have already considered, and returned the argument grounded on them. As for Luther's speeches, I told you, not long since, that we follow no private men, and regard not much what he says either against the church of Rome or for it, but what he proves. He was a man of a vehement spirit, and very often what he took in hand he did not do it, but overdo it. He that will justify all his speeches, especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition, I believe will have work enough.. Yet in these sentences, though he overreach in the particulars, yet what he says in general we confess true, and confess with him, "that in the papacy are many good things," which have come from them to us; but withal we say, there are many bad; neither do we think ourselves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad, or to retain the bad with the good, but rather conceive it a high point of wisdom to separate between the precious and the vile, to sever the good from the bad, and to put the good in vessels to be kept, and to cast the bad away; to try all things, and hold to that which is good.

74. Ad 33. Your next and last argument against the faith of protestants is, because 66 wanting certainty and prudence, it must also want the fourth condition, supernaturality. For that being a human persuasion, it is not in the essence of it supernatural; and being imprudent and rash, it cannot proceed from Divine motion, and so is not supernatural in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth." Answ. This little discourse stands wholly upon what went before, and therefore must fall together with it. I have proved the faith of protestants as certain 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 your faith is not your persuasion or opinion, (for you make them 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 desire 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 the nature or essence of it, supernatural? Lastly, whereas you say, that "being imprudent, it 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 millions amongst you cannot,) must be condemned to have no supernatural 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.

75. And thus having weighed your whole discourse, and found it altogether lighter than vanity, why should I not invert your conclusion, and say, Seeing you have not proved that whosoever errs against any one point of faith loseth all Divine faith; nor that any error whatsoever, concerning that which by the parties litigant may be esteemed a matter of faith, is a grievous sin; it follows not at all, that when two men hold different 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 chap

66

ter, may in a good sense be true; for ofttimes by "the faith" is meant only that doctrine which is necessary to salvation; "and to say, that salvation may be had without 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 he that does so may justly be said to destroy the gospel of Christ, seeing he makes it ineffectual to the end for which it was intended, the salvation of men's souls. But why you should conceive that all differences about religion are concerning matters of faith, in this high notion of the word, for that I conceive no reason,

CHAPTER VII.

In regard of the precept of charity towards one's self, protestants are in a state of sin, as long as they remain separated from the Roman church.

1. "THAT due order is to be observed in the theological virtue of charity, whereby we are directed to prefer some objects before others, is a truth taught by all divines, and declared in these words of Holy Scripture, He hath ordered charity in me. The reason whereof is, because the infinite goodness of God, which is the formal object or motive of charity, and for which all other things are loved, is differently participated by different objects; and therefore the love we bear to them for God's sake must accordingly be unequal. In the virtue of faith, the case is far otherwise; because all the objects or points which we believe do equally participate the Divine testimony or revelation, for which we believe alike all things propounded for such. For it is as impossible for God to speak an untruth in a small as in a great matter. And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed, that any least error against faith is injurious to God, and destructive of salvation.

2. "This order in charity may be considered, towards God, our own soul, the soul of our neighbour, our own life or goods, and the life or goods of our neighbour. God is to be beloved above all things, both objectivè, (as the divines speak,) that is, we must wish or desire to God a good more great, perfect, and noble, than to any or all other things; namely, all that indeed he is, a nature infinite, independent, immense, &c.; and also appretiativè, that is, that we

a Cant. ii. 4.

6

must sooner lose what good soever, than leave and abandon him. In the other objects of charity, of which I spake, this order is to be kept: we may, but are not bound to prefer the life and goods of our neighbour before our own: we are bound to prefer the soul of our neighbour before our own temporal goods or life, if he happen to be in extreme spiritual necessity, and that we by our assistance can succour him, according to the saying of St John,b In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath yielded his life for us : and we ought to yield our life for our brethren. And St. Augustin likewise saith, A Christian will not doubt to lose his own temporal life for the eternal life of his neighbour.' Lastly, we are to prefer the spiritual good of our own soul, before both the spiritual and temporal good of our neighbour, because as charity doth of its own nature chiefly incline the person in whom it resides to love God, and to be united with him, so of itself it inclines him to procure those things whereby the said union with God is effected, rather to himself than to others. And from hence it follows, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsocver, to prefer the spiritual good either of any partieular person or of the whole world before his own soul, according to those words of our blessed Saviour,d What doth it avail a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul? And therefore (to come to our present purpose) it is directly against the order of charity, or against charity as it hath a reference to ourselves, which divines call charitas propria, to adventure either the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, or the committing of any thing repugnant to it, for whatsoevever respect; and consequently, if by living out of the Roman church we put ourselves in hazard either to want something necessarily required to salvation, or else to perform some act against it, we commit a most grievous sin against the virtue of

b 1 Joan. iii. 16. c De Mendac. cap. vi. d Matt. xvi. 26.