nion? If you will, say so: if not, do as you would be done by. Again, methinks so subtil a man as you are, should easily apprehend a wide difference between authority to do a thing, and infallibility in doing it: and again, between a conditional infallibility, and an absolute. The former, the Doctor, together with the article of the church of England, attributeth to the church, nay to particular churches, and I subscribe to his opinion; that is, an authority of determining controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and universal tradition, and infallibility, while they proceed according to this rule. As if there should arise an heretic, that should call in question Christ's passion and resurrection, the church had authority to decide this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and to excommunicate this man, if he should persist in error. I hope, you will not deny, but that the judges have au`thority to determine criminal and civil controversies; and yet I hope, you will not say, that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations: infallible while they proceed according to law, and if they do so; but not infallibly certain that they shall ever do so. But that the church should be infallibly assisted by God's Spirit to decide rightly all emergent controversies, even such as might be held diversely of divers men, Salva compage fidei, and that we might be absolutely certain that the church should never fail to decree the truth, whether she used means or no, whether she proceed according to her rule or not; or, lastly, that we might be absolutely certain, that she should never fail to proceed according to her rule, this the defender of these conclusions said

not: and therefore said no more to your purpose, than you have all this while that is, just nothing.

163. Ad. §. 27. To the place of St. Augustine, alleged in this paragraph, I answer, first, that in many things you will not be tried by St. Auguse tine's judgment, nor submit to his authority; not concerning appeals to Rome; not concerning transubstantiation; not touching the use and worshipping of images; not concerning the state of saints' souls before the day of judgment; not touching the Virgin Mary's freedom from actual and original sin; not touching the necessity of the eucharist for infants; not touching the damning infants to hell that die without baptism; not touching the knowledge of saints departed; not touching purgatory; not touching the fallibility of councils, even general councils; not touching perfection and perspicuity in Scriptures in matters necessary to salvation; not touching auricular confession; not touching the half-communion; not touching prayers in an unknown tongue: in these things, I say, you will not stand to St. Augustine's judgment, and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter. To St. Augustine, in heat of disputation against the donatists, and ransacking all places for arguments against them, we oppose St. Augustine out of this heat, delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmly and moderately, where he says, In iis squa aperte posita sunt in sacris Seripturis, omnia ea reperiuntur quæ continent fidem, moresque vivendi, 3. We say, he speaks not of the Roman, but the eatholic church, of far greater extent, and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the Roman church.014. He speaks of a point not ex

pressed, but yet not contradicted by Scripture. 5. He says not, that Christ hath recommended the church to us for an infallible definer of all emergent controversies, but for a credible witness of ancient tradition. Whosoever therefore res fuseth to follow the practice of the church (under+ stand of all places and ages) though he be thought to resist our Saviour, what is that to us, who cast off no practices of the church, but such as rare evidently post-nate to the time of the apostles, and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times. Lastly, it is evident, and even to impudence itself undeniable, that upon this ground, of believing all things taught by the present church as taught by Christ, error was held; for example, the necessity of the eucharist for infants, and that in St. Augustine's time, and that by St. Augustine himself: and therefore without controversy this is no certain ground for truth, which may support falsehood as well as truth.

164. To the argument wherewith you conclude, I answer, that though the visible church shall always without fail propose so much of God's revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to heaven, for otherwise it will not be the visible church; yet it may sometimes add to this revelation things superfluous, nay hurtful, nay, in themselves damnable, though not unpardonable; and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable: and therefore it is possible, without sin, to resist in some things the visible church of Christ. But you press us farther, and demand-what visible church was extant when Luther began, whether it were the Roman or protestant church ?-As if, it must of necessity either be protestant or Roman,

or Roman of necessity, if it were not protestant. Yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your disputers, by some specious arguments to persuade weak men, that the church of protestants cannot be the true church; and thence to infer, that without doubt it must be the Roman. But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it, and the Grecian another? And if one must be the whole, why not the Greek church as well as the Roman? there being not one note of your church which agrees not to her as well as to your own; unless it be, that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk, and you are in glory and splendour.

165. Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend that Luther and other protestants opposed the whole visible church in matters of faith ;-neither is it so evident, that-the visible church may not fall into such a state, wherein she may be justly opposed.—And, lastly, for calling the distinction of points into fundamental and not fundamental, an evasion, I believe you will find it easier to call it so than to prove it so. But that shall be the issue of the controversy in the next chapter.

CHAP. III.

That the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, is neither pertinent nor true in our present controversy: and that the catholic visible church cannot err in either kind of the said points.

If

"THIS distinction is abused by protestants to many purposes of theirs; and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent (as they understand, and apply it) the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false. For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith, without any means of agreement-they instantly tell you (as Charity Mistaken plainly shews) that they differ only in points not fundamental. you convince them, even by their own confessions, that the ancient fathers taught divers points held by the Roman church against protestants-they reply, that those fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were not fundamental. If you will them to remember, that Christ must always have a visible church on earth, with administration of sacraments, and succession of pastors, and that when Luther appeared, there was no church distinct from the Roman, whose communion and doctrine Luther then forsook, and for that cause must be guilty of schism and heresythey have an answer (such as it is) that the catholic church cannot perish, yet may err in points not fundamental, and therefore Luther and other protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors,