Chapter 6

The eighth Principle, which way soever it be determined is of great importance, as to the cause under debate. Here then we shall stay a while, and examine the difficulties which you labor to entangle that Assertion withall, which we acknowledge to be the great and fundamental Principle of our Profession, and you oppose. The Position I laid down as yours is, That the Scripture on sundry accounts is insufficient to settle us in the Truth of Religion, or to bring us to an agreement among ourselves. Hereunto I subjoined the four heads of Reasons, which, in your Fiat, you insisted on to make good your Assertion. These you thought meet to pass by, without reviving them again to your further disadvantage. You are acquainted, it seems, with the old Rule, — Et quà Desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit. The Position itself you dare not directly deny, but yet seek what you can to wave the owning of it, contrary to your express Discourse, Chap. 3. §. 15. p. 199, 200, &c. as also in sundry other places, interwoven with expressions exceedingly derogatory to the authority, excellency, efficacy, and fullness of the Scripture, as has been shewed in the Animadversions. But let us now consider what you plead for your self. Thus then you proceed: You speak not one word to the purpose, or against me at all, if I had delivered any such Principle. God's Word is both the sufficient and only necessary means of both our Conversion and Settlement, as well in Truth as Virtue. But the thing you heed not, and to which I only speak, is this, that the Scripture be in two hands, for example, of the Protestant Church in England, and of the Puritan who with the Scripture rose up and rebelled against her, can the Scripture alone of itself decide the business. How shall it do it? Has it ever done it? Or can that written Word now solitary, and in private hands, so settle any in a way that neither himself nor present adherents, nor future generations shall question it, or with as much probability dissent from it either totally or in part, as himself first set it. This is the Case to which you do neither here, nor in your whole Book, speak one word; and what you speak otherwise of the Scripture's excellency I allow it for Good.

Because you are not the only judge of what I have written, nor indeed any competent judge of it at all, I shall not concern myself in the censure which your interest compels you to pass upon it. It is left to the thoughts of those who are more impartial. Setting aside your instance pitched on ad invidiam only, with some equivocal expressions, as must needs be thought, [in non-Latin alphabet], very artificially to be put into the state of a question, and that which you deny is this, that where any persons or churches are at variance or difference about any thing concerning religion or the worship of God, the Scripture is not sufficient for the umpirage of that difference, so that they may be reconciled and center in the profession of the same truth. I wish you would now tell me, what discrepancy there is between the assertion which I ascribed to you, and that which yourself here avow. I suppose they are in substance the same, and as such will be owned by every one that understands any thing of the matters about which we treat. And this is so spoken to in the Animadversions, that you have no mind to undertake the examination of it; but labor to divert the discourse, to that which may appear something else, but indeed is not so. For your distinction between Protestants and Puritans in England, I know not well what to make of it. I know no Puritans in England that are not Protestants, though all the Protestants in England do not absolutely agree in every punctilio relating to religion, nor in all things relating to the outward worship of God, no more than did the churches in the Apostles' days, or than your Catholics do. You give us then a distinction like that which a man may give between the Church of Rome, and the Jesuits or Dominicans; or the sons of Saint Benet, or of Saint Francis of Assisi. A distinction or distribution of the genus into the genus and one species comprehended under it; as if you should have said that Animal is either Animal or Homo. Though I had rather therefore that you had placed your instance between the Church of Rome and Protestants, yet because any instance of persons that have different apprehensions about things belonging to the worship of God, will suffice us as to the present purpose, I shall let it pass. Only I desire you once more that when you would endeavor to render any thing, way, or acting of men odious, that you would forbear to cast the Scripture into a copartnership therein, which here you seem to do. The Puritan, you say, with the Scripture rose up and rebelled. Rebellion is the name of an outrageous evil, such as the Scripture gives not the least countenance to. And therefore when you think meet to charge it upon any, you may do well not to say, that they do it with the Scripture. It will not be to your comfort or advantage so to do. This is but my advice, you may do as you see cause. — Tales Casus Cassandra canebat. The differences you suppose and look upon as undeterminable by the Scripture, are about things that in themselves really and in truth belong to Christian religion, or such as do not so indeed, but are only fancied by some men so to do. If they are of this latter sort, as the most of the controversies which we have with you are, as about your Mass, Purgatory, the Pope; we account that all differences about them are sufficiently determined in the Scriptures, because they are nowhere mentioned in them. And this must needs be so, if the Word of God be, as you here grant, the sufficient and only means both of our conversion and settlement as well in truth as in virtue. Sir, I had no sooner written these words, in that haste, wherein I treat with you, but I suspected a necessity of craving your pardon, for supposing my inference confirmed by your concession. For whereas you had immediately before, set down the assertion supposed to be yours about the Scriptures, you add the words now mentioned, God's Word is the sufficient and only means of our conversion and settlement in the truth. I did not in the least suspect that you intended any legerdemain in the business; but that the Scripture and God's Word had been only various denominations with you of the same precise thing, as they are with us. Only I confess at the first view, I wondered how you could reconcile this assertion with the known principles of your church; and besides, I knew it to be perfectly destructive of your design in your following enquiry. But now I fear you play hide and seek in the ambiguity your church has put upon that title God's Word, which it has applied to your unwritten traditions, as well as to the written Word; as the Jews apply the same term to their oral law. And therefore, as I said before, I crave your pardon, for supposing my inference confirmed by your concession, wherein I fear I was mistaken, and only desire you that for the future, you would speak your mind plainly, and candidly, as it becomes a Christian and lover of truth to do. But my assertion I esteem never the worse, though it have not the happiness to enjoy your approbation; especially considering that in the particular instances mentioned, there are many things delivered in Scripture, inconsistent with, and destructive of your notions about them, sufficient to exterminate them from the confines of the City of God. Suppose the matters in difference do really belong to religion and the worship of God, and that the difference lies only in men's various conceptions of them, you ask, Can the Scripture alone of itself decide the business? What do you mean by alone of itself? If you mean, without men's application of themselves to it, and subjecting of their consciences to its authoritative decisions; neither it, nor any thing else, can do it. The matter itself is perfectly stated in the Scripture, whether any men take notice of it or no; but their various apprehensions about it, must be regulated by their applications to it, in the way mentioned. On this only supposition, that those who are at variance about things which really appertain to the religion of Jesus Christ, will refer the determination of them to the Scripture, and bring the conceptions of their minds to be regulated thereby; standing to its arbitrament, it is able alone and of itself to end all their differences, and settle them all in the truth. This has been proved to you a thousand times, and confirmed by most clear testimonies of the Scripture itself, with arguments taken from its nature, perfection, and the end of its giving forth to men; as also from the practice of our Lord Jesus and his Apostles, with their directions and commands given to us for the same purpose; from the practice of the first churches, with innumerable testimonies of the ancient fathers and doctors. Neither can this be denied without that horrible derogation from its perfection and plenitude, so reverenced by them of old, which is objected to you, for your so doing. Protestants suppose the Scripture to be given forth by God, to be to the church a perfect rule of that faith and obedience, which he requires at the hands of the sons of men. They suppose that it is such a revelation of his mind or will, as is intelligible to all them that are concerned to know it, if you use the means by him appointed to come to a right understanding of it. They suppose that what is not taught therein, or not taught so clearly, as that men who humbly and heartily seek to him, may know his mind therein, as to what he requires of them, cannot possibly be the necessary and indispensable duty of any one to perform. They suppose that it is the duty of every man to search the Scriptures with all diligence, by the help and assistance of the means that God has appointed in his church to come to the knowledge of his mind and will in all things concerning their faith and obedience, and firmly to believe and adhere to what they find revealed by him. And they moreover suppose that those who deny any of these suppositions, are therein, and so far as they do so, injurious to the grace, wisdom, love, and care of God towards his church, to the honor and perfection of the Scripture, the comfort and establishment of the souls of men, leaving them no assured principles to build their faith and salvation upon. Now from these suppositions I hope you see that it will unavoidably follow, that the Scripture is able every way to effect that, which you deny to it a sufficiency for. For where, I pray you, lies its defect? I am afraid, from the next part of your question, Has it ever done it, that you run upon a great mistake. The defect that follows the failings and miscarriages of men, you would have imputed to the want of sufficiency in the Scripture. But we cannot allow you herein. The Scripture in its place, and in that kind of cause which it is, is as sufficient to settle men, all men, in the truth, as the sun is to give light to all men to see by; but the sun that gives light does not give eyes also. The Scripture does its work, as a moral rule, which men are not necessitated or compelled to attend to or follow. And if through their neglect of it, or not attendance to it, or disability to discern the mind and will of God in it, whether proceeding from their natural impotency and blindness in their lapsed condition, or some evil habit of mind contracted by their giving admission to corrupt prejudices and traditional principles, the work be not effected; this is no impeachment of the Scripture's sufficiency, but a manifestation of their weakness and folly. Besides, all that unity in faith that has been at any time or is in the world according to the mind of God, every decision that has been made at any time of any difference in or about religion in a right way and order, has been by the Scripture, which God has sanctified to those ends and purposes. And it is impossible that the miscarriages or defects of men can reflect the least blame upon it, or make it esteemed insufficient for the end now enquired after. The pursuit then of your enquiry which now you insist upon, is in part vain, in part already answered. In vain it is that you enquire whether the written Word can settle any man in a way that neither himself, nor present adherents, nor future generations shall question; for our enquiry is not after what may be, or what shall be, but what ought to be. It is able to settle a man in a way, that none ought to question to the world's end; so it settled the first Christians. But to secure us that none shall ever question the way whereinto it leads us; that it is not designed for, nor is it either needful or possible that it should be so. The oral preaching of the Son of God, and of his Apostles, did not so secure them whom they taught. The way that professed, was every where questioned, contradicted, spoken against, and many, after the profession of it, again renounced it; and I wonder what feat you have to settle any one in a way that shall never be questioned. The authority of your Pope and church will not do it; themselves are things as highly questioned and disputed about, as any thing that was ever named with reference to religion. If you shall say, But yet they ought not to be so questioned, and it is the fault of men that they are so; you may well spare me the labor of answering your question, seeing you have done it yourself. And whereas you add, or with as much probability dissent from it either totally or in part, as himself first set it, when the very preceding words do not speak of a man's own setting, but of the Scripture's settling, the man only embracing what that settles and determines; it is answered already, that what is so settled by the Scripture, and received as settled, cannot justly be questioned by any. And you insinuate a most irrational supposition on which your assertion is built, namely that error may have as much probability as truth. For I suppose you will grant, that what is settled by the Scripture is true, and therefore that which dissents from it must needs be an error; which that it may be as probable indeed as truth (for we speak not of appearances, which have all their strength from our weaknesses) is a new notion which may well be added to your many other of the like rarity and evidence. But, why is not the Scripture able to settle men in unquestionable truth? When the people of old doubted about the ways of God wherein they ought to walk, himself sends them to the law and to the testimony for their instruction and settlement (Isaiah 8:20). And we think the counsel of him, who cannot deceive nor be deceived, is to be hearkened to, as well as his command to be obeyed. Our Savior assures us, that if men will not hear Moses and the Prophets, and take direction from them for those ways wherein they may please God, they will not do it, whatever they pretend from any other means, which they rather approve of (Luke 16:29, 31). Yes, and when the great fundamental of Christian religion, concerning the person of the Messiah, was in question, he sends men for their settlement to the Scriptures (John 5:39). And we suppose that that which is sufficient to settle us in the foundation, is so, to confirm us also in the whole superstructure. Especially considering that it is able to make the man of God perfect, and to be thoroughly furnished to all good works (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). What more is required to the settlement of any one in religion we know not; nor what can rationally stand in competition with the Scripture to this purpose; seeing that is expressly commended to us for it by the Holy Ghost, other ways are built on the conjectures of men. Yes, the assurance which we may have hereby is preferred by Peter, before that which any may have by an immediate voice from Heaven (2 Peter 1:19). And is it not an unreasonable thing, now for you to come and tell us, that the Scripture is not sufficient to give us an unquestionable settlement in religion? Whether it be meet to hearken to God or men, judge you. For our parts, we seek not for the foundation of our settlement, in long uncertain discourses, dubious conclusions and inferences, fallible conjectures, sophistical reasonings, such as you would call us to; but in the express direction and command of God. Him we can follow, and trust to without the least fear of miscarriage; whither you would lead us we know not, and are not willing to make desperate experiments in things of so high concernment. But since you have been pleased to overlook what has been discoursed to this purpose in the Animadversions, and with your usual confidence to affirm, that I nowhere at all speak one word to the case that you proposed, I shall for your further satisfaction give you a little enlargement of my thoughts, as to the principles on which Protestants and Romanists proceed in these matters, and compare them together, that it may be seen whether of us build on the most stable and adequate foundation as to the superstructure aimed at, by us both.

Two things you profess, if I mistake not, to ayme at in your Fiat, at least you pretend so to do; 1. Moderation in and about our differences while they continue: 2. The reduction of all dissenters to an unity in faith and Profession: Things no doubt great and excellent: He can be no Christian that aymes not at them, that does not earnestly desire them. You profess to make them your Design: Protestants do so also. Now let us consider whether of the two, you or they, are fitted with Principles according to the diversity of Professions wherein you are engaged, for the regular accomplishment and effecting of these ends: And in the consideration of the latter of them, you will find your present Case fully and clearly resolved.

For the first, of Moderation, I intend by it, and I think so do you also, the mutuall forbearance of one another, as to any effects of hatred, enmity, or animosities of any kind, attended with offices of love, charity, kindness, and compassion, proceeding from a frame of heart or gracious habit of mind naturally producing such effects, with a quiet, peaceable deportment towards one another, during our present differences in, or about any thing in Religion. Certainly, this Moderation is a blessed thing; earnestly commended to us by our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and as necessary to preserve peace among Christians, as the sun in the firmament is to give light to the world. The very Heathen could say [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Moderation is the life of all things, and nothing is durable but from the influence which it receives from it. Now in pressing after moderation Protestants proceed chiefly on two Principles, which being once admitted make it a duty indispensable: And I can assure you that no man will long follow after moderation, but only he that looks upon it as his duty so to do: Incident provocations will quickly divert them in their course, who pursue it for any other ends, or on any other accounts.

The first principle of the Protestants disposing them to moderation and indispensably exacting it of them as their duty, is, that among all the professors of the name of Christ who are known by their relation to any church or way of note or mark in the world, not actually condemned in the primitive or apostolic times, there is so much saving truth owned and taught, as being received with faith, and submitted to with sincere obedience, is sufficient to give them that profess it an interest in Christ, and in the Covenant of Grace, and love of God, and to secure their salvation. This principle has been openly defended by them, and I profess it to be mine. It is true, there are ways whereby the truth mentioned may be rendered ineffectual; but that hinders not, but that the principle is true, and that the truth so received is sufficient for the producing of those effects in its kind and place. And let men pretend what they please, the last day will discover, that that faith which purifies the heart, and renders the person in whom it is, accepted to God by Jesus Christ, may have its objective truths confined in a very narrow compass; yet it must embrace all that is indispensably necessary to salvation. And it is an insufferable tyranny over the souls and consciences of men, to introduce and assert a necessity of believing, whatever this or that church, any or indeed all churches shall please to propose. For, the proposal of all the churches in the world cannot make any thing to be necessary to be believed, that was not so antecedently to that proposal. Churches may help the faith of believers, they cannot burden it, or exercise any dominion over it. He that believes that whatever God reveals is true, and that the holy Scripture is a perfect revelation of his mind and will, (wherein almost all Christians agree,) need not fear that he shall be burdened with multitudes of particular articles of faith, provided he do his duty in sincerity, to come to an acquaintance with what God has so revealed. Now if men's common interest in Christ their head, and thereby their participation of the same Spirit from him, with their union in the bond of the Covenant of Grace, and an equal sharing in the love of God the Father, be the principles, and, upon the matter, the only grounds and reasons of that special love without dissimulation which Christians ought to bear one towards another, from where the moderation pleaded for must proceed, or it is a thing of no use, in our present case, at least no way generally belonging to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and if all these things may be obtained by virtue of that truth which is professed in common among all known societies of Christians, does it not unavoidably follow, that we ought to exercise moderation towards one another, however differing in or about things which destroy not the principles of love and union? Certainly we ought, unless we will resolvedly stifle the actings of that love, which is implanted in all the disciples of Christ, and besides live in an open disobedience to his commands. This then indispensably exacts moderation in Protestants towards them that differ from them, and that not only within the lines of Protestancy; because they believe, that, notwithstanding that dissent, they have, or may have for ought they know, an interest in those things; which are the only reasons of that love which is required in them towards the disciples of Christ. There is a moderation proceeding from the principles of reason in general, and requisite to our common interest in humanity; which is good, and an especial ornament to them in whom it is; especially if they are persons exalted above others in place of rule and government. Men fierce, implacable, revengeful, impatient, treading down all that they dislike under their feet, are the greatest defacers of the image of God in the world, and upon the matter the only troublers of human society. But the moderation which the Gospel requires, arises and proceeds from the principles of union with Christ before mentioned; which is that, that proves us disciples of Christ indeed, and will confirm the mind in suitable actings, against all the provocations to the contrary, which from the infirmities and miscarriages of men we are sure to meet withal. Neither does this at all hinder but that we may contend earnestly for the truth delivered to us, and labor, by the ways of Christ's appointment, to reclaim others from such opinions, ways, and practices, in and about the things of religion and worship of God, as are injurious to his glory, and may be destructive and pernicious to their own souls. Neither does it in the least put any discouragement upon endeavors, to oppose the impiety and profaneness of men in their corruption in life and conversation, which certainly and unquestionably are inconsistent with, and destructive of the profession of the Gospel, let them on whom they are found, be of what party, church, or way of religion they please. And if those in whose hearts are the ways of God, however diversified among themselves by various apprehensions of some doctrines and practices, would sincerely according to their duty set themselves to oppose that profaneness, wickedness of life, or open viciousness of conversation, which is breaking in like a flood upon the world, and which as it has already almost drowned the whole glory of Christian religion, so it will undoubtedly, if not prevented, end in the woeful calamity and final ruin of Christendom, they would have less mind and leisure to wrangle fiercely among themselves, and breathe out destruction against one another, for their mistakes, and differences about things, which by their own experience they find not to take off from their love to Christ, nor weaken the obedience he requires at their hands. But while the whole power of Christianity is despised, conversion to God, and separation from the ways of the perishing world are set at nought, and men think, they have nothing to do in religion, but to be zealously addicted to this or that party among them that profess it, it is no wonder if they think their chiefest duty to consist in destroying one another. But for men that profess to be leaders and guides of others in Christian religion, openly to pursue carnal and worldly interests, greatness, wealth, outward splendor, and pomp, to live in luxury and pride, to labor to strengthen and support themselves by the adherence of persons of profane and wicked lives, that so they may destroy all that in any opinion differ from themselves, is, vigorously to endeavor to drive out of the world that religion which they profess; and in the mean time to render it so uncomely and undesirable, that others must needs be discouraged from its embracement. But these things cannot spring from the principles of Protestants, which as I have manifested lead them to other manner of actings. And it is to no purpose to ask, why then they are not all affected accordingly. For they that are not so, do live in an open contradiction to their own avowed principles; which that it is no news in the world, the vicious lives of many in all places professing Christianity, will not suffer us to doubt. For though that religion which they profess, teaches them to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live soberly, and righteously, and godly in this present world, if they intend the least benefit by it, yet they will hold the profession of it in a contrary practice. And for this self-deceiving attended with eternal ruin, many men are beholding to such notions as yours about your church, securing salvation within the pale of its external communion, laying little weight on the things which at the last day will only stand them in stead. But for Protestants, setting aside their occasional exasperations, when they begin to bethink themselves, they cannot satisfy their own consciences in a resolution, not to love them, because of some differences, whom they believe that God loves, or may love, notwithstanding those differences from them; or to renounce all union with them, who they are persuaded are united to Christ; or not to be moderate towards them in this world, with whom they expect to live for ever in another. I speak only of them on all sides, who have received into their hearts, and do express in their lives the spiritual power and energy of the Gospel, who are begotten to Christ by the Word of Truth, and have received of his Spirit promised in the Covenant of Grace to all them that believe on him. For, not to dissemble with you, I believe all others as to their present state to be in the same condition before God; be they of what church or way they will, though they are not all in the same condition in respect of the means for their spiritual advantage which they enjoy or may do so, they being much more excellent in some societies of Christians than others. This then, to return, is the principle of Protestants, derived down to them from Christ and his Apostles, and hereby are they eminently furnished for the exercise of that moderation, which you so much, and so deservedly commend. And, more fully to tell you my private judgment, which whether it be my own only I do not much concern myself to enquire, but this it is; any man in the world who receives the Scripture of the Old and New Testament, as the Word of God, and on that account assents in general to the whole truth revealed in them, worshipping God in Christ, and yielding obedience to him answerable to his light and conviction, not contradicting his profession by any practice inconsistent with true piety, nor the owning of any opinion or persuasion destructive to the known fundamentals of Christianity; though he should have the unhappiness to dissent in some things from all the churches that are at this day in the world, may yet have an internal supernatural saving principle of his faith and obedience, and be undoubtedly saved. And I am sure, it is my duty to exercise moderation towards every man, concerning whom I have, or ought to have, that persuasion.

2. Some Protestants are of that judgement that external force ought to have no place at all in matters of faith; however laws may be constituted with penalties for the preservation of public outward order in a nation, most of them, that Hareticidium or putting men to death for their misapprehensions in the things of God is absolutely unlawful; and all of them, that faith is the gift of God, for the communication whereof to men, he has appointed certain means, whereof external force is none. To which two last positions, not only the greatest Protestant, but the greatest potentate in Europe, has lately in his own words, expressive of a heavenly benignity towards mankind in their infirmities, declared his royal assent. And I shall somewhat question the Protestancy of them, whom his authority, example, and reason, does not conclude, in these things. For my part I desire no better, I can give no greater warrant to assert them as the principles of Protestants, than what I have now acquainted you with. And it is no small satisfaction to me to contemplate on the heavenly principle of Gospel peace, planted in the noble soil of royal ingenuity and goodness, from where fruit may be expected to the great profit and advantage of the whole world. Now it is easy to discover the natural and genuine tendency of these principles towards moderation. Indeed in acting according to them, and in a regular consistency with them consists the moderation which we treat about. Wherever then Protestants use not that moderation towards those that dissent from them if otherwise peaceable, which the Lord Jesus requires his disciples to exercise towards all them that profess the same common hope with them, the fault is solely in the persons so offending; and is not countenanced from any principles which they avow. Whether it be so with those of your Church, shall now be considered.

1. You have no one principle that you more pertinaciously adhere to, nor which yields you greater advantage with weak unstable souls, than that whereby you confine all Christianity within the bounds of your own communion, the Roman Church and the Catholic are with you, one and the same. No privilege of the Gospel you suppose, belongs to any soul in the world, who lives not in your communion, and in professed subjection to the Pope. Union with Christ, saving faith here, with salvation hereafter, belongs to no other, no not one. This is the moderation of your Church, whereunto your outward actings have for the most part been suited. Indeed, by this one principle, you are utterly incapacitated to exercise any of that moderation towards those that dissent from you which the Gospel requires. You cannot love them as the disciples of Christ, nor act towards them from any such principles. It is possible for you to show moderation towards them as men; but to show any moderation towards them, as those partakers of the same precious faith with you, that is impossible for you to do. Yet this is that which we are enquiring after: not the moderation that may be among men as men, but that which ought to be among Christians as Christians. This is Gospel moderation, the other is common to us with Turks, Jews, and Pagans, and not at all of our present disquisition. And I wish that this were found among you as proceeding from the principles of reason, with ingenuity and goodness of nature, more than it is. For that which proceeds from, and is regulated by interest, is hypocritical, and not thank-worthy: as occasion offers itself, it will turn and change, as we have found it to do in most kingdoms of Europe. Apparent then it is, that this fundamental principle of your profession, Subesse Romano Pontifici, &c. that it is of indispensable necessity to salvation to every soul to be subject to the Pope of Rome, does utterly incapacitate you for that moderation towards any that are not of you, which Christ requires in his disciples towards one another; seeing you judge none to be so, but yourselves. Yet I assure you withal, that I hope, yes I am verily persuaded, that there are many, very many, among you, whose minds and affections are so influenced by common ingrafted notions of God and his goodness, with a sense of the frailties of mankind, and weakness of the evidence that is tendered to them, for the eviction of that indispensable necessity of subjection to the Pope, which their masters urge, as also with the beams of truth shining forth in general in the Scriptures, and what they know or have heard of the practices of primitive times, as that, being seasoned with Christian charity and candor, they are not so leavened with the sour prejudice of this principle, as to be rendered unmeet for the due exercise of moderation; but for this, they are not beholding to your Church, nor this great principle of your profession.

2. It is the principle of your Church, whereunto your practice has been suited, that those who dissent from you in things determined by your Church, being heretics, if they continue so to do, after the application of the means for their reclaiming which you think meet to use, ought to be imprisoned, burned, or one way or other put to death. This you cannot deny to be your principle, it being the very foundation of your Inquisition, the chief corner-stone in your present ecclesiastical fabric, that couples and holds up the whole building together: and it has been asserted in your practice for sundry ages in most nations of Europe. Your councils, as that of Constance, have determined it, and practiced accordingly, with John Huss, and Hierome: your doctors dispute for it, your Church lives upon it. That you are destitute of any color from antiquity in this your way, I have showed before: Bellarmine de Laic. cap. 22. could find no other instances of it, but that of Priscillianus, which what entertainment it found in the Church of God, I have declared; with that of one Basilius out of Gregory's Dialogues, Lib. 1. Cap 4. whom he confesses to have been a magician; and of Bogomilus in the days of Alexius Comnenus 1100 years after Christ, whose putting to death notwithstanding, was afterward censured and condemned in a synod of more sober persons than those who procured it. Instance of your avowing this principle in your dealing with the Albigenses of old, the inhabitants of Merindol and Chrabiers in France, with the Waldenses in the valleys of Piedmont, formerly and of late; of your judiciary proceedings against multitudes of persons of all sorts, conditions, ages, and sexes in this and most other nations of Europe, you are not pleased with the mention of, I shall therefore pass them by. Only I desire you would not question whether this be the principle of your Church or no, seeing you have given the world too great assurance that so it is: and yourself in your Fiat commend the wisdom of Philip King of Spain in his rigour in the pursuit of it, p. 243. These things being so, I desire to know, what foundation you have to stand upon in pressing for moderation among dissenters in religion: I confess, it is a huge argument of your good nature, that you are so inclinable to it: but when you should come to the real exercise of it, I am afraid you would find your hands tied up by these principles of your Church, and your endeavours thereupon become very faint and evanid. Men in such cases may make great pretences, At velut in somnis oculos ubi languida pressit Nocte quies, nequicquam avidos extendere cursus Volle videmur, & in mediis conatibus aegri Succidimus. Being destitute of any real foundation, your attempts are but like the fruitless endeavours of men in their sleep, wherein great workings of spirits and fancy, produce no effects. I confess notwithstanding all this, others may be moderate towards you: I judge it their duty so to be, I desire they may be so; but how you should exercise moderation towards others, I cannot so well discern. Only as to the former, so much more am I relieved as to this principle, from the persuasion I have of the candour and ingenuity of many individual persons of your profession; which will not suffer them to be captivated under the power of such corrupt prejudices as these. And for my part if I could approve of external force in any case in matters of religion, it would be against the promoters of the principle mentioned. —Cogendus— In mores hominemque. Creon. When men under pretence of zeal for religion, depose all sense of the laws of nature and humanity, some earnestness may be justified in unteaching them their untoward catechisms, which lie indeed not only against the design, spirit, principles, and letter of the Gospel: but Terrarum leges & mundi foedera; the very foundations of reason on which men coalesce into civil society. But as we observed before out of one of the ancients, force has no place in or about the law of Christ, one way or other.

That which gave occasion to this discourse, was your insinuation of the Scriptures' insufficiency for the settlement of men in the unity of faith, the contrary whereof being the great principle of Protestancy, I was willing a little to enlarge myself to the consideration of your principles and ours: not only with reference to the unity of faith, but also as to that moderation which you pretend to plead for, and the want whereof you charge on Protestants, premising it to the ensuing discourse, wherein you will meet with a full and a direct answer to your question.