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 cannot 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 UNRE

PENTED DESTROYS SALVATION.

THE

ANSWER TO THE SEVENTH CHAPTER:

That protestants are not bound by the charity which they owe to themselves to reunite 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."

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

r protestants in state of sin.-Oxf.

S

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 $ 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 ingenuously 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 occasion 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.

5. Ad § 1. To the first then I say, 1. It was

prone.-Orf. Lond.

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 repugnant 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 not true, that "all objects, which we believe, do equally participate the Divine testimony or revelation:"

t

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

t world; unless he