resolution, Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum philosophis? Whether your requiring men, upon only probable and prudential motives, to yield a most certain assent unto things in human reason impossible; and telling them, as you do too often, that they were as good not believe at all, as believe with any lower degree of faith, be not a likely way to make consi dering men scorn your religion (and consequently all, if they know no other) as requiring things contradictory, and impossible to be performed? Lastly, whether your pretence, that there is no good ground to believe Scripture, but your church's infallibility, joined with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of Scripture, be not a fair way to make them that understand themselves, believe neither church nor Scripture?

9. Your calumnies against protestants in general are set down in these words: (chap. ii. § 2.) "The very doctrine of protestants, if it be followed closely, and with coherence to itself, must of necessity induce Socinianism. This I say confidently; and evidently prove, by instancing in one error, which may well be termed the capital and mother-heresy, from which all other must follow at ease; I mean their heresy in affirming, that the perpetual visible church of Christ, descended by a never-interrupted succession from our Saviour to this day, is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed as revealed truths. For if the infallibility of such a public authority be once impeached, what remains, but that every man is given over to his own wit and discourse? And talk not here of Holy Scripture: for if the true church may err, in defining what Scriptures be

canonical, or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof; we are still devolved, either upon the private spirit (a foolery now exploded out of England, which finally leaving every man to his own conceits, ends in Socinianism) or else upon natural wit and judgment, for examining and determining what Scriptures contain true or false doctrine and, in that respect, ought to be received or rejected. And, indeed, take away the authority of God's church, no man can be assured, that any one book, or parcel of Scripture, was written by Divine inspiration; or that all the contents are infallibly true; which are the direct errors of Socinians. If it were but for this reason alone, no man, who regards the eternal salvation of his soul, would live or die in protestancy, from which so vast absurdities as these of the Socinians must inevitably follow. And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us catholics, while we consider, that none can deny the infallible authority of our church, but jointly he must be left to his own wit and ways; must abandon all infused faith, and true religion, if he do but understand himself right."-In all which discourse, the only true word you speak is, "this I say confidently:" as for "proving evidently," that I believe you reserved for some other opportunity for the present I am sure you have been very sparing of it.

10. You say, indeed, confidently enough, that "the denial of the church's infallibility is the mother-heresy, from which all other must follow at ease." Which is so far from being a necessary truth, as you make it, that it is indeed a manifest falsehood. Neither is it possible for the wit of man, by any good, or so much as probable con

sequence, from the denial of the church's infallibility, to deduce any one of the ancient heresies, or any one error of the Socinians, which are the heresies here entreated of. For who would not laugh at him that should argue thus: neither the church of Rome, nor any other church, is infallible; ergo, the doctrine of Arius, Pelagius, Eutyches, Nestorius, Photinus, Manichæus, was true doctrine? On the other side it may be truly said, and justified by very good and effectual reason, that he affirms with you, the pope's infallibility puts himself into his hands and power, to be led by him, at his ease and pleasure, into all heresy, and even to hell itself; and cannot with reason say (so long as he is constant to his grounds) Domine, cur ita facis? but must believe white to be black, and black to be white; virtue to be vice, and vice to be virtue; nay (which is a horrible, but a most certain truth) Christ to be antichrist, and antichrist to be Christ, if it be possible for the pope to say so which, I say, and will maintain, however you daub and disguise it, is indeed to make men apostatize from Christ to his pretended vicar, but real enemy. For that name, and no better (if we may speak truth without offence), I presume he deserves, who, under pretence of interpreting the law of Christ (which authority, without any word of express warrant, he has taken upon himself), doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it: so dethroning Christ from his dominion over men's consciences, and, instead of Christ, setting up himself; inasmuch as he that requires, that his interpretations of any law should be obeyed as true and genuine, seem they to men's understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it (as the

Bishop of Rome does), requires, indeed, that his interpretations should be laws; and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them, and though to his private judgment they seem unreasonable, is indeed congruously disposed to hold adultery a venial sin, and fornication no sin, whensoever the pope and his adherents shall so declare. And whatsoever he may plead yet, either wittingly or ignorantly, he makes the law and the lawmaker both stales, and obeys only the interpreter. As if I should pretend, that I should submit to the laws of the King of England, but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sense which the King of France should put upon them, whatsoever it were; I presume every understanding man would say, that I did indeed obey the King of France, and not the King of England. If I should pretend to believe the Bible, but that I would understand it according to the sense which the chief Mufti should put upon it; who would not say, that I were a Christian in pretence only, but indeed a Mahometan?

*

11. Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the precepts of Christ are so plain, that it cannot be feared that any pope should ever go about to dissolve them, and pretend to be a Christian for not to say, that you now pretend the contrary; to wit, that "the law of Christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done;" and, by saying so, have made a fair way for any foul interpretation of any part of it; certainly, that which the church of Rome hath already done in this kind, is an evident argument, that, (if once she had this power unquestioned, and made expe

dite and ready for use, by being contracted to the pope) she may do what she pleaseth with it. Who that hath lived in the primitive church, would not have thought it as utterly improbable, that ever they should have brought in the worship of images and picturing of God, as now it is that they should legitimate fornication? Why may we not think, they may in time take away the whole communion from the laity, as well as they have taken away half of it? Why may we not think, that any text, and any sense, may not be accorded as well as the whole fourteenth chapter of the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians is reconciled to the Latin service? How is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden than the worship of angels in the Epistle to the Colossians? than the teaching for doctrines men's commands in the Gospel of St. Mark? And, therefore, seeing we see these things done, which hardly any man would have believed that had not seen them, why should we not fear, that this unlimited power may not be used hereafter with as little moderation, seeing devices have been invented how men may worship images without idolatry, and kill innocent men, under pretence of heresy, without murder! Who knows not, that some tricks may not be hereafter devised, by which lying' with other men's wives shall be no adultery, taking away other men's goods no theft? I conclude, therefore, that if Solomon himself were here, and were to determine the difference, which is more likely to be mother of all heresy, the denial of the church's or the affirming of the pope's infallibility, that he would certainly say, "This is the mother, give her the child."