want of charity, but abundance of evident cause, that forceth us to declare this necessary truthProtestancy unrepented destroys salvation."

THE

ANSWER TO THE SEVENTH CHAPTER.

That protestants are not bound by the charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite 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 argu

ment there is in it for any purpose, it may as forcibly be returned upon papists, as it is urged 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 intreat 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 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 for 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 not well-wishing, is here the proper work of love. 2. Whereas you say, that-in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good of the whole world before his own soul.-In saying this, you seem to me to condemn one of the greatest acts of charity, of one of the greatest saints that ever was; I mean St. Paul, who for his brethren desired to be an anathema from Christ. And as for the text alleged by you in confirmation of your saying, "What doth it avail a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul?" it is nothing to the purpose: for, without all question, it is not profitable for a man to do so; but the question is, Whether it be not lawful for a man to forego, and part with, his own particular profit, to procure the universal, spiritual, and eternal benefit of others? 3. Whereas you say-It is directly against charity to ourselves, to adventure the omitting of any means necessary to salvation. This is true but so is this also; that it is directly against the same charity, to adventure the omitting of any thing, that may any way help or conduce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure, or less dangerous. And, therefore, if the errors of the Roman church do but hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, I am, in charity to myself, bound to forsake them, though they be not destructive of it. 4. Whereas you conclude that if by living out of the

Roman church we put ourselves in hazard to want something necessary to salvation, we commit a grievous sin against the virtue of charity, as it respects ourselves.-This consequence may be good in those which are thus persuaded of the Roman church, and yet live out of it. But the supposition is certainly false; we may live and die out of the Roman church, without putting ourselves in any such hazard: nay, to live and die in it is as dangerous as to shoot a gulph, which, though some good ignorant souls may do and escape, yet it may well be feared, that not one in a hundred but miscarries.

7. Ad §. 3. I proceed now to the third section; and herein, first, I observe this acknowledgment of yours-That in things necessary, only because commanded, a probable ignorance of the commandment excuses the party from all fault, and doth not exclude salvation. From which doctrine it seems to me to follow, that seeing obedience to the Roman church cannot be pretended to be necessary, but only because it is commanded, therefore not only an invincible, but even a probable, ignorance of this pretended command, must excuse us from all faulty breach of it, and cannot exclude salvation. Now seeing this command is not pretended to be expressly delivered, but only to be deduced from the word of God, and that not by the most clear and evident consequences that may be; and seeing an infinity of great objections lie against it, which seem strongly to prove, that there is no such command, with what charity can you suppose, that our ignorance of this command is not at the least probable, if not, all things considered, plainly invincible? Sure I am, for my