can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation. As if, for example, a sinner depart this world without repenting himself of all deadly sins, although he die suddenly, or unexpectedly fall out of his wits, and so commit no new sin by omission of repentance; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sins committed, and never repented of. If an infant die without baptism, he cannot be saved; not by reason of any actual sin committed by him in omitting baptism, but for original sin, not forgiven by the means which God hath ordained to that purpose. Which doctrine all or most protestants will (for aught I know) grant to be true, in the children of infidels; yea, not only Lutherans, but also some other protestants, as Mr. Bilson, late of Winchester, and others, hold it to be true, even in the children of the faithful. And if pro

testants in general disagree from catholics in this point, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamental. And the like I say of the sacrament of penance, which they deny to be necessary to salvation, either in act or in desire: which error is likewise fundamental, because it concerns (as I said) a thing necessary to salvation: and for the same reason, if their priesthood and ordination be doubtful, as certainly it is, they are in danger to want a means, without which they cannot be saved. Neither ought this rigour to seem strange or unjust; for Almighty God having, of his own goodness, without our merit, first ordained man to a supernatural end of eternal felicity; and then after our fall in Adam, vouchsafed to reduce us to the attaining of that end, if his blessed will be pleased to limit the attaining of that end, to some means which in his infinite wisdom he thinks most fit; who can say, Why dost thou so? or who can hope for that end without such means? Blessed be his Divine Majesty, for vouchsafing to ordain us, base creatures, to so sublime an end by any means at all!

4. "Out of the foresaid difference followeth another, that (generally speaking) in things necessary only because they are commanded, it is sufficient, for avoiding sin, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of virtue, learning, and wisdom. Neither are we always obliged to follow the most strict and severe, or secure part, as long as the doctrine which we embrace proceeds upon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent, though the contrary part want not also probable grounds. For in human affairs and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. But when we treat not precisely of avoiding sin, but moreover of procuring something without which I cannot be saved, I am obliged by the law and order of charity, to procure as great certainty as morally I am able, and am not to follow every probable opinion or dictamen, but tutiorem partem, 'the safer part,' because, if my probability prove false, I shall not probably, but certainly, come short of salvation. Nay, in such a case I shall incur a new sin against the virtue of charity towards myself, which obIn his True Difference, &c. part 4. page 368 and 369.

ligeth every one not to expose his soul to the hazard of eternal perdition, when it is in his power, with the assistance of God's grace, to make the matter sure. From this very ground it is, that although some divines be of oginion that it is not a sin to use some matter or form of sacraments only probable, if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to sacraments, as they belong to the moral infused virtue of religion; yet when they are such sacraments, as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of souls, all do with one consent agree that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtful or only probable matter or form, when it is in our power to procure certainty. If therefore it may appear, that though it were not certain that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation, (as we have proved to be very certain,) yet at least that it is probable, and withal that there is a way more safe; it will follow out of the grounds already laid, that they are obliged by the law of charity to embrace that safe way.

5. "Now that protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand, is deduced from what we have said and proved about the universal infallibility of the church, and of her being judge of controversies, to whom all Christians ought to submit their judgment (as even some protestants grant,) and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions is a grevious sin: as also from what we have said of the unity, universality, and visibility of the church, and of succession of persons and doctrine; of the conditions of Divine faith-certainty, obscurity, prudence, and supernaturality—which are wanting in the faith of protestants; of the frivolous distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental (the confutation whereof proveth, that heretics disagreeing among themselves in any least point cannot have the same faith, nor be of the same church); of schism, of heresy, of the persons who first revolted from Rome, and of their motives; of the nature of faith, which is destroyed by any least error; and it is certain, that some of them must be in error, and want the substance of true faith; and since all pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all, but that they want trne faith, which is a means most absolutely necessary to salvation. Moreover, as I said heretofore, since it is granted that every error in fundamental points is damnable, and that they cannot tell in particular what points be fundamental, it follows, that none of them knows whether he or his brethren do not err damnably, it being certain, that among so many disagreeing persons some must err. Upon the same ground of not being able to assign what points be fundamental, I say, they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamental or no, and consequently, whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of salvation. I omit to add, that you want the saerament of penance, instituted for remission of sins; or at least you must confess that you hold it not necessary; and yet your own brethren, for example, the century writers, do acknowledge, that in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian, private confession, even

* Cent. 2. cap. 6. col. 127.

*

of thoughts, was used; and that it was then commanded and thought necessary. The like I say concerning your ordination, which at least is very doubtful, and consequently all that depends thereon.

6. "On the other side, that the Roman church is the safer way to heaven, (not to repeat what hath been already said upon divers occasions,) I will again put you in mind, that unless the Roman church was the true church, there was no visible true church upon earth: a thing so manifest, that protestants themselves confess, that more than one thousand years the Roman church possessed the whole word, as we have showed heretofore, out of their own words :* from whence it follows, that unless ours be the true church, you cannot pretend to any perpetual visible church of your own; but ours doth not depend on yours, before which it was. And here I wish you to consider with fear and trembling, how all Roman catholics, not one excepted, that is, those very men whom you must hold not to err damnably in their belief, unless you will destroy your own church and salvation, do with unanimous consent believe and profess, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation; and then tell me, as you will answer at the last day, whether it be not more safe to live and die in that church, which even yourselves are forced to acknowledge 'not to be cut off from hope of salvation,' (which are your own words,) than to live in a church which the said confessedly true church doth firmly believe and constantly profess not to be capable of salvation. And therefore I conclude, that by the most strict obligation of charity towards your own soul, you are bound to place it in safety, by returning to that church from which your progenitors schismatically departed, lest too late you find that saying of the Holy Ghost verified in yourselves, He that loves the danger shall perish therein.†

7. "Against this last argument of the greater security of the Roman church, drawn from your own confession, you bring an objection, which in the end will be found to make for us against yourself. It is taken from the words of the Donatists, speaking to catholics in this manner: Yourselves confess our baptism, sacraments, and faith,' (here you put an explication of your own, and say, 'for the most part,' as if any small error in faith did not destroy all faith,) 'to be good and available. We deny yours to be so, and say, There is no church, no salvation amongst you: therefore it is safest for all to join with us.'

8. "By your leave, our argument is not (as you say) for simple people alone, but for all them who have care to save their souls. Neither is it grounded upon your charitable judgment, (as you speak,) but upon an inevitable necessity for you either to grant salvation to our church, or to entail certain damnation upon your own; because yours can have no being till Luther, unless ours be supposed to have been the true church of Christ. And since you term this argument a charm, take heed you be none of those, who, according to the prophet David, do not hear the voice of him who charmeth wisely. But to come to the purpose, cathones

* Chap. 5. num. 9.

† Ecclus. iii. 26.

Psa. lviii. 5.

never granted that the Donatists had a true church, or might be saved; and therefore you having cited out of St. Augustin the words of the catholic, that the Donatists had true baptism, when you come to the contrary words of the Donatists, you add, No church, no salvation;' making the argument to have quinque terminos, without which addition you did see it made nothing against us; for, as I said, the catholics never yielded, that among the Donatists there was a true church, or hope of salvation. And yourself, a few leaves after, acknowledge, that the 'Donatists maintained an error,' which was in the matter and nature of it properly heretical, against that article of the Creed wherein we profess to believe the holy catholic church;' and consequently you cannot allow salvation to them, as you do, and must do, to us. And therefore the Donatists could not make the like argument against catholics, as catholics make against you, who grant us salvation, which we deny to you. But at least (you will say) this argument for the certainty of their baptism was like to ours, touching the security and certainty of our salvation; and therefore that catholics should have esteemed the baptism of the Donatists more certain than their own, and so have allowed rebaptization of such as were baptized by heretics or sinners, as the Donatists esteemed all catholics to be. I answer, No; because it being a matter of faith, that baptism administered by heretics, observing due matter, form, &c. is valid; to rebaptize any so baptized, had been both a sacrilege in reiterating a sacrament not reiterable, and a profession also of a damnable heresy, and therefore had not been more safe, but certainly damnable. But you confess, that in the doctrine or practice of the Roman church, there is no belief or profession of any damnable error, which if there were, even your church should certainly be no church. To believe therefore, and profess as we do, cannot exclude salvation, as rebaptization must have done. But if the Donatists could have affirmed with truth, that in the opinion both of catholics and themselves their baptism was good; yea, and good in such sort, as that unless theirs was good, that of the catholics could not be such; but theirs might be good, though that of the catholics were not; and further, that it was no damnable error to believe that baptism administered by the catholics was not good, nor that it was any sacrilege to reiterate the same baptism of catholics: if, I say, they could have truly affirmed these things, they had said somewhat, which at least had seemed to the purpose. But these things they could not say with any colour of truth, and therefore their argument was fond and impious. But we with truth say to protestants, You cannot but confess that our doctrine contains no damnable error, and that our church is certainly a true church, that unless ours be true, you cannot pretend any; yea, you grant that you should be guilty of schism, if you did cut off our church from the body of Christ, and the hope of salvation. But we neither do nor can grant that yours is a true church, or that within it there is hope of salvation; therefore it is safest for you to join with us. And now against whom hath your objection greatest force ?

9. "But I wonder not a little, and so I think will every body else, what the reason may be, that you do not so much as go about to answer the argument of the Donatists, which you say is all one with ours, but refer us to St. Augustin, there to read it; as if every one carried with him a library, or were able to examine the place in St. Augustin: and yet you might be sure your reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us, and which indeed, unless you can confute it, ought alone to move every one that hath care of his soul, to take the safest way, by incorporating himself in our church. But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence; for the answer which St. Augustin gives to the Donatists is directly against yourself, and the same which I have given, namely, that catholics approve the baptism of Donatists, but abhor their heresy of rebaptization. And that as gold is good, (which is the similitude used by St. Augustin,†) yet not to be sought in company of thieves; so though baptism be good, yet it must not be sought for in the conventicles of Donatists. But you free us from damnable heresy, and yield us salvation, which I hope is to be embraced in whatsoever company it is found; or rather, that company is to be embraced before all other, in which all sides agree that salvation may be found. We therefore must infer, that it is safest for you to seek salvation among us. You had good reason to conceal St. Augustin's

answer to the Donatists.

10. "You frame another argument in our behalf, and make us speak thus: If protestants believe the religion of catholics to be a safe way to heaven, why do they not follow it? Which wise argument of your own you answer at large, and confirm your answer by this instance: The Jesuits and Dominicans hold different opinions touching predetermination, and the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin; yet so, that the Jesuits hold the Dominicans' way safe, that is, their error not damnable; and the Dominicans hold the sarue of the Jesuits; yet neither of them with good consequence can press the other to believe his opinion, because, by his own confession, it is no damnable error.'

11. "But what catholic maketh such a wise demand as you put into our mouths? If our religion be a safe way to heaven, that is, not damnable, why do you not follow it? As if every thing that is good must be of necessity embraced by every body! But what think you of the argument framed thus? Our religion is safe even by your confession; therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it. And yet further, thus: Among different religions and contrary ways to heaven, one only can be safe: but ours, by your own confession, is safe, whereas we hold, that in yours there is no hope of salvation; therefore you may and ought to embrace ours. This is our argument. And if the Dominicans and Jesuits did say one to another, as we say to you, then one of them might with good consequence press the other * Ad lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 108. + Contra Cresc. lib. 1. cap. 21.