faction; and yet notwithstanding this, nay, the rather for this, may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians, which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear. If this doctrine be otherwise expounded than I have here expounded, I will not undertake the justification of it; only I will say, (that which I may do truly,) that I never knew any protestant such a solifidian, but that he did believe these Divine truths: "That he must make his calling certain by good works-that he must work out his salvation with fear and trembling-and that while he does not so, he can have no well-grounded hope of salvation :" I say, I never met with any who did not believe these Divine truths, and that with a more firm and a more unshaken assent than he does that himself is predestinate, and that he is justified by believing himself justified. I never met with any such, who if he saw there was a necessity to do either, would not rather forego his belief of these doctrines than the former; these, which he sees disputed, and contradicted, and opposed, with a great multitude of very potent arguments, than those, which being the express words of scripture, whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former doctrine doth very well qualify their persuasion of the latter; and that the former (as also the lives of many of them do sufficiently testify) are more effectual to temper their hope, and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of God's favour, built upon the conscience of his love and fear, than the latter can be to swell and puff them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption. This reason, joined with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men

of this opinion, is a sufficient ground for charity, to hope well of their hope; and to assure ourselves that it cannot be offensive, but rather most acceptable to God, if, notwithstanding this diversity of opinion, we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love and communion. To you and your church we leave it, to separate Christians from the church, and to proscribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes. As for ourselves, we conceive a charitable judgment of our brethren and their errors, though untrue, much more pleasing to God than a true judgment, if it be uncharitable; and therefore shall always choose (if we do err) to err on the milder and more merciful part, and rather to retain those in our communion, which deserve to be ejected, than eject those that deserve to be retained.

34. Lastly, Whereas you say, that "seeing protestants differ about the point of justification, you must needs infer that they want unity in faith, and consequently all faith, and then, that they cannot agree what points are fundamental:" I answer to the first of these inferences, that as well might you infer it upon Victor bishop of Rome, and Polycrates; upon Stephen bishop of Rome, and St. Cyprian; inasmuch as it is undeniably evident, that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation, the other esteemed not so. But points of doctrine (as all other things) are as they are, and not as they are esteemed: neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted, or an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued. But as the ancient philosophers, (whose different opinions about the soul of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima, and Cicero's Tusculan Questions,) notwithstanding their diverse opinions touching the nature of the soul, yet all of them had souls, and souls of the

X

same nature: or, as those physicians who dispute whether the brain or heart be the principal part of a man, yet all of them have brains and have hearts, and herein agree sufficiently: so likewise, though some protestants esteem that doctrine the soul of the church which others do not so highly value, yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soul of the church may be in both sorts of them: and though one account that a necessary truth, which others account neither necessary nor perhaps true; yet, this notwithstanding, in those truths which are truly and really necessary, they may all agree. For no argument can be more sophistical than this: They differ in some points which they esteem necessary; therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so.

"that

35. Now as concerning the other inference, they cannot agree what points are fundamental;" I have said and proved formerly, that there is no such necessity as you imagine or pretend, that men should certainly know what is and what is not fundamental. They that believe all things plainly delivered in scripture believe all things fundamental, and are at sufficient unity in matters of faith, though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamental and what is profitable; nay, though by error they mistake some vain or perhaps some hurtful opinions, for necessary and fundamental truths. Besides, I have shewed above, that as protestants do not agree (for you overreach in saying they cannot) touching what points are fundamental; so neither do you agree what points are defined, and so to be accounted, and what are not'; nay, not concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended authority of defining; some of you settling it in the pope himself, 1 C. 3. sect. 54. et alibi.

though alone without a council; others, in a council, though divided from the pope; others, only in the conjunction of council and pope; others, not in this neither, but in the acceptation of the present church universal : lastly, others not attributing it to this neither, but only to the perpetual succession of the church of all ages; of which divided company it is very evident and undeniable, that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defined, and therefore necessary, which the latter, according to their own grounds, have no obligation to do, nay cannot do so upon any firm and sure and infallible foundation.

THE CONCLUSION.

AND thus, by God's assistance and the advantage of a good cause, I am at length, through a passage rather tiring than difficult, arrived at the end of my undertaken voyage; and have, as I suppose, made appear to all disinterested and unprejudicate readers, what in the beginning I undertook, that a vein of sophistry and calumny runs through this first part of your book; wherein, though I never thought of the directions you have been pleased to give me in your pamphlet, entitled, "A Direction to N. N.," yet upon consideration of my answer, I find that I have proceeded as if I had had it always before my eyes, and steered my course by it, as by a card and compass.

For first, "I have not proceeded by a mere destructive way," as you call it, nor " objected such difficulties against your religion, as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all religion;" but have shewed, that the truth of Christianity is clearly independent upon the truth of popery; and that on the other side, the arguments you urge, and the courses you take, for the maintenance of your religion, do manifestly tend (if they be closely and consequently followed) to the destruction of all religion, and lead men by the hand to atheism and impiety; whereof I have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book; but especially in my answer to your " Direction to N. N."

Neither can I "discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other," though I have used many more judicious and more searching eyes than mine own, to make, if it were possible, such a discovery; and therefore am in good hope, that