§. 2 Whence proceedeth and depen­deth the necessitie of kno­wing pointes of Religion?

To sett you in the waye you must first tell me what you thinke this word necessitie doth importe, so farr as it concerne's our pourpose?

You know I am no great cla [...]ke, and therefo­re I cannot speake of necessi­tie, nether as a Gramarian nor [Page 23] as a Logician, but as farr as I vnderstand and intende by my question, there is two sor­tes of necessities, the one so ab­solute as that the thing we de­sire cannot without such a meanes be anie waies gotten or dōne; the other in respect of such a meanes without the which our desire cannot bee well and conueniently obtai­ned. For we commonly saie that such or such a thing can­not be done or gotten, when it is extreme hard and paine­full to gett it. And therefore some times we call that neces­sarie without which our desi­re cannot be fullfilled but with great labour and diffi­cultie, and some times that, without which it cannot ab­solutely be compassed.

Mary, cozen, you neede nether Gramarian nor Logician to helpe you,The ne­cessitie of knouing pointes of faith is to be compa­red to a church or cōpa­nie of be­lieuers and not to euerie particu­larman. nor to mende what you haue said. But since you are so skilfull, and that you now see what is necessarie in generall, to witt the know ledge of Christian do­ctrine, and what it is to be ne­cessarie, I will trouble you with a farther demāde, giuing you first this caueat, That my in­tention is not to examine or declare what expresse and di­stinct knowledge or beliefe ought euerie particular and indiuiduall man to haue, whithout which he cannot possibly be saued, this being a thing depending of so manie secret and vnknowne circum­stances, as that it seemeth to be specialy reserued as only [Page 25] befitting God's infinite wis­dome and deuine iustice. though some times a prudent man may shrodly guesse, and in a possible supposition of a particular man's dying with­out repentance in a positiue and wilfull contradicting be­liefe to the doctrine of the Catholike church, it would be no breach of charitie to con­clude his dānation. Yet at this present we will only speake of the necessitie of knowing and belieuing seuerall contro­uerted pointes of Christian doctrine in respect of a church or cōpanie of profes­sed Christians in cōmon, and not as the knowledge thereof is necessarie to euerie parti­cular man. Now therefore tell me, what is the end for which [Page 26] this knowledge of Christian doctrine is necessarie?

How be kno­wledge of Chri­stian doctrine cometh to be nessarie to sal­uation.That I suppose no man doubteh but t'is hea­uen, or in more learned ter­mes, the sight or true and proper knowledge of All­mightie God, who being the cause and Creator of All things, he that clearely see's and tru [...]y know's him, will see and know all other things in him, which all together fall so farr short of giuing such content as is taken by seeing him that the sight of him is only accompted Blisse, and the sight of all the rest is but a retenue and conuenien­ce of that first and cheefe sight, which of it self alone is our essentiall Happinesse.

This I confesse, co­zen, [Page 27] is both verie true and ve­rie well said of you, but yet I must haue an other answere: for sure you haue ouer skipp't some thing. What connection is there, I pray, betwixt the knowledge of Christian do­ctrine and seeing of Allmigh­tie God? Some thing, I saie, must of necessitie be betwixt them, for which, what soeuer it be, the knowledge of Chri­stian doctrine will be more immediately necessarie. Wh­ich if you can tell me what it is, we shall thereby more ea­sily discouer and conceiue what and how farr this kno­wledge of Christian doctrine is necessarie for vs.

Why vncle, you know I haue beene taught no farther then to know what I [Page 28] ought to belieue and doe, and that in belieuing and doeing so, I shall come to heauen.

And were you not taught that the commande­ments were resumed and cō ­prehended in two, to wit in the loue of God and of your neighour?

Yes that I was, but what that appertaine's to your question, that I vnder­stand not, vnlesse peraduentu­re your meaning be, that the accomplishment of these two lawes is the immediate stepp to our Blisse. Which as I see t'is verie likely, yet doe I not fully conceiue why it should be so, vnlesse heauē goe by wishing, whereas I haue still beene tau­ght it goe's by working, and that violence must carrie it.

Did you neuer take notice of your selfe, how that if you harken to a discourse of anie thing which you ve­hemētly desire to know how attentiue you are? how feare­full that anie word should slippe vnheard or not vnder­stood? how quiet you keepe all your thoughts? how still and vntrouble [...] your phan­sie? that what you heare may sinke downe into your soule as distinctly, and in the same frame and order as it floweth from the speaker? So you see that the loue or desire to know anie thing is the most efficacious disposition we can haue to attaine to the know­ledge thereof. Now you know that this life and con­uersation of the soule in hir [Page 30] bodie is giuen hir to prepare and dispose hir selfe for the next life, Is it not therefore euident that that soule which most desire's to see and know God, that is, which most loueth God, in this life, and particularly in the time of hir departure out of this world, goe's out of hir bodie with the best and perfectest prepa­ration and disposition to see and know God in the life to come, which is our expected and eternall happinesse? Nor is this against what you haue beene taught, for loue is the most actiue and consequently the most violent thing in the world, and therefore if heauē must be obtained by violēce, loue certainely must be the waye. Wherefore you see, we [Page 31] are to considere the necessitie of controuerted pointes of Religion in as much as of their owne nature and of thē selues they doe cause and make professours of christia­nitie to loue God, and desire to see him. For sithēce this loue and desire is the meanes and waye to heauen, it must nee­des follow that according as anie pointe or position doth produce or contribute to this effect in the soules of Chri­stians, the necessitie of such a pointe must bee of the same degree. There is a necessitie of belieuing all points of faith in generall, out of an other principle, to witt, in that the church proposeth them vnto vs as such, which we must ac­cept and belieue in all or no­ne, [Page 32] being the same reason and motiue in all, but this I shall take occasion an other time to shew vnto you. You will saie peraduēture if this be so, what neede's the knowledge of Christian doctrine? can there be imagined a greatter mo­tiue of loue then that God is, and that he is goodnesse it sel­fe? Is not this alone a sufficiēt motiue to make all creatures melt into the loue of him? And this suerly may be knowne by pure naturall rea­sō. Why thē is the knowledge of pointes disputed betwixt the Protestants and vs to be held necessarie? Nay to what end must we needes know anie part of Christ's law for the attaining of Blisse, since loue will doe it, and the most [Page 33] efficacious motiue of loue is to be had with out it?

You haue posed me now, for truly I see that goodneesse is able to rauish all the harts in the world, and this is so cleere and common that it neede's no proofe. Wherefore me thinke's if mē would considere and follow this motiue of God's infinite goodnesse, they would not want loue, and not wanting loue, according to your dis­course, th [...]y must of necessitie attaine to euerlasting Blisse and Happinesse. Why there­fore anie other knowledge should be absolutly necessarie I see not, much lesse doe I cōceiue wherefore we should thinke

§. 3 That the pointes wherein the [Page 34] Arrians and other Antient Heretikes differed from Ca­tholikes are pointes of ne­cessitie to be knowne and be­lieued.

What thinke you, cozen, if the motiue of loue which we speake of, were such,why God's goodnesse as knowable by natu­re is not a suffi­ciēt mo­tiue of loue to all man­kinde. as that few men and great clarkes only were able to reach and conceiue it, not consequently be moued and affected with it? Doe you thinke some other motiue more easie, more generall, and more common, were not necessarie, whereby the peo­ple and ordinarie sort of men might be moued and affe­cted? Or doe you thinke that mankinde could be said to ha­ue sufficient meanes to attaine [Page 35] to Blisse and Happinesse, if it had only such an one, as that verie few could make vse of? And that you may the better conceiue my question, putt the case, that on the one side there were such a meanes as that verie few could reach vn­to it, on the other side such an one as were accommodated to the capacitie of euerie man, doe you not see, that to saie mankynde may be saued by this or that meanes, hath a quite different sense? Man­kynde in the one signifying the whole multitude, in the other a smale, or as it were no part of the multitude. For that part of anie thing which is so litle as that it beareth no mo­rall proportion to the whole, is, in our manner of speaking, [Page 36] accounted as none. Doe you not then see that it is necessa­rie that the meanes of our sal­uation be of this more gene­rall and common nature?

I doubt it not, and myne owne interest make's me more inclined therevnto, being, God knowe's, I am of the weaker sort. And when I consid ere the good of salua­tion, and the harme and mise­rie which followeth the losse of it, and that we all acknow­ledge euerie mā to be capable thereof, t'is euident that the meanes of attaining such an infinite good, wherevnto we are all ordained, ought to reach and lye within the power of all, or at least, of the most part of men. But yet I see not why the infinite goodnesse of God [Page 37] is not a motiue sufficiently generall and common to moue and affect all the world.

Why, cozen,Three degrees of tending to anie good. you must considere that there be as it were three stepps or de­grees by which we goe or ten­de to anie good. The first, to ap­prehende or vnderstand what it is, The second to conceite and esteeme it, And the third to desire and poursue it, And in the prosecution thereof to preferre it before all other goods which deserue not so well, and in our case to prefer­re it before all other goods whatsoeuer, as being the gre­attest of all. These three de­grees be so disposed, as that the last cannot stand nor be putt without the second, nor the second without the first, [Page 38] though contrarie wise the first may be without the second, and the second without the third by reason of man's wea­knesse.HoW hard it is to con­ceiue God's goodnes­se or anie spirituall thing. Now if you considere that God Allmightie and his go­odnesse is the most simple, su­blime, and abstract thing that cā possibly be imagined, And reflect but vpon the nature of Angells, or of a soule, nay euē of a corporall substance sepe­rated from all his sensible ac­cidents, and if you had the ex­perience that I haue, you would saie it were hard euen for the best witts to apprehēde rightly, and discourse con­sequently of these things. And shall we not then thinke that t'is ether absolutely im­possible, or extremely diffi­cile to make the grosser sort [Page 39] of men apprehēde or vnder­stande anie thing likely or to the pourpose of God and his goodnesse? Suerly wee maye. And the reason is, because sen­se and sensible obiects are the perpetuall matter and subiect wherein our vnderstandings are exercised, not only in our childhood and youth, but euē in our whole life, vnlesse some few by the studie of metaphy­sikes doe eleuate their vnder­standings aboue the ordinarie pitch of mē and course of na­ture. And therefore it must needes be hard, and as it were impossible, that the greattest part of mankinde should be able to frame anie fitting and likely conceite or Idea of All­mightie God, or of his goodnesse. Looke but vpon the Iewes, [Page 40] who had this knowledge in­culcated into them by perpe­tuall miracles and Prophetes, and yet they could not keepe thē selues long frō running after Idoles, because they had nothing to entertaine their phansie and their sensi­ble manner of vnderstanding. And now if you call to minde the common saying of philo­sophers that nihil est volitum quod non sit praecognitum, to which is Parallell the Poet's Apopthegme quod oculi sunt in amore duces, you shall finde that what is not well rooted and imprinted in the vnder­standing, can neuer be deepely fixed in the will, nor conse­quently the will efficaciously moued and affected by it. And that nothing, and I know [Page 41] not what are of the same force and effect in our case, accor­ding to Aristotle's maxime, that in respect of loue it is all one not to be, and not to be kno­wne, it must necessarily follow that the greatest part of men being not able to make anie strong and deepe conceite of God and his goodnesse; that t'is not possible they should be efficaciously moued and af­fected therewith. And if a preacher after a lōg discourse of the loue of God, and of his great benefits towards vs in the order of nature, could not giue a satisfactorie accounte, by reason of the weakenesse of his Auditory, to one that should aske him who is God, or what is he that hath donne all these things for vs? Would not [Page 42] his learned labours vanish in­to a dreame, and the people goe awaye as from a playe [...] where they wept at a thing which concerned them not, and were no longer caried a waye then whilest they fate hearing? I could cite a witnesse and name a gentlewoman of your acquaintāce, of as sweete a nature and as pure an vn­derstanding as is to be found amongst a thousand, with whom hauing some times oc­casion to discourse about the state of the next life, she hath often tould me, that shee be­belieued all those fine things, hauing euer beene taught shee must doe so, but that they seemed to hir as things in a dreame, for, quoth shee, I shall neuer be able to cōceiue [Page 43] what a soule is, when all the bodie is taken a waye.

Truly, vncle, you haue quite conuinced me, for as I see men talke of nothing more familiarly then of God and his goodnesse, so likewise I see that if they discourse but of an Angell, they presently conceite him to haue a bodie and wings. And if one would force them out of it, they would be besides themselues. So that in verie deede not one in ten thousand can make anie right cōceite of spirituall things. And if you talke to the common people of heauē they conceiue it but a drie thing to sitt looking vpon God Allmightie and singing Psalmes for all eternitie.

Well then, cozen, this [Page 44] being so,Wh [...] the knoWledge of the Incar­nation is necessa­rie? that God's goodnesse is so abstract and sublime as that verie few can ether know or loue it sufficiently in it sel­fe, Suppose Allmigtie God of his infinite mercie and good­nesse towards vs, hath so tem­pered and abessed this too high and inconceiuable ob­iect by taking man's nature vpon him, and hath thereby made it palpable and tracta­ble euen to the weakest and grossest vnderstandings, in so much that anie man, how dull soeuer, may with sensible fa­cilitie fixe his minde and loue vpon it: Nay if he hath adioy­ned there vnto the greatest causes of loue that hart can wish and beare, to witt the pai­nes and sufferings of his sa­cred life and bitter death pra­ctized [Page 45] vpon his diuine person as he was man, the tender ex­pressions whereof we find re­corded in the holy historie of the Gospell, can we thinke that who take's this pointe of God's Incarnation out of the church and world, by ether denying or doubting of it, but that he doth moue an Impor­tant stone, and that this dog­me can be no lesse then of ex­treme and maine necessitie?

Certes no, t'is cleere in my minde, not only what you saye, but also that such a man as would wrest out this corner stone and pull downe this pillar of the chur­ch, what soere he prat's of Christ, and beare's his name in shew, in truth and veritie is no Christian. For he takes [Page 46] awaye Christ, and Annulla­te's his coming. Wherefore if there be anie such, no sword, no fire, no torment sufficient to exterminate him, no auer­sion, no horror,The va­rietie of the Oriē ­tall err­ours a­gainst Christ's being God and man. no abomina­tion great enough to make true Christians auoide him.

I commende your zea­le. Now therefore cast your eyes vpon the orientall He­resies which antiētly raigned, whereof some denyed Christ to be God, some denyed him to be man, some said he was nether God nor man but a third thing made of both, And some said that he was two things whereof the one was God, the other was man. All agreed in this, that the same person was not truly God and man, and consēquently tooke [Page 47] awaye this efficacious meanes and pregnant motiue of loue, that God did doe and suffer for vs those sensible and easily conceiued benefitts which he could not vnlesse he were man. And in this consisteth the greate and maine helpe of humane nature, that by and in the person of a true and sen­sible man wee might fixe our harts and setle our vtmost desires vpon our eternall good and happinesse. We may therefore conclude with S. Iohn, that who soeuer dissolueth Christ is Antychrist, 1. Ioh. [...]. Which all these antient Heretikes did, to whom we may annexe all the Authours of heresies concerning the Blessed Trini­tie, the knowledge whereof being reuealed and deliuered [Page 48] vnto vs to direct vs in this great mysterie of the Incarna­tion, the errours against that must needes reflect vpon this, and be of the same nature and importance, and consequētly of the same necessitie, by rea­son this mysterie of the In­carnation cannot stand vnlesse the mysterie of the Trini­tie be likewoise true.

I am fully satis­fied in this pointe, but I pray tell me, good vncle, is not

§. 4 The beliefe af the Hierarchie established by Christ in his church likewise of necessitie.

FOr what auaileth it man­kinde that there be such easie meanes to come to hea­uen, if out of weaknesse, way­wardnesse, [Page 49] or carelessenesse they will not looke after it? Suerly I cannot see but t'is only to the increase of their damnation. Like vnto an am­bitious man who whilest he is yet a farr of from the hon­nour which he aspire's vnto, he can beare it patiently, but if once he come to a faire pos­sibilitie, and haue it as it were in his hand, ô! Then if he misse it, he is incapable of all comfort and consolation, and thinke's him selfe the most vn­happy and vnfortunate man in the word. So I conceiue that when a soule is out of hir bodie and come's to see how easily she might haue attai­ned to that eternall Blisse and Happinesse, where vnto she was ordained, and that [Page 50] through hir owne neglect and carelessenesse she is now to be euerlastingly depriued the­reof, ô God! Vncle, how infi­nitely will she be greeued? how she will curse hir selfe? and thereby increase hir paine and miserie.

You saie well, cozen, Can you doubt therefore, or can a Christian thinke, but t'is a pointe of great necessitie to man Kynde, If there be anie order established by Christ Iesus in his church to make men embrace, accepte, and poursue those facile meanes to saluation, that they know and belieue it? Can a man of com­mon sense and iudgment im­magine chat this is not a pointe of maine importance? Or that who disagree's about [Page 51] this position doth only disa­gree in matter of opinion, wherein each one may hold what he pleaseth, and not in a matter substantially and fun­damently necessarie to salua­tion?

I confesse, Vncle, when I cōsidere the frailtie of man, and see how easily and ordinarily he is withdrawne from willing and following the meanes of his beatitude by the least terrestriall, sen­suall, and momētarie pleasure, it where madnesse in me to belieue that supposing there be anie such order established by Christ in his church to in­cite and prouoke men to ac­cepte and practize these sa­uing meanes, it were, I saie, madnesse not to thinke the [Page 52] knowledge and beliefe of such an order to be one of the most important and ne­cessarie pointes of christian doctrine.

Remember then, cozen, the three stepps or de­grees we talked of before, of knowing, esteeming, and poursuing anie good. And you will finde that, for the first it is necessarie the truth of Chri­stian doctrine be conserued and often inculcated in to the harts and mindes of Chri­stians, for the second that those who are to doe this, haue such qualities as wil giue them cre­dit and make men belieue them, and for the third that there be meanes taken (so farr as human nature giueth leaue) to cutt of all such impe­diments [Page 53] as hinder men from preferring eternall good be­fore the temporall tēptations and sensuall pleasures of this life. The first of these condi­tions requireth that there be men appointed to haue care of the people by instructing and often putting them in minde of Christian doctrine. Which if Christ haue done, t'is euidēt that whosoeuer see­keth to change his order and appointment doth not quarell vpon a sliglt pointe, but vpon a most waightie and necessa­rie one.

I see well that who seeketh to distroye such an order established by Christ, playe's with his church as Eso­pe's wolues played with the sheepe, offering them prey [Page 54] vpon condition they would deliuer vp their doggs vnto them, which being done, they slew and preyed vpon the sheepe. And me thinke's, common sense telleth me there cannot be a pointe in all Christiā doctrine of great­ter importance then this. For when I considere why treason is the greattest offence that can be committed in a com­mon wealth, I see t'is because no law can subsiste and hold without guardes and lookers to it, so that who striketh at these guardes in a common wealth (of what nature so euer it be) striketh at the verie essentiall forme of it, at all the lawes, and at all what so euer doth conserue the peace and libertie of the whole peo­ple [Page 55] and multitude, where vpō the common wealth doth sub­siste. Wherefore t'is euident by naturall reason that who seeketh to remoue and abo­lish those whom God hath pla­ [...]ed to guarde his church, stri­keth at the totall ruine the­reof.

T'is true, and there­fore you maie inferre that questiōs of the Pope's autho­ritie ouer Bishopps, of Bish­opps authoritie ouer Priests, and of Priests authoritie ouer the laietie are of no smale mo­ment. And that who goe's about to distroye this Hierar­chie aymeth at no lesse then the vtter ouerthrow of Reli­gion, and ruine of the church planted by Christ Iesus with so much sweate and blood, [Page 56] and espoused so dearely vnto him with his sacred promises. These are the Angells to whō God hath trusted and com­mitted the charge of his flocke. These are they by whose con­tinuall succession we conuin­ce the perpetuitie of the Ca­tholike church. These are the men who when anie new Blasphemie arriseth meete in Councells to giue testimonie to the doctrine of Christ euer dwel­ling in the harts of the faithfull, and thereby crush the ser­peni's head. These are they who in their wisdomes, may and ought enacte lawes and Ca­nons to Christ's flocke, and correct abuses creeping in both in discipline and mo­ralitie, leauing still vntouched Christ's sacred institutions, [Page 57] And therefore who seeketh to extirpate or infringe this au­thoritie in the church, setteth his axe at the roote of faith and vertue, by which the church of Christ doth sub­siste. Nay euen in schismaticall churches the wiser and more learned sort of men haue euer detested and abhorred the confused Anarchie of braine­sicke Puritants. And t'is said that wise state's men doe ve­hemently suspect, and haue iust cause to suppresse all An­ [...]y-Hierarchists.

Certainely no pru­dent and moderate man can doubt of the importance of this pointe. And me thinke's, vncle, these zealous societies doe to the mainteners of this Hierarchie as Diogenes did [Page 58] to Plato, scorning his vanitie with a farr greater pride, for whilest they crye out against the pride of those who seeke these dignities established by Christ in his church, they dis­couer a farr greater pride in them selues by endeauoring to distroy so sacred an institu­tion, that they them selues may vsurpe the power and place. But to the second degree and condition of the diuision you made, doe you thinke

§. 4 That the administration of the sacraments by the Hierar­chie is of such great necessitie?

How saie you cozen, what power, pree­minencie, and qualities doe you thinke are necessarie for [Page 59] these guardes and teachers of Christ's law and doctrine, to the end that the people may conceite such things as they tell them, and thinke them to be of moment? for surely the most part of men haue neede of all the helpes that may be, to eleuate and raise their min­des to celestiall cogitations?

I see well enough that such men must needes haue credit with the people, and ought not only to be ac­counted wise and good men, but should be also esteemed wiser and better then the laie­tie, for I haue heard the Pro­phet's curse cited, sicut populus sic & Sacerdos. But this me thinke's should not touch vpon anie necessarie pointe of faith, seeing it depende's on [Page 60] their particular liues and im­ployments, which are knowne by sense and experience, and not by anie tradition from our forefathers.

You are mistaken, cozen, for although t'is true that the clergie's euill liues may disgrace the motiues of reuerence bestowed vpon thē by Christ Iesus▪ yet if their liues be but tollerable▪ Christ may haue giuen them such eminent power and dignitie as that they will not want, that reuerence and respect which is fitt and conformable to the function and profession whe­revnto he hath caled them. And certes not with out neces­sities, if we considere the cre­dulitie and obedience which are required at the people's [Page 61] hands. Credulitie, of things beyond and aboue nature, nay beyond all the fables (be it spoken with respect) that euer man inuented. Obediēce of hazarding liues and fortu­nes, nay of entirely ruining them selues and their posteri­tie (in respect of this world) in such cases as these instru­ctors shall tell them that the law of God commande's it and require's it. Wherefore as Kings and Magistrates finde by experience that Pompes and Ceremonies, and the re­seruing of certaine actions and creations to them selues, doe breede in their subiects (yea and in strangers too) honour and respect, and the­refore are verie carefull how they imparte and communi­cate [Page 62] them, still keeping to them selues alone some Re­gall priuileges and prerogati­ues. So likewise Christ Iesus not vnmindefull of his Mi­nisters, left them, and to them only, the churche's Pompes and solemnities, but specially the Sacraments, to giue them credit and authoritie thereby. To Bishops the giuing of the Holy Ghost or Confirmation (Which is a continuance of the Mission of the third per­son of the holy Trinitie in the first Christian Pentecoste, and therefore who slight's Con­firmation slight's that Missiō) and the cōsecrating of Priests.Why Priests are to be hon­nored. To Priests the rest of the Sa­craments, except Baptisme, which by reason of the peo­ple's necessitie could not con­ueniētly [Page 63] be reserued to Priests only, whereof there were to be but few. But cheefely he gaue them charge of the Blou­dilesse sacrifice of his owne bodie, and the power of remitting sin­nes, whereon is prinpally gro­unded and subsiste's the reue­rence due vnto the church of God. The one being a priui­lege beyond man's inuētion, and such an one, as if all the learned clarkes that euer liued since the begining of the world, should haue studied to raise, aduance, and magnifie some one istate of men to the highest ptch of Reuerence and Eminencie that could be im­agined, they could neuer (wit­hout speciall light frō heauë) haue thouht of anie thing comparable to this, And yet [Page 64] so adapted to the secrets of na­ture, that who should diue in to hir mysteries would strei­ght at the first proposing of it acknowledge it to be true, be­cause a thing so hidden in the depth of nature's bowels could not be inuented and ap­plyed in this manner by anie but the Maister of nature it self. The other being so migh­tie a power ouer man's nature and so extremely vsefull to mankinde, for their helpe and directiō to eternall Blisse, that nether in respect of the awe which it strike's in to their subiects, nor in respect of the profit, which (being conue­nieniētly vsed) resulteth from it, there is nothing in this world anie waye estimable in comparison thereof. What [Page 65] thinke you then, cozen, who seeketh to take awaye the reall presence of Christ's bo­die in the B: Sacrament, and the power of Absoluing sin­nes, doth he quarell vpon trifles? Be not these pointes (which we hold as true and as certaine, and vpon the same groundes, as we doe the Trini­tie and Incarnation) of maine consequence and importāce? And doth not he shake the fundamētal Basis, and cheefe cornerstone of the churche's building who take's awaye this power and authoritie frō hir iudges and ministers, whe­reby they were so reuerenced and honnored as that they were belieued and obeyed? And finally be these questiōs to be left indifferent to euerie [Page 66] idle braine and priuate phan­sie to thinke and practize what he please's?

I must needes confesse I neuer considered thus much before, for truly I see that the Administration of the Sacraments are necessarie for this end, thoe I haue heard the Sacraments are necessarie for manie other ends. But now I easily conceiue that if the clergie be not of credit, it cannot haue the effect which it was made and ordained for, and if it hath not it's effect, it causeth not the keeping of Christ's law, and if Christ's law be not kept, there is no sal­uation. So that t'is euident the Clergie needeth the greattest proppes and meanes of credit and reuerence that can be had. [Page 67] And surely what common wealth soeuer highly estee­me's of God's law and Chri­stian doctrine, would wish the Clergie these verie qualities, if they had them not allreadie. Wherefore I wonder not that the Puritants, who mainely oppose Ecclesiasticall Hierar­chie, doe fo hate and deteste the doctrine of the B. Sacra­ment, because they thinke all Poperie is built vpō that great sacrifice. And I remember when I was in France, I per­ceiued that going to Masse was h [...]ld the cheefe distinctiue si­gne and action betwixt a Ca­tholike and a Caluinist. So that considering these supernatu­rall and neuer sufficiētly hon­nored qualities of Priests, I cesily belieue the storie which [Page 68] is tould of S. Francis, that he said, if he should meete a Priest and an Angell he would first salute the Biest.

You saie well, and surely were all Priest's liues such as did not partly disgrace theses guiftes bestowed vpon them, I doubt not but Kings would laye their crownes and scepters at their feete, and weare their swords at their deuotion, which antiquitie telleth vs haith bene done and practi­zed. Yea those Tribunall's and that temporall power and iurisdictiō (concerning which the clergie doth nowe per­haps too much contende with the laietie) were at the first forced vpō holy Bishops against their wills; ether by particular men's pretie and [Page 69] agreement, or by the Empe­rour's commands. The world then thinking him vnworthie to liue that would not con­demne him selfe if the Bis­hop iudged against him, And both antiently in S. Hugh of Lincolne, and lately in S. Charles of Milan, the Chri­stian world hath seene how great a power the Reuerence of a Bishop hath, euen in respect of Kings, when his life corres­ponde's and seconde's his Di­gnitie.

But I pray, vncle, doe you thinke that the grea­test necessitie [...] the Sacra­ments doth consist in this, that by the reseruation of their administration to the clergie, the clergie's authori­tie might be more exalted [Page 70] and fitter to serue the church? I haue heard other reasons preferred before this, and▪ therefore me thinke's you should more insist vpon that necessitie which in it self is the greatest and most forci­ble, then vpon a lesser.

Why, cozen, I doe not intende to alledge all the reasons wherefore the Sacra­mēts are necessarie, but only some forcible one, whereby it may follow that such questiōs as are betwixt Catholikes and Protestants concerning those pointes, may appeare to be of impor [...]ce, and so fun­damentall, as that Christian Religion cannot haue it's sub­sistāce and progresse without the knowlege of the truth in such questions and positions. [Page 71] And certes if credit and au­thoritie be the only, or at least, the maine instrument and principall meanes where­by the preachers of Christia­nitie can presse and promote Christian doctrine, And that this credit and authoritie is incomparably more raised and strengthened by the Ca­tholike position then by the Protestant's negatiue, it must needes follow that the effica­citie of Christian Preachers, and the strength of their cau­se is without comparison grea­ther amongst Catholikes ten amongst Protestants, which doubtlesse cannot but moue anie reasonable man, who thinke's and belieue's that our eternall good relye's and depēde's vpon Christian [Page 72] doctrine. I know there be other necessities of the Sacra­ments. As for the vnitie of the church, which being dispersed though the whole world could not be otherwise con­serued then by the practize of some externall actions com­mon to them all, whereby they might know one the other. As alsoe for the aug­mentation of charitie and grace by the frequentation of them. But these pointes haue their proper treatises and places belonging vnto them. It suffiseth I haue shewd you that there ought to be men appointed whose care, function, and imployment is to teach and conserue in the people the truth of Christian doctrine, and that for this ef­fect [Page 73] those men must needes haue some qualities aboue the ordinarie sort of men to au­thorise and giue credit to their documents. For although this doctrine of it's owne nature tende to the highest degree of perfection, and consequētly deserue's of it self to be infi­nitely esteemed and honno­red; yet being supernaturall, that is farre aboue the innate capacitie and reach of man, the preachers and teachers the­reof must of necessitie be en­dowed with extraordinarie power and authoritie to giue credit therevnto. Which sup­posed we may procede far­the, to the third degree and con­dition of remouing impedi­ments hindering the prosecu­tion of our eternall good, and [Page 74] first enquire whether

§. 6 The resolutions of Generall Councells be sufficient to deci­de controuersies of faith, both in pointes of nec [...]ssitie, and of indifferencie

TEll me then, cozen, is it thinke you lawfull for a priuate man to whose care the church is not committed, to doubt in himselfe, and bree­de doubtes in others, touching such pointes as these pastors of Christ's flocke, (who by their function and profession haue the churche's gouermēt committed vnto them) are agreed vpon, and teach with common cōsent to the whole church?

First I see, vncle, [Page 75] that such a man shall not ea­sily induce men to belieue him against so great an op­position's and that therefore he had neede of better groun­des in such pointes then in others. Secondly I see that no wise man will oppose the opi­nion of so manie authorized experts, or held for experts, and that in a matter of their profession, without farre greater and more pregnant reasons in this particular busi­nes, then would be necessarie in an other, wherein he had no [...] such maine prudentiall motiues against him. But whether there be anie obliga­tion in conscience, or whether this be a matter of such im­portance as to make a funda­mentall pointe of Religion of [Page 76] it, that I know not. For contra­riewise me thinke's there should be also an obligation in conscience, when a man fin­de's that these gouernors are mistaken, that he should op­pose them to the vtmost of his power.

You doe not fully conceiue my question, which is this, whether because these men haue the charge and care to reach God's law in the church (setting a side all other difficulties) there be an obliga­tion in reason vpon this preci­se grounds, no [...] easily to op­pose their determinatiō with­out being certaine and secu­re of verie good footing? nor to attempt anie thing against their verdict with out euidēce? Because, saie I, to what pour­pose [Page 77] is their iudgment if it be as free to oppose them after as before▪

As for obligation I tould you, vncle, I know not of anie, but this I see, com­mon sense and naturall reason teacheth vs, that such as haue the charge ād care of instruc­ting others, are supposed to haue more vnderstanding in the doctrine which they teach, thē those who learne of them. And therefore if anie disputs or controuersies arrise in such matters, I see't is [...]ter these teachers should be the iud­ges thereof then those who learne. And in a matter of [...] to appeale from them (when a great and vniuersall part of the wisest haue giuen their cō ­senting iugdmēt) to the [...], [Page 78] [...] [Page 79] [...] [Page 80] [...] [Page 81] [...] [Page 82] [...] [Page 83] [...] [Page 78] is as absurde as to appeale frō Maisters to schollers, or from men of one profession to men of an other.

Why this is all I aske, for where one part is absurde in reason, the other must nee­des be certaine by the same reason, And what is absurde in practise, t'is certaine that ought to be auoided. Where­fore if I mistake not, your dis­course conclude's, that where­soeuer the question is of [...]kill, there no man ought to ap­peale from them who haue charge and care to teach, to those who learne in matter of that art. And therefore if those who haue the charge and care to teach Christian doctrine doe constantly and generally agree in anie pointe [Page 79] after they haue heard and cō ­sidered the oppositions made against them, nether ought anie man appeale vnto the la­ietie, nor can the laietie wi [...]h­out presumptiō and rashnesse accepte of his appeale; nor make them selues iudges in a busines of other men's profes­sion, wherein them selues are ignorant, or, at the most, schol­lers. Now therefore sithence in our case there is no meanes for anie man to preuaile against the Clergie (whom we suppose agreed amongst thē selues in anie pointe or posi­tion) but by making the laietie iudges thereof, t'is euidēt that it wilbe still against reason for anie man to attempt the inno­uating of anie new pointe or position against the Clergie's [Page 80] common verdict, and gene­rall consent, And consequent­ly an obligation of reason and consciēce not to doe it. Hence it follow's that there is a power and authoritie in the Clergie of determining and deciding questions of Christian doctri­ne (whereof they are the tea­chers) and a necessitie in the laietie (who are their schol­lers) of obeying and quieting them selues. For the nature of sedition and factiō is nothing else,What is sedition. but to remoue the que­stion from them who truly haue, or by their places are supposed to haue skill, to them who haue, or may be presumed to haue, none, that is from the Gouernors to the sub­iects, from the skillfull to the ignorant, and from natiues, to [Page 81] Aliens. Secondly it follow's,Nothing but eui­dēce is a laW full Warrāt to opoose iudg­ment. that there can be but two cases only in which one may oppo­se these determieations and decisions. For t'is manifest that nothing but euidēce of the truth can iustifie anie innoua­tion of this kinde, because where there is no euidence the case ought to be putt to iudgment and supreme iudg­ment being alreadie knowne and giuen (as in our case) there is no farther place for iudg­ment, and therefore only eui­dence can be heard. Now this euidence ether is so great as that there neede's no skill to conceiue and vnderstand it, and then the laietie may be admitted as Iudges. Or else the Emminence of the Introducer is such, as that a pointe may be [Page 82] euident to him, and yet not to the greatest part of the Cler­gie, who are the naturall iud­ges of this cause. Wherefore euerie Innouator must of ne­cessitie pretende one of these two. The first he cannot with­out charging the whole Cler­gie of peruerse and will full opposition and contradiction of the knowne truth; and so plainely knowne, that euerie man see's it at the first ope­ning and proposing of it. Which whether it was euer do­ne, or is possible to be done, I leaue it to the iudgmēt of anie indifferent man. The second cannot anie waie, belong to the ignorant and vnskillfull people, And therefore the In­nouator must in such a case s [...]eke out the most learned of [Page 83] the Clergie, and to them pro­pose his reasons, but must not in anie case publish his scien­ce to the vulgar ignorant (whom we suppose vncapable of it) for feare of sedition and faction. And in this case, as perhapps this pointe of do­ctrine may be necessarie, or at least conuenient for the hig­her orders of the Clergie, so likewise it cannot be necessarie for the vulgar people, sithence we suppose them incapable of it. And therefore this [...]minēt introducer must neuer m [...]ke it common to the laietie, much lesse appeale from the Clergie to them? And thus you see that all controuersies in Religion must in be remit­ted to the iudgment of the Clergie, that is in Catholike [Page 84] language to an oecumenicall Councell.

Me thinke's, vncle, I could obiect one thing aga­inst your discourse, to witt, that t'is not in man's libertie to thinke or iudge what he will of anie positiō, such an act being a naturall operation, and the­refore that no man ought to be forced to belieue this o [...] that. And to saie the truth, what can I thinke whether the great Turke be a talle or low man? whether the number of the starrs be odd or euen? if my life laid on't, I could not thinke ether part.

I, cozen, but if the great Turke's true statua were in westminster, and that for going thither you might know his height, or that the [Page 85] true number of the starrs were sett downe in an Almanacke which you might buy for a groate, I belieue if your life laid on't you would easily be resolued to thinke the truth.

Mary, that's true, but then I were not forced to thinke or iudge one part, but only to seeke out the truth, and so come naturally to thinke it.

Why then likewise if the church commande you to thinke and belieue that, which by seeking you may easily come to know, not shee but you are to blame if you doe not belieue what she com­mande's. And if hir authoritie be greater then anie argu­ment which can be brought to the contrarie, and greater [Page 86] then the most part of the rea­sons where vpō you build all the beliefs which gouerne your life and actiōs, may you not securely belieue what she belieue's? Or if you please doe but seeke out the motiues which make's the church hir selfe belieue what she tea­cheth, and you will easily be­lieue with hir. But if you will not attende to the meanes which would make you know and belieue the truth, is it not fitting you should be forced to your owne good, as fooles and vitious men are to follow reason? Some men, you know, doe things by force which otherwise they would neuer doe. And as doggs abstaine from good bitts for feare of beating, so passionate men [Page 87] come now and then to reason for feare or punishment.

T is true a passionat man doth neuer see reason, and yet thinke's all other men vnreasonable, his passiō euer making him iudge amisse. And therefore truly I doe not see why men should not be punished for their passions, and so be forced to leaue thē.

If that be so, cozen, you will finde that your argu­ment hath a greater extent then you are aware of. For if you considere how few there be that are not caried awaie with passion, or interest, and how secretly these dispositiōs lye hidd in the mindes and actions, euen of the best men; And then looke into the na­ture of our soule, and see that [Page 88] nothing but euidence can strō ­gly moue and draw hir of it self, or by it's owne force, you will plainely perceiue that all opinion is generally grounded vpon passion and interest, and therefore according to your argument all false opinions should be corrected.

I thinke in deede there's a great difference be­twixt disputing wildly to and fro with arguments on both sides, which most men vse, and taking knowne and agreed principles and proceeding vpon them to drawe forth a long threed of science, as me thinke's your manner is. For I conceiue that if this methode were strickely obserued, men would attaine to farre more knowledge in things neces­sarie [Page 89] to our well being, and to a greater Eminence in profi­table curiosities.

Howsoeuer, cozen, I hope you now perceiue that this pointe hath resolued all controuersies. For if all dis­puts betwixt vs and others of a different communion be in matters subiect to iudgment, and that there cā be no higher iudgment vpon earth, for the resolution of such difficulties, then of a Generall Councell, And that we doe not refuse communion to anie man but for matters thus resolued, it euidently followe's that all questions betwixt vs and what church soeuer of different communion are alreadie past iudgment, and consequently past dispute. For what opi­nion, [Page 90] I pray, can you haue of those, who will not admitte, nor be content with anie iudg­ment which God hath left vpon earth for such matters as they thēselues call in doubt? I thinke both common sense and naturall reason will con­demne them. But lett me aske you one question farther. Sup­pose that some thing be orde­red in the church of God ac­cording to the iudgment and discretion of those, to whom God hath giuen the power of Gouerment and iudgment in such matters, which perhapps of it selfe might be otherwise ordered without anie preiudi­ce to the church, but they thought this waie the fittest; now come's others, to whom this charge is not committed, [Page 91] and saie t'is ordered amisse, requiring it may be altered, whether doe you thinke that in this case, this order ought to be changed vpon their de­mande and proposition?

If those controwlers can shew an error in the order, thē, me thinke's, it were fitting to change it, but if not, then I should absolutly condemne them of disobedience and schsime, if they should perse­uere to stand out, And he that should excuse them, were to be suspected as not true to anie authoritie though he professe to acknowledge it.

Softly, cozen, softly there's nothing more frequtē amongst men then through passion and ouersight to for­sake their owne principles, [Page 92] and contradict in one matter what them selues confesse in an other. And therefore al­though it be true by cōsequē ­ce of reason, that who soeuer doth rise against the church in this kinde, may vpō the same grounde and principle be fal­se to anie other authoritie or gouerment, yet vpon other reasons, or by not seeing the consequence of his fact, he may likewise be true and faith­full, And therefore it were rashnesse to condemne, for this reason alone, those truths, which such an one may per­happs mantaine in other mat­ters. Howsoeuer is not our cōclusion manifest, that there is no place for Ifs and Ands in our case, where there can be no euidence brought against [Page 93] a pointe of doctrine, which the highest Tribunall and Iudgment vpon earth hath al­readie decreed? But suppose some one or few of these in­nouators had Euidence on their side, yet the vulgar people, whom they putt on to muti­nie, cannot haue it, no nor anie certaintie that these their ring leaders haue Euidence, being not able to compare vnder­standingly the worth of diuers men in a busines which sur­passeth their capacitie, And therefore this common peo­ple, in such a case, must nee­de's proceede and doe, whatsoeuer they doe, vpon passiō, surprise, or interest, And con­sequently those innouators who moued, caried, and pres­sed them therevnto, cannot [Page 94] be excused from being culpa­ble of temeritie, obstinacie, and Archi-Rebellion. Yet as a Prince doth some times cō ­descende to his Rebellious subiects, that he may gaine ti­me, and so bring them to rea­son, as Roboam's wiser Coun­cell thought fitt to giue eare to the cryes of the communities for once, that they might ser­ue him euer after: So I doubt not but the church both may and will relent some times a litle to establish hir Gouer­ment and good order more strongly an other time. Nor is she to be reprehended if con­trariewise she be rigorous vpō occasions, to witt, when she see's that relenting weaken's hir authoritie, and doth rather increase then assuage the mu­tinie. [Page 95] But what is now and then conuenient to be done, that belong's to them who are in place to iudge, And for vs to obey, and s [...]ill suppose they doe the best.

Hitherto, vncle, me thinke's I am well satis­fied, but there's a maine diffi­cultie about the diuersitie of the rule of faith. I pray, tell mee, doe you not thinke

§. 7 That the maintenance of the vnitie of the church is of extreme great necessitie?

FOr we professe, you know, that tradition, or the re­ceite of our doctrine from fa­ther to sonne, is our cheefe authoritie, and our prime mo­tiue of faith, All others will [Page 96] acknowledge no other rule then their owne interpretatiō of the scripture. This in my minde is the most important question of all the contro­uersies in Religion, and vpon the resolution of this pointe doth rely and depende all other disputs and difficulties of christian faith, nay euē our being truly and properly Christians or faithfull. For if Christ was a lawmaker, not euerie one who professeth his name, but who obserueth his law is truly a Christian.What it is to be a Chri­stian. And if Christ haue sett downe a certaine rule or manner, and certaine Magistrats, by whom we are to know this law, who­soeuer doth not follow that rule and acknowledge those Magistrates cannot be said to [Page 97] obserue his law, and conse­quētly professe Christ's name wrongfully.

Doe you thinke, cozen, that who doth not ob­serue Christ's law is no Chri­stian? what then shall become of sinners? shall none of them be Christiās, nor of the church of Christ? you will make a church of only Elects or Pre­destinates, as the Puritants doe.

It may be I goe to farr, yet certainely who doth not keepe Christ's law, or pro­fesse to keepe it, is no Chri­stian. But then me thinke's I goe to farr on the other side, for all those that professe Christ's name, doe likewise professe to keepe his law, how litle soeuer they doe.

Why then cozen, I will helpe you out, and open the state of the question vnto you. First you must know that this word Ecclesia in it's primitiue sense signifieth a meeting or cōgregatiō of mē called out of a greater multitu­de,What is a chur­ch. as a Councell or Senate is. And becaus the first Christiās were called in that manner by Christ and his Apostles,Ioh. 15. Ego vos elegi de mundo, therefore we properly and deseruedly call the multitude of Christiās a Church. Now a multitude called to gether, is not only and simply a multitude, (which may importe confu­sion) but a multitude gathered together and vnited.wherein consist's the vni­tie of the church. If you aske wherein this multitude, we speake of, is vnited, t'is [Page 99] knowne that t'is to doe the will of the caller, who being Iesus, (that is, sauiour or Dire­ctor to saluation) their calling must be to walke the paths of saluatiō, And sithence we haue no other Maister of our salua­tion but Iesus Christ, t'is eui­dent that the vnitie of his church must consiste in the obseruance of his law. Se­condly you are to note, that there are two sortes of vnities, the one of similitude, the other of connection. We saie, all men are of one nature, that's an vnitie of similitude, we saie likewise, all the parts of a man (though dislike in themselues) make one man, there's an vnitie of connectiō. Now if the church of Christ had beene to continue only [Page 100] for his owne, or his Apostle's time, the former vnitie would haue serued. Nay euen now, if all the Christians, who liue at this day, doe, and performe the same things, practize the same faith and good life, and vse the same Sacraments, This vnitie of similitude would suf­fice to make the church of Christ one for the present, but could not make it subsiste and continue, there being no con­nection amongst the parts and members of this multi­tude to make them sticke to­gether. Wherefore Christ ha­uing planted a multitude of faithfull which he intended should subsiste and continue for manie ages, no doubt but he hath giuen them such an vnitie as is necessarie for cōti­nuance. [Page 101] Thirdly therefore you must note that there are two sortes of multitudes in this world which subsiste and continue, the one naturall, as the parts of a liuing creature, the other morall as the mem­bers of communities or com­monwealths, and both haue their proportionall vnities. For the first we see that in plantes all the members haue a due connection to the roote, from which being cutt of the part dyeth for want of continuitie. In other liuing creatures we likewise finde at hart (or some thing else that supplie's it's function) by con­nectiō wherevnto euerie part receiueth life and subsistence, and whose passage or com­munication with that hart be­ing [Page 102] stopped and cutt off, the part by litle and litle fade's and dye's. For the second subsisting and cōtinuing mul­titude, we see in all communi­ties or common wealths there is a head, common Councell, or highest authoritie, wherevnto all the members repaire in ne­cessitie, and by their conne­ction therewith, they receiue securitie, life, and motion in that morall kinde of being, euerie man doing his dutie accor­ding to the lawes of that com­munitie, and the head or supre­me authoritie prouiding for the obseruance of the lawes in generall, and particularly for the direction of such cases as the lawes reach not vnto. So that if you take awaie this head or common wisdome, the multi­tude [Page 103] must of necessitie be short liued, and quickly come to ruine. Hence it is euident to common sense and naturall reason, that the church of Christ being a multitude or­dained to subsiste and conti­new, must not only haue the vnitie of similitude and be one by the similitude of actions which Christ hath prescribed, and all Christians practize; but also by the vnitie of con­nection to some common head and supreme Councell, whereby it may conserue it selfe, and keepe it's subiects in the continuance of the law of Christ, and in the practize of those actions which he hath commanded. And here you may note, that were this law naturall, there needed no [Page 98] [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 100] [...] [Page 101] [...] [Page 102] [...] [Page 103] [...] [Page 104] more to be of the church then to be a member of this communitie,The Want of the true rule of faith exclude's from the church. and he would be out of it, who should not par­ticipate of the two vnities. But our Christian law being aboue nature, and cōsequētly not to be learned by man's iudgmēt, but by authoritie, (that is by receiuing it from Christ) those who doe not receiue it by that meanes and rule by which Christ hath ordained it shall be receiued, are not truly of this communitie, whatsoeuer be their materiall beliefe and opinion. Wherefore you are to considere farther, that this Receipte of Christ's law and doctrine may haue beene or­dained by Christ himself to be effected two seuerall waies. First by word of mouth, that [Page 105] is, that this law and doctrine should be vocally taught and deliuered from hand to hand, from father to sonne to the world's end: secondly, by writing. Now therefore if Christ haue ordained both these waies, who should not accept of them both, is not truly and properly a Christiā, nor consequently of the Chri­stian communitie. If Christ haue only instituted tradition to be the meanes and rule of the receite of his law and do­ctrine, and hath giuen scripture only for superabundant instru­ction and consolation, then who should reiect tradition, and flye to the scripture, ma­king it his only rule and mea­nes of receiuing Christ's law and doctrine, were not truly [Page 106] and properly a Christian, nor of the Christian communitie. Lastly if Christ haue ordai­ned scripture alone to be this rule and meanes, then who cleaueth to Tradition is not truly a Christian. The resolu­tion of this question doth pro­perly belong to the Gouer­nors of the church, who if they haue the true rule, their subiects are safe, if not, their subiects soules will be requi­red at their hands by whom they perish. But I will take an other time to giue you a full resolution of this maine dif­ficultie.Three things are re­quired to make a legiti­mate Christiā In the interim you may inferre out of this dis­course to our present pour­pose that three things are re­quired to make one a legiti­mate Christian, and such an [Page 107] one, as euerie Christian ought to bee, if he will be truly one of the communi­tie and church of Christ. Though perhaps one may be in some sorte a Christiā, and goe to heauen too, by an ex­ttaordinarie meanes, without hauing all these three subse­quent dispositions and quali­ties. The first is, that he belie­ue and practize the law of God, which in respect of a particular man is but short, and t'is, in a word, to loue God aboue all things. The second is, that he be vnited to the multitude of true Christians, that is, that he depende of the Gouerment left and instituted by Christ here vpon earth. And for this pointe or quali­tie, as I doubt not but some [Page 108] one or few may be saued with­out it (yea peraduenture with an opposition to it in fact through ignorance, so his hart be true and without passion) yet to thinke this a common, ordinarie, and high waie to sal­uation, and that t'is as indiffe­rent to liue from vnder this Gouerment setled by Christ, as vnder it, were ridiculous and absurde in common sense and reasō, and in deede it were to annultate Christ's coming, and make his law voide and fruitlesse. And if you desire to conceiue the necessitie of this pointe more fully, doe but reflect and considere the nature of all ciuill and politi­call commonwealths, where­in if anie member doe not liue vnder the Gouernors, [Page 109] and depende of the Magi­strats established by the high­est power and authoritie the­reof, he cannot be truly and properly said to be a part and member of that communitie, nor can he assuredly know (ordinarily speaking) nor con­stantly performe the law and orders of it. The third pointe is, that this communitie, whe­reof euerie particular Christiā is to be a share and member, hath the true rule and meanes to know and obserue the law of Christ. And it is necessarie that this pointe be more ex­actly knowne by those who liue amongst diuersitie of opinions in this matter. For where there appeares learned and morally good mē taking parts in this question, a priuat [Page 110] man seeme's to haue iust reasō to doubt whether side he shall take for his guide, and there­fore this pointe well dicussed amōgst such, giue's a man full and generall satisfaction for his whole beliefe and practize. And these two last pointes cleere one the other, for that communitie which hath the true meanes of the receipte of Christ's law and doctrine, that is, the true rule of faith, must of necessitie be it, of, and in which we are to seeke, and shall finde, Christ's law: And contrariewise if we finde the true communitie, we are sure it hath the true rule of know­ing Christ's law and doctrine. Hence it is that the Catholi­ke church euer pressed hir Ad­uersaries with two speciall ar­guments, [Page 111] 1. with the noueltie of their church, shewing that none of them euer had a con­tinuall visible succession. 2. that they receiue not their opi­nions from their Ancestors, and by them from Christ, but that they were inuented at such a time, against the receiued te­net of the church in that time, that is, traditiō for the church, and noueltie of doctrine in hir Aduersaries. And now I thinke you see the resolution of our first question.

I thinke I doe, and t'is (if I be not deceaued) that such as professe to keepe the law of Christ (though in effect they doe not performe it) are to be accounted of the church, and consequently sinners are not to be excluded, so long as [Page 112] they submitte them selues to the churche's Gouerment established by Christ: And on the other side, though diuers pretende to Christ's law and doctrine, yet vnlesse they be ioyned and vnited to that cō ­munitie which hath this gouer­ment, and the true rule to know and continue Christ's law, they cannot (generaly spea­king) be saued.HoW some may be saued out of the church. But you said one thing which truble's me to wit, that some be saued euen without these conditions, which is against our commō saying, that there's no saluatiō out of the church of God, and therefore, you know, we la­bour to gett people reconci­led and vnited to the church euen in the hower of their death, which would not be so [Page 113] needfull if saluation could be had out of the church.

Why, cozen, doe you not saye, that euerie man hath two leggs, two eyes, and the like, though some particular men be destitute of both? we saye men cannot liue without meate, and yet some haue li­ued manie yeares without it. We saie men cannot liue in the water and yet t'is writt, that the Portugalls in their disco­ueries found a man whose ha­bitation was in the sea, and came only to land as Croco­diles and seacalfes doe. So you see we putt vniuersall de­nominations vpon the com­mon▪ and generall, and that without preiudice to lawfull exceptions of rareties or pro­digies. You know there's no [Page 114] generall rule but hath an ex­ception, and Logicians saie, ars non curat de accidentibus ac fortuitis.

But, I pray you shew me, why t'is a rare acci­dent for a man to be saued out of the church. For exam­ple, if we looke into the tene [...] of our Protestants, I see not, why they may not be said to hold sufficient pointes of faith both to attaine to the loue of God, which is the cheefe path of saluation, but also to liue an ordinarie and competēt good life amongst their neighbours, which is the compleatnesse of God's law.

Were not man a ciuill and sociall animall, that is, to liue with others, I should not denye, but a Protestant [Page 115] might more ordinarily be sa­ued. For as you said well, they hold as manie tenents with the Catholike church as be in some sorte sufficient for the directiō of a priuate mā's life. But God hath cōmanded eue­rie mā to haue care of his neig­hbour, at least so farr, as not to hinder him from such things as be necessarie to his saluation. And manie things being necessarie to a multitu­de, which are not needefull to euerie particular and priuat person, he that hindre's the multitude from such necessa­rie meanes and assistance, can neuer be saued himself. As if some Prouince or part of a commonwealth▪ should start vp and refuse diuers antient lawes necessarie for the good [Page 116] and peaceable liuing of the whole multitude, some priuate men perhapps of this proui [...] ce might so liue and be [...]i [...] them selues as to correspond and complie with the end and intention of the whole com­mon wealth in vertue of some such other laws and status [...] might be generally admitted and commonly receiued by them all, but sure it is, that the multitude and communitie of this prouince would neuer reach to this perfection, wanting (as we suppose) seuerall laws and institutiōs necessar [...] for them in common and in generall. Now that the Catholike's tenents, which the Prote­stants refuse and contradict, are of this nature, to witt, that they are necessarie for the [Page 117] multitude, t'is euident. As Go­uerment of the whole church, and those lawes and Canons which these Gouernors vni­uersally assembled doe ennact and ordaine for the good of the totall multitude, and in particular, praying for the deade, praying to Sancts, The vse of pictures, Sacraments, Ceremonies and the like, which Christ, or his Apostle's, or their successors instituted for the benefit of the vniuer­sal communitie and multi­tude, Amongst whom there being diuers tasts, one is plea­sed with one thing, an other with something else. Where­fore the Protestants in con­tradicting these pointes, hin­der the multitude of their sal­uatiō (supposing these things [Page 118] be good and necessarily or­dained, as we Catholikes sup­pose, and as I will shew yo [...] presently) and therefore t [...] pronounce generally of th [...] Protestants that they canno [...] be saued, though we doe no [...] absolutly exclude euerie par­ticular man, who through ignorance may (for anie thin [...] I know) be excused from th [...] guilt of Protestancie.

I am hartily gla [...] to heare you saie that som [...] may be excused, for I sha [...] haue better hopes of some o [...] my deceased friends then hitherto I haue had. But sin [...] you are fallen into this di [...] course, I pray, lett me vnderstand why the Protestants ce [...] sure vs of being vncharitable when we saye, they shalb [...] [Page 119] damned vnlesse they be ex­cused by ignorance? For sure they them selues must needes saie as much of vs, sithence they accuse vs of Idolatrie, and other hainous crimes, and consequently they must be as vncharitable as we, or else they will runne into a con­tradition.

The mixture of Pro­testants and Puritants in one common wealth hath, and must of necessitie draw manie into errour, who cannot di­stinguish which be Protestants which be Puritants, nor whether's doctrine it is, that vr­ged. For this verie blaming of our vncharitablenesse (which I thinke is as old as Protestan­cie it selfe) sheweth that the true Protestants haue euer [Page 120] beene of this opinion, that the disputes betwixt Catholi­kes and them, were but mat­ters of indifferencie. I remem­ber when I was a boy there dyed a vertuous Catholike a Kinsman of myne, and at the same time dyed a morall ho­nest Protestant, and the coun­trie said they were both gone to heauen, but the one by Rome the other by Geneua, and so the Papist hath the lon­ger iourney. And the imputa­tion which the people gene­rally laid vpon Catholikes was, that they oppressed men with too great and vnneces­sarie burdens, and forced men to their opinions. And this cānot be otherwise according to the grounds of Protestants, for we haue all that they haue [Page 121] and more, and in particu­lar we refuse nothing that can be proued by scripture, which is the maine principle of Protestanisme, being the only rule and fundation of their beliefe, and we damne, as well as they, who soeuer will not belieue what is euidēt in the scripture, only we sticke to what our forefathers haue taught vs, according to the principles of nature, common sense, and the examples of all the laws and common wealths of the world, vntill the contra­rie be cleered against vs. Whe­refore Protestāts being stron­gly vrged must ether saie in their heate, that Catholikes can giue no probable or appa­rent answere to those places of the scripture which they bring [Page 122] and alledge against them (which must needes be ether an ignorant or a madd man's speach) or else that such que­stions as are disputed betwixt them and vs are of indifferen­cie and not of necessitie. Whe­refore I belieue that those who saie that they ought, and may, censure vs as freely as we censure them, smell of Purita­nisme, leauing the Protestants in the maine pointe. Nether is this to answere, but to ac­knowledge that want of cha­ritie which true Protestants obiect against vs, and so con­demne themselues.Why Catholi­kes cen­sure Protestants so hard­ly. But we Catholikes censure Prote­stants, first, becaus they refuse that, which we hold to be the true rule of faith, to witt, the churche's authoritie or tradi­tion. [Page 123] And sithence the rule of faith runne's through the whole course of our beliefe, ād is the tennor and principle vpon which we hold euerie particular article, t'is euident that who doth not accepte of this right and true rule of at­taining to the knowledge of Christian faith, cannot belieue aright, nor haue true faith but by chance, and therefore will misse it for the most part. Se­condly this rule of ours tell's vs, that Protestant's negatiue positions are against the ge­nerall good of the multitude of Christians, that is, against charitie, and God's law, hinde­ring them from diuers impor­tant and necessarie meanes conducing to saluation. Lastly it were meere folly to leaue [Page 124] possession vpon a slight argu­ment. For as in equalitie the better proofe, should carrie the cause, the equall deuide it, so where there is possession on the one side, there nothing but such conuiction as the na­ture of the cause doth beare, ought to waine possession, otherwise no human posses­sion would be stable and con­stant. Now Catholikes are as certaine of these two pointes as that they liue and breath, to witt, that they haue posses­sion, And that there's no eui­dent conuiction hitherto pas­sed and shewed against them. Wherefore I see not why a Protestant should be offen­ded that the Catholikes cen­sure all their Aduersaries in generall so seuerely, sithence [Page 125] t'is manifest, that if they should not doe so, they would not only betraye their owne principles, but also denye their breetheren that fraternall rebuke and admo­nition, which the law of God and good neighbourhood re­quire's at the hands of men so persuaded as these grounds force and oblige vs to be.

Surely then this is the reason why the church now and then chasticeth such subiects as rebell in beliefe against hir, which the Prote­stants so exclame at.

T'is so in deede, and being no other church can haue this principle against vs, if at anie time they persecute vs for our faith and beliefe, they must needes doe it more [Page 126] out of passion and reuenge, then out of anie rationall loue and knowing zeale to God and Religion. And now, cozen, I hope you conceiue the extreme necessitie and maine importance of these pointes which we haue talked of, being such as that the church of God cannot sub­siste without them, and essen­tiall to Christ's coming, to witt, to establish some to haue the charge and care of teach­ing and gouerning his church, And that these teach­ers and Gouernors haue great credit and authoritie, euen supernaturall and more then human, And that their iudgment in matters of beliefe and Religion is to stand good, nor may be subiected to the [Page 127] weake and wauering iudgmēt of the laietie, that is of men ignorant in the principles of their science and discipline: And lastly that being thus vnited they haue the true and right rule of knowing Christ's law, and those things which are to be belieued and practi­zed. All which you see are of that nature, that the verie es­sence of a Christian church and communitie cannot sub­siste and continue without anie of them all, And without such a church the Generalitie of mankinde cannot be main­tained in charitie, nor without charitie arriue to eternall Happinesse, for which both charitie and all these other pointes are absolutly necessa­rie. This hath beene the [Page 128] chaine of our discourse hi­therto, if you haue well vnder­stood and conceiued my in­tention. Which likewise you see I haue done by the light of common sense and reason, ac­cording to my promis, And sithence you would haue me to goe this waye, and nether flye vp to sublime metaphy­sickes, nor drowne your me­morie with tedious allega­tions of authors, we will still continue in the same path, in­sisting in the principles of na­ture, and shewing that diuers pointes of our faith and pra­ctise, which the Protestants de­ney, are, euen by their confor­mitie to naturall reason it self, ād by their owne proper force and efficacitie of causing and producing good and vertuous [Page 129] effects in a Christian cōmuni­tie (and thereby contributing to saluation) are, I saie, of no smale consequence and im­portance. First therefore tell me, whether you thinke there be anie other necessitie in res­pect of the pointes controuer­ted betwixt vs and the Prote­stants, then this absolute and maine one, which we haue al­readie talked of? I meane whether there be not an other necessitie, which though not altogether so great in it self, and of it's owne nature, yet such an one, as is sufficient to make a pointe of importance, and of such importance, as that to reiecte it, would be a lawfull and iust cause to re­fuse and denye communion to the refractarie and obstinate [Page 130] opposers thereof? And lett vs put the question thus.

§. 8 Whether some pointes may not be of necessitie in a lower de­gree, as in particular the vse of pictures or Images?

I told you before how I thought necessitie might be distinguished into an absolute necessitie, and into a necessitie of a meanes for ab­taining the thing we desire with greater ease and cōueniencie, and you liked well of it. But me thinke's it were a hard case to depriue anie man of that mea­nes and qualitie, without which he cannot absolutly attaine to his end, that others may come to their ends with greater ease and securitie. And therefore I should thinke that no other [Page 131] necessitie but an absolute one, were sufficient to deserue ex­communication, which I take to be a depriuing of a partie from that, without which he cannot obtaine eternall Blisse.

Why, cozen, lett vs suppose that in a communitie of one hundreth thousand, nyntie thousand would neuer attaine to Blisse (though abso­lutly they could) vnlesse the waye were made easie, doe you thinke it were fitt or tolle­rable in anie one, or in a dou­zen, to take awaie the meanes whereby the waye were facili­tated to the rest? Nay suppose ten thousand of the hundreth thousand would arriue to hap­pinesse with great paines and labours, were it not better in the Gouernor's eye, who [Page 132] ought to be a common father to them all, to lett the thenth part perish, then all the other nine?

I confesse I see myne ouersight, for truly the church is bound in such a case to proceede with rigor, And the partie which will not con­descende to helpe the frailtie of their breetheren, doth by this very fact deserue to loose the protection of charitie, which it willfully abandon's, And in effect such a partie hath alreadie putt it selfe out of the secret communitie of God's church, and the Gouer­nor is only to performe it in externall apparence.

Add to this, cozen, that such a partie doth will­fully stand out in this manner [Page 133] vpon pride and faction to iu­stifie their opinion, And that they trench vpon the Gouer­mēt ordained by Iesus Christ, them selues not being caled therevnto, proudly setting themselues in the seate of iudgment to determine what's fitt and conuenient for the whole Christian communitie, and strugling to force their opinions vpon the church against the sentence of the churche's Gouernors, which surely ought to preuaille in such a case. Looke but into the exemples of anie polliti­call common wealth, and see what inequalitie there is bet­wixt twelue pence and a man's life, and yet our laws ordaine the losse of life for the stealth of a shilling or there abouts, [...] [Page 136] not considering the valew of the thing stollen, but that such a fact is the breach of publicke iustice in the common wealth, which if it were permitted no mā should be Maister of his owne. This then being suppo­sed, I doubt not but you will grant likewise that in a church, vertue is to be engendred and conserued with great care and diligence, And although the same things which first breede pietie and deuotion doe afterwards conserue it, yet may there be some things more proper for the conser­uation then for the breeding of it, and contrariewise others more proper for breeding then conseruing it, according as the different state of anie thing that growe's towards [Page 137] perfection doth require a di­uers care and attendance. Tell me then, cozen, how thinke you is the breeding of vertue performed in man kinde? I meane not the first breeding,How vertue is bred­de in man. which is donne by instruction, but the flourishing increase of it, and the bringing of it to strength?

Sithence vertue is no­thing but the loue of what is truly good for man, and that we cannot loue what we know not, vertue must needes be cheefly increased by cleerely seeing and often thinking of the thing we ought to loue, and of such things as belong vnto it, and make it appeare worthie of loue, Amongst which one is, that it be in our power to obtaine it. Where [Page 138] vpon I see that the breeding of vertue consisteth in three things, often thinking of it's obiect, highly esteeming of it, and conceiting it to be possible. Which corresponde's to the three stepps and degrees, you made, of tēding to anie good. And if these three things be well obserued and performed by anie societie of men, vertue must of necessitie increase and florish in that communitie.

I am glad you profit so well, and make such good vse of what I saie, If now the­refore, cozen, the disputs and differences which are in par­ticular positions betwixt vs and Protestants, doe concern [...] all these three pointes, and that highly, will you not con­fesse that they are of great im­portance? [Page 139] For the first you haue heard I am sure how God Allmightie in the old law would haue men's harts per­petually busied about his law, how he would haue them to thinke of it at home and vpon the high waie, morning and euening, how he would haue his comandments bound to their hands, and so euer wag­ging before their eyes, and written vpon the frontispice of their houses. All which was to signifie that the memorie of God's law could not be too great, being not sufficient to thinke of it in the church only, or at vacant times from necessarie labours, but that our thoughts ought euer to be imployed that waye. The like doth the Catholike church, [Page 140] causing to be erected vpon the highwaies, in market-pla­ces, and in corners of streetes some times crosses with our sauiour's image nailed vpon them, some times his flagella­tion, his coronation, his resur­rection, his ascention or some other mysterie of our redēp­tion, or pious representation, to putt vs in minde of what ought to moue vs to the loue of God, which are frequently to be seene in Catholike coun­tries in euerie house, in euerie roome, ouer euerie dore, whe­reof there be yet some mar­kes in our owne Countrie. And can you thinke that this diligence of our forefathers compared to those commāds of God Allmightie in the old law, to be ouer much? Or that [Page 141] the zeale of those who pulled downe these memories of Christianitie was according to science? Doth not the questiō of this pointe cleerely concer­ne the increase of vertue, and the churches Gouerment? Su­rely it doth. For I thinke no wise and indifferent man can doubt but that pictures must needes breede manie good thoughts which would neuer haue beene without them. What true Christian can looke vpon the representation of anie bloodie passage of our sauiour's passion, but he will be moued to some good thought or sentiment if he haue anie feeling of Christianitie in him? Or if some be not mo­ued to pious thoughts by such an obiect, will not manie [Page 142] others be? And none can doubt but that from such de­uout thoughts doe naturally proceede and floe manie ver­tuous affections, and these af­fections doe engender perfe­ction, it being their connatu­rall leauings and effect, And this perfection is that which saueth our soules. So that you see some come to saluation, others to a higher degree of perfection, and cōsequently of Blisse, by the vse of pictures. Where by the waye you may note that if pictures haue this effect in our soules, to what degree of reuerence and affe­ction will not the blessed Sacre­ment it selfe raise them who truly and assuredly belieue Christ's reall, corporall, and substantiall presence to be cō ­tinually [Page 143] in their churches and vpon their Altars? And what a motife of loue doe they take from the church, who refuse and denye this pointe.

You speake with reason and common sense in my iudgment. And in deede the price of one soule is more worth then anie temporall good, euen of state, nay euen of the whole world, which (be­sides the pregnant reasons I haue heard you giue for this pointe) our sauiour him selfe doth testifie it in expresse and plaine words. Neuerthelesse, vncle,Math. 16. I see t'is the course of the world not to esteeme of a smale part of a great number, but to looke only vpon the greatest part. Which whether it be the shortnesse of our dis­course, [Page 144] and in Gouerment, not able to reach to particulars, or whether it be the mutabilitie of nature, not suffering it self to be bound to some one straine though the best and perfectest, which causeth this our vnhappinesse I know not, but so t'is that a smale number is not regarded. Which I speake to this pourpose, that one might answere your dis­course in a word, and saie. The good which the vse of pictu­res bringe's is so smale and litle, that it is not worthie loo­king after, and therefore may well be neglected without anie great losse.HoW the vse of pictures Worke it's effect in man.

Few words, cozen, may putt a man to a great dif­ficultie, And the rather in this matter because the vse of ima­ges [Page 145] hath two conditions, the one that it worke's it's effect by litle and litle, so that the present effect is almost still imperceptible; the other that it is neuer the jmmediate nor the sole cause of it's effect, but hath euersome other cause ioyned with it, which may produce the same effect without it, so that, I saie, hauing these two condi­tions, t'is hard to shew the ef­ficacitie of this cause, seeing we can nether proceede by shewing the want of the effect, this cause being substracted, nor by the chāge of the effect when this cause is putt. Neuer­thelesse to giue you some light and content in this poin­te, Doe you remember the Turner whom I was wont to imploye in London, how by [Page 136] taking awaye litle shauings, and in deed so smale and thinne as that you might see through them, he would in a quarter of an hower bring a great and rough sticke to be as litle and smooth as he desi­red, which suppose he had beene three days a doeing, and yet perpetually a working of it, by reason of the matter or qualitie of the worke, he might be said perhaps to haue wrought well and hard, though the effect of euerie particular stroke did not appeare.

I conceiue your meaning alreadie, for as those shauings would be (specially in your supposition) as it were inuisible, and a looker on, not seing where the shauings were heaped together (for there [Page 147] I doubt not but they would be easily seene) would thinke the workeman did only presse and smooth his worke and noe waie lessen it. So I imagi­ne you will tell me, that the pious affections gained by the vse of pictures produce at length a great effect in our soules, though it be impercep­tible in euerie particular actiō, and consequently the time imployed therein no-lesse profitable for our end, then the Turner's for his.

You are in the right, nephew, only I will tell you Aristotle saie's that Poetrie is a painting in words, And al­though I intende not to com­pare the force of a picture to the force of poetrie, yet if you knew as well what strong and [Page 148] vehement motions and affe­ctions may be, and are produ­ced and imprinted in the peo­ple's soules in some countries by meere dumme showes and representations without all life and action, as well I saie, as you knowe the force of our plaies in London, you would saie there's more truth in Aristo­le's words then euerie one conceaue's, And that the effect of pictures and of poetrie is of the same kinde, And may be compared as a slow and vn­readie Turner to a quicke and nimble one. And there­fore conclude that the effect of pictures is not litle, but but their operation sometimes imperceptible.

You haue said soe much, that now I haue a scru­pule [Page 149] on the contrarie side, I rather feare that the vse of pictures should be taken awaie, least they should worke too much, and induce men to Idolatrie, conceiting that the verie materiall Images haue some hidden vertue in them. So I haue heard the Empe­rour of Constantinople cau­sed statuas to be taken out of Churches, because some Pri­ests abused them by counterfeiting miracles, And I am told that in some Catholike Countries the people will not suffer old pictures to be chan­ged into new, Nay that euen our Deuines attribute I know not what particular assistance of God to one picture rather then to an other, And lastly hat some ignorant people ha­uing [Page 150] beene asked, haue pro­fessed that a Crucifix was Christ, others haue spoken vnto pictures as to liuing things, and the like.

And I haue also heard that a pore woman being exa­mined vpon hir death bed about the three persons of the S. Trinitie, said the sonne was this great light which brings vs day, nor could she be taken of it, hauing beene long decei­ued by the equiuocation of sounde betwixt sonne and sunne, thinke you therefore, cozen, that it were fitt to take awaye the preaching of the B. Trinitie for such errours? I know you doe not. In such questions we must balance the good of the institution with the capacitie and likelyhood [Page 151] of errour and harme which may come thereby. For euerie discreete man knowes well that man's nature is subiect to doe it self mischeefe euen by the best things. How dull and blockish, and how nothing better then the stocke or stone it self which he admire's, must that man be (if he haue but had anie indifferent instructiō in Christianitie) who can beleeue that a piece of wood or marble is that God and man whom he hath heard prea­ched to haue beene borne, li­ued, and dyed vpon a crosse, and now to raigne in heauen? Certes, cozen, t'is euident to a wise and moderat man that the fault is not in the doctrine but in the want of instruction, and consequently, that were [Page 152] to be mended, not the vse of pictures taken awaie, which doe vniuersally good, though some particular harmes come by their occasion from n other cause. Wherefore the Greeke Eperour had donne more wisely to haue punished seuerely those impostors, then to haue taken awaie such an in­strument of deuotion. And this same answere may be ap­plyed whith conuenient pro­portion to those people who are so zealous towards their old pictures. And for Diuine's opinions I intēde not to binde controuersies of Religion to their Quaeres, nor to mingle them in our discourse, the more common this fault is amongst vs, the more it is to be auoided. Only I will add [Page 153] that if anie tell you the fre­quent vse of pictures make's them to be of litle or no ef­fect, your answere is radie, that the like may be said as well of those common and continual­ly present meanes which God Allmightie ordained in the old law to put men in minde of his commandmēts, as alsoe of anie other meanes how ef­ficacious soeuer, to witt prea­ching, prayer, frequentation of the Sacrements and the like, if they be commonly vsed and practized. But to goe on in our discourse, what shall we saie, cozen, of

§. 9 The honnoring of Saincts, their Canonization, and of the in­stitution of Religious orders, are they likewise necessarie in [Page 154] this same degree?

VVich that we may disco­uer the better, let vs con­sidere the other two parts and conditions, which you tould me were necessarie for the breeding of vertue, to witt of esteeming it, and seing it to be possible.How the ve­neratiō of Saincts breeed's deuotiō. And I pray, what meanes of making a deeper impression of esteeme can there be founde then the ve­neration we giue vnto Saincts? For they being the men who haue footed out the stepps which wee must tread, if we intende to come to the same rewards, and attaine to the same happinesse wherevnto they are arriued, which is the greatest motiue of our ver­tuous liuing, can we doubt but [Page 155] the higher conceite we make of the excellencie of their state, the greater and more ardent must needes be our de­sire, and the stronger our courrage to doe and perfor­me what they did and practi­zed. The greater esteeme the souldjer make's of the quali­tie of a commander, the more he is readie to performe those actions whereby such honors are to be obtained. And the like in all conditions of the world.Sainct are honored three Wai [...]s. Now if you considere wherein consist's the honor which we giue vnto Saincts, you shall finde that t'is cheef­ely in three things. 1. In kee­ping their holy days, 2 Re­uerencing their reliques and pictures, 3. In hoping good of them by praying vnto them. [Page 156] For we naturally thinke the greatest goods to be in those who deserue honour and can-doe good to others, and there­fore we neuer make anie great conceite of those things whence we can nether expect anie good, nor wherevnto we thinke no honour due.

I cannot but in­terrupt your discourse with ad­miration to see how men, who suerly had not cast awaie all thoughts of vertue, (sithence they had so manie followers and were in so great esteeme) should vnder slight preten­ces, so weaken the maine strings by which pore men were drawne to heauen, and that for a litle vanitie and desi­re to appeare more learned then others How true is it, vn­cle, [Page 157] that man hath no foe but him self? For not all the Tor­tures and Tyranies, not all the inundations of waters, and rauagings of fires that can be immagined, could euer haue donne so much harme to man kinde, as the verie taking awaie of the esteeme and con­ceite which we Catholikes ha­ue of the excellencie and greatnesse of Saincts, and of the happy estate which they enioye, and which is the end we all ayme at.

Oh! cozen, if Ale­xander, Cesar, or anie of your great glorie hunters had con­sidered in their life time (what now peraduenture to their great greefe they cannot be ignorant of) the difference that there is euen in this worl­dly [Page 158] and vaine glorie betwixt Peeter the fisherman or Paul the tentmaker [who neuer ay­med at this honour, but thought it worse then the dust which they shaked from their shooes) and them selues, who poursued it so keenely with perpetuall dāger of their liues. wasting their estates and Coū ­tries, and ruining their neigh­bours, if this, I saie, they had then knowne, would they not haue changed their mindes, and followed other courses? And doe they not now mau­ger them selues and teare their verie soules in pieces to see their owne follie, and their no lesse witlesse then grace­lesse ambition? And doe you not then thinke that the holy church vseth in this a most ef­ficacious [Page 159] meanes to bring men to a vertuous life, being she doth by this doctrine of honoring and praying to Saincts so strongly commen­de vnto vs the glorie and Blis­se after which we ought to thirst and hope, if we be true Christians?

For the two first points I confesse you haue reason, but for the third I fea­re you will not come so well of, For the easier it is to obtai­ne anie good the more wee esteeme it ours, and conse­quently the more hart we haue to goe about it. And what waie can be thought more easie then to make a cō ­ceite of Christ's goodnesse, and thinke that without anie paines or deserts on our side [Page 160] he will giue vs that great re­ward according to his owne pleasure more or lesse purely and only out of his mercie and goodnesse whitout anie res­pect or regarde to our workes or liues in this world? Whereas we Catholikes make the gates of heauen so narrow, and the paths therevnto so rougged, that we seeme rather to deter­re then exhorte men to ver­tuous liues.

If ether we or they could thinke to come to Blisse whithout good life, I should not wōder at your propositiō, for in that case it were the best and only course to haue a great confidēce in him whose guift it is, But if Christ hath nether left anie such waie, nor you or anie vnderstanding mā [Page 161] belieue that faith with a wicked and carelesse life will bring a mā to saluatiō, Cā you thinke that such an exaggeration of faith and confidence, and such a disesteeming of good wor­kes can be a meanes to per­suade and incite men to sticke closse and persiste in vertuous actions, which by all our con­fessions are requisite and ne­cessarie to saluation? Surely the Catholike church taketh the securer waie, And the rea­son is, because workes in the waie of merite (that is, done for God's sake and with hope of heauen) cannot be without faith, but how easie it is for a man to persuade him selfe that he hath much faith with­out working, we finde by dayly experience. Hence it is [Page 162] that the Catholike church doth moue and persuade vs to labour for our eternall happi­nesse by proposing vnto v the examples of men;The force of exam­ples in man's life. as we are, who haue made this great conquest, in the most exact and solemne act of canoniza­tion of Saincts. And also of others who by professing of extraordinarie labours make it appeare that the waie is not so hard but that manie dayly treade the paths of it, I meane in Religious professions, in which all sortes of austerities are dayly practized before our eyes, which ought not to be derided and scorned, as manie doe. For what power the examples and conuersatiō of good men haue, euerie wise man know's. And for exam­ples [Page 163] we see that all the dangers of the sea and warrs, that di­uing into the bottome of the Ocean, and deluing to the center of the earth, hanging on ropes and scaffolds, and what soeuer man hath inuen­ted in this kinde doe not de­terre men, where there is ether profit or Admiration. Let but one desperate begin­ner shew the waie, and he will not want multitudes of follo­wers, so ether vanitie or gaine second his aduentures. And if the force of Example be so great, the losse of wanting it must needes be equiualent, and consequently the wrong done to Christians by taking it awaie must be no lesse. And therefore the question and cōtrouersie whether it should [Page 164] be maintened in the church or no, is of no smale importance.

I perceiue well that you still continue (accor­ding to your promis) to shew the necessitie and importance of controuerted pointes of Reli­gion by shewing their force and efficacitie of producing profitable and aduantageous effects for mankind's attai­ning and coming to eternall Blisse; and I see that this is a verie connaturall and effica­cious proofe. But I feare all pointes of controuersies can­not be proued that waie. For, I pray, how should anie man shew me

§. 10 That the Sacraments of order and Matrimonie, the Gene­ralitie of Ceremonies, or the [Page 165] opinion of miracles are neces­sarie?

You remember I proposed vnto you but now a diuision of some things which concerned the bree­ding, others the conseruation of vertue and deuotion. For although such things as aug­ment vertue doe likewise of necessitie conserue it, yet there may be some things which properly are to conserue it, and not to augment it, or at least of two things which doe both, the one may conserue it because it breed's it, the other may augment it because it cō ­serue's it. Now therefore if we finde anie thing whose princi­pall effect is only to hinder such contrarieties as would [Page 166] distroye pietie and deuotion, such, properly speaking, doe not augment it of them selues, but yet they may be truly said to conserue it. Farther if you considere you shall finde that this hindering of cōtrarieties and opposites to vertue is per­formed two waies. First by re­mouing all such things as put men in feare of yeilding to the contrarie, which is a kinde of strengthening of man's we­aknesse against these cōtrarie­ties. Secondly by diminishing and aswaging the force and violence of these contrarie­ties, ether in them selues, or in their action. In the first man­ner doe contribute all kinde of Ceremonies, and particularly those which are vsed in the instalements and Beginnings [Page 167] of offices and charges, as the Sacraments of Order and Ma­trimonie. And likewise the opinion of miracles. For Ce­remonies, their nature in gene­rall is to put in men's heads the conceite of a high and su­blime thing, whereby we pro­ceede with greater caution and warinesse in the busines which we haue in hand. And for miracles, the beliefe and opinion of them once well grounded (as it ought to be) make's the people extremely apprehensiue of the presence of Almightie God, and of his immediate gouerment of hu­man affaires. So that as to be ouer credulous of miracles is the signe of a light and impru­dent man (for according to reason the stranger the thing [Page 168] is, the greater ought to be the proofe which should make vs belieue it) so likewise not to thinke that some miracles in common haue beene and are now done in the Catholike church, were to contradict the vniuersall and constant opi­nion of all good Christians, and deserue's to be suspected of not belieuing the particular prouidence of Allmightie God; which is the maine string where vpon all Christianitie and supernaturall Religion hāgeth, and which all Maisters of pietie and deuotion haue euer souht to grounde strō ­gly in the harts and soules of men.

But I pray, vn­cle, how will this be true in Matrimonie (for that concer­ne's [Page 169] me he vse whereof con­sist's in such a materiall and sensuall pleasure? I haue of­ten reflected why the Catho­like church (which make's so great esteeme of virginitie) should place mariage amōgst the Sacraments, and make such great Ceremonies in the administration of it.

You speake like a youngster, And I would to God your conceite and thought were not so deepely rooted in the harts of manie young men like your selfe. The Apostle tell's you that the right and lawfull vse of the bed is honorable, Why t'is fitt that Matri­monie should be a Sa­cramēt? Heb 13. 1. Tim. 2. and that woe­men are to be saued by [...], that is, bringing forth of Children. God Al­mightie hath bestowed this [Page 170] procreation of children vpon his seruants as a cheefe tem­porall Blessing, so we see in Abraham and in the good woman that entertained Eli­zeus; and suerly it was the first Blessing that God bestowed vpon his creatures. If you considere for what end God sanctifie's anie action, you shall finde t'is only for man's vse, And then reflect vpon the goods which follow the lawfull vse of this materiall action betwixt man and wife, and you will not wonder that God hath placed a Sacrament in matrimonie. I doe not doubt but the light of reason tell's you, that in respect of good oeconomie a man's ha­uing but one wife, and his per­petuall cohabitation with hir, [Page 171] is the best manner of secular liuing that can be, both for temporalities sake, and for ha­uing a quiet and contented life. Which supposed, Mariage must needes be a matter of great consideration. For ether a man must liue without a wo­man (which kinde of life is but for few) or with this womā after he hath once taken hir, And therefore t'is of great im­portance that this manner of life of it's owne nature be con­uenient and gratfull. Besides you know a man take's a great deale of naturall content in his wife, generally speaking, (which some times drawe's him to strang inconueniences, vnlesse his passions and affe­ctions be well moderated and setled) for you know hee take's [Page 172] hir for his best friend, his best seruant, and his dearest partner in all his busineses, supposing she be wise and prudent, and consequently euer complying in reason with hir husband's humour. Whereby you see that the making of a Marriage, and the vsage of it when t'is made, is the pinne whereon doth hang the cheefe content and sweetnesse of a maried man's life, the good of his po­steritie, the maine successe and prosperitie of his temporall estate or fortunes, And aboue all the breeding of his chil­dren, and the instilling of pie­tie and vertue into their ten­der harts, which may grow with their age and carie them to felicitie. Iudge now, cosen, whether it was not conueniēt [Page 173] and fitting that in the law of grace this Action should be eleuated and rancked in the highest degree and order of those actions which God hath sanctified for the vse of man. And ought we not to com­mende and preferre the wis­domes of our forefathers be­fore all other nations for ma­king so great esteeme of it, and celebrating it with such great ceremonies?

Truly I am to thanke you for this good les­son, because it may be of spe­ciall vse for my selfe, And I could wish it were giuen to all men before they marrie. For my selfe, I thanke God, I am so well sped, that I neede not wish to haue learned it sooner. But I pray, vncle, lett me [Page 174] know the other part of your diuision, that is which be those things you said were necessa­rie to breake the force of cō ­trarieties and temptations against vertue, and which might comfort and strengthē men in this distresse? I doe imagine that you ayme at so­me things which you will hardly proue. As for Exam­ple, doe you thinke that for this end

§. 11 Praying for the dead, Extreme vnction, and Confession are necessarie?

Setting a side the temptations of sen­suall pleasure which we suppo­se to be moderated by maria­ge, there remaine's feare and [Page 175] grieefe. Feare is cheefely of death and iudgment follo­wing. Griefe is of losse, which to rationall men is, aboue all other things, of friends, of whom the cheefest is All­mightie God, who is lost by sinne; the next is of temporall friends, who are principally lost by their death. This last is taken awaie by the beliefe of their suruiuing, and that once we shall enioye them againe. Whence proceede's the desire of continuing ami­tie and communication with them,HoW prayers for the dead doe appease the gri­efe of the li­uing. which being only to be had by the mediation of Al­mightie God, it cannot be performed but by praying for them, if we thinke they stand in neede. And so a great part of this griefe is taken awaie [Page 176] amongst Catholikes by the diuersion of care to gett pra­yeres said for them, and an other part turned to Almigh­tie God by hoping good for them at his hands. Whereas others giue their friends ouer in death with a farewell frost, or else are plunged in vncu­rable sorrow for an vncurable losse, for the beliefe of enioy­ing them againe when there is no communication in the in­terim is but cold comfort, and sinke's not deepely, as things farre from vs, doe generally litle moue vs. The feare of death is much moderated by the Sacrament of Extreme vnction.How Extreme vn­ctiō doth modera­te the feare of death. The assistance which vertuous parish Priests afford to the pore languishing pa­tient by the Administration [Page 177] of this Sacrament, comforting him and praying for him, ac­cording to S. Iames his com­mande and the Churche's practize,Iac. 5. must needes be of great consequence in such an Exigent. Nay what comfort so litle which in this periode of distresse and last moment of death's agonie is not great? It was not surely without my­sterie (said a great paterne of perfection euen in our age) that our sauiour Iesus Christ would haue his Apostles ac­companie him and praie with him in that dolerous Agonie which he passed in the garden of Gethsemani,Grego­rie Lo­pes. and how much he desired it doth sufficient­ly appeare by his twice going to them to see how they per­formed their charge, and by [Page 178] his exprobration to S. Peeter. Now there resteth only to seeke a remedie for a con­science loaden with sinne, which how great a torture it is of it selfe, you may easily jmagine by the expression and apprehension which the heathens had of it, who were persuaded that Diuills or fu­ries did stand continually with burning torches before wic­ked men's eyes, and that the Ghosts of murdered persons did haunt the murtherers vn­till they brought them to madnesse or some mischeefe.HoW cō ­fession is groūded in natu­re, and What cō ­fort it bring's to a sin­ner. And we are taught both by nature and experiēce that the best and ōly remedie to a sou­le loaden with a secret griefe, is, to disclose hir case, and the cause thereof, to some faith­full [Page 169] friend who may aftord hir comfort and assistance. For this end did our sauiour Iesus Christ institute the Sacramēt of Penance, with the priuiledge of silence not violable at anie rate, no nor God nor man's law can exact in anie case the re­uealing of this secret, what da­mage so euer where to come of it. Which let but anie vn­partiall and vnderstanding mā considere, and then let him iudge of what profit and com­moditie it is to a multitude of men, (not rained downe from heauen impeccable but fra­med like scarabees of the dūg of the earth and thereby full-of imperfection and weak­nesse) to haue by order of law some selected persons of lear­ning and discretion, vnque­stionable [Page 180] of what they shall heare, and extremely to be punished if they speake the least word of what shall come to their knowledge by this meanes, sett to comfort and direct them for the amend­ment of their liues, and on whom they may confidently relye for Counsell, and open the truth of their cause. He knowe's not what a friend is worth, who knowe's not how great a benefit this is.

I easily belieue, (and I thinke euerie indiffe­rent man must needes belieue the same) that the practize and execution of this pointe alone would make so great a change in the people's behauiour, (if it were as well performed as it may, and ought to be) that [Page 181] hence only it would be cleere and euident that Religion to be better in which this were practized, and that, the worse which refused it. But I wonder, vncle, that all this while you haue said nothing of that famous question of cō ­municating vnder both kin­des, which so manie verie mo­derate Protestants stand vpon as a cheefe stumbling blocke which offendeth them.

That's a point, ne­phew, in which the affirmatiue part belonge's to them,Why cō ­muni­cating vnder both kindes was not commā ­ded. And therefore it behoue's them to shew the vtilitie or necessitie of communicating in both-kindes. Which if they cannot doe, and that we know God giue's vs no laws but for our good and profit, a discteete [Page 182] man will easily, and may iustly presume that Almightie God neuer cōmanded it, but left it to discretion. And for them to bring anie euident proofe of a positiue commande (sithence the contrarie hath beene pra­ctized in some churches and to some persons (as children) in all ages) I thinke it neuer was nor can be done. These points are sufficient to shew that it is not out of obstinacie, or vaine glorie that the Ca­tholike church mantaine's hir positions, and forbidde's com­munion to Protestants, but forced therevnto by great ne­cessitie and true grounds of Gouerment, without which no communitie can subsiste. For if euerie pointe may be thus shewed to be of no smale im­portance [Page 183] for the increase of vertue, as it may be, [accor­ding as you see by these which we haue talked of) how much more doth the Bulke of all to­gether make a schisme deser­uing to be lopped from the tree of life? But cheefely that headstrong taking the bitt in the teeth, and that vnbridled ranging in matters of conse­quence without anie respect and awe of the power and au­thoritie ordained by Iesus Christ, or anie reuerence to their fore fathers or present Gouerment, the readie waie and common maxime of all sedition and rebellion in what communitie or cōmon wealth soeuer ether spirituall or tem­porall, which we see doe ordi­narily follow when such Ar­chi-reuolters [Page 184] beginne to feele [...]heir partie strong.

This your last consequēce touche's, me thin­kes, a point which I haue a great desire to heare well dis­cussed, to witt of the Pope's authoritie, which you know our Protestants pretende to be a great inconuenience in all politicall Gouerment.

The old phrase per­mitte's not the shoemaker to iudge of anie thing aboue the shooe, nor am I willing to medle in this pointe or deter­mine what is conuenient or in­conuenient of the Pope's au­thoritie in respect of secular Gouerments. For being not skillfull in this matter and dis­coursing only, as you see, by common sense, I might per­happs [Page 185] offende, though blame­lesse, in ventering beyond my skill, which would be imputed to the weakenesse of my cau­se. Only, this I know, I must and will honor the Pope as S. Peeter's successor, and head of Christ his church vpon earth. Which authoritie I am sure was neuer instituted, nor doth it tende, of it's owne na­ture, to the detriment or pre­iudice of anie lawfull Gouer­ment of what qualitie soeuer. And if those were present, who, perhapps as ignorant as my self in the rules of Gouer­ment, obiect so manie things against this authoritie, I durst vnder take to answere and sa­tisfie them all.

Though you will not be pleased to medle in this [Page 186] pointe yet can you not refuse to teach me how to answere the ordinarie obiectiōs which are made against our Religiō, Which if I could sollidly per­forme, I should make it cleere and euident

§. 12 That good institutions are not to be giuen ouer for smale incon­ueniences, that the abuses are to be mended not the things taken awaie, and therefore that the partie which broke communion is to returne to the other.

Wherefore, I pray vncle, tell me what shall I saie to them who cast in our teeth that the Catholike Clergie's being vnmarried fille's the world with whoredome and [Page 187] Adultery. That the riches of the Clergie depriue's commō wealths of the vse of a great part of their Countrie, by rea­son of their immunities. That the Clergie's strength is able to bādie now and then against the state. Nay that a Reli­gions order, especially such an one as hath great power ouer it's subiects, is able, and not vnpractized, to bandie and make good it's part aga­inst both church and state, with no smale damage and dā ­ger to thē both, if it they were not preuented. These things must needes auerie anie state, much more a schismaticall one, from out Religion, sithē ­ce we suppose them to be of necessitie.

As for the Clergie's [Page 188] chastitie euerie one knowes we confesse t'is not a matter of necessitie by the law of Christ.HoW the Cler­gie's chastitie and single life is conue­nient. Yet that t'is most fitt and con­uenient, I thinke, no wise man can doubt. For of all pleasures the carnall doth most affect sensible nature, and produceth the greatest extremities of passion in man, and conse­quently is the greatest binder of man to earthly things, and the greatest hinderer frō hea­uenly and spirituall thoughts that nature hath placed in mā. It were needlesse to tell you how vnfitt this sensuall im­ployment is for those men, whose maine life and action ought to be in preaching and teaching celestiall and super­naturall doctrine, and whose ayme, euen by their function [Page 189] and profession, is to draw peo­ple from this clodd of earth and eleuate their mindes to God and spirituall affections. From wedlocke followe's the loue of wife and children,1. Cor. 7 and the necessarie cares of house­hold (which the Apostle cale's the afflictions or tribulations of the fleth) And from them the Euill Gouerment of the church, which ether must be hereditary, or neglected, the decessour euer streeuing to leaue nothing to his succes­sour which him self can make vse of for the better prouiding of his children. And lastly the verie conceite of chastitie and the sollitude or lonenesse of an vnmarried man, breedeth an apprehension of the person in whom they are, whereby [Page 190] the people are much better gouerned by such an one. Nor is Celebate the cause of such disorders, as truly are found in some places too frequent; but the multiplication of Priests. Which in deede brings this sacred function into con­tempt amongst the laietie,Why there should be but few Priests in the church. (whose tutors and teachers Priests are by Christ's institu­tion) and maketh them estee­med as seruants. And this also make's the Priests them selues to haue a lesse conceite of their owne dignitie and dutie, whe­reby they become carelesse of their honour and cariage. And to saie the truth conside­ring the difficultie of chastitie in the frailtie of man's nature, t'is not likely that whole mul­titudes of men liuing in liber­tie [Page 191] and perpetuall occasions of falling, should obserue so hard a rule as is expressed by Qui potest capere capiat. Mat. 19 Whe­refore not the Ecclesiasticall commāde of chastitie (which you see is good and necessarie for the Gouerment of the church) but the multiplicatiō of Priests [especially of yong and vnworthie ones) ought to be taken awaie and so the scandal would cease.

You saie well, but I haue heard that multi­tudes of Priests are requisite for the magnificence of the church, for the conuenient hearing of Masse, especially on Holy days, and for the better Administration of the Sacraments and helping of both liuing and dead by the [Page 192] inestimable sacrifice of the Altar, which causeth manie to take priesthood meerely out of deuotion.

I haue heard manie saie so too, but they did not considere that the necessitie of Gouerment and instructiō is the cheefe necessitie of the church, and that the Clergie is made and instituted for this Gouerment (hauing the ad­ministration of the Sacramēts pourposly reserued vnto them to procure them veneration and authoritie for the better performance thereof) and therefore not anie one ought to be made Priest, but for this end, to witt, for the necessitie of instruction and Gouermēt. And this Bishops ought to take care of, nor to bestow [Page 193] Priesthood but where the man's creation is necessarie for his flocke, and then Priests would liue better and be more honored. This was the pra­ctize of the primitiue church, vntill the Ambition of Dea­cons (who had the tempora­lities of the church in their hands) made them desire ho­nour, and so were made Priests. And the like ambition I belieue was the inuentor of those faire reasons which you alledge, for well may it be ma­gnificence in a Prince to haue manie seruants, but to haue manie cheefe heads and Go­uernors that must needes les­sen their esteeme. And for hearing of Masses, if the peo­ple be well ordered and go­uerned few Priests will suffice, [Page 194] nor is the inconuenience so great as the multiplicitie of Priests. And the like may be said for the administration of the Sacraments, and for the helping of both liuing and dead by the holy sacrifice of the Altar. As for those who desire to be Priests out of de­uotion, I thinke their deuotiō would be more conformable to the pietie of our forefa­thers, if they did rather [...]hunne then desire Priest­hood, especially where there are so manie allreadie. And as in my opinion there cannot be an outward worke of greater pietie and charitie then to prouide the people of fitt instructors and Gouer­nors, nor almes better implo­yed then to procure this ef­fect: [Page 195] so contrarie wise I thinke there cannot be an acte of greater sacriledge and impie­tie, then to order and imploye vnworthie subiects in this kinde, and who soeuer out of faction, friendship, or careles­senesse should doe it are worse then Adulteres, Murtherers, or those whose sinnes crye to heauen for vengeance. But this I speake only of my owne opinion.

Truly, vncle, I thinke you are in the right, though peraduēture there be not manie of your minde. For I see well enough that as to multiplie vnworthie judges and Gouernors in a common wealth were to ruine it, so like­wise to multiplie vnworthie Priests is to hazard the spiri­tuall [Page 196] good of Christianitie, and to make an vnworthie parish Priest is in a manner to dam­ne the parish.

For your second obiection of the Clergie's riches,That the Cler­gie's ri­ches are no pre­iudice to the tēporall state. though I am none of those that thinke the Clergie, or anie other spirituall compa­nie whom they affect, cannot be too rich, yet I see no such inconuenience in their riches but t'is easily remedied. For in all Catholike countries there be meanes found out to dimi­nish their riches, and make them contribute to the neces­sities of the state and common wealth as fully as others in proportion, though in an ho­norable waie, as to let them haue their owne Collectors of the monies required at their [Page 197] hands. Besides the Clergie not making anie vowe or pro­fession of renouncing ether riches or honor, and bearing the greatest charge and office in the common wealth, t'is both fitting and necessarie that they haue so much wealth as is requisite for the due per­formance of their function, as, first to be out of sollicitude for conuenient mantenance, 2. to haue an equall conuer­sation with their subiects, 3. to giue example of the due and true vse of wealth, and 4. to breede a conuenient respecte of their qualitie and persons in those whom they are to go­uerne by their persuasions and authoritie. And by these rules it may be easily knowne when the Clergie's riches are exces­siue. [Page 198] You will saie perhapps that the Clergie's authoritie ought to be grounded vpon their learning,Why the Clergie ought to haue Wealth besides vertue. wisdome, and cheefely vpon their vertue. And t'is true, but those whom they are to guide and direct hauing not, for the most part, eyes to see and iudge cleerely of such internall qualities, but generaly esteeme of the in­ward man by the outward ap­parence, t'is necessarie that they likewise haue those exte­rior helpes. For your third and last obiectiō I could quitte my self in a word and tell you, I intende not to iustifie the practize of anie, but only the tenets of the Catholike church, And if at anie time ether Clergie or Religious should bandie against the state [Page 199] or common wealth it were the fault of the men and not of the institution, in which case God hath left meanes to cur­be and punish them, for the Clergie being an essentiall and principall part of the cō ­mō wealth, as well as ether the Nobilitie or commons, t'is the same case for all three, And such an acte were to be impu­ted to the weaknesse of man's nature as well in the Clergie as in the other two. And so I hope you are now content for this pointe.

I am for the Cler­gie, and see you haue reason, but for Religious orders t'is not the same case, for nether is there the like necessitie of them as of the Clergie, nor are they anie publicke part of the [Page 200] common wealth, but only pri­uat institutions within it. Be­sides I haue heard wise and ex­perienced men saie, that Reli­gious obedience is easily tur­ned into an instrument of fa­ction. For their subiects being bound vnder paine of damna­tion to obey their superiour in anie thing that is not manifest­ly sinne, it giue's the superiour a mightie commande ouer the whole bodie (specially if it be purely monarchicall and that one man gouerne all) and the­reby a maine power to swaye gteat multitudes at his will and pleasure. And I heard not lōg agoe an able man, (who hath beene imployed of late by our state in Catholike Countries) saie, that Princes some times were vehemently affraid of [Page 201] their puissant combinations, and held it no smale point of pollicy to imploye and enga­ge Religious orders in their interests of state. Whereas for the Clergie they feared them not, hauing no such obligatiō of obedience amongst them, but only according to the Ca­nons, nor anie dangerous de­pendence of forraine states, but euerie man for him selfe and therefore vnable to doe the state anie great ether ser­uice or preiudice by anie fa­ctious intelligence abroad.

Lord! cosen, how different is the truth from the common opiniō of the world. The truth is, cosen, Religious men are gouerned by vowes and rules or constitutions, their vowes make them Reli­gious, [Page 202] their rules are directiōs for their, liuing in peace and vertue. Their vowe of obe­dience, which you speake of, reacheth only to the spirituall education and progresse of their subiects, their rules are for the rest. If their vowes did reach to their temporall go­uerment, then I confesse they were no Religious vowes but were to be suspected of factious cōbinations, and both church and state might and would be jealous of them, but t'is not so, and therefore they are lauda­ble and no waies hurtfull in a common wealth. And for the Religious man's rule, which only, and not his vowe bin­de's him to all temporall sub­iection, t'is of no great impor­tance, nay some of them pro­fesse [Page 203] that their rule obligeth not in conscience (as the ca­non and ciuil law doth) no not vnder a veniall sinne. Where­fore you see t'is farr from Ca­tholike Religion to patronize anie banding against ether church or state, and so farr that euerie Deuine will tell you, that obedience in such a case is damnable both to the com­mander and obeyer. Nay they will tell you that if anie Religious order were come to that height of ambitiō (which God forbid) as to bend their aymes and endeauours gene­rally to the preiudice of the church or state, seeking to to ruine the antiēt and lawfull gouerment of ether of them, to sett vp their owne, that in such a case it were a sinne to [Page 204] enter into anie such order, and that the vowes of such as should be alreadie professed therin would not oblige thē to obedience, nor could such a institute be truly esteemed a Religious institute. And now I hope you are fully satisfied. I know there be diuers obie­ctiōs besides these which you produce, but ether they pitch vpon abuses in stead of vses, as these doe, or else they ayme to take awaie the substance of a thing, because of some acci­dentall harmes which fall out in the vse and practize of it. As if one should forbid iron tooles by reason some times there happene's mischeefe by them, not weighing the vtilitie with the harme. Wherefore the Protestants, what soeuer [Page 205] they hold, and saie that they doe not condemne Catholi­kes (which according to there rule of th' Errabilitie of all mē, and of the libertie they assume vnto them selues, they are bound to doe) yet in effect and in practize they doe it, And must needes or else de­serte their pretences and dis­putes with the Catholike church at the verie beginning. For example if Luther or Caluin were vrged, Is the vse of reuerencing pictures Ido­latrie or no? They must of ne­cessitie answere yes, or else they are convinced to breake from the present church (whereof they are yet apart) without a sufficient cause. If they be farther pressed, Can you euidently conuince that [Page 206] t'is idolatrie? or may it be pro­bablely mātained that t'is not? If they acknowledge they cā ­not, then they are oppressed againe, If it be but peraduen­ture yes, peraduāture no, why doe you make a schisme and diuision in the church, and not submitte your selues to the beliefe of your forefathers and of the present vniuersall church? If they reply that whē nether part is certaine, then each one may hold what he thinke's fitt. You vrge them againe, is this your reply cer­taine? can you conuince it euidently? or is it but only probable? if only probable, they are still in the same snare, if certaine and euident, they might haue said so of the first proposition. But in deede it [Page 207] were against common sense and too ridiculous for anie priuat man to vndertake to make an Euident conuiction and demonstration against the generall beliefe of the vniuer­sall church for so manie ages. And thus you see that these men who cannot cōuince anie thing against the Arrians, Ne­storians, Pelagians, Berenga­riās and the like (though con­demned manie yeares agoe by the Catholike church) and thinke all probable that a cō ­panie of learned and indiffe­rent men haue doubted of, yea vse this for a maxime that such pointes must of necessi­tie be doubted of, as being not with in the reach of euident conuiction, Let but, I saie, the­se men come to write against [Page 208] Catholikes, and you shall ha­ue them pretende whole listes of demonstrations, and whole pages will not suffice to rec­ken vp the absurdities which they imagine doe follow out of some one Catholike poin­te, so necessarie it is that these men contradict them selues who contradict the truth of Christ and his church.

Why the Prote­stants ought to returne to the church of RomeYour argument, me thinke's, is good against the first beginners of the bre­ach from the Catholike church, but will not suffice against mē that nowe liue, who seeme to be a framed and set­led church, and haue receiued this doctrine from their fa­thers. For we see that posses­sion, though at the first vnlaw­fully gotten, doth in time pre­uaille, [Page 209] and quarells cease euen where Princes are pretenders. If the welch men should now pretende to haue beene vn­justly put out of England by the Saxons, The Romans out of France by the french, The Greekes out of Italie by the Goths, who would thinke their quarells iust? So likewise why should the Protestants (though their time be not so long, nor their possession so quiet) rather yeild to the church of Rome, then the church of Rome to them, or to the church of England for example, vnlesse the church of Rome can demonstrate hir positiōs against the Protestāts, which I haue not heard anie of our learned mē saie she cā?

Although it be both [Page 210] reasonable in all liklyhood, and peraduenture may be cō ­uinced, that who first parted and made the diuision ought in law of good gouerment to returne. And although I could likewise pretende, that the church of England compared to that church which liueth in communitie with the church of Rome is but a smale part and therefore bound to yeild to the greater, (for to saie that the Protestāts of England liue in communitie with all other churches but the Roman is manifestly false, since all other churches will Anathematize diuers of their tenets, and they also the tenets of other chur­ches, nor is there anie rule of vnitie and cōmunion amongst them) Although I saie I could [Page 211] vrge these and other reasons to this effect, yet I will only propose you two.The Ca­tholike church cannot come to the Pro­testants. The former shall plainely shew that the Catholike church cānot yeild vnto Protestants without es­sentially ruining hir self, and therefore no possible vnion betwixt the churches vnlesse the Protestants will bend. For if the Catholike church doth essentially subsiste and man­taine hir selfe vpon this prin­ciple and grounde, that she hath receiued hir doctrine frō Iesus Christ by word of mouth and succession from hand to hand which cannot faile, put the case she yeilde's to the church of Englād in anie poin­te which she holdeth vpō this principle, is it not euident that she must of necessitie forgoe [Page 212] hir hold, and for sake hir only principle where vpon is built all hir faith and beliefe? is it not manifest that she may as well forsake all, as anie one pointe which she holdeth vpō this tennor and motiue? sure it is. But the Protestants holding their doctrine and positions vpon no such tye, but only vpon their owne (at most pro­bable) interpretation of the scripture, which they may change vpon better conside­ration, are vpon farr easier ter­mes to yeild, and that without preiudice to their Religion or iudgment. Because tenets only holdē vpon probabilitie may be changed vpon anie good occasion or new knowne mo­tiue without disparregment to the Authour. And certainely [Page 213] what church soeuer doth not thinke hir selfe vnerrable in anie pointe, what she holdeth may be false, and therefore it were temeritie for such a chur­ch to hold anie pointe certai­nely true, And if she hold not anie pointe certainely true, why should not the verie rea­sons of state and interest seeke to haue them changed and se­tled secure and infalible, sithē ­ce humane nature is euer in­clined to belieue what's for hir owne profit. The second reason doth proue that the Protestant is bound in nature and by the light of reason to yeild to the Catholike com­munion. For if nature teach vs that a Protestant's practize ought not to contradict his principles and iudgment of [Page 214] his reason, And that the neces­sitie and force of Experience doth conuince most euidētly, that there is no Gouerment in a church without prescribing of some tenets and forbidding of others (restraining or pu­nishing, if neede be, such as wil not complie with those pres­cribed Canōs or articles) And that t'is likewise euident that this is contrarie to the libertie of opinion which the Protestāt putte's for his first and cheefe maxime to approue his sepa­ration frō the Roman church; will it not follow with out con­tradiction, that ether the Pro­testants must breake with rea­son and the nature of man, in holding libertie in their iudg­ments and vnderstandings, and obliging to obedience in [Page 215] their will and practize: Or els they must close with the Ca­tholike church in their iudg­ments, and professe the inerra­bilitie, of the church, at least so farr as obligeth hir subiects not to withstand or oppose, but to submitte and obey hir Canons and commādes. And for your exāples of politicke states, which by possessiō and prescription haue at length obtained right, you must re­member that all their begin­nings and groundes are vpon humane nature and consent of men, and therefore by the sa­me law by which they were made they may be likewise al­tered. But the church of God was made by Christ and his Ministers, and therefore reasō tell's vs, that hir institution is [Page 216] to be inuiolably cōserued, nor ought or can anie prescription of time preuaile against hir. Wherefore sithēce that church which the Protestants parted from, held an holdeth still that the church of God nether is nor can be but one in all ages and places (which position she professeth, to haue teceiued in the same manner and vpō the same grounde as she hath re­ceiued the rest of hir doctrine) they Protestants must of ne­cessitie first shew that they are the true church of Christ, be­fore they can pleade possessiō or prescription. For if there can be but one church, no prescription can make them that one, sithence at their verie begining and euer since, an other both was and is in more [Page 217] quiet possession then they, and pleade's the same title more strongly.

Why then, vncle, I see there remaineth no other question but whether the Protestants can conuince their positions or noe? Which I belieue would be a hard taske. Wherefore, vncle, I thā ­ke you hartily for this good lesson, It growe's late, I feare I shall hold you vp to long, t'is time for you to take your reste.

T'is true, nephew, they ought in deede to con­uince and demonstrate their tenents, and I know of no other waie they haue to doe it but by the scripture which we doe not hold to be suf­ficient to determrne contro­uersies [Page 218] without tradition. So that I haue no more to saye to you, but wish you may be­gine this new yeare with a good night's rest, which God send vs both.

§. 2 Whether tradition for scripture be of as great force as it is for pointes of doctrine?

ANd first I pray you tell mee, doe you thinke that the Apostles, when they wēt about the world to preach Christ Iesus, carried with thē all the bookes of the ould and new Testament, ether rea­die translated into the langua­ges of the people whom they preached vnto, or else caused them to be translated by the first Christians?

I neuer thought of this question before, but I see [Page 228] well enough that they could not carie all with them, for some parts certainely were not made before they went to to preach, nay I a'm not assured whether anie part of the new testament was made before their dispersion from Hieru­salem, so that well may they haue caried the ould Testa­ment with thē, if they thought it sitting, but for the new, they could not, if I be not mistakē.

It is verie true. I will tell you therefore, cozen, how the authoritie of the scripture, that is,Now the neW Testa­ment Was pro aga ted. of the new Testament, came into the church. An Apostle or Disciple writing a booke or Epistle cōmunicated it to that church or Countrie wherein he preached or to which he writte it, that church cōmuni­cated [Page 229] it to their neighbours as the worke of such an Apostle, so by litle and litle it grew frō one countrie to an other vn­till it was spredd ouer the who­le Christian world. So that some countries had not the new Testament complete, (that is, all the bookes of it) for a long time. Wherefore no wonder that some haue doub­ted of seuerall parts thereof, being not able to auerre, as not assured (by reason of some ac­cident) that such bookes were truly the workes of such an Apostle or Disciple, which not withstāding,Why the canon of scriptu­re is cheefely to be had from Rome. better intelligēce being gotten might be afterwards receiued for scripture. And here you may note by the way, that the Roman church is that church to which [Page 230] in reason wee ought to giue most credit touching the ca­non of the scripture. For Rome being at that time [...]that is, at least for the first 300 yeares) to the Christian world or rather to all the Christians dispersed in diuers parts of the world, as London is to En­gland; And that wee see the collection of things estimable, dispersed in seuerall Prouinces of our Kingdome, is sooner and better made in London then in anie other part of our Countrie, it must needes fol­low that the collection of the Holy scripture, or new Te­stament, was more exactly fai­sable at Rome, then at anie other place. But this by the way. For my ayme is to make you iudge, whether anie one [Page 231] substantiall point,The sta­te of the questiō. which the Apostles whith common con­sēt preached through the wh­ole world, compared to anie one booke of the new Testa­ment, which soeuer you thin­ke first or best receiued, whe­ther, I say, of these two haue descended vnto vs with more certaintie, the one to be the Apostles doctrine, the other to be such an Apostle's booke?

I should distin­guish your question, for ether it may be compared to that particular Prouince or church where the Apostle him selfe deliuered it both in word and writing, or to the whole chur­ch. And I confesse that in res­pect of the whole church, that point of doctrine which is eue­rie where preached must nee­des [Page 232] haue more certaintie: but where both are equaly deli­uered by the same Apostle to the same church, I should thinke the worke should haue more authoritie thē the word. For t'is an easie matter to let slipp a word some times, Whe­reas writing requireth a more setled consideration.

If the question be but of a particular church or Prouince, I doubt it will not be sufficient to giue vs a firme authoritie for ether one or the other, vnlesse we add more circumstances then we haue declared. And the reason is, because one Prouince maye haue had Religion so ruina­ted in it by the incursion of infidells, that recouering thē selues after a long time they [Page 233] may as well mistake one booke for an other, as one doctrine for an other, and so this point is not much to our pourpose. Although euen in this case the doctrine taught by word of mouth hath these aduantages. That it is deliuered to manie, the booke to few, or in some one place. The doctrine heard and vnderstood by manie, the booke only to such as can reade, nor to all them nether, but to such as are carefull. The booke belonge's not much to the practize of the multitude, the doctrine gouernes their whole liues. The booke brought often times by some one mā, as some messēger if it be an Epistl, or other wise sent from some other place or frō some one person, as from [Page 234] Titus of Timotheus, to whom it was first written, and vpon whose autho­ritie only the whole veritie must originally rely. But to returne to our case. Doe you not see that the whole church trusteth some one particular man at the first vpon whom she buildeth hir beliefe tht this is such an Apostles worke, that is, scripture? But for anie materiall point of doctrine she relyeth vpō the vniuersall knowledge of thē who heard it preached in diuers parts of the world. So that, as I doe not intende to say, the one is certaine, the other not, (for a particular churche's authoritie may be certaine in some cir­constances) yet I must needes say that betwixt these two cer­tainties, [Page 235] there is such a differē ­ce, that if the one were to bring in verdict vpon the other, it would be much more forcible and euident to conclude, that this booke is scripture, becau­se it is according and confor­mable to the doctrine taught and preached, then that this doctrine is the Apostle's, be­cause it is conformable to this booke. For if it be true, that the whole church once relyed vpon some one particular church for this veritie, it can neuer come to passe that the certaintie of this booke proue greater then was the authoritie of that particular church at that time, And consequently the same comparison which is to be made betwixt the autho­ritie of this particular church [Page 236] and of the vniuersall church, the same, I say, is to be made betwixt the certaintie of this booke's being scripture, and of this point of doctrine's being catholike and Aposto­like. And for the inconuenien­ce you were jealous of, it fal­leth out quitt contrarie. For whether we considere the ins­piration and assistance of the holy ghost, or the industrie aed carefullnesse of man, you shall euer finde that the end is more principally aymed at, then the meanes to compasse the end, and likewise amongst diuers meanes the most im­mediate to the end is still most aymed at, wherefore in our case the end both of writing and speaking being the deli­uerie of this doctrine for the [Page 237] good of the people, no doubt, I say, but that both the Assistā ­ce of the holy ghost, and the care of man tendeth more principally to the deliuerie of this doctrine then to other things that came in by chan­ce, in which only there might be a slipp, as you immagine. Wherefore sithence tradition containeth not all the words the Apostles spoke, but mee­rely what belong's to Christiā doctrine, (which was princi­pally deliuered, and the chee­fe errand of the Apostles) and that in the scriptute manie things are written vpon occa­sion and as it were by the bye, no doubt but in both these res­pects, to wit, of the assistance of the holy ghost, and of the care of man, the certaintie will [Page 238] be greater of the doctrine de­liuered by word of mouth, thē of the holy writt. Besides the slipps you speake of, are when things are only once deliue­red, or spoken without great premeditation, whereas this doctrine was a thing perpe­tually beaten on, so as there can be no feare of such slip­ping.HoW the old Testa­ment came to Chri­stians hands. For the ould Testamēt as I confesse t'is possible that the Apostles might haue deli­uered it in all Countries where they preached; so likewise I thinke t'is euident that they neuer did it, being that the church hath no such memo­rie, And that the Canon hath beene doubted of by some, and the Iewish Canon allead­ged, whereof there had beene no vse nor neede, if the Apo­stles [Page 239] had left to all churches the booke it self. It is likely therefore that the ould Testa­ment was brought in by the first Christians' of the Circū ­cision, who accepted of those bookes which they saw the Apostles honnor and make vse of, and from them it came to the Gentill Christians, and so by litle and litle was accep­ted of by all the Christian church with the same venera­tion that the Apostles and Ie­wish Christians gaue vnto it. But how soeuer shall wee not thinke at least

§. 3 That tradition for scripture is more vniuersall then traditiō for doctrine.

Surely, vncle for my part I cānot thin­ke [Page 240] but that the scripture hath a more vniuersall tradition thē anie point of Christian do­ctrine, or at least then anie of those which are disputed bet­wixt vs and the Protestants, seeing that all Christians doe agree in the acceptation of the scripture, and farr fewer in diuers pointes of doctrine. For such churches as are in communion with the church of Rome are no such extraor­dinarie part of christendome if they were compared to all the rest.

For the Extent of the churches I cannot certai­nely tell you the truth, becau­se I feare manie are caled Christiās who haue litle ether in their beliefe or liues to ve­rifie that name. But you know [Page 241] in witnesses the qualitie is to be respected as well, and more thē the quantitie. So that such coūtries, in which Christiani­tie is vigorous, are to be prefer­red before a greater Extent of such as are where litle remai­nes more then the name. But to come neerer to your diffi­cultie, suppose that in a suite in law, one side had seuen law­full witnesses, the other had as manie and twentie knights of the post, knowne periured knaues or vnlawfull witnesses more, would you cast the other side for this wicked ra­ble?

No truly, for seing the law doth inualidate their testimonie, I should wrong the partie to make anie ac­compt of them, and therefore [Page 242] I should judge the parties equall.

Why then you see that who will challenge a mo­re vniuersall. Tradition for scripture then for doctrine, must first be certaine that the­re is no lawfull exception aga­inst those Christians whom he calleth to witnesse, to witt, against the Armans, Nestoriās, Eutychians and the like. Now the Catholike church accoun­teth these men wicked in the highest degree, that is, guiltie of Heresie and schisme. And therefore the partie which este­emeth of their witnesse, must, by taking of them for hon­nest men, beare him self for their fellow, and account the Roman church wicked and not fitt for testimonie, from [Page 243] whom neuerthelesse he hath receiued what soeuer he hath of Christ. Besides the witnesse and testimonie which these men giue, is only that they re­ceiued scripture from that church which excluded them from communion at their be­ginnings, and euer continued in opposition against them, to witt the Catholike. Wherefore it is euident that their te­stimonie addeth nothing to the te­stimonie of the Catholike church, but only declareth what the testifieth, nor conse­quently maketh anie traditiō more vniuersal. Let vs there­fore now see whether

§. 4 The text of scripture can haue remained incorrupted or no.

[Page 244]FOr hitherto, we haue only compare the and [...] of scripture in itselfe to tradition, now we will come a litle clos­ser, and compared it as we haue it, to the same doctrine deliue­red once [...] tradition. I meane that hitherto we haue spoken as if we had those verie bookes which the canonicall writer made with their owne hande, and of what authoritie they would be. But now we will considere their since we haue but copies of them, of what au­thoritie these copies ought to be. Can you resolue this que­stion?

I doubt not, sir, but for that end which wee seeke, that is, to make a iudge of controuersies, euerie word, euerie letter, and euerie title [Page 245] must be admitted of absolute and vncontrolable certain [...]ie, And so, I heare, the vulgar edition in latine is commāded to be held amongst vs. For I easily see that if anie one sen­tence may be quarrelled, eue­rie one will incurre the same hazard, all being equaly deli­uered and equaly warranted with reason and authoritie.

You saie verie well, for where there is no lesse thē the soules of the whole world at the stake, I see not what ad­uantage can giue sufficient se­curitie, if there remaine anie notable vncertaintie. Our sau­iour saith, what can all the world auaile anie man if he loose his soule? So that where the que­stion is soule or no soule, sal­uation or damnation, nothing [Page 246] lesse then certaintie can serue to proceede vpon. And there­fore no doubt but if the Apo­stles had intended to leaue the holy writt for the decider of controuersies in Religion, they would also haue proui­ded that infalible copies should haue beene kept and come downe to the church to the end of the world. For such care wee see that priuat men haue of conseruing their bar­gaines and couuenants by ma­king their Indentures vnco­unterfeitable, and enrolling them in publicke offices, were they are to remaine vncor­rupted the like care hath com­mon wealths to conserue their recordes, specially their laws, keeping the verie originalls or authenticall copies with verie [Page 247] great care. But what neede wee tooke into the examples of [...]en, seeing all mightie God in his owne person hath giuen vs a paterne, commanding the Deuteronomie to be kept in the Arke, which he would ha­ue to be the authen [...]icall co­pie to iudge betwixt him and his people; and this with the greatest veneratiō that could be imagined, or that euer was giuen to anie thing. But this was impossible for the Apo­stles to doe (otherwise surely the would haue done it, if they had intended that Christs wr­itten law should haue beene our iudge) by reason of the multitudes of nations and lan­guages which hindered that not anie one booke could be conserued with such securitie [Page 248] and incorruptibilitie as would be requisite in that case, both because of the language, and of the mutabilitie of the world, euer subiect to a thou­sand accidents, whereby such bookes might fall into the hands of those who would not only neglect them, but ether willfully corrupt, or seeke vt­terly to destroy that which was to be the rule and paterne of Christian faith. And for that which you saie is commā ­ded vs, you conceiue amisse. For no wise man thinketh that the vulgar edition is so well corrected that much may not be mended;How the vul­gar edi­tion is to be re­ceiued. but t'is that the church hath secured vs that there is nothing against Chri­stian faith or behauiour con­tained in those bookes, which [Page 249] haue so long passed for scrip­ture, and are so in deede for the substance of the bookes, and therefore hath comman­ded vs not to refuse this r [...] in anie controuersie; on disputa­tion. And this wee, and wee only cā doe, for the churche's securitie [...]seth out of this that she hath an other more forci­ble ground of hir faith, to witt, tradition, by which being assu­red what the truth is, she can confidently pronunce that in this booke there is nothing contrarie or preiudiciall the­revnto, which no profession that relyeth only vpon scrip­ture can doe, because they must first be assured of the text, before they can iudge of the doctrine: wherefore if the text itselfe neede a iudge, and [Page 250] that it is questionable whether this be the true text or no, they must needes be at their witts end, according to the princi­ples of raison. Let vs therefo­re see what ambiguitie or que­stion falleth vpon the text it selfe by the succession of so manie ages in which it must needes haue beene in some sorte conserued to come to our hands There be three wa­yes cheefely whereby the text may haue beene corrupted.Three Waies haue corruptions come in­to the Text. The first on sett pourpose, as the fathers accuse the Heretic­kes of their times to haue do­ne, and the Iewes also are sus­pected of the same. And this kinde, though it extendeth it selfe but to few corruptions, yet they come to be ineuitable, whē amōgst soe manie copies [Page 251] none can discerne which haue beene so abused which not; and as it is but in few pointes or places so it is in such as bee important and materiall ones. The second sort of corruptiōs may haue come by the negli­gence of seruants, which co­pied the Bible, some being mercenarie people that made copies to sell, others wittlesse people, who greedie and desi­rous to haue the Bible out of vanitie, hypocrisie, or the like, cared not for more then to saie they had it, and a great part of these copists may haue er­red in writing the Bible by the verie defect of nature, which permitteth not an absolut exa­ctnesse in anie thing, and cau­seth a man in his wearinesse, nay and in his too much wari­nesse [Page 252] also, to make escapes vnwittingly, which be the mo­re dangerous by how much the copies seeme more exact, whereby some times the beare downe true copies. The third waye of corruption may haue beene by halfe-witted men, who will now and then vnder­take to correct copies by ay­me and vnderstāding, who for hauing lighted right in some one place, will venter confi­dently to spoile tenne. And of these men t'is like before prin­ting began, and copies were not so frequent, and so a cor­ruption went not farr, t'is like, I say, there hath beene diuers, who whē they mett with a pla­ce they could not make sense of, and saw that a litle change would make it sense, such rash [Page 253] their would easily vener to make such a smale (as they thought) mutation, not know­ing peraduēture how to come to a better copie then their owne: The Hebrew and Gree­ke Testament haue beene ve­rie subiect to the first sorte of these corruptions, the former being deliuered vnto vs by the professed enimies of Christ, who, as it is reported, in the greatest heat of their hatred to Christianitie, sate at Ti­berias to determine all the vo­wels of the ould scripture, the which euerie Hebritian know­eth what power it gaue them to change the whole text, and this to men publickely accu­sed of forgerie in that kinde. The Greeke, as long as the cō ­demned Heretickes held so [Page 254] great power in those parts, [...] is publickely knowne they did for some ages, was in litle lesse jeopardie, they being also ta­xed with the like impietie. But the other two wayes and mea­nes of corruptions are com­mon to all, and in deede vna­uoidable in so great a multitu­de of copies as were in all the three languages, at least of Greeke and latin. And now, cozen, can you tell mee what hazard this must needes bree­de in the text it selfe that is

What vncertaintie the errours §. 5 of writers and copists hath bredd in scripture?

Nay mary that posseth my vnderstan­ding, for if I should calculate [Page 255] so manie copies to haue beene m [...]de, and then estimate what errours may haue escaped in euerie copie, the number per­aduenture would exceede the words of the Bible. For let vs take a boke of 2000. colum­nes, and let vs likewise suppo­se, (which is verie likely) that as manie copies were made in some age of an hundreth ye­are, and let vs then put 56. lines to a columne, and 6. words to a line and so there will be in one columne 336. Words, And farther may wee not well sup­pose that there was as manie faults escaped in euerie copie (one with an other) as there bee words in a columne, which be­ing supposed you will finde that the number of all the er­rours escaped in all the copies [Page 256] which haue beene made since the Apostles time, will amo­ūte to 15. or 16. times as manie as there bee words in the Bi­ble. Wherefore by this accom­pte it would be 15. or 16. to one of anie particular place that it were not the true text. Which me thinkes cannot be true.

I doe not thinke that you haue taken your propor­tions too high, for if you loo­ke into the most part euen of printed bookes of such a great volume as the Bible is, re­vewe them well and you will finde a whole columne of er­rata in euerie one, and you know printing is donne with more ease and lesse toile to the braine, and hath ordinari­ly 2. or 3. corrections before it be drawne, which helps writ­ten [Page 257] copies haue not. But yet I must tell you that you mis­sed it in one thing, you mar­ked not that the errours of so manie copies may haue beene the same in diuers of them, otherwise truly your calcula­tion would proue that wee migh looke for scripture in scripture and not finde it, and the like with some proportiō, in all bookes, I saie with some proportion; for to thinke all­together the like of Cicero, Demostenes, and others, is not reasonable, because the­re were few copies made of them, as only for some cu­rious and learned men, whe­reas the Bible concerned euerie man so nearely that few would be with out it that could vnderstand Lattin, And yet I [Page 258] doubt not but you remember well inough, since you were a student what varietie of texts and pretentions of corruptiōs you found amongst the Cri­tikes and commentaries euen of those prophane authours. And to your calculation I will add an other suppose there were as manie written copies extant as the number of your columnes, and as much varie­tie in those which haue not be­ene examined as in those which haue beene looked into, And farther that Sixtus Quintus for the setting out of his Bible caused only an hun­dred to be examined, And that in his Bible the corrections amounte (as it is knowne they doe) to the nūber of two thou­sand, doe you not see that the [Page 259] computation made of the va­rious sections of all those co­pies would make twentie for euerie colūne? And truly wee cānot, imagine that there hath beene so for ether Latin or Greeke copies; And whereas in this computation wee only esteeme them to haue beene but 2000. suppose, as it is ve­rie like, that there hath beene at least an hundreth thousand in ether language in so manie ages, and in so great an extent of readers, And those which are not Extant (Whereof none in particular can be reiected) make the case more ambigu­ous, becaus they giue mē power out or such or such a probabi­litie to coniecture a truth, and out of coniecturall proofe to belieue it. For as we all con­fesse [Page 260] that what soeuer is certai­nely knowne to be scripture, is not to be touched, so we know likewise that what soe­uer may be doubted of, whe­ther it be scripture or no, obli­geth to no such respect. Whe­refore if reason conclude and tell vs, that in all likelyhood there hath beene twenty variae lectiones in euerie particular columne, though perhapps two or three only are extant, the rest probably knowne to haue beene, yet so as that the­re is no certaine signe of which or where they were, And now there cometh one to presse a place in this or that columne, which his opponent thinketh to be contrarie to other places, may he not then iustly sai [...] sir, I mistrust this [Page 261] place to be corrupted? Or can his Aduersarie in prudence vrge it on as an assured text▪ Or can he presse and auerre for certaine that this is none of the 17. vnknowne variae le­ctiones? Certes he cannot, ab­stracting from all warrant and commande of the church and standing to pure and precise reason. So that all controuer­sies would be ended, where nothing but scripture is ad­mitted as iudge, with a Non li­quet.

I expected you should haue shewed me how hard it is to agree about the true sense of the words of the scripture, but as I now percei­ue there is as much difficultie to know whether we haue the true and right text or no, [Page 262] which if it were well conce [...]d and vnderstood by our de­uout and pure citizen's Wifes of London, who turne and vew the text so curiously whē the preacher citeth it, I belie­ue it would much coole the zeale of their spirit if such a qualme should come ouer their stomackes as to thinke, these words peraduenture are not the Holy scripture. But to this, vncle, may you not add the varietie of translations: I pray tell me

§. 6 What vncertaintie the multipli­citie of translations haue bread in scripture.

No doubt, cozen, but great vncertaintie is sprung from the varietie of translations, Whereof we may first suppose, that there is no [Page 263] constat of anie infalibilitie in the translatours, no not of the septuaginta them selues,what of the sep­tuagin­ta trans­lation. which the Protestants will easily grāt. I know there is a storie how that the septuagīta being seperated one frō an other, their trāslatiō light to be the same word for word. Which if it were certai­ne, I should esteeme their trās­lation of as great authoritie as the originall text it self. But we see that euē in the Apostles time some sought to mende their interpretation, as Theo­dotion and Aquila, whose translations were neuerthe­lesse accepted of by the church, and conserued and esteemed. Wherefore there is no likelyhood that the Apo­stles and the church of their times held the septuaginta [Page 264] trālatiō to be specially frō the holy ghost. Not doth it import that the Apostles some times vsed in their speeches or wri­tings this translation, for they must needes vse it or none whē they wrote to those whose language was Greeke, and the­refore would haue thought them to haue mistaken the text if they had cited the scrip­ture's words according to the Hebrew. When the Hebrew was differēt from the Greeke. Nor can wee certainely tell that is was alwayes the Apo­stle that vsed it, and not the Historian, Who writing in Greeke and to Grecians cited the Greeke words, what words soeuer the Apostle had vsed, being both to the same effect. The next point which we may [Page 265] considere in this varietie of translations is,why di­uers trāslations in the same tongue. that neuer anie begane a new version in the same language but for some mislike in the former. For if he thought a new trāslation to be necessarie, he must needes conceiue that the former trās­lator had in manie and impor­tant pointes missed and alte­red the minde of the author. Whereby euerie wisman will see that a booke of importāce is neuer left of to be transla­ted, vntill there be some inhi­bition to the contrrrie. And hence we may conclude that it is impossible for a translator to be so exact as that his words shall be taken for the words of the author. Nay contrariewise it is the law of a good transla­tor not to yeild word for word [Page 266] with the verie originall, but to expresse the sēse thereof in the best manner he can: For since no two lāguages jumpe equaly in their expressions, it is im­possible that euerie word of the one should haue a full ex­pression of euerie word of the other, much lesse that their phrases should be the same, so that per force there must nee­des be a great differēce in par­ticulars, although the substan­ce of the sense and meaning be the same. And who should conferre anie one chapter of two translations in the same language, and see whether anie one sentēce doe so exactly agree as that scan­ning rigorously the varietie of their words, there may not be some different sence ga­thered [Page 267] out of them, And he will not denie but t'is impossi­ble to put fully and beyond all quarell the same sense in diuers words. And truly I thinke that euerie one wil ad­mit at least as much differen­ce and varietie betwixt the originall and the translation, as betwixt translation and translation, these agreeing in the same tongue, those not, and yet hauing all the other reasons of disagreeing. And doe you not thinke cozen, that if one should take twen­tie of the best schollers in a schoole and giue them an au­thor to translate ether out of latin into English or out of English into latin, that their translations would so differ in manie sentences as that diuers [Page 268] senses might be easily gathe­red out of them, And iudge there vpon that when witts are sett contentiously to discusse euerie possible varietie, what truth can be conuinced where anie two may disagree, though both acknowledge the au­thor? An other considerable circūstance is, that amōgst all antient translations none can be reiected, because it may euer be supposed, that the rea­sō of this varietie may proce­ede from a various copie out of which they were translated, and by reason we cannot dis­approue the copie, as wee said before, we cannot therefore likewise nether iustly nor cer­tainely refuse the translation, hauing nothing to grounde such refusall but coniectures [Page 269] and likelyhoods which be ve­rie imperfect. And if we come to calculate, we may verie well suppose that there are now so­me twenty translations made into seuerall lāguages. I might put more, for there hath bee­ne peraduenture 200 latin translations, considering the greatnesse of the Roman Empire for so manie Ages, and the esteeme of the booke making euerie man desirous to haue an exact text, none being as yet euer acknowled­ged for such, nor anie prohi­bition of translating scripture. Which varietie of latin trans­lations the Protestants them selues acknowledge, and saie verie well that they perished after S. Hierome's correction and amendment of the Bible, [Page 270] whose complaints of the va­rietie of texts all the world knowes, and indeede the in­utilitie and discommoditie of such multiplicitie caused them all to be neglected, though some thinke our vulgata edi­tio to haue euer beene conser­ued. Howsoeuer we may goe on with our supposition, and add, that of those twenty trās­latiōs now extāt euerie one is equall to anie other, Let then a sentence be proposed, wh­ose nature and definition is to decide a controuersie, but with this condition, which or­dinarily happeneth in such a case, to witt, that it dependeth on the proprietie of some word, or on the Emphasis of some manner of speaking: Is it possible that anie reasonable [Page 271] man should thinke that all these translations will agree in such a thing? Three or fo­uer peraduenture may, but for twentie t'is absolutly impos­sible, And if anie one of these translations be substantially different all the rest cannot with certaintie or euidence beare it downe, sithence this might be out of a different copie with which perhapps agreed more then we haue, so that we shall still returne to our former non liquet. And hence followeth that although a translation in the whole bul­ke be morally the same booke with the originall, yet meta­physically and rigorously there is great diuersitie, and at least such, as in our case ma­keth all translations of the [Page 272] scripture vnfitt to decide cō ­trouersies by them.

Your discourse will not only make mee beleeue what I haue heard reported S. Augustin should saie,Epist. Man. funda. cep. 5. that hee would not belieue scripture, vnlesse the church's authoritie moued him therevnto, but I fea­re it tendeth to the too great weakening of the scripture, which hath beene so happily planted in the church, and got this supereminent autho­ritie which it hath, to some good effect, without doubt, though not for the decision of controuersies, and therefore you will proue to much, and in seeking to destroy one er­rour you will bee in danger to fall into an other. This I am sure of, that if you should [Page 273] preach this doctrine at S. An­tolins, the people would stone you with their brasencornerd Bibles, though peraduenture if they laid all their heads to­gether they could not giue you a sufficient answere. But thus much I learne, now when I reflect vpon them, that they haue no reason to obiect aga­inst vs our trusting of our church and Pastours for the sense and explication of the scripture, whereas thē selues must needes rely vpon a dou­zen or twenty Parsons or Mi­nisters (if there were so manie imployed in their translation) for the verie text it self, whose skills or wills might be defe­ctiue according to their owne maxime, so that we rely vpon the whole church, they, pore [Page 274] people, vpon what they ne­ther thinke certaine, nor infa­lible, nor probable, but as farr as they please.

I will finde a time to satisfie your feares of my di­minishing the scripture's au­thoritie, and will shew you how all I haue said doth no­thing preiudice the layfull and intended vse of the scrip­ture, and if I should chance to forget, I pray you put mee in minde before we part. For the present I will propose you an other difficultie, which is,

§. 7 Whether the verie rehearsing and citing of an others words doe not breede varietie and vncertaintie?

[Page 275]ANd let vs suppose the wr­iter him self play the translatour, As for example, that our sauiour him self ha­uing spoken in Hebrew or Sy­riake, the Holy writer is to ex­presse his words in Greeke or Latin, And farther that this which we haue said of transla­tiōs be (as truly it is) groūded in the verie nature of diuers languages, and therefore vn­auoidable by anie art or in­dustrie, will it not clearely fol­lowe that euen in the originall copie writtē by the Euāgelist's owne hand, there is not in ri­gour the true and self-signifi­cant words of our sauiour, but rather a comment or Para­phrase explicating and deli­uering the sense thereof. Nay let him haue written in the [Page 276] same language, and let him haue set downe euerie word and sillable, yet men conuer­sant in noting the changes of meanings in words, will tell you, that diuers accents in the prononciation of them, the turning of the speakers head or bodie this way or that way, the allusion to some person, or to some precedēt discourse, or the like, may so change the sense of the words that they will seeme quite different in writing from what they were in speaking. So that you see how like negligent men wee cōmonly vse to presse words, as the proper and identicall words of our sauiour finding them registred in the Holy writt, Which in rigour and exactly speaking are but in [Page 277] some sorte an imperfect and equiuocall paraphrase or ex­pression of Christ's owne true words, the weakenesse of mā's speach and expressiō bearing no greater exactnesse. And surely all experienced men, but especially disputatife schollers (who finde meanes dayly to explicate the planest words of ā authour to a quite different sense) will tell you, that to seeke to conuince an exact truth out of bare and dead words, is to put your self into a darke some and wild la­borinth, And to rely vpon them, is to fixe the Camelions colours in the currēt of the win­de or water. Wherefore, co­zen, hauing, I thinke, suf­ficiently tould you my minde concerning the text it self, let [Page 278] vs goe farther and looke into

§. 8 The vncertaintie of equiuocatiō which of necessitie is incident in all writings.

ANd to proceede more clearely wee will suppose for the present that there is but one authenticall copie of the scripture, written in some one language, and hereby ab­stract from all varieties of texts by translations, or er­rours, or anie such accident, and meerely considere what of necessitie followes out of this, that the scripture is a bo­oke written in words of men, and whether, this supposed, there can be anie decisiue and decretory sense euidently and certainely gathered out of it. [Page 279] Tell me then, cozen, doe you thinke t'is an easie matter to decide cōtrouersies by words? or why not?

I know words are but signes of what is in our mindes, sett and ordained to that ende by the will of man,wha ars words. and therefore that diuers men signifying their mindes by diuers signes, come to make diuers languages. And I know likewise that though it bee an ordinarie thing amongst vs to hange vp a bush to signifie thereby that in the house the­re is wine to be sould, yet peraduenture in an other coū ­trye some thing else may si­gnifie the selling of wine, and a bush some other thing. So may it happen that the same word in one language may [Page 280] signifie one thing and in an other, some thing else, And because I likewise see that it may so fall out that these two nations ioyne in one, or haue much commerce together, by vse and custome this word may come to haue two signi­fications, euen in the same lan­guage, And so will breede a difficultie in whether of the two senses it is to be taken, which I cōceiue is caled Equi­uocation.The ori­gine of equiuo­cation. And sithence there is no other grounde for ether of these significations but man's will, which cannot be easily demonstrated, I know not well how the truth can bee certainly knowne.

You saie verie well, for the signification of words must needes depende of mā's [Page 281] will, and of the custome or vse of them, two verie mutable things. Wherefore separating these two, and taking words in them selues, you shall finde that man's will doth put di­uers significations vpon the same word, ether by chance, or onsett pourpose; by chance as you declared but now, which in deede doth not teach to manie words, but is casuall as the cause of it is; on sett pourpose, and that ether for want of words, or by desire of elegance and varietie in our deliuerie, And this belongeth to allmost all the words wee haue, for there is scarsely anie word (if you note it) but may be so vsed, and if it may be so ta­ken, it is so one time or other. This multiplicitie of variously [Page 282] taking words in Logicke is said, by who maketh the least, to be eight fold, for some ma­ke no end of multiplying the sortes of it, And vnder the na­me of Equiuocation or Ana­logie it much confoundeth all scholasticall learning. Now for the custome and vse of words there be manie things to be respected, as the varie­ties of times, and qualities of persōs, for in one time a word may signifie one thing, and in an other a quite differēt thing, So wee see that those who wri­te of eloquence giue words their births [...]nd ould ages. And likewise who knowes not how great difference there is betwixt the vse of words in the Court or vniuersitie, or great cities, and the vse of the same [Page 283] words in remoter parts and villages. Nay if you marke it you shall finde that as langua­ges in generall are the institu­tion of a multitude of men, so almost euerie particular man is Master, and as it were foun­der of some particular expres­sions or phrases not common to others, whereby some de­clare them selues more exact­ly and plainely, others more confusedly and ambiguously, in so much that Critickes, cu­rious in antient Writings, Will attribute or derogate certaine workes from Authors vpon this only ground. And now I pray, cozen, in such an antient writing as the scripture is how manie ambiguities may grow from all these principles? Or rather what certaintie can be [Page 284] had out of such multiplicitie of vncertitudes? But let me particularly vrge one thing, that is, whether t'is possible that a language should be en­tirely conserued in written bo­okes, which still remaine the same?

Why not? if there be bookes enough,How a lāguage is con­serued. for then all the words of that language may be found in them, in all their senses, and then I thinke the language cannot perish.

Your answere is partly true, but not sufficient, for you were to considere whether so manie bookes of one language may haue beene conserued▪ for if the Countrie be litle, few bookes will be wr­itten in the language, but if the language be dispersed [Page 285] through manie Countries, it will haue it's proper words and significations for euerie Co­untrie. So that bookes being written for the subiects, and not for the language, (as Di­ctionaries and phrase bookes are) it must needes follow that only so much of the language will be conserued as is necessa­rie for the vnderstanding of those bookes, which of them selues are so good, as that the people will still desire to haue them and continue them. Wherefore nether all bookes that are written, nor, (if we iud­ge by these of our time anie notable part wil be conserued, nor yet the whole language contained in all the bookes that are written. And if part of the language be lost, part [Page 286] conserued, of necessitie the conserued part must be im­perfect by the mistake of such words as be rarely found, and where they are found, on­ly ghest at by the rest which are to make sense with them. And all this equiuocall ambi­guitie is purely in the bare words, not yet placed in con­struction.

I thinke so, vncle, for altough I see there be ca­ses, numbers, moodes, tenses, and persons in euerie langua­ge, yet I hope those doe rather take awaie equiuocation then make it,

It is true those things are made to take awaie equi­uocation, but if you reflect you shall finde that the want of them, and the confused or [Page 287] vnexact vse of them, doth li­kewise cause it, and where they are more aboundant (as in so­me languages) there the abuse of them is more frequent people being in nothing more vnwarie thē in their words; And where they are but rare and few, that likewise of it self causeth ambiguitie. And if you will looke into tho­se particular languages whe­rein the scripture was pri­mitiuely written, you shall finde that the Hebrew hath eight moodes wholy diffe­rent from anie of ether the Greeke or Latin moodes, and euer varying the sense, as much as the actiue and passiue doe in Latin and Greeke. The Greekes haue seuen tenses all of different significations, and [Page 288] of numbers, genders, persons three a peece. The Latin six cases. So that you see new oc­casions of Equiuocation al­most in euerie word, and con­sequently what obscuritie and doubtfullnesse must of neces­sitie follow anie language or sense relying vpon words; and yet for breuitie sake, I haue not tould you the half of what the matter giueth me scope to saie. for the scripture depen­deth and hath beene original­ly written in more languages then I haue spoken of, Where of some haue much more va­rietie then anie of those that I haue expressed. For cōstru­ction you may first conceiue that the verie pointing and accenting of words doth be­get a number of doubts and [Page 289] Equiuocations, a diuers comma or virgula making some times the sense quite different. Se­condly that word which is construed with an other to cleere the signification of it, is some times it selfe of no lesse ambiguitie then the other. Thirdly in the same constru­ction it may happen that the same two words will haue di­uers senses. And of all these your Grammer and Oratory Masters, doe enlarge their precepts. And aboue all there is an Equiuocation in the most commō words wee vse, rising out of a kinde of custome de­pending of particular times and places, which the compi­lers of the Ciuill law thought to be of so great importance as that they iudged it necessa­rie [Page 290] to make a speciall booke de vsu & interpretatione ver­borum, and that for the com­monest words that were in vse. These reasons, being vnauoi­dable in anie language by hu­man industrie, are more then sufficient to let you see that t'is impossible to conuince and demonstrate anie thing out of bare and dead words, and that who vndertakes such a taske doth not see what hee attempteth.

If all these things bee true which you tell me I wonder with what face anie man can pretende to conuince pointes of controuersies so clearely out of the scripture, which some doe with such cō ­fidence, for surely they must ether be proude dunces, and [Page 291] ignorant doltes, not vnder­standing what is proofe and what is not, or else preuarica­ting miscreants counterfeiting what they doe not belieue, and thinke our learned men vnable or vnwilling to dis­couer the follye of theyr en­terprise.

Your bloode is too hot, nephew, but if you said only, that such men as promi­se them selues victorie with so much confidence in this case, are rash and vnaduised, I should thinke you wronged them not. For the truth is, the­re's none but is so in his mea­sure. And where interest or af­fection is ioyned to some litle apparēce, which the first sight of the text affordeth, there's presently a great impression [Page 292] made. It is true in so graue and important a case they ought to be more staied, but he whose conscience quitteth him from all too forward iud­ging of his neighbours, euen in matters of consequence, let him cast the first stone for mee. I will leaue them to them selues, and let you see that we are not yet at an end but far­ther

§. 9 That there riseth an vncertain­tie out of this that the scripture was written in lan­guages now ceassed.

FOr not only the languages in which the Holy scrtptu­re was writtē, doe of their owne nature as I tould you, breede great ambiguitie in the text [Page 293] but also in this, that those lan­guages are now extinct. And therefore wee see that the knowledge of them is not cō ­mon ad vniuersall, but only of some particular men, and amongst them in most things mainely controuerted. And of this disputable vncertaintie amongst our famous linguists none can be ignorant, the nū ­ber of Critickes in this age, and the multitude of their vo­lumes giue sufficient testimo­nie of it.The vn­certain­tie of criticis­me. Nay they will tell you that an exact and skillfull knowledge in this Criticisme is a necessarie part and qualitie for all those who will profes­se the studie or interpretation of scripture. And yet God knowe's vpon what slight gro­unds they proceed, what wea­ke [Page 294] ghesses are their iudgmēts, how full of quarells, and mi­stakes, so that a wise man no sooner seeth them, but seeth likewise that there is nothing but varieties of disputs vpon coniecturall probabilities, and neuerthelesse you shall haue thē cry out, runne to the foun­taine, goe to the spring, see the originall texts, not consi­dering that there is nothing there but trubled waters, that is, obscure cōiectures. I could tell you also that often times it happeneth that such as are imployed in the translations of these ambiguous originalls, haue got by friēds and fauour that preferment, and so haue let passe some places in their trālations [which I could cite) against their owne iudgment, [Page 295] to complie with the will of their patrons, and higher powers, whom they durst not resiste. But in deede their prin­ciples in them selues are so vn­certaine, as that the best and wisest of them will confesse they haue beene often mista­ken and will not sticke to chā ­ge their mindes now and then euen in such pointes as they thought they had the great­test euidence their art could aftord them. What thinke you then, deare cozen, would be­come of Christian faith if it were only to relye vpon such a weake fundation? Which must needes follow, if the most substantiall pointes of Christian Religion must haue their only warrant and de­cision from the bare written [Page 296] word, and bee euer agitated by places of scripture, and neuer concluded by a definitiue sen­tence. Were it not too tedious I would let you see the vncer­taintie of diuers particular lan­guages wherein seuerall parts of the scripture are said to haue beene originally written, but I will only tell you in a word

§. 10 What vncertaintie followeth the two particular languages of Hebrew and Greeke whe­rein the scripture was writ­ten.

FIrst therefore the Hebrew hath two proprieties verie considerable, the one, that it is thought to be the shortest language in the world, the [Page 297] other, that it is the most elo­quent. For the first, it cōsisteth cheefely in the writing of the words, and in the scarcitie of bookes. For the writing, all the vowells are supposed, not expressed in the originall co­pies, and therefore only con­serued by memorie, and to memory we must trust for them. I confesse they are now expressed by pointes, wherein there is great mistaking, the rules thereof being verie vn­certaine, and the more in that these rules and the practize of them were varied according to the diuersitie of the coun­tries wherein the Iewes haue beene dispersed. The reason of their writing without points I conceiue was, becaus their vowells being at the first [Page 298] but fiue, by making long and short grew to be more; and so the first figures of them to stand only for the consonant vse of some vowells, or els to haue no sound. But what soe­uer the origine was, the effect must of necessitie breede a great obscuritie and doubt­fullnesse in the language, the vowells though fewer yet in vse being verie neere as much as the consonants. The words are all of one or two sillables if anie be of more, they are ac­counted exoticke, and there­fore verie like one an other, which is also increased by the neerenesse of diuers of their letters. So that both their pro­nuntiation and writing being easily mistaken and confoun­ded bring's a great disorder in [Page 299] the language. This is likewise augmented by the want they haue of coniunctions and pre­positions, which not being of a sufficient number make the construction verie equiuocall manie times. For the scaretie of bookes, you may well con­ceiue it, if you doe but know that the legitimate Hebrew is wholy contained in the old scripture, whereof some parts were not written in Hebrew, and if you saw the booke in a smale print, and yet the letter bigger then our litle latin cha­racter, you would see it is but a verie litle booke. And what soeuer besides is written in He­brew is not warrantable to ex­plicate the text, The Rabins affecting manie diuersities as well in words and stile, as in [Page 300] writing. Nay perhaps I might add to this, that the characters them selues haue beene wholy changed since the beginning, and that it is credibly reported to haue beene once lost and restored only by the memorie of Esdras. So that we haue the least assurance of this langua­ge that almost can be of anie not entirely extinguished For the proprietie of the Hebrew's Eloquence it consisteth che­efely in figures, translations, and number. Figures or sche­mes are the highest part of proper Rhetoricke, because they contayne the greatest force and swaye that words can giue to our appetit, and if they bee rightly applyed car­rie a way the auditor euen against his will vnto a strong [Page 301] and sadaine action. These, al­though the Prophets vse them more perfectly then euer anie Poet or Orator did, yet doe they not cause much obscuri­tie, vnlesse it be when they are vsed in Dialogue forme, which where it is vsed in scripture, t'is hard to discerne, How soeuer they are a conuincing proofe that who vseth them much in­tēde's not his writings should be dogmaticall and decisiue. Translations or metaphores are cause of great obscuritie, and therefore we see the Poets who cheefely vse them; are not to be redd (vntill a man be exercised in thē) without stu­die and paines. Nor doe anie Greeke or Latin examples shew that strength which the scripture hath in this kinde. [Page 302] The number or Cadence; which one would thinke could not be suspected of anie such matter, is a cause of great am­biguitie, for the Hebrews be­ing wholy giuen there vnto in their scripture, haue so manie accents of diuers effects, whe­reof one manie times stādeth for an other, or is like an other in figure, that you had neede of an Ariadne to lead you thorough. Some of their ac­cents are Grammaticall, some Rhetoricall, some musicall, and as much a doe with them as with the reste of the words, and verie hard it is to know when it is one accent, when it is an other, and when it hath this effect, when that. Who therefore would haue recour­se to the Hebrew Text for [Page 303] precise and conuincing deci­sions, doth like him, that be­ing not skillfull at his weapon, would choose, vpon a challen­ge for the hower of his com­bat, a moonelesse midnight, when the skill of his enimie could not preiudice him.

Marrie sir I thinke such a man should doe wisely, for the question being not of fencing but of valour, his eni­mie's skill would be no disad­uantage vnto him. But yet I cannot commende him that chooseth obscuritie for the decision of a doubt, vnlesse he feare his cause and thinke him self in the wrong, and then peraduenture his witt may be commended.

It is sufficient for mee, that you conceiue that [Page 304] this is not the way to cleere the truh. To the Greeke text therefore, which I will tell you, that the ambiguitie of it is nothing so great as of the Hebrew, yet hath it two de­fects. The one that it wanteth those sense varying coniuga­tions whereby the Orientall languages expresse them se­lues, the other that by abun­dance or rather redundance of vnprofitable varieties it is both hard to learne, and vn­certaine in sēse, the same word signifying diuersly, ether be­cause of diuers Dialectes, or of diuers applications of au­thours, so manie hauing wr­itten in seuerall countries not depending one of an other, and hauing great diuersitie of phansies. Their prepositions [Page 305] both in constructiō and com­position are irregular, chan­ging some times the sense of the primatiue verie extraua­gantly, in so much that meere ghesse and coniecture must preuaille, the word, if it be cō ­mon, being vsed in sundrie sēses, if it be rare, the meaning of it must be gathered out of some thing adiacent.

Here is enough, vncle, of this verball and Grā ­maticall stuffe. Wherefore I will now put you in minde of your promise, to wit, that you will tell mee to what end the scripture was left to the church since by reason of it's ambi­guitie it is not fit to be a judge of controuersies?

I will tell you pre­sently, but first I haue a word [Page 306] more to saie vnto you, whe­rein, because I see you are half wearie, I wee wilbe short, and it shalbee to shew you

§. 11 That the verie nature of the bookes of scripture is not fit­ting to decide controuersies.

TEll me then, cozen, sup­pose you were to giue a law in writing, which should last for manies ages, and be obserued in manie coūtries, how would you cause it to be written? I meane not for the language, but for the frame of the wor­ke, and for the manner or me­thode of the deliuerie of it.

I doe not pro­fesse my self able to bee a law-maker, yer according to the example of our laws, and of [Page 307] the ciuill law,In What forme laws ought to be made (and I imagine the like of the laws of other countries) it were me thinke's to be donne thus. I would first cause the most commō things to be commanded, then by degrees I would descende to particulars, still obseruing that seuerall matters should be vn­der seuerall chapters or diui­sions, and not one peece here, an other there, euerie chapter containing all things necessa­rily belonging to that matter. Farther I would distinguish the degrees of commandes by the degrees of penalties and rewards, And if anie thing were fit, partly to be declared, partly to be left to discretion, I would expresse so much that there might be no mistake, As for the stile, I would endeauour [Page 308] to make it the most proper and exact that possibly I could, explicating ambiguous words to my power, and decla­ring in what sense they were to be taken, cutting of all su­perfluous words which might anie waye confound or pro­long the sentences without ne­cessitie. In fine I would labour to make it the most ordinarie, the most plaine, and the most short that my witts could re­ach vnto, and then according as I should haue followed the­se rules I should thinke to ha­ue performed my raske.

I see you would make a good states man, And if re­ason teach you this, will not the same reason tell you like­wise, that if the Authour of reason him self were to giue a [Page 309] law, would he not doe the same, in a more perfect de­gree? And if in anie booke he hath not donne it, doth not the same reasō tell you, that his in­tention was not, that that booke should be a iudging law? Let vs therefore see whether these conditions be obserued in the scripture or no, And if it be manifest that the scripture hath them not, this controuer­sie must needes be at an end, sithence it will euidently fol­low that God neuer ordained the scripture for anie such pourpose, but for some thing els, and consequently that it were as ridiculous to seeke the decision of controuersies out of scripture, as to cut with beetle or knoke with a strawe. Deuiding therefore th [Page 310] holy scripture you shall finde,The di­uision of the [...]ookes of the old Te­stamēt. that the bookes of the old Testament (sauing Deutero­nomie, which is, or containeth the old law, with much admix­tion of historie) are ether Hi­storicall, oratoricall, poeticall, or Philosophicall, Whereof the three first are excluded by their verie names from the qualities and conditions of a law instituted for the deciding of quarells, though some cō ­mandes may be therein con­tained vpon occasion. The philosophicall bookes are such as touch litle vpon our cōtrouersies, because they are but ether morall instru­ctions for the life and conuer­sation of men amongst their neigbours, or else they treate and speake only of such poin­tes [Page 311] as wee and all our Aduer­saries agree in. But in deede there is a maine reason against the whole text of the old law, which is, that the commandes were giuen, as we saie, perso­nally to one people and did no farther belong to the rest of the world then in that they were naturall commandes, that is in the vertue of nature obliging to obedience. So that who soeuer will argue out of the old Testament must first proue the commande to be naturall, which if he doe, hee needeth not produce the text for it. The new Testa­ment is Historicall, Epistolar,The di­uision of the bookes ef the new Testa­ment. or Misticall, which by their ve­rie names and natures exclude all such exactnesse as of neces­sitie is required to a iudging [Page 312] law, they being all written vpō speciall occasions, and for par­ticular ends, manie things re­peated, manie things left out in one which are found in an other, scarsely anie one know­ing of an others writings. Tho­se things which are in the Hi­storie and in the Epistles, are expressed as was fitting for the vnderstanding of them to whō they were written, or to whom the recited speech was made, circumstances farr different to what is conuenient and accō ­modated to our vnderstan­dings now. And as an able mā saith of historie, that because it must needes leane and rely vpon all circumstances euen of smale moment, he that should gouerne him selfe by it, must of necessitie be mis­led: [Page 313] so in our case the want of knowing circumstances, and not comprehending the true meaning of what was written in a particular occasion, must of necessitie make vs apt and subiect to take our ayme and rule amisse. The misticall bo­oke which we call the Apoca­lips, being a pure Allegorie is the most vnfitting of all. This in my iudgment is so euident that if anie man of common sense would but reflect and really considere what is requi­site to determine a litigious controuersie betwixt two men passionate of their owne opi­nions he would neuer saie that scripture is a booke ether in­tended by Allmightie God, or anie waie fit for such a pour­pose. Besides a prudent and [Page 314] experienced man will tell you, that who looketh in to the various dispositions of men's vnderstandings, but especially of men's wills, and seeth the varietie and miltiplicitie of men's interests and passions, (Which for the most part are publickly noted in euerie mā, or at least so inwardly hidden and secretly couered, that so­me times euen he who would and doth sweare and protest him self free from all such pre-occupations, is neuerthelesse the most dangerously intan­gled) that such an one, I saie, will neuer thinke to finde two in two thousand who, left to their owne libertie, will agree in the interpretatiō of anie law, how plane soeuer, where both are oppositly interressed. But [Page 315] if wee put this law to be super­natural and Deuine, full of misticall and sublime com­mandes, wherevnto nature hath not the least inckling whereby to raise hir self to the knowledge thereof, but must of necessitie wholy and preci­sely rely vpon authoritie and captiuate hir vnderstanding in obsequium fidei, and this to the most obscure and darke points and articles that can be imagined, shall wee saie, that in this case; euerie one is to gather this law, and come to the knowledge of it, as well as he can out of the scripture alone, so full of infinite ambi­guitie as you haue seene? Were it not first to be pro­ued that scripture was made and intended for this end▪ [Page 316] which how possible it is to per­forme, let anie indifferent mā iudge. Whereas to remitte the iudgment of all quarells, dis­putes and controuersies of Re­ligiō vnto liuing men, is more efficacious, more sutable to nature and discretion, and in a word conformable to the practize of our forefathers, and to the principles of com­mon sense and reason.

I must confesse I shall neuer thinke scripture was giuen for a iudge of con­trouersies. For to make so lar­ge a booke, and to mingle in it so manie things which ether appertaine not at all to the substance of our beliefe, or be verie remotely cōnexed vnto it, And then to leaue it to our ghessing what may be the [Page 317] meaning of the words, doth plainely argue some other in­tention in the writer then to set downe a standing and au­thenticall text to decide qua­rells. And although, I heare, the Protestants saie, that a plai­ne passage cleareth an obscu­re, so may it be said, that an obscure passage darkeneth a cleere, so that's all one. Whe­refore I long to know for what vse the scripture was made.

Haue yet a litle pa­tience, cozen,Diuers substan­tiall points haue be­ene op­posed by antient Heretic­kes. and make a re­flexion vpon some cheefe pointes which haue beene cō ­trouerted in the church of God, As by the Arrians how a spirituall ād indiuisible essēce, such as God is, coulde haue a natural sonne. By the Trinita­rians and Sabellians how the [Page 318] same indiuisible thing could bee three persons. By the Nestorians and Eutychians how one person could subsiste in two natures. By the Pela­gians how God's foreknow­ledge and predestinatiō could stand with merits and freewill. By the Iconoclasts how the adoration of Images tended and ended in the Archetype. By the Berangarians how a na­turall bodie can haue corpo­rall presence otherwise then by it's quantitie. By our Wic­klefists how all things be not gouerned by a fatall necessi­tie, And all these renewed by the libertie and confusion of our last ages. Considere the subtilitie of these questions, how they are aboue nature and aboue our comprehensiō, [Page 319] how the truths of these dispu­tes are like the passage betwixt Scylla and Charybdis, limited betwixt two errours so nar­rowly as that when they are spoken of at large and not dogmatically, (specially befo­re they be examined and be­fore the speaker by mistrust of opposition is made warie) it is almost impossible the spea­ker should be so iust and stra­ight in his language, as not to giue occasion to one who co­mes after him, to pretende his fauour for the one or the other errour. Considere far­ther that wrangling witts (such as for the most part they are who first beginne a new factiō in the church) haue this pro­perty, that they reduce their questions by litle and litle to [Page 320] logicall and abstracted notiōs, and force the Catholikes to follow them, if they will not desert their antient truths, so that after a while one knoweth not where the controuersie ly­eth. For example Simon Ma­gus, and the first authours of our last Breaches, preached that faith did so iustifie as that good workes were not necessarie, now their followers drawe the question to this whether faith or charitie be the forme of iustification, which is all most pure Logicke. Now if an Arrian come and tell you that the scripture saith, Pater maior me est, and therefore that Christ Iesus was not truly God, nor consubstantiall to his father (And the like maie be said of the rest of these he­resies; [Page 321] and euen of all the most substantiall and fundamentall points of Christian faith) The Catholike maintaine's the cō ­trarie, now, I saie, is it possible that anie rationall man should thinke that these and the like questions can be diffinitiuely resolued by a criticall libratiō of dead and vncertaine words full of equiuocall ambiguitie, their sense and meaning lying in the brest and minde of him who is not to be found, but de­ceassed manie ages agone? And if they cannot (as it is more then euident they can­not) shall wee thinke that Christ Iesus hath left and esta­blished no meanes or autho­ritie vpon earth to take vp these quarells and decide the­se controuersies? shall matters [Page 322] of such maine importance and great consequēce euer remai­ne a perpetuall subiect of end­lesse dissention and diuision? shall the Catholike church and Christian Religion bee torne and rente in peeces euē in what is most substātiall and essentiall in hir (for still, I saie the like may be said of what pointe soeuer) at the will and pleasure of some priuate mē's phansies, and no power ordai­ned to preuent such essentiall and eternall disorders? If this be not to ruine ād ouerthrow all gouerment and Religion, and to introduce confusion both common sense and reasō faileth. Put this libertie, (of beleeuing only what he thin­kes he find's in the scripture) but in to one man's hands, to [Page 323] wit, the first beginner and bro­cher of a new dogme, and let him be a man to whom the sharpenesse of wit, and some times a seeming good life, hath giuen authoritie (though truly his spirit is gouerned ether by a secret pride, or by some other interest or indi­gnation) and see if such an one be not able to draw a great multitude, euen the third part of the starrs after him, especial­ly if he preach libertie ether of minde or bodie, and haue with all the hand of some Prince full of rewards and punish­ments to second his intētions, Calculate what the industrie of such a formed party harti­ly cleauing together is not able to invente. Some haue beene able to cast mistes euen [Page 324] vpon mathematikes, and vpō the most certaine principles of nature, and laying then those qualities of scripture, which I haue tould you of, to the dis­position of those factious per­sons, what euidence thinke you can be expected from the conflicts of such mē disputing vpon such groundes?

Truble yourself no farther in this pointe, for I cannot but confesse that the euidence you haue brought is greater then I could expect or desire. Wherefore I pray hold me no longer in suspence, but tell mee

§. 12 Which be the wayes or manners of iudging pointes of Religiō out of the scripture.

Why, cozen, tell [Page 325] me first, doe you see the walle before you, some fouer or fiue yards frō you? and how much of if doe you see?

I see it perfectly well, God be thanked, and it is white, there is fower pictures hangs on it, and half a douzen chaires stand against it, To tell you precisely how much of it I see together, that I perhapps cannot, but in a short turning of myne eye I can see it all, or verie neare, if I will.

I pray goe within a spanne of it and then tell mee what difference you finde in the sight of the walle.

Marry I finde now that I see much lesse of it, but that which I doe see, and which lyeth directly before me, I see farr better and can distinguish [Page 326] euerie litle part in it, and of what collour it is.

Did you not tell mee, cozen, the walle was white? how cometh it to passe that you tell me now you see what collour euerie part of it is?

It seemed all white before whilest I was a good wale from it, but when I came neere it, I could perceiue some litle parts dunne, others brow­ne, and the like, but sure the white parts were much more.

Why then, cozen, you may thinke that you did not perfectly see the collour of the walle before, for the col­lour of the walle must needes be the collour of the parts, and you saie the collour of the parts is not one but manie, and therefore you only saw the [Page 327] collour of those parts which did exceede the rest. And if you tooke anie of those litle parts and put it in a multiply­ing glasse, you would see as great difference of parts, and peraduenture of collours to, in it, as you saw in the walle when you were within a spanne of it; so that if one should aske you what you haue seene you would hardly quit your self handsomly of the question. Notwithstanding you percei­ue well enough that the first sight of the walle serueth you for all the vses of your life, as not to runne against it, and ge­nerally to know how to com­porte your self or vse anie thing else which were requisite to be set towards the walle or in anie manner to be donne [Page 328] about it. The second sight ser­ueth you only to know the na­ture of the walle, and to distin­guish what is mixed in it, or of what ingredients it is compo­sed, or the like. So that you see the easier and more common knowledge of anie thing ser­ueth for the direction of our liues, the more particular and exact knowledge is only re­quired ether for the content of the knower, or for some speciall practize vpon the thing knowne.

I belieue I vnder­stand alreadie which waie you intende to carrie me, for you will tell me that there are two manners of vnderstāding scri­pture, the one a Kinde of lar­ge manner, taking it in gros­se and a great deale together, [Page 329] as we take a discourse or playe which pleasingly passeth away without anie great demurr, or particular weighing of euerie word; The other more cu­rious and exact looknig into euerie litle proprietie which may breede anie diuersitie. And I suppose you would tell me that this second belōgeth only to schollers, but that the former guideth our life and gouerneth our actions. And t'is true I see the people is or­dinarily caried a waye by their preachers, Antient common wealths by their Oratours, and in what matter soeuer an elo­quent and elaborate discours which passeth sweetly in this sort gaine's presently the suf­frages of the Auditorie. Whe­refore I must needes confesse [Page 330] that what good effect soeuer is the end for which the scrip­ture was ordained, if it be anie thing belonging to man's life and conuersation, it must be compassed by this grosse, cō ­mon, and ordinarie course of reading and vnderstanding it. Where as if a man should ouer examine euerie word he would not finde grounde to fixe him self with aduantage and vtili­tie. Is not this your meaning?

You are verie right. And surely if we looke into what is in the scripture necessa­rie for our good life and ver­tuous conuersation, we shall finde plainely that t'is to be had this waie. As the direction of our liues and actions to God, acknowledging all things from him, Comfort in [Page 331] aduersitie, moderation in pros­peritie, compassion of the af­flicted, helping of the needie, Rewards of vertue, punish­ments of vice, examples of both, and in a word the moti­ues of the loue of God and our neighbour, and of the cō ­tempt of the world. Who the­refore is so blinde as not to see that these things are to be found in the scripture by a sen­sible, common, and discreet reading of it; though per­happs by a rigorous ād exact ballancing of euerie particular word and syllable, anie of the­se things would vanish awaie we know not how? but to come yet closser to our pourpose, doe you thinke this manner of reading scripture would make a man a perfect belee­uer [Page 332] that is a Catholike? Which is as much as to aske

§. 13 How scripture doth determine controuersies?

How should I know that, vnlesse I were able to prooue my Religiō out of scripture, or at least that I were able to giue a iudgement of all that is in scripture? Which is beyond my capaci­tie.

Then I will tell you, cozē, there are two meanes to make one a Catholike or a true and perfect belieuer. The one by shewing euerie point of our faith in particular. And this I dare not saie that our common and ordinarie man­ner of reading or hearing [Page 333] scripture is able to doe, for we see those who write of contro­uersies doe alledge but few places, nor those vnauoidable nether, for some pointes of Catholike doctrine. Nor is it to be expected, Because man's nature being euer to add to what is alreadie learned, And seeing likewise that long pra­ctise maketh men perfect in all arts, There being no pro­hibitiō to perfect in some sort the instruction of the faith­full, the oeconomie of the church, and some such other things, which the oppressed Primitiue church could not bring to perfectiō, no maruel­le I saie if these and the like things can not in particular be shewd in the scripture; but shall therefore I know not [Page 334] who rise vp and exclame these things be superstitious, hurtfull to the faithfull ād make a schis­me to destroy them? Who doth not see that this were plaine faction and Rebellion? The other meanes or waye to make one a Catholike is by some common principle; as if by reading of scripture wee finde nothing contrarie to the Catholike tenet or practize which our Aduersarie call's in question: or also if wee finde it commēded there in generall, or the authours and obseruers of it praised and extolled. And in this waye I doubt not but a sensible and discreete reading of scripture at large, may and will make anie true student of it, a perfect beleeuing Catho­like, so he proceede with indif­ferēcie, [Page 335] ād with a minde rather to know scripture then to loo­ke for this or that point in it. But now can you tell me, cozē, how it cometh to passe that si­thence by an exact and parti­cular examinatiō of the words of scripture these truths cānot be conuinced and beaten out of it, how, I saie, is it possible that by a common and ordi­narie reading of it these truths should appeare, for that cānot be in the summe, which is not in the particulars.

I can tell you that there is the same difficultie in the diuers sights of the walle, which you made me experiē ­ce but euen now, but to yeild you a good reason ether of the one or the other, that pas­seth my vnderstanding.

Haue you not seene an inuētion of the Architects, who can so dispose pillars in a gallerie that setting your eye in a certaine position you shall see the figure of a mā or a beast, and walking a long the gal­lerie to goe to it, it vanisheth awaie and you shall see no­thing but pillars? Or haue not seene a silinder or pillar of glasse, before which if you laie certaine papers full of scrawol­les and scrables and looking into the pillar you shall see the picture of a man, or the li­ke? As these are dōne so it hap­peneth in our case, both in the eye and in the vnderstanding. For the art of these things is, that certaine parts may so co­me together to the eye, as that other parts ether by situation, [Page 337] or by some other accident, re­maine hidden, and that those parts which appeare being seene without the others, will make this or that shape. In our case likewise the quantitie of the seene parts exceeding the vnseene keepes the whole possession of the eye, in the sight, and of the vnderstan­ding, in reading, not letting the reste appeare. And hence it is also that this common manner of vsing scripture is more secure then the exact ballancing of it. For nether the varietie of translations, nor the errours of copies, nor the difficulties of languages, nor the mutabilitie of words, nor the multiplicitie of the oc­casions and intentions of the writers, nor the abundance of [Page 338] the things written, nor the dif­ferent framinges of the boo­kes, which be the causes of vn­certaintie in a rigorous exa­minatiō, haue anie such power as to breake the common and ordinarie sense or intention of the writer in generall, as all bo­okes testifie vnto vs. And hence it is likewise, that the holy fathers pressed scripture against the Heretickes of their times, partly forced therevn­to because the Heretickes ge­nerally will admitte of no pro­ofe but out of the scripture; but cheefly by reason their workes are diffuse and orato­ricall, befitting people vsed to orations and sermons, as the Greekes and Romans were, diuers of the fathers them se­lues bredd in that sort of lear­ning. [Page 339] Wherefore you shall haue them cite manie places, some proper, some Allegori­call, some common, all, some times, auoidable if they be ta­ken seperatly, but the whole discours more or lesse forci­ble according to the naturall parts or heauenly light more or lesse communicated to one then to an other, yet still in the proportion of oratours who speake to the multitude and not to Socrates or Cry­sippus. Wherefore the scriptu­re in this kinde was a fitting weapon for them, and the churche's continuing and re­remaining in their doctrine sheweth that they vsed it dex­terously, and as it ougth to be vsed with relation and depen­dance of tradition.

Why then, sir, must all disputatiō of Religiō out of scripture be abolished? For if there can bee no certaintie ga­thered out of it in a decisiue ād definitiue waie, to what pour­pose should a man ether alled­ge it, or admitte it in disputes of Religion? at least tell me I pray

§. 14 What laws are requisite for dis­putation out of scripture?

I am farr frō disliking disputation out of scripture, so it be donne with those conditions which are fitting, and which may bring the matter to some vpsh ott. The first rule I would haue a Catholike obserue is, not to dispute with a Protestāt, [Page 341] vnlesse he promise to proue his position euidently and ma­nifestly. For since the Catho­like knowes there may be cer­taine wittie probabilities and hard places of scripture brought against him, it were madnesse in him to leaue his tenet, custome [optima legum interpres) stāding for him, and the practize of the church being on his side, which is the greatest argument that can be brought to shew how and in what sēse the scriptures, which that church hir self deliuereth, are to be vnderstood, it were, I saie, meere follie in a Catholi­ke to leaue his tenent and ac­cept of an other only for a probable and likely interpre­tation, his owne being confir­med by that practize which [Page 340] maketh it more then proba­ble. And it is cleere, the Prote­stant must needes pleade aga­inst possession, for at the first breaking when the Protestants pretended to reforme the church, she was surely in pos­session of those things which they pretended to take awaie, and in possession of that sense of the scripture which they pretēded to be false and wrōg. And surely no man of com­mon sense who is in possessiō, and hath the law in his owne hands, will yeild it vp without euidence on the cōtrarie part. The second rule I desire a Ca­tholike should obserue is, not to thinke his cause lost because him self cannot answere the ar­gumēts proposed against him, nor to venter his cause and his [Page 343] possession vpon his owne wit. For the disputation being in a matter wherein, according to the Protestants groundes, the­re is no certaintie, it followeth that who hath the better wit, or is more practized in this matter, may bring an argumēt a good scholler cannot solue at the first sight, though after­wards ether he or some other may. And what a follie were it for a man to venture his soule and conscience vpon a subti­litie or present flash of wit, whereof peraduenture within an hower hee him selfe will see the falsitie, and condemne his owne errour. Wherefore a Catholike is not to venter the cause vpon his owne head, nor to confesse it weake be­cause he cannot defende it, for [Page 344] both may he improue him sel­fe, and some others perhapps may goe farr beyōd him. The third rule is, that the Catholi­ke should neuer vndertake to conuince his Aduersarie out of scripture, but content him self that these words may well beare this sense, which is in fa­uour of the Catholike church, And this is both more easie to performe and sufficient for his pourpose. For the Catholike hath an assured grounde of his faith besides scripture, and which relyeth not vpon it, nay he holdeth that his Religion cannot be wholy conuinced out of scripture, to what end therefore, (vnlesse he would show his wit) should he vnder­take to proue his tenents, by scripture? For this were to [Page 345] strenghen his opponent in his owne grounde and principle, to wit, that all is to be proued out of scripture.

You would binde Protestants to verie vnequall conditions, if you will oblige them to conuince, and the Ca­tholike not, nay that it shalbe sufficient for the Catholike to shew this may be the meaning of this or that place of scrip­ture, whereas the Protestant shalbe forced to proue cleere­ly and euidently that this is the verie sense of the text.

Not I, cozen, but the Protestants them selues oblige thē selues to this hard measure, for if a man should strongly mātaine that a Beetle were the best instrument, to cut withall, and you saie no, [Page 346] were no he bound to cut with a Beetle, and it were no sense, to saie, that you should be for­ced to doe it, since you man­taine it to be impossible. So they who hold that the scrip­ture is the true iudge of con­trouersies, and fit and able to decide all quarells and dissen­sions about the Christian faith and law, binde them selues, by holding this, to conuince their positions by scripture, which cānot be exacted at his hands, Who saith scripture was not made for this end, nor is suffi­cient for it. And looke vpon Luther and the Heretikes of his timē, nay vpon the Puri­tants of our days, and see if they doe not all mātaine, that they can conuince their tenēts by scripture, and saie that our [Page 347] forefathers were wholy igno­rant of scripture, and that wee now liuing knowe nothing of it. But to goe on with our ru­les of disputing out of scriptu­re. The fourth condition shall bee that the Catholike doe not admitte anie negatiue pro­ofes, as to saie, this is an errour because you can shew no scripture for it. For this is no proofe vnlesse they will sup­pose that nothing is true but scripture, or that there is no­thing to bee donne but what is ordained by scripture, which were absurd, for nether Catho­like, nor, I thinke, anie good Protestant will admitte of that supposition, being it were not only to take away the power of the church, but euen nature from nature, for nature [Page 348] teacheth vs to helpe our sel­ues where scripture doth not contradict, and as a Puritant seeketh a pulpit or high place to preach in, without looking whether he haue a warrant for it in the scripture to command him, so rationall and sensible men doe seeke a particular habit for a preacher or Cler­gie man whereby he may be more decent and comely, and his words and exhortations be receiued with more respect and authoritie, and this with­out anie cōmande of the scrip­ture, which, where it comman­deth, it maketh the thing cō ­manded, to be necessarie, whe­re it is silent, there it maketh nothing vnlawfull.

If the Protestants were to disput vpon these con­ditions [Page 349] they would keepe of I warrant you. Yet this I must tell you, that it were a great sa­tisfaction for indifferent men, that haue beene brought vp in this verball and apparent res­pect of the scripture, to see that the positions you would induce them vnto, can bee and are maintened by scripture, and that they are grounded therein. This perhapps you can doe by shewing mee some other waie of dealing with thē, and whether there be not

§. 15 An other manner of disputing out of scripture.

For their sakes, cozen, I will tell you of an other sort of disputation, whe­rein the Protestant shall haue no other disaduantage but of his cause. For I thinke that the [Page 350] Catholike cause may not only be maintened by scripture, but also that it hath the better stā ­ding precisely to scripture alone. I confesse this kinde of disputation is not fit for manie Auditors, but only for mode­rate and vnderstanding men. And it is to make this, the que­stion. Whether partie is more probable if only scripture were to bee alleadged. This Question requireth diuers suppositions where vpon both sides are to be agreed, which I feare will bee some what hard. As what texts are to preuaille, what cō ­mentaries or explicatiōs shall be allowed of, what is a pro­per and an improper speeche, amongst improper speeches which must be preferred, what copies of euerie text [Page 351] shalbe held for good, what coniectures shall be accoun­ted null against the natu­rall sense, And manie other such positions which would not be easily resolued. This donne let both sides bring their places for the pointe in question, and so the disputatiō will only be of the qualificatiō of the places, that is, to shew whether are more apparēt and likely of the two. And for this I see lekewise that so manie lo­gicall principles are first to bee resolued, which partly are fo­und as yet amongst the critic­kes disputations, as that all the Logickes hitherto inuented would not afford sufficiēt light and instruction, to make an euident conclusion, whether side were more apparent in [Page 352] words and Tetxs. And there­fore you may ghesse how farr these disputations out of scri­pture are frō clearing doubts, what litle good cometh of them, vnlesse they bee well gouerned, And how for the most part the best credit or the best tongue carrieth awaie the day by the Auditor's pre­iudicat opinion or weaknesse. In a word the scripture being not written for this end, to wit, for the decision of controuer­sies, it is not to bee expected that it should bee, of it selfe, without the churche's authori­tie much profitable for that pourpose, but to informe our liues by an ordinarie reading of it, or by preaching, singing, and such like vses, things re­commended in the verie letter [Page 353] it self, whereas wee are neuer sēt to the word for the deciding of controuersies. And now I hope you are fully satisfied.

I am so in deede, and giue you manie thankes, for I see that how few pointes soeuer the Protestants preten­de to be necessarie, yet cā the­re not anie thing be conuin­ced out of bare words inuol­uing soe manie vncertainties as you haue tould me of.

It is to litle pourpose for them to saie that some few substātiall and necessarie poin­tes may bee proued out of scripture, it were fitter they would first proue that the scri­pture is an instrument made to determine controuersies, or anie other of those principles, which I shewd you must of [Page 354] necessitie be true, if scripture bee our rule. But this they can neuer proue, And therefore they seeke first to withdraw, vs from a secure and naturall meanes of relying vpon our forefathers, (Which neuerthe­lesse in all ciuill and oeconomi­call conuersation they them selues can not liue without) and then to leaue vs to a laby­rinth of voluntary and vnen­dable disputations. Reflect then I pray, cozen, vpon what wee haue said, and compare our yesternight's and this our morning's discourse together, considering first how manie things are of necessitie to bee conserued in the church for the preseruation of faith and good life in hir subiects; Then see how manie pointes haue [Page 355] beene and are quarelled, and if anie haue escaped, how all the rest may be caled in question with as much probabilitie and apparence as these are, Then looke vpon the qualities of that Decider of controuersies where vnto all the Aduersaries of the Catholike church doe seeke to draw vs, by which the­re can be no other end of con­trouersies but to leaue euerie man to his owne will. And then conclude that these posi­tions being put, there will ne­ther remaine gouerment in the church, nor certaintie or constancie in beliefe, nor anie thing to be taught and practi­zed worthie God Allmightie's sending of a lawgiuer, much­lesse of sending his owne son­ne vpon those hard conditiōs [Page 356] which wee apprehēde of Iesus Christ and reade in the Ghos­pell.

It is verie true but if your leaue mee thus I shall bee like him who had fargot his Pater noster but not learned his Our father. For you haue taught mee what I cannot rely vpon, but not what I ought to rely vpon, And there is so much said against the authori­tie of the church by all hir Ad­uersaries, that a man who hath beene euer beaten to those obiections, cannot easily leaue them without some scrupule.

You are in the right, the most necessarie part is yet behinde, for a litle building is better then a great deale of pulling downe. Therefore when your leisure serueth you [Page 357] I will bee readie to giue you satisfaction to the best of my power. But now this morning is too farr spent to beginne so large a discourse as that que­stion doth require, Take an other time, and the sooner the more welcome, But for the present God be with you, I ha­ue some prayers to save.

§. 2 What force the arguments of Protestants against Catholi­kes in this question ought to haue?

To conuince a Protestant in this point I would haue recourse to bo­okes [Page 367] and learned men, who should mantaine and shew that his position were false, for I am not so well learned as to bee able to proue it of my selfe.

I hold you not for a warie gamester at this play, for why would you leaue your best wa [...]d and put your self vpon the disaduantage? I mea­ne why will you put your self to proue the negatiue, your aduersarie being obliged to conuince the positiue? for if he cōfesse, as he doth, our church was once the true church, we haue the presumption on our side, vntill he proue the con­trarie. Besides our church was once the spouse of Christ by their owne verdict, though now the stile hir the whore of [Page 368] Babilon, Erroneous, and Adul­teresse. And how I pray you, cozen, would your self take it, if one should laye the like im­putation vpon your bedfel­low without sufficient proofe to make it good? And imagi­ne Christ Iesus will be no lesse offended to see his deare spou­se, whō he bought and wash­ed with his owne harts blood, so shamefully traduced with­out a legitimate cause and iust occasion. Doe you thinke hee will not brand such accusors for infamous and sacrilegious calumniators? Or if such an accusor should faille of his proofe, doth he not conuict him self of the most heynous crime that can be imagined? And likewise if this same church was erected and insti­tuted [Page 369] by God him self for our lawfull Ladie and true Gouer­nesse, can you thinke that who reuolteth from the loyaltie and obedience due vnto hir, without euident proofe of hir escheate from that throne and dignitie, doth not declare him self a traytor and rebell to God and her? And in a word if shee once were that church to whom Christ gaue the rodd of iustice, and sent all profes­sours of his name to heare hir voice and sentence vnder pe­naltie of being reputed hea­thens and publicans, doth not hee incurre those curses and deserue those ignominious tit­les, who doth leaue hir and de­uide him self from hir without legall warrant of his separatiō? Doth not therefore common [Page 370] sense conclude, that who soe­uer confesseth the Roman Catholike church to haue be­ene the true ād lawfull church of Christ, is by this verie de­ede obliged to proue cleerely and euidently hir fall from that maiestie, or els in his owne conscience and iudg­ment must needes bee lyable to those faule and vnworthie taintes of trayson and rebel­lion against God and his church?

I confesse you speake no parables, nor is there anie deepe learning required to conceiue the euidence of your discourse. Yet this I must tell you that I feare you might haue spared your labour, for the­re's no protestant but will easi­ly vndertake to proue that the [Page 371] Romā church is gone astraie, for if they cannot doe this they can doe nothing, their whole Religion being but, as they them selues confesse, a ta­king awaye of abuses crept in, and their Diuinitie no other then to shew this. And if you would shew their proofes to be insufficient, I feare you would require a greater schol­ler then my self to compre­hende your reasons.

Bee not discouraged, nephew, but looke into the ca­se, and tell mee what Kind of proofes you thinke the Pro­testants are bound to bring to [...] them selues from those heauie censures I tould you of▪ Doe you thinke it were sufficient to bring such argu­ments as some philosophers [Page 372] brought to proue snow to be blacke? Or such as by man's wit, and the art of topickes, a good logician may frame vpō a subiect giuen him? in which kinde some great men haue taken pleasure to commende baldnesse, blindnesse, and the like imperfections, others to contradicte manifest truths, as that there neuer was anie war­re of Troy. Nay doe you thinke, cozen, t'is sufficiēt that their arguments bee only as good as those which the Ca­tholikes bring against them? Or in a word ought not their arguments to bee euident and vnanswerable in euerie indiffe­rent and vnderstanding man's iudgmēt? That is, should they not be such, as that a man ex­pert in controuersies and of a [Page 373] sound and vnpassionate iudg­ment, hauing seene what the most learned Catholikes can saie against the protestants proofes, must neuerthelesse thinke in his hart that they nether haue giuē nor can giue anie contenting and satisfa­ctorie answere therevnto?

The plaine truth is, if it were my case betwixt my wife and my self, I should not thinke to haue correspon­ded with my loyaltie towards hir, nor with that care of hir honnour which I ought to ha­ue, vntill I had ventured my life to haue his harts blood who should haue sought to wrong hir reputatiō so highly without such proofe as you re­quire. Nether doe I beleeue that anie Prince or state would [Page 374] thinke him a loyall subiect, who should conceale and fo­ster that man that should dis­perse and so we in the harts of their subiects the like suspi­cions against their gouermēt. T'is true I should be willing to heare of my wiue's misde­mainours before they come to that height and euidence, for mine owne caueat, if (which God forbid she should proue vntrue. But there is a great difference betwixt giuing war­ning of likelyhoods and ap­parences of a mischeefe, whe­reby it may be preuented, and blemishing or staining my wi­ue's and myne owne honnour with the deepest disgrace that can fall vpon such an indiui­duall couple. Besides I know the bond of loue and dutie [Page 375] betwixt man and wife to be so great, as that ordinarie suspi­cious ought not to persuade [...] [...]rea [...] in so strong a knot, the greater and harder effect must haue a more powerfull cause, and it were a folly to thinke all proofes sufficient and befitting all cases. And in my minde the reason is, be­cause no amitie nor fidelitie can subsists, if such principles were suffered to be taught and mantained. For how is it possi­ble human accidents of them selues being intricate and va­riable, and men now adays so wittie to doe harme and mis­cheefe) but that euerie false tongue shall set dissention bet­wixt the neerest and dearest couples, And mutinie and stir vp to sedition the most faith­full [Page 376] subiects against their Prin­ce, if lesse then morall euiden­ce be sufficient to proue mat­ters of this nature and qualitie? Wherefore I doe not thinke his Maiestie would suffer his preachers to drawe their Pedi­Gree from Rome, if he did not perswade him selfe they were able to bring satisfactorie pro­ofes of their relinquishing that authoritie, for this were to authorize a Rebellion against the court and state of consciē ­ce, Which hath a greater force and power then pure tempo­rall Allegiance, this being gro­unded vpon oath and dutie, both which receiue their strength and vertue from con­science. If therefore you intē ­de to giue me full satisfaction in this pointe, you must clee­rely [Page 377] shewe vnto me that the Protestants proofes are insuf­ficient. Which though I doubt not of it, seeing our men haue euer beene so readie to buckle with the Protestants euen vpō most disaduantagious condi­tions, yet I conceiue that this cannot be otherwise effected then by experience, bringing them to dispute together.

Deare cozen I am hartily glad to heare you dis­course so strongly and solidly, it giue's me great hopes of your future abilities. But if you will haue patience, your self shall be iudge of my que­stion, nor doe I thinke it nee­defull to haue recours to anie farther learning then com­mon sense and naturall reasō, first therefore let vs see whe­ther

§. 3 Standing in likelyhood the [...] partie be greater, more learned, and more ver­tuous.

SVppose then you had a ca­se in law of great difficultie, and that you should consult in Councell a douzen or twentie lawyers reputed the best of the Prea [...]e, or at least the worst of them farr beyond your skil to iudge whether he were not as able as the best, And of these twenty seuente­ene or eighteene of them should saie, you would infali­bly loose your cause, if you to­oke such or such a course in it, the other 2. or 3. should as constantly affirme you would winne it, in so much that the [Page 379] question would be brought to this contestation, whether lawyers were more learned and skillfull. To which side would you cleaue in this case?

If you suppose me vnable to iudge of their skill and learning, and that they be all equaly reputed hō ­nest men (though in deede I cannot well see how they can come to such an obstinate cō ­testation if they be all as they are reputed) I must needes choose the multitude, ād ether take with the seuenteene or playe the foole notoriously. I see well inough what you ay­me at, to wit, that because Ca­tholike countries are greater then Protestants, iudgment therefore is to be giuen on the Catholikes side. But I praye, [Page 380] how shall I know that there be more learned men amongst Catholikes thē amongst Pro­testants? Or that the Catholi­ke Doctours be more lear­ned them ours at home? Ti's true I know our learned men saie that they Protestants of other countries are not of the same Religion with ours heare in Englād, yet I see they agree all together against vs, what discordes soeuer they haue amongst them selues.

Your fresh witts run­ne to fast, Remember you we­re supposed to be ignorant of the proportion of their lear­ning in your lawyers case, and therefore choosed the multi­tude. Wherefore as long as it is constantly confessed that the­re be farr more learned men [Page 381] Catholikes, then there be lear­ned Protestants, so long the laye people ignorant and vn­able to iudge of learnings must stand conuinced by the multitude, of which this vul­gar knowe's no more but that they are accounted learned by those amōgst whom they liue, as ours are heare with vs. And to giue you farther satisfaction in this pointe,There be more learned Catholi­kes then Prote­stants you know that mā for man, by all likelyho­od, Readers of Diuinitie are the greatest schollers, their exercise and profession (spe­cially if they be of manie yea­res) enabling and improuing them more then others who haue not the like occasion. Of these compare the number which England afforde's to the multitudes which Catho­like [Page 382] countries yeildes. You haue beene in Paris where you might haue seene in some one howse or College more then be in all England, whereof so­me haue taught Diuinitie a douzen or twentie yeares, fiue or six actually reeding, and as manie perhaps, who hauing spent a great part of their age in that profession, haue now giuen ouer, I speake no secrets, the most ignorant man that is may see and proue what I saie with his owne eyes ether in Ita­lie, spaine, Germanie, France, or Low countries. And I may adde that the time which one of thē spende's in studie is dou­ble to what one in our Vniuer­sities heare in England doth imploye. These being married men hauing care of their wiues [Page 383] and Children, and are, saith S. Paul, deuided, 1. Cor. 7. one halfe to their bookes, the other to their househould, And you know wiues are no friends of bookes, learning and children spring both from the braine, and both require abundance of spirits, and therefore not wel mached together. And sure amongst Catholikes a learned resolution is rather to be looked for at a Priest's hands (ordinarily speaking) then from a maried man, by reason his time, breeding, and imployment are more pro­portioned therevnto. To the­se learned mē now liuing you may adde all that liued for manie ages, not so vnlearned as the Protestants perswade themselues, sithence the verie [Page 384] first beginners of Protestancie mett with their matches, such as they ether did not dare to meete face to face, or if they did, they still came of with dis­honor. Wherefore euerie man that vnderstande's anie thing more then his owne home must needes grant that if num­ber or likelyhood of persons may carie the cause, the que­stion in ended. Wherevnto I could adde that reason which you mentioned, how the Pro­testants in diuers countries are not of our Religion, nether in respect of beliefe or Gouerment. No two Prote­stants of one Religion They Tiff [...]i [...] so manie points that they da [...] one the other for [...] belieuers. Doe but exa­mine whether the positions wherein they disagree amōgst themselue [...] be not of as maine importance as those wherein [Page 385] we differ from them all, and you shall finde manie of thēto be the verie same. Naythere be not two Doctors or persons be­re in England of one Religion, no nor two laye men, who gi­ue them selues to expound scriptures, and make their pri­uat spirit iudge of their beliefe and tenets. And this, not only because so manie variable phā ­sies, grounded euerie one vpō it selfe, cannot possibly agree (wherevpon you shall hardly see two meete and conferre of Religiō, but they will disagree if they talke long) but also be­cause all knowledge hath it's vnitie from some setled and certaine principles, which being not to be found out of the Catholike church in mat­ters of Religion, there can be [Page 386] no vnitie or beliefe amongst Protestants. For althought our Parlemēt hath comanded diuers articles to be [...]ght in the churches of England, yet doth not the Protestant Cler­gie acknowledge that the Par­lement, who are the [...] [...]ke and taught by the [...] anie power to iudge or determine pointes of doctrine. And in deede it were ridiculous for those, who thinke that an vni­uersall Cōgregation of Bish­opps, and the bodie of the whole church may erre in be­liefe, should [...] no at­tribute this v [...]errable power to their owne schollers. Ne­ther doe they, that I know of, but still mantaine constantly their cheefe grounde that all when are fallible and subiect to [Page 387] erre. why Pro­testants ought not for­ce anie man to belieue with them. Where by the way you may note, how hardly they deale with Catholikes in pu­nishing them for professing a different faith from theirs, se­eing that if we belieue diffe­rently we must needes profes­se differētly: and they, by their owne confession, not hauing anie authoritie whereby they can or ought force anie mā to belieue as they doe, t'is eui­dent that they must per force contradicte their owne prin­ciples if they will persecute vs. Now therefore seeing, that to be of one faith, is to be of one setled opinion, and setling can­not be without infalibilitie or necessitie, the Protestants ha­uing no common principles which them selues esteeme in­falible (euerie mā expounding [Page 388] scripture, (their only rule of faith) at his pleasure, nor anie hauing power or authoritie to controle an others interpreta­tion of anie passage what soe­uer) t'is impossible anie two ministers should be of one faith and Religion. T'is true, per chāce they may be of one minde to day, but eare night if ether of them light of a place of the scripture which after more consideration seemeth to haue an other sense then he thought before, they may well be of different opinions; And this in what pointe how mate­riall or essentiall soeuer. These men therefore may be said to be some times of one minde or opinion, but neuer of one faith and Religion, faith being like mariage, not to be taken [Page 389] vp for a yeare and a day, but for all Eternitie.The learned Catholi­kes be more learned then the learned Prote­stants. And now to returne to the discourse we ay­me at. As the number of our learned men doth farr excee­de the number of learned Pro­stants, so likewise by all likely­hood doth their learning. The English Diuinitie, generally speaking, is nothing but con­trouersies, which are but the fourth or fift part of Catholi­ke Diuinitie. For besides con­trouersies, we haue scholasti­call Theologie, which expli­cate's the mysteries of our faith, and shewe's their confor­mitie to nature and naturall reason. We haue morall Diui­nitie, which searche's into the practize of the Sacraments ād Precepts of good life. We haue scripture lessons, which diue [Page 390] into the deepe sense of the written word of God without farther application. We haue misticall Theologie, which examine's the extraordinarie waies of conuersation with God. And lastly we haue Ec­clesiasticall historie, which shewe's the progresse, increa­se, and practize of Christian faith through all ages and pla­ces. And of all these we haue, I doe not saie bookes or volu­mes, but whole libraries writ­ten and extant amongst vs. And for other eruditions, as languages, Poetrie, Rhetho­ricke, Logicke, and Philoso­phie, if the Protestants haue anie, let them looke into their samples, and they shall finde the most eminent and worthie men to haue beene and to be [Page 391] Catholikes, so that as of all Religiōs the Christian, so of all Christian's the Catholike is without questiō the most wise, and the most learned profes­sion. And what I saye is not to be sought out in old manus­cripts or learned papers, your eyes and eares will tell it you in Catholike countries, and euen in Paule's church yard, where you may finde multitu­des of volumes of all these sorts of learning written by Catholikes, And if their shopps were well shaked vp, I doubt not but for bookes of worth (except some English pamphletts and a few contro­uersies) one hundreth for one would be found to haue bee­ne written by Catholikes. What apparence thē can there [Page 392] be, that the Protestants argu­ments should be so mightie and so cleerely better then what Catholikes can saie for them selues, as to beare downe the right of Antiquitie and possessiō, whereof the Catho­likes are the sole Claymers.

I cannot denie but that your discourse is sound and grounded vpon common sense, and vpon such euidence as when I was in Paris I heard was there to bee seene, but my minde was then more fixed vpon the Tennis court then vpon such enquiries. But why might not one replye that all this and more is necessarie for the iustifying of so euill a qua­rell? If Catholikes be not ho­nest and vertuous men the more learned they are, the [Page 393] more dāgerous and more able to mantaine a false position. And t'is like the Protestants would replye in this manner, for they tell vs, that the Pope hath gottē so mightie a power ouer our verie vnderstandings that for manie ages we haue bent all our witts how to man­taine his tiles ād decrees with­out anie care of truth or pro­babilitie, wherefore the more wit and learning the more blindnesse of passion and inte­rest.As the learned Catho­likes are more le­arned thē the learned Prote­stāts: so they are more vertu­ous then they.

I did not thinke that learning had deserued so ill at your hands as to censure it so seuerely. No, no, cosē, one mā, or two, or three may be the more dāgerous for their lear­ning, but not whole multitu­des. For of it's owne nature it [Page 394] is a great instrument of vertue, being the Companiō of truth, so that there can be no greater signe of truth in anie Religiō, then to see it beare the touch of reason, and that the profes­sors of it be addicted to lear­ning. Besids, I pray, remem­ber I speake to one who pro­fesseth no schollershippe, and therefore doe not inquire what is, or is not, but what is most likely and apparent. It must therefore be knowne that the Religion is false, befo­re it can be presumed that mē bēd and straine their learning to mantaine a falsitie; For otherwise the verie fame of learning beare's with it the cre­dit and esteeme of truth and honestie; And who delight's in learned labours is commonly [Page 395] free both from quarrellsome interest, and hurtefull pleasu­res, out of which doe spring all cunning fraude and circum­vention, wherevpon a meere scholler is quitte, by this verie name, from suspicion of guile and craftinesse. But how soe­uer our Religion hath, besides learning, manifest signes of honestie and vertue. For all the pointes wherein we differ from Protestants are of that nature, that they incite vs to the practize of some vertue or other. As we saie charitie and the keeping of the comman­dements doe iustifie, and de­serue eternall reward. Confes­sion bring's the remembrance and sorrow for our sinnes, sa­tisfaction is performed by go­od deedes, Praying for the [Page 396] dead, praying to Saincts, kee­ping and reuerēcing Pictures of Christ and his Saincts, And aboue all the presence of God in the B. Sacrament, All which be matters of great moment and consideration continually prouoking vs to lift vp our mindes to God and heauen, to thinke of the life to come, and to practize vertuous actions. The most earnest Protestant, who hath but cast his eye be­yond the sea, cannot denie but ther's a maine difference in exteriour deuotion amongst Catholikes aboue Protestāts. Our churches are open euerie daye, seruice and Masses said all the fore noone, ād in diuers there is seruice a great part of the after noone. Our seruice is much longer then the Prote­stants. [Page 397] Our ceremonies and magnificence verie spectable. Our Sacraments more in nū ­ber, more frequented, and do­ne with more state and reue­rence. The riches of our chur­ches, Altars, Pictures inestima­ble. Our solemnities and Tri­umphs glorious, perpetuall sermons on festifall days, and on euerie daye in the lent and Aduent, the B. Sacrament of­ten exposed with great con­curse of deuout people, as all Protestant trauellers can wit­nesse. Adde to these the mul­titudes of Religious men and women, whose profession is retired from busineses and the world to haue more time to conuerse with God. The often miracles, the frequent Saincts and holy men, that cannot be [Page 398] denied but at least we thinke and saie we haue thē. In a word the Protestant's faith seeme's like the piece of monie buried in the grounde, and the Catholi­ke's like a burning torch which forceth all within it's sphere to cast their eyes vpon it. I knowe the readie answere is, that all is but hypocrisie, and that there is as great wicked­nesse amongst Catholikes as amongst Protestants. But I could wish that hee who is thus rash ād readie to saie this, were as curious and carefull to know how to proue it. For it were absurde to thinke that who strike's but one blowe in twentie in a smith's shoppe should make as great a dinte as hee who strike's twētie. And suerly no lesse foolish it were [Page 399] to thinke that whose harts and hāds are continually busied a­bout God and godly things should make no greater im­pressiō in their soules thē they who saie not a prayer once a mōth, and whose cheefe deuo­tiō is to heare a mā make a ple­asing discourse in a pulpit. I wll not denie but that there bee as fowle sinners and as manie amongst Catholike as amōgst Protestants, if not more and wickeder. For sacriledge can­not be so great where sainctitie is lesse, and who best knowe's his Masters will must needes deserue most stripes for his trespasse. No man could dam­ne his posteritie but who had original iustice to loose, nor could anie betraye Christ but who had eate bread at his ta­ble. [Page 400] Wherefore Protestants cannot be so wicked as Catho­likes, hauing not such a saintly faith nor such a sacred church to disgrace and abuse. Yet doe I not thinke but that a go­od argumēt may be made for our church by it's saintitie, re­mēbring well what an English Protestant Clergie man of note, who had beene at Rome after his conuersion, was wont to saie when he heard anie speake against the vices of the Court of Rome. I haue know­ne, quoth he, manie and manie of the Protestant clergie as honest men as euer I met with­all in my life, in whose hands I durst vēture my state and life, but I neuer knew anie who had the reputation and esteeme amongst wise mē to be a saint, [Page 401] or of extraordinarie holinesse: Here in Rome I see in a smale number of great Pre­lats two or three that haue the fame of extraordinarie vertue, and the like I find of all sorts both of church men and laitie, some to be reputed exemplar­ly holy. As for the vices, whe­reof I heare the reports, and doubt not but they are to true, yet I see they are caried dis­creetly and breake not forth into anie publicke scandall. So that although Protestāts haue diuers morall honest men and Catholikes manie wicked, yet doth it not follow that they are equall in behauiour. For Ca­tholikes haue some Saincts Protestants none, Catholikes faultes are in proportiō fewer, Protestant's good workes ve­rie [Page 402] defectiue in the like pro­portion, And this difference is such an one as worthily ma­ke's a marke of the Catholike church, and as in deede is be­fitting a church made of men who beare immortall soules in vessels of flesh and bloode.

The Po­pe's spi­rituall; poWer is no tyra­nie but Was euer the sa­me.But I had almost forgotten the difficultie you made of the Pope's tyrannizing and for­cing all men's witts to serue him. Doe you thinke he tyra­nize's the bodies or the min­des? If the mindes, why then he hath persuaded them his pwer is lawfull, giuen by Iesus Christ and continued since his time. Wherefore these mē who are thus persuaded being so manie, so learned, and withall so vpright, as that for consciē ­ce sake they will forgoe the ve­rie [Page 403] libertie of their vnderstan­dings, make a great argument that the truth is as they saie. For otherwise how easie were it for a king of France, or spai­ne, or Emperour to follow the example of England, Hollād, and diuers states of Germanie who would aide and backe thē if they would renounce this pretended Tyrannie, whereas these Reuolters frō the church of Rome did it without anie present example, nay with the detestation of all their neigh­bours. Besides all the Pope's names and actions are regi­stred if they did anie thing of note, if they changed but their attire, consecrated a Bishop, sent a Cardinal's cappe, or the like, all is vpon record; Only this action of conquering the [Page 404] whole world in the waie of an vniuersall father, of setting this spirituall throne not only aboue Kings and Monarches Bishopps and Patriarkes, but euen aboue the wisedome of the sages, and aboue the valour of vndaunted courages, this only, I saie, by all Historians must haue beene accounted vnworthie of mention. But remember, cosen, that commō sense teache's vs, That a thing so much against the generall current of the publicke church of Christ for so manie ages ought to be well proued ac­cording to the rule you gran­ted me euen now, before it passe without controule.

Truly, sir, me thin­ke's you speake with reason and common sense. Yet this [Page 405] authoritie being so great, I see not, Why it may not of it selfe, and by it's instruments worke such an effect, as that learned men (vpon whose number I am to rely) may not become partially affected in the iudg­ment of Religion, and conse­quently the greater number be more corrupted then the lesser, and so the opinion of three were to be preferred before the opinion of the seuē ­teene. Nay in my iudgment experience tell's vs that not euerie tenth person amongst learned Catholikes doe know the true value and force of our Aduersaries arguments, but with a preoccupated dispositiō vndervalue them when per­happs they cannot giue a full and satisfactorie answere vnto [Page 406] them. And how should it be otherwise, sithence from our childhood we are taught to rely vpon the church for mat­ters of Religion, and to reiect and hate anie mā who should seeke to make a contrarie im­pression in vs. This being plā ­ted in vs in our tender age, and growing with nature can­not choose but make a vehe­ment preoccupation in vs whē we come to be able to iudge of controuersies in Religion. Nor is it to the pourpose whe­ther it be fit that we haue such an impression or no, for I op­pose not the thing, but the ar­gument which vrge's for the greater number of learned men.

And haue you not marked the like amongst Pro­testāts, [Page 407] ād much more amōgst Puritants? And doe you not finde that those who slight Catholike arguments, are no lesse preoccupated then the Catholikes▪ you speake of? Nay if you marke it, they greatest contemners of their Aduersarie's argumēts, be they Catholikes or Protestants, are commonly the most zealous, or rather the most ignorant of the zealous. So that in deede the true cause of this partialitie is ignorance, and not anie pro­hibition, which contrariwise is a great prouoker to make men doubt of their Religion. For euer since our Grand mo­ther Eue harkened to the first why did God, all precepts (who­se reason we vnderstand not) haue beene suspicious vnto vs. [Page 408] Tell me then, I pray, if you were in a shipp where there were a Pilote and his mate, and some Captane who had ne­uer beene at sea before, and in a controuersie about their iournay they fall to variance, The Pilote and his Mate say­ing this is the waie, the Cap­tane by reports or guesses of his owne, saie's, that's not the waie, And therevpon the Cō ­panie in the shipp take's parts, whether side in this case would you iudge to be partiall?

T'is cleere that those who ioyne with the Cap­tane are partiall, for where the one side hath skill the other none, t'is euident that if the question be of skill we ought adhere to the skilfull. This I saie is euidēt, if there be no par­ticular [Page 409] circumstāce or speciall reason to the contrarie, As in our case if the Pilote had some interest to carrie his shipp out of the waie, then it were an other matter, but stāding pre­cisely in the termes of your case, t'is cleere ō which side the partialitie is, for the Pilote ha­uing skill the captaine none, the Pilot's aduise were to be preferred in common sense, and to side with him were wis­dome.

Why then who adhe­re's to vnskillfull iudgers in matters of Religion are par­tiall, and who adhere's to ex­perts in those matters are wise and rationall. Wherefore if the seuenteene adhere to the Mi­strisse and teacher of Religiō, and the three fly from hir, [Page 410] doth not these by this verie act make them selues partiall, and those impartiall? You must first know whether side goes the right waie before you can suppose ether side to be partiall, and consequently the number will still preuaille as long as t'is in doubt whether si­de is partiall, And if one side adhere to that part which was in prepossession, the other plead against possession, you are bound by the law of natu­re, by the institution of all cō ­munities, and by commō sense to iudge the pleaders against possession to be partiall vntill they haue proued their motiō so reasonable, as wil ouer balā ­ce the great authoritie of pos­session which is against them. Farther if you considere that [Page 411] Christian Religion is superna­turall, that is, such an one as cannot be learned but frō Al­mightie God, to wit, from the Apostles, or from them whō the Apostles or their Disci­ples haue taught, you will see that there is no disputing about Religion, but only to aske what hath beene taught vs, which none can tell vs but those whose life and professiō it is to teach vs that doctrine which them selues first lear­ned, to wit, the Bishopps and Pastors of the church. So that who doubt's of what these mē haue taught and doe teach vs, must needes be ignorant of the meanes and waie of know­ing Christian doctrine, and passionately refuse the true ād certaine rule thereof.

I see myne errour, and it was the same as if one should condemne a man of partialitie who keepe's posses­sion of his owne, because he yeild's not vp the state, whe­reof he is possessed before iudgmēt be giuē against him; whereas contrariwise in the Ciuill law (which I once stu­died a litle) if one be put out of quiet possession, his Aduersa­rie may not pleade vntill he be put in againe. And sure of all cases the fowlest is to doubt in matters of Religion before one hath reason, for where au­thoritie is plainely on the one side, there none cā doubt with­out wronging that Authoritie vnlesse he haue a reason which doth ouer ballance it. And so I am satisfied in this pointe.

Take this with you nephew, that generally no cō ­trouersies of Religion fall out without some motiues of in­terest on both sides, and so both sides may be suspected of partialitie, but cheefely that which beginne's the change. Wherefore suppose men were forbiddē to doubt, that would be of litle force if once they sawe their commanders were interessed, vnlesse they sawe withall that they could not mende them selues. Besides in our schooles all things are ca­led in question, which would not be suffered if it endāgered the churche's beliefe. Lastly being t'is great schollers that gouerne men's iudgments, if they did finde by their lear­ning anie other sure ground of [Page 414] Religion. then standing to the churche's authoritie and iudg­ment, they would esteeme as much of hir Commandes and Sampson did of the Philistins shutting their gates vpon him. And so wee see by experience that all truly learned ād vnpas­sionat mē on our side (besides the motife of the churche's au­thoritie) adhere vpon pure reason to the Catholike tenets, and will protest vpon all that's holy that they would be of the same Religiō though there were no commande, finding it most conformable to reason and to the grounds of Chri­stianitie.

The truth is I know not how to answere your dis­course, yet perhapps a Prote­stant would saie that all's but [Page 415] probabilitie and likelihood, and therefore to hazard a mā's estate vpon peraduentures were something hard and not verie rationally done. Wherefore I should be glad to conceiue more fully

§. 4 The force and efficacitie of these your discourses and persuasiōs.

Why, cosen, what securitie doe your marchāts, your states mē, your soliers, those that goe to law, nay euen those that till their grounds and worke for their liuings, what securitie, I saie, doe all these goe vpon? Is it greater thē the securitie which these grounds doe afford? Su­rely no. And yet no man esteeme's them foolish. All [Page 416] human affaires are hazardous, and haue some aduenture in them. And therefore who re­quire's euident certaintie only in matters of Religion discou­er's in him self a lesse minde to the goods promised in the next life, then to these which he seeke's here in this world vpon weaker assurāce. How­soeuer the greatest euidence that can be to him that is not capable of conuincing demō ­strations (which the greatest part of mankinde fall shortof) is but cōiecturall, for men doe not generally distinguish bet­wixt a solide and a wittie proo­fe, and are as soone taken with a glosse or iesting speach as with a demonstration. Let but this verie proofe I haue told you be put to some two men, [Page 417] the one more, the other lesse iudicious, and the one per­happs will hold it for euident, the other only for apparent and likly. And certainely it is manifest that if our church was once the true church, they who made a breach from hir must needes haue euident pro­ofes of hir corruption, or else be culpable of faction and schisme. And yet of these two men I propose, the one perad­uenture will take this argumēt only for plausible, and at the least checke forgoe it, the other looking into the nature of Gouermēt and seeing what a flaw the contrarie position breede's in it, and how in ef­fect it destroye's all Gouer­ment will thinke it so strong that what soeuer is or can be [Page 418] said against it, is but the play­ing of witt against pure euidē ­ce. Farther if we Catholikes hold the truth of scripture as conscientiously as anie Pro­testant, and therefore that all controuersies betwixt vs and them are only concerning the sense of it, and not touching the truth of it, t'is manifest that Catholikes must ether be such dull dunces as not to vnder­stand their arguments, or so willfull as not to acknowledge what they see ād know, other­wise surely they would agree with Protestants in all pointes which they could cōuince and demonstrate. And againe this man who perceth deeper into the strength of this argument see's, that although some ti­mes learning may faile, ād that [Page 419] vertue may haue a bridle for a while, yet would not learnīg be learning if it should not for the most part worke it's effect in men, and make them more ca­pable of reason then others: And much lesse can it be true vertue which is seldome effi­cacious, sithence vertue's na­ture is to be operatiue. Where­fore this vnderstanding man that see's there's a more con­stant poursuite of vertue and learning on the one side then on the other, conclude's eui­dently that there cā be no ex­traordinarie weaknesse on the learneder and more vertuous side in cōparison of the other. And where he see's more meanes, paines, and fruits of learning and vertue on the one side then on the other, he [Page 420] will no more doubt (suppo­sing this be a constant and set­led course on both sides) but that of necessitie there must be more learning and vertue on that side where he see's these effects, no more, I saie, thē he can doubt whether ne­cessarie causes will haue their effects, as whether fire and towe put together will burne, or whether effects cā be with­out their causes, as howses, clockes, and the like without Carpenters, smiths, and other Artizans. Yet perhapps he that barely looke's vpon the superficies of this discourse ta­ke's it only for a pleasing and probable consequence. Ioyne to this, the multitudes of Anti­quitie (I meane those ages wherein the Protestants ac­knowledge [Page 421] the Raigne of Po­perie) and surely thē there will not remaine to an vnderstan­ding man anie iuste cause to feare or complaine of hazard, but rather a great occasion to admire and praise God's wis­dome, who hath prouided so short and secure a meanes for euerie man who is so happy and carefull as to acknowled­ge and embrace this guide of eternall saluatiō; looking with an eye of commiseration vpō those, whose dispositiōs being not fitted to the sight of this truth, remaine in doubt and ignorance by diuing into que­stions wherein they are not able to finde satisfaction, and so cast them selues awaie, not for want of meanes, but ether through their owne pride, or [Page 422] by the misleading of their Di­rectors, Who not seeing what's conuenient for the dispositiōs of their disciples, throwe thē vpon the Rockes in stead of giuing them a fit harbour to anker in, for if they would re­ly vpon this plane and open waie of our discourse, commō sense would tell them (if not what's true) at least what they ought to follow, ād that as clee­rely as that two and three are fiue.

I confesse the eui­dence you pleade is greate, yet me thinke's one might obiect, that seeing we heare it so often and so strongly beatē into vs that all men are falible, and that nature it selfe seeme's to teach the same, therefore as on the one side your reasons [Page 423] force me to grant that t'is the wiser course to vēter this waie; so on the other, I still remaine with this disposition that it may peraduenture be false, which is able to shake a man's resolution and cowle his affe­ction.

Cosen, you desire great matters, and peraduen­ture more then your age and wauering dtsposition is able to beare. Yet to complye with your good desires, I will put you in the waie if you will haue patience to follow the tracke, and you shall see

§. 5 That it is no hard matter that Christ's law should haue des­cended entire vnto vs.

FIrst therefore tell me, I pray, what time thinke you [Page 424] Christ and his Apostles im­ployed in preaching the Gho­spell in anie one countrie?

I know Christ imployed some three yeares and a halfe or thereabouts, for I thinke the time is not preci­sely agreed vpon by Crono­logers, But for the Apostles that I know not, nor cā I gues­se to what pourpose you aske me this question.

Is it not like the Apo­stles bestowed neere about as much time? S. Paule him self saie's so, telling the Clergie of Ephesus, that for three yeares he had not ceassed day and night to exhorte them with teares, and warne them to ta­ke heede of false teachers. And we may well thinke the like of the rest of the Apostles, [Page 425] wheresoeuer they could con­ueniently doe it, but specially in the churches in which they made their Residence. But why thinke you tooke they so much time for so short a do­ctrine, as you see Christian doctrine is, being included in our Creede.

No doubt but their imployment was to ma­ke their disciples and the peo­ple vnderstand perfectly, and fully comprehende all poin­tes of Christian doctrine, to resolue all doubts and diffi­culties, to make the apprehen­sion of the doctrine sincke in­to the verie soules of the peo­ple, and to setle a forme of Gouerment and Conuersatiō, and to invre the first Christiās to the practize of this doctri­ne [Page 426] whereby it might subsist and continue as long as pos­sibly it could. For this I see is the dictamē of prudence and wisdome in such a case, and the course all those who foūd new institutions.

You saie well. And surely such a time for a litle Prouince of about two or three dayes iournay's semi­diameter was verie sufficient for the instructing of their dis­ciples in all materiall pointes and setling of instructers to succeede them. But in case immediately after the decease or departure of the Apostle there should arise (according to our sauiours forewarning) false Prophets or Rauenous wol­ues vnder pretence of saincti­tie endeauoring to deuoure [Page 427] the flocke, nay that euen some amongst them selues out of vanitie should beginne some new doctrine,How contro­uersies were de­cided immediat­ly after the Apo­stles. drawing disci­ples after them, and so making them selues head of a partie and of a doctrine contrarie to that which the Apostle had taught, vrging reasons out of nature and texts out of that Apostles owne writings by whom they were taught, or out of his follow Apostles, and strengthen his partie by the adherence of manie of the we­aker sort, what I saie would the Gouernors and teachers of the faithfull doe in this case? How would they behaue thē selues to hinder the ruine of their weaker breetheren?

I doe imagine that meeting together they [Page 428] would examine this new Do­ctrine, taking sor their rule that doctrine which the Apostle deliuered vnto them, And knowing that he could nether contradict him self nor anie of his Breetheren, being all inspi­red by the Holy Ghost, they would conclude, that the In­nouators reasons were capti­ous, his texts wrong vndersto­od if they were obscure, or corrupted if they were plaine. For nothing could be so eui­dent vnto them as that, which for three yeares together had beene perpetually beaten into them, where in they had bee­ne continually examined and cleered, and which had beene so long the fundation of their new manner of life and practi­ze; so that, this must needes be [Page 429] the most euident vnto them of all things, and therefore they would surely forgoe all other rules to gouerne them selues by this, as being most frie from errour,

Your conclusion follow's plainely. For they ha­uing no other stay of their be­liefe, then that S. Paul (for example) had taught them so, tis cleere that to them these two questions were but one, whether the opiniō proposed was true? and whether it was accor­dimg to what S. Paul had taught them? And therefore to be against that which they had beene taught, to them, was to be false. So that there nether was nor could be anie other question in the church at that time in matters of faith, but [Page 430] whether the Apostles had taught such a doctrine or no? For the Apostles hauing spēt so much time in teaching Christian do­ctrine in so litle a Prouince, what they had not taught must needes be presumed not to be necessarie, and consequently not deseruing to make a schis­me and breach amongst Chri­stiās, and what they had taught to be without all controuersie true and certaine. Wherefore if such an Innouator would not stand to this iudgment, he was to be expelled the church, as disagreeing from the Christians in the principall rule and soueragne Tribunal of Christianitie by which, and only which, they could at that time decerne and decide what was Christian doctrine what not. [Page 431] Happie that age in which it was so easie to resolue anie dif­ficultie arisning, for it was no more then to meete together and aske one an other, How haue you beene taught? And all was ended, and who should haue resisted this decision was to be cast out with common consent as a reprobate. But tell me, cosen, how long doe you thinke this Happinesse cō ­tinued in the church?

For the time of the Apostles and of their dis­ciples (who are commonly ca­led Apostolicall men) ther's no question to be made; no nor of the age of the disciples of these Apostolicall men; To whom I see not why I may not add yet an other age, for doubtlesse those Apostolicall [Page 432] men must needes haue beene of that reputation as that what soeuer was constantly remem­bred to haue beene their do­ctrine, was likewise to be estee­med the doctrine of the Apo­stles their Masters, supposing it was knowne to bee vniuer­sally and generally theirs, and not the opinion of some one or two of them only.

And will it be a stum­bling blocke vnto you if we add yet an other descent, to wit, of the Grandchildren of these Apostolicall mē, for the memorie of publicke and ge­nerally practized things is fresh from Grandfathers vnto their Grandchildren. So that this degree or goldē age may well consist of fiue descents, that is, of some 200 yeares, al­lowing [Page 433] 40. yeares to a descēt, which is not much, seing that witneses of 60. yeares are or­dinarily found in euerie busi­nes in the same Prouince, and therefore where the question is of a publicke and vniuersall practize which concernes ma­nie countries and nations who haue intercourse and commu­nication together, such witne­ses may be much more easily found. But what shall we saie of the next ensuing age?

I conceiue that these descents you speake of may easily haue reached to Constātine's time, when Chri­stian Religiō being publicke, the multitudes of fathers and writers would supplie the de­iect of this [...] or self seeing into the well spring of Christi­anitie. [Page 434] But whether you driue that waie or no, I know not.

It is not needfull, for sithence the last age doth di­rectly know what was the Apostles doctrine, All such ages as can reach to knowe the doctrine and practize of that last age, are able certainely to resolue (though in a lower de­gree) anie arising difficultie; not because they cā immedia­tely tell, that such a pointe is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostles, but because they can tell that t'is against the do­ctrine of the fist descēt, which doctrine they know to be the dokrine of the Apostles. Whe­refore vpon the like ground we may add fiue descēts more, which according to our for­mer computation will make [Page 435] vp 400. yeares, und peraduen­ture by extēt may reach to fi­ue or 600 yeares after Christ that is; to the second conuer­sion of nations, I meane to the conuersion of those barberous people which ouerunne the Roman Empire, and brought almost all the world backe vn­to the formerly extirpated paganisme.

Why then wee nee­de no more, for the Protestāts confesse that Poperie hath rai­gned since Phocas his time; nay they sticke not to saie that Gregorie the Great was the last good and first bad Po­pe, seeming to thinke that frō him beganne, that which they call Poperie. And truly in his Dialogues which are sett out in English there's more then [Page 436] enough to show that the Re­ligion of his time was the same which we now professe And we that haue our cōuersion from him (according to venerable Bede) wee, I saie, who are des­cended from the Saxons, ne­uer haue had anie Religiō but that which the Protestants call Poperie, And therefore to vs English men, it is most cleere, that we neuer had anie Reli­giō since Gregorie the great's time, but Poperie. And there­fore if the Religion that then raigned was the faith of the Apostles, it will euidently fol­low that Poperie was their faith.

Surely not only wri­ters but euen Records and Monuments are so thicke sin­ce the conuersion of those [Page 437] nations which ouer runne the Romā world, that no peruerse man cā requite more euidēce, And surely it was God's pro­uidence who setled as it were a new world, and purged the old, whilest Religion could yet looke backe and see hir head, as it were, with one vewe. But I hoped you would haue induced a farther conse­quence and applyed the argu­ment to later ages.

I am affraid these calculations may ouer reach me, for I fee the father and the sonne's age doe concurre in some part, and therefore by counting them seuerally the number of yeares will be greater then in deede ought to be allowed.

You saie well, and [Page 38] therefore we will only take that number of yeares which the father ordinarily liueth before the birth of his sonne, As if the sonne be supposed to be 20. yeares of age when the father testifieth, and the father 60. Which you see is verie cō ­mon, and so the number of yeares of one descent will be 40. Which is the number we put. But if the father be 80. when the sonne is 20. then the number of one descent wilbe 60. Which though it be some what great, because it is rare that a man hath a child at 60. yet t'is not so rare but a thou­sand may bee found in a com­petent extent, as in the King­dome of England, and this number is amply sufficient for the effect we desire, for fiue [Page 439] descents of 60. yeares make 300. yeares. And hauing tould you how a generall practize of anie countrie is knowne by a kind of self seeing for fiue descents, which include's at least 200. yeares, it will follow that coūting downe frō Christ time to ours by two ages at a time, we may frame our discourse thus. As those who liued in the beginning of the third age could certainely know they held the Apostles doctrine; so those who liued in the beginning of the fift age, could certainely know they held the doctrine of those of the beginning of the third age, that is, the doctrine of the Apostles. And by the like cō ­sequēce those of the 7. age will be certaine they are in the sa­me [Page 440] faith of those of the fift, and those of the 9. in the faith of those of the 7. And so to our verie selues, And all are certaine that they are in the faith of the Apostles. The rea­son of this consequence is, be­cause two ages is not so great a space, but that certaine know­ledge of publicke and gene­rall chāges through a kingdo­me (much more through ma­nie) may be easily had; nor yet are two ages so litle, as that a great errour could lurke vn­seene and lye smoothered for so long a time. We therefore who now liue in communion with the Roman church know certainely, that our forefathers of the 16. and 15 ages did con­ceiue that this faith and do­ctrine which we hold, did, I [Page 441] saie, conceiue and thinke it to haue descended vnto them from the Apostles, And we know likewise that they could not conceiue and thinke so, but that they knew the 14. and 13. ages did belieue the same; Nor those of the 14. and 13. ages could not haue the same beliefe, vnlesse they had seene and receiued it, in and from the 12. and the 11. age. And put­ting all these together, (the certaintie whereof is imme­diatly founded in this our age) you see they comprehēde six ages, if we put 40. yeares to a descent, and will comprehen­de 8. or 9. ages if we put 60. to a descent. So that two or at must three such cōpositiōs will reach beyond Christ's birth, And therefore we doe not, [Page 442] nor cannot, want euidence but eyes to see it.

Your discourse will be good, supposing the pointe in cōtrouersie be some publicke and great matter, or a notorious change in the face of God's church. But why might not some speculatiue pointe creepe in without being taken notice of, such as was the pointe of the Arrians or Pelagians, if there had not happened with all so great an opposition and quarelling as shaked almost the whole church.why no neW point cā creepe into the church without a great change.

There be two rea­sons why no pointe of Chri­stian doctrine can be so smale as to creepe in without a great change. The one is because Christian doctrine is a disci­pline [Page 443] whose parts are so knit together as that one thred cā ­not be broken but it will rauell through manie stiches, As frō th' Arriā heresie denying Christ to be God, it would fol­low, no Trinitie, and so Chri­stians would easily become naturall philosophers and Pa­gans, no Incarnation, that is, no God and man in one person, All the payeres and adorations which the church had vsed hitherto were to be changed, The forme of baptisme were to be alte­red, And thus we might goe through the most part of Christian doctrine, if we looke into the sequels of Arrianisme. And such like consequences may be deduced out of Pela­gianisme, and out of almost all othet heresies, which haue not [Page 444] runne beyōd all face of Chri­stianitie, because they were quickly opposed, and so hin­dered from shewing the ser­pent's taile which lurked be­hinde. The other reason is, be­cause no new doctrine can pre­uaile in the church of God without impeaching tradition, the rule of faith, for that being once broken and reiected, by the same right and principle by which they professe one errour, they may professe anie, And you see the disciples of Heresiarckes neuer faile to grow worse thē their Masters, Luther broke the Ice by ap­pealing to scripture, Suinglius went farther then he, th' Ana­baptists exceeded the Swin­glians, the Adamistes, passed th' Anabaptists, the Socinians [Page 445] the Adamistes, and some went beyond Christianitie, others euen beyond common sense, wherefore it is impossible anie breach should be made in the church without a maine and notorious chāge in the whole face of Christianitie.

I see now, vncle, it was not without cause you asked me, what time the Apostles imployed in teaching Christiā doctrine to some one Prouin­ce or Countrie, your whole discourse seeme's to depende vpō this, that the Apostles did not barely tell the faithfull what Christ had donne and taught, bud did inculcate and beat it into thē both by words and actions, invring thē to the practize of their beliefe, their beliefe being the ground of [Page 446] their actions, and their actions the effects of their beliefe, and therefore could not be altered without a maine change both in their faith and practize, their beliefe mantaining their practize and their practize strengthening their beliefe. And truly I see this is a cōna­turall waie to keepe Religion vncorrupted, And that nature, and necessitie, droue the first Christians vpon occasion of anie controuersie, to seeke what the Apostles had taught, which being once begunne the ensuing Christians would follow the same course, as lōg as controuersies could be re­solued this waie, which by your discourse may be done at this daie. But I learned in Philosophie that a posse ad esse [Page 447] is no good argument, for if it were sufficiēt to proue a thing hath beene donne because it could haue beene donne no man would be innocent, but who is impotent, And there­fore I feare we are not much aduanced, vnlesse you cā shew me

§. 6 That if Chrest's law could haue beene conserued it hath beene conserued.

Why so, nephew; you know if anie man be accused, his denyall cleere's him sufficiently vntill proofe be brought against him▪ And when it is brought t'is yet suf­ficient for his defence to shew, it doth not conuince, which if he can doe, the law laye's no [Page 448] hold of him. And shall not the clayme of so great a part of the world standing in pos­session and mantaining the in­nocentie of the church be heard and esteemed good vn­till the aduerse partie hath made his proofes cleere and euident against them? Certes you haue forgotten your re­solution concerning your wi­ues honnor for whom you were so earnest but now. Againe we must surely cōceite the church to be a thing plan­ted by Almightie God with no lesse blessing then that which he gaue to men and beasts at their creation, where­by they haue beene conserued to this daye, for sithence our Redemptiō cost him no lesse then our creation, we cannot [Page 449] esteeme his Blessing of conti­nuance to be of lesse worth and vertue in the one then in the other. And t'is much more easie to conceiue how the church is and may be conti­nued, thē how mankinde hath beene and wilbe conserued, whereof I thinke no man doubts. And truly doe but considere how vnequall and vniust a conditiō it is, that the clayme of the present church shall not be heard, vnlesse she can confute all the peraduen­tures that wit may inuent, And solue all the arguments which the infinite varietie of time, place, and occasions may haue giuen waie vnto, And then you will see how vnreasona­ble an Aduersarie he is who will not be content with anie [Page 450] satisfaction but such as man's nature scarsely afforde's. Yet to answere fully to you maxi­me, first I will oppose an other vnto it, and by comparing thē we shall better vnderstand the meaning of them both. And t'is that frustra est potentia quae nunquam reducitur ad actum, Wherevnto we may add that God, the Author of nature, neuer made anie thing in vai­ne, so that when the same power or possibilitie is ordai­ned for diuers effects or ends, then if anie of it's effects be brought to passe it hath so farr arleast got it's end as that it cā ­not be said to haue beene ma­de in vaine, And therefore t'is no good argument to argue from the power or possibilitie to anie one of it's effects in [Page 451] particular, because it's ēd may be sufficiently obserued by an other effect. But if the power or possibilitie haue but one effect then your first maxime faile's, by reason of the secōd, for being the power hath but one effect, if that be not put, the power must needes be in vaine. Wherefore putting such a possibilitie, least it should be frustrate. you must needes put the effect, and consequently the argument is still good, the­re is a power or possibilitie therefore an effect. And this follow's most cleerely in our case, for if Almightie God ha­ue set causes which may and cā make his church eternall, that is, if he haue put a power or possibilitie of eternall duration in his chureh, This effect, to [Page 452] wit, euerlasting continuance be­ing of such a nature that it can be but one, t'is euident that ether this effect will follow, or else the possibilie is frustrate ād put to no end, which in a wor­ke of such a moment as that it is the verie ayme and end of all Gods workes, it were more then absurde in common sen­se to grant such a consequēce. And to declare this more par­ticularly let vs considere that where there are manie varie­ties, that which causeth defect in one causeth abundance in an other. As if in diuers coun­tries vnder seuerall climats,Why Christiā faith cā ­not be destro­yed. there be lōg drought or raine, the drought in spaine will cause want of corne, here in England and in the low coun­tries a mayne haruest: And [Page 453] contrariewise much wet here causeth dearth, in spaine and Affricke plentie. So likewise the Catholike faith being dis­persed through manie seuerall countries, what in one coun­trie make's it faile, in an other will make it flourish. The hate betwixt France and spaine ma­de Luther's proceedings to be fauored in Germanie by the Princes which leaned to the french, and the same hatred made spaine and Italie to op­pose them more vehemently. The power and authoritie of some one mā in one countrie may oppresse the church, whereas in an other, euen to discountenance that man, it shal be vpheld. And as in pla­ce so in time, diuers occasions make it now fauored now mis­liked, [Page 454] but t'is impossible, it be­ing truth and conformable to reason, that there should be anie so generall and vniuersall occasion as to make it hated in all times and places, which would be necessarie for a to­tall ruine. And this is it, which mantaine's all the progresse of nature, to wit, because it hath rootes and principles in being, for no one sorte of li­uing things, which haue being in manie farr differēt Climats, can be exterminated, by reasō the contraries which must di­stroye it, are nether vniuersall in place nor time, and therefo­re those contraries being spent, the seedes of nature re­couer them selues, sprout out, and budd againe new brāches of the same kinde. So it fareth [Page 455] with Christian beliefe and do­ctrine, which because it is so like and so connaturall to na­ture, all it's opposites must ne­edes be against nature and violent, and consequently not durable; which being gone, then must of necessitie those, in whose harts Religion is rooted, blossome againe and bring forth such delightfull sa­uours and fruicts as will draw ād attract mē's soules, ād spre­ad it selfe amongst the multi­tudes, frō whom it had beene violently banished. Wherefo­re that the church in this or that time, be oppressed, is a thing within the compase of natute's mutabilitie; But that in all Countries and at all ti­mes it should be oppressed to death surpasseth the power of [Page 456] mutable causes, Which were not mutable if they should so long and in so different circū ­stances euer haue the same ef­fect; yea nature it self and it's Author would be ouercome if such long violence could so oppresse it as to extinguish it, It being nature's cheefe flower and greatest treasure planted by the expresse handy worke of the omnipotent and wise framer thereof.

Your discourse seemee's good, for I see that mē, who in a case of great im­portance will not be content with what is proportionall to their capacitie, but seeke a certitude so great as them se­lues are not capable to iudge of, being not beaten to thoses sciences in which such cer­taintie [Page 457] is vsuall, those men, I saie, must needes come short of what they desire, if truly they doe desire it, for I belie­ue the affectiō of wealth, plea­sure, or some fore-made iudg­ment doth carie them against the simple and plaine directiō of free reason. How soeuer, vncle, seeing it was so easie for the church to haue beene con­serued entire in faith, me thin­ke's it should not be hard to shew in effect and in particu­lar from age to age that it hath beene conserued.

If we could proue that Bishops ether in Generall or Nationall Councells had once in two or three hundreth yeares taken care that no cor­ruptiōs should be introduced, this might be effected, but that [Page 458] depende's vpon bookes [...] and historie; which you and wil not now medle withall.

I belieue those hi­stories are not so doubtfull but that generally Protestants doe ād will acknowledge thē. And by my pore skill I know that there neuer passed 300. yeares since Christ's time without a Councell, and with­out condemning some here­ticke, so that t'is cleere the church hath had sufficiēt care in this kinde. Yet because I haue heard your self complai­ne of the slouth of men who seeke not into the grounds of sciēces, and often saie, that fair more thē is, might be knowne if the principles were rightly laide for it, and the waie trod­den, nay that all God's workes [Page 459] hang so together by conne­ction of causes and effects as that there's no effect whose cause by diligence might not be found. I must therefore in­treate you to condescende a litle euen to the hardnesse of those men's harts, who require more in this subiect then in anie other, and seeke the cause why the church and faith of Christ cannot faille. For sithē ­ce we haue found by experiē ­ce these 1600. yeares that it hath not so failed as that it hath not euer beene generally and vniuersally visible, and hath both dured and florished thus long, surely it hath some forcible cause, and in deede such an one, as can neuer faile, but will still worke the same effect, And this were to shew.

That noe great errour could cre­epe into the church of God.

Cosen, you laie to [...] what aske vpon me. Who knowe's why the world hath dured thus long? Or why mankinde was not extinct ma­nie yeares agoe? And must I tell you why God's church hath not nor cannot faile? I am ashamed to answere euerie licentious braine, the negati­ues of a wittie naturalist may pose the most learned Chri­stian vpon earth. Yet to con­tent you I will endeauour aboue my strength; but you must ease me a litle, and ans­were me to what your self see's euident. First you know that the church being the Congre­gation [Page 461] of the faithfull cannot faile but by the losse of faith,How faith is lost. And faith may be lost two waies, by ignorance, or by er­rour. For so we see a particular man who once had faith if he come to loose it, t'is ether by negligence and not conning it, and so forgette's it; or else [...] disswaded from it, and in­duced to belieue some differ­rent doctrine. So likewise to a multitude of men the one or the other must needes happē or else they cannot be depri­ued of the faith which they once had. And because pure ignorance is a meere negati­ue, or not knowing, the first question I will aske you, is, Whether you thinke a people once instructed in anie Religion can so forget it, as that they fall not [Page 462] into some other Religion [...] but liue quite without anie Religion at all?

Truly I thinke it impossible, both because I ne­uer heard of anie nation that had no Religion at all, no not the Caniballs; as also because I haue heard that absurde Reli­gions haue continued from father to sonne for manie ge­nerations together, and neuer left vntill an other Religion was brought in, and then too with much adoe, the people being loth to be drawne from their former beliefe. Yet if one should confidently saie the contrarie,why all people haue so­me Re­ligion. I doe not know how to conuince him.

You must looke into the causes which make men Religious, ād if you finde thē [Page 463] to be vniuersall and perpe­tuall, you may be sure that all sortes of Peoples haue some Religion in thē, though more or lesse according as these cau­ses are more or lesse in force amongst them. But lett vs knowe, can you tell me what is Religion in generall, as it is commone to both true and false?

I imagine Reli­gion to be a conceite or per­suasion of the people concer­ning one, or more,what is Religiō in gene­rall. excellent natures which gouerne huma­ne life, giuing vs those goods which of our selues we cannot attaine vnto, ād inflicting vpō vs those paines whereof we doe not knowe the causes; And this persuasion reacheth also to the manner and forme [Page 464] of pleasing this or these Go­uernors and commanders, Whereby to obtaine goods and eschew euills. And the reason why I make this conceite of Religion is, because I see the­se things are in all sorts of Re­ligion, and all authours which write of the Religion of what nation soeuer touch cheefely these pointes.

Your remarque is good,Which be the causes of Reli­giō, and Why it cannot perish. and if you looke into your definition you shall fin­de the causes of Religion. You saie Religion is a conceite of the Gouernors of man's life in giftes and punishments, who­se causes we doe not knowe. Then you see Religion must needes be a faith, for when we doe not know things, we can­not make anie conceite of thē [Page 465] but by belieuing and trusting others whom we thinke know the things that we know not, and therefore Religion in ge­nerall is taken vpon trust. Farther you saie that Religiō is a methode of pleasing those Gouernors, whereby to get goods, and eschewe euills, so that the desire of goods, and the feare of euills, are the au­thors and causes of Religion, we haue then hopes and feares for the will ignorance and a con­ceite of an other man's know­ledge for the vnderstanding; which be the parents of Reli­gion. Now thinke you, cosen, can these causes be defectiue and fayling in anie age?

Surely they cannot. For it were no generation of men, but beasts, that were so [Page 466] dōltish and sottish as to see so manie goods and harmes, which happen to all men wee know not whence, and thinke that there were no cause thereof, And therefore it is the most easie and most naturall concei­te that man can haue, to con­ceiue that some thing is the cause of these goods and hur­tes. Now man's conuersation being cheefely with one an other, men naturally appre­hende all things to be donne by some vnderstanding thing, as they see their owne actions are. So that if there were a cō ­pagnie of men sprung out of the earth, like Cadmus his people, or raised out of emitts, like the Myrmidons, yet would they (if they were truly men) within a litle while frame [Page 467] them selues some Religion, according as by chance, or so­me one's apprehēsion or phā ­sie they should conceite their goods and euills to proceede from some visible or inuisible thing Wherefore I admire not that some people adored the sunne, some the starrs, others some rare men from whom they had receiued in their life time great benefits, imagining that euen after death they we­re power full and beneficiall. And surely it is much more impossible that a people which once hath had some Religion, should quitte for­get it, and come to haue none at all, for these causes will be euer knocking at their harts, putting them in minde, and driuing them into the cōceite [Page 468] of some God or Gouernor, if therefore the effects of perpe­tuall causes must be euerla­sting, these causes of Religion (to wit, effects whose causes are hidden, and the good and euill which come vnto vs by them) being neuer awanting, t'is im­possible that Religion should euer cease.

And thinke you not, cosen, that these same cau­ses doe as well moue those who are setled in a faith or Re­ligion to continue without changing their once receiued beliefe, as well I saie, as they doe keepe them, from forget­ting that Religion which they are once possessed of?

I confesse it see­me's euident to me, that the change of Religion can not [Page 469] come by pure negligence and sleepinesse, no more then the losse of it, being these war­nings of nature which force vs to Religion doe also conti­nually call vpon vs to keepe our once practized faith and credulitie, vnlesse there be greater causes to counterman­de it, which I doe not see but may be easily found some ti­mes.

Peraduenture not so easily as you imagine, for an Errour is a persuasion of the minde, And nothing can worke vpon our vnderstan­ding but it self, and our will, who soeuer therefore will ma­ke such a persuasiō must wor­ke vpon one of these two. The will you know is moued and weilded by hopes and feares, [Page 470] the vnderstanding by reason and authoritie.How error in bred in man. Whence arise three waies by which such an opinion may creepe into mē's mindes, 1. by bringing more reason for it thē cā be brougth on the contrarie side, 2. by the authoritie of some so great, as that their verdicts are held be­yond examining, and 3. by the power of some whose hands are full of paines and pleasu­res, and who can thereby mo­ue the will, which being mo­ued can make the vnderstan­ding belieue what she desire's. Doe you know anie other meanes?

Not I, vncle, for I see that if I should bring anie other, you would reduce it to some of these three. But me thinke's such an opiniō might [Page 471] steale vpon the church at vn­awares, some obscure man broaching it at the first, and others accepting of it by a kinde of negligēce and indif­ferencie to anie opinion, or by too much credulitie, not di­stinguishing right from wrōg, though I see this touche's so­me what vpon authoritie, and so will be reduced to that mē ­ber of your diuision.

It importe's not to what member it be reduced so there be no fourth waie. But I though you had learned suf­ficiently alreadie to exclude this, for what make's more no­tice to be taken of anie thing, then that, which changeth so­me publicke and vniuersall practize? Looke but if anie one goe through the streete's [Page 472] in some strang and new fashi­oned apparell, how all staire and gaze vpon him, the verie boys leaue their playe to fol­low him and looke at him. And therefore to saie such an Innouation can be brought in without being taken notice of, is as much as to saie, the cause of admiration or taking noti­ce can be set before our eyes without working it's effect. Which is to saie that fire and tow should lye together with­out burning, or a stone hang at libertie in the aire without fal­ling downe; these be impossi­bilities in nature, and are in the racke of those things aga­inst which nature folliciteth by hi [...] continuall causes of ho­pes and feares, which made you confesse but now, that ne­gligence [Page 473] was not a sufficient cause to produce the change of Religion. Wherefore let vs see if by anie of these three waies which I haue proposed the change of Religion can happen.

Nay, sir, I will doe you the fauour to exclude one of them, to wit, the waie of per­suasion, or by alledging more reason against the true Reli­gion, then can be brought for it, for seing truths beare wit­nesse to one another, and that the Religion we speake of is supposed to be true; t'is impos­sible that more reason should be brought against it, then for it, Nor is the greatnesse of anie man's wit, who should stand to maintaine the error, to be fea­red, for this error being to pas­se [Page 474] through a great part of the world, t'is not credible that one man should so farr surpas­se in wit the rest of the world as to put them all from their stāding without contradictiō. Or that in so much time as is necessarie for the spreading of such an error into the maine of the church, no man should haue wit enough, if not to bring more potent argumēts for the truth, atleast to finde out the weakenesse and falla­cie of those which are brought against it, which would be suf­ficient to hinder the progresse of such an error, for who is in possession of an opinion must haue an insoluable reasō to put him out of it, if he be wi­se and constant, Much more those who ground their tenets [Page 475] vpon receiuing them from their forefathers, and hould all reason insufficiēt to proue their faith, because of it's su­pernaturalitie, and therefore ought more to harken to what was deliuered, thē to anie rea­son which may seeme to vrge the change of what is knowne to be deliuered. Thus much I confesse is cleere, but why the authoritie of some one, or mo­re, whose words are aboue examine, or the power of so­me who hould's the balance of good and badd, of paines and pleasures, may not wor­ke an error into the church, that I doe not vnderstand.

You haue drawne the question from an vniuersall to a particular, for we spoke of a change betwixt two Religions [Page 476] in common, and you speake of a change from a true one to a false one. Yet this being suf­ficient for our intent, I will add that if you had that conceite of the true Religion, which much thought hath bredd in me, to wit, that t'is the most high, wise, rationnall, confor­mable to man's nature, to go­uerment, to all things fitting for man's life, that can be ima­gined, of all disciplines and learnings possible, that it lea­deth into greater secrets of na­ture thē otherwise wee should euer reach vnto [...] and excee­deth all the knowledge which made antient and moderne sages so proud, If you had, I saie, this conceite of the true Religion you would be much more confirmed and streng­thened [Page 477] in this persuasion: But why doe you not thinke it im­possible that the authoritie of one man should ouerswaye all the witts of the world? Su­rely the Diuill him selfe would rather helpe the church then permitte so litle pride amongst mē, Neuer yet anie great man wanted his An­tagonist, who had he such a flawe in is credit as this our subiect would giue him, it would quiekly hinder the ex­tent of his authoritie. Not anie of our neuer so much esteemed fathers is receiued in all things; nor is anie of their authoritie's receiued in such an eminent height, as is necessarie for the effect we speake of. Who was greater then Origen? And yet was he [Page 478] condemned euen whē he was in greatest vogue. But I neede not appeale to examples whe­re nature by it's owne force strike's the stroke. For ether this new doctrine is brought in openly by the strong and earnest endeauours of the au­thor him self (whose authori­tie must swaye the world) and of his followers, And then by this verie negotiation it will discouer it's newnesse; and being false the more it is hād­led the more it will shew it's weaknesse, and at length goe out like a snuffe of it self. Or els it come's in neglectedly, being written by the bye, and the Innouator's authoritie vrged by others vpon occa­sion; and then the verie man­ner beare's with it so litle like­lyhood [Page 479] and smale efficacitie as that it would be euerie whe­re chechked by reason of it's, newnesse, and therefore could neuer passe vncontrowled through anie great extent. And if we put the case, as be­fore, to be in the Catholike church, where the truth is not to be handled by learned rea­sons, as being aboue nature, but by what our forefathers ha­ue taught vs, you see this great man's authoritie presently vanisheth into smoake, being there's no place for anie man's authoritie, where the constant and vniuersall verdict of the present world is against it, in respect whereof he is but a single man. Concerning force or power you must suppose, before you can make anie ap­parent [Page 480] argument of it, 1. that this power is ouer the whole Christian world, 2. to be so strong that it feareth not to giue distaste to the people, 3. to be vehemently desirous to quell the ould faith and bring in a new one, 4. that it hath zealous ministers for the same end, And lastly that all these dure and continue vntill all the antient faith be extinct. And when all is done yet will it remaine vpon record and be knowne when this new opi­nion began, and the violence being ended there's a roote in men's harts to reiect this new opinion and returne to the old supposing as we doe, the­re's more reason for the old then for the new. So that in common sense and nature's [Page 481] principles the Pope had iust cause to write to the Emperor in these termes.

But to conclude this point, tell me, cosen, what time thinke you is necessarie for the intro­ducing of an error by litle and litle before it will passe for a thing deliuered by hād to hād from Christ? For such an opi­nion we call a Tradition.

I see it must gaine this reputation you speake of by making it quitte forgotten that the other opiniō was euer ether generally held or practi­zed. For as lōg as t'is knowne that the other opinion was an­tienter, they striue in vaine [Page 482] [...] this was deliuered by [...] s [...] and so defec [...]d [...] to hand. Wherefore [...] it can be [...] [...] ­trarie was in vog [...], [...] [...]east ād some what more [...] needes be the [...] broching and [...] if I remember we [...] for 4. or 600. yeares the gene­rally practized [...] of [...] church [...] cer­taine [...] a [...] I see that at [...] [...]e i [...] necessarie, and as much more as is [...] by [...] yet wil there still remaine wri­tings of that time in which such a point was in dispute, [Page 483] which will to s [...]e, atleast in [...] of the preuailing side, [...] such a controuersie [...] hath [...] and that the fallen side was antienter and consequēt­ly [...] will s [...]ll be euidence [...] there was an other faith [...] doctrine deliuered by the Apostles before this came vp, which in deede ought to be [...],

Then cosen, let vs put 200. yeares to be sufficiēt for such an extinction, (which [...] great a circuit, and for a [...] rooted in men's harts a [...]d practized in their actions is but a smale time) and ioyne th [...] the 4. or 600 we spea­ke of, And considere whe­ther anie violent mutation cā cōtinue against nature for 6, or 800. yeares, be it ether of Ty­ranie, [Page 484] authoritie, or what other occasion soeuer, and this to oppresse the true faith groun­ded in nature. Might we not as well saie there would be perpetuall faire wether for ma­nie yeares together through a great part of the world [...] as that there should be such a perpetuall disposition against reason and our naturall incli­nation to the vtter ruine and ouerthrow of our euerie whe­re receiued faith?

You haue reason, vncle. For although when I considere the mutabilitie of mankinde alone, and contri­ue with my self how this might be effected, it seeme's plausible to saie that an other opinion might come in and destroy a receiued tenet, yet [Page 485] when I deepely weigh what you saie against it, and ballāce the one with the other, I see my frame is limited within a smale compasse and few yea­res, but reacheth not to the vniuersalitie and generall Do­minion or Gouerment of na­ture. For I could make the li­ke argument for not raining, blowing, shyning and the li­ke, that is in deede, for the de­struction of nature. And I doe not thinke you intēde to ma­ke the church stronger then the pillars of nature, on which it stande's. We ought not the­refore to esteeme nature vni­uersally defectible, because we cannot reach to see fully how euerie particular encumbran­ce is auoided, for t'is not that in ether of these subiects they [Page 486] causes are not certaine and in­falible, but that my discourse comprehende's them not.

I doe not in deede intende to make the strength of faith greater thē the strēgth of nature,why faith is stronger then na­ture. though perhapps I could, supposing (which is certaine) that nature was crea­ted and built for the superna­turall guifts and goods which God bestowe's vpon it, they which being greater and bet­ter then nature, t'is fitting they should haue stronger mante­nance and holds then nature it self; And therefore t'is like­ly that nature is strengthened by principles and fundations aboue it's pitch, to the end it may be a fit and sure proppe of faith and supernaturall guifts. But this point concer­ne's [Page 487] not our present discourse.

I confesse I now cleerely see that the Christian church hath conserued it self from error, supposing that the Pastors and Gouernors of it haue carefully taken notice from time to time of their fo­refather's doctrine, and I am beholden to you for this les­son. But may not the church haue beene neglected herein? Though I scarsely haue cour­rage enough to aske you this question, for I see you will ans­were me that nature must nee­des haue it's recourse, and that howsoeuer at some times or places it may haue defects, yet must it of necessitie at other times and in other places ha­ue it's returnes, and freshly renew it's care and be sollici­tous [Page 488] of so great a good, which cannot but fall out once with­in 5. or 600. yeares, that is within the terme prefixed wherein she may discouer the doctrine of hir forefathers cō ­stantly held and generally de­liuered to be the doctrine of Christ ād his Apostles. Neuer­thelesse if you could shew me that the church had in effect so conserued it selfe, I should be more able to conuince a peruerse opponent and de­monstrate

§. 8 That the truth of Christian do­ctrine hath actually conti­nued in the church.

Is it possible you should be so vnreasona­ble as to aske me to proue a [Page 489] thing which depede's of ma's will yet that you may see how great the workes of Almightie God are, and how nothing is so variable but that he can fixe and make it constant, I will en­deauour to let you vnderstād as much as my self in this point, so you will be attentiue and raise a litle your vnderstā ­ding to answere me in the waie of rigorous discourse, which you haue some experience in, by the mathematickes you haue tasted. Tell me then doe you thinke, that if anie great congregation of men now li­uing hold this maxime for their faith and Religion, that nothing is to be held for cer­taine and as a reuealed truth, but what they haue receiued frō their forefathers as a thing [Page 490] deliuered by hand to hand from the Apostles, And that what soeuer is not so receiued is not immutable but may be altered if reason commande, doe you thinke, I saie, that this Congregation could in this our age haue begunne to hold this maxime? or that as they receiued the rest of their do­ctrine from their forefathers, they must not also haue recei­ued this tenet?

Truly I cannot tell you, for me thinke's it we­re absurde to receiue all the rest from their forefathers ād take this of new, which is the rule of all the rest; yet I doe not see it so cleerely as that I am able to conuince that t'is so.

Why, cosen, let vs [Page 491] put the case that there were a Generall Coūcell of all Chri­stendome sitting for example in the yeare 1600. And after­much disputation about fin­ding a rule to setle matters of Religion, they should agree, that to receiue nothing but what had beene deliuered vn­to them by hand to hand frō Christ and his Apostles, were the best waie to end all dispu­tations of Religion, and there vpon decree, that hereafter nothing should be held for certaine and immutable, but what were so receiued; And that amongst these Bishops one should rise vp and make this difficultie, we cannot know that anie thing is recei­ued by hand to hand from Christ vnlesse our forefathers [Page 492] who liued in the last age 1500. haue deliuered it vnto vs as such, which they cannot haue deliuered vnto vs but by one of these two waies, ether be­cause we knowe they had this same principle, which we see­ke here ro setle, (to wit, that they tooke nothing for im­mutably certaine, and of faith but what was so deliuered vn­to them) And then we know what soeuer they haue deliue­red vnto vs for a matter of faith, was like wise receiued by them, or atleast they thought it to be receiued in the same māner, and therefore we may be confident of it: Or else they must haue declared vnto vs what is so receiued, what not, that the one part may be ac­cepted by vs and established [Page 493] as matters of faith, the other held in lesse esteeme and as no points of faith. This secōd we know hath not beene done, And therefore if our forefa­thers had not this principle, how should we haue it? For if they had it not and haue deli­uered our doctrine and Reli­giō vnto vs without distinctiō, we must of necessitie accept much for Religion, faith, and as receiued frō Christ, which we know not whether it was so or no; And therefore wee must ether willfully deceiue our selues and our successors accounting and esteeming things which were neuer re­ceiued from Christ to haue beene receiued from him, and so falsly deliuer them for such to our successors, and conse­quētly [Page 494] ground both our faith and theirs vpon this vntruth, that our tenets were receiued from Christ: Or else we must content our selues as our fore­fathers haue done, and setle no new ground of ending cō ­trouersies in Religion. If one, I saie, should make this diffi­cultie in that graue Assemblie, would it not puzzell them all and put them of from their resolution?

Truly, vncle, it could not chuse, vnlesse they were obstinately resolued to damne thē selues and all their posteritie, and that impudent­ly in the sight of the whole world, which would reproach them with so notorious an im­posture. Nor can I imagine how such a position though [Page 495] once begunne should take ro­ote, The whole world being able to see ād deteste the indi­gnitie of it. And because I fo­resee your drift, I will grāt you may frame the same argument for anie age, ād cōsequētly the­re is no age in which this reso­lutiō could haue beene first ta­ken vp, but only in such an one, in which it was cleerely know­ne what the Apostles taught and what they did not by wit­nesse from thē who had their doctrine from their owne mouths, that is, the verie next age after the Apostles. So that we may euidently conclude that a church which now hol­deth with vniuersall consent this principle, which you spea­ke of, must of necessitie haue held the same from the next[Page 496] age after the Apostles.

But can you now tell me, cosen, whether this cō ­gregatiō as long as it adhere's to this principle can receiue anie thing of this nature and qualitie cōtrarie to what their forefathers deliuered vnto thē vpon this same principle? And note, I pray, I doe not aske whether they can receiue anie thing but what they apprehēd to be so; but I aske whether they can receiue anie thing as such but that which truly is so deliuered, that is, whether they can be cosened in this questiō, Whether their forefathers deli­uered it vnto them so or no.

T'is euident they cannot. For although one mā may be deceiued in what is tould him, specially at one ti­me, [Page 497] yet to saie whole nations are deceiued in what is tould thē, not once or twice, but what they are bredd and beatē to, is as much as to saie all men are deceiued in iudging white frō blacke, because, for sooth, so­me weake eyes are now ād thē mistaken, or as to saie, no bo­die can walke, because some haue the palsey: which were in deede to destroye nature and it's constancie in vniuersalls, because of it's defectibilitie in it's particulars, which is against common sense and reason.

Well then doe you thinke their immediate fore­fathers could teach thē anie thing as of this qualitie but what themselues belieued and had receiued in the same man­ner?

No surely, their immediate forefathers could not deliuer anie thing as of this nature to their successors against the doctrine which they had receiued from their predecessours, euer standing in this principle, that nothing is to be belieued as of necessi­tie in this degree but what ca­me by hand to hand frō Christ or his Apostles.

Tell me then, I pray, whether in the two last poin­tes, that is, whether ether we can be deceiued in what was deliuered by our immediate forefathers vnto vs as of this kinde; or they deliuer vs anie doctrine as of this qualitie but what them selues receiued in the like sort, whether I saie in ether of these two points there [Page 499] be anie differēce betwixt anie former age and this our pre­sentage, or that what you haue granted of this age, the same must not necessarily hold in all other ages euer since Christ?

I confesse I see noe difference.

Reflect then vpon what you haue granted, and considere whether anie error against a receiued doctrine ād practize of this nature could so creepe in, as that there shoud be no determinate age of it's beginning, in which it first tooke roote and flouris­hed?

T'is not possible that anie thing should begin­ne and yet beginne in no time. For I conceiue that an age is no smale time ād giue's no lit­le [Page 500] growth to anie thing that beginne's, so that to saie anie point of doctrine is a whole age in growing, ād to saie with all it is imperceptible, and af­ter a whole age vnsensible, is without doubt senslesse. Yet if anie should saie that an er­ror had beene begun by a priuate man and taught to so­me in one age, which being neglected grew into practize in some one countrie, and frō thēce by the like neglect grew likewise to be customarie in the next adioyning, and so spredd it self vntill it had pos­sessed the hart of Christendo­me, and this for manie yeares, so that now all memorie that euer the contrarie had beene in credit and practize were lost, if this, I saie, one should [Page 501] tell me; I doubt whether I should be able to giue him a conuincing answere and de­monstratiue satisfaction.

Cosen, this question trencheth vpon what we haue alreadie talked of, therefore I will only giue you such a hint as your self may worke vpon. First it is as manifest an im­possibilitie that a change of Religion should be introdu­ced insensibly into anie one Countrie, as that a burning feauer should for as long time consume the same whole coū ­trie without being taken noti­ce of, or sought to be preuen­ted, sithence as we saide natu­re permit's vs not generally to be sleepie in Religion. Se­condly to saie it shall passe imperceptible from country [Page 502] to countrie and so get posses­sion of the whole Christian world, is farr more impossible, men's natures and dispositiōs being so diuers that if they were put to we are cappes or shoes a like it could not be ef­fected but by some publicke force or commande. Thirdly that this should be for so long a terme that the cōtrarie pra­ctize should be quit forgottē to haue beene formerly in vse and request is yet beyōd both. So that who soeuer is troubled with this doubt doth not righ­tly vnderstand the nature of Christian Religion, which is a truth of the qualitie of science hanging all together, Where­vnto a truth may be added and yet remaine whole, but if anie falsitie or crosse position [Page 503] be admitted, it will not only destroy the positiō immediat­ly opposite, but also what soe­uer dependeth of it, that is, all in deede but cheefely tradi­tion. And so we see by expe­rience that none euer moued anie point of faith, but if their reuolt dured lōg, they procee­ded so farr, as to take a waie tradition the rule of all we are to belieue. But can you tell me, haue we reached to the re­solution of your demande ād are you fully satisfied?

This you haue concluded that if our church rely vpon traditiō now, it euer did so; And if it euer did rely vpon tradition it must needes haue maintained the same doctrine from Christ's time to ours; for nether could [Page 504] anie former age deliuer anie thing contrarie to what they had receiued vpon this prin­ciple, nor we mistake what they deliuered; so that noth­ing contrarie to the first recei­ued doctrine can be admitted. This yet, me thinke's, wāteth, To shew that the present Ro­man church rely's vpon tradi­tion, which I confesse to me is euident, at least that what soe­uer we haue receiued frō our forefathers as comming by­hand to hand from Christ, that we reuerence and receiue all such pointes as being ne­cessarie to be belieued. Only I haue one scruple wherein I must craue your helpe, And it is Whether this rule of traditiō which you, giue to be so con­stantly held to be the rule of [Page 505] faith, whether I saie, it be so admitted of by all Catholikes or no, for I feare the varietie of contrarie opinions which I heare are amōgst our learned, men will preiudice your argu­mēs. Wherefore I could wish you woud shew me

§. 9 That the dissention of Catholike Doctor concerning the rule of faith doth not hurt the cer­taintie of Tradition.

FOr I am tould (how true I know not) that some of our Deuines mantaine that in the person of the Pope reside's the rule of faith, by a singular guift and priuiledge bestowed vpon S. Peeter and his succes­sors; And this so rigorously that no Generall Councell, no [Page 506] not although the Pope's Le­gats be present and confirme it, is of force to oblige [...] of faiht vntill the personall con­firmation of his Holinesse be obtained. Others, they saie, esteeme the Councell aboue the Pope, and so doe not hold the Pope's approbation of a Councell to be necessarie, but that this rule of faith reside's in the Councell: Others I heare, to make all safe, ioyne both in one, and nether ad­mit the Councell without the Pope, not the Pope without the Councell to breede anie obligation of faith. And far­ther I heare that amongst the­se Deuines, of what opinion soeuer they be touching the subiect in which this rule or highest authoritie doth reside, [Page 507] there be some which thinke that not anie new doctrine or position can be broached or proposed as certaine and as an article of faith by what autho­ritie soeuer, vnlesse that do­ctrine was esteemed certaine before, and euer belieued as such. Yet I am tould there be manie who mantaine and [...]ouch that this highest autho­ritie of the church (wheresoe­uer it be) may and can define points of doctrine not certai­nely knowne hitherto, nor euer expressy belieued befo­re. Which how they may be reconciled amongst them se­lues or stand with this, that tra­dition is our rule of faith, I con­fesse I know not.

Truly, cozen, your obiection is strong, yet I hope [Page 508] to content you. For the first part of it, I see no great matter in the varietie of opinions amongst our Deuines, for you see they seeke out the Decider of pointes of doctrine, that is by whose mouth we are to know, (vpon occasions of dis­pute) what and which be our pointes and articles of faith, to wit, whether the Pope, or the Councell, or both. Which is not much materiall to our pourpose, what euer the truth be, supposing we acknowled­ge no articles of faith but such as haue descended vnto vs by tradition from Christ and his Apostles. The second part of your obiection seeme's to be of greater force, because some Deuines seeme to acknowled­ge an authoritie in the church [Page 509] which hath power, not only to determine ether speculatiue or practicall points of doctri­ne new, or ould, in such man­ner as that the whole church is obliged to accepte or not oppose it's definition, (which euerie Catholike grante's, and the reasons I tould you in our first conference doe euidently conuince) But also that this authoritie can so determine euen a speculatiue pointe of doctrine, which hitherto was euer vncertaine nor euer ac­knowledge as reueiled, or este­emed as an article of faith, that here after the vhole church shalbe obliged to re­ceiue, acknowledge, and be­lieue it as a reuealed and neces­sarie point of Christian doctri­ne, and as an article of faith. [Page 510] Which opinion you must knowe, is but an opinion, nor doe the authours of it oblige anie man to belieue it as cer­taine, nor doe they condemne those who nether doe, nor euer, will acknowledge anie such positiō, ād therefore this ought not to trouble you. Nay contrariwise all Deuines will generally tell you, that no new articles of faith can be ma­de, that there's now no reue­lations for new points of do­ctrine, and that Christ Iesus was our only law maker in this kinde, hauing suggested to his Apostles all that is necessa­rie of this nature and qualitie, and the Apostles likewise taught their churches all that was necessarie to be knowne of this degree. Wherefore you [Page 511] see all agree vpon tradition, nor anie one ether denie it, or doubt of it, Whereas it appea­re's by the diuersitie of their opinions that they doe not vniuersally and generally agree in anie other meanes or rule of faith, though some ad­mitte of another in waie of opinion: Yet to giue you far­ther satisfaction in this busi­nes; I will teach you a point of philosophie which perhapps you neuer fully vnderstood. I am sure you will not denie but t'is a differēt questiō to as­ke how an herbe or tree growe's, and to aske how Ari­stole or Theophrastus saies it growe's, for in the same grow­ing there can be no varietie but in their opiniōs there may So in man, t'is a differēt thing, [Page 512] what he doth or is done in him, and what he thinkes he doth or is done in him, as in sicknesse, disgestion, and other naturall workes t'is euident, yea and in voluntary actions too, Which depende of corporall instruments, as to goe, runne, turne our eyes, speake, cough, spit or the like, which we doe freely and vo­luntarily, yet were we exami­ned by what instruments and motiōs we doe thē, peraduētu­re who seeme's to know most would be found short, at least amongst manie there would be diuers opinions. But doe you thinke the same happen's in our thoughts and iudgmēts which be purely spirituall?

I cannot tell, yet me thinke's the soule should be so wel acquainted with hir [Page 513] owne actiōs as that she should not neede anie helpe to know them. And all men agree that only man vpon earth can see his owne minde, and therefo­re if it be not cleere to man what himself thinke's, noth­ing is cleere.

You are deceiued cosen, for as long as we are in this world we cannot know anie thing of our owne thoughts and affections but as we reflect vpon the corporall motions which accompanie them, and which because none feele but our selues, none can knowe bur our selues, though sometimes it happene's quite contrarie, when these motiōs breake forth into outward ap­parence, for thē others discrye our mindes, and we our selues [Page 514] through the violēce of passiō are not so wel able ro iudge of them as others who see vs. But to speake of men free from passion, and who vse to reflect much vpon their owne thoughts, euen in them their internall actions proceede frō a principle directed by a supe­rior guide then their owne reason, as appeare's by this that they know nothing of their owne thoughts but by reflection, and the reflection is a distinct act from the for­mer vpon which the reflectiō is made, so that nether the re­flectiō it self is alwaise made by voluntarie designe, nor anie act which is made without re­flection. Besides considere, I pray, how few know by what verue their vnderstandings [Page 515] are made certaine of those principles and positiōs which they cannot doubt of, or by what vertue they adhere so strongly to the conclusion of a sylogisme, not one of a thou­sand who doe these things eue­rie day. Wherefore t'is euidēt that euen in our spirituall actions, not all that we doe is done by our proper vnderstā ­ding, that is, with knowing re­flection and designe, and the­refore, the same man may euē in these intellectuall acts doe one thing and thinke he doth an other, and diuers men may agree in what they doe, and yet disagree in their opinions of what it is they doe. And now to close with your diffi­cultie, seeing faith is a persua­sion or an agreeing in some [Page 516] points by reason af authoritie, All the Doctors of the Ca­tholike church may agree in beleeuing, that is, in acting and practizing their faith in the sa­me manner, and yet be deui­ded in their speculations by which they seeke to determi­ne what it is they doe, And it is their doeings which make's them Christians, and not their sayings, for they liue and be­leeue as Christians, but speake and deliuer their opinions as Doctors, which be qualities farr different from being a Christian. And doe you not see that these Doctors belieue after their speculations and framing of their opinions as they did before they thought of, or studied this difficultie?

I doe not doubt [Page 517] but they doe, for the faith of all Christians must needes be the same, and consequently all must goe vpon the same mo­tiue, though one may vnder­stand better and apprehende deeper that motiue then an other doth.

You saie well, Con­sidere then that when these Doctors were yong men, and had not yet studied Diuinitie, and you shall finde that they had no other motiue of their belife but the authoritie of the present church, and therefore how soeuer they discourse le­arnedly in their bookes, the conclusion must be in their li­ues to rest vpon the authoritie of the present church as befo­re they did.

Nay if you goe that [Page 518] waie to worke I feare you will fall short of your intent. For the child belieue's father and mother, the parishoner his Pa­stor without reflection of the present church. T'is like the­refore these Deuines rely vpō the motiues which they man­taine what soeuer they did when they were yong.

Not so nether, for as the water of the new riuer which is brought to London come's to a particular house by a smale pipe, yet t'is conti­nuate to the whole bodie of the riuer: so the instruction of faith though it come to a child by his parents and to a paris­honer by his Pastor, yet the dependence of the doctrine is from the whole church, who­se members and instruments [Page 519] these parents and Pastors are, if they be in the church, to which you know I tould you what is required. And t'is the like when parents teach their children, what is to be done or auoided according to the la­wes of the coūtry, for though the father speake, yet t'is the common wealth which pre­uaileth and bindeth.

At least me thin­ke's, vncle, such great Doctors should not be ignorant of a point agreed vpon by the whole church, and therefore since they disagree about the motiue of faith, I doe not see how you can saie t'is general­ly agreed on in the Catholi­ke church.

Had this agreemēt beene made in a Generall [Page 520] Councell, or in some vniuer­sall meeting of faithfull Chri­stiās, and so recorded, I doubt not but these learned Clarkes would haue knowne it; but it was not so agreed on. Yet as by the vniuersall blessing of crescite & multiplicamini, Gen. 1. all men and beasts agreed vpon feeding and filling the world, euerie one in his kinde, by the directiō of their maker, knoc­king at their stomackes when they were hungrie, and at their pharisie when they were full to set on worke those in­struments by which the se cō ­mands of Almightie God we­re to be fullfilled:Marc 16 Euen so by the like blessing of Euntes in mundam vniuersum praedicate omni creaturae, the Apostles being dispersed into all natiōs [Page 521] by the vertue of doeing mira­cles found credulitie, or rather forced faith out of the flintie harts of the corrupted world, and hauing setled Christs do­ctrine, dying left in their suc­cessors soules and mindes this agreement, To belieue what was deliuered from them, and to trust those who had heard them speake, and afterwards to trust those who had heard it from them who had their instruction from the Apostles, and lastly to trust the publike consent which affirmed that they held their faith by entai­le from them though manie ages after. This agreement being written in harts and not in bookes, t'is easie for lear­ned men who seeke their lear­ning in bookes and not in harts [Page 522] to mistake. As in Philosophie, whilest great Clarkes seeke nature not in it self, but in other men's sayings, they are deuided, and few in the right, the truth being but one.

You haue beene as good as you word. For I see it importe's not that our De­uines be of different opinions in this point, so that in their li­ues and practize they agree. And truly I neuer heard of anie Catholike that ether doubted, but that Christian doctrine was descended by Tradition, or thought that what was so descended could be false, nay I thinke euerie moderate and wise Protestant will make no question of that which he conceiues to haue descended from the Apostles [Page 523] by succession. For Catholikes wee all rely vpon the censure of the present church, nor can or [...]are anie man appeale frō it and call him self a Catholi­ke, for we all account them in­fidels and publicans who are refractorie to this tenet. Wher­fore t'is euident that what soe­uer the church speake's and deliuer's for Tradition, is agreed vpon by all Catholi­kes to be certaine and vnrefu­sable, and sithence all other motiues or rules of faith are not vniuersally receiued, t'is euident likewise that this is the rule which can oblige vs to certaintiem matters of beliefe. But I haue an other great dif­ficultie, to wit, that I see our Catechists and preachers, whē they teach vs Christian do­ctrine, [Page 524] tell vs, this you are to belieue, this you are to pra­ctize, without expressing the differences which are betwixt the points of doctrine, where­of perhapps some are but only the answeres of learned men, some, definitiōs of the church, and some, matters of traditiō, And the like I belieue of for­mer ages, Christian doctrine descending vnto vs in a heape or confusion, and therefore tis hard to distinguish what is of Tradition, what the generall consent of the church, and what only learned men's opi­nions. Why then may not so­me position of this last rancke passe for a tradition by the adoption of some ages, in which it will be forgotten that euer it had it's beginning frō [Page 525] the wit and industrie of priua­te men? And to satisfie me in this point you must let me see how that

The teaching of Christian do­ctrine without determining what is of necessitie to be be­lieued what not, hurte's not the progresse of tradition.

If I should answere you, that former ages haue beene more exact in di­stinguishing things certaine from vncertaine it would not be without ground, as you may see by the framing of an­tient creedes ād other profes­sions of faith as occasions re­quired, but this were to send you to antiquitie, whereas in this discourse you know we both desire that common sen­se and reason without farther [Page 526] enquiry should be our iudge. Wherefore the point you spe­ake of, which you feare might deceiue vs by the likenesse of tradition, is ether true or false, if true, then I pray, what incō ­uenience is there, if it surprise vs in the qualitie of it's cer­taintie?

This I feare and thinke, that it would breake the rule and certaintie of Tra­dition, Where vpon relye's the whole building and frame of our faith according to your discourse. For if once truth not deliuered by traditiō may passe for so deliuered, what se­curitie can we haue that a fal­sitie may not likewise passe in the same māner, and so bring an errour amongst vs?

I put you only that [Page 527] part of the question, if the point were true, which you draw into the contrarie, if it were false, wherefore if it doe not follow that an vntruth can deceiue vs in that kinde, then there is no incōueniēce in the consequē ­ce of the former part, to wit, that truth may be taken as de­liuered by traditiō, which tru­ly is not so deliuered. And the reason is cleare, for seeing the truths of Religiō are knowne for the framing of our liues conformably vnto them, it importe's litle, in respect of vertue, vpon what grounds they are held in particular, so they be vniuersally and cō ­stantly held, for an action done in consequence of such belieued truths is neuer the worse for the qualitie of the [Page 528] certaintie of it's obiect. Yet for your farther satisfaction this I will adde, that how soe­uer the common people doe not distinguish what is of Tra­dition, and what is but of some learned men's opiniōs, neuer­thelesse those whom we call Deuines (if truly they be such as the name require's) may ād doe distinguish positions of such different natures. For Christian doctrine is not a bundle of loose positions (as those who negligently looke on it may thinke) but a true discipline hanging together by consequences and order tending to one end. And of this doctrine and discipline so­me parts be such as cannot be knowne but by immediate re­uelation, others such as no [Page 529] sensible man can doubt of, if he beleeue the former. And learned mē know that of both these two, the one is expresly deliuered by tradition, the other is as firme as if it were so deliuered. For as it was reuei­led that our sauiour is truly God and man, so euerie man of cōmon sense knowes that he had two wills, Deuine and human, against the Monothe­lites. Other points there may be which neede art and studie to deduce and fetch them out of the two former. And of these likewise a true Deuine cannot be ignorāt, being they are be fruits of learning and studie, and consequently haue euer beene in the soules and writings of learned Masters. And these points euerie one [Page 530] knowes who is conuersant in Logike, and in iudging the qualities of such propositions as belong to sciēce, And your self I am sure by the litle skill you haue therein, and by the smale light of this discourse, will eastly iudge that this is reasonable.

I conceiue your meaning, but whereas you saie that the points of the second order are as firme as those which are deliuered by Tra­dition, me thinke's that's not reasonable, sithence Tradition relye's wholy on God and his word, but the other only vpō man's discourse which is fali­ble and easily mistaken, and therefore must of necessitie be much inferior.

I would not haue you [Page 531] take my words so precisely, not in so rigorous a degree of comparison, for so euen of de­monstrations the precedent will be esteemed more certai­ne then that which is deduced out of it, though in a morall e [...]ti [...]ation the certainties be equall. And so it is in those two degrees, for truly that litle discourse which is required for the second degree is infalible, certaine, and euident, and the­refore the knowledge proce­eding frō it may well be ranc­ked with the former degree. But I suppose you expect to heare why it doth not follow, that if a truth not deliuered by Tradition may neuerthelesse passe for such, why, I saie, an errour may not haue the same progresse, and surprise the [Page 532] church that is,

§. 11 Why no errour can passe vniuer­sally through the church of God.

ANd this I will shew you in a word, because it fal­leth into the repetitiō of what we haue alreadie discoursed on. The impossibilities are three. First it trencheth vpon the resolution wee formerly made that one man's authori­tie could not preuaile against, and ouer the whole church; for this is the difference bet­wixt a truth and a false hood, that a truth though it beginne from one yet may it be accep­ted of by all, by reason of it's euidence, Which when one hath laid opē, others may fol­low, not for the man's autho­ritie, but for the loue of the [Page 533] seene truth: Whereas false­hood, which cannot bring eui­dence with it, must be bolste­red vp by the man's credit ād reputation, which you know is insufficient. Secondly it is impossible an errour should generally preuaille by reason of the immutabilitie which is in the vniuersalitie of contin­gent causes, whose particulars may be defectiue, but the vni­uersalls cannot. So that as it is impossible in nature that all children should be borne with one eye, all coltes with three leggs, or the like, so were it a monstrous accident, and that in a higher and more immuta­ble nature, if an errour should generally preuaile and passe through all mankinde, or through so great a part of it as [Page 534] we make accounte the Ca­tholike church is, and will euer be. The third impossibilitie is, because it trencheth vpon the stabilitie of Religion, for si­thence we agreed that t'is im­possible for anie nation to ha­ue no Religion, and as impos­sible to change a true into a false, And likewise that Chri­stian doctrine hath the nature of science, so farre as that no errour can fall into it but must bring contradiction and op­position against the principles and receiued practize of the church, and so make a breach against the antient possession, it doth therefore plainely ap­peare, that as it is impossible for such a breach to become vniuersall in time and place, so likewise must it needes be [Page 535] impossible that an vntruth should be vniuersally recei­ued for tradition, hauing not beene deliuered as such.

I must confesse your reasons seeme good, yet might one saie all your reasōs are but morall persuasions, which may faile; as if one should saie, it is reasonable to thinke an honest man will not lye, yet I doubt not but some times the cōtrarie happene's. Wherefore I pray you tell me

§. 12 Of what qualitie you thinke the­se your reasons and discourses be, and whether you conceiue them to beare an absolute cer­taintie?

I feare it will be to farr on the night be­fore I can satisfie your diffi­cultie, [Page 536] yet I will shew you bre­efly and familiarly what may suffice. Tell me then, doe you thinke there is such a towne as Rome or Constantinople?

That I doe, I would I knew what I aske as well.

Why, who tould you there were anie such townes?

Truly I doe not re­member who tould me so in particular, but I haue heard so manie talke of them without doubting that it were follie to doubt of it.

But if I or some other, of whose honestie you doe not doubt, should tell you we haue beene there and haue seene those townes with our owne eyes, would you belieue it more certainely then you doe?

No in deede, vncle, for although I should, in that case, make no doubt of it, yet their authorities vpon which I doe alreadie belieue it are no lesse, nay farr greater, seeing that if it were not fo, manie more of no lesse credit and reputation must be lyars, whō though I cannot name yet na­ture tell's me that if thousands had not reported it of their owne knowledge it could not passe so constātly and vncon­trowlably as is doth.

But if a man should come with manie great reasōs and motiues to persuade you, that there is, not euer was anie such cities a we speake of. Nay let vs suppose that if you liued but 20 myles from London where euerie day you fawe [Page 538] hundreth's come from thēce, and your self had neuer bee­ne there, And there should come vnto you a man who should labour to shew by rea­son that it were a follie to thin­ke there were anie such towne as Londō. Or to make our sup­position more strong suppose you had liued diuers yeares in London and had neuer seene London Brige which euerie day you might see if you would, And some man would persuade you there were no such thing, what would you doe?

I would giue him hearing as I would doe to a foole or a madman, and so much power should his faire reasons preuaile with me. For although I neuer had beene at [Page 539] London, yet could I not cho­ose but know there were a Londō more certainely thē anie learned discourse could make me know anie other thing. For it is as impossible that so manie men should cōspire in a lye cōcerning a thing which might be so easily discouered, and that no bodie should cō ­tradict so manie who should dayly saye they had seene ād felt it, as it is that men should be no men, And farr more possible for me to be deceiued in a reason neuer so euident then so manie to swarue so farr from human nature.

Why then if you thinke it madnesse in a man to doubt or not to belieue such a thing, what strength doe you conceiue these our arguments [Page 540] must haue? must you not nee­des thinke they haue as much force vpō the minde, as colour conueniently disposed hath vpon the eye? as the obiects of smell and taste haue vpon the nose trill and pallate? or in de­ede as a demonstration hath vpon the vnderstanding? And in fine, if anie doe not admitte of these arguments as good is it not euident that t'is not for want of force in the obiect but of disposition in the person?

I confesse it seeme's to me so, yet doe I not see why it must he so, for there's so great difference betwixt natu­rall things and morall, and the will of man is so much more murable then nature, that I cannot conceiue how anie cer­taintie can be had in morall things.

I see you seeke to engage me into a long dis­course but I will cut you short. Doe you thinke it is against nature to tell a lye, or that t'is a naturall action?

I thinke t'is a mo­rall action nether with nor ag­ainst nature, and I thinke the like of all vertues and vices, nor doe I know why I should thinke otherwise.

You know we saie that children and fooles tell true, and that fooles are caled Na­turalls, as working by nature. And haue you not marked in your self that being asked a question, if you be heedlesse you presently answere the truth, but if you be vpon your garde, you considere and re­solue how farr to answere, and [Page 542] what to conceale. Nay if you haue marked it,HoW a lye is framed against nature. you haue ne­uer tould a formall lye but you haue beene forced to fro­me a new thing in your mīde which before was not in it, so that what nature and the cour­se of learning and speaking breede's would neuer lye. To lye therefore you must haue arte and change some naturall position of your phansie to make or frame it, as if a man would turne his hand or face backewards, And so we saie in latin mentire est contra mentem ire, which is to crosse that which is in our mindes, Whe­reas words are by nature ma­de conformable to our vnder­standings. Whence t'is mani­fest that a lye is against nature, and cannot be done but by a [Page 543] voluntarie resolution to chan­ge the course of nature. For although a falsehood may be tould naturally, if that which is false be in our minde, ether by setled opinion or by the surprise of inconsideration, yet a lye, which is the putting by of that which is naturally in our minde, or at least the hindering of it to manifest it self and the subornation of an other thing to goe out in its place, cannot choose but be voluntary, and done for some end or respect which we ayme at. And the like may be said to proue all vices to be against nature.HoW all vice is aga­inst na­ture. For if nature be the principle of action in vs, and none who beareth the face of man from the boy that play's at push pinne, to the Bishop [Page 544] that iudgeth for heauen, but professeth to follow reason and exact's it of an other, no doubt but reason is the verse nature of man; Wherefore if vice be nothing else but the defect of our action from the rule of reason, t'is euident that whē we doe anie thing against reason, we must needes wor­ke against the nature of man, and consequently vice is aga­inst the nature of man. And so wee see that mā is generally ashamed of vice, and what he is not a shamed of, he will not repute to be vice, but will defend it as reasonable.

Giue me leaue to interrupt you sir, For I feare I did not well declare my self. It was not my minde to saie that reason is not the nature of man, But that there [Page 545] is a maine difference betwixt the nature of man, which we call reason, compared to his morall actions; and betwixt the nature of other things (as of the elements) compared to their actions. And therefore although philosophers may shew perhapps impossibili­ties in nature, yet will it be hard to de the like in the actions of reason, or rather of the will, whose waies seeme to be vncertaine.

No, cosen, I did not mistake your intention, but I make no difference betwixt the nature of mā and of other things but in excellencie, and I conceiue this excellencie of man's nature to consiste in a greater constācie of working, and so thinke an impossibili­tie [Page 546] as easily shewed in man's actions as in the actions of anie other nature. For cānot we saie of manie things befo­re they be donne, that no wise man will doe them, and there­fore that who doth them is not wise. For example, can you thinke that anie wise man will take a ball to cut withall, or a pikestaffe to fetch water in? Be not such things as theses as easily knowne, as whether there be anie place without a bodie, or stuffed with more then one? Wherefore we may besure that if a wise man goe to fetch water, he will take so­me thing else then a pikestaf­fe to fetch it in,HoW reason come's to faile in anie man, or if he be to cut, he will not take a balle; so that t'is manifest reasō hath as firme principles as anie other [Page 547] nature, And that as the nature of one thing will hold vntill a stronger contrarie doe crosse it, so there must be in anie par­ticular man a contrarie dispo­sition stronger then reason in him, to make him goe against reason. Now therefore if you can cast vp the force of reasō and of it's contraries, you may certainely know what a man will doe; which although per­happs you cannot exactly ballance in a particular man, yet in a great number and in whole multitudes you may in some things know it as certai­nely, as you cā doe anie thing by a demonstration. For exā ­ple, suppose there were an As­sembly of graue and wise mē, as our Parlement or the like, which had had a verie faire [Page 548] sunne shyne day to fit on, And one should tell you that in the next sessions following they would decree it had bee­ne a verie fowle day, ād would commande vnder paine of death euerie man to belieue and professe foe. Which though I thinke you will saie it were impossible they should make anie such de­cree, yet would I know how you would goe about to pro­ue it. Would your not conside­re what force of feares of ho­pes were necessarie to induce one of these men to tell such a notorious lye, whereby he were to hazard his conscience and reputation for euer, and then increase and augment the difficultie by the multitu­de? And farther would you [Page 549] not vrge that there were no such hopes or feares as were able to quell anie one, or at least a were necessarie to ouer­swaye them all, considering that the same hopes or feares could not falle vpon such va­rietie of estates and humours as all these men were of, And knowing certainely anie of these three you would assu­redly pronunce the supposed assertion to be false. For saie you, such a force is necessarie to breake reason in this Con­gregation, but such a force at this present cannot be had, and therefore reason at this present cannot be broken in them. In which discourse a Mathematician will tell you, his demonstrations hang vpō the verie same gimalls. Whe­refore [Page 550] as men cannot ordina­rily demonstrate, that one bo­die cannot bee in two places, nor two in one, yet are we cer­taine there is a naturall demō ­stration for it, and we are by nature assured of it. So no doubt, but there is a demon­stration to him that liueth in London, that there is a Londō bridge, and he is naturally cer­taine of it, though he cannot frame the demonstration by articles and sylogismes as a true philosopher can doe, for surely a philosopher, if he will take paines, may finde a de­monstration for both.

I hartily thāke you for this discourse, both for the present subiect, wherein you haue contented me beyond my expection, as also because [Page 551] me thinke's I conceiue by it, that there may be certaine knowledge, not only in ma­thematikes, but in all other sciences, sithence there is so cleere and efficacious meanes of proceeding euen in morall matters, which seeme the most mutable ād vncertaine of all, and where I thought scarcely anie reason was to be expe­cted.

O! cosē, though he was a great man that said Ars lon­ga, vita breuis, yet he must giue me leaue to be his interpreter, for t'is not the length of art▪ but our not taking the right waie, which make's it long, otherwise art would be but a conuenient solace to our liues. Would you thinke that a pri­uat man following the warres [Page 552] without helpe of others wri­tings by his owne industrie should surpasse the greatest clarkes that haue pored dou­ble his time vpon bookes? and,Mon­sieur des Cartes. this, our age hath shewed in a french gentleman, yet not only liuing but yong.

Me thinke's, vn­cle, it were a good worke and necessarie for the Christian world, if your self or some other would take the paines to set downe the principles of our faith in forme of demon­stration. For that I conceiue would take awaie all contro­uersies, and make all Christiās of one beliefe and Religion.

You are a yong mā, and conceiue's not the dai [...]ti­nesse of the pallates of this age, they would not taste such [Page 553] rugged and bitter stuffe, nay they cānot disgest anie thing which is not sugered with quaint and pleasont iests. Who would reade such a worke? Who would haue the patience to studie it to comprehend it and make it his owne? This verie discourse which hath passed betwixt you and me is so thornie and full of so manie chained consequences, that were it publike few would car­rie it away. Let vs therefore cō ­tent our selues to make it knowne to our owne acquain­tance, to whom vpon occasiō you may deliuer it by the waie of familiar discourse, wherein peraduenture it will sauour better and profit more.

I pray leaue me not thus giue me at least some spe­ciall [Page 554] light to answere such obiections, as without doubt will be proposed, when I shall deliuer your discourse to those who are better red then my self. Wherefore least I should disgrace your learned lessons, I pray, tell me how

§. 13 Some cheefe and short obiections may be solued.

I can not giue you a better rule thē to sticke to the churche's authoritie for Tradition, and not to be easily beaten of by great names and words, for if you considere that a Tradition, or a point of faith deliuered by tradition, is a point vniuersally preached and deliuered by the Apostles and imprinted in the harts of the Christian world; And by an vniuersall beliefe and pra­ctise [Page 555] continued vnto our days; whereof our warrant is no other then that we finde the present church in quiet posses­sion of it, and whereof no be­gining is knowne, if this I saie you considere and sticke well to this apprehēsiō, you neede not feare anie obiection which can be made against you. For you rely vpon the testimonie of the whole Christiā church, you rely vpon the force of nature borne to continue frō father to child, you rely vpon the promises of Iesus Christ of continuing his church vnto the end of the world, And vpon the efficacitie of the Ho­ly Ghost sent to performe it, by whom Christ's law was written in Christians harts and so to be continued to the day [Page 556] of doome, So that you see no human authoritie, by which our Estates and liues are go­uerned; No proofes of courts or law, which neuerthelesse are admitted as Iuges of those af­faires which too manie (God knowe's) esteeme more we­ightie and important then Religion, No consent of hi­storie, And in fine (if what we haue said be true) no demon­stration better, nor greater, nor peraduenture equall. On the other side you shall finde all obiectiōs fall of their owne weaknesse. As, some doe ob­iect the Millenarie errour for a tradition, whereof there is no certaintie, nor consent of those who write of it, whether it haue beene publickly prea­ched by the Apostles or no, [Page 557] And euen thence it is exclu­ded from the nature of such tradition as we rely vpon. Others finding diuers fathers agreeing in one opinion, vrge them presently for, or against, tradition, As if fathers in their dayes were not priuat Do­ctors, and might not be mista­ken in some points as well as the Doctors of the present church, T'is true we reueren­ce the fathers in manie titles aboue anie liuing Doctors, yet euerie Catholike knowe's that diuers fathers haue some ti­mes light into the same error. Wherefore you must note, co­sen, that the fathers speake so­me times as witneses of what the church held in their days, and some times as Doctors, and so t'is often hard to distin­guish [Page 558] how they deliuer their opinions, because some times they presse scripture or raison as Doctors, and some times to confirme a knowne truth. So that who seeke's Tradition in the fathers and to conuince it by their testimonie, take's a hard taske vpon him, if he goe rigorously to worke and haue a conning Criticke to his Aduersarie. How so euer t'is not a thing fitting for ordi­narie and vnlearned people but only for such as haue time at will and great reading and vnderstanding.

You haue manie Aduersaries in this opinion, for generally men seeke tra­dition out of the fathers, and thinke they haue found it, when in euerie age they finde [Page 559] seuerall fathers of the same opinion.

I intende not to de­tract from their labours who haue taken paines in this kin­de, for they are profitable and necessarie for the church of God, and excellent testimo­nies of Tradition, but I nether thinke it to be the bodie of Tradition, but only an effect and consequent of it, nor that the multitude of Christians, whose faith is to be regulated by Tradition, neede to haue recourse to those learned wor­kes. Wherefore although di­uers fathers in the same or dif­ferent ages be found to con­tradict some point, whereof the present church is in quiet and immemorable possession, their authorities ought not to [Page 560] preuaile; nor are they sufficiēt to proue there was not euen in their days a contrarie Tra­dion. For our faith being in some sort naturally grafted in the harts of Christians, lear­ned men may now and then mistake some points of it, as well as the causes and effects of their owne nature it self, ac­cording as I tould you but now, And as in other points so euen in this, to wit, in the reso­lution of faith, wherein as our Doctors seeme to differ now a days, so might the fathers al­so, And in particular S. Cypriā seeme's to thinke that the re­solution of faith was to be ma­de into scripture and not into Tradition, though in deede he opposed not scripture to Tradi­tion, but to custome, wich is a [Page 561] farr different thing, the one relying vpon the doctrine of the Apostles, the other vpon the authoritie of priuat Do­ctors, And supposing he was mistaken, it were no more thē what wee now see to consiste with the vnitie of the Church. There is one obiection and but only one of moment, and t'is that S. Augustin and Inno­centius with their Councells held that the communion of Children Was necessarie for their saluatiō, and their words seeme to be apparent. But who looketh into other passa­ges of the same Authors will finde that their words are me­taphoricall, and that their me­aning is, that the effect of sa­cramentall Communion, to witt, an incorporation into [Page 562] Christ's misticall bodie, which is done by Baptisme, is of ne­cessitie for Children's salua­tion. I remember not at this present anie other obiection of monent which may not be easily solued out of these prin­ciples.

I will suggest you one or two if you please, The one of Communion vnder both kindes, wherein our Ad­uersaries saie, we leaue a know­ne and practised tradition for manie ages. The other con­cerning the bookes of scrip­ture, where they saie we accept of a new scripture, or rule of faith without tradition.

I did thinke, cosen, you could answere these your selfe. For the first there is two parts of it, The one that the [Page 563] B. Sacrament was giuen vnder both kindes ordinarily, the other that some times it was giuen in one kynd only, And Catholikes being in possessiō of both parts by tradition, those that will proue that Ca­tholikes goe against Tradi­tion must proue that it was ne­uer administred vnder one kinde only, which our Aduer­saries nether goe about nor cā performe, but ply only that part which is granted them, to witt, that ordinarily it was ad­ministred vnder both kindes. For the second t'is not suffi­cient to shew that some haue doubted of this or that part of the Canon, vnlesse they can proue that those who did not doubt, were not a sufficient partie to make a Tradition frō [Page 564] the Apostles time. And so you see it fall's into the que­stion we mentioned before, that some fathers or Doctors being of a contrarie minde breake not the force of tradi­tion.

I am loath to leaue you, vncle, because me thin­ke's I am not sufficiently ar­med to answere all obiections, And yet what soeuer I call to minde falle's into some of these conditions you require.

Let me see how skillfull you are, I will try how you can answere me to

§. 14 The examples of Tradition which seeme to haue failed.

FIrst therefore betwixt Adā's being cast out of Pa­radise [Page 565] and the Deluge there are accoūted about two thou­sand yeares, which according to the long liues men enioyed at that time made not fully three descēts, and yet in Noy's time the forgetting of God's law was so great that a generall floud was necessarie for the clēsing of the world. Sem was Noy's sonne, and before his death both the Diuisions of Nations happened, because of their pride against God, And (as most Historians thinke) the selecting of Abram's fa­milie into God's seruice, the rest of the world hauing abā ­doned it. Likewise what is be­come of all antien Religions, the most part of them deliue­red by Tradition, they are all gone and rooted out. So that [Page 566] plaine experience is against those fine discourses you ap­proued so higly, What answere would you make to this?

Marry I would deny it to be true, I meane I would saie that God's law was not forgotten, but neglected before the floud, And the like at the building of Babell; And for Abraham's time, we know that Abimelech, and Pharao, and Melchisedech, and others (as Iob when soeuer he liued) obserued God's law. As for heathen Religions they were written in bookes, for anie thing I know, and therefore preiudice tradition no more then a written law, and conse­quently belong not to this cō ­trouersie. And thus I thinke I should quitte my self wel enough.

Soone enough at least, but let vs see if it be with as good speede as much haste. For suppose they should re­ply that the neglect of God's law must of necessitie breede obliuion, and therefore that ether God's law was forgottē or shortly would haue beene, if the punishement of the De­luge had not preuēted it. And for the men you cite of Abra­ham's time they were but few, and though in that time God's law had yet some litle force, looke but into Mose's time and you shall see all ouerrūne with Idolatrie. For Heathen Religions t'is said of the Drui­des that their Ceremonies we­re not written, but deliuered by memorie in verse from the Elder to the yonger and so [Page 568] conserued; And the Histories of the welch ād Irish seeme to haue beene conserued in the like manner by the Bardes, which how full of fables they were euerie man knowe's. So that these things seeme suffi­cient to discredit Tradition.

I must intreat your helping hand to fasten me vpō this shaking flore, otherwise I perceiue I am to weake to stand of my self.

T'is not the flore you stand vpon, but the want of confidence which make's you so vnsteadfast. For tell me, I pray, if you remember whereon rely's the firmenesse of Tradition?

You tould me, the Tradition of Christian faith was a great while a planting in [Page 569] the harts of men by the force of miracles, and that not only in their vnderstandings but also in their wills and affectiōs, and so cultiuated vntill the maine of the people were con­stantly persuaded there was no saluation without it. This was done at the same time in ma­nie Countries, not knowing one of an other, nor being able to correspōde and frame anie draught of beliefe toge­ther, but euerie one receiuing what was deliuered him from his preacher.

Why now then, cosen, rerurne to your obiectiōs ād looke how they vrge ād what force they haue against this your declaration of tradition.

As for Adam's chil­dren I see that one man and [Page 570] one woman were the only wit­neses of such a thing as the partys to whom they tould it could hardly belieue, it was so strange, Nay them selues had so litle experience of tho­se strange things which they tould, that (for anie thing we know) they neuer as much as tasted of anie fruit in Paradise but of the forbidden tree, And what care they had of anie Religion more thē to re­cōmēde God's seruice to their children, and that only as lōg as they liued with them, we know not, so that it seeme's what they taught tooke no strong roote, nor in manie. For Noth the same answere may be giuen, two of his son­nes parting shortly from him ether into farr countries, or at [Page 571] least into such a distance, as that they seldome came to see him, Wherefore I perceiue there is a great difference be­twixt the deliuerie of Christ's Gospell and of the law of God to those fathers of the old Testament.

Your remarkes are good ones; And in deede see­ing we haue required that Tra­dition should haue the conti­nuance of nature, We must see that it be plāted accordingly, which you haue well noted to haue beene performed in Christ's law, but not in the tra­dition of the ould law, the fa­thers and people of that time being much hindered by the great busines of the world's plantation, Euerie mā seeking to plant countries, build cities, [Page 572] finde out commodities for the cōseruation of man's life, Which were occupations farr different from the thoughts of heauen, and things of the next world. To this you may add that there was not then anie setled orders of Priests and men whose fūctiō should be to inculcate the necessitie of Religion into men's eares and harts, which we knowe the Apostles had care to perfor­me euerie where. Againe the­re was no such correspondēce betwixt countrie and countrie in those times as hath euer be­ene amongst Christians, spe­cially by the mediation of a cheefe Bishop which Christ hath set amongst vs. And no doubt but these two last points be two maine and cheefe cau­ses [Page 573] of the propagation and conseruation of Christiā faith. You may yet add that euē the points of faith were not then able to worke vpon man's na­ture so powerfully as since Christ's comming, according to our yesternight's discourse. So that the roote and strēgth of Tradition being grounded vpon this, that such a beliefe is fixed in peoples harts of seue­rall natiōs, the examples faile in three things. First that the multitude was not capable of it, it being so spirituall and ab­stract. Secondly that it was not inculcated with that feruour of spirit, assistance of the holy Ghost, and abundance of con­tinuall miracles, as Christ's law was. Thirdly that there was not a set forme and institution [Page 574] of Priests and Gouernors to ioyne all nations in commu­nion for the conseruation of their beliefe. Wherefore it ne­uer had the roote and nature of an vniuersall Traditiō. And by these examples you may easily answere all other obie­ctions of this nature. And now I will leaue you least I should ouer wearie both you and my self.

You saie well, vncle, yet that I may be sure to haue fully cōceiued the maine drift of your instructions, I pray let me see if I can make

§. 15 The cōclusion of all our discourse.

IT was first your intention to giue me a rule how to go­uerne my self in the choise of Religion, Then you conclu­ded that scripture could not [Page 575] be this rule, Where vpon you laid me downe two waies how to resolue my self. The first was that standing vpon the ground of prepossession there was no likelyhood or proba­bilitie that the Protestants ar­guments could be sufficient to ouer ballance the Catholikes, because they must be conuin­cing cleerely or else were to be reiected, And that the Pro­testants should bring anie cō ­uincing and demōstratiue ar­guments against the Catholi­kes there is no apparence, Ca­tholikes being more in num­ber, in qualitie greater schol­lers, ād in life more vertuous; And on the contrarie side Protestants hauing no princi­ples or commāde which may make them agree amongst [Page 576] themselues. And you shewd me that though this persuasiō did not euidently conuince the Catholike faith to be true, yet did it manifestly proue that the Catholike was to be chosen by an vnlearned man. Your second waye was by gi­uing a direct proofe that the Catholike doctrine is true, which you did in threeseuerall manners. First by shewing that it was no hard matter for the Catholike church to con­serue the truth of hir doctrine, if she were carefull, which hi­stories plainely shew she was. Secondly shewing that nature doth force men to haue care of Religiō, and therefore that it was impossible anie error should so creepe into the church as that it should be [Page 577] vniuersally receiued, the verie nature of man and human af­faires contradicting it's pro­gresse. Thirdly, shewing how the church now relying vpon Tradition, must of necessitie haue euer done so, and that if it hath euer done so, it could not let anie falsehood creepe in, nor suffer anie error to be generally admitted. This is all I remember, sauing the sol­uing of some obiections and the discouering of some of my impertinent answeres, which I hope you will excuse and forget. If I haue missed I pray direct me.

Yo haue taken good notice, and I thinke my pai­nes well bestowed, only I would intreate you to make a litle reflection and compari­son [Page 578] betwixt the knowledge which we haue by these mea­nes, and that which scripture afforde's vs if we handle it in a litigious waye, as in cōtrouer­sies we necessarily must. And you shall finde that Tradition is grounded vpon that which all men agree in, and vpon that which is common to all ages, all nations, all conditiōs. But the knowledge which we haue by scripture is grounded vpon that which is different in euerie nation. Hence spring's an other differēce, to wit, that the one is planted in nature, and in what God created in man: the other in what men them selues framed, and that not by designe or art, but by custome and chance. Out of which againe ensueth that [Page 579] the one is capable of necessi­tie, and consequently of a per­fect demonstration, as all na­turall things are, the other not. The one is fixed vpon vniuersalls, the other vaga­bonde in particulars. As for example who is able to de­monstrate that a word in con­trouersie hath no other sense then that which is necessarie for his pourpose? Or where the constructiō may be made diuers waies, that the true one is that which he pleadeth? Who can demonstrate amōgst varieties of texts which was in the Autograph? Or that the copies we haue are not defe­ctiue? And the like, which or­dinarily are necessarie if we will euindently conuince our intent out of the place we cho­ose. [Page 580] On the other side, To shew that whole multitudes of seuerall nations cannot misse in what hath beene a thousand times ouer ād ouer inculcated vnto them, That a world cannot conspire to cosen their posteritie, That mankinde cannot accepte of a doctrine against an euident principle, which they likewise hold and mātaine (these being the maximes Tradition de­pende's on) to shew, I saie, the­se things there needes no de­epe learning, being both knowne of them selues, and also as necessarily conioint and dependant of man's na­ture as his other naturall ac­tions be, and therefore may beare as good a demonstratiō as they; which if we haue not, [Page 581] it is not through anie defect or incapacitie of the subiect, but through the want of our looking into it, and that ether because we doe not take the right waie, or that we doe not bestow sufficient paines in the prosecution of it. So that in fine although the Roman church had fallen (which is impossible) into those errors which the Protestants pretē ­de, yet were it better for a man to content him self with the Good that remaines in it, then to cast him self into an endles­se and fruitlesse maze of dis­putations with trouble to all the world, ād that to no other effect, then to make people vnsetled, and by their vnnset­lednesse to neglect Religion. But God's wisdome (as you [Page 582] see) hath prouided an Euiden­ce for those that will take pai­nes to seeke it, 1. that the poin­tes in controuersie are of im­portance and necessarie to be knowne, 2. that they cānot be so knowne by scripture as is requisite for decisions against contentious men, and 3. that they may be certainely knowne by resting quiet in the bosome of the Catholike church, which God of his mercie giue you and me gra­ce to doe both liuing and dy­ing.