and univocally as possibly I can, are all very reasonable, and shall be by me most punctually and fully satisfied. Only I have reason to complain, that you give us rules only, and not good example in keeping them. For in some of these things I shall have frequent occasion to shew, that Medice, cura teipsum, may very justly be said unto you; especially for objecting what might very easily have been answered by you, and may be very justly returned upon you.

17. To your ensuing demands, though some of them be very captious and ensnaring; yet I will give you as clear and plain and ingenuous answers as possibly I can.

18. Ad. 11. §. To the first, then, about the perpetuity of the visible church: my answer is -that I believe our Saviour, ever since his ascension, hath had in some place or other a visible true church on earth; I mean a company of men, that professed at least so much truth as was absolutely necessary for their salvation. And I believe, that there will be somewhere or other such a church to the world's end. But the contrary doctrine, I do at no hand believe to be a damnable heresy.

19. Ad. §. 12. To the second, What visible church there was before Luther, disagreeing from the Roman? I answer, that before Luther there were many visible churches, in many things disagreeing from the Roman: but not that the whole catholic church disagreed from her, because she herself was a part of the whole, though much corrupted. And to undertake to name a catholic church disagreeing from her, is to make her no part of it, which we do not, nor need not pretend, And for men agreeing with protestants in all ;

points, we will then produce them, when you shall either prove it necessary to be done, which you know we absolutely deny; or when you shall produce a perpetual succession of professors, which in all points have agreed with you, and disagreed from you in nothing. But this my promise, to deal plainly with you, I conceive, and so intended it to be very like his, who undertook to drink up the sea, upon condition, that he to whom the promise was made, should first stop the rivers from running in. For this unreasonable request which you make to us, is to yourselves so impossible, that in the next age after the apostles, you will never be able to name a man, whom you can prove to have agreed with you in all things, nay, (if you speak of such, whose works are extant, and unquestioned) whom we cannot prove to have disagreed from you in many things. Which I am so certain of, that I will venture my credit and my life upon it.

20. Ad. §. 13. To the third, Whether, seeing there cannot be assigned any visible true church distinct from the Roman, it follows not that she erred not fundamentally? I say, in our sense of the word fundamental, it does follow. For if it be true, that there was then no church distinct from the Roman, then it must be, either because there was no church at all, which we deny: or because the Roman church was the whole church; which we also deny: or, because she was a part of the whole, which we grant. And if she were a true part of the church, then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errors, which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. For this is precisely

necessary to constitute any man or any church a member of the church catholic. In our sense therefore of the word fundamental, I hope she erred not fundamentally: but in your sense of the word, I fear she did: that is, she held something to be Divine revelation, which was not; something not to be, which was.

21. Ad. §. 14. To the fourth, How could it be damnable to maintain her errors, if they were not fundamental? I answer, 1. Though it were not damnable, yet if it were a fault, it was not to be done. For a venial sin with you is not damnable; yet you say, it is not to be committed for the procuring any good: Non est faciendum malum vel minimum, ut eveniat bonum vel maximum. It is damnable to maintain an error against conscience, though the error in itself, and to him that believes it, be not damnable. Nay, the profession not only of an error, but even of a truth, if not believed, when you think on it again, I believe you will confess to be a mortal sin; unless you will say, hypocrisy and simulation in religion is not So. 2. Though we say, the errors of the Roman church were not destructive of salvation, but pardonable even to them that died in them, upon a general repentance; yet we deny not, but in themselves they were damnable. Nay, the very saying they were pardonable, implies they need pardon, and therefore in themselves were damnable: damnable meritoriously, though not effectually. As a poison may be deadly in itself, and yet not kill him, that together with the poison takes an antidote: or as felony may deserve death, and yet not bring it on him that obtains the king's pardon.

*

ure.

22. Ad. §. 15. To the fifth, How can they be excused from schism, who forsook her communion upon pretence of errors which were not damnable? I answer, all that we forsake in you, is only the belief and practice, and profession of your errors. Hereupon you cast us out of your communion: and then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy, complain that we forsake it. As if a man should thrust his friend out of doors, and then be offended at his departBut for us not to forsake the belief of your errors, having discovered them to be errors, was impossible; and therefore to do so, could not be damnable, believing them to be errors. Not to forsake the practice and profession of them, had been damnable hypocrisy; supposing that (which you vainly run away with, and take for granted) those errors in themselves were not damnable. Now to do so, and, as matters now stand, not to forsake your communion, is apparently contradictious; seeing the condition of your communion is, that we must profess to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors (which will not content you), but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths. So that to demand, why we forsook your communion upon pretence of errors which are not damnable, is in effect to demand why we forsook it upon our forsaking it? For to pretend that there are errors in your church, though not damnable, is ipso facto, to forsake your communion, and to do that which both in your account, and, as you think, in God's account, puts him that does so out of your communion. So that either you must free your church from requiring the belief of any error whatsoever,

damnable and not damnable; or whether you will or no, you must free us from schism: for schism there cannot be, in leaving your communion, unless we were obliged to continue in it. Man cannot be obliged by man, but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God; for, alb just power is from God. God, the eternal truth, neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least and the most innocent falsehood to be a Divine truth, that is, to err, not to profess a known error, which is to lie. So that if you require the belief of any error among the conditions of your communion, our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth, and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth into nothing; but lies heavy upon you for making our separation from you just and necessary, by requiring unnecessary and unlaw ful conditions of your communion. Hereafter, therefore, I intreat you, let not your demand be, how could we forsake your communion without schism, seeing you erred not damnably? But how could we do so without schism, seeing you erred not at all which if either you do prove, or we can not disprove it, we will (I at least will for my part) return to your communion, or subscribe myself schismatic. In the mean time, μévouer wotep: ἔσμεν.

23. Yet notwithstanding all your errors, we do not renounce your communion totally and absolutely, but only leave communicating with you in/ the practice and profession of your errors. The trial whereof will be to propose some form of worshipping God, taken wholly out of Scripture; and herein if we refuse to join with you, then, and