Jews that are yet alive ; and partly in those
<> companies and congregations of Christians which are
5 anywhere to be found; whereof doubtless there was
'"' some cause. Lastly, seeing the long duration or con-
'' tinuance of Christian religion, and the large extent
', thereof, can be ascribed to no huraan power ; therefore
', the sarae must be attributed to miracles. Or if any
'• deny-that it came to pass through a miraculous manner ;
'' this very getting so great strength and power without a
" miracle, may be thought to surpass any miracle."
LII. And now you see, I hope, that Protestants
neither do nor need to pretend to any such evidence in
the doctrine they beUeve, as cannot well consist both
with the essence and the obedience of faith. Let us
come now to the last nullity which you irapute to the

456 TSE NATURE OP FAITH.
faith of Protestants ; and that is want of prudence.
Touching which point, as I have already deraonstrated
that wisdom is not essential to faith, but that a man
may truly believe trath, though upon insufficient
motives ; so I doubt not but I shall make good, that if
pradence were necessary to faith, we have better titie to
it than you ; and that if a wiser than Soloraon were here,
he should have better reason to believe the religion of
Protestants than Papists, the Bible rather than the
CouncU of Trent. But let us hear what you can say.
LIII. To Section xxxi. — You deraand then, first
of all. What wisdom was it to forsake a church, con
fessedly very ancient, and besides which there could be
demondrated no other visible church of Christ upon earth?
I answer : Against God and trath there lies no prescrip
tion ; and, therefore, certainly it might be great wis
dom to forsake ancient errors for more ancient traths.
One God is rather to be followed than innumerable
worlds of men. And therefore it might be great wis
dora, either for the whole visible church, nay, for all the
men in the world, ha'ving wandered from the way of
truth, to return unto it ; or for a part of it, nay, for one
raan, to do so, although all the world besides were madly
resolute to do the contrary. It might be great wisdom
to forsake the enors, though of the only visible church,
much raore the Roraan, — which, in conceiving herself
the whole visible church, does somewhat like the frog in
the fable, which thought the ditch he lived in to be aU
the world.
LIV. You demand again. What wisdom was it to
forsake a church, acknowledged to want nothing neces
sary to sahation, endued with succession of bishops,
^c, usque ad election or choice ? I answer : Yet might
it be great wisdom to forsake a church not acknow
ledged to want nothing necessary to salvation, but

TSX nature of faith; 457
accused and convicted of many damnable errors ; cer
tainly damnable to thera who were convicted of thera,
had they still persisted in them after their conviction ;
though perhaps pardonable (which is all that is acknow
ledged) to such as ignorantiy continued in thera : — a
church, vainly anogating, without possibility of proof, a
perpetual succession of bishops, holding always the
sarae doctrine ; and, with a ridiculous impudence, pre
tending perpetual possession of all the world ; whereas
the world knows, that, a little before Luther's arising,
your church was confined to a part of a part of it : —
lastly, a church vainly glorying in the dependence of
other churches npon her, which yet she supports no
more than those crouching antics, which seem in great
buUdings to labour under the weight they bear, do
indeed support the fabric. For a corrapted and false
church may give authority to preach the truth, and con
sequently against her o-wn falsehoods aud corruptions.
Besides, a false church raay preserve the Scripture true, •
(as now the Old Testament is preserved by the Jews,)
either not being anived to that height of impiety as to
attempt the corruption of it, or not able to effect it, or
not perceiving, or not regarding, the opposition of it to
her corraptions. And so we might receive from you
lawful ordination and true Scriptures, though you were
a false church ; and, receiving the Scriptures frora vou,
though not frora you alone, I hope you cannot hinder
us, neither need we ask your leave, to believe and obe-v
them. And this, though you be a false church, is
enough to make us a true one. As for a succession of
men that held with us in all points of doctrine, it is a
thing we need not ; and you have as littie as we. So
that if we acknowledge that your church before Luther
was a true church, it is not for any ends, for any
dependence that we have upon you ; but because we
X

458 THE nature of faith.
conceive, that, in a charitable constmction, you may
pass for a true church ; such a church, and no better,
as you do sometimes acknowledge Protestants to be ;
that is, a company of men, wherein some ignorant souls
may be saved. So that in this balancing of religion
against reUgion, and church against church, it seems
you have nothing of weight and moraent to put into
your scale ; nothing but smoke and wind, vain shadows
and fantastical pretences. Yet, if Protestants, on the
other side, had nothing to put in their scale but those
negative commendations which you are pleased to afford
them ; — nothing but, no unity, nor means to procure it ;
no farther extent when Luther arose, than Luther''s
body ; no universality of time or place ; no visibility
or being, except only in your church ; no succession of
persons or doctrine ; no leader hut Luther, in a quarrel
begun upon no ground hut passion ; no church, no ordi
nation, no Scriptures, hut such as they received from
you ; — if all this were trae, and this were aU that could
be pleaded for Protestants, possibly, with an aUowance
of three grains of partiaUty, your scale inight seem to
tum. But then, if it may appear that part of these
objections are falsely made against thera, the rest
vainly; that whatsoever of trath is in these impu
tations is impertinent to this trial, and whatsoever is
pertinent is untrae ; and, besides, that plenty of good
matter may be alleged for Protestants which is here
dissembled; — then, I hope, our cause may be good,
notwithstanding these pretences.
LV. I say, then, that want of unicersality of time
and place ; the invisibility or not-existence of the pro
fessors of Protestant doctr'me before Luther; Luther's
being alone when he flrst opposed your church ; onr
having our church, ordinations. Scriptures, personal,
and yet not doctrinal, succession from you ; are vain

TBE NATURE OP FAITH. 459
and impertinent allegations against the truth of our
doctrine and church. That the entire truth of Christ,
without any raixture of enor, should be professed or t
believed in all places at any tirae, or in any place at all j
times, is not a thing evident in reason, neither have we
any revelation for it. And, therefore, in relying so
confidently on it, you buUd your house upon the sand.
And what obligation we had either to be so peevish as
to take nothing of yours, or so foolish as to take all, I
do not understand. For, whereas you say that this is
to he choosers, and, therefore, herdics ; I tell you, that ^
though all heretics are choosers, yet aU choosers are not '
heretics; otherwise, they also which choose your reli- '•
gion must be heretics. As for our wanting unity and
means of proving if ; Luther s opposing your church
upon mere passion ; our following private men rather
than ihe catholic church ; the first and last are mere
untraths ; for we want not unity, nor means to procure
it in things necessary. Plain places of Scripture, and-
such as need no interpreter, are our means to obtain it.
Neither do we follow any private men, but only the
Scripture, — the word of God, — as our rale ; and reason,
which is also the gift of God, given to direct us in all
our actions, in the use of this rule. And then for '
Luther'' s opposing your chwrch upon mere passion, it is
a thing I -wUl not deny, because I know not his heart ;
and for the same reason you should not have affirmed 5
it. Sure I am, whether he opposed your church upon
reason, or no, he had reason enough to oppose it.
And, therefore, if he did it upon passion, we wUl follow
him only in his action, and not in his passion ; in his
opposition, not in the manner of it ; and then, I
presume, you will have no reason to condemn us ;
unless you wUl say, that a good action cannot be done
with reason, because somebody before us hath done it
X 2

460 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
upon passion. You see, then, how imprudent you-
bave been in the choice of your arguments, to prove
Protestants unwise in the choice of their religion.
LVI. It remains now that I should show, that many
reasons of moment may be alleged for the justification
of Protestants, which are dissembled by you, and not
put into the balance. Know, then. Sir, that when I
say, the religion of Protestants is, in prudence, to be
prefened before yours, as, on the one side, I do not
understand by your religion the doctrine of BeUarmine,.
or Baronius, or any other private man amongst you;
nor the doctrine of the Sorbonne, or of the Jesuits, or of
the Dominicans, or of any other particular company
among you ; but that wherein you all agree, or profess
to agree, — the doctrine of the Council of Trent : so,
accordingly, on the other side, by the religion of Pro
testants, I do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or
Calvin, or Melancthon; nor the Confession of Augusta,
or Geneva ; nor the Catechism of Heidelberg ; nor the
Articles of the Church of England ; no, nor the Har
mony of Protestant Confessions ; but that wherein they
all agree, and which they aU subscribe, with a greater
harraony, as a perfect rule of their faith and actions,
that is, — the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only,-
is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever else they
believe besides it, and the plain, inefragable, indubita
ble consequences of it, well may they hold it as a
matter of opinion ; but as matter of faith and religion,
neither can they, with coherence to their own grounds,
believe it theraselves, nor require the belief of it of
others, without most high and most schismatical pre
suraption. I, for my part, after a long and, as I verily
believe and hope, impartial search of the trae way to
eternal happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find
any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock

THE STATURE OF FAITH. 461
tiuly. I see plainly, and with mine own eyes, that
there are Popes against Popes, CouncUs against Coun
cUs, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers
against themselves, a consent of Fathers of one age
against a consent of Fathera of another age, the church
of one age against the church of another age. Tra-
¦ditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended, but
there are few or none to be found : no tradition but
-only of Scripture can derive itself frora the fountain,
but may be plainly proved either to have been brought
in in such au age after Christ, or that in such an age
it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient cer
tainty but of Scripture only for any considering man
to buUd upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have
reason to believe : this I will profess ; according to this
I will live ; and for this, if there be occasion, I will not
only willingly, but even gladly, lose my life, though I
should be sony that Christians should take it from me.
Propose me any thing out of this book, and require
¦whether I believe it, or no ; and, seem it never so
¦incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it
with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can
be stronger than this, — " God hath said so ; therefore, it
is true," In other things, I will take no man's liberty
of judgment from him, neither shall any man take mine
from me ; I wUl think no man the worse man, nor the
worse Christian, I wUl love no man the less, for differ
ing in opinion from me; and what measure I mete
to others I expect from them again, I am fully
assured that God does not, and, therefore, that men
¦ought not to, require any more of any man than this, 
to believe the Scripture to be God's word, to endea
vour to find the true sense of it, and to live according
to it.LVII. This is the religion which I have chosen

462 THE NATUKE OF FAITH.
after a long deliberation ; and I am verily persuaded
that I have chosen wisely, much more wisely than if I
had guided myself according to your church's authority.
For, the Scripture being all true, I ara secured, by
believing nothing else, that I shall believe no falsehood
as matter of faith. And if I mistake the sense of
Scripture, and so fall into enor, yet ara I secure from
any danger thereby, if but your grounds be true;
because, endeavouring to find the trae sense of Scrip
ture, I cannot but hold ray enor without pertinacy,
and be ready to forsake it when a more trae and a
more probable sense shaU appear unto me. And then,
all necessary truth being, as I have proved, plainly set
down in Scripture, I am certain, by believing Scripture,
to believe all necessary truth : and he that does so, if
his life be answerable to his faith, how is it possible he
should fail of salvation ?
LVIII. Besides, whatsoever may be pretended to
gain to your church the credit of a guide, aU that, and
much more, may be said for the Scripture. Hath your
church been ancient ? The Scripture is more ancient.
Is your church a means to keep men at unity ? So is
the Scripture, to keep those that beUeve it, and wiU
obey it, in unity of belief in matters necessary, or very
profitable, and in unity of charity in points unne
cessary. Is your church universal for time or place .''
Certainly the Scripture is more universal. For, all the
Christians in the world (those, I mean, that in trath
deserve this name) do now and always have believed
the Scripture to be the word of God : whereas only you
say, that you only are the church of God, and all
Christians beside you deny it.
LIX. Thirdly. FoUowing the Scripture, I follow
that whereby you prove your church's infaUibUity;
(whereof, were it not for Scripture, what pretence could

THE NATURE OF FAITH.

463

you have ? or what notion could we have ?) and, by so
doing, tacitly confess, that yourselves are surer of the
truth of the Scripture, than of your church's authority.
For we must be surer of the proof than of the thing
proved ; otherwise, it is no proof.
LX. Fourthly. FoUowing the Scripture, I follow
that which must be true, if your church be trae ; for
your church gives attestation to it. Whereas, if I
follow your church, I must follow that which, though
Scripture be true, may be false ; nay, which, if Scrip
ture be true, must be false, because the Scripture testi
fies against it.
LXI. Fifthly. To follow the Scriptme, I have
God's express warrant and comraand, and no colour of
any prohibition ; but to believe your church infaUible,
I have no command at all, much less an express com
mand. Nay, I have reason to fear that I am pro
hibited to do so in these words : " Call no man master
on earth." " They fell by infideUty ; thou standest by
faith. Be not high-minded, but fear." " The Spirit
of truth the worid cannot receive,"
LXII. FoUowing your church, I must hold many
things not only above reason, but against it, if any
thing be against it ; whereas following the Scripture, I
shall believe many mysteries, but no impossibilities ;
many things above reason, but nothing against it;
many things which, had they not been revealed, reason
could never have discovered, but nothing which by true
reason may be confuted; many things which reason
cannot comprehend how they can be, but nothing whioh
reason can comprehend that it cannot be. Nay, I
shaU believe nothing which reason wUl not convince
that I ought to believe it. For, reason -wiU convince
any man, unless he be of a perverse mind, that the
Scripture is the word of God : and then no reason can

464 THE NATURE OF FAITH'.
be greater than this, — " God says so ; therefore, it is
true," LXIII. FoUowing your church, I must hold many
things which, to any raan's judgment that will give him
self the liberty of judgment, will seera much more
plainly contradicted by Scripture, than the infaUibUity
of your church appears to be confirmed by it ; and,
consequently, must be so foolish as to believe your
pliurch exempted frora error upon less evidence, rather
than subject to the coraraon condition of raankind upon
greater evidence. Now, if I take the Scripture only
for ray guide, I shaU not need to do any thing so
unreasonable. LXIV. If I will follow your church, I must beUeve
impossibilities, and that with an absolute certainty,
upon raotives which are confessed to be but only
prudential and probable ; that is, with a weak foun^
dation, I must firmly support a heavy, a monstrous
heavy, building. Now, following the Scripture, I shaU
have no necessity to undergo any such difficulties.
LXV. Following your church, I must be a servant of
Christ, and a subject ofthe king, but only ad placitum
Papce ; * I must be prepared in mind to renounce my
allegiance to the king, when the Pope shall declare him
a heretic, and command me not to obey him ; and
I must be prepared in mind " to esteem virtue vice,
and vice virtue, if the Pope shall so determine."
Indeed, you say it is irapossible he should do the
latter. But that you know is a great question ; neither
is it fit ray obedience to God and the king should
depend upon a questionable foundation. And, how
soever, you must grant, that if by an impossible
supposition the Pope's comraands should be contitiry
• "At tlie pleasure of the pope."  Edit. ;

¦TH'E NATURE OF FAITH. 465
to the law of Christ, that they of your religion must
resolve to obey rather the comraands of the Pope than
the law of Christ. Whereas if I follow the Scripture,
I may, nay, I must, obey my sovereign in lawful things,
though a heretic, though a tyrant ; and though— 7-I do
not say the Pope, but — the apostles themselves, nay,
" an angel from heaven, should teach any thing against
the gospel of Christ," I may, nay, I must, denounce
anathema to him.
. LXVI. FoUowing the Scripture, I shall believe a
reUgion, which, being contrary to flesh and blood, with
out any assistance frora worldly power, wit, or policy,
nay, against all the power and policy of the world, pre
vailed and enlarged itself in a very short tirae all the
world over. Whereas it is too, too apparent, that your
church hath got and still maintains her authority over
men's consciences, by counterfeiting false miracles,
forging false stories, by obtruding on the world suppo
sititious writings, by corrupting the monuments of for-.
mer times, and defacing out of them all which any way
makes against you, by wars, by persecutions, by massa
cres, by treasons, by rebellions ; in short, hy all man
ner of carnal means, whether violent or fraudulent.
LXVII, FoUowing the Scripture, I shall believe a
religion, the first preachers or professors whereof, it is
most certain, could have no worldly ends upon the
world ; that they could not project to themselves by it
any of the profits, or honours, or pleasures of this
worid, but rather were to expect the contrary, even all
the, miseries which the world could lay upon them.
On the other side, the head of your church, the- pre
tended successor of the apostles and guide of faith, it
is even palpable that he makes your religion the in
strument of his ambition, and by it seeks to entitie
himself, directly or indirectiyj to tiie monarchy of the
X 5

466 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
world. And, besides, it is evident to any man that has
but half an eye, that most of those doctrines which you
add to the Scripture do make, one way or other,
for the honour or temporal profit of the teachers of
them. LXVIII. FoUowing the Scripture only, I shall
embrace a religion of admirable simplicity, consisting,
in a manner, wholly in the worship of God in spirit and
truth. Whereas your church and doctrine is even
loaded with an infinity of weak, chUdish, ridiculous,
unsavoury superstitions and ceremonies, and full of
that " righteousness " for which " Christ shall judge
the world."
LXIX. Following the Scripture, I shall beUeve that
which universal, never-failing tradition assures me, — >
that it was by tbe admirable supematural works of God
confirmed to be the word of God : whereas never any
miracle was wrought, never so much as a lame horse
cured, in confirraation of your church's authority and
infallibility. And, if any strange things have been
done, which may seera to give attestation to some parts
of your doctrine, yet this proves nothing but the truth
of the Scripture, which foretold that (God's providence
permitting it, and the wickedness of the world deserv
ing it) " strange signs and wonders should be -wrought
to confirm false doctrine, that they which love not the
trath may be given over to strange delusions." Nei
ther does it seem to me any strange thing, that God
should permit sorae trae wonders to be done, to delude
them who have forged so many to deceive the world.
LXX, If I follow the Scripture, I must not promise
myself salvation without effectual dereliction and morti
fication of all vices, and the effectual practice of all
Cliristian virtues : but your church opens an easier and
a broader way to heaven ; and though I continue, all

THE NATURE OF FAITHi 467
my life long, in a course of sin, and without the prac
tice of any virtue, yet gives me assurance that I may be
let into heaven, at a postern-gate, even by any act of
attrition at the hour of death, if it be joined with con
fession, or by an act of contrition without confes
sion. LXXI. Admirable are the precepts of piety and
humUity, of innocence and patience, of liberality, fru
gality, temperance, sobriety, justice, meekness, forti
tude, constancy, and gravity, contempt of the world,
love of God, and the love of mankind, in a word, of
all virtues, and against all vice, which the Scriptures
impose upon us to be obeyed under pain of damnation :
the sum whereof is in manner comprised in our Sa^-
viour's sennon upon the mount, recorded in Matthew
v., vi., and vii. ; which if they were generally obeyed,
could not but make the world generally happy, and the
goodness of them alone were sufficient to make any
wise and good man believe that this religion, rather
than any other, came from God, the fountain of all
goodness. And that they may be generally obeyed,
our Saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his
sermon, with these universal sanctions : " Not every
one that saith. Lord, Lord, shaU enter into the kingdom^
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven : " and again, " Whosoever heareth these sayings
of mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a
foolish man which built his house upon the sand ; and
the rain descended, and the flood came, and the winds
blew, and it feU, and great was the fall thereof." Now
your church, notwithstanding all this, enervates, and, in
a manner, dissolves and abrogates, many of these pre
cepts, teaching men that they are not laws for all Chris
tians, but counsels of perfection, and matters of super
erogation ; that a man shall do weU if he do observe

468 The nature oF Paitit;
them, but he shall not sin if he observe them not; thai
they are for thera who aim at high places in heaven,
who aspire, with the two sons of Zebedee, to the right
hand or to the left hand of Christ ; but if a man wiU be
content barely to go to heaven, and to be a door-keeper
in the house of God, especially if he wUl be content to
taste of purgatory in the way, he may obtain it at
an easier purchase. Therefore, the religion of your
church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrine
of Christ delivered in Scripture ; and, therefore, not
so likely to come from the fountain of hoUness and
goodness, LXXII, Lastly. If I follow your church for iny
guide, I shall do all one as if I should follow a com
pany of blind men in a judgment of colours, or in
the choice of a way. For every unconsidering man is
blind in that which he does not consider. Now what
is your church but a company of unconsidering men,
who comfort themselves because they are a great com
pany together ? but all of them, either out of idleness
refuse the trouble of a severe trial of thefr religion,
(as if heaven were not worth it,) or out of superstition
fear the event of such a trial, that they may be scra-
pled, and staggered, and disquieted by it ; and, there
fore, for the most part do it not at all. Or if they do
it, they do it negligently, and hypocritically, and per
functorily, rather for the satisfaction of others than
theraselves : but certainly without indifference, without
liberty of judgraent, without a resolution to doubt of
it, if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncer
tain, or to leave it, if they prove apparently false. My
own experience assures me, that in this iraputation I do
you no injury : but it is very apparent to all raen, from
your ranking doubting of any part of your dodrine
among raortal sins. For from hence it follows, thatj

THE Nature of faitk-

4e»

Seeing every man must resolve that he wUl never com
mit mortal sin, that he must never examine the grounds
of it at all, for fear he should be moved to doubt ; or
if he do, he must resolve that no motives, be they
never so strong, shaU move him to doubt, but that with
his wiU and resolution he wUl uphold himself in a firm
belief of your reUgion, though his reason and his un
derstanding faU hira ; and seeing this is the condition
of aU those whom you esteera good catholics, who cau
deny but you are a company of raen unwilling and
afraid to understand, lest you should do good f that
have eyes to see and wiU not see, that have "not
the love of truth," (which is only to be known by an
indifferent trial,) and, therefore, deserve "to be given
over to strong delusions;" men that love darkness
more tiian light ; in a word, that you are " the blind
leading the blind ? " And what prudence there can be, in
foUowing such guides, our Saviour hath taught us in
saying, " If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall
into the ditch."
LXXIV. To Section xxxii. — Your next and
last argument against the faith of Protestants is, — ^be
cause wanting certainty and prudence, it must also
want the fourth condition, supernaturality. For,
that being a human persuasion, it is nof in the essence
of it supernatural ; and, heing imprudent and rash, if
cannot proceed from Divine motion, and so is not super
natural in respect ofthe cause from which it proceeddh.
Answer. This little discourse stands whoUy upon \
what went before, and, therefore, must fall together ;
with it. I have proved the faith of Protestants as cer- s
tain and as prudent as the faith of Papists ; and,
therefore, if these be certain grounds of supernaturality,
our faith may have it as well as yours. I would here
furthermore be informed, how you can. assure us that

470 THE NATURE OF FAITHi
your faith is not your persuasion or opinion, (for you
make thera all one,) that your church's doctrine is true ?
or, if you grant it your persuasion, why is it not the
persuasion of men, and in respect of the subject of it,
an human persuasion ? I desfre also to know, what
sense there is in pretending that your persuasion is, not
in regard of the object only and cause of it, but in
nature or essence of it, supematural ? Lastiy : Whereas
you say, that, being imprudent, if cannot come from
.Divine motion ; certainly by this reason all they that
believe your own religion, and cannot give a wise and
sufficient reason for it, as miUions amongst you cannot,
must be condemned to have no supematural faith ; or,
if not, then without question nothing can hinder but
that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed
from Divine motion, as well as the imprudent faith of
Papists. LXXV. And thus having weighed your whole dis
course, and found it altogether lighter than vanity, why
should I not invert your conclusion, and say ? — "Seeing
you have not proved that whosoever ens against any
one point of faith loseth all Divine faith ; nor that any
enor whatsoever concerning that which by the parties
litigant may be esteeraed a matter of faith, is a grievous
sin ; it follows not at aU, that when two men hold dif
ferent doctrines concerning religion, that but one can
be saved." Not that I deny but that the sentence of
St. Chrysostom, with which you conclude this chapter,
may, in a good sense, be trae ; for oft-times by " the
faith " is meant only that doctrine which is necessary to
salvation ; and to say that " salvation may be had with
out any the least thing which is necessary to salvation,"
implies a repugnance, and destroys itself. Besides, not
to believe all necessary points, and to believe none at all,
is, for the purpose of salvation, all one ; and, therefore,

SAFETY OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION. 471
he that does so may justiy be said to destroy the
gospel of Christ, seeing he makes it uneffectual to the
end for which it was intended, the salvation of men's
souls. But why you should conceive that aU differences
about reUgion are concerning matters of faith, in this
high notion of the word, for that I conceive no rea
son.

CHAPTER VIL
THE ANSWER TO THE SEVENTH CHAPTER,
Bhming that Protestants are not hound, hy ihe charity which
thm/ awe to themselves, to re-unite themsehes to the Roman
Church,
VI. To Section ii. — Whereas you say, It is
diredly against charity to oursehes, to adventure the
omitting of any means necessary to salvation, this is .
true : but so is this also, that it is directly against the .
same charity, to adventure the omitting any thing, that
may any way help or conduce to ray salvation, that may
make the way to it more secure or less dangerous. And
therefore, if the errors of the Roman church do but
hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, I am, in
charity to myself, bound to forsake them, though they
be not destructive of it. Again : whereas you conclude,
that if, hy living out of the Boman church, we put our
sehes in hazard to want somdhing necessary to salva
tion, we commit a grievous sin against fhe virtue of
charity as it respects oursehes : this consequence may
be good in those which are thus persuaded of the Ro
man church, and yet live out of it. But the supposi
tion is certainly false. We may live and die out of

472 THE RELIGION OP PE0TESTA>)*9 ^
the Roman church, without putting ourselves in any
such hazard ; nay, to live and die in it is as dangerous
as to shoot a gulf; which though some good ignorant
souls may do and escape, yet it may well be feared that
not one in a hundred but miscarries.
VII. To Section sc— In this section I observe,
first, this acknowledgment of yours, that in things
necessary only because commanded, a probable igno
rance of the commandment excuses fhe party from all
fault, and doth not exclude salvation. From which
doctrine it seeras to me to follow, that seeing obedience
to the Roman church cannot be pretended to be nece,s-
sary, bat only because it is commanded, therefore not
only an invincible, but even a probable, ignorance of
this pretended command must excuse us from all
faulty breach of it, and cannot exclude salvation.
Now, seeing this command is not pretended to be
expressly delivered, but only to be deduced from the
word of God, and that not by the raost clear and evi«
dent consequences that may be ; and, seeing an infi
nity of great objections lies against it, which seem
strongly to prove that there is no such command ; with
what charity can you suppose that our ignorance of
this command is not at the least probable, if not (all
things considered) plainly invincible ? Sure I am, for
my part, that I have done my true endeavour to find it
true, and am still willing to do so ; but the more I
seek, the ferther I am from finding; and therefore if
it be true, certainly my not finding it is very excusable,
and you have reason to be very charitable in your cen
sures of me. 2. Whereas you say, that besides these
things, necessary because commanded, there are other
things, which are commanded because necessary : of
which number you make Divine, infallible faith, bap
tism in aot for children, and in desire for those wh

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 473
are come to the use of reason, and the sacrament of
confession for those who have committed mortal sin : in
these words you seem to me to deliver a strange para
dox ; namely, that faith, and baptism, and confession
are not therefore necessary for us because God ap
pointed them, but are therefore appointed by God be
cause they were necessary for us antecedently to his
appointment ; which if it were true, I wonder what it was
beside God that made them necessary, and made it
necessary for God to command them. Besides, in
making faith one of these necessary means, you seem to
exclude infants from salvation ; for " faith comes by
hearing," and they have not heard. In requfring that
this faith should be divine and infaUible, you cast your
credentes into infinite perplexity, who cannot possibly,
by any sure raark, discem whether thefr faith be Divine
or human ; or if you have any certain sign, whereby
they may discem whether they believe your church's
infaUibUity with Divine or only with human faith, I
pray, produce it, for perhaps it may serve us to show
that otu faith is Divine as well as yours. Moreover, in
afllrming that baptism in act is necessary for infants,
and for men only in desire, you seem to me in the lat
ter to destroy the foundation of the former. For if a
liesire of baptism wUl serve men instead of baptism,
then those words of our Saviour, " Unless a man be
bom again of water," &c., are not to be understood
literaUy and rigidly of extemal baptism ; for a desire of
baptism is not baptism, and so your foundation of the
absolute necessity of baptism is destroyed. And if
you may gloss the text so far, as that men may be
saved by the desfre, without baptism itself, because
they cannot have it, why should you not gloss it a Ut
ile ferther, that there may be some hope of the salva-

474 THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
tion of unbaptized infants ? to whom it was more
impossible to have a desire of baptism, than for the
forraer to have the thing itself. Lastly : For your
sa/yra/ment of confession, we know none such, nor any
such absolute necessity of it. They that confess their
sins and forsake thera, shall find mercy, though they
confess thera to God only, and not to men. They
that confess them both to God and men, if they do not
effectuaUy and in time forsake them, shall not find
mercy. 3. Whereas you say, that, supposing these
means once appointed as ahsolutdy necessary to salva
tion, there cannot hut arise an obligation of procuring
to ha/ee them, you must suppose, I hope, that we know
them to be so appointed, and that it is in our power to
procure them ; otherwise, though it may be our Ul
fortune to fail of the end, for want of the means, cer
tainly we cannot be obliged to procure them. For the
rule of the law is also the dictate of common reason and
equity, that no man can be obUged to what is impos
sible. We can be obliged to nothing but by virtue of
some command ; now, it is impossible that God
should comraand in earnest any thing which he knows
to be impossible. For, to coraraand in earnest, is to
command with an intent to be obeyed ; which is not
possible he should do, when he knows the thing com
manded to be impossible. Lastly : Whosoever is
obliged to do any thing, and does it not, commits a
fault ; but infants commit no fault, in not procuring to
have baptism ; therefore, no obligation Ues upon them
to procure it. 4. Whereas you say, that if Protest
ants dissent from you in the point of the necessity of
baptism for infants, it cannot he denied hut that our
disagreement is in a point fundamental. If you
mean a point esteemed so by you, this, indeedj

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 475
cannot be denied; but if you mean a point that
indeed is fimdamental, this may certainly be denied ; for
I deny it, and say, that it doth not appear to me any
way necessaiy to salvation, to hold the truth, or not to
hold an error, touching the condition of these infents.
This is certain : and we must believe that God -wUl not
deal unjustiy -with them ; but how in particular he -wUl
deal -with them, concems not us, and, therefore, we need
not much regard it. 5. "Whereas you say the Uke of
your sacrament of penance ; you only say so, but your
proofe are wanting. Lastiy : Whereas you say, This
rigour ought not to seem strange or unjust in God ; hut
that we are rather to bless him for ordaining us to scdva-
tion by any means ; I answer, that it is true, we are
not to question the known -wUl of God of injustice ;
yet, whether that which you pretend to be God's wUl
be so indeed, or only your presumption, this I hope
may be questioned lawfuUy and -without presumption.
And if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind
of Ezekiel's commination against aU those who say,
"Thus saith the Lord," when they have no certain
wanant or authority fiom him to do so.
^ III. To Section iv. — In the fourth paragraph,
you deUver this false and wicked doctrine : that for the
procuring our own sedvation we are always bound,
under pain of mortal sin, to take the safest way, but
for axoiding sin we are not bound to do so, but may
follow the (pinion of any probable dodors, though the
contrary may be certainly fiee from sin, and theirs be
doubtiul. Which doctrme, in the former part of it, is
apparently fsdse: for tiiough wisdom and charity to
ourselves would persuade ns always to do so, yet, many
tunes, that way, which to ourselves and our salvation is
more fiiU of hazard, is, notwitiistandfaig, not only lawfiil,
hut more charitable and more noble. For example : to

476 THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
fly from a persecution, and so to avoid the temptation
of it, may be the safer way for a man's own salvation ;
yet, I presurae no man ought to conderan him of im
piety who should resolve not to use his liberty in this
matter, but, for God's greater glory, the greater honour
of truth, and the greater confirmation of his brethren
in the faith, [should] choose to stand out the storm
and endure the fiery trial, rather than avoid it ; rather
to put his own soul to the hazard of a temptation, in
hope of God's assistance to go through with it, than to
balk the opportunity of ¦doing God and his brethren
so great a service. This part, therefore, of this doc
trine is manifestly untrue. The other not only felscj
but impious ; for therein you plainly give us to under
stand, that, in your judgment, a resolution to avoid siu,
to the utterraost of our power, is no necessary raeans of
salvation ; nay, that a man may resolve not to do so^
without any danger of damnation. Therein you teach
us, that we are to do more for the love of ourselves
and our own happiness, than for the love of God; and,
in so doing, contradict our Saviour, who expressly
commands us " to love the Lord our God with aU our
heart, with all our soul, and with all our strength;"
and hath taught us, that the love of God consists
in avoiding sin, and "keeping his commandments."
Therein you dfrectly cross St. Paul's doctrine, who,
though he were a very probable doctor, and had deli
vered, his judgraent for the " lawfolness of eating meats
offered to idols ;" yet he assures us, that he which
should make scruple of doing so, and forbear upon his
scruple, should not sin, but only be "a weak bro
ther ;" whereas he who should do it with a doubtful
conscience (though the action were by St. Paul wa>
ranted lawful, yet) " should sin, and be condemned
for so doing." You pretend, indeed, to be rigid

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 477-
defenders and stout charapions for the necessity of good
works ; but the truth is, " you speak lies in hypo
crisy ;" and, when the matter is well examined, wUl
appear to raake yourselves and your own functions
necessary, but obedience to God unnecessary; which
will appear to any man, who considers what strict
necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men, of effec
tual mortification of the habits of all vices, and effectual
conversion to newness of life and universal obedience,
and withal reraerabers that an act of attrition, which,
you say, with priestly absolution is sufficient to salva
tion, is not mortification, which, being a work of diffi
culty and time, cannot be performed in an instant.
But, for the present, it appears sufficiently out of this
impious assertion, which makes it absolutely necessary
for men, either in act, if it be possible, or, if not, in
desire, to be baptized and absolved by you, and that
with intention ; and in the mean time warrants them,
that, for avoiding of sin, they raay safely follow the
uncertain guidance of a vain man, (who, you cannot
deny, may either be deceived hiraself, or out of malice
deceive them,) and neglect the certain direction of God
himself, and their own consciences. What wicked use
is made of this doctrine, your own long experience caU
better inforra you, than it is possible for me to do ;
yet my own little conversation with you affords me one
memorable example to this purpose. For upon this
ground, I knew a young scholar in Doway, licensed by
a great casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain
knowledge, (whereof he had yet no knowledge but only
a great presumption,) because, forsooth, it was the
opinion of one doctor that he might do so ! And
upon the same ground, whensoever you shall come to
have a prevaUing party in this kingdom, and power
sufficient to restore your religion, you may do it by

478 THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
deposing, or killing the king, by blowing up of Parlia
ments, and by rooting out aU others of a different faith
from you. Nay, this you may do, though in your
own opinion it be unlawful, because BeUarmine,* a
man with you of approved virtue, leaming, and judg
ment, hath declared his opinion for the lawfulness of
it, in saying, that " want of power to maintain a rebel-
Uon, was the only reason that the primitive Christians
did not rebel against the persecuting emperors." By
* Bellarminus contra Barclaium, c. 7.
In u. 7. refutare conatur Barclaius verba ilia Romuli : Veteres
illos imperatores Constantium, Valentem, et cceteros, mon ideo toleravit
ecclesia quod legitime successissent, sed quod illos sine populi delri-
mento coercere -non poterat. Et miratur hoc idem scripsisse Bellar
minum, 1. 5, De Pontif. c. 7.
Sed ut magis miretur, seiat hoc idem sensisse S. Thomam, 2., 2. j.
leii. art. 2. ad. 1. Ubi dicit, ecclesiaim tolerasse nt fideles obedirent
Juliano Apostatts, quia in sui novitate nondum. habebant vires com-
pescendi principes terrenes. Et postea ; Sancttts Gregorius dicit,
nullum adversus Juliani persecufionem fuisse remedium prater
lacrymas, quoniam non habebai ecclesia vires quib-us illius tyrannidi

" In the seventh chapter of his book, Barclay endeavours to con
fute these words of Romulus : [a name assumed, like that of Brutus,
by one of those regicidal authors, whose seditious opinions he ex
posed and condemned :] ' The primitive church did not tolerate
Constantius, Valens, and the rest of those ancient emperors, on
account of their legitimate succession ; but she endured them be
cause she was then unable to coerce them without detriment to the
populace.' And he expresses great astonishment that Bellarmine
should have given utterance to similar sentiments in the fifth book of
his treatise De Pontif. cap. "].
" But, in order to increase his amazement, he ought to know, that
St. Thomas Aquinas has delivered a similar doctrine in 2, 2 Qwest.
xii. art. 2, ad. 1 ; where he makes this declaration : ' The church
permitted the faithful to yield civil obedience to Julian the apostate,
because, in those the days of her youth, she had not acquired suffi
cient strength for curbing earthly potentates.' He afterwards says,
' St. Gregory asserts, that the church had no remedy but tears for
the persecution instituted by Julian, because she was not then in a
condition powerful enough to resist his tyranny.' " — Edit.

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 479
the same rule, seeing the priests, and scribes, and
Pharisees, men of greatest repute among the Jews for
virtue, leaming, and wisdom, held it a lawful and a
pious work to persecute Christ and his apostles, it was
lawful for the people to follow their leaders ; for herein,
according to your doctrine, they proceeded prudently,
and, according to the conduct of opinion, maturely
weighed and approved by men (as it seemed to them) of
virtue, leaming, and wisdom ; nay, by such as sat in
Moses's chair, and of whom it was said, " Whatsoever
they bid you observe, that observe and do : " which
universal, you pretend, is to be understood univer
sally, and without any restriction or limitation. And
as lawful was it for the Pagans to persecute the primi
tive Christians, because Trajan and Pliny, men of
great virtue and wisdom, were of this opinion. Lastiy:
That raost impious and detestable doctrine, (which by
a foul calurany you impute to rae, who abhor and
detest it,) — that men may be saved in any religion,
follows from this ground unavoidably. For, certainly,
religion is one of those things which is necessary, only
because it is commanded ; for, if none were com
manded, under pain of damnation, how could it be
damnable to be of any ? Neither can it be damnable
to be of a false religion, unless it be a sin to be so.
For, neither are men saved by good luck, but only by
obedience; neither are they damned for thefr ill
fortune, but for sin and disobedience. Death is the
wages of nothing but sin ; and St. James, sure, intended
lo deliver the adequate cause of sin and death in those
words : « Lust, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth
sm ; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
Seeing, therefore, in such things, according to your
doctrine, it is sufficient for avoiding of sin that we
proceed pradentiy, and by the conduct of some proba*

480 THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
ble opinion, raaturely weighed and approved by men
of learning, virtue, and wisdom ; and seeing neither
Jews want their Gamaliels, nor Pagans their Anto-
ninuses, nor any sect of Christians such professors and
maintainers of their several sects as are esteemed by
the people, which know no better, (and that very rea
sonably,) raen of virtue, leaming, and -wisdora ; it fol^
lows, evidently, that the embracing their religion pro
ceeds upon such reason as raay wanant their action to
be prudent ; and this is sufficient for avoiding of sin,
and, therefore, certainly, for avoiding damnation ; for
that, in huraan affairs and discourse, evidence and cer
tainty cannot be always expected. I have stood the
longer upon the refutation of this doctrine, not only
because it is irapioiis, and because bad use is made of
it, and worse may be, but also because the contrary
position, — That " men are bound, for avoiding sin,
always to take the safest way," is a fair and sure foun
dation for a clear confutation of the main conclusion,
which in this chapter you labour in vain to prove, and
a certain proof that, in regard of the precept of charity
towards one's self, and of obedience to God, Papists
(unless ignorance excuse them) are iu a state of sin as
long as they remain in subjection to the Roman
church. IX. For, if the safer way for avoiding sin be also
the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly
the way of Protestants must be raore secure, and the
Roraan way more dangerous ; take but into your consi
deration these ensuing controversies : — whether it be
lawful to worship pictures ; to picture the Trinity; to
invocate saints and angels; to deny layraen the cup in
the sacraraent ; to adore the sacraraents ; to prohibit
certain orders of men and women to marry ; to cele
brate the public service of God in a language which

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OP PAPISTS. 481
the assistants generaUy understand not ; — and you will
not choose but confess, that in all these you are on the
more dangerous side for the committing of sin, and
we on that which is raore secure. For in all these
things, if we say true, you do that which is irapious ;
on the other side, if you were in the right, yet we
might be secure enough, for we should only not
do something which you confess not necessary to be
done. We pretend, and are ready to justify out of
principles agreed upon between us, that, in all these
things, you violate the manifest comraandraents of
God ; and [we] allege such texts of Scripture against
you, as, if you would weigh them with any indifference,
would put the matter out of question ; but certainlv
you cannot with any modesty deny, but that at least
they make it questionable. On the other side, you
cannot with auy face pretend, and, if you should, know
not how to go about to prove, that there is any necesr
sity of doing any of these things ; that it is unlawful
not to worship pictures, not to picture the Trinity,
not to invocate saints and angels, not to give all men
the entire sacrament, not to adore the eucharist, not to
prohibit raarriage, not to celebrate Divine service in an
unknown tongue : I say, " You neither do nor can pre
tend that there is any law of God which enjoins us,
no, nor so much as an evangelical counsel that advises
us, to do any of these things." Now, where no law I
is, there' can be no sin ; " for sin is the transgression of \
the law ; " it remains therefore, that our forbearing to '
do these things must be free from aU danger and sus
picion of sin ; whereas your acting of thera raust be,
if not certainly impious, without aU contradiction
questionable and dangerous. I conclude therefore,
that which was to be concluded, that, if the safer way
for avoiding sin be also (as raost certainly it is) the
y

482 THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
safer way for avoiding daranation, then certainly the
way of Protestants raust be raore safe, and the Roman
way more dangerous.
XII. To Section v. — Here you begin to make
some show of arguing ; and the first argument, put
into forra, stands thus : Every least error in faith
destroys the nature of faith: It is certain that some
Protestants do err : And, therefore, they want the sub
stance of faith. The raaj or of which syllogism I have
formerly confuted by unanswerable arguraents out of
one of your own best authors, who shows plainly that
he hath amongst you, as strange as you make it, many
other abettors. Besides, if it were true, it would con
clude that either you or the Dominicans have no faith,
inasmuch as you oppose one another as rauch as Armi
nians and Calvinists.
XIII. The second arguraent stands thus : Since all
Protedants pretend fhe like certainty, it is clear thai
none of them have any certainty at aU : which argu
ment if it were good, then what can hinder but this
raust also be so ? — " Since Protestants and Papists
pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of
them have any certainty at all ! " and this too :
" Since all Christians pretend the like certainty, it is
clear that none of thera have any certainty at aU ! "
and, thirdly, this : " Since men of all religions pretend
a like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any
at all ! " and, lastly, this : " Since oft-times they
which are abused with a specious paralogism, pretend
the like certainty with them which demonstrate, it is
clear that none of them have any certainty at all ! "
Certainly, Sir, zeal and the devil did strangely blind
you, if you did not see that these horrid impieties
were the iraraediate consequences of your positions ; if
you did see it, and yet would set thera down, you

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 483
deserve worse censure. Yet such as these are all the
arguments wherewith you conceive yourself to have
proved undoubtedly, that Protedants have reason at
least to doubt in what case they stand.
XIV. Your third and fourth argument may be thus
put into one : Protestants cannot tell what points in
particular be fundamental ; therefore they cannot tell
whether they or thdr hrdhren do not err fundament
ally, and whdher thdr difference he not fundamental.
Both which deductions I have formerly showed to be
raost inconsequent ; for, knowing the Scripture to con
tain all fundamentals, (though many more points i
besides, which makes it difficult to say precisely what
is fundamental and what not,) knowing this, I say,
and believing it, what can hinder but that I may be
well assured, that I believe all fundamentals, and that
all who believe the Scripture sincerely, as well as I, do
not differ from me in any thing fiindamental ?
XV. In the close of this section, you say, that
you omit to add that we want the sacrament of repent
ance instituted for the remission of sins, or at lead
we must confess that we hold it not necessary ; and yd
our own brethren, the Century-writers, acknowledge that,
in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian, private confes
sion even of thoughts was used, and that it was then com
manded and thought necessa/ry: and then our ordination,
you say, is very doubtful and all that depends upon if.
Answer. I also omit to answer, 1. That your bro
ther Rhenauus acknowledges the contrary ; aud assures
us that the confession then required and in use was
public, and before the church, and that your auri
cular confession was not then in the worid; for
which, his mouth is stopped by your Index Expurga
torius. 2. That your brother Arcudius acknowledges,
"that the eucharist was, in Cyprian's time, given to
Y 2

484 THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
infants, and esteeraed necessary, or at least profitable;
for them, and the giving it shows no less ; and now I
would know whether you -will acknowledge your chvuch
bound to give it, and to esteem so of it ? 3. That
it might be then coraraanded, and, being commanded,
be thought necessary, and yet be but a church-consti
tution. Neither will I deny, if the present church
could and would so order it, that the abuses of it
might be prevented, and, conceiving it profitable, should
enjoin the use of it, but that, being commanded,
it would be necessary. 4. Concerning our ordinations,
besides that I have proved it impossible that they
should be so doubtful as yours, according to your own
principles ; I answer, that experience shows them cer
tainly sufficient to bring raen to feith and repentance,
and, consequently, to salvation ; and that, if there
were any secret defect of any thing necessary, which
we cannot help, God will certainly supply it.
XIX. It is reraarkable against what you say, sec
tion vii., that any small error in faith destroys all
faith, that St. Austin, whose authority is here stood
upon, thought otherwise : he conceived the Donatists
to hold some enor in faith, and yet not to have no
faith. His words of them to this purpose are most
pregnant and evident : " You are -with us," saith he
to the Donatist, " in baptisra, in the creed, in the other
sacraments." (Ep. xlviii.) And again, Super Gestis
cum Emerito : " Thou hast proved to me that thou hast
faith, prove to rae Ukewise that thou hast charity."
Parallel to which words are these of Optatus:*
" Araongst us and you is one ecclesiastical con
versation, coraraon lessons, the same faith, the same
sacraraents." Where, by the way, we raay observe,
that, in the judgments of these Fathers, even the
* Lib. V. prope initium.

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 485
Donatists, though heretics and schisraatics, gave trae
ordination, the trae sacraraent of raatriraony, trae
sacramental absolution, confirraation, the true sacra
ment of the eucharist, trae extrerae unction ; or else
(choose you whether) some of these were not then
esteemed sacraments. But for ordination, whether he
held it a sacrament or no, certainly he held that it
remained with them entfre : for, so he says in express
terms, in his book against Parmenianus's epistle. Which
doctrine, if you can reconcile with the present doctrine
of the Roman church, eris mihi magnus Apollo.*
XX. To Section viii. — Objection. You say,
There is an inevitable necessity for us, either to grant
salvation to your church, or to entail certain damnation
upon our own, hecause ours can have no heing till Luther,
unless yours he supposed to have heen the true church,
I answer : This cause is no cause : for. First, as Lu
ther had no being before Luther, and yet he was when
he was, though he was not before ; so there is no
repugnance in the terms, but that there might be a
true church after Luther, though there were none for
some ages before ; as, since Columbus's time, there
have been Christians in America, though before there
were none for many ages. For, neither do you show,
neither does it appear, that the generation of churches
is univocal, that nothing but a church can possibly
beget a church ; nor that the present being of a true
church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a
church in aU ages, any more than the present being of
Peripatetics or Stoics depends upon a perpetual pedi
gree of them. For though I at no hand deny the
church's perpetuity, yet I see nothing in your book to
make me understand that the trath of the present
depends upon it, nor any thing that can hinder but
• « You shall then stand high in my estimation for wisdom."_EDiT.

486 THE religion of protestants
that a false church (God's providence overwatching
and ovenuling it) may preserve the means of confuting
their own heresies, and reducing men to trath, and so
raising a trae church, I mean the integrity and the
authority of the word of God with raen. Thus the
Jews preserve means to make men Christians, and
Papists preserve means to make men Protestants, and
Protestants (which you say are a false church) do, as
you pretend, preserve means to make men Papists ;
that is, their own Bibles, out of which you pretend to
be able to prove that they are to be Papists. Secondly.
You show not, nor does it appear, that the perpetuity
of the churc-h depends on the trath of yours. For
though you talk vainly, as if you were the only men in
the world before Luther, yet the world knows that this
is but talk, and that there were other Christians besides
you, which might have perpetuated the church though
you had not been. Lastly. You show not, neither
doth it appear, that your being acknowledged in some
sense a true church, doth necessarily import that we
must grant salvation to it, unless by it you under
stand the ignorant members of it ; which is a very unu
sual synecdoche.
XXI. Whereas you say, that CathoUcs 'never
granted that the Donatids had a true church or might
he saved ; I answer : St. Austin himself granted, that
those among them who sought the truth, " being ready
when they found it to correct their error, were not
heretics, and therefore, notwithstanding their error,
inight be saved." And this is all the charity that Pro
testants allow to Papists.
Therefore, the argument of the Donatists is as good
as that of the Papists against Protestants. For the
Donatists argued thus, speaking to the Catholics :
" Yourselves confess our baptism, sacraments, and

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 487
faith good and avaUable. We deny yours to be so,
and say there is no church, no salvation amongst you ;
therefore, it is safest for all to join with us."
XXII. St. Austin's words are, Petilianus dixit, Ve
nite ad ecclesiam, populi, et aufugite traditores, siperire
non vultis,* " Petilian saith, ' Come to the church, ye
people, and fly from the traditors, if ye will not
be damned ; for, that ye may know that they, being
guilty, esteem well of our faith, behold, I baptize these
whom they have infected, but they receive those whora
we have baptized.' " Where it is plain, that PetUian,
by his words, makes the Donatists the church, and
excludes the Catholics from salvation absolutely. And
whereas you say. The Catholics never yielded that among
the Donatists there was a true church and hope of sal^
vation ; I say. It appears by what I have alleged out
of St. Austin, that they yielded both these were among
the Donatists, as much as we yield them to be among
the Papists. As for Dr. Potter's acknowledgment,
" that they maintained an error in the matter and
nature of it heretical ; " this proves them but material
heretics, whom you do not exclude from possibility of
salvation. So that, all things considered, this argu
ment must be much more forcible from the Donatists
against the Catholics, than from Papists against Pro
testants, in regard Protestants grant Papists no more
hope of salvation than Papists grant Protestants :
whereas the Donatists excluded absolutely aU but their
own part from hope of salvation, so far as toaccount
them no Christians that were not of it : the Catholics
meanwhile accounting them brethren, and freeing those
among them from the imputation of heresy, who, being
in enor, qucerehant caiita solicitudine veritatem, corrigi
' Cont, Ut. Peiil. lib. ii. cap. 108.

THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
parati ciim invenerint ; " sought for truth carefully,
being ready when they found it to correct their enors."
XXIII. Whereas you say, that the argument for the
certainty of their baptism (because it was confessed
good hy Catholics, whereas the baptism of Catholics wm
not confessed hy fhem to be good) is not so good as
¦yours, touching the certainty of your sahation, grownd-
ed on ike confession of Protestants, hecause we confess
there is no damnable error in ihe doctrine or practice
of the Boman church : I answer. No, we confess no
such matter ; and though you say so a hundred times,
no repetition will make it true. We profess plainly,.
that many daranable errors, plainly repugnant to the
precepts of Christ, both ceremonial and moral, more
plainly than this of re-baptization, and, therefore, more
damnable, are believed and professed by you. And,
therefore, seeing this is the only disparity you can
devise, and this is vanished, it remains that as good an
answer as the Catholics raade, touching the certainty of
their baptisra, as good raay we make, and -with much
more evidence of reason, touching the security and cer
tainty of our salvation.
XXIV. By the way, I desire to be informed,
seeing you affirm that re-baptizing those whom heretics
had baptized was a sacrilege^ and a profession of a
damnable heresy, when it began to be so. If from the
beginning it were so, then was Cyprian a sacrilegious
professor of a damnable heresy, and yet a saint and a
martyr ; if it were not so, then did your church excom
municate Firmilian and others, and separate from them,
without sufficient ground of excommunication or separa
tion, which is schismatical. You see what difficulties
you run into on both sides : choose whether you will,
but certainly both can hardly be avoided.
XXVII. What St. Austin answers to the Dona-

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 489
tists' argument fits us in answer to yours, as if it had
been made for it : for, as St. Austin .says, that " Ca
tholics approve the doctrine of Donatists, but abhor
thefr heresy of re-baptization ; " so we say, that we
approve those fundamental and simple necessary traths
which you retain, by which some good souls among you
may be saved, but abhor your many superstitions and
heresies. And, as he says, that as gold is good, yet
ought not to be sought for among a company of
thieves ; and baptism good, but not to be sought
for in the conventicles of Donatists : so say we, that
the truths you retain are good, and, as we hope, suffi
cient to bring good, ignorant souls among you to salva
tion, yet are not to be sought for in the conventicle of
Papists, who hold with them a mixture of many vani-

  -But Protestants do either ex-
elude hopeby despair, with the dodrine, ihat our Saviour
died not for all, and that such want grace sufficient to
sahation ; or else, by vain presumption, grounded upon
a fantastical persuasion, that they are predestinate ;
which faith must exclude all fear and trembling. And
you add. Though some Protestants may relent from
the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine, yef none of them
can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in the
communion of those who defend such doctrines.
Answer.* — All this may be as forcibly returned
upon Papists as it is urged against Protestants ;
inasmuch as all Papists either hold the doctrine of
predetermination and absolute election, or communicate
with those that do hold it. Now, from this doctrine,
what is more prone and obvious than for every natural
man (without God's especial preventing grace) to make
• See No. 4, chap, vii., in the folio edition.
Y 5

490 THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
this practical collection ? — " Either I am elected, or not
elected : if I be, no impiety possible can ever damn
me ; if not, no possible industry can ever save me."
Now, whether this disjunctive persuasion be not as
likely (as any doctrine of Protestants) to extinguish
Christian hope and filial fear, and to lead some men to
despair, others to presumption, all to a wretehless and
impious life, I desire you ingenuously to inform me :
and if you deny it, assure yourself you shall be contra
dicted and confuted by raen of your own religion and
your own society ; and taught, at length, this chari
table doctrine, — that though men's opinions may he
charged with the absurd consequences which naturally
flow from them, yet the men themselves are not ;
I mean, if they perceive not the consequence of these
absurdities, nor do not own and acknowledge, but dis
claim and detest, them.
I add, 1. That there is no Calvinist that will deny
the truth of this proposition, — " Christ died for all,"
nor to subscribe to that sense of it which your Domi
nicans put upon it ; neither can you, with coherence to
the received doctrine of your own society, deny that
they, as well as the Calvinists, take away the distinction
of sufficient and effectual grace, and, indeed, hold none
to be sufficient but only that which is effectual.
2. Whereas you say. They cannot make their calling
certain by good works, who do certainly believe, that,
hefore any good works, they are justified, and justified
by faith alone, and hy that faith whereby they certainly
believe they are justifled: I answer : There is no Pro
testant but believes, that faith, repentance, and uni
versal obedience, are necessary to the obtaining of
God's favour and etemal happiness. This being
granted, the rest is but a speculative controversy,
a question about words, which would quickly vanish,

SAFER THAN THE REtTGION OF PAPISTS. 491
but that men affect not to understand one another.
As, if a company of physicians were in consultation, and
should all agree, that three medicines, and no more,
were necessary for the recovery of the patient's health,
this were sufficient for his direction towards the reco
very of his health ; though, concerning the proper and
specifical effects of these three medicines, there should
be amongst thera as many differences as men : so like
wise, being generally at accord, that these three things,
faith, hope, and charity, are necessary to salvation, so
that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it,
and he which hath them all cannot fail of it, is it not
very evident, that they are sufficiently agreed for men's
directions to eternal salvation ? And seeing charity is
a full comprehension of all good works, (they requiring^
charity as a necessary qualification in him that wUl be
saved,) what sense is there in saying. They cannot
make their Calling certain by good works ? They know
what salvation is as well as you ; and you have as much
reason to desire it. They believe it as heartily as you,
that there is no good work but shall have its proper
reward, and that there is no possibility of obtaining the
eternal reward without good works. And why then
may not this doctrine be a sufficient incitement and
provocation unto good works ?
XXXI. You say, that they certainly believe, that
hefore any good works they are judifled. But this is a
calurany. There is no Protestant but requfres, to
justification, remission of sins ; and to remission of
sins, they all require repentance ; and repentance, I
presurae, may not be denied the narae of " a good work,"
being indeed, if it be rightly understood, and according
to the sense of the word in Scripture, an effectual con
version from all sin to all holiness. But though it be
taken for mere sonow for sins past, and a bare purpose

492 THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS
of amendment, yet even this is a good work ; and,
therefore, Protestants requiring this to remission of
sins, and remission of sins to justification, cannot with
candour be pretended to believe, that they are justified
before any good work.
XXXII. Objection. — You say. They believe
themselves judifled by faith alone, and that by that faith
whereby they believe themselves justifled.
Answer. — Some peradventure do so ; but withal
they believe, that that faith which is alone, and unac
companied with sincere and universal obedience, is to
be esteemed, not faith, but presumption, and is at no
hand sufficient to justification ; that though charity be
not imputed unto justification, yet it is required as a
necessary disposition in the person to be justified ; and
that though, in regard of the imperfection of it, no man
can bd justified by it, yet that, on the other side, no
man can be justified vrithout it. So that, upon the
whole matter, a man may truly and safely say, that the
doctrine of these Protestants, taken all together, is not a
doctrine of Uberty, not a doctrine that turas hope into
presuraption and carnal security ; though it may justiy
be feared, that many licentious persons, taking it by
halves, have made this wicked use of it. For my part,
I do heartily wish, that, by public authority, it were so
ordered, that no man should ever preach or print this
doctrine,Tj-that " faith alone justifies," unless he joins
this together with it, — that " universal obedience is neces
sary to salvation : " and besides, that those chapters of
St. Paul which entreat of justification by faith without
the works of the law, were never read in the church but
when the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, concerning the absolute necessity of cha
rity, should be, to prevent misprision, read together
with them.

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS.

493

XXXIII. Objection. — Whereas you say, that
some Protestants do expressly affirm the former point
to he fhe soul of the church, Sfc. ; and that, therefore,
they must want the theological virtue of hope; and that
none can have true hope while fhey hope to be saved in
their communion ; I answer : They have great reason to
believe tbe doctrine of "justification by faith only" a
point of great weight and importance, if it be rightly
understood ; that is, they have reason to esteem it a
principal and necessary duty of a Christian, to place
his hope of justification and salvation, not in the per
fection of his own righteousness, (which, if it be imper
fect, will not justify,) but only in the mercies of God,
through Christ's satisfaction : and yet, notwithstanding
this, nay, the rather for this, may preserve themselves
in the right temper of good Christians, which is a happy
mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear.
If this doctrine be otherwise expounded than I have
here expounded, I will not undertake the justification
of it ; only I will say, (that which I raay do truly,)
that I never knew any Protestant such a solifidian but
that he did believe these Divine traths, — that he must
" make his calling certain by good works ;" that he
must " work out his salvation with fear and trem
bling ;" and that, whUe he does not so, he can have no
well-grounded hope of salvation : — I say, I never met
with any who did not believe these Divine truths, and
that with a more firm and a more unshaken assent
than he does that hiraself is predestinate, and that he
is justified by believing himself justified. I never met
with any such, who, if he saw there were a necessity to
do either, would not rather forego his belief of these
doctrines than the former ; — these which he sees dis
puted and contradicted, and opposed with a great mul
titude of very potent arguments, than those which,

494 the religion of protestants
being the express words of Scripture, whosoever should
call into question, could not with any modesty pretend
to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no
reason but we may believe, that their full assurance
of the forraer doctrines doth very well qualify their
persuasion of the latter, and that the former (as also
the lives of many of them do sufficiently testify) are
more effectual to temper tlieir hope, and to keep it at
a stay of a filial and modest assurance of God's favour,
built upon the conscience of his love and fear, than the
latter can be to swell and puff tbem up into vain con
fidence and ungrounded presumption. This reason,
joined with our experience of the honest and religious
conversation of many men of this opinion, is a sufficient
ground for charity to hope well of thefr hope ; and to
assure ourselves, that it cannot be offensive, but rather
most acceptable, to God, if, notwithstanding this diver
sity of opinion, we embrace each other with the strict
embraces of love and communion. To you and your
church we leave it, to separate Christians from the
church, and to proscribe them from heaven, upon trivial
and trifling causes : as for ourselves, we conceive a
charitable judgment of our brethren and their errors,
though untrue, much more pleasing to God than a true
judgment, if it be uncharitable ; and therefore shall
always choose (if we do en) to en on the milder and
more merciful part, and rather to retain those in our
coramunion which deserve to be ejected, than eject
those that deserve to be retained.
XXXIV. Lastly, whereas you say, that seeing Prd-
testants differ about the point of justification, you must
needs infer fhat they want unity in faith, and conse
quently all faith, and then that they cannot agree what
points are fundamental : I answer, to the first of these
inferences, that as well might you infer it upon Victor

SAFER THAN THE RELIGION OF PAPISTS. 495
bishop of Rome, and Polycrates ; upon Stephen
bishop of Rome, and St. Cyprian : inasrauch as it is
undeniably evident, that what one of those esteeraed
necessary to salvation, the other esteemed not so. But
points of doctrine, as all other things, are as they are,
and not as they are esteemed. Neither can a necessary
point be made unnecessary by being so accounted ; nor
an unnecessary point be made necessary by being over
valued. But as the ancient phUosophers, whose differ
ent opinions about the soul of man you raay read in
Aristotle de Anima, and Cicero's " Tusculan Ques
tions," notwithstanding their diverse opinions touching
the nature of the soul, yet all of thera ' had souls, and
souls of the sarae nature ; or as those physicians who
dispute whether the brain or heart be the principal part
of a man, yet all of them have brains and have hearts,
and herein agree sufficiently : so likewise, though some
Protestants esteem that doctrine the soul of the church,
which othere do not so highly value, yet this hinders
not but that which is indeed the soul of the church may
be in both sorts of them ; and though one account that
a necessary trath, which others account neither neces
sary nor, perhaps, true, yet, this notwithstanding, in
those truths which are truly and really necessary, they
may all agree. For no arguraent can be more sophis- '
tical than this : " They differ in some points which they 1
esteem necessary : therefore, they differ in some that ;
in deed and in truth are so." *
XXXV. Now as conceming the other inference,
that they cannot agree what points are fundamental,
I have said and proved formerly, that there is no such
necessity as you imagine or pretend, that men should
certainly know what is, and what is not, fundamental.
They that believe all things plainly delivered in
Scripture, believe all things fundamental, and are at

496 THE RELIGION OP PROTESTANTS, &C.
sufficient unity in matters of faith, though they cannot
precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fun
damental and what is profitable : nay, though, by
error, they mistake some vain, or perhaps hurtfol, opi
nions, for necessary and fundamental truths. Besides,
I have showed above,* that as Protestants do not agree
(for you over-reach in saying they cannot) touching
what points are fundamental ; so neither do you agree
what points are defined, and so to be accounted, and
what are not ; nay, nor concerning the subject in
which God hath placed this pretended authority of
defining : some of you settling it in the Pope himself,
though alone, without a councU ; others in a council,
though divided from the Pope ; others, only in the
conjunction of council and Pope ; others, not in this
neither, but in the acceptation of the present church
universal ; lastly, others not attributing it to this nei
ther, but only to the perpetual succession of the
church of all ages : Of which divided company it is very
evident and undeniable, that every former raay be, and
are, obliged to hold raany things defined, and therefore
necessary, which the latter, according to their own
grounds, have no obligation to do ; nay, cannot do so,
upon any firm, and sure, and infallible, foundation.
* Cap. iii. sect 53, et alibi.

THE END.

ADDITIONAL DISCOURSES

MR. CHILLINGWORTH,

NEVER BEFORE PRINTED :

INCLUDINO

HIS LETTER TO MR. LEWGAR.

CONTENTS.

I.
A Letter to Mr. Lewgar, conceming the Church of Rome's
being the Guide of Faith and Judge of Controversies, &c... 499
II.
A Conference betwixt Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar,
whether the Roman Church be the catholic Church, and all
out of her CoEamunion Heretics or Schismatics  505
IIL
A Discourse against tlie Iniallibilitv of the Roman Church,
with an Answer to all those Texts of Scripture that are
alleged to prove it  531
IV.
A Conference conceming the Infallibility of the Roman Church ;
proving that the present Church of Rome either errs in
her worshipping flie Blessed Virgin; or that the ancient
Church did err in condemning the Collyrldians as Heretics 547
V.
An Argument drawn &om communicating of Infants, as without
which they could not be saved, against the Church's Infalli
bility  ¦'•.  576
VL
An Argument against Infallibility, drawn &om the Doctrine of
the MUlenaries  589
VIL
.4. Letter relating to the same Subject  599
vnL
An Argument against the Roman Church's Infallibility, taken
from the Contradictions in their Doctrine of Transubstan
tiation  601
IX.
An Account of what moved the Author to tum a Papist, with
his Confutation of the Arguments that persuaded him
thereto  604
X.
A Discourse concerning Tradition; being an Answer to some
Passages in Rushworth's Dialogues, &c.  610

H

ADDITIONAL DISCOURSES

MR. CHILLINGWOHTH.

1. A LETTER TO MR. LEVTGAR, CONCERNING THE
CHURCH OF ROME'S BEING THE GUIDE OF FAITH
AND JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES.
OUT OF MR. chillingworth's MANUSCRIPT.
Good Ma. Lewgae,
Though I am resolved not to be much afflicted
for the loss of that which is not in ray power to keep,
yet I cannot deny but the loss of a friend goes very
near unto my heart ; and by this name of " a friend " I
did presurae, till of late, that I might have called you,
because, though perhaps, for want of power and oppor
tunity, I have done you no good office, yet I have been
always willing and ready to do you the best service I
could ; and therefore I cannot but adraire at that
afiected strangeness which, in your last letter to me,
you seem to take upon you, renouncing, in a manner,
all relation to me, and tacitly excommunicating me
from all interest in you. The superscription of your
letter is to Mb. William Chillingworth, and
your subscription John Lewgar ; as if you either dis
dained or made a conscience of styling me your friend,
or yourself mine. If this proceed from passion and
weakness, I pray mend it ; if from reason, I pray show
it. If you think me one of those to whom St. John for
bids you to say, " God save you," then you are to
think and prove me one of those deceivers which deny

500 letter to me. lewgae.
Christ Jesus to be " come in the flesh." If you think
me an heretic, and, therefore, to be avoided, you must
prove me civTOiiaLTa.xpiTov, '• condemned by my own judg
ment ;" which I know I cannot, and therefore I think
you cannot. If you say I do not " hear the church,"
and therefore am to be esteemed an " Heathen " or
"publican," you are to prove, that by "the chnrch"
there is meant the church of Rome ; and yet when yon
have done so, I hope Christians are not forbidden to
show humanity and civility even to Pagans. For
God's sake, Mr. Lewgar, free yourself from this blind
zeal, at least for a little space ; and consider, with
reason and moderation, what strange crime you can
charge me with that should deserve this strange usage,
especially from you. Is it a crime to endeavour, with
all my understanding, to find your religion trae, and to
make myself a believer of it, and not be able to do so i
Is it a crime to employ all my reason upon the justifi
cation of the infaUibUity of tbe Roman church, and to
find it impossible to be justified .'' I wUl caU God to
witness, who knows my heart better than you do, that I
have evened the scale of my judgment as much as
possibly I could, and have not willingly aUowed any
one grain of worldly motives on either side ; but have
weighed the res&onsfor your religion and againd, with
such indifference as if there were nothing in the world
but God and myself. And is it my fault that l^at scale
goes down which hath the most weight in it ? that ihat
building feUs which has a false foundarion .'' Have you
such power over your understanding, that you can
beUeve what you please, though you see no reason, or
that you can suspend your belief, when you do see
reason ? If you have, I pray, for our old friendship's
sake, teach me that trick ; but until I have leaxnt it, I
pray blame me not for going the ordinary way ; I
mean, for believing or not believing as I see reason.
If you can convince me of wUful opposition against the
known trath, of negligence in seeking it, of unwUlingf-
ness to find it, of preferring temporal respects before it,
or of any other fault which is in my power to amend.

letter to MR. LEWGAR, 501
that is indeed a fault ; if I amend it not, be as angry
with me us you please. But to impute to rae involun
tary errors ; or that I do not see that which I would
see, but cannot ; or that I will not profess that which
I do not believe ; certainly this is far raore unreason
able error than any which you can justly charge me
with ; for, let me teU you, the imputing Socinianism to
me, whosoever was the author of it, was a wicked and
groundless slander.
Periiaps you will say, (for this is the usual song on
that side,) that " pride is a voluntary fault ; and with
this I am justly chargeable, for forsaking that guide
which God has appointed me to foUow." But what, if I
forsook it, because I thought I had reason to fear it was
one of those bUnd guides which whosoever blindly fol
lows is threatened by our Saviour, that both he and his
guide shall fall into the ditch ? then I hope you wUl
grant, it was not pride, but conscience, that raoved rae
to do so ; for as it is wise humUity to obey those whom
God hath set over mc, so it is sinful credulity to follow
every man or every church that without warrant wUl
take upon them to guide rae. Show rae, then, some
good and evident title which the church of Rorae lias to
this office ; produce but one reason for it which, upon
trial, wUl not finally be resolved and vanish into uncer
tainties ; and if I yield not unto it, say, if you please,
I am as proud as Lucifer. In the mean tirae, give me
leave to think it strange, and not far from a prodigy,
that this doctrine of the Romish church's being the
5 aide of faith, if it be true doctrine, should either not
e known to the four evangelists, or, if it were known
to them, that, being wise and good men, they should
cither be so envious of the church's happiness, or so
forgetful of the work they took in hand, — which was,
to write the gospel of Christ, — as that not so much as
one of thera should mention, so much as once, this so
necessary pai-t of tho gospel, without the belief whereof
there is no salvation, and with the belief whereof, unless
men be snatched away by sudden death, there is hardly
any damnation. It is evident they do aU of them with

502 LETTER TO MR. LEWGAR.
one consent speak very plainly of many things of no
importance in comparison hereof ; and is it credible, or
indeed possible, that, with one consent or rather conspi
racy, they should be so deeply sUent concerning this
wnwm necessarium ? * You may believe it, if you can ;
for my part, I cannot, unless I see demonstration for it.
For, if you say, " They send us to the church, and, con
sequently, to the church of Rome ;" this is to suppose,
that which can never be proved, that the church of
Rome is the only church ; and without this supposal,
upon division of the church, I am as far to seek for a
guide of my faith as ever. As for example : —
In that great division of the church when the whole
world wondered, saith St. Jerome, that it was become
Arian, when Liberius, bishop of Rome, (as St. Athana
sius and St. Hilary testify,) subscribed their heresy, and
joined in coraraunion with thera ; or in the division
between the Greek and the Roman church, about the
procession of the Holy Ghost, when either side was the
church to itself, and each part heretical and schismatical
to the other ; what direction could I then, an ignorant
man, have found from that text of Scripture, " Unless
he hear the church, let him be to thee as a Heathen or a
publican ? " or, " Upon this rock wiU I buUd my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevaU against it ? "
Again : Give me leave to wonder.
That neither St. Paul, writing to the Romans,
should so much as intiraate this their privUege of
infallibility ; but rather, on the contrary, put them in
fear, in the eleventh chapter, that they, as well as the
Jews, were in danger of falling away :
That St. Peter, the pretended bishop of Rome,
writing two catholic epistles, mentioning his departure,
should not once acquaint the Christians whom he writes
to, what guide they were to follow after he was taken
from them :
That the writers of the New Testament should so
frequently forewarn men of heretics, false Christs, false
prophets, and not once arm them against them, with
* " One thing needful." — Edit.

LETTER TO MR. LEWGAR. 503
letting them know this only sure means of avoiding their
danger :
That so great a part of the New Testament should
be employed about antichrist, and so little, or indeed
none at all, about the vicar of Christ, and the guide of
the faithful :
That our Saviour should leave this only means for
the ending of controversies, and yet speak so obscurely
and ambiguously of it, that now our judge is the
greatest controversy, and the greatest hinderance of
ending them :
That there should be better evidence in the Scripture
to entitle the king to this office, who disclaims it, than
the pope, who pretends it :
That St. Peter should not ever exercise over the
apostles any one act of jurisdiction, nor they ever give
him any one title of authority over them :
That, if the apostles did know St. Peter was made
head over them when our Saviour said, " Thou art
Peter," &c., they should still contend who should be
the first, and that our Saviour should never tell them
St. Peter was the man :
That St. Paul should say he was in nothing inferior
to the very chief apostles :
That the catechumenists in the priraitive church
should never be taught this foundation of thefr faith, —
that the church of Rome was guide of their faith :
That the Fathers, Tertullian, St. Jerome, and Opta
tus, when they flew highest in commendation of the
Roman church, should attribute no more to her than to
all other apostolical churches :
That, in the controversy about Easter, the bishops
and churches of Asia should be so Ul catechised as
not to know this principle of Christian religion, — the
necessity of conforraity in doctrine with the church of
Rome; that they should never be pressed with any
such necessity of conforraity in all things, but only
with the tradition of the, western churches in that
point :
That Irenseus, and many other bishops, (notwith-

604 LETTER TO MR. LBWGAR.
standing ad hanc ecclesiam, necesse ed omnem convenire
ecclesiam,)* should not yet think that a necessary doc
trine, nor a sufficient ground of excoraraunication, which
the church of Rorae thought to be so :
That St. Cyprian, and the bishops of Afric, should be
so ill instructed in thefr faith as not to know this foun
dation of it ; that they likewise were never urged with
any such necessity of conformity with the church of Rome,
nor ever charged with heresy or error for denying it :
That when Liberius joined in comraunion with the
Arians, and subscribed thefr heresy, the Arians then
should not be the church and the guide of faith :
That never any heretics, for three ages after Christ,
were pressed with this arguraent of the infaUibUity of
the present church of Rome, or charged with denial of
it, as a distinct heresy, so that ^neas Sylvius should
have cause to say. Ante tempora concilii Niceni,
quisque sibi vivehat, et parvus respectus hahebatur ad
ecclesiam Bomanam : "f that the ecclesiastical story of
those times mentions no acts of authority of the church
of Rome over other churches ; as if there should be a
monarchy, and the kings, for some ages together, should
exercise no act of jurisdiction in it :
That, to supply this defect, the Decretal Epistles
should be so impudently forged, which, in a manner,
speak nothing else but reges et monarchas ["kings
and monarchs "] ; I mean, the popes' makmg laws for
exercising authority over all other churches :
That the African churches in St. Austin's time
should be ignorant that the pope was head of the
church, and judge of appeals, jure d'ltino ; and that
there was a necessity of conforraity with the church in
this and all other points of doctrine :
Nay, that the popes themselves should be so ignorant
of the true ground of this their authority as to pretend
to it, not upon scriptural or universal tradition, but
* For a translation of this passage see note, p. 138, and p. 513 
Edit. ¦\ " Prior to the time when the council of Nice was
convened, every one lived for himself, and little deference was paid to
the church of Rome." — Edit.

A CONFERENCE. 505
upon an imaginary, pretended, non-such canon of the
CouueU of Nice :
Tliat Vincentius Lirinensis, seeking for a guide of
his faith, and a preservarive from heresy, should be
ignorant of this so ready one, — the infaUibUity of the
church of Rome.
AU these things, and many more, are very strange to
me, if the infallibility of the Roman church be indeed,
and were always, by Christians acknowledged the foun
dation of our faith ; and therefore, I beseech you,
pardon me, if I choose to build mine upon one that is
much firmer and safer, and lies open to none of these
objections, which is. Scripture and universal tradition ;
and, if one that is of this faith may have leave to do so,
I will subscribe, with hand and heart,
Your verv loving and trae friend,
W. C.

II. A CONFERENCE BETWIXT MR. CHILLING\1'0RTH AND
ME. LEWGAR.
THESIS.
The church of Rome (taken diffusively for all
Christians communicating with the bishop of Rome)
was the judge of controversies at that tirae when the
church of England made an alteration in her tenets.
ARGUMENT.
She was the judge of controversies at that time
WHICH had an authority of deciding them : But the
church of Rome at that tirae had the authority of decid
ing them : Ergo —
Answer. — A liraited authority to decide contro
versies according to the rale of scripture and universal
tradition, and to oblige her own raembers (so long as
she evidently contradicted not that rule) to obedience,
I grant she had. But an unlimited, an infallible autho
rity, or such as could not but proceed according to that
rule, and such as should bind all the churches in the worid
to obedience, (as the Greek church,) I say, she had not.
z

506 whether the roman church
Question. — When our church hath decided a
controversy, I desire to know whether any particular
church or person hath authority to re-exaraine her deci
sion, whether she hath observed her rule or no, and
free himself from the obedience of it by his or her
particular judgment ?
Answer. — If you understand by your church " the
church catholic," probably I should answer, " No."
But if you understand by your church, "that only
which is in subordination to the see of Rome," or if
you understand a council of this church, I answer,
" Yea." ARGUMENT.
That was the catholic church which did abide in
the root of apostolic unity : But the church of Rome at
that time was the only church that did abide in the
root of apostolic unity : Er^o —
Question. — What raean you by "apostolic unity .''"
Answer. — I raean " the unity of that fellowship
wherein the apostles lived and died."
Question. — Wherein was this unity .''
Answer. —Herein it consisted, — that they all pro
fessed one faith, obeyed one supreme tribunal, and com
municated together in the sarae prayers and sacraments.
Solution. — Then the church of Rorae continued
not in this apostolic unity ; for it continued not in the
sarae faith wherein the apostles lived and died : for,
though it retained so much (in my judgment) as was
essential to the being of a church, yet it degenerated
from the church of the apostles' times in many things
which were very profitable ; as in Latin service, and
communion in one kind.
argument.
Some church did continue in the same faith wherein
the apostles lived and died : But there was no church
at that time which did continue in the apostles' faith
besides the Roman church : Ergo —
Answer. — That sorae church did continue in the
apostles' faith in all things necessary, I grant it ; that

BE THE catholic CHURCH. 507
any did continue in the integrity of it, and in a perfect
conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable,
I deny it.
Question. — Is it not necessary to a church's conti
nuing in the apostles' faith that she continue in a per
fect conforraity with it in all things expedient and
profitable .''
Answer. — A perfect conformity in all things is
necessary to a perfect continuance in the apostles' faith.
But to an imperfect continuance, an imperfect con
formity is sufficient ; and such I grant the Roman
church had.
Question. — Is not a perfect continuance in the
apostles' faith necessary to a church's continuance in
apostolic unity ?
Answer. — It is necessary to a perfect continuance
in apostolic unity.
argument.
There was some one company of Christians at the
time of Luther's rising, which was the catholic church :
But there was no other company at that tirae besides
the Roman : Ergo, the Roman at that time was the
catholic church.
Answer. — There was no one company of Christians
which, in opposition to and exclusion of all other com
panies of Christians, was the catholic church.
ARGUMENT.
If the catholic church be some one company of
Christians, in opposition to and exclusion of all other
companies, then if there was some one company, she
was one in opposition to and exclusion of all other com
panies ; But the catholic church is one company of
Christians in opposition to and exclusion of, &c. : Ergo,
there was then sorae one company which was the
catholic church in opposition to and exclusion of all
other companies.
The minor proved by the testimonies of the Fathers,
z 2

508 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHURCH
both Greek and Latin, testifying that they understood
the church to be one in the sense alleged.
1. " If this unity which cannot be separated at all or
divided is also among heretics, what contend we far
ther .'' why call we them herdics?^'' — S. Cypriani
Epist. Ixxv.
2. " But if there be but one flock, how can he be
accounted of the flock which is not within the number
of it ? "—Idem, Ibid.
3. " When Parmenian coramends one church, he
condemns all the rest ; for, besides one whidh is the
true catholic, other churches are esteemed to be among
heretics, but are not." — S. Optatus, lib. i.
4. " The church therefore is but one ; this cannot
be among all heretics and schismatics." — Idem, Ihid.
5. " You say, you offer for the church which is one;
this very thing is part of a lie, to call it one which you
have divided into two." — Idem, Ihid.
6. " The church is one, which cannot be amongst us
and amongst you ; it reraains then, that it be in one
only place." — Idera, Ihid,
7. " Although there be many heresies of Christians,
and that all would be called Catholics, yet there is
always one church," &c. — S. Augustinus De Utili
tate Credendi, cap. vii.
8. " The question between us is, where the church
is, whether with us or with them ; for she is but one." —
Idera, De Unitate, cap. ii.
9. " The proofs of the catholic prevailed, whereby
they evicted the body of Christ to be with them, and
by consequence not to be with the Donatists ; for it
is manifest that she is one alone." — Idem, CoUat,
Carthag. lib. in.
10. " In illud Cantic. vi. 7, ' There are sixty
queens, and eighty concubines, and damsels without
number : but ray dove is one,' &c. He said not, 'My
queens are sixty, and ray concubines,' &c. ; but he said,
' My dove is but one ; ' because all the sects of phUo
sophers and heresies of Christians are none of his ; his
is but one, to wit, the catholic church," &c. — S. Epi
phanius, in fine Panar,

BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. .509
11. " A man may not caU the conventicles of here
tics (I mean Marcionites, Manichees, and the rest)
churches ; therefore the tradition appoints you to
gay, ' I believe one holy catholic church,' " &c. — S.
Cyrilli Catech, xviu.
And these testimonies, I think, are sufficient to show
the judgraent of the ancient church, that this title of
the church " one " is directly and properly exclusive to
all companies besides one ; to wit, that where there are
divers professions of faith, or divers communions, there
is but one of these which can be the cathoUc church.
Upon this ground I desfre some company of Christians
to be named professing a diverse faith, and holding a
diverse coramunion, from the Roman, which was the
catholic church at the time of Luther's rising ; and if
no other in this sense can be named, then was she the
catholic chwrch at that time, and therefore her judg
ment to be rested in, and her communion to be
embraced, upon peril of schism and heresy.
MR. chillingworth's ANSWER.
Upon the sarae ground, if you pleased, you might
desire a Protestant to name some company of Chris
tians professing a diverse faith and holding a diverse
communion from the Greek church, which was the catho
lic church at the time of Luther's rising ; and seeing he
could name no other in this sense, conclude that the
Greek church was the catholic church at that time.
Upon the very same ground you might have concluded
for the church of the Abyssines, or Armenians, or any
other society of Christians extant before Luther's time.
And seeing this is so, thus I argue against your
ground : —
1. That ground which concludes indifferently for
both parts of a contradiction must needs be false and
deceitfiU, and conclude for neither part : But this ground
concludes indifferently both parts of a contradiction;
namely, — that the Greek church is the catholic church,
and not the Roman, as well as, — that the Roman is the
catholic church, and not the Greek : Therefore, the

510 whether the ROMAN CHURCH
ground is false and deceitful, seem it never so plaus
ible. 2. I answer, Secondly, that you should have taken
notice of my answer which I then gave you ; which was,
that your major — as you then filmed your argument,
but, as now, your minor — is not always trae, if by
" one " you understand one in external communion ;
seeing nothing hindered, in my judgment, but that one
church excoraraunicated by another upon an insufficient
cause raight yet remain a trae member of the catholic
church : and that church which, upon the overvaluing
this cause, doth excommunicate the other, though
in fault, may yet reraain a member of the catboUti
church : which is evident from the difference about
Easter-day between the church of Rome and the
churches of Asia ; for which vain matter Victor, bishop
of Rome, excommunicated the churches of Asia. And
yet I believe you will not say, that either the church
excoraraunicating or the church excoraraunicated ceased
to be a trae member of the church catholic. The case
is the same between the Greek and the Roman church ;
for though the difference between them be greater, yet
it is not so great as to be a sufficient ground of excom
munication : and therefore the excoraraunication was
causeless, and consequently brwtum fulmen.* and not
ratified or confirraed by God in heaven ; and therefore
the church of Greece at Luther's rising raight be, and
was, a true member of the catholic church.
As concerning the places of Fathers which you
allege, I demand,
(1.) If I can produce you an equal or greater
number of Fatliers, or more ancient than these, not
contradicted by any that lived with them or before
thera, for sorae doctrine conderaned by the Roman
church, whether you will subscribe it. If not, with
what face or conscience can you make use of, and
build your whole faitii upon, the authority of Fathers
in some things, and reject the same authority in
others .'' • "A harmless flash."  Edit.

be THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 511
(2.) Secondly. Because you urge St. Cyprian's autho
rity, I desire you to tell me whether this argument in
his tirae would have concluded a necessity of resting in
the judgment of the Roman church, or no. If not,
how should it come to pass that it should serve now and
not then, fit this time and not that, as if it were like an
almanac that would not serve for all raeridians '? If
it would, why was it not urged by others upon St.
Cyprian, or ' represented by St. Cyprian to hiraself, for
his direction when he differed from the Roraan church,
and all other that herein conformed unto her, touching
the point of re-baptizing heretics ; which the Roman
church held unlawful and daranable, St. Cyprian not
only lawful but necessary, so well did he rest in the
judgment of that church .'' Quid verba audiam, cum
facta videam^* says he in the comedy. And cardinal
Perron tells you, in his Epistle to Casaubon, that
nothing is more unreasonable, than to draw conse
quences from the words of Fathers against their lively
and actual practice.
The same may be said in refutation of the places out
of St. Austin ; who was so far from concluding from
them or any other a necessity of resting in the judg
ment of the Roraan church, that he himself, as your
authors testify, lived and died in opposition of it, even
in that main fundamental point upon which Mr. Lew
gar hath built the necessity of his departure from the
church of England, and embracing the communion of
the Roman church ; that is, the supreme authority of
that church over other churches, and the power of
receiving appeals from thera. Mr. Lewgar, I know,
cannot be ignorant of these things ; and therefore I
wonder with what conscience he can produce their
words against us whose actions are for us.
If it be said, that St. Cyprian and St. Austin were
schismatics for doing so, it seems, then, schisraatics
may not only be members of the church, against Mr.
Lewgar's main conclusion, but canonized saints of it ;
• "Why should I listen to your plausible verbiage, when I see
the nature of your actions ? " — Edit.

512 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHURCH
or else St. Austin and St. Cyprian should be rased out
of the Roraan calendar.
If it be said, that the point of re-baptization was not
defined in St. Cyprian's time, I say, that, in the judg
ment of the bishop and church of Rorae and their
adherents, it was ; for they urged it as an original and
apostolic tradition, and, consequently, at least of as
great force as any church-definition. They excommu
nicated FirmUianus, and conderaned St. Cyprian as a
false Christ and a false apostle, for holding the con-
rary ; and urged hira tyrannico ferrore [" with terrible
and tyrannical threats "] to conform his judgment to
theirs, as he himself clearly intiraates.
If it be said, they differed only frora the particular
church of Rome, and not from the Roman church,
taking it for the universal society of Christians in com
munion with that church ; I answer,
(i.) They knew no such sense of the word, I am sure
never used it in any such ; which whether it had been
possible, if the church of Rorae had been in their judg
ment to other churches in spiritual matters as the city
was to other cities and countries in temporals, I leave it
to indifferent men to judge.
(ii.) Secondly. That they differed not only from the
particular Roman church, but also from all other
churches that agreed with it in those doctrines.
(iii.) Thirdly. I desire you would answer me directly,
whether the Roman church, taking it for that particular
church, be of necessity to be held infaUible in faith by
every Roraan catholic, or not .'' To this question I
instantly desire a direct answer, without tergiversation,
that we raay at length get out of the cloud, and you
may say, Coram, quem qucerifis, adsum : [ " Here am
I whom you are seeking."] If you say, they are not
bound to believe so, then it is no article of faith, nor
no certain truth upon which men may safely rest with
out fluctuation or fear of error ; and if so, I demand,
(1.) Why are all your clergy bound to swear, and
consequently your laity, (if they have comraunion of
faith with thera,) by your own grounds, bound to

BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 513
believe, that the Roman church is the mistress of all
other churches ? where it is evident, from the relation
and opposition of the Roman to other churches, that
the Roman church is there taken for that particular
church. (2.) Secondly. Why then do you so often urge that
mistaken saying of Irenseus ? — Ad hanc ecclesiam
necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam ; falsely trans
lating it, as cardinal Perron in French, and ray L. F.
[Lady Falkland] in English, " All churches must agree
with this church ; " for convenire ad signifies not " to
agree with," but " to come unto ;" whereas it is evi
dent, for the aforesaid reason, that the Roman is here
taken for that particular church.
(3.) Thirdly. If that particular church be not cer
tainly infallible, but subject to error in points of faith,
I would know, if any division of your church should
happen, in which the church of Rorae either alone or
with some others should take one way, the churches of
Spain, and France, and many other churches, another,
what direction should an ignorant catholic have then
from the pretended guide of faith ? How shall he
know which of tiiese companies is the church, seeing all
other churches distinguished frora the Roman may err,
and seeing the Roman church is now supposed subject to
error, and consequently not certain to guard those men
or those churches that adhere unto it frora erring .''
(4.) Fourthly. If that particular church be not infal
Uble in faith, let us then suppose that de facto it does
err in faith ; shall we not then have an heretical head
upon a catholic body, a head of the church which were
no member of the church ? which, sure, were a very
strange and heterogeneous monster. If to avoid these
inconveniences you will say, that Roraan catholics raust
(if necessity hold that particular church infallible in
faith, I suppose it wUl evidently follow, that St.
Austin and St. Cyprian, notwithstanding those sen
tences you pretend out of thera, were no Roraan catho
lics, seeing they lived and died in the contrary belief
and profession. Let me see these absurdities fairly
z 5

514 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHURCH
and clearly avoided, and I will dispute no more, but
follow you whithersoever you shall lead me.
3. Thirdly. I answer, that the places alleged are
utterly impertinent to the conclusion you should have
proved ; which was, that it was impossible that two
societies of Christians, divided upon what cause soever
in external communion, may be, in truth and in God's
account, both of thera parts of the catholic church :
whereas your testiraonies, if we grant thera all, say no
more but this, that the societies of heretics, which are
such as overthrow any doctrine necessary to salvation,
and of schisraatics, which are such as separate from the
church's communion without any pretence of error in
the church, or unlawfulness in the conditions of her
communion ; I say, they prove only this, — that such
societies as these are no parts of the church ; which I
willingly grant of all such as are properly and forraally
heretics and schisraatics ; frora which nuraber, I think,
with St. Austin, they are to be exempted qui quce-
runt cauta soUicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati, cum
invenerint.* Whereas I put the ease of such two
societies, which, not differing indeed in any thing neces
sary to salvation, do yet erroneously believe that the
errors wherewith they charge one another are damnable,
and so by this opinion of rautual error are kept on both
sides frora being heretics.
Because I desire to bring you and others to the
truth, or to be brought to it by you, I thought good,
for your direction in your intended reply, to acquaint
you with these things : —
1. That I conceive the * * * * in your discourse
is this : that whensoever any two societies of Christians
differ in external communion, one of thera must be of
necessity heretical or schisraatical. I conceive there is
no such necessity ; and that the stories of Victor and
the bishops of Asia, St. Cyprian and pope Stephen,
make it evident. And therefore I desire you to pro
duce sorae convincing argument to the contrary ; and,
• " M'ho with cautious solicitude search for Truth ; being willing
and ready to be corrected by her, whenever she is found."  Edit.

BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 515
that you may the better do it, I thought good to
inform you what I mean by an heretic, and what by a
schismatic. An heretic therefore I conceive him that holds an
error against faith with obstinacy. Obstinate I con
ceive him who will not change his opinion, when his
reasons for it are so answered that he cannot reply, and
when the reasons against it are so convincing that he
cannot answer them. By " the faith " I understand all
those doctrines, and no more, which Christ taught his
apostles, and the apostles the ehurch ; yet I exclude
not from this number the certain and evident deduc
tions of thera.
A schisraatic I account him (and Facundus Hermia-
nensis hath taught me to do so) who, without any
supposing of eiTor in the conditions of a church's
communion, divides himself either from the obedience
of that church to which he owes obedience, or from the
communion of that church to which he owes com
munion. 2. Another thing which I thought fit to acquaint
you with, is this : that you go upon another very false
and deceitful supposition ; namely, that if we will not
be Protestants, presently we must be Papists ; if we
forsake the churcb of England, we must go presently to
the church of Rome. Whereas if your arguraents did
conclude, (as they do not,) that before Luther's time
there was sorae church of one denoraination which was
the catholic church, I should rauch rather think it were
the church of Greece than the church of Rome ; and I
believe others also would think so as well as I, but for
that reason which one gives why raore raen hold the
pope above a council, than a council above a pope ;
that is, because councUs give no raaintenance or prefer
ment, and the popes do.
Think not yet, I pray, that I say this, as if I con
ceived this to be vour reason for preferring the Roman
church before the Greek; (for I protest I do not;)
but rather that, conceiving verUy you were to leave the
church of England, to avoid trouble, you took the next

51(5 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHURCH
boat and went to the church of Rome, because that
bespake you first.
You impute to rae, as I hear, that the way I take is
destructive only, and that I build nothing ; which,
first, is not a fault, for Christian religion is not now
to be built ; but only I desire to have the rubbish and
impertinent lumber taken off which you have laid upon
it, which hides the glorious simplicity of it from them
which otherwise would erabrace it. Remeraber, I
pray, AveiToes's saying : Quandoquidem Chridiani
adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum philoso
phis ;* and consider the swarras of atheists in Italy ; and
then tell rae whether your unreasonable and contradic
tious doctrines, your forged miracles and counterfeit
legends, have not in all probability produced this
effect ! Secondly. If it be a fault, it is certainly your
own ; for your discourse — intended for the proof of a
positive conclusion, that we must be Papists — proves,
in deed and in truth, nothing ; but, even in show and
appearance, no more but this negative, that we must not
he Protestants. But what we raust be, if we raust not
be Protestants, God knows ; you in this discourse, I
am sure, do not show it.
MR. lewgar's reply.
Section i. The minor of Mr. Chillingworth's argu
ment against my ground is very weak, being framed
upon a false supposition, that a Protestant could name
no other church professing a diverse faith, &c., from
the Greek church, which was the catholic church : fot
if he could not indeed name any other, the title would
remain to the Greek church : but he hath the Roman
to name ; and so ray ground cannot conclude either for
the Greek, or Abyssine, or any other besides the
Roraan ; but for that it does, except he can narae some
other. * In reference to the absurdities involved in the Popish novelty of
transubstantiation, he exclaimed, " When I die, may my soul be
gathered among the Philosophers, since these Christians devour the
object which they have previously adored." — Edit.

BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 517
Sect. ii. His second answer is weak likewise ; for
my minor is always true ; at least they thought it to be
so whose authorities I produce in confirmation of it, as
will appear to any one that considers them well ; how
their force lies in thesi, not in hypothesi; not that the
church was not then divided into more societies than.
one, but that she could never be.
Sect. iii. As for his instance to the contrary,
wherein he believes I will not say the churches excom
municated by Victor ceased to be a true member of the
catholic ; if I say so, I say no more than the ancient
Fathers said before me : Irenseus, when he desired
Victor ^Yj OTpojcoTFTsiv, "not to cut off" so many and
great churches ; and Ruffinus reprehendit eum, quod
non bene fecisset ahscindere ab unitate corporis, <§rc.*
Sect. iv. But howsoever the case of excoraraunica
tion may be, the division of external communion which
I intended, and the Fathers spake of in the alleged
authorities, was that which was made by voluntary
separation :
Sect. v. Whereby the churcb (before, one society)
is divided into several distinct societies, both claiming
to be the church ; of which societies so divided but one
can be the catholic : and this is proved by the authori
ties alleged ; which authorities must not be answered
by disproving them as he does ; (for that is to change
his adversary, and confute the Fathers' sayings instead
of mine ;) but by showing their true sense or judgment
to be otherwise than I alleged it.
Sect. vi. To his demand upon the places aUeged I
answer, that I do not build my whole faith of this con
clusion upon the authority of those Fathers ; for I
produce thera, not for the authority of the thing, but of
the exposition. The thing itself is an article of the
Creed, Unam Catholicam, [" one catholic churcl-,"]
grounded in express Scripture, Columba mea unica.f
• Ruflinus " blames him for having acted improperly in cutting off
from the unity ofthe body," &c  Edit.
t "My dove, my undefiled is but one." (Canticles vi. 9.) —
Edit.

518 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHURCH
But because there is difference in understanding this
prophecy, I produce these authorities, to show the
judgment of the ancient church, how they understood
it : and the proper answer to this is either to show that
these words were not there, or at least not this meaning ;
and so to show their meaning out of other places more
pregnant. Sect. vii. And I promise that whensoever an equal
consent of Fathers can be showed for any thing as I
can show for this, I will believe it as firmly as I do
this. Sect. viii. But this is not the answerer's part, to
propound doubts and difficulties, but to satisfy the
proof objected.
Sect. ix. And if this course be any raore taken, I
will save rayself all farther labour in a business so likely
to be endless.
Sect. x. His second answer to the places is whoUy
irapertinent ; for therein would he disprove thera from
concluding a necessity of resting in the judgment of the
Roman ehurch ; whereas I produced them only to show
that araong several societies of Christians only one can
be the catholic ; and against this his second answer
saith nothing.
Sect. xi. In his third answer he makes some show
of reply to the authorities themselves ; but he commits
a double error : one, that he imposes upon me a wrong
conclusion to be proved, as will appear by coraparing
my conclusion in my paper with the conclusion he
would appoint me :
Sect. xir. Another, that he imposes upon the
authorities a wrong interpretation, no way grounded in
the words themselves, nor in the places whence they
were taken, nor in any other places of the same Fa
thers, but merely forged out of his own brain. For,
first, the places do not only say that the societies of
heretics and schisraatics are no part of the church, but
that the church cannot be divided into more societies
than one ; and they account societies divided which are
either of a diverse faith or a diverse communion. Nei-

BE THE catholic CHURCH. 519
ther do they define heretics or schismatics in that
manner as he does.
Sect. xiii. For an heretic, in their language, is he
that opposes pertinaciously the common faith of the
church ; and a schismatic, he that separates from the
catholic communion, never making any mention at all
of the cause.
Sect. xiv. And if his definition of a schisraatic
may stand, then certainly there was no schismatic ever
in the world, nor none are at this day ; for none did,
none does, separate without some pretence of error or
unlawfulness in the conditions of the church's com
munion. Sect. xv. And so I expect both a fuller and
director answer to my argument, without excursions or
diversions into any other matter, till the judgment of
antiquity be cleared in this point.
MR. chillingworth's ANSWER.
To Section i. The minor of my argument, you
say, is very weak, being grounded upon a false sup
position, that a Protedant could name no other ehurch
professing a diverse faith from the Greek, which was
the catholic church. And your reason is, hecause he
might name the Boman. But in earnest, Mr. Lewgar,
do you think that a Protestant remaining a Protestant
can esteem the Roman church to be the catholic
church .'' or do you think to put tricks upon us, with
taking your proposition one while in sensu composite,
another while in sensu diviso ? For if your meaning
was, that a Protestant not remaining, but ceasing to be,
a Protestant might name the Roman for the catholic ;
so I say also to your discourse, that a Protestant ceas
ing to be a Protestant might name the Greek to be the
catholic church ; and if there were any necessity to find
out one church of one denoraination, as the Greek, the
Roman, the Abyssine, which one raust be the catholic,
I see no reason but he might pitch upon the Greek
church as well as the Roman : I am sure your dis
course proves nothing to the contrary. In short, thus

.520 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHUECH
I say : If a Grecian should go about to prove to a
Protestant that his church is the catholic, by saying, (as
you do for the Roman,) Some one was so before Luther,
and you can name no other, therefore ours is so ; what
soever may be answered to hira may be answered to
you. For as you say, A Protestant ceasing to be a
Protestant may name to him the Roman ; so I say, A
Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant may name to you
the Grecian. If you say, A Protestant remaining a
Protestant can name no other but the Roman for the
catholic ; I may (very ridiculously, I confess, but yet
as traly) say. He can narae no other but the Grecian.
If you say, He cannot name the Greek church neither,
reraaining a Protestant ; I say likewise. Neither, re
maining a Protestant, can he name the Roraan for the
catholic. So the argument is equal iu all respects on
both sides ; and therefore either concludes for both
parts, (which is impossible, for then contradictions
should be both true,) or else (which is certain) it
concludes for neither. And therefore I say, your
ground you build on, that, before Luther, some church
of oue denoraination was the catholic, (if it were trae,
as it is most false,) would not prove your intent. It
would destroy perhaps our church, but it would not
build yours. It would prove peradventure that we must
not be Protestants, but it wiU be far frora proving that
we must be Papists. For after we have left being
Protestants, (I tell you again, that you raay not mis
take,) there is yet no necessity of being Papists ; no
more than if I go out of England, there is a necessity
of going to Rorae. And thus rauch to show the poor
ness of your ground, if it were trae. Now, in the second
place, I say it is false, neither have you proved any
thing to the contrary.
To Sect. ii. You say, the authorities you have
produced show to any that consider them tceU, that the
church could never be divided into more socidies than
one ; and you mean, I hope, one in extemal corarau
nion, or else you dally in arabiguiiies : and then I say,
I have well considered the alleged authorities, and they

BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 521
appear to me to say no such thing ; but only that the
societies of heretics and schismatics are no true mem
bers of the church : whereas I put the case of two such
societies which were divided in external comraunion, by
reason of sorae overvalued difference between them, and
yet were neither of them heretical or schismatical.
To this I knew you could not answer, but only by
saying, that this supposition was impossible ; naraely,
that of two societies divided in external coraraunion,
neither should be heretical nor schismatical ; and there
fore I desired you to prove by one convincing argu
ment that this is impossible. This you have not done,
nor, I believe, can do ; and therefore all your places
fall short of your intended conclusion : and if you
would put them into syUogistical forra, you should
presently see you conclude frora them sophistically in
that fallacy which is called, A dido secundilm quid, ad
dictum simpliciter.* Thus, No two divided societies,
whereof one is heretical or schisraatical, can be both
members of the catholic church : Therefore, siraply, no
two divided societies can be so. The antecedent I
grant, which is all that your places say, as you shall see
anon ; but the consequence is sophistical, and therefore
that I deny. It is no better nor worse than if you
should argue thus : No true divided societies, whereof
one is outlawed and in rebellion, are both members of
the same commonwealth : Therefore siraply no two
divided societies.
But against this you pretend, that the alleged places
say not only that the societies of heretics and schisraa
tics are no parts of the church, but that the church
cannot be divided into more societies than one : and
they account societies divided which are either of a
diverse faith or of a diverse communion. This is that
which I would have proved, but as yet I cannot see it
done. There be eleven quotations in all : seven of
them speak expressly and formally of division made by
heretics and schisraatics ; namely, the first, third,
" "From a hypothetical saying to a positive assertion." — Edit.

522 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHURCH
fourth, seventh, ninth, tenth, and eleventh : three other
of them, naraely, the fifth, sixth, and eighth, though
they use not the word, yet Mr. Lewgar knows they
speak of the Donatists, which were schismatics ; and
that by the relative particles " you " and " them " are
meant the Donatists : and lastly, the second, Mr.
Lewgar knows, says nothing but this, that an heretic
cannot be accounted of that one fiock which is the
church. But to make the most of them that can be, the first
saith, " The unity of the church cannot be separated at
all nor divided." This I grant ; but then I say, every
difference does not in the sight of God divide this
unity ; for then diversity of opinions should do it ; and
so the Jesuits and Dominicans should be no longer
members of the same church. Or, if every difference
will not do it, why must it of necessity be always done
by difference in communion upon an insufficient
ground, yet mistaken for sufficient .' for such only
I speak of. Sure I ara, this place says no such matter.
The next place says, tbe flock is but one ; and all the
rest, that the church is but one, and that heretics and
schismatics are not of it ; which certainly was not the
thing to be proved, but that of this one flock, of this
one church, two societies divided, without just cause,
in communion, might not be true and lively members ;
both in one body mystical in the sight of God, though
divided in unity in the sight of men. It is trae
indeed, whosoever is shut out from the church on earth
is likewise cut off from it before God in heaven ; but
you know it must be clave non errante,* when the
cause of abscission is true and sufficient.
To Sect. hi. If you say so, you say no more
than the Fathers. But what evasions and tergiver
sations are these .'' Why do you put us off with
IFS and AXDS .'' I beseech you tell me, or at least
him that desires to reap some benefit bv our con
ference, directly and categorically, do you say so, or do
• " By a key which is not liable to error."  Edit.

be the catholic CHURCH. 523
you say it is not so ? Were the excoraraunicated
churches of Asia still merabers of the catholic church,
(I mean in God's account,) or were they not, but all
damned for that horrible heresy of celebrating the
feast of Easter upon a diverse day from the western
churches .'' If you mean honestly and fairly, answer
directly to this question, and then you shall see what
wUl come of it. Assure yourself, you have a wolf by
the ears. If you say they were, you overthrow your
own conclusions, and say that churches divided in com
munion raay both be members of the catholic ; if they
were not, then shall we have saints and martyrs in
heaven, which were no merabers of the catholic Roman
church. As for Irenseus's /iij ¦arpoxoTrTeii/, [" not to cut off,"]
and Ruffinus's ahscindere ah imitate corporis, [" abscis
sion frora the unity of the body,"] they iraply no more
but this at the most, that Victor (quantum in sefuit)*
did cut them off from the extemal coraraunion of the ca
tholic church ; supposing that for their obstinacy in their
tradition they had cut themselves off from the internal
communion of it. But that this sentence of Victor's
was ratified in heaven, and that they were indeed cut
off from the mystical body of Christ, so far was Ire
nseus from thinking, that he, and in a manner all the
Other bishops, reprehended Victor for pronouncing this
sentence on them upon a cause so insufficient : which
how they could say or possibly think of a sentence rati
fied by God in heaven, and not reprehend God himself,
I desire you to inform me. And if they did not
intend to reprehend the sentence of God hiraself, toge
ther with Victor's, then I believe it will follow unavoid
ably, that they did not conceive nor believe Victor's
sentence to be ratified by God ; and consequently did
not believe that these excommunicated churches were
not, in God's account, true merabers of tbe body of
Christ. To Sect. iv. And here again we have another
• "As far as lay in his power." — Edit.

524 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHURCH
subterfuge, by a verbal distinction between excommuni
cation and voluntary separation ; as if the separation
which the church of Rome made in Victor's tirae from
the Asian churches, were not a voluntary separation ; or
as if the churches of Asia did not voluntarily do that
which was the cause of their separation ; or as if
(though they separated not theraselves indeed, conceiv
ing the cause to be insufficient) they did not yet
reraain voluntarily separated, rather than conforra them
selves to the churcb of Rome ; or, lastly, as if the
Grecians of old, or the Protestants of late, might not
pretend as justly as the Asian churches, that their
separation too was not voluntarily, but of necessity;
for that the church of Rome required of them, under
pain of excommunication, such conditions of her com
munion as were neither necessary nor lawful to be
performed. To Sect. v. And here again the matter is strait
ened by another limitation. Both sides, say you, mvM
claim to he the church. But what then, if one of them
only claira, though vainly, to be the church, and the
other content itself with being a part of it ? These
then, it seems, for any thing you have said to the con
trary, may be both raerabers of the cathoUc church.
And certainly this is the case now between the church
of England and the church of Rorae ; and, for aught I
know, was between the church of Rome and the church
of Greece. For I believe it wUl hardly be proved, that
the excoraraunication between them was mutual ; nor
that the church of Greece esteems itself the whole
ehurch, and the church of Rome no church, but itself
a sound member of the church, and that a corrupted
one. Again : whereas you say, The Fathers speak of a
voluntary separation ; certainly, they speak of any
separation by heretics. And such were, in Victor's
judgment, the churches of Asia, for holding an opinion
contrary to the faith, as he esteeraed : or if he did not,
why did he cut thera from the comraunion of the
church ? But the true difference is, the Fathers speak

BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 525
of those which by your church are esteemed heretics,
and are so ; whereas the Asian churches were by Victor
esteemed heretics, but were not so.
To Sect. vi. But their authorities produced show
no more than what I have showed, — that the church
is but one, in exclusion of heretics and schismatics ;
and not that two particular churches, divided by mis
take upon sorae overvalued difference, raay not be both
parts of the catholic.
To Sect. vii. But I desire you to tell me whether
you will do this, if the doctrines produced and con
firmed by sueh a consent of Fathers happen to be, in
the judgraent of the church of Rorae, either not catho
lic, or absolutely heretical. If you will undertake this,
you shall hear farther frora me : but if, when their
places are produced, you will pretend, as sorae of your
side do, that surely they are corrupted ; — having neither
reason nor show of reason for it ; unless this raay pass
for one, (as perhaps it raay, where reasons are scarce,)
that they are against your doctrine ; — or if you will say
they are to be interpreted according to the pleasure of
your church, whether their words will bear it or no ;
then I shall but lose ray labour ; for this is not to try
your church by the Fathers, but the Fathers by your
church. The doctrines which I undertake to justify by a
greater consent of P'athers than here you produce, for
instance, shall be these :
1. That God's election supposeth prescience of man's
faith and perseverance.
2. That God doth not predetermine men to all their
actions. 3. That the Pope hath no power in temporalities
over kings either directly or indirectly.
4. That the bishop of Rome may err in his public
determinations of matters of faith.
5. That the blessed Virgin was guilty of original sin.
6. That the blessed Virgin was guilty of actual sin.
7. That the comraunion was to be adrainistered to
the laity in both kinds.

526 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHUECH
8. That the reading of the Scripture was to he
denied to no raan.
9. That the opinion of the millenaries is true.
10. That the eucharist is to be administered to
infants. 11. That the substance of bread and wine remains in
the eucharist after consecration.
12. That the souls of the saints departed enjoy not
the vision of God before the last day.
13. That at the day of judgment all the saints shaU
pass through a purging fire.
All these propositions are held by your chiuch either
heretical, or at least not catholical ; and yet, in this
promise of yours, you have undertaken to believe them
as firmly as you now do this, — that two divided societies
cannot be both members of the catholic church.
To Sect. vih. Is it nof then the answerer's part
to show, that the proofs pretended are indeed no proofs ?
and doth not he prove [them] no proofs, at least in
your mouth, who undertakes to show, that an equal or
greater number of the very same witnesses is rejected
by yourselves in many other things ? Either the con
sent of the Fathers in any age or ages is in&lUble, and
then you are to reject it in nothing ; or it is not so,
and then you are not to urge it in any thing : as if the
Fathers' testimonies against us were swords and spears,
and against you bulrushes.
To Sect. ix. In effect, as if you should say, " If
you answer not as I please, I will dispute no longer."
But you remeraber the proverb :  will think of it:
Occasionem qucerit, qui cupit discedere.*
To Sect. x. I pray tell me, is not " therefore" a
note of an illation, or a conclusion .'' And is not your
last therefore this .' — " Therefore her judgraent is to be
rested in." Which though it be not your first conclu
sion, yet yours it is, and you may not declaim it.
And it is so near of kin to the former, (in your judg
ment, I am sure,) that they must stand or fall together.
• " He who is desirous of departing, generally seeks for a .fa.voui-
able opportunity." — Edit.

BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 527
Therefore, he that speaks pertinently for the disproving
of the one, cannot speak irapertinently towards the dis
proving the other : and therefore you cannot so shift it
off, but of necessity you raust answer the argument
there urged, or confess it ingenuously to be unanswer
able. Or if you wUl not answer any thing where the contra
diction of your first conclusion is not in terms inferred,
then take it thus : If St. Cyprian and St. Austin did
not think it necessary in matters of faith to rest in the
judgment ofthe Roman church and the adherents of it;
then either they thought not the catholic church's judg
ment necessary to be rested on, or they thought not
that the catholic church. But the antecedent is true,
and undeniably proved so by their actions, and the con
sequence evident ; therefore, the consequent must be
true in one or other part. But you will not say, the
former is trae ; it remains, therefore, the latter must
be, and that is, that St. Austin and St. Cyprian did not
think the church of Rome and the adherents of it to be
the catholic church.
To Sect. xi. But I tell you now, and have already
told you, that, in our discourse before Mr. Skinner and
Dr. Sheldon, I answered your raajor, as then you
fi:amed your arguraent, — as now your minor, — thus,
" If you understand by ' one company ' of Christians,
one in external comraunion, I deny your major." For
I say, that two several societies of Christians which do
not externally coraraunicate together, may be both parts
of the same catholic church ; and what difference there
is between this, and the conclusion I told you you
should have proved, I do not well understand.
To Sect. xii. And is it possible you should say so,
when every one of the places carry this sense in their
forehead, and seven of the eleven in terms express it, that
they intended only to exclude heretics and schismatics
from being parts of the church ? For if they did not,
against whora did they intend them ? Pagans lay no
claim to the church, therefore not against them ;
catholics they did not intend to exclude ; I know not

528 WHETHER THE ROMAN CHURCH
who remains besides, but heretics and schismatics
Besides the frequent opposition in them between one
church on the one side, and heretics and schismatics,
who sees not that in these places they intended to
exclude only these pretenders out of the church's
unity .''
Lastly : Whereas you say, that the places say, that
the church cannot be divided ; and that they account
those divided who are of a diverse faith, or a diverse
communion : I tell you, that I have read them over
and over, and, unless ray eyes deceive, they say not
one word of a diverse comraunion.
To Sect. xiii. Whereas a herdic in your lan
guage is he that opposdh pertinaciously the common
faith of the church ; in raine, he is such an one as
holds an error against faith with obstinacy : verUy, a
monstrous difference between these definitions. To
oppose, and hold against, I hope, are all one ; " faith,"
and " the coraraon faith of the church," sure are not very
different ; "pertinaciously," and "with obstinacy," me
thinks raight pass for synonymous : and seeing the parts
agree so well, methinks the total should not be at great
hostility. And for the definition of a schismatic, if
you like not mine, which yet I give you out of a Fa
ther, I pray take your own ; and then show me, if you
mean to do any thing, that wheresoever there are two
societies of Christians differing in extemal communion,
one of thera raust be of necessity either heretical or
schismatical in your own sense of these words. To the
contrary I have said already, and say it now again that
you raay not forget it, the Roman and the Asian
churches in Victor's time, the Roman and the African
in St. Stephen's tirae, differed in extemal coraraunion ;
and yet neither of them was heretical, for they did not
oppose pertinaciously the comraon faith of the church ;
neither of them was schismatical, for they did not
separate, (never making mention of the cause at all,)
but were separated by the Roman church, and that
upon sorae cause, though it were not sufficient.
To Sect. xiv. The Donatist did so, as Facundus

MR. CHILLINGWORTH AND MR. LEWGAR. .529
Hermianensis testifies ; but you are abused, I believe,
with not distinguishing between these two : They did
pietend that the church required of them some unlawfid
thing among the conditions of her communion ; and
they did pretend that it was unlawful for them to com
municate with the chnrch. This \ confess they did
pretend ; but it was in regard of some persons in the
church, with whom they thought it unlawfiil to commu
nicate. Bnt the former they did not pretend ; (I mean,
while they conrinued mere schismatics ;) namely, that
there was any error in the church, or impiety iu her
public service of God. And this was my meaning in
saying, " A schismatic is he which separates fiom the
church without pretence of error, or unlawfulness in the
conditions of her communion." Yet if I had left ont
the term " unlawfulness," the definition had been
better, and not obnoxious to this cavUlation ; and so
I did in the second paper which I sent you for yoni
direction ; which, if you had dealt candidly, you should
bave taken notice of.
To Sect. xv. I have repUed, as I think, fidly to
every part and particle of your argument. Neither was
the history of St. Cyprian's and St. Austin's opposition
to the church of Rome an excursion or diversion, but a
dear demonstration of the contradictory of your con
clusion ; namely, " That the Roman church," &c ;
" and therefore her judgment not to be rested upon."
For an answer hereto I shaU be very importunate with
yon ; and, therefore, if you desire to avoid trouble, I
piay, come out of mv debt as soon as may be.
If it be said, that my argument is not contradictory
to your conclusion, because it shows onlv that the
Roman chnreh with her adherents was not, in St.
Cvprian's or St. Austin's time, the catholic church, but
was at the time before Luther ; I say, to conclude the
one is to conclude the other. For certainly if it were
then at Luther's time so, it was always so ; if it was
not always, it was not then. For if it be of the
essence or necessary to the church, as is pretended, to
be a society of Christians joined in communion with the
A A

530 A CONFEREKCE, &C.
church and bishop of Rorae, then did it always agree to
the church ; and, therefore, in St. Cyprian's and St.
Austin's time, as well as at Luther's rising : if it
were not always, particularly not in St. Cyprian's
tirae, of the essence or necessary to the church to be
so ; then it was irapossible the church should acqufre
this essence or this property afterwards, and therefore
impossible it should have it at the time of Luther's
rising. Necessarium ed, quod non aliquando inest,
aliquando non inest, alicui inest, alicui non inest ; sed
quod semper et omni.* — Aristotelis Posteriora
Aiialytica, lib. i. cap. 4.
Again : Every sophister knows, that " of particulars
nothing can be concluded ; " and therefore he that wUl
show, that the church of Rome and the adherents
of it was the catholic church at Luther's rising, he
raust argue thus : It was always so ; therefore, then
it was so. Now this antecedent is overthrown by any
instance to the contrary ; and so the first antecedent
being proved false, the first consequent cannot but be
felse. For what reason can be imagined, that the
church of Rome and the adherents of it was not the
whole catholic church at St. Cyprian's tirae, and was at
Luther's rising ? If you grant, as I think you cannot
deny, that a church divided from the comraunion of the
Roraan may be still, in truth and in God's account, a
part of the catholic, which is the thing we speak of,
then I hope Mr. Lewgar's argument from unity of com
munion is fallen to the ground ; and it will be no good
plea to say, —
" Some one church, not consisting of divers commu
nions, was the catholic church at Luther's rising :
"No one church can be named to be the catholic
church but the Roraan :
" Therefore, the Roman church was the catholic at
Luther's rising."
For Mr. Lewgar hath not nor cannot prove the
* " That which inheres at all times and in every one, is neces
sary ; not that which sometimes inheres but at other times does not,
and inheres in some but not in every one," — Edit.

A DISCOURSE, &C. 531
major of this syllogism certainly true ; but to the con
trary I have proved, that it cannot be certainly true, by
showing divers instances wherein divers divided com
munions have made up the catholic church ; and there
fore not the dividing of the communions, but the cause
and ground of it, is to be regarded, whether it be just
and sufficient, or unjust and insufficient.
Neither is the bishop or church of Rome, with the
adherents of it, an infaUible judge thereof; for it is
evident both he and it have erred herein divers times ;
which I have evinced already by divers examples, which
I will not repeat, but add to them one confessed by
Mr. Lewgar himself, in his Discourse upon the Article of
the catholic Church, page 84. " St. Athanasius, being
excommunicated, (though by the whole * church,) yet
Riight remain a meraber of Christ's body (not visible,
for that is irapossible, that a person cut off from visible
communion, -f though unjustly, should be a visible
member of the churcb, but) by invisible coraraunion,
by reason of the invalidity of the sentence ; which,
being unjust, is valid enough to visible excision, but
not farther."

III. A DISCOURSE AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE
ROMAN CHURCH ; WITH AN ANSWER TO ALL THOSE
TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE THAT ARE ALLEGED TO
PROVE IT.
The condition of coramunion with the church of
Rome, without the performance whereof no man can be
received into it, is this, that be believe, firmly and
without doubting, whatsoever that church requires him
to believe.
It is impossible that any man should certainly believe
any thing, unless that thing be either evident of itself,
' How by the, whole church, when himself was part of it, and
communicated still with divers other parts of it ?
t What, not to them who know and believe him to be unjustly
excommunicated ?
2 A 2

532 A discourse against the INFALLIBILITY
(as that twice two are four, that every whole is greater
than a part of itself,) or unless he have sorae certain
reason (at least sorae supposed certain reason) and
infallible guide for his belief thereof.
The doctrines which the church of Rome requfreth
to be believed are not evident of themselves ; for then
every one would grant them at first hearing, without any
further proof. He therefore that wUl believe them, must
have some certain and infallible ground whereupon to
build his belief of them.
There is no other ground for a raan's belief of thera,
especially in raany points, but only an assurance of the
infallibility of the church of Rorae.
Now this point of that church's infaUibUity is not
evident of itself ; for then no raan could choose but in
his heart believe it without farther proof. Secondly.
It were in vain to bring any proof of it, as vain as to
light a candle to show men the sun. Thirdly. It were
impossible to bring any proof of it, seeing nothing can
be more evident than that which of itself is evident :
and nothing can be brought in proof of any thing which
is not more evident than that matter to be proved : but
now experience . teacheth that millions there are which
have heard talk of the infelUbility of the Roman
church, and yet do not believe that the defenders of it
do not think it either vain or impossible to go about to
prove it : and from hence it follows plainly, that this
point is not evident of itself.
Neither is there any other certain ground for any
man's belief of it ; or if there be, I desire it may be
produced, as who am ready and most wUling to submit
my judgment to it, fully persuaded that none can be
produced that will endure a severe and impartial exa
raination. If it be said, the Roman church is to be believed
infallible because the Scripture says it is so,
1. I demand, How shall I be assured of the texts
that be alleged that they are indeed Scripture, that is,
the word of God .'' And the answer to this raust be
either, " Because the church tells rae so," or some other ;

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 5.33
if any other be given, then all is not finally resolved into
and buUt upon that church's authority. And this
answer then I hope a Protestant may have leave to
make use of, when he is put to that perilous question,
" How know you the Scripture to be the Scripture ? "
If the answer be, " Because the church tells me so,"
my reply is ready, — that to believe that church is
infallible because the Scriptures say so ; and that the
Scripture is the word of God because the same
church says so ; is nothing else but to believe the
church is infaUible, because the church says so which is
infallible. 2. I could never yet, from the beginning of Genesis
to the end of the Apocalypse, find it written so much
as once in express terras, or equivalently, that the
church in subordination to the see of Rome shall be
always infallible.
3. If it be said, that this is drawn frora good conse
quence, from Scripture traly interpreted ; I demand.
What certain ground have I to warrant me that this
consequence is good, and this interpretation true .'*
And if answer be made, that reason will tell me so ;
I reply, (1.) That this is to build all upon ray own
reason and private interpretation. (2.) I have great
reason to fear, that reason assures no man that the
infaUibility of the church of Rorae may be deduced
from Scripture by good and firm consequence.
4. If it be said, that a consent of Fathers do so
interpret the Scripture ; I answer, (1.) That this is
most false, and cannot without impudence be pre
tended, as I ara ready to justify to any indifferent
hearer. (2.) I demand, Who shall be judge whether
the Fathers raean as is pretended ? If it be said,
reason will tell me so ; I say, (1.) This is false.
(2.) This is again to do that which is objected to Pro
testants for such a horrid crime ; that is, to build all
finally upon reason.
If it be said, "They are so interpreted by the catholic
church ;" I demand whether by " the catholic church "
be meant that only that is in subordination to the

534 A DISCOURSE AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
bishop of Rome, or any other With that or besides that.
If any other, it is false and impudent to pretend that
they so understand the Fathers or Scriptures; If that
only, then this is to say, that that church is infallible,
because it may be deduced from Scripture that it is so ';
and to prove that it may be deduced from Scripture,
because the Fathers say so ; and to prove the Fathers
do say and mean so, because the church of Rome says
they do so. And then what a stir and trouble was here
to no purpose ! Why was it not rather said plainly at
the beginning ? — " The church of Rorae is certainly
infallible, because she herself says so ; and she raust
say trae, because she is infallible." And that is as
much as to say, " Unless you grant me the question,
I neither can nor will dispute with you."
If it is said, " Indeed the Fathers do not draw this
doctrine from Scripture, but yet they affirm it with a
full consent as a matter of tradition ;" I reply, (1.)
That this pretence also is false, and that upon trial it
will not appear to have any colour of probabUity to any
who reraerabers that it is the present Roman church,
and not the cathoUc church, whose infaUibility is here
disputed. (2.) I deraand, Who shall be judge whe
ther the Fathers do indeed affirm this or no ? If
reason, then again we are fallen upon that dangerous
rock, that all must be resolved into private reason ; if
the church, I ask again. What church is raeant .'' If
the church of the Grecians, or Abyssines, or Protest
ants, or any other but the Roman, it is evident they
deny it ; if the church of Rome, then we are again
very near the head of the circle. For I ask. How shaU
I be assured, this church will not err and deceive me in
•interpreting the Fathers .' And the answer must be
either none, or this, that the church is infallible.
Objection. If it be said, that the infaUibUity of
the Roraan church would yield the church so many
commodities, and that the want of an infallible church
to guide men in the way to heaven would bring so
many mischiefs upon the worid, that it cannot be
thought but that God, out of his love to men,

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 535
hath appointed this church as an infallible guide to
all other churches ; seeing it is so necessary there
should be sorae such guide, and so evident there is no
other :
Answer. I answer, that this argument would serve
the church of Greece, or England, or Geneva to prove
itself infallible, and the guide of all other churches,
would they but take upon thera to be so. For every
one might say for itself, " It is necessary there should
be some guide : it is evident there is no other : ergo,
\ am appointed by God to be that guide." The
same argument any man might use, to make hiraself
monarch of any popular state ; for first he raight repre
sent unto them the commodities of a monarchy, and
the mischiefs of a deraocracy ; then he raight say, that
God surely, out of his love to thera, hath appointed
some remedy for their inconveniences ; and, lastly, that
he hath ordained no other to redress thera but himself ;
•and then conclude, that he alone must of necessity be
the man appointed to rule over thera.
I answer. Secondly, that here also we must resolve all
into reason and the private spirit ; or that we are still
in the circle. For I demand. How do you know that
these pretended commodities are to be compassed, and
these- pretended mischiefs are to be avoided, only by
the infaUibUity of the church of Rome or some other
church, and not by any other means which God hath
provided .'' If you say, reason tells you so ; I say,
(1.) This is to make reason your last and lowest foun
dation. (2.) I assure you, reason tells rae no such mat
ter ; and yet I know that I am as wUling to hear it as
you are. If you say, the church tells you so, and she
is infallible ; this, I say, is to prove the church infalli
ble because she is so.
Thirdly. I demand. How is it possible you should
know, that these pretended commodities might not be
gained, and these mischiefs which you fear avoided,
without any assistance of the church of Rome's infalli
hility, if all raen in the worid did believe the Scripture,
and live according to it, and would require no more of

536 A DISCOURSE AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
others but to do so .'' If you say, that, notwith
standing this, there would be no unity in doctrine ;
I answer, (1.) It is irapossible you should know this ;
considering that there are many places in Scripture
which do raore than probably iraport, that the want of
piety in living is the cause of want of unity in believ
ing. (2.) That there would be unity of opinion in aU
things necessary ; and that in things not necessary
unity of opinion is not necessary. But, lastly, that, not
withstanding differences in these things of lesser im
portance, there raight and would be unity of commu
nion, unity of charity and affection, which is one of the
greatest blessings which the world is capable of ; abso
lute unity of opinion being a matter rather to be desired
than hoped for.
Object. Against this it has been objected, that the
Scripture cannot be the guide, because many raen have
used their best endeavours to follow it, and yet have
fallen, sorae into Arianism, others into Pelagianism,
others into other damnable heresies ; and how can I
secure any man but he may do the like .''
Ans. To this I answer, by distinguishing the per
sons which are pretended to have made use of this
guide, and yet to have fallen into heresy, that they
were either such as did love the trath sincerely and
above all things, as did seek it dUigently and with
all their power, to this intent, that they might conform
their belief and life unto it ; such as, following St.
Paul's direction, did first try all things deliberately,
and then choose what in their conscience they thought
was best : Or they were such as, for want of the love of
the truth, God suffered to fiill into " strong delusions,"
to fall to a false religion, because they brought not
forth the fruits of the true, to make " shipwreck " of
their " faith," because they had cast away " a good
conscience," to have their eyes " blinded," and their
light taken away, because they made not the right use
of it, but were idle and unprofitable, and set their
hearts upon vanity, and had only a form of religion, but
denied the effect of it in their lives and conversations.;

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 537
in a word, such as were betrayed to their error, and
kept for ever in it, either by negligence in seeking the
trath, or unwUlingness to find it, or by sorae other
voluntary sin. And, for these, I dare not fiatter them
with hope of pardon ; but let me tell you, it is not the
error of the understanding, but the sin of their will,
that traly and properly damns them. But, for the
former, I am confident that nothing is more contumeli
ous to the goodness of God, than to think that he will
damn any such ; for he should damn raen that truly
love him, and desire to serve him, — for doing that
which, all things considered, was impossible for thera
not to do.
Object. If it is said, that pride of their own under
standing made them not-submit to the church of Rome,
and to her guidance ; and that for this, being a volun
tary sin, they may be justly damned ;
Ans. I answer, that whether the church of Rome
be the guide of all men, is the question, and therefore
not to be begged, but proved : I'hat the raan we speak
of is very wUling to follow this guide, could he find any
good ground to believe it is his guide ; and therefore the
reason he follows her not is not pride, but ignorance :
That as it is humility to obey those whora God hath
set over us, so it is credulity to follow every one that
will take upon him to lead us : That " if the blind
lead the blind," not only the leader but the follower
shall perish : Lastly, that the present church of Rome
pretends very little, and indeed nothing of raoment, to
get the office of being head and guide of the church,
which antichrist, when he cometh, may not and will not
make use of for the very same end and purpose ; and
therefore he had reason not to be too sudden and preci
pitate in coraraittmg himself to the conduct of the
pope, for fear of mistaking antichrist for the vicar of
Christ. Objkct. " But in all comraonwealths it is necessary
there should be not only a law for raen to live by, but
also a living and speaking judge to decide their differ
ences arising about the various interpretations of th^
2 A 5

538 A DISCOITRSE AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
law, and otherwise controversies would be endless ;
therefore, if such a judge be so necessary in civil affairs,
for the procuring and preserving our teraporal peace
and happiness, how much more necessary is he for the
deciding of those controversies that concem the saving
and damning of our souls for ever ! "
Ans. Hereunto I answer, 1. That if it were as evi
dent and certain that God hath appointed the pope or
church of Rome to be the guide of faith, and judge of con
troversies, as thatthe king hath appointed such an one to
be lord chief justice, the having of such a guide would
be very avaUable for to preserve the church in unity,
and to conduct raen's souls to heaven r but a judge that
has no better title or evidence to his place than the
pope has to that which he pretends to, a judge that is
doubtful and justly questionable whether he be the
judge or no, is in aU probability likely to produce clean
contrary effects, and to be himself one of the apples of
strife, one of the greatest subjects of controversy, and
occasion of dissensions.
And, to avoid this great inconvenience, if God had
intended the pope or church of Rorae for this great
office, certainly he would have said so very plainly and
very frequently ; if not frequently, certainly sometimes,
once at least, he would have said so in express terms.
But he does not say so, no, not so rauch as once, nor
any thing frora whence it may be coUected with any
sure or firm consequence ; therefore, if it be not certain,
certainly it is very probable he never raeant so.
Again : In civil controversies, the case can hardly be
so put, that there should be any necessity that the same
man should be judge and party ; but iu matters of
religion, wherein all have equal interest, every man is a
party, and engaged to judge for temporal respects this
way or that way, and therefore not fit to be a judge.
But what, then, if he which was with so rauch cla
mour and so little reason vouched for the infallibility
of the Roman church, do tell you plainly there is no
living judge on earth appointed by God to decide the
controversies arising amongst Christians, nor no way to

or THE EOMAN CHURCH. -5.39
determine them but Scripture ? His words are express
and formal, and need no other commentary but a trae
interpretation. Vos dicitis. Licet ; nos, Non Ucet : inter vestrum
Licet et nostrum Non Ucet, nutant d remigant animce
fopulorum. Nemo vobis credat, nemo nobis; omnes
eontentiosi homines sumus. Quce-rendi sunt judices : si
Christiani, de utraque parte dari non possunt : de foris
qiUBrendus est judex. Si Paganus, non potest nosse
Christiana secreta : si Judwus, inimicus est Christiani
baiptismatis. Ergo in terris de hac re nvUum poterit
reperiri judicium : de coelo qucerendus est judex. Sed
id quid pidsamus ccelum, dim habeamus hic in etangt-
Uo testamentum ? Quia hoc loco recte possunt terren/e
ecdestibus comparari ; tale est, quod quivis hominum
habens numerosos filios : his quamdiu prcesens est, ipse
imperat singidis ; non ed adhuc necessarium testamen
tum. Sic et Christus, quamdiu prcesens in terris fuit,
(quamvis nec modo desit, J pro tempore quicquid neces
sarium erat apostolis imperat it. Sed quomodo ter re
mis pater dim se in confinio senserit mortis, timens ne
post mortem suam rupta pace litigent fratri, adhibitis
te^us voluntatem suam de pectore morituro transfert
m tabulas diu duraturas ; d si fuerit inter fratres
contentio nata, non itur ad tumxdum, sed quceritur
testamentum, d qui in tumulo quiesdt tadtis de tabulis
loquitur vivus. Is, cujus ed testamentum, in coelo est :
ergo roluntas yus velut in testamento sic in evangdio
inquiratur. — Optatus Mile vit anc s, Ub. v. ad
principium. That is, " You say such a thing is lavful ; we say
it is unlawful : the minds of the people are doubtftd and
wavering between your lawful and our unlawful. Let
no man beUeve either vou or us : we are aU contentious
men. We mnst seek therefore for judges between us.
If Christians are to be our judges, both sides wiU not
afford such. We must seek for a judge abroad. If he
be a Pagan, he cannot know the secrets of Christianity;
if he be a Jew, he is an enemy to Christian baptism.
Therefore there is no judgment of this matter can be.

540 A DISCOURSE AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
found on earth. We must seek for a judge from'
heaven. But to what end do we solicit heaven, when
we have here in the gospel a will and testament?
And (because here we may fitly compare earthly things
with heavenly) the case is just as if a raan had many
sons : while he is present with them, he commands
every one what he will have done ; and there is no
need as yet of raaking his last will. So also Christ, as
long as he was present on earth, (though neither now is
he wanting,) for a time coraraanded his apostles what
soever was necessary. But just as au earthly father,
when he feels his death approaching, fearing lest after
his death the brothers should fall out and quarrel, he
calls in witnesses, and translates his will from his dying
heart into writing-tables that will continue long after
hira. Now if any controversy arises among the bro-.
thers, they do not go to his torab, but consult his last
will ; and thus he, whilst he rests in his grave, does
speak to them in those silent tables as if he were alive.
He whose testament we have is in heaven ; therefore
we are to inquire his pleasure in the Gospel, as in his
last will and testament."
It is plain from hence, that he knew not of any
living, speaking, audible judge, furnished with autho
rity and infaUibUity to decide this controversy. Had
he known any such assisted with the Spfrit of God for
this purpose, it had been horrible impiety against God
and the church's peace to say there was none such, or
the Spirit of God was not able by his assistance to keep
this judge from being hindered with partiality from
seeing the truth. Had he thought the bishop of
Rome's speaking ex cathedra to be this judge, now had
been the tirae to have said so ; but he says directly the
contrary ; and therefore it is plain he knew of no such
authority he had.
Neither is there the like reason for a judge finally
and with authority to deterraine controversies in reli
gion and civil differences. For if the controversy be
about mine and thine, about land, or money, or any
other thing, it is irapossible that both I should hold

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 541
the possession of it and my adversary too ; and one of
us must do injury to the other, which is not fit it
should be eternal. But in matters of doctrine the case
is clean contrary : I may hold ray opinion and do ray
adversary no wrong, and my adversary raay hold his
and do rae none.
[texts of SCRIPTURE ALLEGED FOR
INFALLIBILITY.]
The texts alleged for it by cardinal Perron and Mr.
Stratford are partly prophecies of the Old Testament,
partly promises of the New.
[out of the old TESTAMENT THEY ALLEGE
THESE TEXTS.]
1. " Thou shalt be called. The city of justice, the
faithful city." (Isai. i. 26.)
2. " Through thee shall no more pass any that is
uncircuracised or unclean." (Isai. Ui. 1.)
3. " As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith
the Lord : My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words
which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of
thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out
of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from
henceforth and for ever." (Isai. lix. 21.)
4. " Upon thy walls, Jerasalem, I have appointed
watchmen all the day and all the night for ever : they
shaU not hold their peace." (Isai. Ixii. 6.)
5. " This shall be the covenant which I will make
with the house of Israel, saith the Lord : I will give
my law in thefr bowels, and in their heart I will write
it ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people." (Jer. xxxi. 33.)
6. " I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you
to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments
and do them." (Ezek. xxxvi. 27.)
7. " I will give my sanctification in the midst of
them for ever." (Ezek. xxxvii. 26.)
8. "I will dispouse thee to me for ever ; and I will
dispouse thee to me in justice and judgment, and in

542 A DISCOURSE AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
mercy and coraraiserations ; I will espouse thee to me
in faith, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord/'
(Hosea U. 19, 20.)
9. " Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no spot
in thee." (Canticles iv. 7-)
Now before we proceed further, let us refiect upon
these places, and make the most of them for the behoof
of the Roman church ; and I believe it will then
appear to any one not veUed with prejudice, that not
one of them reaches horae to the conclusion intended,
which is, that the Roraan church is infallible.
The first place perhaps would do something, but that
there are three raain exceptions against it : 1. That
here is no evidence, not so rauch as that of probabUity,
that this is here spoken of the church of Rome.
2. That -it is certain that it is not spoken of the church
of Rome ; but of the\ nation of the Jews, after their
conversion, as is apparent frora that which follows:
" Zion shall be redeeraed with judgment, and her con
verts with righteousness." 3. That it is no way cer
tain, that whatsoever society may be called " the city
of righteousness, the faithful city," raust be infallible in
all her doctrine. With a great deal raore probabUity
it raight challenge from hence the privilege of being
impeccable ; which yet Roman catholics, I believe, do
not pretend to.
The second place is liable to the same exceptions ;
the church of Rorae is not spoken of in it, but Zion
and Jerusalera. And it will serve as well, nay, better,
to prove irapeccability than infallibility.
The third place is the Achilles for this opinion,
wherein every writer triumphs ; but I wonder they
should do so, considering the covenant here spoken of
is made, not with the church of Rome, but with Zion,
and them that turn from transgression in Jacob. The
words are : " And the Redeemer shall corae out of
Zion, and unto thera that turn from transgression in
Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, this is ray covenant
with them, saith the Lord : My Spirit that is in thee
and my wfjds," &c. Now if the church of Rome be

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. ¦ 543
Zion and they that turn from iniquity in Jacob, they
raay have title to this covenant ; if not, they must for
bear, and leave it to the Jews after their conversion, to
whom it is appropriated by a more infaUible interpreter
than the pope ; I mean, St. Paul, Rom. xi. 26. And
it seems the church of Rome also believes as much ;
for, otherwise, why does she, in the margent of her
Bible, send us to that place of St. Paul for an expo
sition .''
Read the fourth place, and you shall find nothing
can be made of it but this, that the watchmen of
Jerasalem shall never cease importuning God for the
sending of the Messias. To this purpose speaks the
prophet in verse 1 : " For Zion's sake I wUl not hold
my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest,
until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness.
And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness." But
the words following these that are objected make it
most evident, which are : " Ye that make mention of
the Lord, keep not silence, and give hira no rest, tUl
he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the
earth." The fifth place had they set down entirely, for very
sharae they could not have urged it for the infallibility
of the Roman church. The words are : " Behold, the
days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house
of Judah ; not according to the covenant which I made
with their fathers ; but this shall be the covenant which
I wUI make with tbe house of Israel : After those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts ; and I will be their God,
and they shall be ray people. And they shall teach no
more every man his neighbour, and every man his bro
ther, saying. Know the Lord ; for they shall all know
me, frora the least of them to the .greatest of thera,
saith the Lord." And, now I have transcribed the
place, I think it superfluous to make any other answer.
The sarae answer and no other wUl I make also to
the sixth place. The words are : " Therefore say unto

544 A DISCOURSE AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God, I do not
this for your sakes, 0 house of Israel, but for ray holy
name's sake. I will take you from araong the Heathen,
and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you
into your own land. Then wiU I sprinkle clean water
upon you ; a new heart also will I give you, and I will
put ray Spirit in you, and cause you to walk in my sta
tutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them.
And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your
fathers : I wUl also save you from all your unclean-
nesses ; and I wUl call for the com, and will increase it,
and lay no famine upon you. And the desolate land
shall be tilled ; and they shall say. This land that was
desolate is becorae like the garden of Eden." (Ezek.
xxxvi. 22—29, 34, 35.)
The seventh place also carries its answer in its fore
head : " Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I wUl take
the children of Israel frora among the Heathen whither
they be gone ; and I will make them one nation in the
land upon the mountains of Israel ; and one king shall
be king to thera all," &c., to the end of the chapter.
In all which place he that can find a syllable of the
church of Rorae, he must have better eyes than I have.
The next (eighth) place would be very pregnant for
the church of Rorae, if of courtesy we would grant, that
whatsoever is proraised to Israel is intended to them ;
as you may see in the place at large, from verse 17 to
the end of the chapter.
The ninth and last place, out of the Canticles, had
it been urged by a Protestant, it would have been
thought a sufficient answer to have said, that raystical
texts are not fit to argue upon. But if this will not
serve, then we answer, 1. That there is no mention nor
intimation of the church of Rorae. 2. That it proves
either too rauch, or nothing at all ; that is, that the
Roman church is impeccable, as well as infallible ;
unless we will say, that errors only are spots, and im
pieties are not.

OF .THE ROMAN CHURCH. 545
OUT OF THE NKW TESTAMENT THEY ALLEGE
THESE TEXTS.
" Upon this rock I wUl build my church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt.
xvi. 18.)
But this is said of the catholic, not of the Roman,
church ; nor can it ever be proved that the church in
communion with the see of Rome is the cathoUc
church. Secondly. It says soraething for the perpe
tuity of the church, but not for the infallibility of it ;
unless you will take for granted, what can never be
proved, that a church that teaches any erroneous doc
trine is a church no longer ; which is all one as if you
should say, A raan that has the stone or gout, or any
other disease, is not a man.
They urge Matt. xxviU. 19, 20 : " And I am with
you all days, even unto the consumraation of the
worid." And here also if we will grant, 1. That by " you" is
meant you and only you of the church of Rome,:
2. That our Saviour has here obliged himself to assist,
not only sufficienter, but also irresisfihiliter ; not only
to preserve in the church a light of sufficient direction,
as he provided a star for the wise men, and a pillar of
fire and a cloud for the conduct of the Israelites, but
also compel, or at least necessitate, them to follow it :
3. That he wUl be with them, not only to keep them
frora all damnable and destractive errors, but absolutely
from all erroneous doctrines : — if these things, I say,
were granted, some good might be done. But certainly
these are fteyaXa ximv a.\Tiift.oi.ra., " too great favours "
to be looked for by strangers. And yet if all this be
granted, we should run into this inconvenience on the
other side, that if the promise be absolute, not only the
whole church of Rome, not only a general council, not
the pope alone, but every bishop, every priest, every
one who is sent by Christ to baptize, and preach the
gospel, might claim this assistance by virtue of Christ's
words, and consequently infallibility.

546 A DISCOURSE, &c.
They urge Matt, xviii. 17 : " If he will not hear the
church, let him be to thee as the Heathen and the
publican." And here again the church must be the church of
Rome, or we are as far to seek as ever. But what, if
by it be meant, which is most evident out of the place,
every particular church of Christians, whereunto any
one Christian injured by another may address himsejtf
for remedy ? Certainly whosoever reads the place with
out prejudice, I am confident that he shall not deny
but that the sense of the words is, that if any Christian
injure another, and being first admonished of it by him
in private, then by hira before two or three witnesses,
lastly, by the church he lives iu, and yet still proceeds on
obstinately in doing injury to his brother, he is to be
esteeraed as " a Heathen" or " a publican." And then,
if infallibility may be concluded, what a multitude of
infaUible churches shall we have !
They urge Matt, xviii. 20 : " Where two or three
are gathered together in my narae, there ara I in the
midst of them."
But this also either shoots short, or over ; either
proves nothing, or too much ; either it proves not the
¦infallibility of the whole church, or it proves the infalli
bility of every part of it ; either not the infallibility of
general councUs, or the infaUibUity of particular coun
cils ; for there two or three at least are assembled in
Christ's name. But then, besides these two or three,
for aught I can see or gather from the text, they may
as well be of any other church as the Roman.
They urge Luke x. 16 : " He that heareth you
heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me."
But this will not do you any service, unless of favour
we grant, that " you " here is you of the church of
Rome ; and but very little, if that be granted, for then
every bishop, every priest must be infaUible. For
there is not the meanest of the messengers of Christ
but this may be verified of him, that " he that heareth
hira heareth Christ, and he that despiseth him despiseth
Christ."

A CONFERENCE, &C. 54^
' They urge, out of John xiv. 15, 16 : "I willask
my Father, and he wiU give you another Paraclete,
that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spfrit of
truth." But here also what warrant have we by "you" to
understand the church of Rome ? whereas he that com
pares verse 26 with this, shall easUy perceive, that our
Saviour speaks only of the apostles in their own per
sons ; for there he says, going on in the sarae dis
course : " The Holy Ghost whom the Father wUl send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all
•things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said to
you ; " which cannot agree but to the apostles them
selves in person ; and not to their successors, who had
not yet been taught, and therefore not forgotten, any
thing, and therefore could not have them brought to
their reraerabrance. But what, if it had been promised
to them and their successors ? had they no successors
but thera of the Roman church ? This indeed is pre^
tended and cried up ; but for proofs of it, desiderantur
:[" they are still wanting "].
Again. I would fain know whether there be any cer
tainty that every pope is a good Christian ; or whether
he may not be, in the sense of the Scripture, "^ of the
:World. ' If not, how was it that Bellarmine should
have cause to think, that such a rank of them wei^t
successively to the devil ?

IV. A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE INFALLIBILITY
OF THE ROMAN CHURCH : PROVING THAT THE PRE
SENT CHURCH OF ROME EITHER ERRS IN HER
WORSHIPPING THE BLESSED VIRGIN MAIU', OR
THAT THE ANCIENT CHURCH DID ERR IN CON
DEMNING THK COLLYRIDIANS AS HERETICS.
DEMAND I.
Whether the infaUibUity of the Roraan church
he not the foundation of their faith which are members
•of that church?

548 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
Answer. " The infaUibUity ofthe church is (not the
foundation, but) a part of their faith who are members
of the church. And the Roman church is held to be
the church by all those who are members of it."
Reply. That which is the last reason why you
believe the Scripture to be the written word of God,
and unwritten traditions his unwritten word, and this or
that to be the true sense of Scripture, that is to you the
foundation of your faith ; and such unto you is the
infallible authority of the Roman church. Therefore,
unto you it is not only a part of your faith, but also
such a part as is the foundation of all other parts.
Therefore, you are deceived if you think there is any
more opposition between being a part of the faith, and
the foundation of other parts of it, than there is
between being a part of a house, and the foundation of
it. But whether you will have it the foundation of
your faith, or only a part of it, for the present purpose
it is all one. DEMAND II.
Whether the infallibility ofthe Roman church be
not absolutely overthrown, by proving the present
Roman church is in error, or that the ancient was ?
Answer. " It is, if the error be in those things
wherein she is affirraed to be infaUible ; namely, in
points of faith."
Reply. And this here spoken of, whether it be
lawful to offer tapers and incense to the honour of the
blessed Virgin, is, I hope, a question concerning a point
of faith. DEMAND III.
Whether offering a cake to the Virgin Mary be
not as lawful as to offer incense, and tapers, and divers
other oblations to the same Virgin ?
Answer. " It is as lawful to offer a cake to her
honour as wax-tapers ; but neither the one nor the
other may be offered to her or her honour, as the term
or object of the action. For, to speak properly,
nothing is offered to her or to her honour, but to God in

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 549
the honour of the blessed Virgin. For incense, it is a
foul slander that it is offered any way to the blessed
Virgin ; for that incensing which is used in the tirae of
mass is ever understood by all sorts of people to be
directed to God only."
Reply. If any thing be offered to her, she is
the object of that oblation ; as, if I see water, and
through water something else, the water is the object of
my sight, though not the last object. If I honour the
king's deputy, and by him the king, the deputy is the
object of ray action, though not the final object. And
to say, these things may be offered to her, but not as to
the object of the action, is to say they raay be offered
to her, but not to her. For what else is meant by the
object of an action, but that thing on which the action
is employed, and to which it is directed ?
If you say, that by " the object of the action " you
mean the final object only wherewith the action is ter
minated, you should then have spoken more properly
and distinctly ; and not have denied her siraply to be
the object of this action, when you raean only she is
not such a kind of object ; no more than you raay deny
a man to be a living creature, meaning only that he is
not a horse.
Secondly. I say, it is not required of Roman catho
lics, when they offer tapers to the saints, that by an
actual intention they direct their action actually to
God ; but it is held sufficient that they know and
believe that the saints are in subordination and near
relation to God, and that they give this honour to the
saints because of this relation, and to God himself
rather habitually and interpretative, than actually,
expressly, and formally : as many men honour the
king's deputy without having any present thought of
the king ; and yet their action may be interpreted an
honour to the king, being given to his deputy, only
because he is his deputy, and for his relation to the
king. Thirdly. I say, there is no reason or ground in the
worid for any raan to think, that the CoUyridians did

550 A conference concerning the
not choose the Virgin Mary for the object of their
worship, rather than any other woraan or any other
creature, raerely for her relation to Christ ; and by
consequence there is no ground to imagine but that, at
least habitually and interpretative, they directed their
action unto Christ, if not actually and forraally. And
ergo, if that be a sufficient defence for the Papists, that
they make not the blessed Virgin the final object of
tbeir worship, but worship her not for her own sake,
but for her relation unto Christ, Epiphanius surely did
ill to charge the CoUyridians with heresy ; having
nothing to impute to them, but only that he was
informed that they offered a cake to the honour of the
blessed Virgin ; which honour yet they might, and'
without question did, give unto her for her relation.
unto Christ, and so made her not the last object and
term of their worship. And frora hence it is evident,
that he conceived the very action itself, substantially
and intrinsically, malicious ; that is, he believed it a
sin, that they offered to her at all ; and so by their
action put her in the place of God, by giving unto her
this worship proper to God ; and not that they termi
nated their action finally in her, or did in very deed
think her to be a God, and not a creature.
But, to speak properly, you say, nothing is offered
to her or to her honour, but to God in honour of the
blessed Virgin.
Belike, then, if through Henley I go from hence to
London, I raay not be said properiy to go to Henley,
but only to London ; or if through water I see the
sand, I raay not be properly said to see the water, but
only the sand. Away with such shifting sophistry !
Either leave your practice of offering to saints, if it be
fiaught ; or colour it not over with such empty distinc
tions, if it be good. Christ saith to his apostles, in
regard of their relation to him, " He that heareth you
heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me ;"
and yet who doubts but they that heard the apostles
did properly hear them, and they that despised them
did properly despise tliein, though their action stayed

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 551
not in them, but reached up to heaven, and to Christ
himself? You pray to saints and angels, though you
do not terrainate your prayers in them ; and yet I
doubt not but your prayers to saints may be as properly
caUed prayers, as those you make to God himself.
For though these be of a more exceUent nature than
they, yet do they agree in the general nature that they
are both prayers : as though a man be a more excellent
living creature than a horse, yet he agrees with him in
this, that both are living creatures. But if nothing be
properly offered to her or to her honour, why do you in
your sixth answer say, you may offer any thing to the
Virgin Mary by way of presents and gifts, by the doc
trine of the Roraan church ? Certainly, he that offers
by way of gift or present, offers as properly as he that
offers by way of sacrifice ; as a horse is as properly a
liring creature as a man.
But if it were so as you say, (which is most false,)
that you did not properly offer to the blessed Virgin,
hut to God in honour of her ; yet, in my judgment,
this would not qualify or mend the matter, but make it
worse. For, first, who taught you, that, in the time of
the gospel, (after the accomplishment of the prediction,
"Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body
hast thou prepared me ; " after this interpretation of it
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, " He taketh away the
first, that he raay establish the second," ) that it is still
lawful to offer tapers or incense to God ? Secondly.
In my understanding, to offer to God in honour of the
Virgin is more derogatory from God's honour, than to
offer to her in the honour of God. For this is, in my
apprehension, to subordinate God to her, to make her
the terminating and final object of the action ; to make
God the way and her the end, and by and through God
to convey the worship unto her.
But, /or incense, you say, it is afoul slander, that it
is offered any way to the blessed Virgin.
To this I answer, that your imputing slander to me is
itself a slander. For, First, in your fifth answer, you
have given a clear intimation that you have never been

552 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
out of England ; so that you cannot certainly know
what is the practice of your church in this point beyond
sea. And he that lives amongst you, and has but half
an eye open and free from prejudice, cannot but see
that the Roman religion is much more exorbitant in the
general practice of it, than it is in the doctrine pub
lished in books of controversy ; where it is delivered
with rauch caution and moderation, nay, cunning and
dissimulation, that it may be the fitter to win and
engage proselytes ; who being once ensnared, though
they be afterwards startled with strange and unlooked-
for practices, yet a hundred to one but they will rather
stifie their conscience, and dash all scraples against the
pretended rock of their church's infaUibiUty, and blindly
follow those guides to whose conduct they have unad
visedly committed themselves, than come off again with
the shame of being reputed weak and inconstant : so
terrible an idol is this vain nothing, — the opinion and
censure of foolish raen.
But, to retum again to you : I say, your ignorance of
the practice of the Roman church beyond the seas does
plainly convince that you have rashly, and therefore
slanderously, charged me with the crime of slander.
As for your reason you add, consider it again, and you
will see it is worth nothing. For, what, if incensing in
time of mass be understood by all sorts of people to be
directed to God alone ? which yet you cannot possibly
know ; yet this I hope hinders not but that in proces
sions you may incense the images of the saints, and
consequently, according to your doctrine, do this
honour to the saints themselves represented by the
images. I myself, unless I am very much mistaken,
was present when this very thing was done to the
picture of St. Benet or St. Gregory, in the cloister of
St. Vedastus in the monastery in Douay.
But, indeed, what a ridiculous inconsequence is it, to
think that wax-tapers may lawfuUy be offered to the
saints, and incense may not ; or if incense may not,
which you seera to disclaira as impious, that wax-tapers
may !

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 553

DEMAND IV.
Whether the CoUyridians were not condemned as
heretics by the ancient church, first, for offering a
cake upon an anniversary-feast to the blessed Virgin ;
secondly, for that they did this not being priests ?
Answer. " The CoUyridians were conderaned as
heretics for two things : first, for employing women in
the place and office of priests to offer a cake, not in the
nature of a gift or present, but in the nature of a sacri
fice,* which was never lawful for any but men,-I- and
those consecrated.J
" Secondly. For offering this sacrifice § elf ovo/xa ' in
the narae ' of the blessed Virgin ; that is, unto her
herself directly and terminatively, as an act of divine
worship and adoration, || due unto her, as unto a sove
reign power and deity." ^
* Ut in nomen Virginis.collyridem quandam sacrificarent.  Epi
phanius, Haresis 78. Offerunt panem in nomen Maria ; omnes
autem pane participant. " That they might sacrifice to the name
of the Virgin a certain cake." " They offer bread to the name of
Mary; but all of them partake ofthe bread." — Edit.
•|- Deo enim ab <etemo nullatenus mulier sacrificasiit.— -Idem,
Hceresis 79. " But, from time immemorial, never did any woman
sacrifice to God." — Edit.
J Diaconissarum ordo est in ecclesia, sed non ad sacrificandum ;
nam neq-ue diaconis concreditum est, ut aliquod mysterium perficiant.
— Idem, Ibidem. " There is in the church an order of deaconesses,
but not to sacrifice ; for it is not conceded even to deacons to perfect
any mystery." — Edit.
§ Vide supra, the note (*) in this page.
II Mortuis cultum divinum prmstantes. — Idem, Ibidem. " Ren
dering divine worship to the dead." — Edit. And again : Revera
Virgo erat honorata, sed non ad adorationem nobis data, sed ipsa
adorans Deum. " Indeed, the Virgin was honoured ; but she was
not given to us for adoration, but she herself adores God." — Edit
And again : Non ut adoretur Virgo, nec ut Deum hanc efficeret,
§•(!. " Not that the Virgin should be adored, nor that he should
make her a god." — Edit. Sit in honore Maria ; Pater et Filius
et Spiritus Sanctus adoretur ; Mamam nemo adoret. Deo debetur
hoc mysterium  Idem, Ibidem. "Let Mary be held in honour;
and make the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the objects of
adoratiod. .Let no one adore Mary : this mystery is due only to
God. "—Edit.
^ Pro Deo hanc introducere statuerunt. — Idem, Ibidem. " They
had resolved to introduce her instead of God."— Edit. Revera
B B

554 A conference concerning the
Reply. It seems then these women might offer this
cake to the honour and name of the Vfrgin Mary, if
they had done it as a gift or present, and not as a
sacrifice. Epiphanius then surely was too hasty to
condemn them, being informed of nothing but that
they offered a cake unto her. Methinks, before he had
put them in his catalogue, he should have inquired
whether they offered this cake as a gift only, or as a
sacrifice. Certainly, had the practice of offering to
saints by way of gifts been the practice of the church in
his tirae, he would not have been so uncharitable, as to
condemn that action as impious and heretical which
might have received so lawful and pious a construction.
But he, good man, it seems, could not conceive a
difference between a sacrifice, and the offering a crea
ture by way of consumption to the honour of that to
v.hich it is offered. The subtle wits of our times, I
hope, have found out another definition for it ; and
I shall understand by you what it is. But if you can
find no other, then certainly, though setting up a pic
ture, or hanging up a leg, or eye, or ear, in meraory of
some miraculous cure obtained by a saint's intercession,
would be a gift or present only ; yet offering of
incense, or burning a taper, in the honour of a saint,
daub the matter how you wiU, wUl be, without ques
tion, a sacrifice. If you say that there may be sudi an
offering, and yet no sacrifice, I would know then how
you woiUd prove that the CoUyridians' offering was
indeed a sacnfice. AU that Epiphanius says of them is
sanctum erat Maria corpus, non tamen Deos. " The body of
Mary was truly holy, but not a god." — Edit. And again : Mtili-
erem eam appellavit Johan. ii. velut prophetans : et ne aKqui,
nimium admirati sanctam, in hanc haresin diktbantuT. " In John
ii. 4, Christ called her woman ; as if prophetically accosting her
thus, lest some men, in the exuberance of theii admiration of a holy
woman, should fall into diis heresy." — Edit. And again: Non
tamen aliter genita est prater Itominis naturam, sed sicut omnes ex
semine viri et utero mulieris  Idem, Ibidem. " Yet was she begot.
ten and bom in the same manner as other human beings, all of
whom have parents." In the text Chillingworth has bestowed much
acute and sound criticism on the passages which Mr. Lewgar has
here quoted from Epiphanius, and shows that several of his Latin
renderings from the Greek are incorrect,— Edit.

infallibility of the ROMAN CHURCH. .555
but this : Panem proponunt et in Maries nomen offer
unt.* And though this offering of theirs was indeed a
sacrifice in the notion of the word which I have given
it, yet doth he not any where say expressly, that they
did sacrifice, or offer it as a sacrifice, but only and
barely that they did " offer " it ; not using (as good
fortune would have it) any word which doth of neces
sity and properly signify " to sacrifice ;" and therefore
you are fain to help the dice, and alter every place for
your advantage. Epiphanius says not, as you translate
him, Ut in nomen Virginis collyridem quandam sacri-
ficent ; nor Sacrificanfes offerunt,'\ as Petavius ; but
(!o; sttitsXeTv, which may as well signify " to consecrate,"
or " offer," as " to sacrifice," if there be any difference
between them. So the next place, Offerunt panem in
nomen Marioe, omnes autem pane participant, proves
not, I hope, offering by way of sacrifice, unless the
consumption of the oblation make it a sacrifice ; which
if it do, how your tapers can be kept from being sacri
fices I cannot imagine ; unless again perhaps con
sumption hy way of eating will make it a sacrifice, and
by burning will not ; which cannot be, because the
" whole bumt-offerings " were sacrifices as well as any
other. Your third place is, Deo autem ah ceterno nullatenus
mulier sacrificavit. But Igpareuaj signifies not to sacri
fice, but only to " perform the office of a priest ;" and
so Petavius translates the place: Nunquam sacerdotio
functa ed mulier. X And though sacrificing be one per
haps, yet will you not say it is the^ only office of a
priest, as your next and last place would have declared,
had you set it down faithfully. But in that also you
juggle again, and force it to speak to your purpose
thus : Diaconissarum ordo est in ecdesia, sed non ad
' " They lay do-wn the bread which they have brought, and offer
it to the name of MaTy."^EDiT.
t "Sacrificing they offer." — Edit.
$ "A -woman has never discharged the- functions of the priest
hood. "—Edit.
2 B 2

556 A conference concerning the
sacrificandum ; but Petavius hath translated it traly
thus : Quanquam vera Diaconissaru/m in ecclesia ordo
sit, non tamen ad sacerdotii fundionem, aut ullam
administrationem institutus est.* And now, though by
an usual synecdoche the name of the genus be given to
the species, and therefore had a man fafrly and candidly
translated Uparsuco by sacrifice, I should not have
much condemned him ; yet to do it when the question
is, whether this their offering, confessed to be an offer
ing, were in propriety of speech a sacrifice ; to do it for
ends, to shift off a convincing argument, to palliate over
a foul matter, by putting a verbal difference where
there is none indeed, and all that you may imperitos
rerum infraudem illicere ; f that is  . But I for
bear you.
But, secondly, it is pretended, " They offered this
sacrifice s'l; 0-vofj.a., ' in the name ' of the blessed Vir
gin ; that is, unto her, herself, directly and termi
natively, as an act of divine worship and adoration due
unto her, as unto a sovereign power and deity." And,
to colour and countenance this strange gloss, many
places are quoted out of Epiphanius, which I will exa
mine in order as they lie.
1. The first place is, Mortuis cultum divinum prce-
sfanfes,\ where your meaning is, I believe, that Epi
phanius says the CoUyridians did so ; but the truth is
he says only, Mortuos colentes, as Petavius translates
it ; and therefore here once again you help the dice.
Yet if he had said so, why should you rather from
cultum divinum collect that, that " they thought her
God," than frora mortuis, that " they thought her
dead," and therefore certainly not a God ? Certainly,
this can be no warrant to you, that Epiphanius charges
thera with so thinking. For Protestants, you know,
• "But although there is in the church an order of deaconesses,
yet it was not instituted for the discharge of sacerdotal duties, or for
any ministerial office." — Edit.
,^ Terentii Andria, act. v. seen. iv. 8. Colman translates it
thus : " Ijay snares for inexperienced, liberal youth
vnth fraud. "—Edit.
:j: " Rendering divine worship to the dead," — Edit.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 557
impute to Papists that they give to saints cultum
divinum, and yet they do not impute to thera the
heresy of thinking, that the saints are sovereign powers
and deities. But as St. Paul accuseth the Gentiles for
that, knowing God to be God, they did not worship
him as God ; so, on the other side, Protestants con
demn Papists, — and Epiphanius, for aught we can see
hitherto, might condemn the CoUyridians, — for that,
knowing the blessed Virgin not to be God, they yet
worshipped her as God ; that is, gave her that worship
which is God's own peculiar ; which yet they might do,
not because they thought her God, but because this
worship, which was indeed proper to God, they might
think not proper, but communicable to such creatures
as were high in his favour.
2. The next place is, Bevera Virgo erat honorata,
sed non ad adorationem nobis data, sed ipsa adorans
Deum, S^c.
I answer, that the " &c." perhaps conceals sometliing
more pertinent to your purpose ; but in the words set
down there appears to me just nothing ; for I can
frame out of them no other syllogism but this :
" Whatsoever Epiphanius in this place says is not to
be adored, that the CoUyridians thought to be God :
" But Epiphanius here says the Virgin is not to be
adored :
" Ergo, the CoUyridians thought her God."
Of this syllogism I deny the raajor proposition ; and
I believe shall stay as long for a proof of it as I have
done for an answer to some other discourses, which,
being written in a few days, have waited now with a
longing expectation for a promised answer many
months. If you say you would conclude from these
words, that they did adore ber, and therefore thought
her God, I have answered already, that they might do
this, not because they thought her God, but because
they thought creatures high in God's favour capable of
adoration. The next place, Non ut adoretur Virgo, nec ut
Deum hanc efficerd, tells us that " Christ took flesh of

558 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
the Virgin, not that she should be adored, nor to make
her God." And this you think imports, that they con
ceive her God. Yet if I should, condemning your
practice of offering tapers to her, use the same words,
and say, '• Christ took flesh of the Virgin, not that she
should be adored, or to make her God," you would not
yet conceive that I charged you with the heresy of
believing her God, but only of the impiety of giving to
her that worship which was pecuUar to God. And why
then might not Epiphanius, having Uke occasion, use
the same words to the CoUyridians, upon the same and
no other ground ?
4. The next place, Mariam nemo adord, Deo debe
tur hoc mysterium, is so far from proving your imagi
nation, that it strongly confirms my assertion, that
Epiphanius did not irapute to the CoUyridians the
opinion, that the Virgin Mary was God. If I should
say to a Papist, " The blessed Virgin is not to be
worshipped with the worship of hyperduUa, because
such worship is due only to the raother of God," would
they not say I were mad, and argued against rayself, for
that they believed she was the mother of God ? By
like reason, if Epiphanius knew that the CoUyridians
believed the Virgin Mary to be God, he reasoned as
wildly against hiraself in saying, Mariam nemo adord,
Deo debetur hoc mysterium. " For it is very true," might
they have said, " this service is due to God alone ; but
you know our belief and profession that she is God, and
therefore, by your own rule, capable of this worship."
5. The next place is. Pro Deo hanc introducere stu-
duerunt. And may not this be justly said to any man
who to any thing besides God gives that worship which
is proper and peculiar unto God ? What, if, to a man
that should teach the pope had power to dispense with
men for the keeping of God's laws, I should say. Pro
Deo papam introducis, must I of necessity mean that
that man did verily believe the pope not a man, but a
sovereign power and deity ? St. Paul tells us that
" covetousness is idolatry ;" he tells us of some
" whose god is their belly ;" is it therefore consequent.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 559
that every covetous man doth indeed believe his gold,
and every glutton his belly, to be indeed a sovereign
power and deity ? Away with such fopperies ! Who
soever loves, or fears, or trasts in any thing more than
God, may yet be justly said to make that his god ; and
whosoever should worship any creature with that exter
nal worship which God has appropriated to himself,
might justly be said to bring in that creature for God.
St. Paul tells us of some who " in words professed God,"
yet factis negabant, " in their deeds denied him ;"
so these, on the contrary, may in their words deny this
creature to be God, and in their hearts not think it so ;
yet, seeing their actions to it are as if it were God, they
may be justly charged, that with their deeds they make
this creature God.
Qui fingit sacros ex auro et marmore vultus,
Non facit ille Deos ; qui colit, ille facit.*
What, if, upon consideration of the strangely enormous
worship which Papists give to the Virgin Mary, (swear
ing by her name, making vows unto her, offering tapers
to her honour, attributing a kind of communicated omni
science and almost omnipotence to her, as I can easily
make good they do, partly out of the offices of their
church, partly out of private men's works, but set out
with licence and j approbation,) — what, I say, if, upon
this consideration, I. should affirm. Pro Deo ipsam
introducere conantur ; would it therefore be conse
quent, that I must impute this blasphemy to them, that
they believed and taught her to be a sovereigin power
and deity? I trow not. And therefore Epiphanius
might say the same of the CoUyridians, considering
their action, without any intent of imputing to them
any such opinion. This Petavius sure saw well enough ;
and therefore, as I shall hereafter demonstrate to the
eye, to countenance his marginal annotation, Quidam
' " No gods are form'd by craftsman's art,
Who works on senseless stone or gold ;
But they the gift divine impart
Who lifeless things in rev'rence hold."— Edit.

560 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
Mariam Deum esse crediderunt,* he cunningly abuses
and perverts Epiphanius's text with false translation.
Sic pugnat, sic ed metuendus Ulysses.-^"
6. The next place is, Bevera sanctum erat Marice
corpus, non tamen Deus. " The body of Mary was
truly holy, but not a god." As much to the purpose
as, Tityre, tu patulce ; J for, what, if Epiphanius say she
is not God, and therefore not to be adored, does it there
fore follow that the CoUyridians believed she was a
god ? He that knows logic or sense cannot but know,
that he that wUl confute an adversary's conclusion
must choose such principles to do it to which his adver
sary consents, and out of that which he grants prove
that which he denies ; or if his first propositions be not
agreed to by his adversary, he must prove them in the
end by such as are agreed to ; or else he does nothing.
And therefore, seeing Epiphanius thinks it sufficient for
the convincing of the CoUyridians of the unlawfiJness
of the practice, to say she was not God, it is evident
that, so far was he from imputing to them the belief
that she was God, that he seems rather to take the
contrary for a principle agreed upon between them,
which it was sufficient to say, and superfluous to prove.
This answer I thought good to make, whUe I conceived
that here Epiphanius had denied the person of the
Virgin Mary to be God ; but after, upon better consi
deration, I found that Petavius had abused me with
adding to Epiphanius of his own, Ilia fuit ; and that
Epiphanius says not here, Non tamen Deus, (" She was
not God,") of her person, but of her body ; and as yet
I do not understand that you impute to the CoUy
ridians the belief that her body was God.
7. The next place, Mulierem eam appellavit, S^c,
says no more but this, that " our Saviour calls the
• " Certain men among them believed Mary to be a deity." —
Edit. ¦[ OviDii Metamorph, lib. xiii. 62. The following is Dryden's
translation :
" Thus fights Ulysses, thus his fame extends,
A fonnidable man but to his friends." — Edit.
J The first line in Virgil's first eclogue. — Edit.

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 561
blessed Virgin woman, that no man might think her
any thing more than a woman ; as it were prophetically
refuting the schisms and heresies which would be in the
worid, lest some, out of excess of adrairation of her,
might fall into the dotage of this heresy." T,hus far
Epiphanius. But then the question will be. What was
this heresy ? You say. The belief that she was God ; I
say. Not that she was God, but that they raight lawfully
offer to her. And as I deny not but it follows, — " She
is a woraan, therefore not a God ;" so I think you will
grant it foUows as justly, — " She is a woman, therefore
not to be adored with offerings." And therefore, seeing
the words lie indifferently between us, and are not
expressly and especially here applied for the refutation
of that heresy which you pretend they were guilty of, I
see no reason why Epiphanius might not as well intend
them for that purpose which I conceive, as for that
which you conceive.
8. The last place alleged tells us, that " she was
begotten and bom as other men and women are ;"
which if the CoUyridians had thought her God, eternal,
and absolutely without beginning, should not have been
barely said, but proved, as being, in effect, the very
point in question. And therefore, seeing Epiphanius
contents hiraself with saying so without proof, it is
evident he never thought they would make difficulty to
grant it, and consequently that they did not believe her
to be God etemal.
But then again, if the rule be good which part of
your proofs depend upon, — that whatever Epiphanius
denies in this discourse, that the CoUyridians held, (for
upon that ground, from Non ut Deum hanc efficeret, et,
Non tamen Deus,* you conclude they believed her God,)
—if, I say, this rule be good, then you should be con
stant to it ; and now that he says, Non tamen aliter
genita est preeter hominum naturam, " She was not
begotten in a different way from other raen," you
should infer that they believed not that she was God,
' " ' Not that Christ might make her a deity,' and, ' Yet she is
not a deity.' "—Edit.
2 B 5

562 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
but that she was otherwise bom and begotten than the
ordinary sort of men. And so whereas he says before,
Non tamen corpus de coelo tulit, " Her body was not
from heaven," you shoidd infer that they beUeved her
body came frpm heaven. And again, from those,
Sanctum erat Marice corpus, non tamen Deus, you
should collect that they thought not only her person
but her body to be God ; or if these be wUd and weak
deductions, then you raust acknowledge that I have
done yours sorae favour, in vouchsafing tbem a particu
lar answer. DEMAND v.
Whether in the church of Rome it be not an
approved and perpetually-practised worship of the bless
ed Virgin, that incense, (which was never anciently
offered unto any, either by Jews or GentUes, but to the
true, or to a supposed true, God,) and tapers, and
divers other oblations, should be offered to her honour ?
Answer. "A practice of the church of Rorae, and
approved too by those that practise it, belongs not to
her, except it be a practice of the church, and approved
by her. What her practice is abroad, I know not;
here at home I see no such practice, nor do I know any
approbation of it in any of her public declarations. But
this I know, that there is nothing in it unlawfiil, or
savouring of the CoUyridian superstition, to oflfer war-
tapers or any other thing at the memories of the
blessed Virgin, or any other canonized saint, either as
means to procure thefr intercession, by these outward
signs of the honour and devotion which they bear to
them, (as of old we find, by St. Austin, they did use
to adorn their tombs with flowers,* ) or as monuments
• Ad Aquas Tibilotanas, episcopo offerente Projeoto reliquias mar
tyris gloriosissimi Stephani, ad ejus memoriam veniebat magna
multitudinis concursus et occursus. Ibi casea mulier, ut ad episco
pum portantem pignora sacra duceretur, oravit : flares quos ferebat
dedit ; recepit, oculis admovil, protinus vidit.  Aiioust. De Civil.
Dei, lib. xxii. cap. 8. " When bishop Projectus brought St. Ste
phen's relics to the town called Aqua THbililarus," [Tibili, in Africa,
on the coast of the Mediterranean,] " there were a many people
flocked together to the church where they were to be laid up;

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. .563
of their thankfulness for some benefits received by their
intercession ; as Theodoret * tells us of eyes, and ears,
and hands, some of gold, and some of sUver, hung up
in the chapels of the saints, that had been presented as
oblations by those that had recovered health in those
merabers, according, to their vows made to that purpose
in time of sickness."
Reply. I do not deny but a practice may be tole
rated in a church, and not approved ; as the public
stews are in Italy, and usury in England. But it is
one thing to tolerate with condemnation, another to
tolerate without condemnation, nay, with condemnation
of those that should oppose or condemn it. And such,
I doubt not, upon examination, you , may find is this
practice, general in the church of Rome, [of] offering
tapers to the saints and for their honour : I say, not
only to God, at the memories of the saints, as you
would mince the matter, (which yet were a groundless
superstition, God having appointed no such sacrifice to
be offered to him under the gospel,) but to the saints
themselves, and to their honour. Prove this lawful for
either of those purposes you mention, either to procure
their intercession, or as raonuraents of thankfulness for
benefits obtained by it, and then you shall do some
thing ; otherwise, you will but trifle, as now you have
done ; for, instead of telling us what may. be done
de jure [" lawfuUy " ], you tell us what of old has been
done & /acto ["actually"]. As if ah antique ["of
old"] a.TiA a principio ["from the beginning"] were all
amongst whom was a blind woman, who prayed them to lead her to
the bishop that bare the holy relics. So the bishop gave her certain
flowers which he had in his hand. She took them, put them to her
eyes, and presently had her sight restored." — Crashawe's Tran.s-
lation. Abscedens aliquid de altari (S. Stephani) florum quod
occurrit, tulit — Idem, Ibidem, ^c. " The husband " [who had mar
ried Maitialis's daughter] " thought it good to go to St. Stephen's
shrine, and there to pray the Lord to send his father-in-law into a
better mind, and to embrace Christ Jesus without further delay.
•For this he prayed with great zeal and effect," &c. ; " and then,
departing, he took some of the flowers from off the altar," &c —
Chashawe's Translation.
• Theodoretus, De Curandis Affect. Grac. lib. viii.

564 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
one ; or as if the church, as we pretend, being subject
to corruption, part of this corruption might not possibly
have come in St. Austin's or Theodoret's time. Yet
this I say not as if I would decline the trial of this
cause by St. Austin or Theodoret ; but because I am
sure you will not be tried by the Fathers, no, not the
consent of Fathers in all things ; and therefore there is
no reason nor equity in the world, that you should
serve yourselves with their authority in any thing.
But now what is it which was done in St. Austin's
time that may justify the practice of the Roraan
church ? Was there then any approved offering of
wax-tapers and incense to the queen of heaven, or any
other saints ? Nil horum : * you neither do nor can
produce any thing out of St. Austin to this purpose.
But what then is it ? Why, forsooth, they were used
to adorn their tombs : egregiam vero laudem et spolia
ampla ! -f- " Of old in St. Austin's time they were used
to adorn their tombs with flowers : Therefore we may
offer tapers to them." Truly, an exceUent enthymeme ;
but, I fear, the concealed proposition which should make
it a syllogism hides its head for sharae, and dares not
appear. Yet we will for once make bold to draw it
forth into light, that you may look upon it, and teU us
how you like it. This therefore it is, — " Whose
soever tombs we adorn, to them and to their honour we
may offer wax-tapers."
Consider it, I pray you, and if you approve it, then
approve also of offering tapers not only to canonized
saints, but to all Christians that may have monuments
in churches. For all their tombs may be adorned with
more precious and lasting ornaments than flowers ; yet
if you had proved but this only, that in St. Austin's
tirae they adorned the saints' tombs with flowers, by
these outward signs to procure their intercession, this,
* " There is no vestige of any of these practices." — Edit.
t ViRBiLH Mneid. lib. iv. 93. I have subjoined Pitt's Trans
lation : " A high exploit indeed ! a glorious name,
Unfading trophies, and eternal fame ! " — Edit.

infallibility of the EOMAN CHURCH. 565
though not rauch to the purpose, had been not abso
lutely to delude us. But your quoted places prove not
so much as this ; and yet I believe you quoted the best
you could find. Nay, they prove not they did adorn
their tombs with flowers at all, much less that they did
it for your pretended purpose. Such fools you think
to deal with, that wUl take any thing for any thing.
Your first place, I say, proves it not, unless, out of
mere courtesy, we understand by ferebat, " she brought
to adom St. Stephen's tomb."
The second proves it not, unless we give you leave
after altari (without warrant from St. Austin) to put
in S. Stephani; whereas I ara yet to seek for any
place in St. Austin where he calls any altar the altar of
such or such a saint ; which yet I think they forbore
not for the unlawfulness, but for fear of miscon
struction. Then for Theodoret, he tells you indeed of vows
made, of monuments of thankfulness dedicated, for
benefits obtained by the intercession of the martyrs.
But here also I fear your conscience tells you, that you
abuse us, and hide yourself in ambiguities. For to
whom does Theodoret say these vows were made ? to
whom were these monuments of thankfulness dedi
cated ? What ! to the Author, or procurers, of the
received favours, — to God, or to the martyrs ? If to
the martyrs, that had been something towards, though
not horae to, your purpose. For there is a wide differ
ence between offering of a creature by way of consump
tion, (as was never lawfully done but to God alone, as
a profession that he is the Lord of the creature,) and
erecting a permanent monument to a saint's honour ;
which I doubt not but it may lawfuUy be done to a
living saint, much more to the memory of a martyr.
But Theodoret, in the place, hath not so much as this ;
nay, it is evident that these gifts he speaks of were
both vowed and paid to God himself. His words
are. Pie precatos ea consequi, ^c, " That they which
pray piously obtain the things which they desire, their
paying of their vowed presents in the sign of their

566 A conference concerning THE
recovered health, doth abundantly testify : for their
Lord accepts most graciously these presents, how mean
soever." DEMAND VI.
Whether, according to the doctrine of the Roman
church, this may not be done lawfully by woraen and
children, and raen that are not priests ?
Answer. "They may offer any thing by way of
gifts and presents, by the doctrine of the Roraan church ;
but it is contrary to the Roman doctrine for any other
than priests to offer any thing by way of sacrifice as the
CoUyridians did."
Reply. Aristotle says most truly, that true defini
tions (he means, I think, of the terms of the conclusion
to be demonstrated) are the best principles of science ;
and therefore want of them must needs be a cause of
en-or and confusion in any discourse. Let me therefore
here request you to set down what is a sacrifice, and
how distinguished from an oblation by way of gift or
present ; and you will quickly see, that if the CoUyri
dians' offering a cake to the blessed Virgin were indedd
a sacrifice, your offering a taper to her must Ukewise be
so. For a sacrifice is nothing else, for aught I know,
but the oblation of any creature by way of consumption
to the honour of that, whatsoever it is^ to. whibh it is
offered. For if you include in the definition, that this
offering must be intended to the highest Lord of aU ;
so is, as you pretend, your offering of tapers to the
blessed Virgin, intended to God finally, though not
immediately. If you say, " It must be directed imme
diately to Him, and is not only no lawful sacrifice, but
simply no sacrifice, unless it be so ;" I say. You may
as weU require, to the essence of a sacrifice, that it be
offered by a priest, and from thence conclude, because
the CoUyridians were, you say, no priests, their offering
was no sacrifice. For the object of the action is as
extrinsical to the essence of it as the efficient ; and
therefore, if the defect of a due and legitimate offerer
cannot hinder but that an offering may be a true sacri-

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHUECH. 567
fice, neither wUl the want of a due and lawful object be
any hinderance but stiU it may be so. Secondly. I
say, this is to confound the essence of things with the
lawful use of them ; in effect, as if you should say, that
a knife, if misemployed, were a knife no longer.
Thirdly. It is to make it not unlawful to offer incense
(which yet you seem somewhat scrupulous of) or
burnt-offerings to the Virgin Mary, or the saints, or
even to living men, provided you know, and believe,
and profess them to be men, and not gods. For, this
once supposed, these offerings will be no longer sacri
fices ; and to offer to creatures offerings that are not
sacrifices, you say, by the doctrine of the Roman
church, is lawful. It is, lastly, to deny, which is most
ridiculous, that the Pagans did indeed sacrifice to any
of their inferior gods. DEMAND VII.
If it be said, that this worship which they give to
the blessed Virgin is not that of latria, but that of
Mia, or hyperduUa, for that they do not esteem her
God; or if it be said, that their worship to her is not
finally terminated neither, but given her for her relation
to Christ ; I demand, whether as it is, in St. Paul's
judgment, a great crime for him that knows God not to
worship hira as God, so it be not as great a crirae for
him that knows her not to be God, yet to worship her
as if she were God, with the worship which is proper
and hath been always appropriated to God alone, such
is the worship of oblations ?
Answer. " ' The worship of oblations,' as worship is
taken largely for ' honour,' and oblations for a ' gift '
or ' present,' was never appropriate to God alone :
take ' worship ' and ' oblations ' in any higher sense,
and so it is not allowed in the church of Rorae."
Reply. The oblation of things by way of consurap
tion is the worship I spoke of : this is a higher matter
than that of gifts and presents ; and this is allowed in
the church of Rome to be employed on, and directed
unto, though not terminated in, the Virgin Mary and
other saints.

568 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE

DEMAND VIII.

Whether any thing can be said for the justifying
the doctrine and practice of the Roman church in this
matter, which raight not also have been as justly pre
tended for the justification of the CoUyridians in their
opinion and practice ; seeing it was never iraputed to
thera, that they accounted the blessed Virgin God, or
that they believed in more gods than one ; and seeing
their choosing her out rather than any other woman, or
any other creature, for the object of their devotion,
shows plainly that they gave it her for her relation to
Christ ?
Answer. " The CoUyridians could not say this, as
appears by what has been said before : as it is a raost
sharaeless slander upon God's church, and such as,
without repentance, will lie heavy upon his soul that
uttered it, — that the CoUyridians raight as justly and
truly have said all this for themselves as Papists for
theraselves." Reply. To this I reply four things : 1. That to
my last and most convincing reason you have answered
— as much as you could, I believe, but yet you have
answered — nothing : and I ara well content you should
do so ; for where nothing is to be had, the king hiraself
must lose his right. 2. That if I had thought or spoke
better of the CoUyridians than they deserved, yet I
cannot see how this had been to slander the chnrch of
Rome. 3. That I did not positively affirm, that the
CoUyridians might do so, but desired only it might be
inquired into and examined, whether, for the reasons
aUeged, they might not do so. 4. And, lastly, upon a
thorough examination of the matter, I do now affirm,
what before I did not, that the CoUyridians, for aught
appears to the contrary, raight justly and truly have
said, for the justification of their practice, as much, nay,
the very same things that the Papists do for theirs.
For they might have said : " We are Christians, and
believe the Scripture, and believe there is but one God.
We offer not to the blessed Virgin as believing she is

infallibility of the eoman CHUECH. 569
God, but the mother of God. Our worship of her is
not absolute, but relative ; not terminated in her, but
given to her for her Son's sake. And if our practice
may be allowed, we are content to call our oblation not
a sacrifice, but a present : neither is there any reason
why it should be called a sacrifice, more than the offer
ing and burning a taper to the honour of the same
Virgin." All this the CoUyridians might have said for
themselves ; and therefore I believe you will have more
cause to repent you for daubing over impiety with
untempered mortar, than I shall have for slandering the
Roman church with a matter of truth.
DEMAND IX.
Whether, therefore, one of the two must not of
necessity follow, — that either the ancient church erred
in condemning the opinion and practice of the CoUyri
dians as heretical ; or else that the church of Rome errs
in approving the same opinion, and the same practice,
in effect, which in them was condemned ; that is, whe
ther the church of Rome must not be heretical with the
CoUyridians, or else the CoUyridians Catholics with the
church of Rome ?
Answer. " It appears by the forraer answers, that
neither did the ancient church err in condemning the
opinion and practice of the CoUyridians as heretical,
nor doth the church of Rome approve the same opinion
or the same practice."
Reply. The substance of the former answers is but
this : that the Papists offer to the Virgin Mary and
other saints wax-tapers by way of gift or present, not
of sacrifice ; and to her not as to a god, but as the
mother of God ; but that the CoUyridians offered to
her by way of sacrifice, as to a sovereign power and
deity. To this I have replied and proved, that it
no way appears that the CoUyridians did believe the
blessed Virgin to be a sovereign power and deity, or
that she was not subordinate to God ; then that ' their
offering might be called a gift as well as the Papists',
and the Papists' a sacrifice as well as theirs, both of

570 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
them being a consumption of a creature in honour of
the blessed Vfrgin, and neither of thera more than so :
and therefore either the CoUyridians must stand with
the church of Rome, or the church of Rome. fall with
the CoUyridians. . It had been perhaps sufficient for
me thus to have vindicated my assertion from contrary
objections, without taking on myself the burden of
proving a negative ; yet to free from all doubt the
conformity of the Roman church with the CoUyridians
in this point, I think it will be necessary to show, and
that by many very probable arguments, that Epipha
nius did not impute to them the pretended heresy of
believing the Virgin Mary God ; for then that other
evasion, that their oblation is a sacrifice and the
Papists' is not, together with this pretence, will of
itself fall to the ground.
Now an opinion may be iraputed to a raan two ways,
either because he holds and maintains it expressly and
formally, and in terms ; or because it raay, by a
rational deduction, be collected frora some other opinion
which he does hold. In this latter sense I deny not
but Epiphanius might impute this opinion we speak of
to the CoUyridians, as a consequence upon tiiefr prac
tice, which practice they esteemed lawful. But that
they held it, and owned it formally and in terms, this,
I say, Epiphanius does not impute to them, which I
think for these seven reasons : —
1. My first reason is : Because he could not justly do
so, and therefore, without evident proof, we may not say
he did so ; for this were to be uncharitable to him, in
making him uncharitable to others. Now I say he
could not justly charge thera with this opinion, because
he was not informed of any such opinion that they
held, but only of their practice, and this practice was no
sufficient proof that they held this opinion. That his
information reached no further than their practice,
appears out of his own words : " I have heard," saith
he, "another thing with great astonishment, — that
some, being madly affected to the blessed Virgin,
endeavour to bring her in in God's place, being raad

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN. CHURCH. .571
and besides themselves. For they report that Certain
women in Arabia have devised this Vanity, — to have
meetings, and offer a cake to the blessed Virgin."
(Hceres. 78.) The same practice he sets down, Hceres.
79. But that he was inforraed of any such opinion
that they held, he has not a word or syUable to any
such purpose ; and yet if he had been inforraed of any,
here had been the place to set it down ; which cer
tainly, writing his book rather of heretical opinions than
practices, he would not have omitted to do, if there had
¦been occasion. His silence therefore is a sufficient
argument, that he was not informed of any such opinion
that they held.
Now, that their practice was no assurance that they
held this opinion, it is manifest ; because they might
ground it, not upon this opinion, — that she was God,
but upon another as false, though not altogether so
impious, — that the worship of oblations was not proper
to God alone. And therefore, though Epiphanius
might think or fear that possibly they might ground their
practice upon that other impious opinion, and therefore,
out of abundant caution, confute that also ; (as he doth
obliquely, and in a word, and once only in all his long
discourse, by telling them that our Saviour called her
"woman;") yet he had no ground from their practice
to assure himself that certainly they did hold so.
Nay, justice, and reason, and charity would that he
should incline himself to believe that they grounded
thefr practice upon that other opinion, which had less
impiety in it ; that is, that this worship of oblations was
not proper to God, but communicable to creatures high
in his favour.
2. My second is : Because, if Epiphanius had known
that these CoUyridians held the blessed Virgin to be a
supreme power and deity, this, being a far greater
matter than offering a cake to her, should in all proba
bility rather have given them their denomination ; at
least, when he sets down what their heresy was, he
would have made this part of it, that they did believe
so. But, to the contrary, in his Anacephalceosis, page

572 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
130, he thus describes them : " They that offer to the
narae of the blessed Virgin cakes, who are called
CoUyridians." And again, page 150 : " They that
offer to the blessed Vfrgin cakes, who are called
CoUyridians." So to the seventy-ninth Heresy he
gives this title, " Against the CoUyridians, who offer to
Mary." So, Hceres. 78, 79, he sets down what he heard
of them, but nowhere that they held this opinion of
her. I conclude, therefore, that he never conceived
this opinion to be a part of their heresy ; and they were
no further chargeable with it, than as a probable conse
quent upon their practice.
3. My third is : Because, had the CoUyridians held
her God, they would bave worshipped her all the year
long, and not only once a year, at a solemn tirae, as
Epiphanius says they did.
4. My fourth is : Because, if Epiphanius had known
that they held her God, he would questionless have
urged them with those attributes that are given to God
in Scripture, as eternity, iraraortality, impassibility,
omnipotence, &c. ; and showed thera, that if they
believed the Scripture, they could not think of her any
of those things ; if they did not, they had no reason to
think of her any thing raore than of an ordinary woman.
5. My fifth is : Because, had their opinion been that
the blessed Virgin was God, a great part of Epiphanius's
discourse were plainly ridiculous ; both where he says
only, without proof, she was not a god, but a mortal
creature, which to them that held the contrary should
not have been said, but proved ; but especially where
he speaks to this purpose, as he does very frequently,
that the honour of oblations was not to be given to
angels, or raen, much less to woraen, but only to God.
For what had that been to the CoUyridians, if they
thought her, as is pretended, a sovereign power and
deity ? To what purpose was it for Epiphanius to
ask, Quis propheta, &^c. " What prophet ever permitted
that a man, much less a woman, should be adored,
though he be yet alive ? Nor John, nor Thecla, nor
any other saint. For neither shall the old superstition

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 573
have dominion over us, that, leaving the living God, we
should adore his creatures." To what end, I say, was
all this, if they thought her not a saint nor creature,
but God himself, and the Lord of all ? How did this
argument touch them ? — Ne angelos quidem, ^c. " He
suffers not the very angels to be adored, how much less
the daughter of Anna ! " If they thought her not the
daughter of Anna, but God eternal, in vain had it been
to say to them, " Not to a woman, no, nor to a man,
but to God alone, is this mystery " (of oblation) " due."
So that the angels themselves are not fit subjects for
such an honour. Or, again : " Let the creature be
tumed to the Creator ; let shame at lengtii compel you
to worship God alone." Or, lastly, that so often
repeated : " Let Mary be honoured, but the Lord only
adored." For they might have answered all this in a
word, saying : " All this discourse sits besides the
cushion, and concerns us and our offering nothing at
all. For we believe the blessed Virgin, to whom we
offer, neither man, nor woman, nor angel, nor creature,
but a deity."
6. A sixth reason, let it be this : If Epiphanius did
indeed say of the CoUyridians, as is pretended, that
they held the Virgin Mary God, and so difference their
practice from the Papists ; then the author of this
Answer, and Petavius, in his Translation, needed not to
have dictated to him what he should say, nor make him
say so, whether he will or no. But it is evident they
do so, as of the author of this Answer I have already
shown ; and for Petavius's part, I wiU so present it
to your view, that if you will not shut your eyes, you
shall not choose but see it.
First, then, Hceres. 78, prope finem, he (Petavius)
sets in his margent, Quidam Deum Mariam esse, cre
diderunt ; * and to countenance this with a loquuntur of
his own putting-in, makes them " speak " of her like
mad men ; that is, they said she was God ; whereas
in Epiphanius's Greek they say just nothing.
• "Some of them believed Mary to be God."— Edit.

574 A CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE
Secondly. To fasten the pretended opinion on them,
he translates x=yoi»yi;u,a, novum dogma; presuming, it
seems, xevo^wMj/ta would easUy be mistaken for xatvo-
(^'L-/r,u.iL, and therefore means nothing by it but "a
vanity or folly."
Thirdly. He translates -o'jroys, iUud [" that "], and
so makes it look backward to that pretended notum
dogma of the CoUpidians ; whereas it signifies there
" and," and looks forward to thefr practice.
Fourthly. With the help of a colon he stops the
sense at commentas fuisse ; whereas in Epiphanius
there is but a comma, and the sense goes on without
suspension. Fifthly. With an adeo ut, he brings in their action,
as an effect of their former opinion, whereas Epiphanius
lays nothing to thefr charge but thefr action only : so
that whereas Epiphanius's words, truly translated, ran
thus : " Another thing I have received with great
astonishment, that others, being mad conceming the
blessed Virgin, have and do go about to bring her in
in the place of God; being mad, I say, and besides
themselves r for they report that certain women in
Arabia have brought this vanity, of offering a cake to
her name : " — ^Petavius makes them thus : " Not with
out adrairation we have heard another thing, that some
in these things that concem the most holy Virgin have
proceeded to that degree of madness, that they would
obtrade her upon us for a god, and speak of her as
madmen : for they report that certain women in Ara
bia have invented that new opinion ; so that to the
Virgin's name and honour they offer, by way of sacri
fice, a cake or wreath cf bread."
Again. In the same Hceres., 'l^crjcyil-^ hi. yvvaixsov,
he translates advantageously, Per midieres saxrificia fa
cere \^'\hiQW^ women to offer sacrifices"]; whereas
Upoapyeiy is more general than sacrificia facere, and
signifies sacris operari, or sacr/f ritus peragere [" to
be occupied in holy offices, or in the performance of
sacred rites"].
Again. In the same place, whereas Epiphanius says

INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHUECH. 575
simply and absolutely, " Let no man offer to her
name," he makes it, " Let no man offer sacrifice to her
name ;" as if you might lawfiUly offer any thing, pro
vided you do not call it a sacrifice.
So again, Hceres. 79, besides his putting cunningly
ipsa fuit, which before we took notice of,* he makes no
scruple to put-in dogma and sacrificium, wheresoever it
may be for his purpose. Epiphanius's title to this
Heresy is, "Against the CoUyridians who offer to
Mary ;" Petavius puts-in " sacrifice."
Again. In the same page, before D, he puts-in his
own illo dogmate ; and whereas Epiphanius says, " In
all this," he makes it, " In all this opinion."
Page 1061 : To ^rjXvrrjs imovolai, he translates,
" This womanish opinion ;" whereas {/¦irovota., though
perhaps it may signify a " thought," or " act of think
ing," yet I beUeve it never signifies an " opinion "
which we hold.
Ibidem, at B, rotovro, " this," he renders " this
opinion." Page 1064, at C, " Nor that we should offer to her
name," simply and absolutely, he makes it, " Nor that
we should offer sacrifice to her name." So many tiraes
is he fain to corrupt, and translate hira partially, lest in
condemning the CoUyridians he might seem to have
involved the practice of the Roman church in the same
condemnation. 7- My seventh and last reason is this : Had Epipha
nius known that the CoUyridians held the Virgin Mary
to be a sovereign power and deity, then he could not
have doubted whether this their offering was to her,
or to God for her. Whereof yet he seems doubtful,
and not fully resolved, as his own words intimate :
Quam multa, S^c. (Hceres. 79, ad finem.) " How many
things may be objected against this heresy ! For, idle
women either, worshipping the blessed Virgin, offer
unto her a cake, or else they take upon them to offer
for her this foresaid ridiculous oblation. Now both are
foolish and from the devil." " See page 560.

576 AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THK
These arguments, I suppose, do abundantly demon
strate to any man not veiled with prejudice, that Epi
phanius imputed not to the CoUyridians the heresy of
believing the Virgin Mary God ; and if they did not
think her God, there is then no reason iraaginable why
their oblation of a cake should not be thought a
present, as well as the Papists' offering a taper, or
that the Papists' offering a taper should not be thought
a sacrifice, as well as their offering a cake. And seeing
this was the difference pretended between thera, this
being vanished, there remains none at all ; so that my
first conclusion stands yet firm, — that either the an
cient church erred in condemning the CoUyridians, or
the present errs in approving and practising the same
worship.

V. AN ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM THE ADMITTING
INFANTS TO THE EUCHARIST, AS WITHOUT WHICH
THEY COULD NOT BE SAVED, AGAINST THE
CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY. AN ADVERTISEMENT.
The reader, when he meets with the phrase "catholic doctrine," in
the two following discourses, must remember that it does not
signify articles of faith determined in any general co\mcils,
which might be looked upon as the faith of the whole church ;
but the current and common opinion of the age, which obtained
in it without any known opposition and contradiction. Neither
need this be wondered at, since they are about matters far
removed from the common faith of Christians, and having no
necessary influence upon good life and manners, whatsoever
necessity, by mistake of some scriptures, might be put upon
them.
The condition without the perforinance whereof no
man can be admitted to the coramunion of the church
of Rome, is this. That he believe firmly and without
doubting whatsoever the church requires him to believe :
more distinctly and particularly thus :
He must believe all that to be divine revelation

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 577
which that church teaches to be such : as the doctrine
of the Trinity ; the hypostatical union of two natures
in the person of Christ ; the procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Father and Son ; the doctrine of tran
substantiation ; and such like.
Whatsoever that church teaches to be necessary, he
must believe to be necessary : as baptism for infants ;
faith in Christ for those that are capable of faith ;
penance for those that have committed raortal sin after
baptism, &c.
Whatsoever that church declares expedient and profit
able, he must believe to be expedient and profitable : as
monastical life ; prayer to saints ; prayer for the dead ;
going on pilgrimages ; the use of pardons ; veneration
of holy images and relics ; Latin service where the
people understand it not ; communicating the laity in
one kind ; and such like.
Whatsoever that ehurch holdeth lawful, he raust
believe lawful : as to marry ; to make distinction of
meats, iis if some were clean and others unclean ; to fly
in time of persecution ; for them that serve at the altar
to live by the altar ; to testify a truth by oath when a
lawful magistrate shall require it ; to possess riches, &c.
Now it is irapossible that any raan should certainly
believe any thing, unless either it be evident of itself,
or he have some certain reason (at least, sorae supposed
certain reason) and infallible ground for his belief:
Now the doctrines which the church of Rome teacheth,
it is evident and undeniable that they are not evident
of themselves, neither evidently true nor evidently cre
dible : He therefore that will believe them, must of
necessity have some certain and infallible ground
whereon to buUd his belief of them.
There is no other ground for a man's belief of them,
especially in many points, but only an assurance of the
inhiUibility of the church of Rome. No man can be
assured that that church is infallible, and cannot err,
whereof he raay bc assured tlmt she hath ened, unless
she had some new promise of divine assistance, which
c c

578 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
might for the future secure , her from danger of erring ;
but the church of Rome pretends to none such.
Nothing is more certain than that that church hath
erred which hath believed and taught irreconcilable
contradictions, one whereof must of necessity be an
error. That the receiving the sacrament of the eucharist is
necessary for infents, and that the receiving thereof is
not necessary for them ; that it is the wUl of God that
the church should administer the sacrament to them,
and that it is not the wUl of God that the church
should do so ; are manifest and irreconcUable contra
dictions ; supposing only, (that which is most evident,)
that the eucharist is the same thing, of the same virtue
and efficacy, now as it was in the primitive church ;
that infants are the same things they were, have as
much need, are capable of as much benefit by the
eucharist now as then ; as subject to frreverent car
riages then as now ; and, lastly, that the present church
is as much bound to provide for the spfritual good of
infants as the ancient church was ; — I say, these things
supposed, the propositions before set down are plain and
irreconcilable contradictions, whereof the present Roman
church doth hold the negative, and the ancient church
of Rome did hold the affirmative ; and therefore it is
evident that either the present church doth err, in
holding something not necessary which is so ; or that
the ancient church did err, in holding something neces
sary which was not so.
Por the negative proposition, naraely, that the
eucharist is not necessary for infants : That it is the doc
trine of the present church of Rome it is most mani
fest : 1. From the disuse, and abolition, arid prohibi
tion of the contrary ancient practice. For if the
church did conceive it necessary for them, either simply
for their salvation, or else for their increase or con
firmation in grace, and advanceraent to a higher degree
of glory, unless she could supply sorae other way their
daraage in this thing, which evidently she cannot, what
an uncharitable sacrilege is it to debar and defraud

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH., 579
them of the necessary means of their so great spiritual
benefit ! especiaUy seeing the adrainistration of it might
be so ordered, that irreverent casualties might easily be
prevented ; which yet, should they fall out against the
church's and pastors' intention, certainly could not
offend God, and in reason should not offend man. Or
if the church do believe, that, upon such a vain fear of
irreverence, (which, we see, moved not the ancient
church at all,) she may lawfully forbid such a general,
perpetual, and necessary charity, certainly herein she
commits a far greater error than the former. 2. From
the Council of Trent's anathema, denounced on all that
hold the contrary, in these words : " If any man say
that the receiving of the eucharist is necessary for little
children before they come to years of discretion, let
him be anathema." Concil. Trident, sess. xxi. De Com-
rmmiqne Parvulorum, can. 4.
Now for the affirmative part of the contradiction : To,
make it evident that that was the doctrine of the
ancient church, I will prove it, first, from the general
practice of the ancient church for several ages ; second
ly, by the direct and formal testimonies of the Fathers
of those times ; thirdly, by the confession of the most
learned antiquaries of the Roman church.
I. My first argument I form thus : " If to communi
cate infants was the general practice of the ancient
church for many ages, then certainly the church then
believed that the eucharist was necessary for them, and
very avaUable for their spiritual benefit : But it is cer
tain that the coramunicating of infants was the general
practice of the church for raany ages : Therefore, the
church of those tiraes thought it necessary for thera."
To deny the consequence of the proposition is to
charge the church with extreme folly, vrilful superstition,
and perpetual profanation of the blessed sacrament.
As for tiie assumption, it is fully confirmed by Cle
mens Romanus, Condit. Apod. lib. iu. cap. 20 ; Diony-
sius Areopagita, De Eccles. Hierarch, cap. ult. ; St.
Cyprian and a council of African bishops with him,
Epist. 59, ad Fidum ; and in his treatise De Lapsis,
2 c 2

580 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
p. 137, edit. Pamel. ; Paulinus, bishop of Nola in
Italy, anno 353, in Epid. 12, ad Senem ; out of Ordo
Bomanus, cited by Alcuinus, St. Bede's scholar, and
master to Charlemagne, in his book De Divinis Officiis,
cap. De Sab. Sancto Pasc. ; Gennadius Massiliensis,
De Eccles. Dogmatibus, cap. Ui. Concil. Toldanum II.
can. 11. It continued in the western church unto
the days of Lewis the Debonair ; witness cardinal
Perron, Des Passages de St. Austin, p. 100. Some
footsteps of it remained there in the tirae of Hugo de
St. Victore, as you may see, lib. i. De Sacram'. d
Cerem. cap. 20. It was the practice of the church of
the Armenians in Waldensis's time, as he relates out of
Guido the Carmelite, tora. ii. De Sacr. cap.- xci. De
Erroribus Armenorum. It is still in force in the
church of the Abyssines ; witness Franc. Alvarez,
Hist. .Ethiop. cap. xxii. and Thoraas a Jesu, De pro
curanda Salute omnium Gentium. It has continued
without any interruption in the Greek church unto this
present age, as raay be evidently gathered out of Lyra-
nus, in John vi. ; Arcudius, lib. i. cap. 14, et lib. iu.
cap. 40, De Concord. Eccles. Orient, et Occident, in
Sacram. Administratione ; Cardinal Perron, Des Pas
sages de S. Austin, p. 100 ; where he also assures us of
the priraitive church in general, that she gave infants
the eucharist as soon as they were baptized ; and that
the custom of giving this sacrament to little infants the
church then observed ; and before, page '21, that in
those ages it was always given to infants together with
baptism. The same is likewise acknowledged by Cont-
zen, in John vi. 54 ; and by Thomas a Jesu, De pro
curanda Salute omnium Gentium. So that this matter
of the practice of the ancient church is sufficientiy
cleared. Seeing therefore the ancient church did use
this custora, and could have no other ground for it but
their belief that this sacraraent was necessary for infants,
it follows necessarily that the church then did believe it
necessary. But deductions, though never so evident, are super
fluous, and raay be set aside, where there is such abun-

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 581
dance of direct and formal authentical testimonies ;
whereof some speak in thesi, of the necessity of the
eucharist for all men, others in hypothesi, of the neces
sity of it for infants.
II. My second argument, from the testimonies of
the Fathers of those times, I form thus : " That doc
trine, in the affirmative whereof the most erainent
Fathers of the ancient church agree, and which none
of their contemporaries have opposed or conderaned,
ought to be taken for the catholic doctrine of the
church of those times : But the most eminent Fathers
of the ancient church agree in the affirmation of this
doctrine, that the eucharist is necessary for infants, and
none of their contemporaries have opposed or con
demned it : Ergo, It ought to be taken for the cathoUe
doctrine of the church of their times."
The major of this syllogism is delivered and fully
proved by cardinal Perron, in his Letter to Casaubon,
obs. 5 ; and is indeed so reasonable a postulate, that
none but a contentious spirit can reject it.
For confirmation of the minor, I will allege, firsts
thefr sentences which in thesi affirm the eucharist to be
geneiaUy necessary for all, and therefore for infants ;
and then their suffrages who in hypothesi avouch the
necessity of it for infants.
1. The most pregnant testimonies of the first rank
are these : Of Trenffius, lib. iv. Contra Hceres, cap. 34,
where he raakes our union to Christ by tbe eucharist
the foundation of the hope of our resurrection, in these
words : " As the bread of earth after the invocation of
God is now not coraraon bread, but the eucharist, con
sisting of two things, an earthly and an heavenly ; so
our bodies, receiving the eucharist, are not now cor-
raptible for ever, but have hope of resurrection." The
like he hath, lib. v. cap. 2. And hence in probability
it is that the Nicene Council styled this sacraraent
synAolum resurrectionis, "the pledge of our resurrec
tion ;" and Ignatius, pharmacum immortalitatis, " the
medicine of iramortality." (Epist, ad Eph,)
" They shall never partake, nor so much as taste,

582 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
the life of holiness and happiness, which receive not the
Son in the mystical benediction." — Cyril. Alex. lib.
iv. in Joaii, " This corraptible nature of our body
could not otherwise be brought to life and immortality,
unless this body of natural life were conjoined unto it."
— Cyril, lib. x. in Joan, cap. 13, and Ub. xi. cap. 27.
The very same things saith Gregory Nyssen, Orat,
Catech. cap. 37. And that they both speak of our
conjunction with Christ by the eucharist, the antecedents
and consequents do fully manifest, and it is a thing
confessed by learned Catholics.
Cyprian, De Coena Domini, and Tertullian, De
Besurrec. Carnis, speak to the sarae purpose. But I
have not thefr books by me, and therefore cannot. set
down their words. St. Chrysostora, Homil. 47 in
Jocm. on these words. Nisi mandueaveritis, has many
pregnant and plain speeches to our purpose ; as :
" The words here spoken are very terrible : ' Verily,'
saith He, ' if a man eat not my flesh, and drink not my
blood, he hath no life in him.' For whereas they said
before, this could not be done, he shows it not only not
impossible, but also very necessary." And, a Uttle
after : " He often iterates his speech conceming the
holy mysteries, showing the necessity of the thing, and
that by all means it must be done." And again :
" What means that which He says ? — ' My flesh is
meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.' Either
that this is the true meat that saves the soul ; or to
confirm thera in the faith of what he had spoken, that
they should not think he spoke enigmatically or parabo-
lically, but knew that by all means they must eat his
body." But most clear and unanswerable is that place where
he saith : "Ifa man cannot enter into the kingdom of
heaven unless he be born again of water and the Holy
Spirit ; and if he which eats not the flesh of our Lord,
and drinks not his blood, is cast out of etemal life ;
and all these things cannot be done by any other, but
only by those holy hands, the hands, I say, of the
priest ; how then without their help can any man eitl\er

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 583
avoid the fire of hell, or obtain the crowns laid up for
us ? " (De Sacerdotio, lib. iii.)
Theophylact. in Joan. vi. : " When therefore we
hear, that unless we eat the flesh of the Son o^ raan, we
cannot have life, we must have faith without doubting
in the receiving of the divine mysteries, and never
inquire how. ^ For the natural man,' that is, he which
followeth human, that is, natural, reasons, ' receives not
the things which are ' above nature, and ' spiritual ;' as
also he understands not the spiritual meat of the flesh
of our Lord, which they that receive not shall not be
partakers of eternal life, as riot receiving Jesus, who is
the trae life."
St. Austin : " Very well do the puny Christians call
baptism nothing else but salvation, and the sacrament
6f Christ's body nothing else but life. From whence
should this be, but, as I believe, from the ancient and
apostolical tradition by which this doctrine is implanted
into the churches of Christ, — that, but by baptism
and the participation of the Lord's table, not any man
can attain neither to the kingdom of God, nor to salva
tion and eternal life ? " (De Peccatorum Meritis et
Bemissione, cap. 24.)
Now we are taught by the leamed cardinal, that
when the Fathers speak, not as Doctors, but as wit
nesses of the customs of the church of their times, and
do not say, " I believe this should be so holden, or so
understood, or so observed," but that " the church from
one end of the earth to the other believes it so, or
observes it so ;" then we no longer hold what they say
for a thing said by them, but as a thing said by the
whole church ; and principally when it is in points
whereof they could not be ignorant, either because of
the condition of the things, as in matters of fact, or
because of the sufficiency of the persons. And in this
case we argue no more upon their words probably, as
we do when they speak in the quality of particular
Doctors, but we argue thereupon demonstratively.
I subsume. But St. Austin, the sufficientest person
which the church of his time had, speaking of a point

584 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
wherein he could not be ignorant, says not that " I
believe the eucharist to be necessary to salvation ; " but,
" The churches of Christ believe so, and have received
this doctrine from apostolical tradition." Therefore I
argue upon his words, not probably, but demonstra
tively, that this was the catholic doctrine of the church
of his tirae.
And thus much for the thesis, that the eucharist was
held generally necessary for aU.
2. Now for the hypothesis, that the eucharist was
held necessary for infants in particular. Witnesses
hereof are St. Cyprian, Pope Innocentius I., and Euse
bius Emisenus, with St. Austin, together with the
author of the book intituled Hypognostica.
(1.) Cyprian indeed does not in terras affirra it ; but
we have a very clear intimation of it in his Epistle to
Fidus. For whereas he and a council of bishops toge
ther with hira had ordered, that infants raight be bap
tized and sacriflced, that is, communicated, before the
eighth day, though that were the day appointed for
circumcision by the old law ; there he sets down this
as the reason of their decree, — that the mercy and
grace of God was to be denied to no man.
(2.) Pope Innocent I. in Epist. ad Episc. Cone. Milev.
(quce est inter August. 93) concludes against the Pela
gians, that infants could not attain eternal life without
baptism ; because without baptism they were uncapable
of the eucharist, and without the eucharist could not
have eternal life. His words are : " But that which
your fraternity affirras them to preach, that infants
without the grace of baptism may have the rewards of
eternal life, is certainly raost foolish ; for unless they
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,
they shall have no life in them."
Now that this sense which I have given his words is
indeed the true sense of thera, and that his judgment
upon the point was as I have said, it is acknowledged
by Maldonate in John vi. 54 ; by Binius upon the
Councils, tom. i. p. 624 ; by Sanctesius, Bepet. vi.
cap. 7 ; and it is affirmed by St. Austin, who was his

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 585
contemporary, held correspondence by letters with hira,
and therefore in all probabUity could not be igno
rant of his meaning : I say, he affirms it as a matter out
of question, Epid. cvi., and Contra Julian, lib. i.
cap. 4, where he teUs that Pelagius, in denying this,
did dispute contra sedis apostolicee authoritatem,
" against the authority of the see apostolic ;" and after :
" But if they yield to the see apostolic, or rather to the
Master himself and Lord of the apostles, who says, that
they shall not have life in them, unless they eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, which
none may do but those that are baptized, then at length
they will confess, that infants not baptized cannot have
life." Now, I suppose no man wUl doubt but the belief of
the apostolic see was then (as St. Austin assures us,
Ub. i. Contra Julian, cap. 4) the belief of the church of
Rome, taking it for a particular church ; and then it
wiU presently follow, that either other churches do not
think themselves bound in conforraity of belief with the
Roman church, notwithstanding Irenseus's Necesse est
ad hanc ecclesiam omnem convenire ecclesiam,* or that
this was then the doctrine of the catholic church.
(3.) For Eusebius Emisenus, I cannot quote any
particular proof out of him ; but his belief in this point
is acknowledged by Sanctesius, Bepet. vi. cap. 7-
(4.) Likewise for St. Austin, the same Sanctesius, and
Binius, and Maldonate, either not mindful or not regard
ful ofthe anathema ofthe Council of Trent, acknowledge,
in the places above quoted, that he was also of the same
belief; and indeed he professeth it so plainly and so
frequently, that he must be a mere stranger to him that
knows it not, and very impudent that denies it. Eu-
charistiam infantibus putat. necessariam Augustinus,
say also the divines of Lovaine, in their Index to their
edition of St. Austin ; and they refer us in their Index
only to tom. ii. p. 185, that is, to Epist. cvi., the
words whereof I have already quoted, to show the
meaning of Innocentius, and to tom. vu. p. 282, that
> * For a translation see pp. 138, 513 — Edit.
2 C 5

586 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
is, lib. i. De Pec. Mer, d Bemis, cap. 20, where his
words are : " Let then all doubt be taken away ; let
us hear our Lord, I say, saying not of the sacrament of
holy baptism, but of the sacraraent of his table, to
which none may lawfully come but he which has been
baptized : ' Unless you eat the flesh of the Son, and
drink his blood, you shall have no life in you.' What
seek we any further ? What can be answered here
unto ? What ! will any man dare to say, that this apper
tains not to little children ? and that without the par
ticipation of his body and blood they may have life?"
&c. ; with much more to the sarae effect. Which
places are indeed so plain and pregnant for that pur
pose, that I believe they thought it needless to add
more ; otherwise, had they pleased, they might have
furnished their Index with many more references to
this point : as De Pec. Mer. et Bemis. lib. i. cap. 24,
where of baptism and the eucharist he teUs us, that
salus et vita ceterna sine his frustra promittitur par-
oulis.* The same he has. Contra Epist. ii. Pelagii ad
Bonifacium, lib. i. cap. 22 ; which yet by Gratian, De
Consec. dist. S, cap. Nulli, and by Thoraas Aquinas, p.
3, q. 3, art. 9, ad Tertiam, is strangely corrupted, and
made to say the contrary ; and lib. iv. cap. 4 ; the same
Contra Julian, lib. i. cap. 4, and lib. iii. cap. 11, 12 ;
Cont. Pelag. et Celest. lib. ii. cap. 8; De Prcedest.
Sanctorum ad Prosp. et Hilar, lib. i. cap. 14. Nei
ther doth he retract or contradict this opinion any
where, nor mitigate any one of his sentences touching
this matter in his book of Retractations. Sanctesius
indeed tells us, that he seems to have departed from
his opinion, in his works against the Donatists. But
I would he had showed sorae probable reason to make
it seem so to others ; which seeing he does not, we
have reason to take time to beUeve him. For as
touching the place mentioned by Beda, in I ad Co
rinth. X., as taken out of a sermon of St. Austin's,
ad Infantes ad Altare ; besides that it is very
strange St. Austin should make a serraon to infants ;
* " M''ithout these two sacraments salvation and life eternal are
vai"'" .""-r-i"".? *" inf„nt= "  KriTT.

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 587
and that there is no such sermon extant in his Works,
nor any memory of any such in Possidius's (St. Aus
tin's scholar) Catalogue of his Works, nor in his book
of Retractations; — setting aside all this, I say, first,
that it is no way certain that he speaks there of infants,
seeing, in propriety of speech, as St. Austin himself
teacheth us, Epist. xxiu., infants were not fideles, of whom
St. Austin in that supposed serraon speaks. Secondly,
admit he does speak of infents, where he assures us,
that in baptism every faithftil man is made partaker of
Christ's body and blood, and that he shaJl not be
alienated from the benefit of the bread and cup,
although he depart this Ufe before he eat of that bread
and drink of that cup. AU this concludes no more,
bnt that the actual participation of the eucharist is
not a means simply necessary to attain salvation, so
that no impossibility shaU excuse the failing of it ;
whereas all that I aira at is but this, that, in tiie judg^
ment of the ancient church, it was believed necessary,
in case of possibiUty ; necessary, not in actu, but in
voto eedesicB ; not necessary to salvation simply, but
necessary for the increase of grace and glory ; and
therefore, lastly, though not necessary by necessity
of means for infents to receive it, yet necessary by
necessity of precepts for the church to give it.
(5.) The last witness I promised was the author of the
work against the Pelagians caUed Hypognodica, who,
Ub. V. cap. 5, asks the Pelagians, " Seeing he himself
hath said, ' Unless you eat the flesh,' &c., how dare
you promise etemal life to little chUdren not regene
rate of water and the Holy Ghost, not having eaten his
flesh, nor drank his blood ? " And, a little after, " Be
hold, then, he that is not baptized, and he that is
destitute of the bread and cup of life, is separated from
the kingdom of heaven."
To the same purpose he speaks, Ub. vi. cap. 6. But
it is superfiuous to recite has words ; for either this is
enough or nothing. "
III. The thfrd kfrid of proof, whereby I undertook to
show the belief of the ancient church in this point, was

588 ARGUMENTS AG.\INST THE INFALLIBILITY
the confession of the learnedest writers and best-
versed in the church of Rorae ; who — what the CouncU
of Trent forbids under anathema, that any raan should
say of any ancient Father — are not yet afraid nor make
no scrapie to say it in plain terms of the whole church
for many ages together ; namely, that she believed the
eucharist necessary for infants. So doth Maldonate, in
Joan, vi. : Mitto Augustini d Innocentii sententiam,
(quae etiam viguit in ecclesia per sexcentos annos,)
eucharidiam diam infantibus 'necessariam. " I say
nothing," says he, " of Austin's and Innocentius's opi
nion, that the eucharist was necessary even for infants ;
which doctrine flourished in the churcb for six hundred
years." The same almost in terms hath Binius, in his Notes
on the Councils, p. 624 : Hinc constat Innocentii sen
tentia, (quce sexcentos circiter annos viguit in eccle
sia,) quam Augustinus sedatus est, eucharidiam etiam
infantibus necessariam fuisse. *
Lastly. That treasury of antiquity, cardinal Perron,
though he speaks not so home as the rest do, yet he says
enough for my purpose : " The custom of giving the
eucharist to infants the church then observed as profit
able." (Des Passages de S. Augud. cap. x. p. 101.)
This, I say, is enough for ray purpose. For what more
contradictious than that the eucharist, ' being the same
without alteration, to infants should then be profitable,
and now unprofitable ; then, all things considered, expe
dient to be used, if not necessary, and therefore com
manded ; and now, though there be no variety in the
case, all things considered, not necessary nor expedient,
and therefore forbidden ?
The issue of all this discourse, for aught I can see,
raust be this, — that either both parts of a contradiction
must be true, and consequently nothing can be false,
seeing that which contradlcteth truth is not so ; or else,
* " It is therefore evident from this opinion of Innocent, which
obtained in the church nearly six hundred years, and which was also
entertained by St. Augustine, that the eucharist was necessary even
for infants." — Edit.

OF THE EOMAN CHURCH. 589
that the ancient church did err, in believing something
expedient which was not so, (and if so, why may not
the present church err, in thinking Latin service and
communion in one kind expedient ?) or that the present
church doth err, in thinking something not expedient
which is so. And if so, why may she not err, in
thinking communicating the laity in both kinds, and
service in vulgar languages, not expedient ?

VI. AN ARGUMENT DRAWN FROJI THE DOCTRINE OF
THE MILLENARIES AGAINST INFALLIBILITY.
The doctrine of the MUlenaries was, that, before
the worid's end, Christ should reign upon earth for a
thousand years, and that the saints should live under
him in all holiness and happiness. That this doctrine
is by the present Roman church held false and here
tical, I think no man will deny.
That the same doctrine was by the church of the next
age after the apostles held true and catholic, I prove by
these two reasons :
I. The first reason :
" Whatsoever doctrine is believed and taught by the
most eminent Fathers of any age of the church, and by
none of thefr contemporaries opposed or condemned,
that is to be esteemed- the catholic doctrine of the
church of those times :
" But the doctrine of the MUlenaries was believed
and taught by the eminent Fathers of the age next
after the apostles, and by none of that age opposed or
condemned :
" Therefore, it was the catholic doctrine of the
church of those times."
The proposition of this syllogism is cardinal Perron's
rule, in his " Epistle to Casaubon," observ. v. ; and is
indeed one of the main piUars upon which the great
fabric of his "Answer to king James" doth stand, and
with which it cannot but fell ; and therefore I will
spend no time in the proof of it.

590 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
But the assumption thus I prove :
" That doctrine which was believed and taught by
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, the disciple of the apos
tles' disciples, (according to Eusebius,) who lived in the
times of the apostles, saith he ; by Justin Martyr,
Doctor of the church and martyr ; by Melito, bishop of
Sardis, who had the gift of prophecy, (vritness Tertul
lian,) and whom Bellarmine acknowledgeth a saint ; by
St. Irenseus, bishop of Lyons, and martyr ; and was
not opposed and condemned by any one Doctor of the
church of those times ; — that doctrine was believed and
taught by the raost eminent Fathers of that age next to
the apostles, and opposed by none.
" But the former part of the proposition is true :
" Ergo, the latter is also trae."
The major of this syUogism, and the latter part of
the rainor, I suppose, will need no proof with them
that consider, that these here raentioned were equal in
number to all the other ecclesiastical writers of that
age of whora there is any raemory remaining, and in
weight and worth infinitely beyond them. They were
Athenagoras, Theophilus Antiochenus, Hegesippus,
and Hippolytus ; of whose contradiction to this doctrine
there is not extant, neither in thefr works, nor in story,
any print or footstep ; which if they or any of them
had opposed, it had been impossible, considering the
ecclesiastical story of thefr time is written by the
professed eneraies of the Millenaries' doctrine ; who,
could they have found any thing in the monuments of
antiquity to have put in the balance against Justin
Martyr and Irenseus, no doubt would not have buried
it in silence ; which yet they do, neither vouching for
their opinion any one of more antiquity than Dionysius
Alexandrinus, who lived, saith Eusebius, nostra wtate,
" in our age," but certainly in the latter part of the
third century. For Tatianus, because an heretic, I
reckon not in this number. And if any man say, that
before his fall he wrote many books, I say, it is true ;
but withal would have it remembered, that he was
Justin Martyr's scholar, and therefore, in all probabi-

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 691
Uty, of his master's faith, rather than against it. All
that is extant of him one way or other is but this in St.
Jerome : Justini Martyris sedator fuit [" He was a
foUower of Justin Martyr"]. (De Script. Eccles.)
Now for the other part of the minor, — that the fore-
mentioned Fathers did belieye and teach this doctrine.
1. And first for Papias ; that he taught it, it is con
fessed by Eusebius, the enemy of this doctrine, in these
words : " Other things besides the same author " (Pa
pias) " declares, that they came to him as it were by
unwritten tradition ; wherein he affirms, that, after the
resurrection of all flesh from the dead, there shall be a
kingdora of Christ continued and established for a
thousand years upon earth, after a human and corporeal
manner." (Eccles. Hist., lib. iii. cap. 33.) The sarae
is confessed by St. Jerorae, another eneray to this
opinion : " Papias, the auditor of John, bishop of
Hierapolis, is said to have taught the Judaical tradition
of a thousand years, whora Irenseus and Apollinaris
followed." (De Script. Eccles. s. 29.) And in his
Preface upon the Commentaries of Victorinus upon the
Apocalypse thus he writes : " Before him, Papias,
bishop of Hierapolis, and Nepos, bishop in the parts ef
Egypt, taught as Victorinus does touching the kingdom
of the thousand years."
The sarae is testified by Irenseus, Contra Hceres.
lib. V. cap. .33 ; where, having at large set forth this
doctrine, he confirras it by the authority of Papias in
these words : " Papias, also, the auditor of John, the
familiar friend of Polycarpus, an ancient man, hath testi
fied by writing these things in the fourth of his books ;
for he hath written five." And concerning Papias thus
much. 2. That Justin Martyr was of the sarae belief, it is
confessed by Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Sane. lib. vi. a.d.
347 ; by Faverdentius in his Premonition before the
five last chapters of the fifth book of Irenseus ; by
Pamelius in Antidote ad Tertul. Parad. paradox 14.
3. That St. Melito, bishop of Sardis, held the sarae
doctrine, is confessed by Pamelius in the same place ;

592 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
and thereupon it is that Gennadius Massiliensis, in his
book De Eccles. Dogmatibus, calls the followers of this
opinion Melitani, as the same Pamelius testifies in his
Notes upon that fragment of Tertullian, De Spe Fide
lium. 4. Irenseus's faith in this point is likewise confessed,
(1.) By Eusebius, in the place before quoted in these
words : " He " (Papias) " was the author of the like
error to most of the writers of the church, who alleged
the antiquity of the man for a defence of their side, as
to Irenseus and whosoever else seemed to be of the same
opinion with him." ¦*
(2.) By St. Jerome in the place above cited, De
Script. Ecclesiastic, s. 29. Again, in Lib, Ezek, ch, xi.,
in these words : "-For neither do we expect from heaven
a golden Jerasalem, according to the Jewish tales which
they call Deuferosis, which also many of our own
have followed ; especially TertuUian, in his book De
Spe Fidelium ; and Lactantius, in his seventh book of
Institutions ; and the frequent expositions pf Victorinus
Pictavionensis ; and of late Severus, in his dialogue
which he calls Gallus ; and, to narae the Greeks, and to
j(Jin together the first and last, Irenseus and Apollina
ris." Where we see he acknowledges Irenasus to be
of this opinion ; but that he was the first that held it,
I believe that that is raore a Christian untrath, than
Irenseus's opinion a Judaical fable. For he himself
acknowledges, in the place above cited, that Irenseus
followed Papias ; and it is certain and confessed that
Justin Martyr believed it long before him ; and Ire
nseus hiraself derives it from presbyteri qui Johannem
discipulum Domini viderunt, from " priests which saw
John the disciple of the Lord." Lastly, by Pamelius,
Sixtus Senensis, and Faverdentius, in the places above
quoted. Seeing therefore it is certain, even to the confession
of the adversaries, that Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito,
and Irenseus, the most considerable and eminent men
of their age, did believe and teach this doctrine ; and
seeing it has been proved, as evidently as a thing of

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 593
this nature can be, that none of their contemporaries
opposed or conderaned it ; it reraains, according to
cardinal Perron's first rule, that this is to be esteemed
the doctrine of tbe church of that age.
II. My second reason I form thus :
" Whatsoever doctrine is taught by the Fathers of
any age, not as Doctors, but as witnesses of the tradi
tion of the church, (that is, not as their own opinion,
but as the doctrine of the church of their times,) that is
undoubtedly to be so esteemed, especiaUy if none con
tradicted them in it :
" But the Fathers above cited teach this doctrine,
not as their own private opinion, but as the Christian
tradition, and as the doctrine of the church ; neither did
any contradict them in it :
" Ergo, it is undoubtedly to be so esteemed."
The major of this syllogism is cardinal Perron's
second rule and way of finding out the doctrine of the
ancient church in any age ; and if it be not a sure rule,
farewell the use of all antiquity.
And for the minor, there will be little doubt of it to
him that considers that Papias professes himself to, have
received this doctrine by unwritten tradition, though
not from the apostles theraselves immediately, yet from
their scholars, as appears by Eusebius in the forecited
third book, thirty-third chapter :
That Irenseus, grounding it upon evident Scripture,
professes that he learned it, whether mediately or
immediately I cannot tell, from presbyteri qui Johan
nem discipulum Domini viderunt, " priests or elders
who saw John, the Lord's disciple," and heard of him
what our Lord taught of those times, of the thousand
years, and also, as he says after, from Papias, the
auditor of John, the chamber-fellow of Polycarpus, an
ancient man, who recorded it in writing.
Paverdentius's note upon this place is very notable :
Hinc apparet, saith he : " From hence it appears that
Irenaeus neither first invented this opinion, nor held it
as proper to himself, but got this blot and blemish
from certain Fathers." Papias, I suppose, and some

594 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
other inglorious feUows, the familiar friends of Irenseus,
are here intended.
I hope then, if the Fathers which lived with the
apostles had their blots and blemishes, it is no such
horrid crirae for Calvin and the Century-writers to
impute the same to their great-grandchildren. .Mtas
parentum pejor avis progeniem fert vitiosiorem.* But
yet these inglorious disciples of the apostles, though
perhaps not so leamed as Faverdentius, were yet cer
tainly so honest as not to invent lies and deUver them
as apostolic tradition ; or if they were not, what confi
dence can we place in any other unwritten tradition ?
Lastly. That Justin Martyr grounds it upon plain
prophecies of the Old Testament, and express words of
the New. He professeth, that "he and aU other
Christians of a right belief in aU things beUeve it ;"
joins them who believe it not, with them who deny the
resurrection ; or else says, that none denied this but
the same who denied the resurrection ; and that indeed
they were called Christians, but in deed and in trath
were none.
Whosoever, I say, considers these things wUl easily
grant, that they held it not as thefr own opinion, but as
the doctrine of the church, and the faith of Christians.
Hereupon I conclude, " Whatsoever they held, not
as their private opinion, but as the feith of the church,
that was the faith of the church of their time :
" But this doctrine they held, not as their private
opinion, but as the faith of the church :
" Ergo, it was and is to be esteemed the faith of the
churqh." Trypho. — " Do ye confess, that before ye expect the
• The close of one of Horace's odes, (lib. iii. 6,) slightly altered,
of which the following is a poetic translation, published anony
mously, in 1712:
" Time alters all things in its pace,
Each century new vices owns ;
Our fathers bore an impious race.
And we shall have more wicked sons :
Impiety still gathers in its course ;
The present times are bad, the future will be worse."
— Edit.

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 595
coming of Christ, this place, Jerasalem, shall be again
restored, and that your people shall be congregated, and
rejoice together with Christ, and the patriarchs, and the
prophets?" &c.
Justin Martyr. — " I have confessed to you before,
that both I and many others do believe, as you well know,
that this shall be ; but that raany again who are (not) of
the pure and holy opinion of Christians, do not acknow
ledge this, I have also signified unto you. For I have
declared unto you, that some called Christians, but
being indeed atheists and impious heretics, do generally
teach blasphemous and atheistical and foolish things ;
but that you might know that I speak not this to you
only, I will make a book as near as I can of these our
disputations, where I wUl profess in writing that which
I say before you ; for I resolve to follow not men and
the doctrines of men, but God and the doctrine of God.
For although you chance to meet with some that are
caUed Christians which do not confess this, but dare to
blaspheme the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob, which also say there is no resurrec
tion of the dead, but that as soon as they die, their
souls are received into heaven, do not ye yet think
them Christians : as neither, if a man consider
rightly, will he account the Sadducees and other secta
ries and heretics (as the Genistse, and the Meristse,
and GaUleans, and Pharisees, and Hellenians, and
Baptists, and other sueh) to be Jews; but only that
they are called Jews, and the chUdren of Abraham, and
such as with their lips confess God, as God himself
cries out, but have their hearts far from him. But I
and all Christians that in all things believe aright both
know that there shall be a resurrection of the flesh, and
a thousand years in Jerusalem, restored, and adorned,
and enlarged, according as the prophets Ezekiel, and
Isaiah, and others do testify. For thus saith Isaiah of
the time of this thousand years : ' For there shall be a
new heaven and a new earth, and they shall not remera
ber the former,' " &c. And after : " A certain man
araongst us, whose name was John, one of the twelve

596 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
apostles of Christ, in that Revelation which was exhi
bited unto him, hath foretold, that they which believe
our Christ shall live in Jerusalem a thousand years ;
and that, after, the universal and everlasting resurrec
tion and judgment shall be."
I have presuraed, in the beginning of Justin Martyr's
answer, to substitute " not " instead of " also," because
I ara confident, that either by chance, or the fiaud of
sorae ill-willers to the Millenaries' opinion, the place
has been corrupted, and oi tumed in xa), " not " into
" also." For if we retain the usual reading, " But that
many who are also of the pure and holy opinion of
Christians do not acknowledge this, I have also sig
nified unto you," then must we conclude, that Justin
Martyr himself did believe the opinion of them which
denied the thousand years to be the pure and holy
opinion of Christians ; and if so, why did he not him
self believe it ? Nay, how could he but believe it to
be true, professing it, as he does, if the place be right,
to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians ? For
how a false doctrine can be the pure and holy opinion
of Christians, what Christian can conceive ? Or if it
may be so, how can the contrary avoid the being
untrue, unholy, and not the opinion of Christians ?
Again : If we read the place thus, " That raany who
are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do
not acknowledge this, I have also signified," certainly
there will be neither sense nor reason, neither coherence
nor consequence, in the words following : " For I have
told you of many called Christians, but being indeed
atheists and heretics, that they altogether teach blas
phemous, and impious, and foolish things." For how
is this a confirraation or reason of, or any way pertinent
unto, what went before, if there he speak of none but
such as were purw pioeque Christianorum sententioB,
" of the pure and holy opinion of Christians ? " And
therefore, to disguise this inconsequence, the translator
has thought fit to make use of a false translation, and
instead of, " For I hare told you," to make it, " Be
sides I have told you of many," &c. Again : If Justin

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 597
Martyr had thought this " the pure and holy opinion of
Christians," or them good and holy Christians that held
it, why does he rank them with thera that denied the
resurrection ? why does he say afterward ? — " Although
you chance to meet with sorae that are caUed Chris
tians which do not confess this, do not ye think them
Christians." Lastly. What sense is there in saying,
as he does, " I, and all Christians that are of a right
belief in all things, believe the doctrine of the thou
sand years," and that the Scriptures both of the Old
and New Testament teach it, and yet say, that " many
of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not
believe it ? " Upon these reasons I suppose it is evi
dent that the place has been corrupted ; and it is to be
corrected according as I have corrected it, by substi
tuting ou in the place of xai, " not " instead of " also."
Neither need any man think strange that this misfor
tune of the change of a syllable should befall this place,
who considers that in this place Justin Martyr tells us
that he had said the sarae things before, whereas
nothing to this purpose appears now in hira ; and that
in Victorinus's coraraent on the Revelation, wherein,
by St. Jerorae's acknowledgment, this doctrine was
strongly maintained, there now appears nothing at all
for it, but rather against it. And now from the
place thus restored these observations offer themselves
unto us :
I. That Justin Martyr speaks not as a Doctor, but
as a witness of the doctrine of the church of his time.
" I," saith he, "and all Christians that are of a right
belief ia all things, hold this ;'* and therefore from
hence, according to cardinal Perron's rule, we are to
conclude, not probably, but demonstratively, that this
was the doctrine ofthe church of that time.
2. That they held it as a necessary matter, so far as
to hold thera no Christians that held the Contrary :
" Though you chance to meet with some called Chris
tians that do not confess this, but dare to blaspheme
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," &c., " yet do
not ye think them Christians." Now if BeUarmine's

598 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
rule be true, that councils then detennine any thing as
matters of feith, when they pronounce them heretics
that hold the contrary, then sure Justin Martyr held
this doctrine as a matter of faith, seeing he pronounceth
ihem no Christians that contradict it.
3. That the doctrine is grounded upon the Scriphire
of the Old and New Testament, and the Revelation of
St. John, and that by a Doctor and martyr of the
church, and such an one as was converted to Chris
tianity within thirty years after the death of St. John,
when in all probability there were many aUve that had
heard him expound his own words, and teach this
doctrine : and if probabUities wUl not be adraitted,
this is certain, out of the most authentical records of
the church, — that Papias, the disciple of the aposties'
disciples, taught it the church, professing that he had
received it from thera that leamed it from the apostles :
and if, after all this, the church of those times might
err in a doctrine so clearly derived and authentically
delivered, how, without extreme impudence, can any
church in after-times pretend to infaUibUity ?
The Millenaries' doctrine was overborne, by imput
ing to them that which they held not ; by abrogating
the authority of St. John's Revelation, as sorae did, or
by derogating from it, as others ; ascribing it not to
St. John the apostle, but to some other John, they know
not who ; which Dionysius Alexandrinus, the first known
adversary of this doctrine, and his followers [do],
against the tradition of Irenseus, Justin Martp, and all
the Fathers their antecessors ; by calling it a Judaical
opinion, and yet aUowing it as probable ; by conupting
the authors for it, as Justin, Victorinus, Severus.

of the roman church. 599
vii. a letter relating to the same subject.
Sir, I PRAY, remember, that if a consent of Fathers
either constitute or declare a truth to be necessary, or
show the opinion of the church of their time ; then that
opinion of the Jesuits, conceming predestination upon
prescience, which had no opposer before St. Austin,
must be so, and the contrary heretical of the Domi
nicans ; and the present church differs from the ancient,
in not esteeming of it as they did.
Secondly. I pray, remember, that if the Fathers be
infeUible, when they speak as witnesses of tradition, tO
show the opinion of the church of thefr time ; then the
opinion of the ChiUasts, which now is a heresy in the
church of Rome, was once tradition in the opinion of
the church.
Thirdly. Since St. Austin had an opinion, that of
whatsoever no beginning was known, that came from
the apostles, many Fathers might say things to be tradi
tion upon that ground only ; but of this opinion of the
ChiliastiS, one of the ancientest Fathers, Irenseus, says
not only that it was tradition, but sets down Christ's
own words when he taught it, and the pedigree of the
opinion from Christ to John his disciple,* from him to
several priests, whereof Papias was one who put it in
writing, and so downwards ; which can be shown from
no other Father, for no other opinion, either contro
verted or uncontroverted.
Fourthly. That if Papias, either by his own error, or
a desire to deceive, could cozen the Fathers of the
purest age in this, why not also in other things ? why
not in twenty as well as one ? why not twenty others
as well as he ?
Fifthly. That if the Fathers could be cozened, how
could general councils scape, who, you say, make tradi
tion one of their rules, which can only be known from
the Fathers ? * lREN.ffiUS, p. 497, edit, Faverdent.

600 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
Sixthly. If they object, " How could errors come in,
and no beginning of them known ? " I pray, remember
to ask them the sarae question concerning the Mille
naries', which lasted uncontradicted until Dionysius
Alexandrinus, two hundred and fifty years after Christ ;
and if they tell you that Papias was the first beginner,
look in Irenseus, and he wUl tell you the contrary,
(Loco citato, lib. v. cap. 33.)
Seventhly. Remember, that if I ought not to con
demn the church of Rome out of Scripture, because my
interpretation may deceive me, then they ought not to
build their infaUibUity upon it, and less upon her own
word, because theirs may deceive thera ; unless the
same thing may be a wall when you lean upon it, and a.
bulrush when we do.
Eighthly. Reraeraber that they cannot say they trast
not their interpretation in this, but a consent of
Fathers ; because the Fathers are not said to be infal
lible, but as they tell the opinion of the church of
their tirae which is infallible ; therefore they raust first
prove out of Scripture that she is infallible, or else she
(who is herself the subject of the question) cannot be
allowed till then to give a verdict for herself.
Ninthly; Reraember, the Roman church claims no
notes of the church but what agree with the Grecian
too, (as antiquity, succession, miracles, &c.,) but only
comraunion with the pope, and splendour, both which
made for the Arians in Liberius's time ; and it were a
hard case, that because the Greeks are poor upon earth,
they should be shut out of heaven.
i'enthly. Reraeraber, that if we have an infalUble
way, we have no use, at least no necessity, of an infalU
ble guide ; for if we raay be saved by following the
Scripture as near as we can, though we err, it is as
good as any interpreter to keep unity in charity, (which
is only needful,) though not in opinion : and this
cannot be ridiculous, because they say, if any raan
misinterpret the CouncU of. Trent, it shall not damn
him ; and why, without more ado, may not the sarae be
said of Scripture ?

OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 601

VIII. AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY OF
THE PRESENT CHURCH OF ROME, TAKEN FROM THE
CONTRADICTIONS IN YOUR DOCTRINE OF TRAN
SUBSTANTIATION.
Chillingworth. — That church is not infalUble
which teacheth Contradictions : But the church of Rorae
teacheth contradictions : Therefore, the church of Rorae
is not infallible.
Mr. Daniel. — I deny the minor.
Chillingworth. — That church teacheth contra
dictions which teacheth such a doctrine as contains
contradictions : But the church of Rome teacheth such
a doctrine : Therefore, the church of Rorae teacheth
•Contradictions. Mr. Daniel. — I deny the minor.
Chillingworth. — The doctrine of transubstantia
tion contains contradictions : But the church of Rome
teacheth the doctrine of transubstantiation : Therefore,
the church of Rome teacheth such a doctrine as contains
contradictions. Mr. Daniel. — I deny the major.
Chillingworth. — That the sarae thing at the
same time should have the true figure of a man's body,
and should not have the trae figure of a man's body, is
a contradiction : But in the doctrine of transubstantia
tion it is taught, that the sarae thing, naraely, our
Saviour present in the sacrament, has the true figure of
a man's body and has not the true figure of a man's
body at the same time : Therefore, the doctrine of tran
substantiation contains contradictions.
Mr. Daniel. — The major, though not having all
rules required to a contradiction, as boys in logic know,*
yet let it pass.
Chillingworth. — Boys in logic know no raore
conditions required to a contradiction, but that the
same thing should be affirmed and denied of the same
thing at the sarae tirae. For my meaning was, that
that should not be accounted the same thing which was
considered after divers manners.
D D

602 ARGUMENT AGAINST THE INFALLIBILITY
Mr. Daniel. — I deny the minor of your syUogism.
Chillingworth. — I prove it according to the se
veral parts of it. And, first, for the first part : He must
have the figure of a man's body in the eucharist who
is there without any real alteration or difference from
the natural body of a man : But our Saviour, accord
ing to the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation, is in
the sacrament without any real alteration or difference
from the natural body of a man : Therefore, according
to this doctrine, he must there have the figure of a
man's body. To tbe second part, that he must not
have the figure of a man's body in the sacrament,
according to this doctrine, thus I prove it: He must
not have the figure of a man's body in the eucharist
which must not have extension there : But our Saviour's
body, according to the doctrine of transubstantiation,
raust not have extension there : Therefore, according to
this doctrine, he must not have the figure of a man's
body there. The major of this syllogism I proved,
because the figure of a man's body could not be with
out extension. The minor I proved thus: That must
not have extension in the eucharist whose every part is
together in one and the sarae point : But, according to
this doctrine, every part of our Saviour's body must be
here in one and the same point : Therefore, here it
must; not have extension.
Mr. Daniel answered, by distinguishing the major
of the first syUogism, and said, that he must not have
the true figure of a man's body, according to the rea
son of a figure taken in its essential consideration,
which is to have positionem partium sic et sic extra
partes,* but not in the accidental consideration, which is
in ordine ad locum.'f And this answer he applied for
the solution of the minor, saying thus : — Our Saviour
is there without any real alteration intrinsical, but not
extrinsical ; for he is not changed in order to himself,
but in order to place : or otherwise, he is not altered

* " The position of the parts thus and thus beyond thy parts.'
3dit. f " In order to place," — Edit.

OF the. ROMAN CHURCH. 603
in his continual existence, which is only modus essen-
ticB [" the mode of essence "], and inseparable even by
divine power, though altered in modo existendi [" the
mode of existence"], which is situation, and required
to figure taken in order to place.
Chillingworth. — Against this it was replied by
Chillingworth, that the distinction of a man's body, as
considered in itself, and as considered in reference to
place, is vain, and no solution of the argument. And
thus he proved it : If it be irapossible that any thing
should have several parts one out of another, in order
and reference of each to other, without having these
parts in several places, then the distinction is vain :
But it is irapossible that any thing should have several
parts one out of another without having these parts in
several places : Therefore, the distinction is vain.
The major of this syllogism he took for granted.
The minor he proved thus : Whatsoever body is in
the proper place of another body must of necessity be
in that very body, by possessing the dimensions of
it : Therefore, whatsoever hath several parts one out of
the other must of necessity have them one out of the
place of the other, and consequently in several places.
For illustration of this argument he said, — If my
head, and belly, and thighs, and legs, be all in the very
same place, of necessity my head must be in ray belly,
and my'belly in ray thighs, and my thighs in my legs,
and all of them in my feet, and my feet in all of them ;
and therefore if my head be out of ray belly, it must be
out of the place where my belly is ; and if it be not out
of the place where my belly is, it is not out of my belly,
but in it.
Again : To show that, according to the doctrine of
transubstantiation, our Saviour's body in the eucharist
hath not the several parts of it out of one another, he
disputed thus : Wheresoever there is a body having
several parts one out of the other, there must be some
middle parts severing the extrerae parts : But here,
accprding to this doctrine, the extreme parts are not
severed, but altogether in the sarae point : Therefore,
2 D 2

604 an ACCOUNT OF WHAT MOVED
here our Saviour's body cannot have parts one out of
other. Mr. Daniel, to all this, for want of a better
answer, gave only this : — " Let all scholars pemse
these." After, upon better consideration, he wrote by
the side of the last syllogism this : Quoad entitatem
verum est, non quoad locum ; that is, " According to
entity it is trae, but not according to place." And to,
" Let all scholars perase these," he caused this to be
added, " And weigh whether there is any new matter
worth a new answer."
Chillingworth replied, that to say, " The extreme
parts of a body are severed by the middle parts accord
ing to their entity, but not according to place," is ridi
culous. His reasons are, first, because severing of
things is nothing else but putting or keeping them
in several places, as every sUly woman knows ; and
therefore, to say, " They are severed, but not accord
ing to place," is as if you should say, " They are
heated, but not according to heat ;" " They are cooled,
but not according to cold : " indeed it is to say, " They
are severed, but not severed."

IX. an ACCOUNT OF WHAT MOVED THE AUTHOR TO
TURN A PAPIST, WITH HIS OWN CONFUTATION OF
THE ARGUMENTS THAT PERSUADED HUI THERETO.
I RECONCILED myself to the church of Rome,
because I thought myself to have sufficient reason to
believe, that there was and must be always in the world
some church that could not err ; and consequently,
seeing all other churches disclaimed this privilege of
not being subject to error, the church of Rome must be
that church which cannot err.
I was put into doubt of this way which I had chosen
by Dr. Stapleton and others ; who limit the church's
freedom from error to things necessary only, and such
as without which the church can be a church no longer ;

THE AUTHOR TO TURN PAPIST. 605
but gi'anted it subject to error in things that were not
necessary. Hereupon, considering that most of the
differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics
were not touching things necessary, but only profitable
or lawful ; I concluded that I had not sufficient
ground to believe the Roman church either could not
or did not err in any thing, and therefore no ground to
he a Roman Catholic.
Against this again I was persuaded, that it was not
sufficient to believe the church to be an infallible
believer of all doctrines necessary, but it raust also be
granted an infallible teacher of what is necessary ;
that is, that we must believe not only that the church
teacheth all things necessary, but that all is necessary
to be believed which the church teacheth to be so : in
effect, that the church is our guide in the way to
heaven. . ¦ >
Now, to believe that the church was an infaUible guide,
and to be believed in all things which she requires us to
believe, I was induced, first, because there was nothing
that could reasonably contest with the church about
this office but the Scripture ; and that the Scripture
was this guide I was wiUing to believe, but that I saw
not how it could be made good without depending
upon the church's authority.
1. That Scripture is the word of God.
2. That the Scripture is a perfect rule of our duty.
3. That the Scripture is so plain in those things which
concern our duty, that whosoever desires and endea
vours to find the will of God there shall either find it,
or at least not dangerously mistake it.
Secondly. I was drawn to this belief, because I
conceived, that it was evident, out of the Epistle to the
Ephesians, that there must be unto the world's end a
succession of pastors, by adhering to whora men might
he; kept from wavering in matters of faith, and fi-om
being " carried up and down with every wind of" false
"doctrine:" That no succession of pastors could guard their adhe
rents from danger of error, if themselves were subject

606 AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT MOVED
unto error, either in teaching that to be necessary which
is not so, or denying that to be necessary which is so :
and therefore,
That there was and must be some succession of pas
tors which was an infallible guide in the way to heaven,
and which should not possibly teach any thing to be
necessary which was not so, nor any thing not necessary
which waa so : upon this ground I concluded, that,
seeing there must be such a succession of pastors as was
an infallible guide, and there was no other but that of
the church of Rome, even by the confession of all other
societies of pastors in the worid, therefore that succes
sion of pastors is that infaUible guide of faith which all
men must follow.
Upon these grounds I thought it necessary for my
salvation to believe the Roman church, in all that she
thought to be, and proposed as, necessary.
¦ Against these arguments it hath been demonstrated
unto me, and first : against the first : ¦ that the reason
why we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of
God neither is nor can be the authority of the present
church of Rome, which cannot make good her authority
any other way but by pretence of Scripture ; and there
fore stands not unto Scripture (no, not in respect of us)
in the relation of a foundation to a building, but of a
building to a foundation, — doth not support Scripture,
but is supported by it. But the general consent of
Christians of all nations and ages, a far greater com
pany than that of the church of Rome, and delivering
universally the Scripture for the word of God, is the
ordinary external reason why we believe it ; whereunto
the testimonies of the Jews, enemies of Christ, add no
small moment for the authority of some part of it.
That whatsoever stood upon the same ground of uni
versal tradition with Scripture, might justly chaUenge
belief as well as Scripture : But that no doctrine not
Written in Scripture could justly pretend to as full tra
dition as the Scripture : and Therefore we had no reason
to believe it with that degree of faith wherewith we
believe the Scripture.

THE AUTHOR TO TURN PAPIST. 607
That it is unreasonable to think, that he that reads
the Scripture, and uses all means appointed for this
purpose, with an earnest desire and with no other end
but to find the will of God and obey it, if he mistake
the meaning of some doubtful places, and fall unwill
ingly into some errors unto which no vice or passion
betrays him, and is wUling to hear reason from any raan
that wiU undertake to show him his error ; I say, that
it is unreasonable to think that a God of goodness will
impute such an error to such a man.
Against the second it was demonstrated unto me,
that the place I built on so confidently was no argu
ment at all for the infaUibility of the succession of
pastors in the Roman church, but a very strong argu
ment against it.
I. Ffrst. No argument for it.
First, Because it is not certain, nor can ever be
'proved, that St. Paul speaks there of any succession,
Eph. iv. 11 — 13. For let that be granted which is
desired, that in verse 13, by " until we all meet," is
meant, until all the children of God meet in the unity
of faith, that is, unto the world's end ; yet it is not
said there, that he gave apostles, and prophets, &c.,
which should continue, Ssc, until we all meet, by con
necting verse 13 to verse 11 ; but " he gave " then,
upon his ascension, and miraculously endowed, " apos
tles and prophets," &e., " for the work of the minis
try, for the consumraation of the saints, for the edifi
cation of the body of Christ, until we all meet," that
is, if you will, unto the world's end. Neither is there
any incongraity but that the apostles and prophets, &c.,
which lived then may in good sense be said, now at
this time and ever hereafter, to do those things which
they are said to do ; for who can deny but St. Paul,
the apostie and doctor of the GentUes, and St. John,
the evangelist and prophet, do at this very time, by
their writings, though not by their persons, do the work
of the ministry, consumraate the saints, and edify the
body of Christ ?
' Secondly. It cannot be shown or proved from hence,

608 AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT MOVED
that there is or was to be any sueh succession ; because
St. Paul here tells us only that he gave such in the
time past, not that he promised such in the time to
come. Thirdly. It is evident that God promised no such
succession, because it is not certain that he hath made
good any such promise. For who is so impudent as to
pretend that there are now, and have been in aU ages
since Christ, " some apostles, and some prophets, and
sorae evangelists, and sorae pastors and teachers ? "
especiaUy such as he bere speaks of, that is, endowed
with such gifts as. Christ gave upon his ascension ; of
which he speaks in verse 8, saying, " He led captivity
captive, and gave gifts unto men." And that those"
gifts were men endowed with extraordinary power and
supernatural gifts, it is apparent, because these words,
" And he gave sorae apostles, sorae prophets," &c., are
added by way of expUcation and iUustration of that
which was said before, " And he gave gifts unto men."
And if any man except hereunto, that though the apos
tles, and prophets, and evangelists were extraordinary,
and for the plantation of the gospel, yet pastors were
ordinary and for continuance ; I answer,
1. It is true, some pastors are ordinary and for con
tinuance, but not such as are here spoken of; not such
as are endowed with the strange and heavenly gifts
which Christ gave not only to the apostles, and pro
phets, and evangelists, but to the inferior pastors and
doctors of his church, at the first plantation of it.
And therefore St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xii. 28, to which
place we are referred by the margent of the vulgar
translation, for the explication of this, places this gift of
teaching amongst, and prefers it before, many other
miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. Pastors there are
stUl in the church, but not such as Titus, and Timo
thy, and Apollos, and Bamabas ; not such as can justiy
pretend to imraediate inspiration and Ulumination of
the Holy Ghost : and therefore, seeing there neither
are nor have been for many ages in the church such
apostles and prophets, Sec, as here are spoken of, it is

THE AUTHOR TO TURN PAPIST. 609
certain He promised none ; or otherwise we must blas
phemously charge him with breach of his promise.
2. I answer, that if by dedit, " he gave," be meant
promisit, " he promised " for ever, then all were pro
mised, and all should have continued ; if by dedit be
not meant promidt, then he promised none such, nor
may we expect any such by virtue of or warrant from
this text that is here alleged.
And thus rauch for the first assumpt, which was, that
the place was no argument for an infallible succession
in the church of Rorae.
Now, for the second : that it is a strong argument
against it, thus I make it good :
The apostles, aud prophets, and evangelists, and
pastors, which our Saviour gave upon his ascension,
were given by hira, that they might " consumraate the
saints, do the work of the ministry, edify the body of
Christ, until we all corae into the unity of faith, that
we be not like children, wavering, and carried up and
down with every wind of doctrine." The apostles and
prophets. Sec, that then were, do not now, in their own
persons and by oral instruction, do the work of the
ministry, to the intent we raay be kept from waver
ing, and being carried up and down with every wind of
doctrine ; therefore they do this some other way.
Now, there is no other way by which they can do it
but by their writings ; and therefore by their writings
they do it ; therefore by their writings, and believing of
them, we are to be kept from wavering in matters of
faith ; therefore the Scriptures of the apostles, and pro
phets, and evangelists are our guides ; therefore not
the church of Rome.

2 D 5

610 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES

X. AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES IN RUSHWORTH'S
DIALOGUES ; BEGINNING AT THE THIRD DIALOGUE,
SECT. XII. P. 181, ED. PARIS, 1654, ABOUT TRADI-
TIONS.
" Uncle. — Do you think there is such a city as Rome or
Constantinople ?
"Nephew. — That I do. I would I knew what I ask as
weU." CHILLINGWORTH.
First, I should have answered, that, in propriety of
speech, I could not say that I knew it ; but that I did
as undoubtedly believe it, as those things which I did
know. For though, as I conceive, we raay be properly
said to believe that which we know, yet we cannot say
truly, that we know that which we only believe upon
report and hearsay, be it never so constant, never so
general. For seeing the generality of men is made up
of particulars, and every particular man may deceive
and be deceived, it is not impossible, though exceed
ingly iraprobable, that all men should conspire to do so.
Yet I deny not that the popular phrase of speech will
very well bear that we may say we know that which in
truth we only believe, provided the grounds of our
belief be morally certain.
Neither do I take any exception to the nephew's
answers raade to his uncle's second, third, fourth, and
fifth interrogatories. But grant willingly, as to the
first, that it is not much material whether I remember
or not any particular author of such a general and con
stant report. Then, that the testimony of one or two
witnesses, though never so credible, could add nothing
to that belief which is already at the height ; nay, per
haps that my own seeing these cities would make no
accession, add no degree, to the strength and firmness
of my faith concerning this matter, only it would change
the kind of my assent, and make me know that which
formerly I did but believe.
To the fourth, that seeming reasons are not much to

W lltJSaWOllTH's DIALOGUES. 611
be regarded against sense or experience and moral cer
tainties ; (but withal I should have told ray uncle that
I fear his supposition is hardly possible, and that the
nature of the thing will not admit that there should be
any great, nay, any probable, reasons invented to per
suade me that there never was such a city as London ;)
and therefore if any man should go about to persuade
me that there never was such a city as London, that
there were no such men as called themselves, or were
called by others, " Protestants," in England, in the
days of queen Elizabeth, perhaps such a man's wit
raight deUght me, but his reasons (sure) would never
persuade me.
Hitherto we should have gone hand in hand toge
ther ; but whereas in the next place he says, " In like
manner, then, you do not doubt but a catholic living in
a catholic country may undoubtedly know what was
the public religion of bis country in his fathers' days,
and that so assuredly that it were a mere madness for
him to doubt thereof," I should have craved leave to
tell my uncle that he presumed too far upon his
nephew's yielding disposition. For that as it is a far
more easy thing to know, and more authentically testi
fied, that there were some men called " Protestants " by
themselves and others, than what opinions these Pro
testants held, divers men holding divers things, which
et were all called by this name ; so is it far more easy
br a Roman Catholic to know that in his fathers' days
there were some men, for their outward communion
with and subordination to the bishop of Rorae, called
" Roman Catholics," than to know what was the reUgion
of those men who Went under this name ; for they
might be as different one from another in their belief as
some Protestants are from others.
As, for example, had I lived before the Lateran
councU which condemned Ber engarius, possibly I might
have known that the belief of the real presence of
Christ in the sacrament was part of the public doctrine
of my' country ; but whether the real absence of the
bread and wine after consecration, and their transub'

fc

612 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
stantiation into Christ's body, were likewise catholiif ,
doctrine at that time, that I could not have known,
seeing that all men were at liberty to hold it was so, oi
it was not so.
Moreover I should have told my uncle, that, Uring
now, I know it is catholic doctrine that the souls of the
blessed enjoy the vision of God. But if I had lived in
the reign of pope .Tohn XXII., I should not have
known that then it was so, considering that many good
Catholics before that tirae had believed, and then even
the pope hiraself did believe, the contrary ; and he is
warranted by Bellarmine for doing so, because the
church had not then defined it.
I should have told hira further, that either Catholics
of the present tirae do so differ in their belief, that
what some hold lawful and pious, others condemn as
unlawful and irapious ; or else, that all now consent,
and consequently make it catholic doctrine, that it is
not unlawful to make the usual pictures of the Trinity,
and to set thera in churches to be adored. But had I
lived in St. Austin's time, I should then have been
taught another lesson ; to wit, that tiiis doctrine and
practice was irapious, and the contrary doctrine catholic.
I should have told him that now I was taught, that
the doctrine of indulgences was an apostolic tradition ;
but bad I lived six hundred years since, and found that
in all antiquity there was no use of them, I should
either bave thought the priraitive church no faithful
steward, in defrauding men's souls of this treasure
intended by God to them, and so necessary for them,
or rather that the doctrine of indulgences now practised
in the church of Rome was not then catholic.
I should have told him, that the general practice of
Roman CathoUcs now taught me that it was a pious
thing to offer incense and tapers to the saints and to
their pictures ; but had I lived in the primitive church,
I should with the church have condemned it in the
CoUyridians as heretical.
I should have represented to him Erasraus's com
plaint against the Protestants, whose departing from the

IN rushworth's DIALOGUES. 613
Roman church occasioned the determining and exacting
the belief of raany points as necessary, wherein, before
Luther, men enjoyed the liberties of their judgments
and tongues and pens. Antea, says he, Ucebat varias
agitare qucestiones, de potestate pontificis, de condona-
tionihus, de restituendo, de purgatorio : nunc tutum
non ed hiscere, ne de his quidem, quae pie vereque
diemtvr. Et credere cogimur, quM homo gignit ex se
opera meritoria, quod henefaotis meretur vitam ceter-
nam, diam de condigno, quod B. Virgo potest impe-
rare Filio cum Patre regnanti uf exaudiat hujus aut
illius preces, aliaque permulta ad quce- pice mentes
inhorrescunt.* And from hence I should have col
lected, as I think, very probably, that it was not then
such a known and certain thing what was the catholic
faith in many points which now are determined ; but
that divers men who held external communion with that
church which now holds these as matters of faith, con
ceived theraselves no ways bound to do so, but at
liberty to hold as they saw reason.
I should have showed him, by the confession of
another learned Catholic, that, through the negligence of
the bishops in forraer ages, and the indiscreet devotion.
of the people, raany opinions and practices were brought
into the church, which at first perhaps were but winked
at, after tolerated, then approved, and at length, after
they had spread theraselves into a seeming generality,
confirmed for good and catholic ; and that therefore
there was no certainty that they came from the' begin
ning whose beginning was not known.
I should have remembered him that, even by the
* " Men were formerly at liberty to discuss various questions ;
such as those conceming the power of the pontiff, pardons, restitu
tion, and purgatory. But at present it is not safe to utter a syllable
even respecting those things which are spoken in the spirit of truth
and piety ; and we are now compelled to entertain as articles of _our
belief, that man produces of himself works that are meritorious ; that
eternal life ia merited, even of condignity, by alms-deeds or benefac-
tions; tliat the blessed Virgin can command her Son, who reigns
with the Father, to listen to the prayers of this or of that supplicant ;
and very many other dogmas, concerning -which pious minds, feel
great horror. "—Edit,

614 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
acknowledgment of the council of Trent, many corrap^
tions and superstitions had by insensible degrees insi
nuated themselves into the very Mass and offices of the
church, which they thought fit to cast out ; and therefore,
seeing that some abuses have come in, God knows how,
and have been cast out again, who can ascertain me
that sorae errors have not got in, and, "while men
slept," (for it is apparent they did sleep,) gathered
such strength, got such deep root, and so incorpo
rated themselves, like ivy in a wall, in the state and
polity of the Roraan church, that to puU them up had
been to pull them down, by razing the foundation on
which it stands, to wit, the church's infalUbility?
Besides, as much water passes under the raUl which the
miller sees not, so who can warrant me that sorae old
corruptions might not escape from them, and pass for
original and apostolic traditions ? I say, " might
not ;" though they had been as studious to reduce all
to the primitive state as they were to preserve them in
the present state, as dUigent to cast out all postnate
and introduct opinions as they were to persuade men
that there were none such, but all as traly catholic and
apostolic as they were Roraan.
I should have declared unto hira, that raany things
reckoned up in the roll of traditions are now grown out
of fashion and out of use in the church of Rorae ; and
therefore that either they believed tbem not, whatever
they pretended, or were not so obedient to the apostie's
command as they theraselves interpret it : " Keep the
traditions which ye have received, whether by word or
by our epistle."
And seeing there have been so many vicissitudes and
changes in the Roman church, — catholic doctrines
growing exolete, and being degraded from their Catho
licism, and perhaps depressed into the number of here
sies ; points of indifference, or at least aliens from the
faith, getting first to be inmates, after procuring to be
made denizens, and in process of time necessary mem
bers, of the body of the faith ; nay, old heresies some
times, like old snakes, casting their skin and their poison

IN rushworth's dialogues. 615
together, and becoraing wholesorae and catholic doc
trines, — I must have desired pardon of my uncle, if I
were not so undoubtedly certain what was and what was
not catholic doctrine in the days of my fathers.
Nay, perhaps I should have gone further, and told
him, that I was not fully assured what was the catholic
doctrine in some points, no, not at this present time.
For instance, to lay the axe unto the root of the tree :
the infaUibUity of the present church of Rome,
in determining controversies of faith, is esteemed
indeed, by divers that I have met with, not only an
article of faith, but a foundation of all other articles.
But how do I know there are not, nay, why should I
think there are not, in the world divers good CathoUcs
of the same mind touching this matter which Miran-
dula, Panormitan, CuSanus, Florentinus, Clemangis,
Waldensis, Occam, and divers others were of, who
were so far from holding this doctrine the foundation of
faith, that they would not allow it any place in the
fabric ?
Now BeUarmine has taught us, that no doctrine is
'catholic, nor the cojitrary heretical, that is denied to be
so by some good Catholics. From hence I collect, that
in the time of the fore-named authors, this was not
catholic doctrine, nor the contrary heretical ; and being
then not so, how it could since become so, I cannot
weU understand. If it be said that it has since been
defined by a general councU, I say. First, This is false ;
no councU has been so foolish as to define that a
council is infaUible : for unless it were presumed to be
infaUible before, who or what could assure us of the
truth of this definition ? Secondly. If it were trae, it
were ridiculous ; for he that would question the infaUi
bUity of all councils in all their decrees, would as well
question the infaUibility of this councU in this decree.
This therefore was not, is not, nor ever can be, an
article of faith, unless God himself would be pleased
(which is not very Ukely) to make some new revelation
of it from heaven.
The 'BspSnav tJ^sSSof, " the fountain of the error," in

616 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
this matter is this, that the whole religion of the
Roman church and every point of it is conceived or
pretended to have issued originally out of the fountain
of apostolic tradition, either in themselves or in the
principles frora which they are evidently deducible.
Whereas it is evident that many of their doctrines may
be originally derived from the decrees of councils, many
from Papal definitions, raany from the authority of
some great man; to which purpose it' is very remark
able what Gregory Nazianzen says of Athanasius:
" What pleased him was a law to men, what did not
please him was as a thing prohibited by law : his decrees
were to them like Moses's tables ; and he had a greater
veneration paid him than seems to be due from men to
saints." *
And as memorable that, in the late great controversy
about predetermination and free-wiU, disputed before
pope Cleraent VII. by the Jesuits and Dominicans,
the pope's resolution was, if he had determined the
raatter, to define for that opinion which was most agree
able, not to Scripture, nor to apostolic tradition, nor
to a consent of Fathers, but to the doctrine of St:
Austin, So that if the pope had made an article of
faith of this controversy, it is evident St, Austin had
been the rule of it,
Sometiraes upon erroneous grounds customs have
been brought in, God knows how, and after have spread
themselves through the whole church. Thus Gordonius
Huntleius confesses, that, because baptisra and the
eucharist had been anciently given both together to
raen of ripe^years, when they were converted to Chris
tianity, afterwards, by error, when infants were bap
tized, they gave the eucharist also to infants. This
custom in short tirae grew universal, and in St. Aus
tin's time passed currently for an apostolic tradition,
and the eucharist was thought as necessary for them as
* ToDto tJk ciijuos auTois 2ti ^KetiKp eSiJfCEi, koI toSto arriiiuyrm
iff&Kiv % juJj 4d6Ker /col 'orAciKej Mwi)(rsws avrois t^ iKelvov SSyfiara,
/col vr\fTov Th cr4Sas tl lirapA avBpili-irav Tois ayioa 6ipe\\fTai, — Orat.
xxi. in Laudem Athanasii.

in rushworth's DIAIOGCZS. 61/
liu)tism. This custom the dinrch of Rome hath again
cast out, and in so doing professed eidier her no-regard
10 the traditions of the apostles, or that this was none of
thai number. But yei she cannot possibly avoid bnt
Ui-ii this example is a proof sufficient, that many ttings
mav get in bv error into the chnrch, and by degrcK
obtain the esteem and place of apostohc tradirlon;. which
vet are not so.
The cusiom -of denying the laity the sacramental
cop, and the doctrine that it is lawml to do so, who can
pretend to derive fiom apostohc tradition .' especiaUy
Then tie coandl of C 'instance, the patron of ir. con
fesses that Christ's institution was under both kinds.
and that the feithihl in ".le primitive chnich received it
in both. Licet Ckrid^us, 4"f ¦ " Although Ctrisi after
hi; supper instituted and administered iiis venerable
sasameut under both kinds; — although in the pri-
miriTe church this sacrament were received by the
&ithM under both kinds ;~ non obdante. Ax. — " yet,
aU this notwithstanding, thi; cusiom, for the avoiding
rf scandal;," (to which the primitive church wa; as
olnoxious as the pre;eDt is,) " was upon just reason
brooght in, that laics shonld receive only under one
kind."* Bronght in therefore ii was, and so i; one of those
dodrines wliich Lizmensis caUs induda non tradita,
huaUa non accepta, e^c. ; -^ therefore aU the doctrine
rf the Roman ijiarch does not descend fitim apc-ri'^Iic
tiadition. Bat if this custom came not fiom the apexes, frt>m
what original may we think thai it descended .' Cer
tainly finm no other than fiom the beUef of the snb-
siantial pesence of whole Chris i under either kind.
F« this opinion being once settled in the people's
minds, that they had as much by one kind as by both,
both ^est and people qnicUy began to think it super-
flnous to do the same thing twice at the same rime :
and thoenpon being [seeingj, as I ^ippose, the custom
Sess. xiii. ,f •• Inirodiaced. BC't d^'i'^red ; initulcd. Dot

618 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
required that the bread should be received first, having
received that, they were contented that the priest
should save the pains, and the parish the charge, of
unnecessary re-iteration. This is my conjecture, which
I submit to better judgments ; but whether it be true
or false, one thing from hence is certain, that immemo-
morial customs may by degrees prevail upon the
church, such as have no known beginning nor author,
of which yet this may be evidently known, — that their
beginning, whensoever it was, was many years, nay,
many ages, after the apostles.
St. Paul commands, that nothing be done in the
church but for edification. (1 Cor. xiv. 26.) He says,
and, if that be not enough, he proves, in the same
place, that it is not for edification that either public
prayers, thanksgiving, and hymns to God, or doctrine to
the people, should be in any language which the assist
ants generally understand not ; and thereupon forbids any
such practice, though it were in a language miraciJously
infused into the speaker by the Holy Ghost ; unless he
himself, or some other present, could and would interpret.
(Verses 27, 28.) He tells us that to do otherwise is to
speak into the afr ; that it is to play the barbarians to
one another ; that to such blessings and thanksgivings
the ignorant, for want of understanding, cannot say,
"Amen." (Verses 9, 11, 16.) He clearly intimates, that
to think otherwise is to be chUdren in understanding.
(Verse 20.) Lastly. In the end of the chapter he tells
all that were prophets and spiritual among the Corinth
ians, that the things written by him are the com
mandments of God. (Verse 37.) Hereupon Lyranus
upon the place acknowledgeth that, in tiie primitive
church, blessings and all other services were done in the
vulgar tongue. Cardinal Cajetan likewise upon the
place tells us, that out of this doctrine of St. Paul it is
consequent that it were better for the edification of the
church that the public prayers which are said in the
people's hearing, should be delivered in a language
common both to the clergy and the people. And I am
confident that the learnedest antiquary in the Roman

IN rushworth's dialogues. 619
church cannot, nay, that Baronius hiraself, were he
alive again, could not, produce so much as one example
of any one church, one city, one parish in all the
Christian world, for five hundred years after Christ,
where the sermons to the people were in one language,
and the service in another. Now it is confessed on all
hands to be against sense and reason that sermons
should be made to the people in any language not
understood by them ; and therefore it foUows of neces
sity, that their service likewise was in those tongues
which the people of the place understood.
But what talk we of five hundred years after Christ,
when even the Lateran council, held in the year 1215,
makes this decree ? — Quoniam in plerisque, S^c. " Be
cause in many parts within the same city and diocess
people are mixed of divers languages, having under one
faith divers rites and fashions, we strictly comraand that
the bishops of the said cities or diocesses provide fit
and able men, who, according to the diversities of their
rites and languages, raay celebrate divine services and
administer the sacraments Of the ehurch, instructing
them both in word and example."
Now, after all this, if any man will still maintain that
the divine service in unknown tongues is a matter of
apostolic tradition, I must needs think the world is
grown very impudent.
There are divers doctrines in the Roman church which
have not yet arrived to the honour to be donatos civi
tate, to be " received " into the number of articles of
faith, which yet press very hard for it, and, through the
importunity and multitude of their attorneys that plead
for them, in process of time may very probably be
admitted. Of this rank are the blessed Virgin's imma
culate conception, the pope's infallibility in determining
controversies, his superiority to councUs, his indirect
power over princes in temporalities, &c. Now as these
are not yet matters of faith and apostolic traditions, yet
in after-ages, in the days of our great-grandchildren, they
may very probably become so ; so why should we not
fear and suspect, that many things now pass curren tiy

620 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
as points of feith which ecclesia ah apostolis, apostoli a
Christo, Christus a Deo recepit,* which perhaps in the
days of our great-grandfathers had no such reputation ?
Cardinal Perron teaches us two rules whereby to know
the doctrine of the church in any age. The first is :
When the^ most eminent Fathers of any age agree in
the affirmation of any doctrine, and none of their con
temporaries oppose or condemn thera, that is to be
accounted the doctrine of the church. The second :
When one or raore of these eminent Fathers speak of
any doctrine not as doctors but as witnesses, and say,
not, " I think so, or hold so," but, " The church holds
and believes this to be truth," this is to be accounted
the doctrine of the church. Now if neither of these rules
be good and certain, then are we destitute of all raeans
to know what was the public doctrine of the church in
the days of our fathers. But, on the other side, if
either of them be trae, we run into a worse inconveni
ence ; for then, surely, the doctrine of the MUlenaries
must be acknowledged to have been the doctrine of the
church in the very next age after the apostles. For
both the most eminent Fathers of that tirae, and even
all whose monuments are extant, or mention made of
them, namely, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Tertullian,
Melito Sardensis, agree in the affirmation of this point,
and none of their contemporary writers oppose or con
demn it. And, besides, they speak not as Doctors, but
as witnesses ; not as of their own private opinion, but
as apostolic tradition and the doctrine of the church.
Horantius and out of hira Franciscus a Sancta Clara
teach us that under the gospel there is nowhere extant
any precept of invocating saints, and tell us that the
apostles' reason of their giving no such precept was,
lest the converted Gentiles might think themselves
drawn over from one kind of idolatry to another. If
this reason be good, I hope then the position whereof it
is the reason . is true ; namely, that the apostles did
neither command, nor teach, nor advise, nor persuade
* "Which the church received from the apostles, they from
Christ, and Christ from God himself." — Edit,

IN rushworth's dialogues. 621
the converted GentUes to invocate saints ; for the reason
here rendered serves for aU alike : and if they did not,
and for this reason did not so, how then, in God's
narae, comes invocation of saints to be an apostolic
tradition ?
The doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, and prayer
to deliver souls out of purgatory, are so closely con
joined, that they must either stand or fall together ; at
least, the first being the foundation of the other two, if
that be not apostolic tradition, the rest cannot be so.
And if that be so, what meant the author of the book
of Wisdom to tell us, that after death " the souls of
the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall
no torment touch them ? " What means St. John to
teach us, that they are blessed which " die in the Lord,"
for that " they rest from their labours ? " But, above
all, what meant bishop Fisher, in his confutation of
Luther's assertion, so ,to prevaricate as to rae he seeras
to do, in the eighteenth article, in saying, Multos for
tasse movet, Sj'c. P — " Peradventure raany are moved
not to place too great faith in indulgences, because
the use of them may seera not of long standing in the
church, and a very late invention araong Christians.
To whom I answer, that it is not certain by whom they
began first to be taught.* Yet sorae use there was of
thera, as they say, very ancient among the Romans,
which we are given to understand by the stations which
were so frequented in that city. Moreover they say
Gregory I. granted some in his tirae." And after,
Ccderiim ut dicere caepimus, S^c. " But, as we were
saying, there are many things of which in the primitive
church no mention was made, which yet, upon doubts
arising, are become perspicuous through the diligence
of after-times. Certainly, (to return to our business,)
no orthodox man now doubts whether there be a purga
tory, of which yet among the ancients there was made
very rare or no mention. Moreover the Greeks to this
very day believe not purgatory. Whoso wUl, let him
* Therefore it is not true that all the Roman doctrines were
taught by Christ and his apostles.

622 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
read the writings of the ancient Greeks, and I think he
shall find no speech of purgatory, or else very rarely^
The Latins also received not this verity all at once, but
by little and little. Neither was the faith, whether of
purgatory or indulgences, so necessary in the primitive
church as now it is ; for then charity was so fervent,
that every one was most ready to die for Christ.
Criraes were very rare ; and those which were, were
punished by the canons with great severity. But now
a great part of the people would rather put off Chris
tianity than suffer the rigour of the canons ; that, not
without the great wisdom of the Holy Spirit, it hath
come to pass, that, after tbe course of so many years,
the faith of purgatory and the use of indulgences have
been by the orthodox generally received. As long as
there was no care of purgatory, no man looked after
indulgences ; for all i.he credit of indulgences depends
on that. Take away purgatory, and what need is there
of indulgences ? We, therefore, considering that purga
tory was a long while unknown ; that after, partly upon
revelations, partly upon Scripture, it was believed by
some ; and that so at length the faith of it was raost
generally received by the orthodtfx church ; shall easUy
find out. sorae reason of indulgences. Seeing therefore
it was so late ere purgatory was known and received by
the universal church, who now can wonder, touching
indulgences, that in the primitive churcb there was no
use of them ? Indulgences therefore began after men
had trembled awhile at the torments of purgatory.
For then it is credible the holy Fathers began to think
more careftUly by what means they raight provide for
their flocks a remedy against those torments, for them
especially who had not time enough to fulfil the penance
which the canons enjoined."
Erasmus tells us of himself, that though he did cer
tainly know, and could prove, that auricular confession,
such as is in use in the Roman church, was not of
divine institution, yet he would not say so, because he
conceived confession a great restraint from sin, and
very profitable for the times he lived in ; and therefore

IN rushworth's dialogues. 623
thought it expedient that men should rather by error
hold that necessary and coraraanded which was only
profitable and advised, than by believing, though truly,
the non-necessity of it, to neglect the use of that, as by
experience we see raost men do, which was so bene
ficial. If he thought so of confession, and yet thought
it not fit to speak his mind, why might he not think the
like of other points, and yet, out of discretion and
charity, hold his peace ? And why might not others of
his time do so as well as he ? And if so, how shall I
be assured that in the ages before him there were not
other men alike-minded, who, though they knew and
saw errors and corruptions in the church, yet conceiv
ing more danger in the remedy than harm in the dis
ease, were contented hoo Catone,* " to let things alone
as they were," lest, by attempting to pluck the ivy out
of the wall, they might pull down the wall itself with
which the ivy was so incorporated.
Sir Edwin Sandys relates, that in his travels he met
with divers men, who, though they believed the pope
to be Antichrist, and his church Antichristian, yet
thought themselves not bound to separate from the
communion of it ; nay, thought themselves bound not
to do so, because the true church was to be the seat of
Antichrist, from the comraunion whereof no man might
divide himself upon any pretence whatsoever.
And much to this purpose is that which Charron
tells us in his third Verite, chap. iv. sect. 13, 15, that
although all that which the Protestants say falsely of
the church of Rome were true, yet for all this they
must not depart from it. And again: Though the
pope were Antichrist, and the estate of the church were
such (that is, as corrupt both in discipline and doctrine)
as they (Protestants) pretend, yet they must not go
out of it. Both these assertions he proves at large in
the above-cited paragraphs, with very many and very
* Contenti simus hoc Catone. — Suetojiii Augustus, cap. 87.
A proverb frequently used by the emperor Augustus, while advis
ing others to patience when public affairs seemed not to accord with
their wishes."  Edit.

624 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
plausible reasons ; which I believe would prove his
intent, had not the corruptions of the Roman church
possessed and infected even the public service of God
among them, in which their comraunion was required ;
and did not the church of Rorae require the belief of
all her errors as the condition of' her coraraunion. But
howsoever, be his reasons conclusive or not conclusive,
certainly this was the professed opinion of him and
divers others ; as, by name, Cassander and Baldwin,
who, though they thought as iU of the doctrine of the
most prevailing part of the church of Rorae, as Protest
ants do, yet thought it their duty not to separate from
her coraraunion. And if there were any considerable
nuraber of considerable men thus minded, (as I know
not why any man should think there was not,) then it
is made not only a most difficult, but even an impos
sible, thing to know what was the catholic judgment of
our fathers in the points of controversy, seeing they
raight be joined in coramunion, and yet very far
divided in opinion. They raight all live in obedience
to the pope, and yet some think him head of the
church by divine right ; others, (as a great part of the
French church at this day,) by ecclesiastical consti
tution ; others, by neither, but by practice and usurp
ation, wherein yet, because he had prescription of many
ages for hira, he raight not justly be disturbed.
All might go to confession ; and yet some only
think it necessary, others only profitable. All might
go to Mass and the other services of the church ; and
some only like and approve the language of it, others
only tolerate it, and wish it altered, if it might be
without greater inconvenience. AU might receive the
sacrament ; and yet some believe it to be the body and
blood of Christ, others only a sacrament of it. Some,
that the Mass was a true and proper sacrifice ; others,
only a coraraeraorative sacrifice, or the commemoration
of a sacrifice. Some, that it was lawful for the clergy
to deny the laity the sacramental cup ; others, that it
was lawful for them to receive in one kind only, seeing
they could not in both. Sorae might adore Christ as

IN rushworth's dialogues. 625
present there according to his humanity ; others, as
mesent according to his divine nature qnly. Sorae
might pray for the dead, as believing them in purga
tory; others, upon no certain ground, but only that
they should rather have their prayers and charity which
wanted them not, than that they which did want them
should not have them. Sorae raight pray to saints
npon a belief that they heard their prayers, and knew
their hearts ; others raight pray to them, meaning
nothing but to pray by them, that God for their sakes
would grant their prayers ; others, thirdly, raight not
pray to them at all, as thinking it unnecessary ; others,
as fearing it unlawful, yet, because they were not fully
resolved, only forbearing it themselves, and not con
demning it in others.
" Uncle. — I pray you, then, remember also what it is that
Protestants do commonly taunt and check Catholics with :
is it not that they believe traditions ? "
chillingworth.
It is a mere calumny, that Protestants condemn all
kind of traditions, who subscribe very willingly to that
of Vincentius Lirinensis : That Christian reUgion is
res tradita, non inventa, " a natter of tradition, not of
man's invention," is what the church received from the
spostles, (and by consequence what the apostles deli
vered to the church,) and the apostles from Christ, and
Christ from God. Chemnitius, in his " Examen of the
Council of Trent," hath liberally granted seven sorts of
traditions ; and Protestants find no fault with him for it.
Prove therefore any tradition to be apostolic which is
not written ; show that there is some known word of
God which we are commanded to believe that is not
contained in the books of the Old and New Testament,
and we shall quickly show that we believe God's word
because it is God's, and not because it is written. If
there were any thing not written which had come down
to us with as full and universal a tradition as the
unquestioned books of canonical Scripture, that thing
E e

626 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
should I believe as well as the Scripture ; but I have
long sought for some such thing, and yet I am to seek.
Nay, I am confident, no one point in confroversy
between Papists and Protestants can go in upon half
so fair cards, for to gain the esteem of an apostolic tra
dition, as those things which are now decried on aU
hands ; I mean, the opinion of the ChUiasts, and the
communicating infants. The latter, by the confession
of cardinal Perron, Maldonate, and Binius, was the
custom of the church for six hundred years at least. It
is expressly and in terms vouched by St. Austin for the
doctrine of the church and an apostolic tradition ; it
was never instituted by a general councU, but in the use
of the church as long before the first general councU as
St. Cyprian before that council ; there is no known
author of the beginning of it ; — aU which are the
catholic marks of an apostolic tradition : and yet this,
you say, is not so ; or if it be, why have you
abolished it ? The former lineaUy derives its pedi
gree frora our Saviour to St. John ; from St. John
to Papias ; frora Papias to Justin Martyr, Irenasus,
Melito Sardensis, TertuUian, and others of the two first
ages ; who, as they generally agree in the affirmation of
this doctrine, and are not contradicted by any of thefr
predecessors, so sorae of them at least speak to the
point, not as Doctors, but witnesses, and deUver it for ,
the doctrine of the church and apostolic tradition, and
condemn the contrary as heresy. And therefore if
there be any unwritten traditions, these certainly must
be admitted first ; or if these which have so fafr pre
tence to it must yet be rejected, I hope then we shaU
have the like liberty to put back purgatory, and indvd-
gences, and transubstantiation, and the Latin service,
and the communion in one kind, &c., none of which is
of age enough to be page to either of the fore-named
doctrines, especially the opinion of the Millenaries.
" Uncle. — What, think you, means this word 'tradition?'
No other thing certainly but tliat we confute all our adver
saries by the testimony of the former church ; saying unto

IN rushworth's dialogues. 627
ihem, ' This was the belief of our fathers ; thus were we
taught by them, and they by theirs, without stop or stay tiU
you come to Christ.' "
chillingworth.
We confute our adversaries by saying thus ! Traly
a very easy confutation. But saying and proving are
two men's offices ; and therefore, though you be excel
lent in the former, I fear, when it coraes to the trial,
you will be found defective in the latter.
" Uncle. — ^And this no other but the Roman church did or
could ever pretend to : which heing in truth undeniable, and
they caimot choose hut grant the thing, their last refuge is to
laugh, and say that both Fathers and councils did err, because
they were men, as if Protestants themselves were more. Is it
not so as I tell you ? "
chillingworth.
No, indeed, it is not, by your leave, good uncle.
For, first, the Greek church, as every body knows,
pretends to perpetual succession of doctrine, and under
takes to derive it from Christ and his apostles, as
confidently as we do ours. Neither is there any word
in all this discourse but might have been urged as
fairiy and as probably for the Greek church as for the
Roman ; and therefore, seeing your arguments fight for
both alike, they raust either conclude for both, which is
a dhect impossibility ; for then contradictions should
he both true : or else, which is most certain, they con
clude for neither, and are not demonstrations, as you
prfetend, (for never any demonstration could prove both
I)arts of a contradiction,) but mere sophisms and cap
tions, as the progress of our answer shall justify.
Secondly. It is so fer from Protestants to grant the
thing you speak of, to wit, that the controverted doc
trines of the Roman church came from apostolic tradi
tion, that they verily believe, should the apostles now
live again, they would hardly be able to find amongst
you the doctrine which they taught, by reason of abun-
, ^ £j ^

628 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
dance of trash and rabbish which you have laid
upon it.
And, lastly, they pretend not that Fathers and
councils may err and they cannot, nor that they- were
men and themselves are not ; but that you do most
unjustly and vainly, to father your inventions of yes
terday upon the Fathers and councUs.
" Nephew. — I know that we Catholics do reverence tradi
tions as much as Scripture itself. Neither do I see why we
should be blamed for it ; for the words which Christ and his
apostles spake must needs be as inMlible as those which were
written."
chillingworth.
True : but stiU the question depends, whether Christ
and his apostles did indeed speak those words which
you pretend they did. We say, with Irenaeus, Prce-
coniaverunt primi,m, scripserunt postea ; " What they
preached first, that they wrote afterwards." We say,
with Tertullian, (Ecclesias) apostoli condideruat ipsi
eis prcedicando, tam viva q-uod aiunt voce, quam per
epistolas postea ; " The apostles founded the churches
by thefr preaching to them ; first, by word of mouth,
then after, by their writings." If you can prove the
contrary, do so, and we yield : but hitherto you do
nothing. " Nephew. — And as for the keeping of it, I see the Scrip
ture itself is beholden to tradition (God's providence pre
supposed) for the integrity both of the letter and the sense.
Of the letter it is confessed ; of the sense, manifest. For the
sense being a distinct thing from the naked letter, and rather
fetched out by force of consequence, than in express and
formal terms contained, (which is most true, whether we
speak of Protestant sense or the Catholic,) it belongeth rather
to tradition than express text of Scripture."
chillingworth.
That which you desire to conclude is, that we must
be beholden to tradition for the sense of Scripture ;

IN rushworth's dialogues. 629
and your reason to conclude this is, because the sense is
fetched out by force of consequence. This of sorae
places of Scripture is not true, especially those which
belong to faith and good manners, which carry their mean
ing in their foreheads. Of others, it is trae ; but nothing
to the purpose in hand, but rather directly against it.
For who wUl not say ? — " If I coUect the sense of Scrip
ture by reason, then I have it not frora authority, that
is, unless I ara raistaken. If I fetch it out by force of
consequence, then I ara not beholden to tradition for
it." " But the letter of Scripture has been preserved
by tradition ; and therefore why should we not receive
other things upon tradition, as well as Scripture ? "
I answer : The Jews' tradition preserved the books of
the Old Testament ; and why then (loth our Saviour
receive these upon their tradition, and yet condemn
other things which they suggested as matters of tradi
tion ? If you say, " It was because these traditions
came not from Moses, as they were pretended," I say
also, that yours are only pretended and not proved to
come from the apostles. Prove your tradition of these
additions as weU as you prove the tradition of Scrip
ture, and assure yourselves, we then, according to the
injunction of the council of Trent, shall receive both
with equal reverence.

»,— As it may appear by the sense of these few
words. Hoc est corpus meum, whether you take the Protest
ant or the Catholic sense. For the same text caimot have
two contrary senses of itself, bnt as they are fetched out by
force of argument ; and therefore what sense hath best tradi
tion to show for itseK, that is the truth,"
chilling,woeth.
This is neither Protestant nor CathoUc sense, but, if
we may speak the trath, dfrect nonsense. For what, if
the same text cannot have contrary senses ? is there
therefore no means but tradition to determine which is
the trae sense ? What connexion or what relation is
there between this antecedent and . this consequent ?

630 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
Certainly they are mere strangers to one another, and;
until they met by chance in this argument, never saw
each other before. He that can find a thfrd proposi
tion to join them together in a good syllogism, I
profess unto you, erit mihi magnus Apollo.* But
what if, of these two contrary senses, the one, that is,
the literal, draw after it a long train of absurdities, the
other, that is, the figurative, do not so ? have we not
reason enough, without advising with tradition about
the matter, to reject the literal sense, and embrace the
spfritual ? St. Austin certainly thought we had. For
he gives us this direction in his book De Dodrind
Christiana. And the first and fittest text that he
could choose to exemplify his rale, what think you is
it ? Even the cousin-german to that which you have
made choice of: "Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of raan," 8ec. "Here," saith he, "the letter
seeras to coraraand irapiety ; " figura ed ergo, " ' there
fore it is a figure,' coramanding to feed devoutiy upon
the passion of our Lord, and to lay up in our memory
that Christ was cracified for us."
" Uncle. — These particulars peradventure would require a
further discussion ; and now I wUl take nothing but what ia
undeniable : as this is, to wit. That what points are in contro
versy betwixt ns and Protestants, we believe to have been
delivered by Christ and his apostles to oux forefathers, and by
them delivered from hand to hand to our fathers, whom we
know to have delivered them for such to us, and to have
received and believed them for such themselves."
chillingworth.
Certainly, though ink and paper cannot blush, yet I
dare say you were fain to rub your forehead over and
over before you coraraitted this to writing. Say what
you list ; for my part, I am so far from believing you,
that I verUy believe you do not believe yourselves,
when you pretend that you beUeve those points of your
* " He shall stand high in my estimation for wisdom."  Edit. •

IN rushworth's dialogues. 631
doctrine which are in controversy to have been deli
vered to your forefathers by Christ and his apostles.
Is it possible that any sober man who has read the
New Testament should believe that Christ and his
apostles taught Christians, that it was fit and lawful to
deny the laity the sacramental cup ; that it was expe
dient and for the edification of the church that the
Scripture should be read and the public worship of
God perpetuaUy celebrated in a language which they
understand not, and to which, for want of understand
ing, (unless St. Paul deceive us,) they cannot say,
*' Amep ?" Or is it reasonable you should desire us to
believe you, when your own men, your own champions,
your own councils, confess the contrary ?
Does not the council of Constance acknowledge
plainly, that the custom which they ratified was con
trary to Christ's institution and the custom of the prirai
tive church ? And how then was it taught by Christ
and his apostles ?
Do not Cajetan and Lyranus confess ingenuously,
that it follows evidently from St. Paul that it is more
for edification that the Liturgy of the church should be
in such a language as the assistants understand ?
The Uke confession we have from others conceming
piirgatory and indulgences.
Others acknowledge the apostles never taught invoca
tion of saints.
Rhenauus says as much touching auricular confes
sion. It is evident from Peter Lombard, that the doctrine
of transubstantiation was not a point of faith in his
time; -from Picus Mfrandula, that the infallibility of
the church was no article, much less a foundation, of
feith in his time.
Bellarraine acknowledges that the saints' enjoying the
rision of God before the day of judgment, was no article
of faith in the time of pope John XXII.
But, as the proverb is, " When thieves fall out, trae
men recover thefr goods ; " so how small and heartless
the reverence of the church of Rome is to ancient

632

AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES

tradition, cannot be more plainly discovered than by the
quarrels which her champions have amongst themselves,
especially about the immaculate • conception of the
blessed Virgin. '
The patrons of the negative opinion, Cajetan,
Bannes, BandeUus, and Canus, aUege for it, first, a
whole army of Scriptures, councils, and Fathers, agree
ing unanimously in this doctrine, — that only Christ
was free frora sin ; then, an innuraerous midtitude of
Fathers expressly affirraing the very point in ques
tion, not contradicted by any of thefr contemporaries,
or predecessors, or indeed of their successors for many
ages. All the holy Fathers agree in this, that the Vfrgin
Mary was conceived in original sin. So Bannes.*
Cajetan brings for it fifteen Fathers, in his judgment
irrefragable ; others produce two hundred ; BandeUus,
almost three hundred. Thus Salraeron.-}-
That all the holy Fathers who have fallen upon the
mention of this matter with one mouth affirra, that
the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin. So
Canus ; | and after, that the contrary doctrine has nei
ther Scripture nor tradition for it. " For," saith he,
" no traditions can be derived unto us but by the bishops
and holy Fathers, the successors of the apostles ; and
it is certain that those ancient writers received it not
from their predecessors."
Now against this stream of ancient writers, when the
contrary new doctrine carae in, and how it prevailed, it
wUl be worth the considering.
The first that set it abroach was Richardus de Sancto
Victore, as his countryman, Johannes Major, testifies
of hira : " He was expressly the first that held the
Virgin Mary free from original sin ;" or, " He was the
first that expressly held so." § So after, upon this false
» In part, primam, qusest. 1, art. viii. dub, 5.
•\- Disp. 51, in Epist. ad Rom.
X Lib. vii. Loc. cap. 1, cap. 3, n. 9.
§ Omnium expresse pHmus Christiferam virginem origi'naHs noxa
expertem tenuit. — De Gestis Scotorum, iii. 12.

in rushworth's dialogues. 633
ground, which had already taken deep root in the heart
of Christians, that it was impossible to give too much
honour to her that was the mother of the Saviour of the
world, like an ill weed, it grew and spread apace. So
that, in the councU of BasU,* (which Binius tells us
was reprobated but in part, to wit, in the point of the
authority of councils, and in the deposition of Eugenius
the pope,) it was defined and declared to be holy doc
trine, and consonant to the worship of the church, to
the catholic faith, to right reason, and the holy Scrip
ture, and to be approved, held, and embraced by all
Catholics ; and that it should be lawful for no man for
the time to come to preach or teach the contrary. The
custom also of keeping the feast of her holy concep
tion, which before was but particular to the Roman and
some other churches, and, it seems, somewhat neg
lected, was then renewed and made universal ; and
commanded to be celebrated, suh nomine Conceptionis,
" under the name of ' the Conception.' " Binius, in a
marginal note, tells us indeed, that they celebrate not
this feast in the churcb of Rome, by virtue of this
renovation, cum essd conciUahulum, " being [seeing]
this was the act not of a council, but of a conventicle ; "
yet he himself, in his Index, styles it the oecuraenical
councU of Basil, and tells that it was reprobated only
in two points, of which this is none. Now whom shall
we believe, — Binius in his margin, or Binius in his
Index ?
Yet in after-times pope Sixtus IV. and Pius V.
thought not this decree so binding but that they might
and did again put life into the condemned opinion,
giring liberty by their constitutions to all men to hold
and maintain either part, either that the blessed Virgin
was conceived with original sin, or was not. Which
constitution of Sixtus IV. the councU of Trent renewed
and confirmed."!-
But the wheel again turning, and the negative opi
nion prevaUing, the affirmative was banished, first, by a
* Sess. xxxvi. + Sess. v.
2 E 5

634 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
decree of Paul V., from all public sermons, lectures,
conclusions, and all pubUc acts whatsoever : and since,
by another decree of Gregory XV., from all private
writings and private conferences.
But yet all this contents not the University of Paris.
They, as Salmeron tells us, admit none to the degree
of doctor of divinity, unless they have first bound them
selves by solemn oath to maintain the immaculate con
ception of the blessed Virgin.
Now I beseech you, Mr. Rushworth, consider your
courses with some indifference.
Ffrst. You take authority upon you, agamst the
universal, constant, unopposed tradition of the church
for naany ages, to set up as a rival a new upstart,
yesterday's invention, and to give aU men Uberty to
hold which they please. So pope Sixtus IV., the
councU of Trent, and Pius V. : That is, you make it
lawful to hold the ancient faith, or not to hold it, nay,
to hold the contrary. This is high presumption. But
you stay not here ; for.
Secondly, The ancient doctrine you cloister and
hook up within the narrow, close, and dark rooms of
the thoughts and brains of the defenders of it, forbid
ding them, upon pain of damnation, so much as to
whisper it in their private discourses and writings ; and,
in the mean time, the new doctrine you set at full
Uberty, and give leave, nay, countenance and encou
rageraent to all raen to eraploy thefr tirae and wits and
tongues and pens, in the raaintenance and propagation
of it. Thus Paul V. and Gregory XV. Yet tiiis is
not all ; for,
Thfrdly, You bind raen by oaths to defend the new
opinion, and to, oppose the ancient. So the Univer
sity of Paris. Yet still you proceed further ; for,
Fom-thly, By your general councUs confirraed by
your popes, you have declared and defined, that this
new invention is agreeable (and consequently that the
ancient doctine is repugnant) to the cathoUc faith, to
reason, to the holy Scripture. So the council of BasU.
These things, I entreat you, weigh well in your consi-

IN rushworth's dialogues. 635
deration; and put not into the seale above a just allow
ance, not above three grains, of partiality ; and then teU
me whether you can with reason or with modesty sup
pose or desfre that we should believe, or think that you
believe, that all the points of doctrine which you con
test against us were delivered at first by Christ and his
apostles, and have ever since by the succession of
bishops and pastors been preserved iiiviolate and propa
gated unto you.
The patrons, I confess, of this new invention set not
much by the decree of the council of BasU for it, but
plead Very hard for a ftUl and final definition of it from
the see apostolic ; and finding the conspfring opposition
of the ancient Fathers to be the main impediraent of
thefr purpose, it is strange to see how confidently they
ride over them.
"First," says Salmeron, in the place fore-cited,*
" they press us with multitude of Doctors ; of whom
we must not say that they err in a matter of such
moment. " We answer," says he; " out of St. Austin,-|- and the
doctrine of St. Thoraas, that the arguraent drawn from
authority is weak. Then to that multitude of Doctors
we oppose another multitude.
"Thirdly. We object to the contrary the efficacy
of reasons, which are more excellent than any autho
rity. " Some of them reckon two hundred Fathers ; others,
as BandeUus, almost three hundred^ Cajetan, fifteen,
but those, as he says, irrefragable. But, as a wise
shepherd said. Pauperis est numerare pecus.\ Some
of those whom they produce are of an exolete authority,
and scarce worthy of memory.
" Lastiy. Against this objected multitude we answer
with the word of God : ' Thou shalt not foUow a multi
tude to do evU ; neither shalt thou in judgment yield
- Disp. 51, in Epist. ad Rom.
f De Moribus Ecclesiee, lib. i. cap. 2.
.% "It is the practice of a very poor shepherd to count over the
small number of his flock.'" — Edit.

636 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
to the sentence of many to depart from the trath.'
(Exod. xxiii. 2.) For when the Donatists gloried in
the multitude of their authors, St. Austin answered, it
was a sign of a cause destitute of trath, to rely only
upon the authority of many men which may err.
" It falls out sometiraes also that from some one
Doctor, especially if he be famous, proceeds a multi
tude of foUowers of his opinion ; and some, taken with
an hurable and pious fear, choose rather to foUow the
opinion of another against thefr mind, than to bring out
of their own wit any thing new, lest they should so
bring any new thing into the church. Whose humUity
as it is to be praised, so the confidence of others is not
to be conderaned, who for the love of trath fear not to
bring in better things. Thus St. Jerome, in his Ser
mon of the Assuraption, if it be his, fears to affirm that
the Virgin Mary is assumed into heaven, and thinks it
rather to be piously desired, than rashly defined. But
St. Austin more happUy dared to affirm it, and settle it
with many arguraents ;* by which adventure this the
church hath gained, — that, persuaded 'by his reasons, she
hath believed it, and celebrates it in her worship.
" But they fetch their arguments from the antiquity
of the Doctors, to which always greater honour was
given than to novelties. But I answer : Old men are
praisers of ancient times ; but we affirm, the younger the
Doctors are, the more perspicacious. Moreover, we
say, that although they were ancient, yet they were
men, and theraselves held under the darkness of original
sin, and might err. But, go to; who are these an
cients ? Are they apostles ? Are they Ambrose, or
Jerome, or Austin ? But none of them discussed this
controversy on purpose.
" Chrysostoip is opposed, in his comraentary on St.
Matthew, where he saith, ' Though Christ were not a
sinner, yet he has human nature from a sinner.' Un
derstand," says Salmeron, " from her, who of herself,
* In the margin here he says, " The doctrine of St. Austin alone
hath brought into the church the worship of the blessed Virgin's
Assumption."

in rushworth's dialogues. 637
and according to the condition of nature, was a sinner.
Thomas says that Chrysostom speaks exorbitantly, for
he constitutes the Virgin under actual sin. Or that
the comraentaries which go up and down under his
name are not his. Or that these passages are adjectir
tious. Or if they be indeed his, with the good leave
and favour of so great a man, they are to be rejected.
Neither ought any man to marvel that he and Ber
nard, and Thomas, and Bonaventure, and Alexander
of Ales, and Albert, and Durand, and -^gidius, and,
lastly, the greater part, foUowed that opinion, both
because they were men, and because, in progress of
time, new mysteries are reveded which before were
unknown. For as holiness of life purgeth no man
from sin, so it frees no man from danger of error.
Every age finds out some verities proper to itself, which
the former ages were ignorant of," — and there in the
margin, " Every age hath its peculiar divine revela
tions." Thus far Salmeron, by whom we may see that Pro
testants are not the only men who say that the Fathers
may err ; but that Roman Catholics too can and dare
valiantly break through, and tread under thefr feet,
(though perhaps with cap in hand, and some show of
reverence,) and even ride over, whole bands of Fathers,
when they stand in their way.
Another great Achilles for the same opinion is one
Joannes Baptista Poza, a Jesuit, and professor of divi
nity at Coraplutum. He, in his fourth book of his
Emcidar'ium Deiparce, pleads very earnestly to have it
defined, and labours very lustily to remove all excep
tions to the contrary ; but, above all those many ones,
— that there is no tradition for it, that the stream of
ancient tradition is against, and therefore well and
worthily may it be condemned for an heresy ; but to
be canonized among the articles of faith, it can with no
reason expect.
To the second exception he brings two answers,
which Salmeron, it seems, forgot; in the prosecution
whereof he hath many excellent passages, which I have

638 AN answer to some passages
thought good to cull out of him, to evidence the won
derful reverence and constant regard of the present
church of Rome to the tradition of the ancient.
The first, that it is possible the writings of the
Fathers, out of which these testimonies against the
immaculate conception are taken, may be corrapted.
But to show it probable they are so in these places, he
speaks not one word of sense, nor so much as any
colourable reason, unless this may pass for one, (as
perhaps it may where reasons are scarce,) — " No pro
position which contradicts the comraon judgraent of the
Fathers can be probable : But it is de fide that our
opinion is probable ;* for the council of Trent hath
made it so, by giving liberty to all who hold it:
Therefore without doubt we raust hold, that it is not
(whatsoever it seeras) against the coramon judgment of
the Fathers." " This argument," saith he, " doth most
illustriously convince the foUowers of the contrary opi
nion, that they ought not to dare to affirm hereafter
that their opinion flows from the common judgment
and writings of the ancient Doctors."
His second answer is, that whereas BandUlus and
Cajetan, &c., produce general sayings of IreuEeus,
Origen, Athanasius, TheophUus Alexandrinus, Gregory
Nvssen, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyprian, Jerome,
Pulgentius, and, in a manner, of all the ancient
Fathers, exempting Christ alone frora, and conse
quently concluding the Virgin Mary under, original
sin ; which argument must needs conclude, if the
Virgin Mary be not Christ. His answer, I say, is,
" These testimonies have little or no strength : for did
they conclude, we must then (let us, in God's name)
say that the Virgin Mary committed also many venial
sins. For the Scriptures, Fathers, and councUs set
forth in propositions as universal, that there is no man
but Christ who is not often defiled at least with smaUer
sins, and who may not justiy say that petition of our
Lord's Prayer, Dimitte nobis debita nostra^
* I should rather subsume, "But this does so; Therefore not
probable."

IN rushworth's dialogues.
An answer, I confess, as fit as a napkin to stop the
mouths of his domestic adversaries, though no way fit to
satisfy their reason. But this man littie thought there
were Protestants in the world, as well as Dominicans,
who wiU not much be troubled by thieves faUing out,
to recover more of their goods than they expected, and
to see a prevaricating Jesuit, instead of stopping one
breach in their ruinous cause, to make two. For
whereas this man argues from the destruction of the
consequent to the destruction of the antecedent, thus :
" If these testimonies were good and concluding, then
the Virgin Mary should have been guUty not only of
original but also of actual sin : But the consequence is
false and blasphemous : Therefore the antecedent is not
true ;" they on the other side argue (and, sure, with
much more reason, and much more conformity to the
ancient tradition) from the assertion of the antecedent
to the assertion of the consequent, thus : " If these
testunonies be good and concluding, then the blessed
Vfrgin was guilty both of original sin and actual : But
the testimonies are good and concluding : Therefore she
was guilty even of actual sins ; and therefore much more
of original."
His third answer is, that their churcb hath or may
define many other things against which (if thefr works
be not depraved) there lies a greater consent of Fathers
than against the immaculate conception ; and therefore
why not this ?
The instances he gives are four :
1. That the blessed Virgin committed no actual sin.
2. That the angels were not created before the visi
ble world.
3. That angels are incorporeal.
4. That the souls of saints departed are made happy
by the vision of God before the day of judgirlent.
Against the first opinion he aUeges direct places out
of Origen, which he says admit no exposition ; though
Pamelius upon Tertullian, and Sixtus Senensis. labour
in vain to put a good sense on them : Out of Euthy-
mius and Theophylact : Out of St. Chrysostom divers

640 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
pregnant testimonies, and St. Thomas's confession
touching one of tbem : Out of the author of the"
Questions of the Old and New Testament, in St
Austin, cap. 75 : Out of St. HUary upon Psalm
cxviii., which words yet, says he, Tolet has drawn to a
good construction : yet so much difficulty stUl remains
in them : Out of Tertullian, De Carne Christi, cap, 7,
which, he tells us, wUl not be salved by Pamelins's
gloss : Out of Athanasius : Out of Irenseus, in. 18?
Out of St, Austin, lib. ii., De Symholo ad Catech,
cap.»5 ; " Whose words yet, because they admit," says
Poza, "some exposition, I thought fit to suppress, though
some think they are very hard to be avoided : " Out
of Gregory Nyssen : Out of St. Cyprian, in his Ser
mon on the Passion ; " Whose words," says he,
" though they may by sorae means be eluded, yet will
always be very difficult, if we examine the antecedents
and consequents : " Out of Anselra, Richardus de
Sancto Victore, St. Ambrose, St. Andrew of Jerasalem,
and St. Bede ; and then tells us, there are many other
testimonies much resembling these : And, besides, ,
many Fathers and texts of Scripture, which exempt
Christ only from actual sin : And, lastly, many suspi
cious sayings against her iramunity in them who use to
say, that at the angel's annunciation she was cleansed
and purged and expiated from all faults committed hy
her free-will ; " Which," saith he, " though Canisius
and others explicate in a pious sense, yet at least they
show, that either those alleged against the immaculate
conception are as favourably to be expounded, or we
must say, that a verity may be' defined by the see
apostolic against the judgment of some Fathers."
" From these things," says he, " is drawn an unan
swerable reason, that for the defining the purity of the
conception nothing now is wanting. For seeing, not.
withstanding more and more convincing testimonies of
Fathers who either did or did seem to ascribe actual sin
to the blessed Virgin ; notwithstanding the universal
sayings of Scripture and councils bringing all except
Christ under sin ; lastly, notwithstanding the silence of

in rushworth's dialogues. 641
the Scriptures Mid councils touching her immunity from
actual sui ; seemg, notwithstanding all this, the councU
of Trent hath either decreed or hath confirmed,* it
being before decreed by the consent of the feithfiil,
that the blessed Virgin never was guUty of any volun
tary, no, not the least sin, it foUows certainly that the
apostolic see hath as good, nay, better, ground to enrol
amongst her articles the Virgin's immaculate concep
tion. The reason is clear; for neither are there so
many nor so evident sentences of Fathers which impute
any feult or blemish to the conception of the mother of
God, as there are in appearance to charge her with
actual offences. Neither are there fewer universal pro
positions in Scripture by which it may be proved that
only Jesus was free from actual sin, and therefore that
the Viigin Mary feU into it. Neither can there at this
time be desfred a greater consent of the feithful, nor a
more ardent desire than there now is that this verity
should be defined, and that the contrary opinion should
be anathematized for erroneous and heretical. The
words of the councU of Trent on which this reason is
groxmded are these :
" ' If any man say, that a man aU his Ufe long may
avoid aU, even venial, sins, unless by special privUege
fiom God, as the church holds of the blessed Vfrgin ;
let him be anathema.' But if the consent of the
¦diurch hath prevaUed against more clear testimonies
of ancient Fathers, even for that which is favoured with
no express authority of Scriptures or councUs ;. and if
the council of Trent upon this consent of the faithful
hath either defined this imraunity of tbe Vfrgin from
aU actual sin, or declared it; to be defined ; who then
can deny but that the church hath immediate power to
define, among the articles of faith, the pious opinion of
the immaculate conception ?"
His second example by which he declares the power
of thefr church to define articles against a multitude of
Fathers, (and consequently not only without but against
• Sess. vi cap. 23, De Justificat.

642 AN ANSWER TO SOME PASSAGES
tradition,) is the opinion that angels were not created
before the corporeal world was created ; " which," saith
he, "is or may be defined, though there were more
testimonies of Fathers against it than against the imma
culate conception." So he says in the argument of his
fifth chapter, and in the end of the same chapter :
" The council of Lateran hath defined this against the
express judgment of twenty Fathers, of which Nazian
zen, Basil, Chrysostom, CyrU, Jerome, Ambrose, and
HUary, are part."
His third exaraple to the same purpose is, the opinion
that angels are incorporeal ; " against which," saith he,
in the argument of his sixth chapter, " there are more
testimonies of the Fathers than against the immaculate
conception ; and yet it is, or at least may be, defined
by the church." And in the end of the chapter, " I
have for this opinion cited twenty-three Fathers, which,
as most men think, is now condemned in the Lateran
councU,* or at least, as Suarez proves, is to be rejected
as raanifestly temerarious." •!-
His fourth and last example to the same purpose is,
the opinion that the souls of saints departed enjoy th?
vision of God before the resurrection. Against which,
he tells us, in the first place, was the judgment of Pope
John XXL, though not as a pope, but as a private
Doctor. Then he musters up against it a great multi<-
tude of Greek and Latin Fathers, touching which he
says, "All these testimonies when Vasquez has re
lated at length,J he answers that they might be so
explained as to say nothing against the trae and catho
lic doctrine ; § yet if they could not be so explained,
their authority ought not to hinder us from embracing
that which the church hath defined. The same argu
ment I make," says Poza : " The Fathers and ancient
Doctors which are objected against the pious opinion of
the conception of the Virgin, may be comraodiously
explicated, or at least so handled that they shall
not hurt. Notwithstanding, though they cannot be
* Firm, de SummS, Trinitate. •)• De Angelis, lib. 6.
$ 1, 2, D. 29. cap. 1. § Cap, 3.

in rushworth's dialogues, 643
explicated, some of them, that their testimonies ought
not to hinder but that the see apostolic may define
the blessed Virgin's preservation from original sin,"
In fine : for the close of this arguraent he adds. Nolo
per plura, 8fc. " I will not ran through more examples ;
these that I have reckoned are sufficient, and admo
nish learned men to bring together otiier like proofs,
whereby they may proraote the desired deterraination,"

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Nate, ihat ihe Roman numeral refert to ihe tAi^ier / ihe Jkfmre wkidt
foQfjws, io ibe divinons of each cAi^ier,

Fzot^itaiita agree in more timiga
tTian they drffpr to, \fj teKeving
the Scrqrtnre, diap. it- div, 49^
50
We have aa many ratumal Tttpan^
of agreemerd as the P^HSts, iiL
7.8
Fs^Hsts pretsid to means of agree
ment, and do not agree, iii. 3~6
Not necessaiy to find a dbrndh.
agreeing vAiii. Piotestams in aH
points, aiL=. preC 19 5 t. 27
Annuity vainly pleaded far Rom
ish doctzin£s ^id .pract^s, since
znasy errors are more anoexit
than some of &rat doctriues, w.
91
llie apostolic dmrch an infelKble
guide to 'vdueh we may resort,
being present to ns by her writ-
XDgs, iiL 69, SO
That die rfirnrch has power to
make new articles of frith, as
serted by the Romish Doctcss,
This one article, ^* I belteve the
Boman cathtdic chnrch to be
in&Hible." if their doctzxne were
tzne, wonld secure against here
sy more tiran die whole creed,
iv. 77-79, ^3
Chri.gr'a atrUtance {mmiised to ihe
chmch, to lead her into more
than necessazy truths, t. 61, 62
Atheirm and inefigicn spring
eaaify from some Bondsh doc
trines and practices, pref. 7. 8
St. Arutin's saying, Eva^eUo lum
crederem.^ icc.^ how to be under*
stood, ii, 54, 97-99

St. Angioma teaCimony against Ae
Donadsts not eogest agaiiigt
Protestants, iL 163
St. Austinet winds,*' No neeeaotf
to divide luiily," ei^iazned, t.
10
The author's TTiWHfartnn fron seb-
pidoii of heresy, pce^ 28
The author'* motiscs to torn a
' Papist, widi answess to i^em,
pcef^ 42, 43 B
The BSiey whidi is die r^^oft of
Protestants, to be pce&ned be-
£7Te die way of Botirish TcBffl—^
ahowed at lazge, tL 56-73

The CaJeimittt' rigid doctrine of
predeterminatTon najmily re-
proadied by Prists, iHio eon*
nmnkate widi diose dnt h(dd
the same, vn. 30
To grie a addogme of onr fimda
mentals not necessary nor pos
sible, ans. prof. 37; m. 13,
53
Want of sodl a eatalogme leans
ns not nncatazn in oor feidi, nL
14
Papists as nmcji boood to give a
catalogue of. the chmch's |ko-
posals, whidi are dieir fimda
mentals, aad yet do it not, Sl
53
Oor general caUUogue of fimda
mentals as good as dieiiB, ir*
12; viL 35
Moral certainty a snffident faon-
dati<Hi of faidi, iL 154
A Protestant may have ^rUw^y

A TABLE OF CONTENTS.

645

tbough dUagreoing ProtcBtanta
all pretend to like certainty, vii.
13
What cha/rity Papists allow to us
Protestants, and wo to thorn, 1.
1,3-6
A ohmiitahle judgment should bo
made of such as err, but lead
good lives, vii. H'i
Ftotostant cha/rity to ignorant Pa
pists no comfort to thom that
will not sou their errors, v. 76
The church how furuishod with
meuDH to determine controver
sies, i. 7, 1 1
We may bo a true clmrdi, though
deriving ordination and roceiv-
I log Scripture tram u false one,
vl. M
Commands in Scripture to hoar the
church and obey It, suppose It
not Infallible, iii. 41
Common truths believed may pro-
Borvo them good that otherwise
orr, vU. 33
Consoimco in somo cases will
justify separation, though every
pretence of it will not, v. 108
Concord In damned un-oiB, worse
than disagreement In contro
verted points, v. 72
The consoijnnwci of men's opi
nions may be unjustly charged
upon tbem, i. 12 ; vll. 30
What contradictions PapistH be
lieve who hold transubstantia
tion, iv. 46
All canlrovm'ii's in religion not
necestary to be determined, i.
7, 166 ; ill. 88
How controversies about Scripture
itself aro to be decided, ii. 27
Controversies not ncroHHary to bi*
decided by a judicial sentonoe,
without any appeal, li. M>
That the Greod contains all neces
sary points, and/ bow to be im-
derstood, iv. 23, 73, 7-1
Not necessary that om rm-d
shotUd bo larger than that of tho
apostles, iv. 67, 70-72
Whether it be contrary to the
Creod to say the church may
m, v. 31

St. Dennis of Alexandria's saying
explained, about not dividing
tho church, v. 12
To deny a truth wltneBBcd by God,
whothor, always damnable, ans.
pref. 9
The apostles' depositing truth with
tbu cliuvob, no argument that
she ahould always koop It sin
cere and cutlro, il. 148
Of dhai/miiitg Protoatants, though
one MitUi muKl oiT, yet both may
hopo for salvation, ans. pref.
22; 1. 10, l.-j, 17
Two may c/i,vm//v.r in a matter of
faith, and yot neither bo charge
able with denying a declared
truth of Ood, ans. pref. 10
Dlffi-ri'iu-i:\ among Protestants
vainly ulijocii'd agaijist them,
ill. 2, 3, 6 ; V. 72
No reaHOu lo reproach them for
their UiJI'rri'ncrs about necessary
ti-uths and damnable errors,
iii. B2
What Im requisite tu convince a
man thai a ilnrlrifto comes from
God, ans. pri'l'. 8
Belloving tbu dnitrhw of Scripture,
a man may be saved, though ho
did not believe it tu be tho word
of God, U. 159
Tho Donatists' error about tho ca
tholic ohm'ob, what it was and
WBH not, III. 164
Tbo Donatists' case and ours not
alike, V. lO.'J
Tho Roman chmch guilty of the
J)uiuilii.-l.i' oiTor, in persuading
men as good not to be Christians
as nut Roman Catholics, ill. 64
Papists liker to the Donatists than
we, by thoir uncharitable deny
ing salvation out of theb: church,
vii. 2 1 , 22, 27 E
English divines vbidlcated iVom
incllAlng to Popery, and for
want of sklU in school-divinity,
ywt 19
How errors may be damnable,
ans. pref. 22

646

A TABLE OF CONTENTS.

In what case errors damnable may
not damn those that hold them,
V. 68 ; vi. 14
In what case errors not damnable
may be damnable to those that
hold them, v. 66
No man to be reproached for quit
ting his errors, v. 103
Though we may pardon the Rom
an churcb for her errors, yet
we may not sin with it, v.
70
Errors of the Roman church that
endanger solvation to be for
saken, though they are not de
structive of it, vii. 6
Erring persons that lead good
Uves should be judged of chari
tably, vii. 33
A man may learn of the church to
confute its errors, iii. 40
We did well to forsake the Roman
church for her errors, though
we afterwards may err out of it,
V. 63-65, 67, 87, 92
We must not adhere to a church
in professing the least errors,
lest we shonld not profess vritli
her necessary doctrine, iii. 66
The examples of those that, for
saking Popish errors, have de
nied necessary truths, no argu
ment against Protestants, iii.
63
Extemal communion of a church
may be left without leaving a
church, V. 32, 45, 47

Whether faith be destroyed by
denying a truth testified by
Ood, ans. pref. 26 ; vl. 49 ; vii.
19
The objects of faith of two sorts,
essential and occasional, iv. 3
Certainty of faith less than the
highest degree may please God
and save a man, i. 8 ; vi. 3—5
fhith less than infallibly certain
may resist temptations and diffl
culties, vi. 6
There may be faith where the
ohuroh and its infallibility beget
it not, U. 49

Faith does not go before Soiip.
ture, but foUowB its effloaov, ii
48
Protestants have sufflcient meana
to know the certahity of their
faith, ii. 162
In the Roman ohuroh, the last
resolution ot faith is into motlveB
of credibility, ii. 164
The Fathers declared theb: jujg.
ment of articles, bnt did not
req>;iro their declarations to be
received under anathema, iv, 18
Protestants did not forsaie the
Church, though they forsook its
errors, iii. 11
So&cieat foundation for faith with
out infallible certahity, vi. 6, 46
What Protestants mean by fun-
da-mental doctrines, iv. 62 ,
In what sense tlie church of Rome
errs not fundamentally, ans.
pref. 20
To be unerring in fundamentals
can be said of no chnrch of one
denomination, iii. 66
To say that there sholl be always
a cliurch not erring in funda-
mentals, is to say that ther«
shall be always a church, iii, 66
A church is not safe, though re
taining fundamentals, when it
builds " hay and stubble " on
the foundation, and neglects to
reform her errors, v. 61
Ignorance of what points in parti-.
cnlar are fuTUtamental does not
make it uncertain whether wt
do not err fundamontally, or dif.
fer in fimdamentals among our
selves, vii. ^4

The four Oospels contain all neces
sary doctrine, iv. 40-43
An infallible guide not noccHsexy
for avoiding heresy, ii. 127
The apostolic ohurch an infallible
guide to which we may resort,
iU. 69
Tho church may not be an in
fallible guide in fundamentals,
though it be Infallible in funda
mentals, ill. 39

A TABLE OF CONTENTS.

647

That the Roman church shonld be
the only infallible guide of faith,
and the Scriptures say nothing
conceming it, is incredible, vi. 20
H
The difference betwixt heresy and
schism, v. 51
There are no new heresies, no
more than new articles of faith,
iv. 18, 37, 38
Separation from the church of
Rome no mark 'of heresy by the
Fathers, whose citations are
answered, vi. 22-28, 30, 31,
33,34
No mark of heresy to want suc
cession of bishops holding the
same doctrine, vi. 18, 41
We are not heretics for opposing
things propounded by the church
of Rome for divine truth, vi. 11,
12
Whether Protestants schismatic-
ally ent off the Roman church
from hopes of salvation, v. 38
I
The Jewish church had no infaUi
bility annexed to it ; and if it
had, there is no necessity that
the Christian church should have
it, ii. 141
The imposing a necessity of pro
fessing known errors, aud prac
tising known corruptions, is a
just cause of separating from a
church, V. 31, 36, 40, 50,59,
60, 68, 69
Indifferency to all religions falsely
charged upon Protestants, ans.
pref. 3 i iii. 12
The belief of the church's infalli
bility makes way for heresy,
pref. 10
An infallible guide not needful for
avoiding heresies, ii. 127
The church's infallibility haa not
the same evidence as there is
for the Scriptures, iii. 30, 31
The church's infaUibility can no
way be better assured to us
than the Scripture's incorrup
tion, ii. 26 ; iii. 27

The church's infallibility is not
proved from the promise that
" the gates of hell shall not pre
vail against it," iii. 70
Nor from tbe promise of the Spi.'
rit's leading into all truth, which
was made only to the apostles,
iii. 71, 72
The church's infallibility not
proved from Eph. iv. 1I_13 :
" He gave some apostles," &c.,
** till we all come in the unity
of the faith," &c., iii. 79, 80
That God has appointed an infal
lible judge of controversies, be
cause such an one is desirable
and useful, is a weak conclusion,
ii. 128-136
Infallibility in fundamentals uo
warrant to adhere to a chnrch
in all that she proposes, iii, 57
Infallible interpretations of Scrip
ture vainly boasted of by the
Roman church, ii. 93—95
Whether the denial of the church's
infallibility leaves men to their
private spirit, reason, and dis
course, and what is tlie harm of
it, pref. 12, 13 ; ii. 110
Traditional interpretations of Scrip
ture how ill preserved, ii. 10
Interpretations of Scripture which
private men make for them
selves, (not pretending to pre
scribe their sense to others,)
though false or seditious, endan
ger only themselves, ii. 122
Allow the pope or the Roman
church to be a decisive inter
preter of Christ's laws, and she
can evacuate them, and make
what laws she pleases, pref. 10,
11 ; ii. 1
St. Irentsus's account of tradition
favours not Popery, ii. 144-146
His saying that no reformation
can countervail the danger of a
schism, explained, v. 11

A living judge to end controver
sies about the sense of Scripture
not necessary, ii. 12, 13
If Christ had intended such

648

A TABLE OF CONTENTS.

B judge in religion, he would
have named him, which he has
not done, ii. 23; iii. 69; vi.
20
Though a living judge be neces
sary to determine civil causes,
yet not necessary for religious
canses, ii. 14—22
If there be a judge of controver
sies, no necessity it should be
the Roman church, iii. 69
Roman Catholics set up as mauy
judges in rehgion as ^otestants,
ii. 116, 118, 153
A judgment of discretion must be
allowed to every man for him
self about reb'glon, ii. 11
The Protestant doctrine of justifi
cation, taken altogether, not a
licentious doctrine, vii. 30
When they say they are justified
by faith alone, yet they make
good works necessaiy to salva
tion, vii. 30 K
Our obligation to inow any divine
truth arises from God's manifest
revealing it, iii. 19

How we are assured in what lan
guage the Scripture is uncor
rupted, ii. 55-57
To leave a church, and to leave
the extemal communion of a
church, is not the same thing,
V. 32, 45, 47
Luther's separation not like that
of tbe Donatists, and why, i.
33, 101
iMther and his followers did not
divide from the wh(^e church,
being a part of it; but only
reformed themselves, forsaking
the corrupt jiart, v. 66
iMther's opposing himself to all
in his reformation no objection
against liim, v, 89. 90
We are not bound to justify all
that lAtther said and did, no
more than Papists are bound to
justify wbat several popes have
said and done, v. 112

M
They may be members of the
catholic church, that are not
united in extemal commumon,
V. 9
The Protestant doctrine of merit
explained, iv. 36, 36
The author's motives to change his
religion, vrith answers to them,
pref, 42, 43
The faith of Papists resolved at last
into the motives of credibility, ii,
154
The mischiefs that followed the
Reformation not imputable to
it, V. 92 N
What makes points necessary to
be believed, iv. 4, 11
No more is necessary to be be
lieved by us than by the apos
tles, iv, 67, 70-72
Papists make many things neces
sary to salvation which God
never made so, vii. 7
All necessary points of iaith are
contained in the Creed, iv. 73,
74
Why some points not so necessary
were put into the Creed, iv. 76,
76
Protestants may agree in neces
sary points, though they may
overv^ne some things they hold,
vii. 34
To impose a necessity of profess
ing known errors, and practising
known corruptions, is a just
cause of separation, v. 31, 36,
40, 60, 59, 60, 68, 69

A blind obedience is not due to
ecclesiastical decisions, though
our practice mnst be determined
by the sentence of superiors in
doubtfiil cases, v. 110
A probable opinion may be follow
ed, (according to the Roman
Doctors,) though it be not the
safest way for avoiding sin,
vu. 8
Optatus's saying impertineD6y

A TABLE OF CONTENTS,

649

urged against Protestants, v.
. 99, 100
Xliongb we receive ordination and
Scripture from a, false chuich,
yet we may be ,*- true church,
ri. 64

Whether Papists or Protestants
most hazard tbeir souls on pro
babilities, iv. 57
What we believe' conceming the
perpetuity of the visible church,
ans. pref. 18
Whether 1 Tim. ill. 15, "the
pillar and ground of truth,"
belong to Timothy, or to the
church, iii. 76
If those words belong to the
Church, whether they may not
signify her duty, and yet that
she may err in neglecting it,
iii. 77
A possibility of being deceived,
argues not an uncertainty in all
we believe, iii. 26, 50 ; v. 107 ;
vi. 47
By joining in the prayers of the
Roman churcb, we must join in
her unlawful practices, iii. 1 1
Preaching the word and adminis
tering the sacrament, how they
are inseparable notes of the
chnrch, and how they make it
visible, V. 19
Private spirit, how we are to un
derstand it, ii. 110
Private spirit, is not appealed to
(that is, to dictates pretending
to come from God's Spirit) when
controversies are referred to
Scripture, ii, 110
Whether one is left to his private
spirit, reason, and discourse, by
denying the church's infalli
bility, and the harm of it, pref.
12, 13; ii. 110
A man's private judgment may he
opposed CO tbe public when rea
son and Scripture warrant bim,
V. 109
A probable opinion, according to
the Roman Doctors, may be
followed, though it is not the

safest way for avoiding sin, vii.
8
It is hard for Papists to resolve
what is a suf&cient proposal of
tbe church, iii. 54
Protestants are on the surer side
for avoiding sin, and Papists on
tbe more dangerous side to
commit sin, shown in instances,
vii. 9 R
Every mau by reason must judge
both of Scripture and tbe church,
ii. 111-113, 118, 120, 122
Reason and judgment of discretion
is not to be reproached for the
private spirit, ii. 110
If men must not follow their
reason, what are they to follow ?
ii. 114, 115
Some kind of reformation may be
so necessary as to justify sepa
ration from a corrupt church,
though every pretence of refor
mation vrill not, v. 53
Nothing is more against -religion
than using violence to introduce
it, «. 96
The religion of Protestants (which
is the belief of the Bible) a
wiser and safer way than that of
tbe Roman church, showed at
large, vi. 56-72
All Protestants require repentance
to remission of sins, aud remis
sion of sins to justification, vii.
31
No revelations, known to be so,
may be rejected as not funda
mental, iv. 11
A divine revelation may be igno
rantiy disbelieved by a church,
and yet it may continue a
church, iii. 20
Things equally revealed may not
be so to several persons, iii. 24
Papists cannot have reverence for
the Scripture whilst they ad-
vance so many things contrary
to it, ii. 1
No argument of tbeir reverence to
it, that they have preserved it
entire, ii. 2
F F

650

A TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The Roman ehurch, when Luther
separated, was not the visible
church, though a visible church,
and part of the catholic, v. 26,
27
The present RoTnan church has
lost all authority to recommend
what we are to believe in reli
gion, ii. 101
The properties of a perfect rule, ii.
6-7
Whether the Popish rule of fun
damentals or ours is the safest,
iv. 63

Right administration of sacraToents
uncertain in the Roman church,
ii. 63-68
Iu what sense salvation may be
had iu the Roman church, ans.
pref. 5, 7
Salvation depends upon great un
certainties in the Roman church,
ii. 63-73
SchisTns, whence they chiefly arise,
and what continues them, iv.
17
Schism may be a division of the
church, as weU as from it, v. 22
He may be no schismatic that for
sakes a church for errors not
damnable, ans. pref. 2
No schism to leave a corrupted
church, when otherwise we must
commimicate in her corruptions,
v. 25
Not every separation from the
external communion of the
church, but a causeless one, is
the sin of schism,, v. 30
They may not be schismatics that
continue the separation from
Rome, though Luther that be
gan it had been a schismatic, v.
4 ; vL 14
The Scripture cannot be duly re
verenced by Papists, ii. ». I
The Scripture how proved to be
the word of God, iv. 63
I The divine authority of the Scrip
ture may be certain, though it
be not self-evidently certain that
it is God's word, vi. 61

Books of Scripture now held for
canonical, which the Roman
church formerly rejected, ii. 90,
91
Whether some books of Scripture
defined for canonical were not
afterward rejected, iii. 29
The Scripture in things necessary
1 is intelligible to leamed and
j, — unleamed, ii. 104—106
Some books of Scriptu/re ques
tioned by the Fathers as well as
by Protestants, ii. 34
\ The Scripture has great authority
'- from intemal arguments, ii. 47
The truth of Scripture inspiration
depends not on the authority of
the Roman church, pref. 14 ;
vi. 45
If the Scriptures contain all ne
cessary truths, Popery m <!Dn-
futed, pref. 30-3S
' The true meaning of Scripture not
uncertain in necessary points, ii.
84
A determinate sense of obscure
places of Scripture is not need
ful, ii. 127, 150
The sense of plain places of Scrip
ture may be known by the same
me ans by which the Papists know
the sense of those places that
prove the church, ii. 150, 1 61
* God may give means to the church
' to know the true sense of Scrip
ture, yet it is not necessary it
shoidd have that sense, ii. 93
It is easier to know the Scripture
aud its sense, than for the igno
rant in the Roman church which
is the church, and what are her
decrees, and the sense of them,
u. 107-109
In what language the Scripture is
incorrupted, and the assurance
of it, ii. 66-67
The Scripture is capable of the
properties of a perfect rule, ii. 7
t In what sense we say the Scrip
ture is a. perfect rule of faith,
ii. 8
The Scripture not properly a judge
of controversies, but a rule to
judgeby, u. 11, 104, 165

A TABLE OF CONTENTS.

651

The Scripture's incorruption more
secured by Providence, than the
Roman church's vigilancy, ii.
24
When Scripture is made the rule
of controversies, those that con
cem itself are to be excepted,
iL S, 27, 156
The Scripture contains all neces
sary material objects of faith, of
which the Scripture itself is
none, but the means of convey
ing them to ns, ii. 32, 159
The Scnpture must determine
some controversies, else those
about the church and its notes
axe undeterminable, ii. 3
The Scripture unjustly charged
vrith increasing controversies end
contentions, ii. 4
The Scripture is a sufficient means
for discovering heresies, ii. 127
When controversies are referred to
Scripture, it is not referring
them to the private spirit, un
derstanding it of a persuasion
pretending to come from the
Spirit of God, ii. 110
Protestants that believe Scripture
agree in more things than diey
differ in, and their differences
are not material, iv. 49, 50
Private men, if they interpret
Scriptures amiss, and to ill pur
poses, endanger only themselves,
when they do not pretend to
prescribe to others, ii. 122
The Protestants' security of the
way to happiness, ii. 53
Want of skill in school-divinity
foolishly objected against Eng
lish divines, pref. 19
The principles of the church of
England's separating fiova Rome
vriU not serve to justify schis
matics, V. 71j 74, 80-82, 85,
86
Socinianism and other heresies
countenanced by Romish writers,
who have undermined the doc
trine of the Trinity, pref. 1 7, 18
The promise of the Spirifs leading
into all truth proves not infiilli
bility, iii. 71

The promise of the Spirifs abid
ing vrith them for ever may be
personal, iii. 74
And it, being a conditional pro-
i mise, cuts off the Roman church's
! pretence to infallibility, iii. 75
Want of succession of bishops
holding always the same doc
trine, is not a mark of heresy,
. vi. 38, 41
In what sense succession is by the
I Fathers made a mark of the tme
: church, vi. 40
papists cannot prove a, perpetual
: succession of professors of then:
) doctrine, vi. 41

Tradition proves the books of
Scripture to be canonical, not
the authority of the present
church, ii. 25, 53, 90-92 ; iii.
27
Traditional interpretations of Scrip
ture how ill preserved by the
Roman church, ii. 10 ; iii. 46
No traditional interpretations of
Scripture, though if there were
any remaining we are ready to
receive them, ii. 88, 89 j iii. 46
The traditions distinct from Scrip
ture which Irenaeus mentions,
do not favour Popery, ii. 144—
146
The asserting unwritten traditions,
though not inconsistent with the
truth of Scripture, yet disparages
it as a perfect rule, ii. 10
Though our translations of the
Bible are subject to error, yet
our salvation is not thereby
made uncertain, ii. 68, 73
Different translations of Scripture
may as well be objected to the
ancient chxirch as to Protest
ants, ii. 58, 59
The '\''ulgar Translation is not
pure and uncorrupted, ii, 75—80
To believe trajisubstantiation, how
many contradictions one must
believe! iv. 46
The doctrine of the Trinity under
mined by Roman Doctors, pref.
17,18

652

A TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The church may tolerate many
things which she does not allow,
iii. 47
God's truth not questioned by
Protestants, though they deny
points professed by the church,
i. 12
Protestants question not God's
truth, though denying some
truth revealed by him, if they
know it not to be so revealed,
iii. 16
The truth of the present church
depends not upon the visibility
or perpetuity of the church in
all ages, v. 21 j vu. 20
The aposties' depositing truth vrith
the church, is no argument that
she should always keep it entire
and sincere, ii. 148
The promise of being led into all
truth agrees not equally to the
aposties and to the church, iii.
34
A trial of religion by Scripture
may well be refused by Papists,
ii.3 U
The great uncertainties sa.lvation
in the Roman church depends
on, ii. 63-73
Their uncertainty of the right
administration of sacraments,
ii. 63-68
The church's unity, by what means
best preserved, iii. 81 ; iv. 13,
17,40
Pretence of infallibility a ridiculous
means to unity, when that is
the chief question to be deter
mined, iii. 89
Unity of communion how to be
obtained) iv. 39, 40
Unity of external communion not
necessary to the being a mem
ber of the catholic church, v. 9
Universality of a doctrine no cer

tain sign that it came from the
apostles, iii. 44
Want of universality of place
proves not Protestants to be
heretics, and may as well be
objected against the Roraan
church, vi. 42, 56
We would receive unwritten tra
ditions derived from the apos
ties, if we knew what they
were, iii. 46

Violence and force to introduce
reUgion is against the nature of
religion, and unjustly chafed
upon Protestants, v. 96
What visible church was before
Luther disagreeing from the
Roman, ans. pref. 19 ; v. 27
That there should be always a
visible unerring church of one
denomination, is not necessary,
V. 27
The visible church may not cease,
though it may cease to be risi
ble, v. 13,14,41
The church may not be visible in
the Popish sense, and yet may
not dissemble but profess her
faitii, V. 18
The Vulgar Translation not pure
and incorrupted, ii; 75-80
W
The whole doctrine of Christ was
taught by the apostles, and an
anathema denounced against any
that should bring in new doc
trines, iv. 18
The wisdom, of Protestants justi
fied in forsaking the errors of
the Roman church, vi. 53, 54
The wisdom of Protestants showed
at large against the Papists, in
making the Bible their religion,
vi. 66-72

THE END.

LONDON : PRINTED BY JAMES NICHOLS, HOXTON-SQUARE.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03738 8734