The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 3 · Chapter 4

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 3 · Chapter 4

p. 611CHAP. IV. Of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church.

Protestants Concessions ought not to be any ground to preferr the Communion of the Church of Rome. How far those Concessions extend. The uncharitableness of Romanists, if they yield not the same to us. The weakness of the Arguments to prove the Roman Church the safer way to salvation on Protestant Principles. The dangerous Doctrines of Romanists about the easiness of salvation, by the Sacrament of Pennance. The case parall'eld bebetween the Donatists and Romanists, in denying salvation to all but themselves; and the advantages equal from their adversaries Concessions. The advantage of the Protestants, if that be the safest way which both parties are agreed in, manifested and vindicated in several particulars. The Principle it self at large shewed to be a meer contingent Proposition, and such as may lead to Heresie and Infidelity. The case of the Leaders in the Roman Church, and others, distinguished. The Errours and Superstitions of the Roman Church, make its communion very dangerous in order to Salvation.

THe main thing which now remains to be discussed, is, Whether the Communion of your Church, or ours, be rather to be chosen,§. 1. in order to salvation. For that being the great end of our Faith, the tendency to the promotion of that, ought to be the Rule, by which we should embrace or continue in the society of any Church. And, since the regard men ought to have of their eternal welfare, doth oblige them to make choice of the best means in order to it, the bare remote possibility of salvation in any Church, ought to have no force or consideration at all in the determining their choice in a matter of so great importance. As, supposing a Pilot at Sea, whose only desire is to bring his ship safe into his desired Port, should be told, that there are two passages homewards; the one free and open, in which there is no danger; the other amidst many Rocks and Shelves in which yet there is a possibility of escaping: Would not he be accounted a very weak man, that should chuse this latter way, meerly because it is possible he may escape; and neglect the other, in which there is no danger of miscarrying? So it is here in our present case, the Protestants confess there is a possibility for some to escape in the Communion of the Roman Church; but it is as men may escape with their lives in a shipwrack; but they undertake to make it evident, there can be no danger, if they observe the principles of Protestant Religion; VVould it not be madness in any then to neglect this, and make choice of the other, meerly because Protestants agree with you, that there is a possibility of salvation for some in the Roman Church? Yet this is the great Argument you make use of, whereby to Proselyte such persons, who want judgement enough to discern the weakness and sophistry of it. That therefore we are now to enquire into, is, Whether your Communion, or ours, be more eligible upon principles of reason and prudence, in order to Salvation? And two things are insisted on in behalf of your Church; first, That Protestants grant the possibility of salvation in your Church, but you deny it in ours, and therefore yours is the safer way. Secondly, That the Faith of Protestants doth not stand upon those sure grounds which your Faith doth.

p. 612§. 2.As to the first, there are two things to be considered. 1. How far we grant a possibility of salvation to those in your Church. 2. What can be infer'd from that Concession in the choice of Religion. The occasion of entering upon this debate was the Lady's Query, Whether she might be saved in the Roman Faith;P. 280. to which his Lordship answers in General, that the ignorant that could not discern the errours of that Church, so they held the Foundation and conformed themselves to a religious life, might be saved; and more particularly to the Lady, that it must needs go harder with her even in point of salvation, because she had been brought to understand very much for one of her condition, in these Controverted causes of Religion. And a person that comes to know much had need carefully bethink himself, that he oppose not known truth against the Church that made him a Christian; for salvation may be in the Church of Rome,P. 282. and they not find it that make surest of it. And after, he explains himself more fully, That [might be saved] grants but a possibility, no sure or safe way to salvation; the possibility, I think saith he, cannot be denyed to the ignorants, especially because they hold the Foundation and cannot survey the Building. And the Foundation can deceive no man that rests upon it. But a secure way they cannot go, that hold with such corruptions when they know them. Now, whether it be wisdom, in such a point as salvation is, to forsake a Church in the which the ground of salvation is firm, to follow a Church in which it is but possible one may be saved, but very probable he may do worse, if he look not well to the Foundation; judge ye. So that still his Lordship asserts the Protestants way to be the only safe way to salvation; and that in the Church of Rome there is only a limited possibility of it, which is such, that he say's, A. C. or his fellows can take little comfort in. For as he after declares himself,P. 285. Many Protestants indeed confess, there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church; but yet they say withall, that the errours of that Church are so many, (and some so great, as weaken the Foundation) that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven, especially to them that have had the truth manifested; and a little after, But we have not so learned Christ, as either to return evil for evil in this heady course, or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls, whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ. And in another place, I do indeed for my part (leaving other men free to their own judgement) acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church. P. 299.But so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they believe the Creed and hold the Foundation Christ himself, not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross Superstitions of the Roman Church. And I am willing to hope there are many among them, which keep within that Church, and yet wish the superstitions abolished which they know, and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not, and which hold the Foundation firm, and live accordingly, and which would have all things amended that are amiss, were it in their power. And to such I dare not deny a possibility of salvation, for that which is Christs in them, though they hazzard themselves extreamly by keeping so close to that which is superstition, and in the case of Images comes too near Idolatry. The substance then of what his Lordship saith, is, that the Protestant way is a safe and secure way to salvation; that in the Roman Church there is extream hazzard made of it, which all who love their souls ought to avoid; but yet for such, who by reason of ignorance see not the danger, and by reason of honesty keep close to Christ the Foundation, and repent of all miscarriages known or unknown, he dares not deny a possibility of salvation p. 613for them. But he is far from asserting it of those, who either know the corruptions of that Church and yet continue in them, or such who wilfully neglect the means whereby they may be convinced of them. So that you strangely either mistake or pervert his Lordships meaning when you would inferr from these passages, That he asserts a possibility of being saved to those who joyn with the Roman Church, P. 301.though their ignorance be not invincible, and though all or the chief motives which the Protestants bring against you be never so sufficiently proposed to them. For he still speaks either of such, whose meer ignorance doth excuse them where the Fundamentals are held and a life lead according to them, or else of such who condemn your superstitions as far as they are discovered to them, and sincerely desire to find impartially the way that leads to Heaven; Of such as these he dares not deny a possibility of salvation.

And you are the most uncharitable persons in the world, if you dare assert the contrary of Protestants. §. 3.You expresly grant a possibility of salvation to those who joyn with the Protestant Church, in case of invincible ignorance; and dare you deny it where there is a preparation of mind to find out and embrace the most certain way to Heaven, where all endeavours are used to that end, and where there is a conscientious obedience to the Will of God, so far as it is discovered? If you dare peremptorily deny a possibility of salvation to such persons, meerly because not of the Roman Church, this prodigious uncharitableness would make us question the possibility of your salvation more, while you persist in it. For, What is there more contrary to the design and spirit of the Gospel then this is? From whence must we gather the terms of salvation, but only from thence? But it seems by you, although men give never so hearty an assent to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and live in the most universal obedience to it, and abound in the fruits of the spirit of God, of which Charity is none of the least; yet if they be not in the Communion of your Church, there is no hopes of salvation for them. But, Who is it the mean while that hath the disposal of this salvation? Is it in your hands or Christs? If it be in His, we dare rely on His promise, although you pretend to know His mind better than He did himself. For, notwithstanding a sincere endeavour to know and obey the will of God, be the great Fundamental in order to salvation, which is delivered us by the Doctrine of Christ; yet it seems by you, there may be this, where there may be not so much as possibility of salvation. By which assertion of yours, you are so far from working upon any, but very weak persons, to bring them over to your Church, that nothing can more effectually prejudice it among all such who dare believe Christ to be more Infallible then the Church of Rome. For what is this else, but to make heaven and eternal salvation stalk to the interess of your Church, and to lay more weight upon being in your communion then upon the most indispensable precepts of Christianity? But when we consider how many among you dispute for the possibility of the salvation of Heathens, and yet deny it to those who own all the Fundamentals of Christianity; when we see how much you lay the weight of salvation upon being in your Church, and what wayes you have for those who are in it to reconcile the hopes of salvation with the practise of sin, What can we otherwise imagine, but it is the Interess of your Church that you more aim at than the salvation of mens-souls. For you have so many wayes to give indulgence in sin to those who desire it, and yet such ready wayes of pardon, and such an easie task of repentance, and so little troublesome means p. 614of obtaining grace by the Sacraments, ex opere operato, that it is hard conceiving what way a man should sooner take, who would live in his sins and come to heaven at last, then to be of your Church. And yet you who are so soft and gentle, so kind and indulgent to the sons of your Church, are not more ready to send those who are out of it to the fire in this world than to eternal flames in another. But we have not so learned Christ, we dare not deal so inhumanely with them in this world, much less judge so uncharitably as to another, of those who profess to fear God and work righteousness, though they be not of the same opinion or communion with us. Yet, we tell men of the danger of hazzarding their salvation by erroneous doctrines and superstitious practises, and suppose that sufficient to perswade such who sincerely regard their future happiness to avoid all such things as tend so much to their eternal ruine. And such who will continue in such things, meerly because there is a possibility some persons may be saved in them by reason of Ignorance or Repentance, are no wiser men then such, who should split their ship upon a rock, because some have escaped upon a plank notwithstanding. So that considering on what terms we grant this possibility of salvation, this Concession of ours can be no Argument at all to judge yours to be the safer way; and if upon the same terms you deny it to us, it shews how much more unsafe your way is, where there is so much of Interess and so little Charity.

But you attempt to prove against all Protestants whatsoever, that yours is the safer way to salvation: §. 4.P. 301.Your first Argument in short is, Because we grant that you may be saved upon our own principles, but you deny that we may be saved upon yours. And what is there more in this Argument (but a multitude of words to little purpose) then there is in that which his Lordship examines? For the main force of it lyes in this, That is the safest way which both parties are agreed in; and therefore although you would have your Major proposition put out of all doubt, yet that wants more proof then I doubt you are able to give it. For although we grant, Men may be saved who have true Faith, Repentance, and a holy Conversation without any such Sacrament of Pennance, which you make necessary for conveying the grace of Justification; yet, What security can thence come to a man in the choice of his Religion, since we withall say, That where there is a continuance in the corruptions and errours of your Church, it is hard to conceive there should be that Faith and Repentance which we make necessary to Salvation. You go therefore on a very false supposition, when you take it for granted that we acknowledge, that all those whom you admit to your Sacrament of Pennance have all things upon our own principles which are necessary to Salvation. And so your Minor is as false as your Major uncertain, viz. That many are saved in the Roman Church according to the principles which are granted on both sides. But you would seem to prove, That all admitted by you at death to the Sacrament of Pennance (as you call it) have all things necessary to Salvation upon Protestant principles, P. 302.because, you say, That Faith, Hope, true Repentance, and a purpose of Amendment are necessary to the due receiving the Sacrament of Pennance, and these, are all which Protestants make necessary to Salvation. But supposing that, Is it necessary that all those things must be in them, which make the necessary requisites to this Sacrament of yours? Do none receive this unworthily as many do a far greater Sacrament than this, granting it to be any at all. It seems Salvation is very easie to be had in your Church then, for this Sacrament is supposed by you, to be given to men upon their death-beds, p. 615when, you say, It cannot be supposed that men will omit any thing necessary for the attaining Salvation; and by vertue of this Sacrament they receive the grace of Justification, whereby of sinners they are made the Sons of God and heires of eternal life. But I assure you, we who believe, Men must be saved only by the terms of the Gospel, make no such easie matter of it as you do; we profess the necessity of a through-renovation of heart and life to be indispensable in order to happiness, for without holiness no man shall see the Lord: and although we take not upon us to judge the final estate of men whose hearts we know not; yet the Gospel gives us very little ground to think, that such who defer the work of their Salvation to their death-beds shall ever attain to it; The main design of Christian Religion being, The turning mens souls from sin to God in order to the serving him in this world, that they may be happy in another. For if Salvation depended on no more then you require, the greatest part of the Gospel might have been spared, whose great end is to perswade men to holiness of heart and life. It is not a meer purpose of amendment, when men can sin no longer, that we make only necessary to Salvation: But so hearty a repentance of sin past, as to carry with it an effectual reformation; without this, men may flatter themselves into their own ruine by your Sacraments of Pennance and such contrivances of men, but there can be no grounded hopes of any freedom from eternal misery. And their Faith too, must be as weak as their Repentance shallow, who dare venture their souls into another world, upon no better security than that By receiving the Sacrament of Pennance they are made the Sons of God and heirs of eternal life. But you betray men into stupid ignorance and carelesness as to their eternal Salvation, and then deal most unfaithfully with them, by telling them that a death-bed Repentance will suffice them, and the Sacrament of Pennance will presently make them heirs of eternal life. So that although your Doctrine be very unreasonable, and your Superstitions very gross, yet this unfaithfulness to the souls of men makes all true lovers of Christian Religion, and of the Salvation of mens souls, more averse from your Doctrine and Practises, then any thing else whatsoever. For what can really be more pernicious to the world, then to flatter them into the hopes of Salvation without the performance of those things, which, if the Gospel be true, are absolutely necessary in order to it? How quietly do you permit the most stupid ignorance in such who are the zealous practisers of your fopperies and superstitions? What excellent arts have you to allure debauches upon their death-beds to you, by promising them that in another world, which our principles will not allow us to do? How many wayes have you to get the pardon of sin, or at least to delude people with the hopes of it, without any serious turning from sin to God? What do your Doctrines of the sufficiency of bare contrition, and the Sacraments working grace ex opere operato, of Indulgences, Satisfactions, regulating the intention, and the like, tend to, but to supersede the necessity of a holy life? And at last you exchange the inward hatred and mortification of sin, for some external severities upon mens bodies; which is, only beating the servant for the Masters fault. So that it is hard to imagine any Doctrine or way of Religion which owns Christianity, which doth with more apparent danger to the souls of men undermine the foundations of Faith and Obedience than yours doth. And as I have at large shewed the former, How destructive your principles are to the grounds of Faith; so it hath been fully and lately manifested by a learned Bishop of our Church, What Doctrines and practises are allowed p. 616in your Church, … Taylors Dissuasive from Popery. Chap. 2.which in themselves or their immediate consequences are direct impieties, and give warranty to a wicked life.

Which being so of your own side, we must see what reasons you give for your most uncharitable Censure,§. 5. That there are very few or none among Protestants that escape damnation: P. 302.And this you call, The Doctrine of Catholicks. The Doctrine rather of a proud, tyrannical, and uncharitable faction of men; who that they might gain Proselytes to themselves, shew how little they are themselves the Proselytes of Christ. But you offer us a reason for it: Because all Catholicks hold, that neither Faith, nor Hope, nor any Repentance can save us, P. 303.but that only which is joyned with a perfect Love of God; without the Sacrament of Pennance actually and duely received: and because Protestants reject this, they cannot be saved. But you are not at all the less excusable, because you assert such Doctrines from whence such uncharitableness follows, but the dreadful consequence of such Doctrines ought rather to make you question the truth of them. For, can any one who knows and understands Christianity ever believe, that although he had a most hearty repentance for sin, and a most sincere love to God, he should eternally perish because he did not confess his sins to a Priest and receive absolution from him? I can hardly perswade my self, that you can believe such things, but that only such Doctrines are necessary to be taught, to maintain the Priests authority, and to fright men into that picklock of conscience, the useful practise of Auricular Confession. To what purpose, are all the promises of grace and mercy through Christ upon the sincerity of our turning to him, if, after all this, the effect depends upon that Sacrament of Pennance, of which no precept is given us by Christ, much less any necessity of it asserted in order to eternal Salvation? If this then be all your ground of condemning Protestants, they may rejoyce in this, That your reasons are as weak as your malice strong. But it would be more fit for you to enquire, Whether such who live and dye in such a height of uncharitableness (whether with or without the Sacrament of Pennance) can be in any capacity of eternal Salvation? For that is a plain violation of the Laws of Christ, this other even among your selves a disputable Institution of Christ; and by many said, not to be at all of that necessity, Medina de Confess. tr. 2. qu. 4. Maldon. de Sacram. T. 2. c. 3.which you suppose it to be. For neither Medina, nor Maldonate even since the Council of Trent dare affirm, the denyal of your Sacrament of Pennance to be Heresie; and must then the souls of all Protestants be sent to hell, for want of that, which it is questionable, whether it were Instituted by Christ or no. But if this Sacrament of Pennance be so necessary to Salvation, that they cannot be saved who want it, What becomes then of all the Primitive Church which was utterly a stranger to your Sacrament of Pennance (as shall be manifested when you desire it)? what becomes of the Greek Church which as peremptorily denies the necessity of it as Protestants do? Both which you may find confessed and proved by Father Barns, and many testimonies of your own Authours are brought by him against the Divine Institution and necessity of it. Who very ingenuously confesses,… staado in lege Christi praecise pronunciar… sit, ex plurimo…um Ca…holicorum se…te … coram Deo,—qui m…nisestis iniis probat se ve…am b…be…e fidem & chari…m; e…si nè verb…m propale… de … mero, … gravitate p…ccator…m s…rum. Ba…s …ct 8. de paenit. confess. & satisfactione. That, by the Law of Christ, such a one by the sentence of very many Catholicks, may be pronounced absolved before God, who manifests the truth of his Faith and Charity, although he discovers not a word of the number or weight of his sins. What unreasonable, as well as uncharitable, men are you then, to assert, That no Protestants can escape damnation for want of that, which p. 617so many among your selves make unnecessary for the pardon of sin? But it is just with God, that those who are so ready to condemn others, should be condemned by themselves: and if your Consciences do not condemn you here, your Sentence may be the greater in another world.

Your second Argument against Protestants is,§. 6. Because they want certainty of Faith by denying the Infallibility of Church and Councils;P. 304. but this hath been so throughly sifted already, that I suppose none who have read the preceding discourses will have the least cause to stick at this: and therefore we proceed to the Vindication of your censures from being guilty of the want of Charity. For you are the men, who would have us thank God, when you condemn us to hell, that we escape so; and are angry with us, that we do not believe that you most entirely love us, when you judge us to eternal flames. For, you say, that your denyal of Salvation to us is grounded even upon Charity. If it be so,P. 305. you are the most charitable people in the world, for you deny Salvation to all but your selves and some Heathens. But, say you, If Salvation may be had in your Church as Protestants confess, and there be no true Church or Faith but one, it follows that out of your Church there is no Salvation to be had. To which his Lordship had fully answered, by saying, Tis true, there is but one true Faith, P. 284.and but one true Church; but that one both Faith and Church is the Catholick Christian, not the particular Roman. So that this passage is a meer begging the question, and then threatning upon it, without all reason or charity. And all your declamations about the way of knowing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, P. 306.have been spoiled by what hath been said already upon that subject. We come therefore to that which is the proper business of this Chapter, which is to examine the strength of that Inference which is drawn from the Protestants concession of the possibility of Salvation in your Church, viz. That thence it follows, that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Salvation. Two things his Lordship observes the force of this Argument lyes in, the one directly expressed, P. 285.viz. The consent of both parties of the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church; the other upon the By, viz. That we cannot be saved because we are out of the Church. And of these two he speaks in order. First he begins with the confession: as to which his Answer lyes in three things, 1. That this was the way of the Donatists of old, and would hold as well for them as the Church of Rome. 2. That if the principle on which this Argument proceeds be true, it will be more for the advantage of Protestants then of your Church. 3. That the principle it self is a contingent Proposition, and may justifie the greatest Heresies in the world. By this methodizing his Lordships discourse, we shall the better discern the strength of your Answers to the several particulars of it. In the first place he shews How parallel this is with the proceedings of the Donatists; for both parts granted that baptism was true among the Donatists, P. 286.but the Donatists denyed it to be true baptism among the Catholick Christians, and therefore on this principle the Donatists side is the surer side, if that principle be true, That it is the safest taking that way which the differing parties agree on. To this you Answer nothing, but what will still return upon your selves and discover the weakness of your Argument.P. 307. For the crimes of Schism, and unsoundness of Faith, are still as chargeable upon you though we may grant a possibility of Salvation to some in your Church. And I cannot possibly discern any difference between the judgment of the Catholicks concerning the Donatists, and ours concerning you; for, if they judged the Donatists way very dangerous because of their uncharitableness to all others, p. 618so do we of yours; but if they, notwithstanding that, hoped that the misled people among them might be saved; that is as much as we dare say concerning you. And you very much mistake, if you think the contrary, For his Lordship no where saith, as you would seem to impose upon him, That a man may live and dye in the Roman Church, and that none of his errours shall hinder salvation, whatsoever motives he may know to the contrary. But on the other side,P. 296. he plainly saith, That he that lives in the Roman Church, with a resolution to live and dye in it, is presumed to believe as that Church believes. And he that doth so, I will not say, is as guilty, but guilty he is more or less, of the Schism which that Church first caused by her corruptions, and now continues by them and her power together. And of all her damnable opinions too, and all other sins also, which the Doctrine and mis-belief of that Church leads him into. Judge you now, I pray, Whether we think otherwise of those in your Church, than the Orthodox did of the Donatists? So that if the Argument doth hold for you, it would as well have held for them too. And therefore his Lordship well inferrs, That this Principle, That where two parties are dissenting, it is safest believing that in which both parties agree, or which the adversary confesses, may lead men, by your own confession, into known and damnable Schism and Heresie; for such, you say, the Donatists were guilty of. And such his Lordship saith, there is great danger of, P. 298.in your Church too; for, saith he, in this present case there's peril, great peril of damnable, both Schism and Heresie, and other sins, by living and dying in the Roman Faith, tainted with so many superstitions, as at this day it is, and their tyranny to boot. I pray now bethink your self, What difference is there, between the Orthodox judgement of the Donatists, and ours, concerning your Church? And therefore the comparison between Petilian the Donatist, and his Lordships adversary holds good still; for, all your Answer depends upon a mistake of Protestants granting a possibility of Salvation, P. 315.as I have already shewed you. And, in what way soever you limit this agreement, you cannot possibly avoid, but that it would equally hold as to the Donatists too; for the concession was then as great, in order to Salvation, as it is now.

§. 7.But, you say, Whether he asserts it or no, it must needs follow from the Bishops Principles, that there can be no peril of damnation by living and dying in the Roman Church, because he professedly exempts the Ignorant, and grants as much of those who do wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to the gross superstitions of the Roman Church, if they hold the Foundation Christ, and live accordingly; From whence you argue, That if neither voluntary nor involuntary superstition can hinder from Salvation, then there is confessedly no peril of damnation in your Church. And yet his Lordship saith, All Protestants unanimously agree in this, P. 302.That there is great peril of damnation for any man to live and dye in the Roman Perswasion. And therefore (saith he) that is a most notorious slander, where you say, that they which affirm this peril of damnation, are contradicted by their own more learned Brethren. By which we see the unjustice of your proceeding, in offering to wrest his Lordships words contrary to his express meaning: and since all your Argument depends upon your adversaries confession, you ought to take that confession in the most clear and perspicuous terms, and to understand all obscure expressions suitably to their often declared sense. Which if you had attended to, you would never have undertaken to prove that this Lordship grants, that there is no peril of damnation in your Church, which he so often disavows, and calls it, a most notorious slander; and, a p. 619most loud untruth, which no ingenuous man would ever have said. P. 301.And even of those persons whom he speaks most favourably of, he saith, That although they wish for the abolishing the superstitions in use, yet all he grants them is, a possibility of Salvation, but with extreme hazard to themselves, by keeping close to that which is superstition, and comes so near Idolatry. Are these then such expressions which import no peril of damnation in the Roman Church? And therefore when he speaks of the possibility of the Salvation of such who associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church; he declares sufficiently, that he means it not of those who do in heart approve of them, but only of such, who though they are convinced they are gross superstitions, yet think, they may communicate with those who use them, as long as they do not approve of them. Which errour of theirs, though he looks on it as dangerous, yet not as wholly destructive of Salvation. But since, your Answer to this, is,P. 316. That he mistakes very much, in supposing such persons to belong to your Church and Communion: you are not aware, How much thereby you take off from the Protestants Confession, since those whom we contend for a possibility of Salvation for, are such only whom you deny to be of your Churches Communion, and so the Argument signifies much less by your confession, than it did before. Thus we see, how this Argument upon the same terms you manage it against us, would have held as well in the behalf of the Donatists against the Communion of the Catholick Church. For what other impertinencies you mix here and there, it is time now to pass them over, since the main grounds of them have been so fully handled before.

We therefore proceed to the second Answer his Lordship gives to this Argument, viz. That if the Principle on which it stands, doth hold, §. 8.it makes more for the advantage of Protestants, than against them. For if that be safest which both parties are agreed in, then 1. You are bound to believe with us in the point of the Eucharist. P. 286.For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England, that in the most blessed Sacrament, the worthy Receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ, truly and really, and of all the benefits of his passion. Your Roman Catholicks add a manner of this presence, Transubstantiation which many deny; and the Lutherans Consubstantiation, which more deny. If this Argument be good then, even for this consent it is safer communicating with the Church of England, than with the Roman or Lutheran; because all agree in this Truth, not in any other Opinion. You say, This can hold no further than communicating in the belief of this Opinion; let that be granted, and, Doth it not then follow,P. 308. that the Church of England's Opinion is the safest upon your own ground? No, say you, for it is not such a common consent as doth exclude the manner of presence, by trans-, or consubstantiation. But, How sensless an Answer is this! for the Argument proceeds so far as all are agreed: and the Church of England asserting that real presence, which all acknowledge as simply necessary, in order to the effects of it; her Communion is more desirable on this account, than of either of those Churches which offer to define the manner of Christ's presence, since even the greatest men of your perswasion, as Suarez and Bellarmin assert the belief of Transubstantiation not to be simply necessary to Salvation, and that the manner of it is secret and ineffable. P. 309.It is therefore quite beside the purpose, when you offer to prove, that Suarez believed Transubstantiation: for, although he did so, yet since he grants it not simply necessary to do it; his Lordships Argument in behalf of the Church of England holds firm still, unless you can prove, that Suarez held p. 620the belief of that to be as necessary, as the belief of the real and spiritual presence of Christ. But you, after, attempt at large to prove, that the real participation of Christ in the Sacrament in your sense, is quite different from that of Protestants: If you mean a corporal participation, indeed it is so; but that is not it, which is now enquired after; but, Whether you do not allow any real and spiritual presence of Christ, besides the corporal manducation of that you call his body by Transubstantiation. If you do not, you would do well to shew, what effects that hath upon the souls of men; if you do, then still the Church of England is of the safer side, which holds that in which all are agreed. Which is as much as we are here concerned to take notice of, as to this subject, the Controversie it self having been so lately handled.P. 303. 2. His Lordship instances, in the Article of our Saviour Christ's descent into Hell; both are agreed as to the Article of descent, but the Church of Rome differs in the explication; therefore it is safer holding with the Church of England, which owns the Article without defining the manner. But,P. 317. you say, He proceeds on a false supposition, for both are not agreed, what is meant by Hell, whether it be the place of the damned or no: But this doth belong to the manner of Explication, and not to the Article it self, which both equally own, and therefore the Church of England hath the advantage there. 3. He instances, in the Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds; in which it is agreed by both Churches, that Christ did institute it so, and the Primitive Church received it so. Therefore according to the former Rule, Ibid.'tis safest for a man to receive the Sacrament in both kinds. This (you say) is as little to the purpose as the former, because you do not agree that he did it with an intention, or gave any command that it should be alwaies so received; but still you are quite besides the business; for that is not our Question, but, Whether it be more safe to adhere to that which Christ instituted, and the Primitive Church practised, as you confess your selves; Or to your Church, which prohibits the doing that which you confess Christ, and the Primitive Church did? And we see, how great your Charity is, when you deny a possibility of Salvation to those who assert that Christs Institution is unalterable, P. 318.or that all who communicate are bound to receive in both kinds. For all other things concerning this subject, I must referr the Reader to the precedent Chapter,P. 306. in which they are fully discussed. 4. The dissenting Churches agree, that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice of duty, and a sacrifice of praise, and a sacrifice of commemoration. Therefore it is safest to hold to the Church of England in this, and leave the Church of Rome to her superstitions that I say no more. P. 319.Here you still pretend, you differ in sense; but all this is only to say, you assert more than we do; which we grant, but assert upon your Principle, that we are on the safer side. And so in the intention of the Priest you agree with us as to the necessity of matter and form, and therefore it is safer holding to that, P. 307.than believing the necessity of the Priest's intention, which many deny. And if the Rule doth hold, as you assert, That that which both are agreed in, is safer than the contrary; it will hold in matter of Opinion too, that it is safer to believe no more is necessary to the Sacrament, than both parties are agreed in. The last Instance is, That we say, there are divers errours, and some gross ones, in the Roman Missal; but you confess there is no positive errour in the Liturgy of the Church of England; and therefore it is safest to worship God by that, and not by the Roman Mass. This you answer as all the rest, by running off from the business;P. 320. for, you say, It cannot be safer to use that, because you Catholicks say, That to use it in contempt of the Roman Missal is certainly damnable sin, and p. 621destructive of Salvation. But, as it is not material what you say in this case, so it is not at all to the purpose; for, if your Rule holds good, it must be safer; and, if it be not, you must confess the Principle is false, That what both parties agree in, is the safest to be chosen in Religion. The same might be at large proved concerning the main things in difference between us, that, if this Principle be true, we have very much the advantage of you: as, You and we are agreed, that the Scripture is God's Word, but we deny that Tradition is so, therefore it is safer adhering to the Scripture, and let Tradition shift for it self. You and we are agreed that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility, to believe the Scripture; but we deny that there are any such Motives to believe the present Churches Infallibility; therefore it is safer to believe the Scripture, than the present Church. So that this Principle, if improved by these, and other Instances, will redound more to our advantage, than yours, considering that in the case we grant it as to you, it is joyned with a Protestation of the extreme hazzard which those run, who venture on your Communion, on the account of it; but there is no such danger upon the agreement with us in those Principles which are agreed upon between us.

3. His Lordship answers truly, that this Proposition, §. 9.That in point of Faith and Salvation, P. 288.'tis safest for a man to take that way which the adversary confesses, or differing parties agree in, is no Metaphysical Principle, but a bare contingent Proposition, and may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applied, and so of no necessary truth in it self, nor able to lead in the Conclusion. Because consent of disagreeing parties, is neither Rule, nor Proof of Truth. For Herod and Pilate, disagreeing parties enough, yet agreed against Truth it self. But Truth rather is, or should be, the Rule to frame, if not to force agreement. And to prove this further, his Lordship shews,P. 308. That if this Principle hold good, that 'tis safest to believe as the dissenting parties agree, or as the adverse party confesses, a man must be an Heretick in the highest degree, if not an Infidel. For, 1. In the Question between the Orthodox and Arrian concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father; The Orthodox confessed that which the Arrians asserted, viz. that Christ was of a like nature with his Father; but they added more, viz. that he was of the same nature. Therefore upon this Principle it would be safest holding with the Arrians. 2. In the Question about the Resurrection; the dissenting parties agree, that there ought to be a Resurrection from sin, to the state of grace, and that this Resurrection only is meant in divers passages of Scripture, together with the life of the soul, which they are content to say is Immortal; but they deny any Resurrection of the body after death. And therefore if this Principle be true, it will be safest to deny the Article of the Resurrection. 3. In the great Dispute about the Vnity of the Godhead; all dissenting parties, Jew, Turk, and Christian, and all sects of Christians, agree in this, that there is but one God; and so by virtue of this Principle, men will be bound to deny the Trinity. 4. In the Article of the Divinity of Christ, The dissenting parties agree fully and clearly, that Christ is man; but the Hereticks deny him to be God: if it be therefore safest to go by the consent of dissenting parties, or the confession of adversaries, it will be safest believing that Christ is a meer man, and not God. From whence his Lordship most evidently proves, That this Rule, P. 311.To resolve a mans Faith into that, in which the dissenting parties agree, or which the adverse party confesses, is a meer contingent Proposition, and is as often false as true. And false in as great, if not greater matters than those, in which it is true. And where it is true, you dare not govern your selves by it; the Church of Rome condemning p. 622those things which that Rule proves. And his Lordship justly admires, that while you talk of Certainty, nay, of Infallibility, you are driven to make use of such poor shifts as these, which have no Certainty at all of Truth in them, but inferr Falshood and Truth alike. And yet for this also, men will be so weak, or so wilful, as to be seduced by you. But now it is time to take notice, what Answer you return to these pregnant Instances which his Lordship uses; and you think to take off all this by one General Answer, viz. That the Rule speaks this precisely, P. 321.and no more, viz. that when two parties differ in point of Religion, 'tis in prudence safest to take that way wherein both parties grant Salvation to be obtainable; but in the former Instances, Salvation was not allowed by the Orthodox to the dissenters. But, how poor an Evasion this is, will be very easily discovered. For, 1. If that Principle be true, it must be built on that which his Lordship disproves, viz. That when two parties disagree, it is safest believing that which both consent in. For, let any reasonable man judge, on what account I ought to make choice of your Religion; you say, Because both parties are agreed that men may be saved in your Church; well then, I ask, Why I ought to believe that which both parties are agreed in? Doth it not necessarily resolve it self into this Principle, That it is safest believing that which both parties consent in? For if this be not safest, Why should I be more inclined by their consent, than otherwise? So that if you let go this, you let go the only foundation on which that Principle stands. For if the consenting parties may agree in a falshood, What evidence can I have, but that this is one of those falshoods they may agree in? And therefore it is far from being the safest way to venture upon that which the dissenting parties agree in. And because Salvation is a matter of the highest moment, if the Principle will not hold as to matter of particular Opinion, much less certainly in the most weighty affair of mens eternal Salvation. And it ought to be a safe Principle indeed, which men should venture their souls upon, and not so uncertain Topical an Argument as this is. So that it is so far from being a matter of prudence to make choice of Religion on such a Principle, that no man can be guilty of greater weakness or imprudence, than by doing so. 2. If this Principle should be limited only to a possibility of Salvation, yet, as to that, it is easie to discover, how false and uncertain a principle it is, because it it generally the nature of Sects, to be uncharitable, and to deny Salvation to all but themselves: Whereas the Orthodox Christians in all ages have hoped the best of those who were mis-led among them; and on this ground it would still be safer to be on the Sectaries, than the Churches side. You have therefore gained an excellent Principle for the advantage of your Church; which, if it hold for you, will hold as well for the most uncharitable Sectaries that are in the world. Nay, we may go somewhat further; and, What think you if Heathenism it self will be proved the safest way to Salvation? For many of you agree with them, That many of them might be saved, without any explicite knowledge of Christ; but they deny, you can be saved by it: If then this Principle be found, farewel the Church of Rome, and welcome Philosophy. If you say, They are only some among you who assert the possibility of the Salvation of Heathens; you know, the very same Answer will hold as to us;P. 301. for, you confess, That many Protestants grant no more to you, than you do to them, in order to Salvation. If you say, That Heathens may be saved only on supposition of a general Repentance; that is all that any of us say as to you. So that if the Argument will hold one way, it must the other too; and it argues, you are very much to seek for proofs, p. 623when you make use of this to perswade men to be of your Church. And you have no cause to triumph in the Conversion of such, who suffer themselves to be imposed on by so palpable a piece of Sophistry as this is. But your way is to deal with the weakest, and such as are capable of such easie impressions as these are.

His Lordship, from that which was expressed, comes to that which was implyed in this Argument, viz. That we cannot be saved, because we are out of the Church. As to which, he saith, We are not out of the Catholick Church, because not within the Roman. For the Roman Church, P. 313.and the Church of England, are but two distinct members of that Catholick Church, which is spread over the face of the earth. If you can prove, that Rome is properly the Catholick Church it self, speak out, and prove it. This, you say,P. 321. you have done already; but, how poorly, let the Reader judge. But, when you add, That in the day of account, the Roman Church will be found not an elder Sister, but a Mother; it will be well for her, if it prove not, only in the sense wherein Babylon the Great is called so,Rev. 17.5.Rev 17:5 viz. the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth.

The Controversie, you tell us,§. 10. goes on touching Roman-Catholicks Salvation, and we must follow it;P. 222. though without breaking it into several Chapters, as you do, that so we may lay together all that belongs to the same subject. And here his Lordship distinguishes the case of such, whose calling and sufficiency gives them a greater capacity for understanding the Truth; and such, whom, as S. Augustin speaks, P. 214.the simplicity of believing makes safe. So that there's no Question, saith he, but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church, when their leaders, unless they repented before death, were lost. Which he understands, of such Leaders, as refuse to hear the Churches instruction, or to use all the means they can to come to the knowledge of the Truth. For if they do this, erre they may, but Hereticks they are not; as is most manifest in S. Cyprian's case of Re-baptization. But when Leaders add Schism to Heresie, and Obstinacy to both, they are lost without Repentance, while many that succeed them in the errour only without obstinacy may be saved. That is, in case they hold these errours not supinely, not pertinaciously, not uncharitably, not factiously, i. e. in case all endeavours be used after Truth and Peace, and all expressions of Charity shewed to all who retain an internal Communion with the whole visible Church of Christ in the fundamental points of Faith. Such as these he confesses to be in a state of Salvation, though their mis-leaders perish. This is the summ of his Lordships discourse. Which you call,P. 323, a heavy doom against all the Roman Doctors in general (for what you say before, is a meer declamation and repetition of what hath been often examined.) But you ask, How could they be all lost, who by the Bishops own Principles, were members of the true visible Church of Christ, by reason of their being baptized, and holding the Foundation? But, Doth his Lordship say, that all such as are within the Church, are undoubtedly saved? For he only faith, That no man can be said simply to be out of the visible Church, that is baptized, and holds the Foundation. The most then that can be inferred meerly from being within the Church, is only, the possibility of Salvation, notwithstanding which, I suppose you will not deny, but many who have a possibility of Salvation, may yet certainly perish. For many may hold the Foundation it self doctrinally, who may not hold it savingly; and therefore it is a pitiful inference, because he grants they are members of the Church, therefore it follows from his Principles, they cannot be lost. But you are in a very sad condition, if you have no other ground for your Salvation, p. 624but being members of that which you account the Catholick Church. Joh. 15.2.John 15:2When Christ himself saith, Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he taketh away; How much more such, who have nothing else to plead for their Salvation, but that they are in the Church? It is not therefore the bare doctrinal holding that Faith which makes them members of the Church, which can give them a title to Salvation; unless all sincere endeavours be used to find out, what the will of God is, and to practise it when it is known.P. 324. But, you say, Your leaders did not refuse the Churches instructions, for they taught as the Church taught for many hundred years together; and, What other means could they be bound to use than they did, to come to the knowledge of the Truth? Yes, there were other means which they most supinely neglected themselves, and most dangerously with-held from others, viz. the plain and undoubted word of God, which is the only Infallible Rule of Faith. And let any Church whatsoever teach against this, it must incurr the same Anathema which S. Paul pronounces against an Angel from Heaven, if he teaches any other Doctrine. Did those then take care of their own, and others souls, whose greatest care was to lock the Scripture up from the view of the people, and minded it so little themselves; which yet alone is able to make men wise to Salvation But you take the greatest advantage of his vindication of S. Cyprian and his followers,P. 324. for therein you say, He vindicates more the Roman-Catholick Doctors, who had alwaies the universal practice of the Church on their side which they opposed; and condemns Protestants, because, if S. Cyprian's followers were in such danger for opposing the whole Church, so must they be too, who, you say, have opposed the Churches Instruction given them by the voice of a General Council. But, Who is so blind as not to discern that all this proceeds upon a palpable begging the Question, viz. that the whole Church is of your side, and against us? which I have so often discover'd to be a notorious falshood, that there is no necessity at all here to repeat it. But, if we grant you that liberty to suppose your selves to be the whole and only Church, you will not more easily acquit all your Doctors, than condemn Protestants, both teachers and people. However, by this we see, that you have no other way to do the one, or the other; but by supposing what you can never prove, and which none in their wits will ever grant you.

The greatest part of the thirty seventh Paragraph in his Lordships Book, is (you say) taken up with personal matters, and matters of fact, in which you will not interpose;P. 325. and you might as well have spared your pains in that which you touch at, since they are spent only upon a bare asserting the Greek Church to be guilty of fundamental errours (which we have at large disproved at the very beginning; but, as his Lordship sayes, you labour indeed but like a horse in a Mill; P. 324.no farther at night than at noon; the same thing over and over again; and so we find it almost to the end of your Book) and as vain an attempt to clear your Church from any errour endangering Salvation. For, Whether the errours of your Church be fundamental in themselves, or only by reduction and consequence; Whether you hold all fundamental points literally, or no; yet if we prove you guilty of any gross, dangerous, and damnable errours (as his Lordship asserts you are) that will be abundantly sufficient to our purpose,P. 320. that, Yours cannot possibly be any safe way to Salvation. And, although we should grant your Church right in the exposition of the three Creeds, yet if you assert any other errours of a dangerous nature, your right exposition of them cannot secure the souls of men from the danger they run themselves upon, by p. 625embracing the other. So much for the Argument drawn from the possibility of Salvation in the Roman Church.