the foundation of faith in whole or in part." And presently after; "In short, agreement in fundamentals, or doctrines necessary to salvation, is requisite to the communion of saints; also in things not fundamental, in difficult questions, nay, even in rites and ceremonies, agreement would be amiable, and greatly to be desired. But in this imperfect state, and in so great a variety of particular churches, of the customs of places, and of human capacities, it is not to be expected; yet the communion of saints may continue firm, as long as their consent in fundamentals does so continue."* Whence he concludes, that the reformed churches may, and ought to come to a union among themselves.

The other is also a man of great note, Benedictus Aretius, a divine of Bern, who lived at the age of the reformation. He, speaking of the unity of the church, tells us, "That it consists in an agreement in the chief articles of true religion, notwithstanding diversity of gifts ;" and repeats it again, "That the unity of the church consists in an agreement in the chief articles of faith;" and goes on thus ; "We call those the chief articles of faith, which are necessary to salvation, and which are expressly contained in the creed. To come to an agreement in these, is what we call union; in other things, where persons cannot come to an agreement, diversity of opinions must be allowed; yea, further,

* Disquis. Theol. de Sanctorum Communione, § 61, 62, 67, 70.

we may freely own our ignorance in these matters, as St. Austin says, 'It is no reproach to a christian to confess his ignorance in abundance of cases ;' which makes against those, who insist upon universal consent, even in the most minute questions, and unless a person will subscribe to every point, are prepared with their thunderbolts, heresies, sects, excommunications, nay, prisons, and death. It were easy to produce proper instances hereof, if there was need; but we know this was never the method approved of by the true church, only some malignant spirits have kindled such flames, that they might obtain the pre-eminence. But let them consider, what an absurd and impossible thing they require; for there never was so perfect and finished a genius in the world, to whose judgment all learned men could see reason to subscribe, and to conform their own private sentiments. And the diversity of gifts seems to speak the same thing; for what if I have not that light that you have, or you that I have, or neither of us what a third hath, shall we therefore go to persecute one another for our different apprehensions of things? No! Religion allows no such thing. But if we examine the thing more thoroughly, this diversity of opinions sometimes has its advantages; for hereby men's abilities are excited, the reason of things is more duly considered, scripture is more carefully examined and compared with itself, arguments are more impartially weighed, and

posterity comes to understand and believe what at first was thought to be absurd."* Thus excellently well does he argue.

But we are not insensible, that several things may be objected against this forbearance of persons, who disagree with each other, that we have been pleading for; which yet may so easily be confuted from what has been already said, that we need not stay particularly to answer them. We shall only observe two things in the general; one is, that whatever is objected against toleration, or forbearance, is objected also against scripture itself, and particularly against the Apostle Paul, who so earnestly maintained and recommended it to us; the other is, that if any inconveniences should happen to attend such a toleration, or forbearance, let it be remembered, there are more, and greater by far, that attend the contrary; which is not an ungrounded assertion, but abundantly confirmed by the experience of all ages, as all who are acquainted with the state of the church in ancient or latter times, will readily own.

* Problematum Theologicorum parte III. cap. de Concordia Ecclesiæ.

CHAP. VIII.

Fundamental difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome.

WHAT has been hitherto said, has been mostly in generals; we will now briefly propose an instance of a fundamental difference, and another of a difference not fundamental; both which we shall take from the neighbouring and most considerable societies of christians in the world. And hereby the use and application of the rules, which we have laid down, will be made to appear.

There is not a more striking instance of the former any where to be met with, than in our separation from the Church of Rome, which before we go about to explain, there needs a few things to be cleared. First, to form a right judgment of the Romish religion, we are not to regard the sentiments of this, or that private man, or of this or that private doctor; but we are to regard public acts, decrees of councils, which, in their account, have the authority of law; and the constant usage of their church, which has never been condemned, but carefully enjoined and applauded. Secondly, it must be owned, the papists do admit all the fundamental points of the christian religion, but yet by another way, which has been already taken notice of, do effectually strike at the foundation itself, by adding

to, or building such things upon the foundation, as do loosen, and in a great measure destroy it. Thirdly, yet all the errors of the papists are not of the same consequence; some, indeed, are tolerable, but others cannot by any means be borne with. Fourthly, we must also distinguish between different times; for some things might very well be borne with, at a time when there was less light, and errors were not so thoroughly established, and a greater liberty was allowed men to differ; which things at another time, and in other circumstances, would be perfectly intolerable, after greater light had shined forth, and greater advantages were given to discover the truth; and after those things, which formerly were left free and undetermined, were passed into the form of a law. Fifthly, we must make a great difference between our judging of men, and our judging of things; and, indeed, the best way is to pass no judgment at all upon men, but to leave them to the judgment of God, unless we have uncontestable evidence to go by. But we are allowed to judge freely of things, of doctrines, of worship, and discipline, from the word of God.

These things being premised, we shall briefly offer the following arguments to show that our dissent from the church of Rome is fundamental, and consequently that we can have no communion with her, as matters now stand.