follow 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 true, (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.

14. Ad § 16. Instead of a fourth argument, this is presented to us: "That if Luther were an heretic, then they that agreed with him must be so." And that Luther was a formal 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 reformation was not universal; therefore it cannot be excused from formal heresy." Whereunto I answer, first, to the first part, that it is no way impossible 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 own men out of St. Austin distinguish between hæretici, et hæreticorum sequaces: : and you yourself, though you pronounce "the leaders among the Arians formal heretics," yet confess, that Salvian was at least doubtful, whether these Arians, who in simplicity followed their teachers, might not be excused by ignorance. And about this suspension of his you also seem suspended; for you neither approve nor condemn it. Secondly, to the second part I say, that had you not presumed upon your ignorance in logic, as well as metaphysics and school divinity, you would never

have obtruded 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 the resurrection, so may he also not deny the church's universality. And as the apostles, who preached the gospel 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 universal, though his reformation were but particular. I say, he did believe it universal, even in your own sense, that is, universal de jure, though not de facto. And as for universality in fact, he believed the church much more universal than his reformation; for he did conceive, (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 true 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 blame 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 further than Afric; so was he in the wrong, if he thought of necessity it always must be so; but most palpably mistaken in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth, and known to all nations; which, if passion did not trouble you, and make you forget how lately almost half the world was discovered, and in what estate it was then found, you would very easily see and confess.

15. Ad § 17. In the next section you pretend, "that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of protestants with the Donatists ;" and yet you do it with as much spite and malice as could well be devised, but in vain: for Lucilla might do ill in promoting the sect of the Donatists, and yet the mother and the daughter, whom you glance at, might do well in " ministering influence" (as you phrase it) "to protestants in England." Unless you will conclude, because one woman did one thing ill, therefore no woman can do any thing well; or because it was ill done to promote one sect, therefore it must be ill done to maintain any.

66

16. "The Donatists might do ill in calling the chair of Rome the chair of pestilence, and the Roman church an harlot ;" and yet the state of the church being altered, protestants might do well to do so and therefore though St. Austin 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 in

66

timates you would,) if it were in your power; plainly showing that you are a cursed cow, though your horns 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 impediment, which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the church's communion, was a calumny raised against the catholics, that they did set some strange thing upon their altar. To how many," saith St. Austin, "did the report of ill 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 name the impiety wherewith they were charged; and therefore by a rhetorical figure calls it, "I know not what." But compare with him Optatus, writing of the same matter, and you shall plainly perceive that this "I know not what" pretended to be set upon the altar, was indeed a picture, which the Donatists (knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time, to set up any pictures in a church to worship them, as your new fashion is) bruited abroad to be done in the churches of the catholic church. But what answer do St. Austin and Optatus make 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 memory, but for worship also; but we do well to do so; and this ought not to trouble you, or affright you from our communion? What other

1 a visible calumny.-Oxf.

answer your church could now make to such an objection is very hard to imagine; and therefore were your doctrine the same with the doctrine of the Fathers in this point, they must have answered so likewise. But they, to the contrary, not only deny the crime, but also abhor and detest it. To little purpose therefore do you hunt after these poor shadows of resemblances between us and the Donatists, unless you could show an exact resemblance between the present church of Rome and the ancient; which seeing by this and many other particulars it is demonstrated to be impossible, that church, which was then a virgin, may be now a harlot, and that which was detraction in the Donatists may be in protestants a just accusation.

17. As ill success have you in comparing Dr. Potter with Tyconius, whom as "St. Austin finds fault with for continuing in the Donatists' separation, having forsaken the ground of it, the doctrine of the church's perishing; so you condemn the Doctor for continuing in their communion, who hold," as you say, "the very same heresy." But if this were indeed the doctrine of the Donatists, how is it that you say presently after, "that the protestants, who hold the church of Christ perished, were worse than the Donatists, who said that the church remained at least in Africa?" These things methinks hang not well together. But to let this pass: the truth is, this difference, for which you would fain raise such a horrible dissension between Dr. Potter and his brethren, if it be well considered, is only in words and the manner of expression; they affirming only that the church perished from its integrity, and fell into many corruptions, which he denies not; and