to believe his opinion. You have still the hard fortune to be beaten with your own weapon.

12. "It remaineth, then, that both in regard of faith and charity protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the church of Rome. And I may add also, in regard of the theological virtue of hope, without which none can hope to be saved, and which you want, either by excess of confidence, or defect by despair, not unlike to your faith, which I showed to be either deficient in certainty or excessive in evidence; as likewise, according to the rigid Calvinists, it is either so strong, that, once had, it can never be lost; or so more than weak, and so much nothing, that it can never be gotten. For the true theological hope of Christians is a hope which keeps a mean between presumption and desperation, which moves us to work our salvation with fear and trembling, which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works, as Holy Scripture adviseth: but, contrarily, protestants do either exclude hope by despair, with the doctrine, that our Saviour died not for all, and that such want grace sufficient to salvation; or else by vain presumption, grounded upon a fantastical persuasion, that they are predestinate; which faith must exclude all fear and trembling. Neither can they make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly believe, that before any good works they are justified, and justified even by faith alone, and by that faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified. Which points some protestants do expressly affirm to be • the soul of the church,' the principal origin of salvation,' of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest,' as already I have noted, chap. 3. n. 19. And if some protestants do now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine, we must affirm, that at least some of them want the theological virtue of hope; yea, that none of them can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in the communion of those who defend such doctrines as do directly overthrow all true Christian hope. And for as much as concerns faith, we must also infer, that they want unity therein, (and consequently have none at all,) by their disagreement about the soul of the church,' 'the principal origin of salvation,' of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest.' And if you want true faith, you must by consequence want hope: or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side, but that it hath latitude sufficient to embrace all parties, without prejudice to their salvation, notwithstanding that your brethren hold it to be 'the soul of the church,' &c., I must repeat what I have said heretofore, that even by this example it is clear you cannot agree what points be fundamental. And so (to whatsoever answer you fly) I press you in the same manner, and say, that you have no certainty whether you agree in fundamental points, or unity and substance of faith, which cannct stand with difference in fundamentals. And so upon the whole matter I leave it to be considered, whether want of charity can be justly charged on us, because we affirm that they cannot (without repentance) be saved,

who want of all other the most necessary means to salvation, which are the three theological virtues, FAITH, HOPE, and

CHARITY.

13. "And now I end this first part, having, as I conceive, complied with my first design, (in that measure which time, commodity, scarcity of books, and my own small abilities, could afford,) which was to show, that amongst men of different religions one side can only be saved. For since there must be some infallible means to decide all controversies concerning religion, and to propound truths revealed by Almighty God; and this means can be no other but the visible church of Christ, which at the time of Luther's appearance was only the church of Rome, and such as agreed with her; we must conclude, that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions, or forsaketh her communion, doth resist God himself, whose spouse she is, and whose Divine truth she propounds, and therefore becomes guilty of schism and heresy, which since Luther, his associates, and protestants have done, and still continue to do, it is not want of charity, but abundance of evident cause, that forces us to declare this necessary truth, PROTESTANCY UNREPENTED DESTROYS SALVATION."

THE

ANSWER TO THE SEVENTH CHAPTER:

That protestants are not bound by the charity which they owe to them

selves to re-unite themselves to the Roman church.

THE first four paragraphs of this chapter are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction unto a truth, which I presume never was, nor will be, by any man in his right wits, either denied or questioned; and that is, that "every man, in wisdom and charity to himself, is to take the safest way to his eternal salvation." 2. The fifth and sixth are nothing, in a manner, but references to discourses already answered by me, and confuted in their proper places.

3. The seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, have no other foundation but this false pretence, that "we confess the Roman church free from damnable error.' 99

4. In the twelfth, there is something that has some probability to persuade some protestants to forsake some of their opinions, or others to leave their communion; but to prove protestants in general to be in the state of sin, while they remain separate from the Roman Church, there is not one word or syllable: and besides, whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose, it may be as forcibly 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 it. Now from this doctrine, what is more plain and obvious, than for every natural man (without God's especial preventing grace) to make this practical collection: Either I am elected or not elected; but 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 any protestants to extinguish Christian hope and filial fear, and to lead some men to despair, others to presumption, all to a wretchless and impious life, I desire you ingeniously to inform me. And if you deny it, assure yourself you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own religion, and your own society, and taught at length this charitable doctrine, that though men's opinions may be 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 disclaim and detest them. And this is all the answer which I should make to this discourse, if I should deal rigidly and strictly with you. Yet, that you may not think yourself contemned, nor have occa

sion to pretend that your arguments are evaded, I will entreat leave of my reader to bring to the test every particle of it, and to censure what deserves a censure, and to answer what may any way seem to require an answer; and then I doubt not but what I have affirmed in general will appear in particular.

66

5. Ad § 1. To the first then I say, 1. It was needless to prove that due order is to be observed in any thing, much more in charity, which being one of the best things, may be spoiled by being disordered yet if it stood in need of proof, I fear this place of the Canticles, He hath ordered charity in me, would be no enforcing demonstration of it. 2. The reason alleged by you why we ought to love one object more than another, because one thing participates the Divine goodness more than another," is fantastical, and repugnaut to what you say presently after. For by this rule, no man should love himself more than all the world, which yet you require, unless he were first vainly persuaded, that he doth more participate the Divine goodness than all the world. But the true reason why one thing ought to be loved more than another is, because one thing is better than another, or because it is better to us, or because God commands us to do so, or because God himself does so, and we are to conform our affections to the will of God. 3. It is no true, "that all objects, which we believe, do equally participatet the Divine testimony or revelation:" for some are testified more evidently, and some more obscurely; and therefore whatsoever you have built upon this ground must of necessity fall together with it. And thus much for the first number.

6. Ad § 2. In the second, many passages deserve a censure: for, 1. It is not true, that "we are to wish or desire to God a nature infinite, independent, immense;" for it is impossible I should desire to any person that which he hath already, if I know that he hath it; nor the perpetuity of it, if I know it impossible but he must have it for perpetuity. And therefore rejoicing only, and not well-wishing, is here the proper work of love. 2. Whereas you say, that “in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good of the whole world be fore his own soul :" in saying this you seem to me to condemn one of the greatest acts of charity, of one of the greatest saints that ever was, I mean St. Paul, who for his brethren desired to be an anathema from Christ. And as for the text alleged by you in confirmation of your saying. What doth it avail a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul? it is nothing to the purpose: for without all question, it is not profitable for a man to do so; but the question is, whether it be not lawful for a man to forego and part with his own particular profit, to procure the universal, spiritual, and eternal benefit of others? 3. Whereas you say, It is directly against charity to ourselves, 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 con

duce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure, or less dangerous. And therefore, if the errors of the Roman church do but hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, I am, in charity to myself, bound to forsake them, though they be not destructive of it. 4. Whereas you conclude, that "if by living out of the Roman church we put ourselves in hazard to want something necessary to salvation, we commit a grievous sin against the virtue of charity, as it respects ourselves;" this consequence may be good in those which are thus persuaded of the Roman church, and yet live out of it. But the supposition is certainly false; we may live and die out of 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.

7. Ad § 3. I proceed now to the third section; and herein first I observe this acknowledgment of yours, "That in things necessary only because commanded, a probable ignorance of the commandment excuses the party from all fault, and doth not exclude salvation." From which doctrine it seems to me to follow, that seeing obedience to the Roman church cannot be pretended to be necessary, but only because it is commanded, therefore not only an invincible, but even a probable ignorance of this pretended command, must excuse us all from 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 most clear and evident consequences that may be; and seeing an infinity of great objections lie 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 further 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 censures 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 a Divine infallible faith, baptism in act for children, and in desire for those who are to 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 paradox, viz. that faith and baptism and confession are not therefore necessary for us because God appointed them, but are therefore appointed by God because 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 requiring that this faith should be “Divine and infallible,” you

I I