Mark. Now you will not deny, I presume, that St. Peter preached all; therefore you must not deny but St. Mark wrote all.

42. Our next inquiry let it be touching St. John's intent in writing his Gospel, whether it were to deliver so much truth, as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to eternal life, or only part of it, and to leave part unwritten? A great man there is, but much less than the apostle, who saith, that "writing last, he purposed to supply the defects of the other evangelists that had wrote before him;" which (if it were true) would sufficiently justify what I have undertaken, that at least all the four evangelists have in them all the necessary parts of the gospel of Christ. Neither will I deny, but St. John's secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels in some things very profitable. But he that pretends, that any necessary doctrine is in St. John which is in none of the other evangelists, hath not so considered them as he should do, before he pronounce sentence in so weighty a matter. And for his prime intent in writing his Gospel, what that was, certainly no father in the world understood it better than himself; therefore let us hear him speak: Many other signs (saith he) also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. By these are written, may be understood, these things are written, or these signs are written. Take it which way you will, this conclusion will certainly follow; that either all that which St. John wrote in his Gospel, or less

than all, and therefore all much more, was sufficient to make them believe that which, being believed with lively faith, would certainly bring them to eternal life.

43. This which hath been spoken (I hope) is enough to justify my undertaking to the full, that it is very probable that every one of the four evangelists hath in his book the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the gospel of Christ. But for St. Luke, that he hath written such a perfect Gospel, in my judgment it ought to be with them that believe him no manner of question. Consider first the introduction to his Gospel, where he declares what he intends to write in these words: Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. Add to this place the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles: The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up. Weigh well these two places, and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands: 1. Whether St. Luke doth not undertake the very same thing which he says many had taken in hand? 2. Whether this were not to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst

Christians? 3. Whether the whole gospel of Christ, and every necessary doctrine of it, were not surely believed among Christians? 4. Whether they which were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning, delivered not the whole gospel of Christ? 5. Whether he doth not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first? 6. Whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole gospel of Christ? 7. Whether he doth not undertake to write to Theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed? 8. And whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the gospel of Christ? 9. Whether in the other text, All things which Jesus began to do and teach, must not at least imply all the principal and necessary things? 10. Whether this be not the very interpretation of your Rhemish doctors, in their annotation upon this place? 11. Whether all these articles of the Christian faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved, be not the principal and most necessary things which Jesus taught? 12, and lastly, Whether many things which St. Luke hath wrote in his Gospel be not less principal and less necessary than all and every one of these? When you have well considered these proposals, I believe you will be very apt to think (if St. Luke be of credit with you) that all things necessary to salvation are certainly contained in his writings alone. And from hence you will not choose but conclude, that seeing all the Christians in the world agree in the belief of what St. Luke hath written, and not only so, but in all other books of canonical Scripture which were never doubted of in and by the church, the

learned archbishop had very just and certain ground to say, "that in these propositions, which without controversy are universally received in the whole Christian world, so much truth is contained, as, being joined with holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation; and that we have no cause to doubt, but that as many as walk according to this rule, neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable heresy thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation, peace shall be upon them, and upon the Israel of God."

44. Against this you object two things: the one, that by this rule, "seeing the doctrine of the Trinity is not received universally among Christians, the denial of it shall not exclude salvation: the other, that "the bishop contradicts himself, in supposing a man may believe all necessary truths, and yet superinduce some damnable heresies."

45. To the first I answer, what I conceive he would whose words I here justify, that he hath declared plainly in this very place, that he meant, not an absolute, but a limited universality, and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all professions of Christianity that are, but only by all those several professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world. By which words he excludes from the universality here spoken of, the deniers of the doctrine of the Trinity, as being but a handful of men in respect of all, nay, in respect of any of these professions which maintain it. And therefore it was a great fault in you, either willingly to conceal these words which evacuate your objection, or else

negligently to oversee them. Especially seeing your friend, to whom you are so much beholden, Paulus Veridicus, in his scurrilous and sophistical pamphlet against bishop Usher's sermon, hath so kindly offered to lead you by the hand to the observation of them in these words: "To consider of your coinopista, or communiter credenda, articles, as you call them, universally believed of all these several professions of Christianity, which have any large spread in the world: these articles, for example, may be the Unity of the Godhead, the Trinity of Persons, immortality of the soul," &c. Where you see that your friend, whom you so much magnify, hath plainly confessed, that notwithstanding the bishop's words, the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity may exclude salvation; and therefore in approving and applauding his answer to the bishop's sermon, you have unawares allowed this answer of mine to your own greatest objection.

46. Now for the foul contradiction, which you say the doctor might easily have espied in the bishop's saying, he desires your pardon for his oversight, for Paulus Veridicus's sake; who though he set himself to find fault with the bishop's sermon, yet it seems this he could not find, or else questionless we should have heard of it from him. And therefore, if Dr. Potter, being the bishop's friend, have not been more sharp-sighted than his enemies, this, he hopes, to indifferent judges, will seem no unpardonable offence. Yet this I say, not as if there were any contradiction at all, much less any foul contradiction, in the bishop's words: but as Antipheron's picture, which he thought he saw in the air before him, was not in the air, but