I Ever thought my self a Rich man in the many testimonies of your favour, being perswaded that the authority of your esteeming me, may work more upon the World to my advan­tage, then many personall defects of mine own to my prejudice. Among my best titles to valuation with Worthy men, I treasure up your last Letter, expecting to receive there­by as much Credit hereafter, as I doe now obligation; when those that finde it, (knowing your eminence and only my name) shall hap­pily [Page 2]misconceive my praises there to have bin of your judgement, which I must refer meerly to your love and civility. Persist I beseech you in the former of these, and restrain your self in the excess of the latter, permitting and owning me to be your friend, without making me mine own flatterer; of which I can never come in danger, but by your Commendations. I think my self as happy to bear the name of your friend, and promise to my self as much e­ternitie by the relation, as he who ingraved Sir Philip Sydnie's friendship on his Monu­ment.

But I must tell you, I aspire yet to a farr greater felicity, that is, to be made worthy of so brave an appellation, to which you can best contribute, if you please to impart freely to me your own rare abilities, and my weaknesses, rather then to darken these unto me, in exer­cising but the slightest part that you excell in, Courtliness. To take you off from this, and to engage you in the other, give me leave to lay hold on that part of your Letter which concerns my Studies. Wherein, as your exam­ple and advice have ever been my prime di­rectory in the way of them, so in the severall judgements of what I read, yours must be e­ver with me of singular Authority:

Yet in the particular concerning the Fathers, I must confess, as I came unto them, perhaps [Page 3]with different preparations, so I have likewise perused many of them with reflections upon their usefulness, far differing from those you specifie. I am so farr from receiving them as Judges, that in many cases I cannot admit them as witnesses Authentick enough, where­on to pass a Verdict in Religion. I discover me­thinks too prone a byas in most of their evi­dence, either to the establishing of their own private opinions, or to the destruction of their adversaries. And this even in the most Primitive of them faction it seems, and a kinde of Sectary passion, having had as strong, though not so va­rious a Current, even neer to the very springs of verity, as afterward in the remoter Chan­nels, as you can much better instance (if you please) then I, out of Eusebius, Epiphanius, and S^t Augustin; who themselves also, as they seem to adhere to the Catholick Church, and as the Roman glories in them, may well be by both sides allowed an Expurgator.

For that which you say, Secondly, that you rely more upon the Fathers, for what they tell us they were taught, then upon what they teach, I profess I should do so too, could I be but half so well assured of the first part of your reason; namely, that the former was de­rived from an infallible Authority, as I am of the other, that their own reasons were liable to Error. But to tell you true, as I can yet finde [Page 4]no reason to make me acknowledge that there is any infallible Authority, but only the Scrip­tures (which I conceive is not that you mean;) so do I finde as little that the Fathers (especi­ally those before the first Nicene Councell) were perswaded of any such. And grant they were, I can least of all discern which of the va­rious doctrins they deliver, were rightly de­livered to them from that unerring authority. Since it is apparent, methinks, that they do teach many uncertainties and errors, as Dog­matically, and with as solemn confirmations, as they do the most authentique truths. Hard­ly shal you find Scripture alledged more frank­ly by them, or the Church tradition proclai­med more lowdly in any point of Faith, then by Justin and Tertullian, in the rigid censure of the use of Images, and in the same Tertulli­an in affirming Christs descent to free the Pa­triarks; and in these two, and divers others, the gross assertion of the Angels copulation with women: and lastly, then in all the Millenaries most confident authorizing of their Judaick doctrine. These are perhaps of the slighter in­stances, such as flow easiest into a Letter from a bad memory, and yet I pray you resolve me which of them I shall let pass, as derived from infallibilitie? whether that which our Church approves, and the Roman condemns, as the first; or that which the Roman agrees to, and we [Page 5]disallow, as the second; or the second last, which both sides reject? I profess I am as yet to distinguish which of them these Fathers meant we should swallow as delivered to them, and which chew and consider as onely delivered by them. These and many more ir­reconcileable passages in them, have rendred me much alike affected both to what you say they tell us they were taught, and to what they teach; that is, to have my reason, as much as I can cleared and enlightened by both, but to suffer it to be hoodwinkt and lead implicitly by neither. I reverence those holy Fathers, as divine establishers of Faith in things where they all concur, and where not, as happy aides of the understanding, and as it were sacred bellowes of the soul whe­ther to make it glow unto contrition, and fervor of zeal, or to subtilize and exalt it into flames of contemplation.

It is now high time for me to beg your par­don, for having licensed my self so much to your trouble. It is an inconvenience drawn up­on you by your excess of favour and obliging­ness, that have incouraged me freely to ex­press to your self my ill-digested opinions; wherein toward any other I should have been restrained by shame and the conscious­ness of mine own incapacities, but from you I ever promise my self rectifying, where [Page 6]from another I might look for contempt: All your just censures, I am sure will be sweetened instantly by this one consideration, that this pennance hath been laid upon you by

MY unsteady abode in the town, and frequent suddain excursions out of it of late, have cast me so far behinde­hand with your Lordship, not onely for what civility requireth of me, but for what duty bindeth me unto, as I was grown to a belief that I could make no other amends for my long silence, but by coming on purpose to Sherburn to you to excuse it. And therefore out of an ill bashfulness I forbore acknowledging my fault by Letter, re­ferring that till I was in state to repair it by mine own personal attendance. But that being not likely to fall out so soon, I being to [Page 7]go to morrow to my Mothers, and thence to my own house for some weekes; and I having lately received a picture from my Lord Russel, with command to send it as soon as I could to your Lordship, I durst not make that a prisoner till I got liberty my selfe to wait up­on you. By which means I am engaged, with­out being able to defer it any longer, to give you humble thanks for your letter of the se­cond of November, and to crave your pardon that I came thus late to doe it. So sudden and distracted an houre as I have now to write in, would deterre me from offering at any return to so obliging and judicious a Letter, till I had a greater freedom both of time and thoughts. But I can never be taken unprovided for the first part, my sincere affection to your Lord­ship, and sence of your favours ever out­weighing any other humane object that may busie my mind: & for the second, of answering your judicious objections, I shall confide more for the solution of them in your owne calme and impartiall reflections upon them, then in ought I shall be able to reply. Therefore had I never so much time, I would for this intent imploy it onely in reducing the matters into your remembrance, and intreating you to commit the appearances on both sides fairly one against another into the balances, and let your owne Reason hold the Scale, [Page 8]which I must acknowledge with excesse of joy, to be the strongest and most sin­cere that I know in any man. I should be­gin the performance of this task with com­plaining to your Lordship in the Fathers be­halfe, and representing their grievances to your Lordship, that you are so rigorous to them, as to exclude them from being wit­nesses in matters of Religion. Their hu­mility, as well of understanding, as of man­ners, will not let them be troubled when they are recused as Judges: They never pro­nounce any thing out of their own breasts un­to which they will confine other mens as­sents. But when they tell you plainly what they were taught, and what they sinde be­lieved and practised generally throughout the whole Church, have they not reason to take it unkindly to be rejected. If you will examine their veracity by al those circumstances that are usually considered in taking mens depositions, you will find them strong on their side. They were right honest men, not onely believed, but known to be such by all the world. They are acknowledged on all hands to be so judici­ous, as would more blemish ones owne judge­ment then theirs, but to cal it in question. What they wrote of, are matters belonging to their own Art and Trade, in which surely they would have great care and attention not to [Page 9]mistake, since their own and their posterities eternall salvation depended on it: Since then there is will and ability to inform us of truth, why should we suspect them? What can ap­peare stronger to us in opposition of what they deliver as witnesses, to make us doubt their evidence? and consequently to brand them with the imputation of falshood and ignorance, flattering our selves that new and clearer lights shine to us, and that we know more then they? Their private opinions (for the establishing of which your Lordship saith, you discover too prone a Bias in most of their evidence) doe not interest our beliefs; in such poynts we are as free as they. Nor can I believe so ill of any of them, as to make those to passe for currant, they would stamp upon them the seale of being taught from hand to hand, and of tradition from Christ and his Apostles, and of the generall and uncontrouled beliefe and practise of the Church; or if they did, certainly their nu­merous adversaries would not have let such foul play scape their note. It is true, they were ever, as your Lordship observes, earnest and severe against them who were such, as if they had been mild against their Heresies, they would never have gained the name of Fathers and Pillars of the Church, nor have been re­verenced as Saints by succeeding Ages. The [Page 10]faction and sectary-passion that your Lordship remarketh even neer the springs of verity, belongeth onely to their adversaries; their warmth is just and due zeale: And for those three Fathers of whom your Lordship sayes, that we as well as you may allow them an Ex­purgator; I professe my slender reading ne­ver met, to my best remembrance, with any do­ctrine of faith in them, that I doe not entirely assent unto. In the next place, my Lord, I must cleare what I mean by the infallible Authority from whence the Fathers derived what they were taught, which I distinguished against what of themselves they teach. Of this later sort are the reflections that they make upon the Scri­ptures, when in their Comments or Ser­mons they deliver to us what occurred to them in the interpretation of the Texts of it. And when they are but barely such, I conceive they are to have no more weight with those that have ability to examine them, then the reasons wherewith they are accompanied do give them. But the other points of Doctrine I take to have been taught by Christ to his Apostles, and by them preached through the world, and then again delivered to the ensu­ing age by them that had these points incul­cated into their hearts by the Apostles, and in this manner with care (and every where) handed over from age to age; which upon [Page 11]particular occasions the Fathers used to sum up and produce against Innovators that would make breaches upon the ancient and generally received Faith of the Church. Doctrines thus delivered, I conceive, to be derived from infallible Authority, as well as the Scriptures, and withall, that it is so safely conveyed to us, as we are as deeply obliged to beleeve it, as what the Scriptures teach us, and in governing the tenor of our Faith, to give them much the precedency: Because by such Tradition, we are fully, plainly, and practically taught how to understand it, and the business and errand of it is, to deliver it so unto us; whereas the causes of writing the particular Books of Scrip­ture, were for other particular ends, and not to give us a compleat body of Faith. And those Articles of it that they do deliver us, are not so plainly expressed, that every body can under­stand them. So that if it be once admitted, that by such tradition, there can be had in all ages a compleat and true knowledg of what Christ taught, it cannot be denied, but that it is an easier and better rule to guide our understan­ding in the affairs of Religion, then to resort for that end to the Scripture alone. And that such tradition is infallible, I have endeavou­red to prove in another discourse which your Lordship hath, so that I will not trouble you here with any repetitions upon that Subject. [Page 12]Now when I wrote to your Lordship my opini­on of the use to be made of reading the Fa­thers, relying upon them more for what they were taught, then for what they teach; it was as taking them for faithful Collectors of the tradition that they found general through the Church in their times, and sincere conveyers of them to us: And this course you shall finde even among the ancientest of them. When St. Austin will establish the doctrine of praying for the dead, he telleth that it hath been the practise of the whole Church from the Apo­stles time. The like he doth against the Pela­gians, and upon several other occasions; and directeth us to enquire what faith is professed in the Churches established by the Apostles; from whom he reckoneth on the uninterrup­ted succession of Pastors unto his time: And by them he deriveth the present Doctrine from the first preachers, who had it immedi­ately from Christ. Tertullian, when he pre­scribeth against Heresie, giveth you a Cata­logue of the Bishops of several Churches, from the several Apostles that planted them; and with the successions of the persons urgeth the succession in those Churches of the Do­ctrine he seeketh to establish. Irenaeus doth the like, and generally all of them; which they do not onely when they use those formal positive words that the whole Church hath [Page 13]received from the Apostles, and holdeth ge­nerally such and such a Doctrine: but at o­ther times also when they do but intimate it in their discourses, which intimation is such as is easily perceptible to whosoever of judge­ment shall read them impartially. Therefore to summon up as short and as plainly as I can, the use, as I conceive is to be made of reading the Fathers; I say that letting pass what they writ as Commentors upon the Scriptures, and as Phliosophers, and all which is but as Di­vines and Schollers, we are generally to take hold of what they deliver us as Pastors of the Church, which appeareth chiefly by what they writ against those they brand with Here­sie, which they could not do, were not those points which they censure, against the known and general tradition of the Church: And next when they deliver us dogmatically and professedly any doctrine, in such sort as we may reasonably conceive they intended we should take it as matter of faith, not giving it as conceptions of their own, which they bring onely learned arguments on texts of Scripture to maintain: In all which a free & good judge­ment will easily discern by reading them, which way to incline; which I knowing your Lordship to be, do beseech you to apply it a little industriously, to collect throughout their sense, and by what they say to frame a model [Page 14]of the Government, Beleif, and practise of the Church wherein they lived, and then tell me whether it be like yours or ours: It is worth the while; Criticks labour to get some knowledge of the manners and customes of Ages long since past by little fragments of an­tiquity that have hardly scaped into their hands. And Lawyers get a knowledge of the Government and frame of the State in Kings raigns long agoe, by broken and disjoynted Records, that they meet with scattered in se­veral Files. And these maimed evidences by chance fallen into their Hands, do serve to beget a fairer body of knowledge, when they know how to make a right use of them, and such as will convince an indifferent and equal hearer: much more certainly the Fathers works that handle professedly and at large the affairs of the Church and Religion, and whereof we have such plenty, will fairly inform a rational and discoursing man of the true state of them in their times, and what they conceived and had been taught, imported Heaven or Hell in mans belief and practise; which I am sure your Lordship will allow to carry a great stroke in ours, and from which it is madness, if not impiety, to depart upon less grounds then a demonstration to convince the contra­ry. Though I have already too much trespassed upon your Lordships patience by my tedious [Page 15]Letter, yet I may not conclude it, till I have said a word or two to the foure instances your Lordship giveth toward the latter end of yours. First, for the use of Images, I doe not conceive it to be a precept given by Christ, but since introduced by the Governors of the Church, as a thing convenient to raise de­votion in the people.

Now things of that nature may be convenient at one time, and unfit at another. When I do­latry was fresh in the memory and practise of the world, it was dangerous to admit it, there­fore in the primitive times Justin and Tertul­lian might have reason to cry it down. But because there was no precept of Christ in that behalfe conserved in the Church, you see they urge not the authority of Tradition of the Church to beat down their use, but arguments of their own, and Texts of Scripture produ­ced by them; whereas now in times secured from that danger, and a great good appea­ring in them (they being as a Father said, the bookes of unlettered persons to beget know­ledge and stirre up devotion in them) as strong arguments, and as pregnant Texts of Scrip­ture are produced for their use, and to justifie the Governours of the Church in recommen­ding them to the people. Your second in­stance is of Tertullians affirming Christs de­scent to free the Patriarkes; which I conceive [Page 16]not onely he, but all the Fathers that ever spake of that particular, deliver it in a matter of faith, and so it hath been ever held by the Church: which word of Descent I take it is to be understood, as we all doe, the Article of the Creed, He descended into Hell, that is, by his power and operation at least, by which he confounded the damned, comforted the soules in Purgatory, and brought to the sight of God, those in Abrahams bosome, that is, a place of rest, where yet they enjoyed not the beatificall vision. For to give other moti­on and place to a soule, is a question in Philo­sophy, and concernes not faith; and such was the assertion of the Angels copulation with women; for many, or rather most of the Fathers were of opinion, that they were not pure Spirits, but had very subtile & immortall bodies (the contrary of which was never yet delivered as matter of faith, howbeit by force of Argument now the corporiety of Angels is exploded out of the Schools) and thus suppo­sing that opinion, the way is obvious enough in commenting some Texts of Scripture, to fall into that error, which so becommeth an error in Philosophy, and in no wise concer­ning faith. And that other of the Millenaries, which is the last your Lordship urgeth, appeareth plainly to have growne among some of the Fathers, (with whom the autho­rity [Page 17]of Papias weighed much) by literally in­terpreting a Text of the Apocalyps; but ne­ver any of them urged the generally received opinion of the Church, nor publick Tradition from Christ and the Apostles. And besides, the Church has never yet to this day condemned as an heresie, that part of the Millenaries be­liefe, which some of the Fathers held (which is, of the Saints reigning with Christ a thou­sand yeares upon earth after their resurrecti­on, and enjoying onely spirituall delights) but only other foule enormities which went under the name of the Millenaries heresies. Now by what I have said to those instances in particu­lar, and bringing that spirit that I said before was required to the reading of the Fathers, I conceive it will be no hard matter to deter­mine which of them, as your Lordship sayes, we are to swallow as delivered to them, and which to chaw and consider as onely delivered by them. One thing more I shall adde in ge­nerall, which is, That a large and great soule, like yours, expresseth it selfe more to its ad­vantage in weighing in the powerfull scale of reason, that it hath the main bulk of what it is to judge of, rather than to dwell with too scrupulous a diligence upon little quillets and niceties, which admit arguments on both sides, and in the mean time let slide away unnoted, that great deale which is uncontroulable and [Page 18]plaine, as though one were but to declame in Schoole to exercise ones wit, and therefore he maketh choyce of some ingenious Paradox a­gainst a known and received truth; and to im­pugne it, can bring but against the skirts of it arguments or rather cavils of wit, without be­ing able to grapple with the main body of it, and seeks rather to puzzle and embroyle his adversary, then weightily to establish the so­lid truth. This is a subject that is deeply to be considered for use, (the importantest that we can have, not argued upon for ostentation) and that a wise man ought to seek a settlement in, and not aim at the applause of being sharp­sighted, by reducing all things to uncertainty. Therefore, good my Lord, apply that great understanding you are so excellently endowed withall, to build as well as to pull down, and read not the Fathers with a fore-laid designe to enerve their authority; but with an indif­ferency to yeeld your assent to what upon the whole matter you shall judge reasonable for you so to doe. And since I know that your judgement must in all things that are contro­verted before it, of this nature, tend to a settle­ment one way or other, (for only sciolous wits float onely in uncertainty, as delighting to make objections, and raise a dust which after­ward their weak eyes cannot looke through) let me recommend to you not onely to exa­mine [Page 19]whether the opinion you meet with in your reading, repugnant to what you were formerly imbued with, be concludingly de­monstrated or no, but likewise examine as strictly the reason you have for your own, and where the scale weighes heaviest, give your assent. For since of contradictory propositions one must necessarily be true, and the other false, a man proceedeth upon safe grounds, if he take for a firm truth what is opposite to an assertion that betrayes its own weaknesse; whereas if you look onely upon the true, you may happily at the instant not finde a full re­solution to every objection that may be raised against it; which proceedeth not from the weaknesse of the thing, but from ours, that cannot at the first sight look into the bottome of it.

You see, my Lord, how confident I am with you, to tell you what upon the present in such shortness and distraction of time occurreth to me upon this subject, which your goodnesse hath invited me unto, and I begge the conti­nuance of it, first in pardoning me; and next, in imparting to me your reflections upon them, which I professe sincerely, I value beyond any mans, and most of all, in loving me as you have ever done, which is the happiest condi­tion that can give a blessing unto

WHen I wrot my Letter, I intended to review and copy it; but it held me much longer time then I designed to it. It should not have been with my dull head and hand, an after-suppers work, and after comming home from vain entertainment with some imperti­nent she-wits that most tyrannically had seized upon me: They had tun'd my brains to so crosse a Key, as afterward all serious Images came so lamely into my fancy, as I may be asha­med to send you this rough draught of them, and so slowly halting, as I was in good faith three houres about those blotted and interli­ned sheets. For it was an houre past midnight afore I had done, which was not one to enter upon so tedious a task, as to lick this abortive and mishapen Embrion into form. And now this morning my company calls upon me to be gone, so that I am in a strait to appeare before your Lordship, either extreamly negligent if I deferre till my return to towne, the answering of your Letter, and the sending my Lord Russels Picture; or extreamly indiscreet, if I send you so rude and indigested refle­ctions upon your so judicious and strong [Page 21]discourse, wherein the instances, though your Lordship be pleased to call them slight ones, and such as flow easiest into a Letter from a bad memorie, yet you must give me leave to believe them the strongest and sharpest that can be urged upon this subject, and the flower and Quintessence of what Mr. Chillingworth and the best wits have produced against the tradition of the Church, and the authority of the Fathers. But I will choose rather to fall into your hands for the latter, then under your censure for the first; and so asking you a thousand pardons, I send you this, by which, all I can hope, is, that you will at least discern in me a great willingnes to come out of your debt in this kinde (for all other I know impossible) though I am but a flow and im­perfect paymaster: and that you will in some measure, guess at what I would say if I had time to digest and range it as it should be. I shall here only by way of supplement, adde this more concerning the Millenaries (because I would not render my Letters more illegible by new interlining it) that as I remember Justin Martyr himself, saith it is an opinion not generally beleeved in the Church, but that many of the Orthodox reject it; howbeit he professeth to hold it for true, and accordingly endeavoureth to prove it by authority of Scripture; all which [Page 22]manifestly declareth, that it was no avowed tradition of the Church from Christ; it is true, Papias seemeth to intimate as though it were in some obscure manner derived from Christ, but not as a thing commanded to be preached and taught. He telleth it as a my­sterie or secret, whispered by him to some of the Apostles, whom he would oblige more then their fellowes, by imparting some thing to them for their knowledge, that the rest should be ignorant of. But no such by-rivo­let (though it should come from the true foun­tain) can ever fall into the main and avowed Channell of Ecclesiastical tradition; Indeed it is likely that Cerinthus the Heretick to ju­stifie his new device in that particular, fathe­red it on Saint John as whispered to him by Christ in confidence; and from him Papias that was an easie and simple man, taking it, passed by his name, and vouched only the Apostles, which some believed as a private truth, and others denied, as is apparent.

I Beg your pardon, for making you so slow a return of my humble thanks for your excellent Letter of the 26 of De­cember; and I should have needed your pardon much more, if your fa­vours in it had been lesser. The excesse of them in such variety of obligations, justifies me in the leasure I take to taste and enjoy each endearing circumstance apart; weighing and comparing with one another the severall de­lights I ow you, whilst every where I finde my self either courted by him I love most, or applauded by him I emulate most, or instru­cted by the person whose abilities I admire most; and all this by you dear Cousin, the prime object of my noblest affections. My heart is so much affected with these favours, that were this Letter (or rather Volumne, whose bulk may well affright you with the trouble it threatens) filled with nothing but acknowledgments, it would fall as short of satisfaction to my self in the thankfull part, a [...] I fear it will of giving it you in the rest that it treats of. But as in the first it is impossi­ble for me to utter the hundredth part of my thoughts, so in the other could I express all and more then ever I can think of, I should yet despair of efficacy to convince you by any [Page 24]thing that can flow from a Pen animated with such dull reflections as mine, which here notwithstanding I venture to set down chief­ly in obedience to your commands in the close of your Letter, and partly through fear that I might else in some kinde incurr the tax, ei­ther of Hypocrisy if I should by silence con­fess an assent in matters of Religion where I am not convinced, or of perversness, should I d ssent without shewing cause for it; which I shall here endeavour to manifest, but still with this protestation, that could I admit of such a doctrin, that in the affaire of our faith I ought to be swayed by any humane authori­ty, either of one or many, I should at this in­stant publish a valediction to my opinions, what great wits soever may sustain them, as willingly as I do here grant you the prehemi­nence above the highest that I have known.

And here in the first place I do most hear­tily wish I could concurr with you in all the rest, as I do in the Introduction of your di­scourse, that so I might be united to you in o­pinion, as I am most intirely in affection. I joyne with you in full admiration of the Pie­ty, Learning, and Integrity of those reve­rend Fathers of the Church, whose Lives, whose Zeales, whose Deaths abundantly me­rited that title with everlasting celebrations of their memories; theit veracity I attribute [Page 25]infinitely unto, from a due consideration of all those happy circumstances wherewith your eloquence authorizes it. You cannot aggra­vate their impieties enough, who would of­fer to exclude such sages from being witnesses in the most important matters of Religion: If any former slip of my pen can be but wrested to such an injustice, let me purge my self by a solemn Recantation. But I hope my words imported not any such sense, I am sure my sense intended not any such words; those of my Letter were as I remember, that I could not admit them for witnesses Authentick e­nough, whereon to pass a Verdict in many cases of Religion: Wherein by two restricti­ons, I am safely protected from any just im­putation of so unjust a negative, since the one by the very exception of many cases, attributes to their testimony a validity in many, the o­ther allows it an inducing power in the very denying it a convincing one, and tends no way to an exclusion, but only to a qualificati­on of their evidence. Many indeed are the ca­ses wherein I hold their Testimonials most sacred and unquestionable; such are the grand Fundamentals of Christianity, the doctrine of believing in one God, of the incarnation, the Passion, the Resurrection, and some other the constitutive Articles of Christian Faith. These (to use your own terms) were mat­ters [Page 26]indeed that concern'd their Art and Trade, matters indeed whereon their own and their posterities Salvation undoubtedly de­pended, matters indeed that challenged their whole care and attention, both to receive them rightly, and transferr them faithfully. In these, when they tell us (as they often do plainly and unanimously) what they were taught, and what they found believed gene­rally through the whole Church: Let their affirmation be as definitive as Pythagoras's to his Disciples, in these it is too mild a word to say, have they not reason to take it unkindly to be rejected? Be it sacrilege but to question their veracity; but on the other side many ca­ses too there are wherein I can in no wise venter to give sentence upon their evidence; Such are most, if not all the now controverted poynts, between the Romish Church and ours, and as in my former Letter, levelling at these, I could not admit the Fathers for witnesses authentical enough, whereon to pass a Verdict in many cases of Religion; so like­wise I must again profess in this, that I am as farr as ever from allowing them in these such a determining or convincing Authority; wit­nesses of such an over ruling testimony, though they bear the name of witnesses, are judges in effect, and they do give the Law, though another pronounce it. Now to be Judges, [Page 27]I could cite you many passages wherein they themselves do utterly renounce the pretensi­on; and you say your self, that their mode­sty will not let them be troubled when they are recused for such. Neither will I wrong that vertue of theirs so much, as to embrace their testimonies with any closer adherence then it self desires. For be they what they will in point of interpreting to us the Doctrins of Church and Scripture, I am sure they are the best declarers and limiters of their own, both for their proper sense, and the degrees of our receiving them. Now that I have ex­plained the sense of my former Letter, let me tell you the designe both of that and this; It was to express unto you in the generall (in­dustriously avoiding particular questions) how little certainty or satisfaction, I think, can be found on either side, that shall rely on the Fathers testimonies for a clear determination of our differences. I confess I lancht into the Ocean of them with eager hopes of such a dis­covery, and from them at length can draw just as certain conclusions as Sea-men of the Soyle and dimensions of old Brasill.

The reasons prevalent with me of the un­certainty, or rather in my conceipt impossibi­lity of drawing out of the Fathers any such proofs either way in our controversies, where­on an inquiring and judicious person should be [Page 28]obliged to relie and acquiesce, are so amply and so learnedly set down by Mr. Dailby in Emploides peres, that I think little of mate­rial or weighty can be said on this Subject, that his rare and pierceing observation hath not anticipated: But because you will expect from me somewhat more then a bare reve­rence, take in short the chief inducements I will set down as briefly and perspicuously as I can; not to insist upon the more frequent ones, namely, the few writings extant of the Primitive Doctors of the first, second, and third ages after Christ; The many suppositi­tious, children that bear the name of Fathers, they do not so much as Ore refer; the alterati­ons, rasures, and insertions which through ignorance, fraud, or maliciousness, have defa­ced, maimed, and corrupted even those few monuments that remain of venerable antiqui­ty; I say, (not to dwell upon these, suppo­sing that in your fair and noble way of ratioci­nation, you will not draw arguments from any, but such as are on both sides received for intire and ligitimate pieces, differences being rightly reconcileable only by such mediums as both parties consent in) those which seem of greatest force with me to invalidate their au­thority in our questions, are these Four.

First, Their contradictions to one another.

Secondly, their variance from themselves.

Thirdly, their repugnances both to Pa­pists and Protestants.

Fourthly, and lastly, Their want of ability in many points of our controversies; in most, of will to decide them.

Their thwartings of one another both in their writings, and votes in Councels, will easily appear to any man that shall but with indifferent observation survey their works; and this in matters of government, of practise, and of belief, which are the three particulars, wherein you advise me out of the Fathers to judge the conformity of your Church, or ours to antiquity.

For their Clashings in point of government, to name the superiority of the Sea of Rome, will be enough to call to your memory the Epistles of Epist. 53. ad Anatol. 54. ad Martian. 55. ad Pul [...]her. 59. ad Martian. 61. ad Juvenal. Leo contrary to the 28. Canon of the Fathers of the Councel of Calcedon, who had elevated that of Constantinople to an equal height with the o­ther: And likewise those Epistles of Gregory the great, 32. ad Maurit. 34. Constant. L. 4. wherein he enveighs in sharpe terms against whosoever should take upon him the title of Universal Bishop; hardly reconcilable with those passages of the Fathers that the Roman Doctors cite for the Popes supremacy, and least of all with the practice of Boniface the 3d, [Page 30]that soon after assumed the Appellation.

To name the question of Appeals to Rome will suffice to draw an acknowledgment from you, of the great contestations between the Affrican Bishops and the Roman, condemn­ing that point; which was likewise oppositely decreed by the Synods of Sardis and Calce­don. Concil. Sard. Can. 3. 2 Concil. Calced. Can. 9.

To name the election of Bishops, will be sufficient to recal to your thoughts the direct opposition in that point of the Fathers, of the eighth General Councel, in their two and twentieth Canon, against what Epist. 68. p. 166 Cyprian taught at large to be Apostolick tradition; to wit, that the peo­ple should have their votes also in the choice of Bishops.

And lastly, not to dwell too long upon the least material point, you will easily be put in minde, how that which is delivered by many, and particularly by Epiphanius, p. 908. against Arrius for a received sense of the Church, touching the preeminence of a Bishop above a Presbyter, is flatly impugned by S. Jerom. Ep. ad Occan. 83. p. 614. and others.

Their clashings about matters of practice are altogether as obvious.

Call but to minde Victors heats against the Bishops of Asia, touching the observance [Page 31]of Easter day. Tatianus and Tertullian's te­nents concerning marriage, against the opini­on of so many Fathers as would be endless to name: But because the first was declared an Heretick for holding all marriage pollution, & the last for esteeming the second unlawful; I beseech you turn over S. Jerom's Epistles to Furia, to Agerachia, and weigh some passages in his first book against Jovinian; And then tell me not how far he is from making Marriage a Sacrament of the Church; but how far his words are from importing the others Heresy.

Cast but your Eie upon that passage of Ori­gen Cont. Cels. l. 5. to p. 479. Where speak­ing of Angels, he saith, that in considerati­on of their divine nature, they are sometimes in the Scriptures called gods, but not so as that we should be commanded to adore them, or worship them with divine honors, although they be the conveyers of Gods gifts unto us: for al desires, al prayers, al deprecations, al thanks­givings, are to be sent up to God the Lord of all things, by the high Priest who is above all Angels, who is the living word and God. Be pleased likewise to consider the 394. pag. of Athanasius in his first Oration against the Ar­rians, where he teaches that God onely is to be worshipped, &c. And inform me how I shall comprimise the matter betwixt them and those passages of other Fathers alledged [Page 32]by Bellarmine, for the worship and invocati­on of Saints. L. de Beatitudine sanctorum. c. 13. Where those which he cites out of Ju­stine and Augustine are not like the rest so im­pertinent, but they may stand in some oppo­sition with the two above mentioned.

Let me but remember you of the opinion that Hereticks ought to be baptized, so con­tradicted by Optatus, by Austine, and gene­rally by all that impugne the Donatists, which was notwithstanding most peremtorily main­tained by Tertullian, Cyprian, Ep. ad Pom­peium & Firmilian, so far as that Cyprian for this cause brake into most notorious heats against Stephanus Bishop of Rome; (both Ste­phanus and Cyprian, urging tradition for contrary Doctrines) and Firmilian against all the Roman Church in general, saying, in an Epistle of his, which is the seventy fifth a­mong Cyprian's works; that Rome did not in all things observe the tradition of the Apo­stles, and in vain boasted of their Authority. Accord I beseech you that passage of S. Au­stin, Serm. 17. de verbis Apost. (Injuria est pro Martyre orare) with the practise of the Church in that point, which appears to have been general, and is recorded in divers of the Fathers; as Clemens, Cyprian, Austin 17. Serm. de verbo Apost. and particularly by Epiphani­us against Aerius, p. 911. Lastly, in point of [Page 33]confession & penitence be pleased to confront those passages of Chrysostome: Homil. de poenit. & confes. It is not necessary (saith he) that thou shouldest confess in the presence of witnesses, let the inquiry of thy offences be made in thy thought, let this Judgment be without a witness, let God only see thee con­fessing. And again, in Epist. ad Heb. c. 12. Hom. 31. I do not say to thee bring thy self up­on the Stage, nor accuse thy self unto others; and likewise that of St. Augustine, Confes. lib. 10. cap. 3. What have I to doe with men, that they should hear my Confessions, as though they could heal my diseases? Be pleased. I say to confront these with some passages of other Fathers cited by Arcudius upon that subject; and likewise by Bellarmine, l. 3. c. 2. de Poeni­tentiâ. and confess the Fathers in matter of practise, as well as of government, irrecon­cileable.

Their contradictions in matters of Belief, are infinite; I shall only summe up such as I esteem most important, either in the points them­selves which they concern, or in relation to our controversies in the Doctrine of the Trinity: That of Justine Martyr, p. 357. against Try­phon, which cannot be solved from making a distinction of nature betwixt the Father and the Son: That of Tertullian, advers. Prax. c. 9.10. Pater tota substantia est, Filius vero [Page 34]derivatio totius et portio; and many other passages in the same book: That of Origen tract. in Joan. tom. 3. where he implyes little less, as Genebrard observes, then that the Fa­ther is as much above the Son and the Holy Ghost, as they above the Creatures. That of Theodoret, part 3. concil. Ephes. p. 496. where refuting Cyrils ninth Anathema, he saith, that in it Cyril doth anathematise all the Apostles, and the Arch-Angel Gabriel himself, whilst impiously and blasphemously, (they are his words) he curseth such as do not beleeve the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son: I can easilyer accord these Doctors which Arrius, then with Athanasius, or the three hundred and eighteenth Fathers of the first Nicene Councel: Of the state of the Soul after death, in point of reward and punishment; and like­wise concerning Christ's descent into Hell. I could here cite you multitudes of oppositions; but I shall have occasion to speak of these in another place.

Lastly, touching the Eucharist, in my opini­on, the most important Article of any we dif­fer in, let me marshall up the Fathers opposi­tions somewhat more at large; That of Justin in Apol. 2. The sanctified food (saith he) where­with our flesh and blood by conversion, are nourished, we are taught to be the flesh and blood of Jesus incarnate, being made such by [Page 35]the word of prayer, after the same manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour by the Word of God took on him flesh and blood for our salvation. How will it suit with the latter part of the fortieth Chap. of Tertull lib. 4. against Mar­cion, where his whole Argument runs upon this, That in the Eucharist, the Bread and Wine are the figure and representation of Christs body, (for it would have been a very extravagant argument to one that denied, as Marcion did, Christ himselfe to have a body of flesh, to alledge that bread was the flesh of his body) his words are, Having profest (saith he speaking of our Saviour) a desire to eat the Passover, he took bread, and having distributed it to his Disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Bo­dy; of which it could not have been the Fi­gure, if he had not in truth a body. And a­gain, with that other passage of the same Au­thor, lib. de anima, chap. 14. The taste of the Wine which he consecrated for a memoriall of his blood: and also with that, lib. 1. against Marcion, cap. 14. The bread by which he re­presents his body; I dare not translate the rest, Etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendici­tatibus creatoris. Survey that passage of Cyril­lus Hierosol. Catech. cap. 4. under the form of bread his body is given thee, and under the form of Wine his blood, And again, know­ing [Page 36]and holding this for a certainty, that the bread which we see is not bread, though our taste find it to be so: So how this will sound with that place of St. Austin upon the 98. Psalm, where he bringeth in our Saviour speaking of this matter after this manner: You shall not eat of this body which you see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed which will crucifie me, I have commended a certain Sacrament unto you, that being spiritually un­derstood will quicken you.

Next, consider those passages of Gregory Nissene quoted by Bellarmin, we beleeve (saith he) the bread rightly sanctified by the word of God, to be changed into the body of God the word. And again a little after, This doth the vertue of the benediction effect, changing the nature of what we see (bread and wine) into the body of the Lord: To which I op­pose that of Theodoret Dialog 2. The mysti­cal Symboles are not removed from their own nature after sanctification, but remain in their former substance, form and figure; And Dialog 1. Our Lord, saith he, in delivering those mysteries, called the bread, body; and the mixture in the Cup, blood; And soon after saith he, our Saviour inverted the names, giving to his body the name of Symbole, and to the Symbole the name of his body; so ha­ving named himself Vine, he called the Sym­bole [Page 37]Blood. Next let us confront that of Chry­sostome Hom. de Encoeniis; Is it bread that you see? is it wine? do they go into the privie like other meats? away with such a thought, for as wax being put into the fire, unites it self so in substance to it, that nothing thereof re­mains; so imagin here that the mysteries are swallowed up in the substance of the body: Therefore when you approach thereunto, think not that you receive the divine body as from man, but fire from the pincers of the Se­raphime which Esau saw; so think that you partake of the divine body, as if you joyned your lips to his pure and spotlesse side.

Confront this with that of Origen in Caep. 15. Matth. As nothing (sayes he) is impure in it selfe, but is made so to the polluted and incredulous, by his own uncleannesse and un­beliefe; so, neither doth that which is sancti­fied by the Word of God and Prayer, in its owne nature sanctifie him that useth it. And for as much as belongs to that eating, we are neither defrauded of any good by the not eating, nor enricht with any good by the ea­ting of the sanctified bread, which for as much as it hath of materials, goes into the belly, & the privy, but becomes usefull and ef­fectuall according to the proportion of faith, making the soule perspicatious and conside­rate of what is profitable.

Lastly to conclude this point, let me set be­fore you, Macarius Homil. 17. and Theophy­lact, more remote from one another in this article of faith, then in the times wherein they lived: Macarius telling us that we offer bread and wine the [...] of his flesh and blood, and they which are partakers of the visible bread, do eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually. And Theophylact teaching the directly contra­ry doctrin upon the 6. of Saint John: Note here (saies he) that the bread which we eat in the mysteries, is not [...] of the Lords flesh, but the very flesh of the Lord; and let no body be troubled, that the bread should be believed flesh, since the bread which he did eate when he walked here, was altered into his body, and made the same with his holy flesh; so would the wafer be turned in­to his flesh, if Christ as man did eat it, will the veryest Sacramentary say.

I have insisted the longer upon this particu­lar, as conceiving it the highest point of all our controversies, and wherein the Fathers should have most obliged us, had they left to posteritie a right and unanimous intelli­gence, of that great mysterie of the Eucharist: But the certainest conclusion I can draw from them in this and the rest, is of the uncertain­ty of concluding any thing in our differences, from those that differ so much amongst them­selves. [Page 39] Justin Martyr in Orat. cohort. ad Gent. [...]. He should have my vote for a rare Musitian that could contrive those their discords into a Harmony, fit to be the measure either of our practise or belief.

My next Reason is, the Fathers variance from themselves, a quality of much more preju­dice to them then the other: for upon contra­diction of testimonies, how point-blank soever a Judg may fall to examine the fame and repu­ted integrity of the witnesses, in which if he find a difference, he will not stick many times to pronounce a sentence according to the intire credit of the men; but who will ever give judgement upon ones evidence who in the same businesse is found in contrary tales? And here I could run over most of the materialest points wherein I made my former instances, and produce almost out of every Father pro & con examples, not onely of variance, but al­most of as eminent contradiction as that of St. Augustine concerning Purgatory, in Serm. 232. de Tempore, where he flatly denies that there is any third place besides Heaven and Hell, calling them deceivers that teach it. And likewise in his 21. Book de Civitate Dei, [Page 40]cap. 16. where he absolutely rejects the opi­nion of any Purgatory flames before the day of Judgement, to another passage in Cap. 24. of Lib. 21. de Civitate Dei, where he seemes positively to affirm i [...] himselfe: but I forbear, in regard it would be tedious, and likewise for that I am unwilling to presse a point of dero­gation from those holy Fathers (whom I reve­rence) further then I needs must, it being suf­ficient for what I intend to inferre, that they appeare oftentimes to vary from their owne positions in divers Articles that we dispute of, and others fully as important; in which I may be well excused from the trouble to us both of alledging examples, since Genebrard and Pamelius thought it their best course to purge, the one (Origen) the other (Tertulli­an) from grosse and impious errour in many places, by shewing how they teach the cleane contrary in others, though by the way I must needs say, that Pamelius his manner appeares to be very extravagant; for as to some poyso­nous doctrines of Tertullian, a Montanist, he rightly applies a cure from some other passage of Tertullian a Catholick; so at other times, to what hee thought venemous in Tertullian a Catholick; he preposterously prescribes an Antitidote out of Tertullian an Heretick, as you may see in the eighth of his Paradoxes, where he confutes an errour in his Apologe­tique, [Page 41]and de Testimonio Animae, Bookes which that Father wrote being a Catholicke, with a passage of his Book de Anima, compo­sed when he was turned Cataphrygian; and yet who so forward as Pamelius, when any passage in such bookes makes for us to cry, out away with it, 'twas a saying of Tertullian a Montanist: I may well help my cause the best I can, by this unsetlednesse of the Fathers, since the noblest pillar of the Roman Church, Cardinall Peron, so often wrests their variance from themselves so much to the advantage of his. See how in his reply to King James, p. 374. he makes bold with Gregory the Great, with Ruffinus, with Jerome touching the Mac­cabees reception into the Canon; wherein I doe not think him more in the wrong in the particular, then I believe him right in the ge­nerall, (to wit) that the Fathers did often vary their opinions, according to their severall greenness or maturity of studies, from whence Vincentius Lyrenensis his directions will fol­low, cont. haeres. c. 39. That the Fathers depo­sitions are onely to be taken who living in the Catholick Faith and Communion holily and wisely, did constantly teach and persist even untill their death in Christ, and further such only as did receive, preserve, and deliver their doctrines all or the greatest part, manifest­ly, and in one and the same sense; wherein [Page 42]what use soever some Papists make of that passage, I professe I thinke we are somewhat lesse beholding to him for the certainty of a rule and evidence to guide our faith by, then to Archimedes for his Engine to remove the World: For the Mathematitian dis­abuses us, and declares that there is not a solid place to be found wheron to fix his instrument, but th'other leaves us to that vain search of an impossibility; for truly as the case stands, I cannot think it less then an impossibility to know (with any competent assurance) what (in all or almost any of our debated questi­ons) the Fathers hold with all those solid circumstances whereon Vincentius his rule is grounded, of holiness, wisdom, catholickness, immutability of the teachers, and perpetual identitie of the doctrins sense, if with years they all improved, I might be comforted a little by relying on their last dictamens; but as I find a S. Augustin that with age retracted his errors, so on the other side I meet with a Tertullian that going forward in years and ex­perience, went less in his judgement; how happie should we both be in one, that could assure us in the Legion of Fathers, when was the verticle point of each their eru­dition, whether at their summer or winter solstice; if I give you the notes of it, and tell you then only you have it certain, when they [Page 43]are in a perfect and palpable conjunction with Scripture, you will think it but an imperfect indication; if you say that then they were ariv'd to the high point of their perfection, when they were once exactly instructed in the full sence of the Church, I must not admit of that marke whilst you are proving the Churches receptions by theirs; and therefore if you please, let us both agree, that for either of us there is no resolving evidence to be taken from the Fathers, that are so irresolute themselves; when you meet with a passage in any of them that stands not with your be­lief, conceive their judgement not ripe, or rot­ten, when they writ it, or that their recan­tations are lost, the same liberty shall I take in mine; for truly had Saint Austins ad­mirable monument of humble ingenuity (as well as high erudition) his Retractations pe­rished as Origens, which as Saint Ierome saith, he had made in an Epistle to Fa­bian Bishop of Rome, Epist. 65. ad Pamach, et Occan. did before him, Saint Austin might perhaps have had a place in some others Catalogue of heretiques, as well as Saint Origen in his; And truly who can secure us that the like mis­hap hath not befallen others of the Fathers, now taxable with erronious doctrins, by the loss perhaps of some after-survey of their own works?

My Third consideration is of the Fathers variousness and repugnancies to the Govern­ment, practise, and belief, of both the Romish Church and ours: In which I have prevent­ed the need of examples by many of the in­stances, both of my former Letter and this, as that of the equalitie of Bishops & Presbyters, that of rebaptizing, that of Angels, that of the Millenaries, &c. to which I will lonly adde, that which so many, and most particularly S. Austin delivers of the necessity of childrens partak­ing of the Eucharist, and his rigor against in­fants unbaptized; some of which I take to be beames, all more then motes, fit to be remo­ved out of their eyes, before we can with rea­son resigne up our own sences to their gui­dance and manuduction.

My Fourth concluding reason, is, the want of ability in many of the Fathers, in most of will to determine the points of controversie, and this I hope I may safely affirm without wrong, either to their abilities or good wills. A general and potential ability to resolve dif­ficulties every strong reason includes, if in the particulars wherein it should be brought forth unto act, there concur (upon proposal) meanes of informing ones self, and a will to use it: Such an ability those learned Fathers (rich in all the choyce endowments of soule) had in most singular eminence, and as it were [Page 45]madness to rob them of those, so I think it is neither Logicall, nor prudential, because they were knowing in the general, to attribute to them an actual ability to discern such particu­lar questions, wherein it is so farr from appea­ring that they had the means of informing themselves, or the will to use them, that I see no signes that in their ages they were ever in proposal; such and so farr from agitation or controversie (the parents that give life and act to particular abilities) were, as I am per­swaded, in the primitive times the doctrins of infallibility annexed to a Church of any one denomination, of adoring the Eucharist for God, of Purgatory with its complements, of Indulgences, and many other choice points of our controversies; All which I profess ap­pear to me as unthought of for the first 500. years after Christ, as the Antipodes, or the Antartique pole to Lactantius, or Justin Martyr, that tooke the heavens to be to the earth but as the flat cover of a box; In these I take it to be of no more derogation from them to deny their deciding abilities, then to say that they were not able to leave to posteri­ty, an exact Mapp of America, which was not discovered in so many hundred years, af­ter: so far is it from an injurious detraction, that to imagin them studious, definitive, or active in questions hardly ever moved, that [Page 46]had neither profest maintainers or impugners, were to imagine them idle, and Ayre-beaters, No marvail that to decide such, they should want wills, having neither means nor occasion to actuate their abilities, or that they should want abilities, having no provocations that might stimulate their wills. Those primitive Champions of the Gospel, the Fathers of the first 400. years, who in this business are most to be consulted with, had their time, their in­dustry, their pens so incessantly exercised a­gainst the common enemie of Christ, the Jews and Gentiles, or else against those heynous he­retiques, that pretended the name of Christi­anity, but tended to the utter subversion of it, as the Ebionites, the Samosaterians Gno­stiques, the Marcionists, and divers other blasphemous or Chimerical innovators, that they had little leasure to raise to themselves imaginarie enemies to combate with in such slight and trivial points as these we dispute of; or if perchance any such were presented, little care to subdue them. But that I may not be thought to frame a discourse upon two false suppositions: The one that our con­troverted points are of articles of Religion, lit­tle material; the other, that in the primitive times there were few of them in agitation, or neglected, if they were, let me tell you what induceth me to think so.

For the first, that they were in themselves little material, or at least thought so by the Fa­thers (which is all one for our purpose) though now I confess grown highly important by be­ing injoyned many of them under the paine of Anathema's, to be believed as essential to salvation) I collect out of a survey of all those Antient, yea and more modern rolls (where it is likely all necessary points of faith or pra­ctice would be recorded) where finding no newes at all of them, I think I may safely con­clude them but slight in comparison of what I finde there registred.

The first and prime inducement to me is, that I meet with them no where in Scripture; but this is none to you who do not allow that to be the perfect reconditory of all necessary Doctrines The next is, that in the Fathers several Catalogues of Hereticks, as that of Philastrius, Epiphanius, and S. Austin, I finde none branded with Heresie, for not holding those Articles imposed on mens beliefs by the Church of Rome, and rejected by ours, whose note it is not likely such would have e­scaped, as had impugned any doctrines believed by them necessary to savlation: But to this perhaps you will say, that the denomination of Heretick was not incurred by the opini­ons that men held, but by their obstinate per­sisting in such after the Churches manifests a­gainst [Page 48]them, and that upon this reason divers who beleeved not all things necessary, might well miss a place in their denumeration of He­reticks; wherefore setting these two aside, be­cause though of much force with me, yet likely to be invalide with you, I onely press upon your consideration my last, and I think, undeniable reason, taken from the non-ap­pearance of such articles in those several pieces; wherein the Fathers of set purpose and designe professedly do set down all the es­sential doctrines of Christianity agreed upon throughout the Church universal: Such were their Symboles, such Irenaeus his unity of Faith, in lib. 1. cap. 2. such Origens intro­duction to his book de principiis, such Ter­tullians rule of Faith in his prescription a­gainst Hereticks, such Epiphanius his conclu­sion of his work, which he calls the settlement of truth & assurance of immortality; such like­wise (to fit you with some of all ages) was that work of Gennadius (written within these two hundred years) De rectâ Christianorum Fide: I will not say in some of which, but in all which together, there is not one Article of Faith received by the Church of Rome, and rejected by us, so much as mentioned, save only in Epiphanius of Christs discent into Hel; a Point variously and uncertainly understood among the Fathers; as shall in another place be demonstrated.

Now for farther proof of the little agitation or great neglect of our controverted points in the Primitive times (although it will follow of consequence to what hath been allready al­ledged) yet I beseech you let me appeal to your own observation: Do you know of any of the Fathers for the first four hundred years that hath purposely and of designe composed the least Treatise of any one of our questions? or in some other tract handled them so much as in a formal digestion? Inform me I beseech you; for I profess all the works that ever I have met with of them, appear to have been wholy directed either to deride the Pagans, to con­fute Philosophers, to convince the Jewes, to confound prodigious Heresies, or deliver pre­cepts of good life, or else to expound some passages of Scripture most useful to the same ends: These appear to me to have been the sole objects both of their wills and abilities to combate: And shall we venture to give sen­tence in our intricate disputes upon words or passages, that by the by may seem to con­cern them, either casually let fall, or directed to other purposes, in most of which in my con­science we finde our own opinions as rational­ly, as Whittington his turn Lord Major of Lon­don in the ring of bells, or some melancholy Lover his Mistrisses picture in the graine of Wainscote, and their intentions as rightly as [Page 50] Eudocia, Homers, and another Virgils, when they made him Evangelize; so little do I re­gard what they say in this our case; but to their silence I attribute much, and think it strongly expressive, but nothing to the advan­tage of those that impose for necessary Articles of Faith, Doctrines that those renowned O­racles of the Church, either never heard of, or thought not worth their mentioning.

Thus noble Cousin, I have laid before you the principal reasons that led me to deny the Fathers Testimonies to have such a validity whereon we may justly pass a verdict in our questions of Religion; which I beseech you, not to take as meant in a way of further dero­gation from them then in those very particu­lars; for there is no man living that in the ge­neral payes them more reverence then my self in the highest admiration of their erudition and piety. And therefore where I have mark'd out their heates against one another, and con­tradictions; let them be understood to have sprung from holy fervor and zeal in whatso­ever they were for the time perswaded was good and true: when I note their variance from themselves, let it recommend their inge­nuity that would so clearly avow their own fallibility: when I tax them for dissenting from us all in this age, (although S. Austin when the Donatists press him with antiquity, [Page 51]sticks not to say that the younger Doctors are sharper sighted) yet let not my words be dri­ven farther then this modest (since you so call it) flattery to our selves, not of seeing clearer or sharper then they, but onely (by their helps) further, as dwarfs upon Gyants shoulders: And lastly, when I deny them the ability to determine our points of contro­versies let it be of no more derogation from their learning and judgement, then it were of lessening to an Ambassador, or of flattery to his followers, to say, that at a publike audi­ence some of them could give a good account of the things in the lower end of the room, when he himself could say little or nothing of them, having onely past them by, with his at­tentions intirely fixt upon the higher and more noble objects.

These were the Considerations that possest me when I wrote my former Letter; although I had then the leisure but to point at a few of them, (and since I cannot speak to you but with truth and freedom) I must here profess they remain in full force with me still, your Letter having given me great contentment, but little satisfaction; for I can by no means yeeld, that there is any Assurance, much less infalli­bility in the Rule which you at the first prescri­bed, and still insist on, of judging our Contro­versies by the Fathers; namely, to use our li­berty [Page 52]of reason only in what they teach of themselves, with confirmations out of Scrip­ture, or probable Arguments; but to resign it up in an entire and implicite Assent, to what they tell us they were taught, and deliver to us as delivered to them for the received sense of the Church; which is to be understood (you say) not only when they use these formall po­sitive Words, That the Church hath received from the Apostles, and holdeth generally such and such a Doctrine; but at other times also, when they do but intimate it in their Discour­ses, (where by the way I must needs tell you, I ever thought intimations likelyer to beget Disputes then to end them.) If in this positive Rule you reserve a Liberty to except some par­ticulars so delivered, or some Catholick Fa­thers so delivering them; Then without more adoe it is evident that this Way, nothing can be decided; for your Adversaries will claim (in what thwarts them) the like liberty of excep­ting. If you lay the Rule absolutely generall, to wit, that what Article soever is delivered directly, or by imtimation from the Fathers, to have been a received Doctrine of the Church, ought to be swallowed for an infallible verity, it will easily be made appear, that this method must betray you, not only into some Protestant Tenents, but also into Beliefs on both sides con­fessed to be erroneous: It must draw you to be [Page 53]a Millenary, it must draw you to hold a neces­sity of Childrens partaking the Eucharist; it must draw you to abhorr that use of Images as Idolatrous; and finally, it must force you to reject out of the Canon those Books which we esteem Apochryphall; for all these doe the Fathers deliver, with somewhat more then intimations that they were taught to them, as derived from the Apostles, and from generall receptions of the Catholique Church.

First, for the doctrine of the Millenaries, I conceive you make a right judgement of the originall thereof from Papias, whom St. Je­rome (the best Critick in Ecclesiasticall Anti­quity) sayes to have been the first Authour of it; which error it is probable the said Papias ran into, either by a flattery to win upon the Jewes, or else, as you say, by the grosse under­standing of a Text in the twentieth of the A­pocalypse, himselfe being one but of a dull and easie spirit, which being taken from him by those that reverenced the antiquity and piety of the man, was delivered with recommendati­on to their successors, and so took possession of most of the Doctors of the following Ages. As for that of Cerinthus, I believe with Sex­tus Senensis, that it was a distinct heresie, which fed carnall men with hopes of beastly and sensuall delights: for it is not likely that a doctrine taken from such an arch Heretick as [Page 54] Cerinthus, could have found such reception among the Catholick Fathers; and least of all is it probable, that Cerinthus could have fathe­red it upon St. John, whom the Apostle is said to have detested so much, that Iraeneus, lib. 3. cap. 3. advers. haeres. (a chiefe Champion of the Millenaries) in that very Chapter where (as you say) he reckons up the successions of Bishops in divers Churches, relates, that when St. John was entring into a Bath where Cerinthus washed himselfe, St. John no sooner saw him, but he stept back, crying out, Let us forsake the place, lest that enemy of truth draw down the house upon our heads: a fit Authour for so foule a Doctrine, but one very unlikely to be believed acquainted with Christs whispers to St. John. But as this enor­mous part which passes also with most under the name of Millenaries heresie, was gene­rally condemned: so the other more spiritu­all of Papias, was and is farre from being ap­proved at this day, either by your Church or ours, much more from finding so firm and en­tire assent as you will be obliged to give it by your rule of swallowing for unquestionable and infallible what doctrine soever the Fa­thers deliver as taught unto them, and to be the generall sense of the Christian Church in their times: And for proofe that it was deli­vered for such by Papias (who gloried in no­thing [Page 55]more then in being a carefull collector of the doctrines taught by the Apostles viva voce) I referre you nlyto Nicephorus Ca­listus Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 20.

That Justine Martyr p. 307. delivered it for such a passage in his Dial. with Tryphon, will easily testifie, where he saith, that he, and all in all parts orthodox Christians held it, and calls them Christians onely in name, with many other circumstances of aggravation, that denied it. It is true (as you say) hee confesses a little before, that some good and honest Chri­stians did not acknowledge it; but this may be an argument how carelesse, and oftentimes repugnant to themselves some of the Fathers were in their writings, or else how little scru­pulous of setting to doubtfull doctrines that seale which you account so sacred; but it can no way salve him from having taught it with those circumstances which you esteeme the notes of infallibility. That Iraeneus took it and taught it to be of tradition from Christ, I think is so manifest, that it were superfluous to insist upon particular passages in that Au­thour.

And lastly, to omit Tertullian, and others, who clearly (me thinks) imply as much, though not in the very terms. What can ex­presse more a doctrine rightly delivered, and generally received, then Lactantius, lib. 7. In­stitut. [Page 56]c. 26. his conclusion of his long dis­course upon this subject; haec est doctrina san­ctorum Prophetarum, quam Christiani sequi­mur, hoc est Christiana sapientia.

Secondly, For the necessity of chil­drens partaking of the Eucharist, although the evident practise of the Church for the first six hundred years, according to all our records of antiquity, might excuse me from proving by any particular instance, that some of the Fathers taught the necessity of it for a re­ceived tradition; yet take this of St. Austin lib. 1. de peccat. mer. & remiss. c. 24. rightly (saith he) do the Punick Christians call Bap­tisme by no other names but health and safe­ty; nor the Sacraments of Christs body by no other then life, unde nisi ex antiquâ, ut ex­istimo, et Apostolica traditione qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum et participationem Dominicae mensae, non solum non ad Regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem et vi­tam aeternam posse quemquam hominum per­venire. So direct a passage, that I see not how in this point you can avoid the necessity either of retracting your rule of assurance, or of in­curring an Anathema of the Councel of Trent, Sess. 21. cap. 4. Can. 4. against any that should hold this very opinion which you finde so de­livered, and so Majestically sealed by Saint Austin.

Tertul. lib. de I­dololatria, Orig. lib. 7. Cont. Cels. Arnob. lib. 6. Lactan. lib. 2. cap. ult. Epi­han. Ep. ad Johan. Hierosol. inter oper. Hier. Epist. 60. Ambr. de suga. Secul. cap. 5. August. de fide cap. 7. Thirdly, for the use of Images (a point likewise of my former letter) to which you say that the Fathers do not use the Authority or Tradition of the Church to beat it down, I am confident you will confess that affirmation a slip of observation or memory, when you shall but cast your Eyes up­on those passages of the Fathers for brevity sake quoted onely in the Margin; where doubtless in some at least you will finde the interdiction of them so deeply stampt with your supposed great seal of Christianity, that if you stick to your own rule, it will not be enough to speak indifferently of the matter with the Moderator on your side, but you must be as rigid and severe against them as you can imagine any warm brother would be at E­denbourgh; for I do not think any Zealot of them all can be more invective in this point then most of those Fathers were, many to the abhorring of the very Trade of Imagery; but because you do insist somewhat upon justifica­tion of the contrary practise at this day in the Romish Church, I must beg leave to run over your Allegations, and to acquaint you freely how unsatisfied I am in the particulars.

In the first place you evade the Autho­rity of the Primitive Fathers, voucht formerly [Page 58]by me, namely, of Justine and Tertullian, by saying, In regard that Idolatry was then fresh in the memory and practice of the world, they might well think it dangerous to ad­mit that which the following Governours of the Church might afterwards introduce up­on a good ground of raising devotion in the people, since things of that nature, you say, may be convenient at one time, and unfit at another.

And in the next, you labour to justifie the use of Images now, by saying, First, that as strong Arguments, and as pregnant passages of Scripture are produced for it, as formerly a­gainst it. Secondly, by alledging that these times are secure from the danger of Idolatry, And lastly, by affirming that a great good ap­peares in them.

To your infirming of those Ancient Au­thorities in this point, it will be sufficient to put you in minde, that divers of the more mo­dern Fathers farr enough removed from the vicinity of Paganism after Christianity had taken possession of the world, were as perem­ptory Iconoclasts as those two I pitcht upon. And for the variance of practice upon variance of times, your reason might hold, had they con­demned the Religious use of Images onely as inconvenient, and not as in its own Nature unlawfull, but what's simply unlawfull at one [Page 59]time, cannot be lawfull at another, without a precept from God (which you say) in your first words upon this subject, You did not be­leeve to have been given herein.

To your first justification of this Practise, I must needs say, that for the strong Arguments for it, to which I am yet a stranger, I should be glad to be acquainted with them, but for the Texts of Scripture so pregnant as you speak of, truly I should be sorry to meet with them, for although where I finde in holy Writt ap­pearing repugnances, and difficult intricacies, I am as apt as any body (having perhaps most reason for it of any) to accuse my own ig­norance, and to preserve all veneration to what I finde there; yet I confess it would trouble me much, and be of dangerous temptation, should I meet with a passage in the sacred volumne, as palpably direct for the use of Images, as I am sure the second Commande­ment is against it.

For your Second Allegation, that these times are secure from the danger of Idolatry, some proofs would be necessary, since I am farr from understanding them to be so; were that sinne committed then only when the outward or inward act of veneration ac­companied with that belief, and reliance which belongs to the Creator is exhibited to, and terminated in the creature, I should then [Page 60]be of your opinion, and pronounce these times in little danger of Idolatry; but with­all, my vote should also go to acquit all ages from the Crime, as well as the present. For I do not think that the fowlest Idolaters of the Heathen ever arrived to that height of stupidity, as to take those low and materiall objects of their devotion for God Almighty: Nay, the more bestiall their Idolatry was, as of the Aegyptians and Romans, in worshiping the vilest creatures, the lesse probability is there that they conceived the essence of the Deity to dwell under those contemptible forms that they adored; as I think the Jewes little guilty of believing that the Calfe which they had made of their ear-rings, though seem­ingly deified by their veneration, was the great God that hath wrought his wonders among them: but since it is as formal idolatry to frame to ones selfe, out of low, limited & corruptible formes, resemblances of the incomprehensible Deity, and to impart to them any kinde of divine honour, whether you please to call them of adoration, of service, or of pious re­ligion, since to worship the true God after an unfitting manner, involves men as well in this sin, as the service of a false God: since (I say) these practises as well as the other, amount to Idolatry; yea such, as for my part, I believe the Jews & Pagans were rarely guilty of any [Page 61]greater amidst their highest abominations. I must professe I think the world at present ex­treamly liable to the sin; yea, many of the Ro­mish Church deeply plunged therein by the easie abuse, if not by the single use of Images in their prayers: and this not onely the sim­pler sort, but even the learned Doctors them­selves, if one may believe them of themselves. Thomas of Aquine sayes, Summ. part. 3. quaest. 25. Art. 3. and hath many followers in it, That the same reverence is to be given to the Image of Christ, that is to Christ himselfe; and seeing Christ is adored with the adorati­on of Latria, that his Image also is to be ado­red with the adoration of Latria; so farre is that great Doctor and his Sectators transpor­ted, whom I doe chuse much rather to brand with the imputation of Idolatry, then many others of his own side, as learned, that im­pugne his doctrine with sacriledge; there be­ing, as I conceive, no medium between those two impieties, where one denies adoration of the highest kinde, to that unto which another payes it.

Thirdly, for the great good which you say appeares in the use of Images; I am perswa­ded it doth but appeare: it is pretended they help the memory, and excite devotion in the people. If by aids of memory, be understood onely in the generall, that the lively represen­tation [Page 62]of some holy Historie, is likely to call better thoughts into our mindes then a pro­phaner; I like it well; by the same reason that the coursest picture of CHRIST cru­cified, ought in a good Christians Cabinet to take the wall of a Venus of Titian; the one being apt to mortifie us through the same sense whereby the other may inflame us: but if by the help of memory any thing be meant of more particular assistance in the directing of our prayers, I think Images doe just as much good in that point, as the art of memory would doe to your excellent naturall one, that is, help to dizzy and distract it: Or if by excitement to devotion, be meant any particular stimula­tion and guidance to the rightest way of true devotion, or furnishing us with a proper means of addressing it to the right and origi­nall object, I conceive them then so far from being of good use in this kinde, that I hold their very stimulations to devotion dangerous, they excite, they warm the zeale of the igno­rant, 'tis true, but with those strange fires that caused such combustions in Israel, whilst so many (as Gul. Pariensis de Legibus cap. 23. confesses) not distinguishing between the I­mage and the thing, adore the picture in stead of what it represents; wherein farre lesse sinful were a luke-warm piety rightly applied, then the ardentest devotion misdirected, by how [Page 63]much sins of omission are more pardonable then of act, and to worship the true God lesse intensly, then to serve a false one zealous­ly. Of this danger there cannot be a better witnesse, for all his mincing of the matter, then Gregory the great (in his Epistle to Cirenus Bishop of Marcelles, in which that passage is which you cite) who there adviseth the Bi­shop to excuse to his flock the breaking down of Images in the Church, by alledging that he was forc'd to that Act by the peoples abusing that to adoration, which was erected onely for instruction of the ignorant and illiterate in matter of history. The Bishop truly was be­holding unto him, for furnishing him with such an excuse, which might serve to justifie all the fiercest Iconoclasts, since all the good that imagination can present in the use of Ima­ges throughout the whole Universe, cannot amount to recompence the mischiefe of one poore soules betraying to Idolatry.

For my part I doe conceive, that good use might be made of holy pictures, but hardly by the vulgar, which makes me wonder at that saying of Gregory which you glance at, where­in he seems to adapt them to the ignorant, sti­ling them the books of the unlettered: For besides the small Divinity (me thinks there is so little Philosophy) in the saying; Books tru­ly they may be for such Ignoramuses as can­not [Page 64]read and will not heare, wherein they may perhaps learn matters of fact (as some children that have an aversion from their bookes, are taught their letters in Dice) but are very unlikely to profit in any right devo­tion; had he appropriated the use of Images solely to the most knowing and speculative, it would have been more tollerable: such per­haps one might believe likely from materiall and sensible representments to raise spirituall meditations surpassing sense; and by the greater livelihood and glory of the object, to perfect the more, and purifie their abstraction from all servile dependance on materiality; some such extaticall Contemplator as Diony­sius that beares the name of the Areopagite (a notable Disciple I am sure of Plato's, what ever he was of Pauls) might perchance have an Art of erecting his soule by Images, to some admirable intelligence of the true one onely to be adored. If they were hideous and defor­med, he could inform you that the properest presentation of invisible things to sense, is by the unlikeliest representations; and that in their con [...]emplation our soule is more elevated by Dionys Arcop. de Caelest. Hie­rarch. cap. 2. disagreeing Images, then by resembling ones. And therefore that the Celestiall na­tures are exprest unto us usually in Scriptures by such Images as are irreconcile­able [Page 65]with the Originals they signifie, as of Ea­gles, Lions, Bulls, &c. to which I will be bold only to say this, that I beleeve more would have assented to his speculatiō, I am sure more would have understood it, had he inferred, that since God was pleased to paint out himself & his mi­nistring spirits in such incompatible Images, we should not attempt the making such represen­tations as we doe of those incomprehensible forms. If the Images were of sweet proportion & luster, he would finde perchance a way in his negative Divinity, the more beauteous they were, to attribute the more to those celestiall natures, by Dionys. Arcop. de Div. nom. c. 13. & de Myst. Theo­log. c. 2. removing from the splendidst glories of the sense, all capacity of proportiō with their spirituall perfection; such uses as these of Images, might perhaps be credible with the Pere Golu of a Dionysius in his rap­tures, who could fancy to himselfe all the cere­monies of the Church, and the formal and ma­jestick divisions of our Temples, after the man­ner of that at Jerusalem, before that our re­ligion had any but private houses, or barnes; who could perform religious visits to the body of the virgin Mary, either foure yeares after she was dead, or as many before himself was a Christian, for else his Ecclesiasticall Hierar­chy, and his Epistle to Policarp cannot stand with Chronology. But to conceive that the [Page 66]vulgar, the ignorant, such whose souls are im­merst (as you say) in the saeculence of matter, such as Mahomet fitted his law to, the multi­tude, to whom as Avicenna sayes in his book de Almahad their Prophet, was fain to pro­mise a heaven proportionable to their soules, all of sensuality, sweets to be tasted, beauties visible, delights palpable, such who to abstract from matter, and to conceive any thing of in­corporeall natures, had need be raised by some rarer Art then Amphibions Mathema­tickes, which because they partake of both Natures, of the one in their inherence, of the other in consideration; are called by Pro­clus, the bridge and ladder to pure and com­pleat abstractions; such in whom Tertullians saying erroneous in the generall, is verified in their particular, Anima animae sensus est. To prescribe I say, that such should be taught, as Gregory saith the ignorant ought to be by I­mages, whom to adore (he being infinite and invisible) or how to adore (since that must be free and spiritually) by fixing and fastning them upon visible, finite, corporeall and engaging objects of the sense, appeares to me as judici­ous a course, as if a Pilot should cast an An­chor that his ship might saile the faster. Let me period this question with a much more divine, as well as more Platonicke sentence of Clemens of Alexandria, All sorts of Images [Page 67](sayes he) are directly forbidden by Moses, [...].

Now lastly, for conclusion of this part of my discourse, to shew, that according to your Rule, you must reject out of the Canon those bookes which we esteeme Apocryphall, I need no other proofs then that of Praef. in lib. Solo. Epist. 115. Jerom, Judith (saith he) Tobiae & Macca­baeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit, added unto that of Ruffinus (his great adversary in other things) in his exposi­tion of the Apostles Creed, so solemne a pas­sage, and alone so sufficient, as being most emi­nently signalized with all your circumstances of infallibility, that I cannot forbeare setting it down at large: Ideo (saith he) quae sunt novi & veteris Testamenti volumina quae secundum majorem traditionem per ipsum Spiritum san­ctum inspirata creduntur, & Ecclesiae Christi tradita, competens videtur, in hoc loco eviden­ti numero sicut ex patrum monumentis accepi­mus designare. And accordingly he denume­rates onely those bookes received by us for Canonicall, and goes on, Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt ex quibus Fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt: scien­dum [Page 68]tamen est quod & alii qui non Canonici, sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt: and reckons up all those which we reject; and thus concludes, Haec nobis à patribus, ut dixi, tradita opportunum visum est hoc in loco desig­nare ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi Ecclesiae ac Fidei elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda sint pocula. Should I meet with any Article of the Romish Church signalized, as I said be­fore, so eminently as this of ours, with all the circumstances, which you count the notes of infallibility; as little as I agree with you in the generall, I confess it would stagger me in the particular: and therefore I doe not see how you can avoid either, the retracting your rule of assurance, or by concurring in this point with us to incurr another heavie Anathema of the Councell of TRENT, Sessione quarta. To these several instances I could add many more as considerable in other points both of Government, Practise, and Belief, but that so redious a recitation would seem a designe to weary as well as convince you: besides that, to destroy the universality of your maxime, and to bring you to exceptions, one pregnant ob­jection is as good as a thousand, and that is all I need to do: For as I said before, if in your positive rule you once take the liberty to ex­cept against particular Doctrines, or particu­lar [Page 69]Fathers delivering them, I may then with out any further proof flatly conclude, that no­thing can be this way concluded, since your adversaries will likewise claim in whatsoever shall thwart them, an equal liberty of ex­cepting.

Now Cousin, give me leave to examine a little neerer, the three grounds whereon you build the pretended certainty of this Method, in resolving your differences out of the Fathers declarations; as I collect your sense they are these. First, That they were faithful Collectors of the general traditions of the Church in their times. Secondly, that they are sincere conveyers of them to us: And Thirdly, that the traditions collected and conveyed by them are infallible. Should I grant them all to be true, it would not follow that they were sufficient, till it did appear (which I think never will, though for the pre­sent we will suppose it) that there were gene­ral traditions preserved in the Church con­cerning all those points which we dispute of; but unless they appear to be true, I am sure they cannot pass for sufficient.

First, That they were faithful Collectors of all the traditions of the Church; where, in faithful, I suppose, you comprise careful & able for in the other single sense of fidelity, faith­ful hath most proper relation to the following [Page 70]condition of Conveyers; industry and ability being as fully requisite in this the Collecting part as integrity: To this I say, that as in one place I have formerly profest how I beleeve them such faithful Collectors of the Churches receptions, that is, careful and able, as well as sincere in many things of greatest importance; so in another, I think, I have said enough whereby to prove it unlikely that in things of less moment, such as our controversies, the Primitive Fathers did applie their care and a­bilities to sound the bottome of them; whe­ther in this way of collecting the traditions of the Church concerning them or any other. Industry requiring alwayes stimulations in the particular businesses, where we are to expect it; and likewise some leasure & remission from o­ther pressing occupations. Both which the Pri­mitive Fathers totally wanted, by little provoca­tion in our cases, and incessant allarms in more weighty ones. So that to your first ground, I will onely make of new this demand: Was the knowledge and Collection of the Chur­ches traditions & receptions easie and evident to all careful investigators, or hard and diffi­cult? If the latter, which I beleeve, since so many circumstances are requisite to the exact knowledge of the Churches traditions; as first certain evidence, what is that Church universal whose traditions are so sacred. Se­condly, [Page 71]a clear and unconfus'd delivery of the same unto them; & lastly, not only an exquisite apprehension of the substance of all the do­ctrines, but a perfect intelligence of the de­grees and necessities either of belief or practise wherein the Church did hold them: if thus hard, I say, and intricate, the Fathers being men, and liable (as you confess) to error, how can we be secured that they did not oftentimes mi­stake them, since it is evident that sometimes they did? If facill and obvious which is likelyest you take them to be, since you prefer them be­fore Scriptures, because that you say is difficult; how comes it that they disagree having a plain easie and infallible Directory, whereby to re­gulate and conform their judgments? And truly Cousin, supposing it such, I know not how to free divers of them that dissent from one a­nother in matters where tradition is vouched from the imputation of stupidity, either in not understanding the common and manifest te­nents of the Church; or of perversness and ma­lice, that knowing them would not own them; but by arguing from their variances that they were not all in all matters of Religion careful Collectors of the Churches traditions; Which, if you once admit, we cannot think to con­clude any thing from the Fathers till some third authority assure us, which of the many (for ought appears to us) of equal abilities [Page 72]and zeal were the careful Collectors, which not; and in what particulars they were so, and in what not.

To your second ground, that they are sincere Conveyers unto us of the traditions of the Church, I say, that to the just title of sincere Conveyers, two conditions are requi­site: the one affirmative, that they should de­liver to us (with all their rights that is, clear­ness, perspicauity & identitie of sense as they received them) all the right traditions of the Church. And that the Fathers are not like­ly to have done this, may be inferred from what hath been said before of their want of care and industry in collecting the Churches sene concerning our affairs, matters being sel­dome right in the second digestion which were not good in the first. The other is negative, that they should not deliver any thing for a tradi­tion of the Church universal, that was not rightly and evidently such. That the Fathers were not Scrupulous in this point, my former instances I conceive have sufficiently evinced. Wherein it is evident with what confidence, to doubtful, yea, and erroneous doctrines that themselves effected, they set this preten­ded great seal of infallibility. Beleeve me, Cousin, that saying of St. Hierom, Ingenium suum facit Ecclesiae Sacramenta, belongs not onely unto Origen; it may without wrong be [Page 73]extended to most of the Fathers that I have been acquainted with. And no marvel that they should sometimes in heat of dispute be transported to vouch for tradition what was not, when so often they swerve from what was apparently the universal receptions of the Church, as hath been made evident by many examples. From which I do not infer that the Fathers had alwayes such erroneous be­liefs as their words would many times import, but onely that it is likely that they (who in heat of dispute, or for some ends which they thought very important, would recede in their expressions from the confest tradition of the Church in such high constitutive points of Christian Religion) would not be scrupulous in the like heats, or upon the like ends to mis­apply the seal of tradition to some points of lesser importance. For though it appear a greater falsehood to set a seal surreptitiously where it belongs not, yet it is neerer to Re­bellion not to conforme to that Authority where the Royal seal is manifestly stamp'd. There hath enough been said to maniest that the Fathers (that would sometimes thus license themselves, be the occasion what it will, and the end how pious soever) cannot pass for Candid or sincere conveyers of all the Chur­ches receptions unto us: and if less punctual in any, sure likeliest in our controverted do­ctrines, [Page 74]which rarely had they the occasion to mention: but as serving to greater ends, there were so many circumstances that might tempt and lead them from the exact punctual­lities of a sincere conveyer, that I am not much scandalized at their prevarication.

You shall finde that where Gregory Neo­ces, Ariensis, said, that the Father and the Son, according to our conceptions were two, but but one in Hypostasis; St. Basil, Ep. 64. p. 849. Tom. 2. excuses him, saying, that it was spoken [...], and that being to perswade a Gentile, he thought it not necessa­ry to be exact in his expressions; and that it may be convenient sometimes to indulge a little, to the use and manner of those one would perswade, that they may not fly back from what is more necessary and seasonable; by which means Gregory, saith he, may have let slip many expressions that Hereticks per­haps will lay hold of for their advantage: like­wise where Dionysius Alexandrinus had sti­led the Son the workmanship of the Father, as the ship to the ship-wright, and many o­ther expressions that no Arian could mend; Athanasius is ready with an Apologie for him, p. 551.552. Tom. 1. de Sent. Dyonis. They were saith he, [...], and are not to be taken maliciously.

If that Thaumaturgus, and that other great pillar of the Church Dionysius did license themselves so far as to let their expressions (by which we are to judge of them, not by what they reserved in their hearts) swerve in so notorious a manner from the most emi­nent tradition of the Church, in such a grand fundamental, were it not irrational in us to expect from them and the rest a pun­ctual transmission of the Churches traditions in all such petty points as most of ours, scarce ever touch'd upon by them, but in the way of those important disputes, which you see warm'd them even to such great oversights? If those two excellent and most zealous of the Fathers, Athanasius and Basil were so for­ward in their excuse, allowing them a liberty both for their policy and passion in dispute to dally with a main tradition, were it not too unjust a rigour in us to brand them with the imputation of falsehood and ignorance; be­cause, forsooth, they deliver us not with an exact fidelity the tradition of the Church in our questions, concerning which it is to be doubted, whether there was any general tra­dition in the Church or no? I profess I am as far from laying so heavy an imputation upon them, either for their negligence herein or falsity, as I am from expecting such a sincere punctuallity, as you promise your self from [Page 76]them. Furthermore, besides the heats, the artifice of Disputes, and desire of victory, which in contestations of great moment might easily through their humane frailty make them strain a Point by the by in some article less dangerous, when from it they may draw con­clusions of great advantage in the main. And besides that, as a great Arch. Bishop of Canterb. Epist. dedic. Prelate lately made the Obser­vation, Men are apt to think that they can never run far enough from what they hate; and so by a very naturall motion runne upon the other extreame, as a Fa­ther that in detestation of Nestorius would confound that heresie by the recepti­ons of the Church, might easily overshoot himself so farr, as to make the Church speak for Eutiches in aversion from Arianism, make the Church speak for Sabellius, and in profligation of the Maniches to shake hands with Pelagius, and so much more because the danger could hardlier be foreseen, they are likely to have tuned the voice of the Church, either to the Romish or Protestant Key, according as either was at the time most opposite to the Adversarie they combated; Besides all these, I am perswaded that many of the Fathers held it a pious fraud to gain the subversion of a great error by sowing a little one, not foreseeing how process of time [Page 77]might improve that to as considerable a mag­nitude: Yea further I beleeve, and Saint Jerome implies little less, Ep. 50. ad Pamach. Com. 2. p. 136. that in the general the Fa­thers when they were in the Lists, held it no matter of conscience, either to affirm for the Churches receptions, some things that they did not think to be so, yea contrary to their knowledge; and to reject others that at ano­ther time they would have admitted, so it were conducible to their victory: And al­though this be a greater, as being a more wil­full unfaithfulness then any other that I have remark'd in them, yet neither for this nor the rest, dare I brand them with those heavy imputations which you seem Jealouss that I tend to: But since I finde that those reverend and holy men do not stick to set the seal of tradition to conceits of their own, and other uncurrent doctrines, I do not fall presently, as you implie one must do of consequence, to lay to their charge impiety and profanation of the divinest Averments. But rather since they make so bold with that seal, to believe that they did not repute it so sacred as you ima­gine, but farr inferior to proofs out of Scri­pture, and to be used freely as a Topick Argu­ment only when they wanted demonstrations from thence; and indeed, throughout my slender reading, I have observed that when [Page 78]they can produce the written word for their opinion, they do rarely insist upon prescripti­on, as pleading Lawyers fly then to presi­dents chiefly when they want a text for their cause; But whereas you say, the foule play would not have scaped their numerous adver­saries note, had they set the sacred Cha­racter to counterfeit Coine; I think so too. But what are we the wiser if their notes scape ours, as needs they must, since of the nume­rous writings of their numerous adversaries, this age I think hath scarce a number. The Governours of the Church in all times have made it one of their chief cares to smother their impious Libells, dictated, as Saint Jerome saies by the spirit of the devill: And however some do alledge, that such suppressions make a cause suspected, for my part I think it (if not abused) both a wise and Religious course, since the scandall and weakning of the weakers faith, which are so many, is much more to be considered and regarded, then the satisfying of the curiosity of the learned, which are so few; it fares with Sabellius, with Manicheus, with Porphirie and the rest of the Heretiques, or enemies of Christ, that live only in the works of their Antagonists, as with Celsus in Origen, and with Arius in Athanasius, and o­thers whose confutations we are to thank; for all we know of their Arguments our Libraries [Page 79]are just as well furnished with them as you may imagine some good Fraters closet in Spain, that hath the Inquisitor for his neigh­bour, is with the workes of Calvin, or Lu­ther, or as the world is likely to be provided of those passages in the Fathers that make for them some ages hence, when time shall have worn out all Editions that are not according to the Index expurgatoricis, of which those I men­tioned in my former Letter, Eusebius, Epipha­nius, and Saint. Austin have not mist their gentle wipe, though you say you have not met in either of them with any Article of Faith that you doe not most intirely assent unto. For my part, I doe not know what you understand by an Article of Faith; but I am sure I have ci­ted out of St. Austin [of the necessity of Chil­drens partaking of the Eucharist] an Article in this discourse, which 'tis evident he held as an Article both of necessary faith and practice, wherein I believe you will refuse to joyne with him. As for Epiphanius his over-sights, I referre you onely to the Jesuit Petavius, and for Eusebius to Cardinall Perron, who casts upon him a trifling aspersion but of Arrianism: or if his authority suffice not, let Jerome (Ep. 65. ad Pamach. & Oc.) be heard, who gives him this good testimony, Impietatis Arrii apertissimus propugnator est.

Now to your third and last ground, That [Page 80]the traditions of the Church are infallible: I say, that in part we agree in this point; for I am perswaded that no man in his right wits will ever deny the firmest assent he hath about him to traditions of the nature which you Character doctrines taught by Christ to his Apostles, and by them preached through the world, and then again delivered to the ensuing ages by them that had these points inculcated in their hearts by the Apostles, & in this manner with care, and every where han­ded over from age to age, which upon parti­cular occasions the Fathers used to summe up and produce against innovators that would make breaches upon the ancient and generally received faith of the Church-Traditions of this nature: Doctrines thus delivered, I say, we agree to be derived from infallible Autho­rity as well as the Scriptures; and it is indiffe­rent unto me, whether I receive the waters of life from the Springs themselves, from the ori­ginall cisternes and conserves into which they did immediarly flow, or else conveyed through Aquiducts at sixteen hundred yeares distance, so I be certain of the stanchnesse and purity of the pipes. That such traditions, and so exactly conveyed there are in the Church, and to which is due, as to the Scripture, from every prudent man (how ever a Sophister may ca­vill) the strongest assent of his soule; we like­wise [Page 81]both agree, such are those fore-named grand fundamentals of Christianity; we agree further, that by tradition we are (as you say) plainly, fully, and practifically taught how to understand Scripture, I mean, in those Funda­mentals. And much more must I agree with you, that the businesse and errand of tradition is to deliver it so unto us, since for my part I hold, that those dignifying circumstances (by which tradition may rightly pretend to be in­fallible) belong onely to such doctrines as are either plainly, or by necessary consequen­ces deducibly coucht in Scripture: in regard of which deductions we agree further, that it cannot be denied, but that it is (as you say) an easier and better rule to guide our understan­dings in the affairs of religion, to use the help of such traditions, then to resort for that end unto Scriptures alone: as to read a book wherein there are difficulties, with a judicious comment, is likely to be more profitable, then onely to peruse the single Text. And this last I assent unto, without admitting of the supposition upon which you inferre it, to wit, that there can by tradition be had a compleat knowledge of all that Christ taught. All this we are of accord in; but what can you infer from hence to the advantage of the Romish cause, since I peremptorily deny that there is such a qualified tradition really belonging to [Page 82]any Tenent of the Church of Rome disapprov­ed by us, or that seale with those quarterings and dignifyings wherewith you blazon it, set by any of the primitive Fathers (which yet were no sufficient warrant) to any doctrine that doth so much as border upon our dis­putes; since then I am sure you directed that part of your Letter to the same purpose that the rest, I must answer what I conceive it tends to, as well as what directly your words beare. And as I have profest wherein we agree; so now I must set down in what and why we dif­fer; concerning these particulars of Tradition and Scripture, There are two principall poynts wherein I dissent from you: First, that in the generall you conceive all Traditions of the Church whatsoever infallible. Secondly, that you hold the Scripture to be no compleat body of Faith, and therefore that we are to give tradition much the preheminency in go­verning the tenour of ours. For the first, namely, that all the traditions of the Church are infallible, I could by one demand (of which is that Church whose traditions are infallible) either bring you to our confession that the true Church is to be known meerly by its con­formity to Scripture in belief and practice, or else into a circle whilst you are forc'd to prove the truth and infallibility of the Church, by her constant reception of those true and in­fallible [Page 83]traditions, whose truth and infallibility you are at the same time proving by the Chur­ches constant receiving them. But I passe it by, because I would not seeme to argue in any wise captiously; and also for that Mr. Chil­lingworth hath already excellently laid open all the intricasies of this labyrinth. And there­fore taking the present Romish Church for that you mean, I proceed to answer your Ar­guments, wherby in your Letter to the Vicoun­tesse of P. to which you referre me, you en­deavour to prove all doctrines of the Church received or delivered by way of tradi­tion, infallible: the chiefe that I finde are in the 12, and 13. conclusions, as you call them, of that treatise; where first, for proof of your as­sertions, that no false doctrine of Faith what­soever can be admitted or creep into the Ca­tholick Church, you say, that whatsoever the present Church beleeveth, as a proposition of faith, is upon this ground, that Christ taught it as such unto the Church he planted himself; a special good ground, and that will soon end all controversies in this matter, if the ground ap­pear to be well grounded; and that the Church of Rome, which you suppose the pre­sent Catholick, do never admit any doctrine of Faith but upon that ground. But first, the ground can never be made good, that what­soever of Faith the Church of Rome teacheth [Page 84]was ab initio so taught by Christ himself. And secondly, I beleeve that the Church of Rome her self doth not alwayes in all that she teaches for a tradition of Faith, suppose that Christ himself did teach the same; for this latter part, I am better perswaded of the mo­desty of the Church of Rome, then to think that she will so much as pretend it, for all her doctrines, as for example, that of communica­ting onely in the bread, is a tradition, for you will not I suppose vouch Scripture for it, un­less you mean to apply to it Christ's prayer that the Cup might be removed; it is a traditi­on of Faith, yea, and I think I may say of ne­cessary faith, for unless the Communicants be­leeve their partaking sufficient, it must needs make that great Sacrament of the Church in­effectual; and yet I do not think that the Church of Rome, or scarce any Jesuite for her, will have the confidence to pretend that Christ himself taught the mutilation, or the belief of one Elements sufficiency, since the contrary practise and belief is so evident for many ages after Christ; and it is so easie to discover the very drie root it self, of the custome to with-hold the cup from the people; The like may be said of other doctrines; Now for proof of the ground it self, that all do­ctrines of Faith whatsoever admitted in the present Church, were so taught by Christ to [Page 85]the Church which he planted himself; you Alledge this argument: The reason why the present Church beleeveth any proposition to be of Faith, is, because the immediate prece­ding Church of the age before delivered it unto her for such, and so you may drive it on (say you) from age to age until you come to the Apostles and Christ; an easie progress; and which, if you remember Mr. White much insisted upon at that time when Mr. Chilling­worth did me the favour to give him a mee­ting for conference at your lodging; although I set a great value upon that Gentlemans lear­ning and fair way of disputation; yet I con­fess his argument hath often made me smile; it did so bring into my head that gallant con­sequence of Charles Thynnes, wherewith all you once made me very merry, by which he undertook to demonstrate, that surely in the world there might be a man so disposed as (having a good rise, and with a convenient ca­reer) to leap at once from England to Rome; for (said he) Bring me the best Jumper you know, and is it not likely that there may be another that you know not, so active as to out­jump him a foot; let him be brought, I hope you will not deny but he may be out-jumpt an Inch: & so by inches & straws-breadths of out­leaping one another, why not to a thousand miles? I dare say, that Mr. Hooper was better [Page 86]satisfied of the corruption of times in his pedi­gree from King Peppin, then I was by that logick of the incorruption of times in his de­duction of all Romish Doctrines from Christ; nor am I yet better satisfied, though I confess by your dwelling on the same Argument, I see plainly, that what may be liable to much slighting, proposed by one man, may be deli­vered with such weight and authority from another, as though it convince not, yet to re­quire a serious pondering and discussion; the scope of your reasoning, as I understand it, is this deduction ad Impossibile: If the present Church (say you) hold a Doctrine of Tradi­tion, it is because all they of the precedent so held it and delivered it; and the reason of the preceding Churches holding it so, is the same relative to all those of the next before, and so on till you come to the first Age of the Church: Now this being so, there cannot be admitted (say you) unto the avowed channell of the Church, any corrupt Rivolet of erroneous Doctrine, unless all they of one Age conspire in an untruth to deceive posterity, which is im­possible. This latter Assertion, which I must confess to be strangely jarring to my sense, is built upon a supposition of the former, which is it self of great ambiguity: For, besides that as I said formerly, I doe not think but that the Church of Rome doth receive some unwritten [Page 87]doctrines for which she dares not pretend to so ancient a pedigree, as to have been handed down to her from the Primitive Church that Christ himself hath planted; I would fain know when the present Church, as you say, holds a thing for such, because (all they) of the precedent age in Christs Church delive­red it to them for such, what is understood by Your (all they) of the Catholick Church in the age precedent; by (all they) cannot be in­tended here, what you say in your eleventh conclusion, namely, that you mean the whole Congregation of the faithful, spread through­out the whole world, for it is a far more evi­dent impossibility, then what you drive unto, that the whole congregation of the faith­ful throughout the world in one age should confer with and teach the whole congregation of the faithful throughout the world in ano­ther: If it be understood by (all they) all the Doctors and Governors of one age, to all the faithful throughout the whole world of a­nother; I think you will finde that likewise to border upon impossibilitie.

By, All they, then, as I conceive must be un­derstood all the Doctors and Governors of the Church in one age, to all the Doctors and Go­vernors of the Church in another; and from them the Doctrines spred among the whole multitudes of the faithful, are said to be the [Page 88]traditions of the Catholick Church: Now this is so narrow a confinement of universallity to the mouthes of the Doctors or Governors of a present Church, that I think it no impossi­lity for all those that have declared themselves in some point, in some age, to have agreed to­gether on the teaching of somewhat more then was true, or at least such a major part of them, as the dissentors may well have bin overborn or supprest; so that the doctrine may with a succeeding age, have past for a tradition generally agreed on; and to such a conspiracy, methinks, they might have been drawn by appearances of good, as well as through ill ends: As for Example. The Do­ctors conceiving that a great restraint might be laid upon ill-livers by Auricular confes­sion (the apprehension of a sensible witnesse being most lively unto them) might have com­plotted to teach the necessity of it to the multitude for an universal tradition, which perhaps they knew not to have been such: and so in other points, as the good or danger might appear more or less to the Governors of the Church: so likewise for worse ends, in point of the Popes Supremacy, it being a Doctrine so essential to the Monarchy of the Church; I beleeve it far from impossible, that in some age all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, that shall be heard, may resolve to [Page 89]teach it to their several Congregations, for universal tradition, since the major part, as a Pope (Aeneas Sylvius) himself confesseth, af­firms that the Pope is above Councels; because he hath so many Bishopricks to bestow, the Councels have none; besides, if your (All they) of a precedent Church of Christ, instructing the present, be reduced to so few as the Do­ctors, that are heard deliver their mindes in any one age, The natural Argument by which you would prove the impossibility of a conspiracy in an untruth, will fall to the ground, since that is built upon a supposition, that those general traditions which cannot be erroneous, because of Humane natures, love of truth are delivered by such a multitude of men as contain in them all the variety of dis­positions and affections incident to the nature of man, which I doubt much whether it can truly be affirmed of all the Christians of the world; I am sure it cannot of the poor num­ber of Doctors and Governors in any one age among them: But to let this supposition pass, supposing that the present Church under­stands what is meant by (All they) of the pre­ceding, though I do not; and that all the pre­sent receives, she receives as delivered to her by all those of the preceding age: let us ex­amine a little that which you inferr upon it, to wit, That this being so, no false proposition [Page 90]of faith, nay (as you say afterwards) no false doctrine whatsoever can be admitted into the Church in any age, unless they of that age do unanimously conspire to deceive their chil­dren and youngers, in telling them they were taught by their Fathers, what indeed they were not; That this is not impossible, since only the Doctors & Pastors of the Church are to be understood by (All they) hath been alrea­dy shown: But is there no other way, say you, but this for falshood to creep into the Church? Truely (me-thinks) on the contrary it is with error and necessary truths, in the body Eccle­siastick, as with life and death in the body natural; And as there is onely one way for life to enter at, but a thousand gates for death, so for necessary truths there is but one ordinary avenne to the Church, namely by Scripture read or taught, but for error to get in at a thousand passages, without supposing such a general conspiracie: For though ma­ny times when an error hath had a long Cur­rent, we cannot point directly at the spring, yet are we ne're a whit less certain that it had an entrance, because we know not at which doore; Nilus hath a head, though Geogra­phers cannot say directly where it is: And lines many times that at first appear parallels to the eie, by that time they have been length­ned a great while, prove apparently uneven, [Page 91]though no man can assigne the point whereat the deflexion began. The doctrine of the Chi­liasts, a doctrine which if any other surely that may well be said to have been a generally received tenent of the Church universal for some ages, since in the whole Church for above 250. years after Christ, there appears not in that point one dissenting vote, till Dionysius of Alexandria oppos'd it; An error 'tis true, and yet I hope you will not be so uncharita­ble, as to accuse all the ancient Fathers of the second Centenary that they complotted to deceive posterity by teaching them a falshood for Apostolique tradition, you are more favo­rable to them then so, in the last part of the Letter, where you your self discover a way how without conspiracy, this error, and so ano­ther, may have overspread the Church by the Authority of one man delivering it for a whi­sper of the Apostles; And truly Cousin, what ever else may be said more probable in the particular, I am confident 'tis most true in the general, that the worke is easie from one man of credits Asseveration, to possess vast Multitudes with firme perswasions of a fals­hood; and more in matters of Religion then in civil things, since in those this pium credere prevailes much, and most will rather take up­on trust what many affirm, and they discern no ill in, then put themselves to the oft-times [Page 92]endless troubles of examining: Credulity be­ing so easie and natural, Disproving so diffi­cult.

I warrant you the Common Faith of Romu­lus Ascent into Heaven, would have had up­on your grounds as rational assertours in the State of Rome, as any tradition by us questi­oned at this day in the sea of Rome: See in that politique invention of Julius Proclus, what power the imagined pietie of one man hath to make a fiction pass for an Epidemicall veritie, which as Tertullian sayes, Apol. cap. 8. Ab uno aliquando principe exorta, exinde in traduces linguarum, & aurium serpat, & ita modici seminis vitium, caetera rumoris ob­scurat, ut nemo recogitet num primum illud os mendatium seminaverit.

The Jewes, a much more numerous multi­tude heretofore, and still I think equal in num­ber to any Christian Church of one denomi­nation, were the most Religious, the most scrupulous conservators of unwritten truths in their Cabala. And yet what an error pos­fesses the whole Nation, and did so long before the curse fell upon them, concerning their Messias; whose coming long before Christ, and since, they all expected and do expect in a temporal kingdome, of which they did de­rive, and do continue to posteritie the hopes by Universal tradition; or if you will say that [Page 93]they build the doctrine, not upon tradition but Scripture; yet I am sure you cannot de­nie but that they continue the interpretation of Scripture that way by tradition, which comes all to one.

Did you grant the possibility of a Multi­tudes Conspiracie, I am sure you would denie it in this, which is confestly the point upon which all of them agree, that their supreme felicitie depended.

It would pass for a very fallacious reaso­ning to drive up this belief to the Patriarkes, and so conclude it infallible, because the pre­sent age received it for a tradition from the preceding; and that from the Antepenul­time and so forward: Or because the instant where the error was admitted amongst them cannot Digito monstrari & dicere hic est. For truly Cousin, partly through a natural desire in all men, that others should think as they do, or do what they think convenient (from whence there springs an aptness in the tea­chers, to applie to their opinions the strong­est Authorities they can devise, whether they do justly belong unto them or no) and partly through an aptness of the ignorant (which are the greatest part of Auditours) to swallow more, and retain better the words, and the outward literal part of what is taught them, then either to examine or hold fast the pre­cise [Page 94]and inward sense; It may well happen that multitudes may mumble the shell, when a few have the kernell; and looking superficially only upon the outward stamp, toss up and down for currant among them counterfeit oft-times and Adulterate Coine; The mis­take is ordinary, and the propagation of the error easie; for instance sake, in the doctrine of praying for the dead, many of the Do­ctors of the Church, who believed that all the souls of the departed were kept in certain receptacles untill the general resurrection, conceiving that prayer for the beatitude of the dead, came all to one with praying for the hastening of Christs Kingdome, might teach it others, thinking, it no prophanation of prayer to imploy that holy Act even where we know it cannot availe, since Christ him­self prayed to have the bitter Cup of his passi­on removed; and all the Doctours gene­rally holding such prayers a convenient te­stimony of charity in the living, whether they were Commemorative, Eucharisticall, or sup­plicatorie, easily might the practice pass into a common doctrine.

Now the word Necessarie being often used for Convenient (as it had need) since under a less pretension then Necessarie, it is hard imposing new duties upon the multitude; And the step being so easie, though so great [Page 95]from necessarie to absolutely necessary, 'tis no marvaile that all or most of the Pastors should have delivered it for such to their Flockes, and applied to it the seale of most Authority with the multitudes, Tradition; and so they have swallowed that according to the expression for a necessary duty, and given it the generall voague of such in the Church, which was farre from being truly so in its first, and after so long a progresse untraceable originals.

So likewise of Christs descent into Hell, con­cerning which I suppose all antiquity agrees in the shell of the Article, Descendit ad Infe­ros (though Ruffinus [in Symb.] says it was left out of the Symbole of the Church of Rome) few of the Fathers in the kernell, or inward sense, that is, what was understood by Infe­ri, and how, and why Christ descended thi­ther. Some taking the Inferi to be a part of Hel, others understanding it with a little more colour of reason, that resting place called A­brahams Bosome, and a part of Heaven. Some thinking, and rightly, as I conceive, that he de­scended virtually onely to triumph over the damned. Others, that locally, yea so farre as to preach in hell, and convert there; such was the extravagant opinion of Clemens of Alex­andria [Strom. lib. 6. p: 639.] one of the lear­nedest of the pack, but all agreeing I say, in [Page 96]this outside, Descendit ad Inferos, or [...]. No marvell that the more grosse and literall sense should be swallowed by the multitude, and gain the name (though an errour) of com­mon reception, handed to them from their Forefathers: so that it may be collected out of what hath been said, that falshoods may creep into the Church either by want of exact fide­lity in the Teachers (which want may be ge­nerall when the collaterall considerations are generall, and the poynts themselves not thought so important as others they serve to:) Or by the frequent misapprehension of the teached, the matter often taking possession of them, when the manner of the doctrine usual­ly most considerable, is either let slip or sup­planted, or else by leisurable, yea and at first insensible mistakes either in Teachers or Lear­ners, which notwithstanding in long progress of time grow manifest and vast, like the eb­bings and flowings of the Sea, which at the end of some houres make so great a difference, when at the brink no man can perceive how much ground each wave doth gain or lose: What then shall those discern that look upon the severall billows at a remote and dazzeling distance? Nor can your arguments taken from humane Natures prime appetence of Truth, serve to conclude an infallibility in whatsoever shal be imbrac'd for a truth by a vast multitude [Page 97]of men of variety of natures, dispositions and interests.

First, because no number whatsoever of Individuals, but that which makes up the uni­versall, can be considered as other then a part, wheras your argument is not colourably appli­ed to lesse then the whole. It is the infrustrable appetence of truth (an appropriate of humane nature in the generall) that you insist upon, which is not made vain by any multitudes (which how great soever is still but a part) en­tertaining of a falshood.

Secondly, because if we admit of your Ar­gument, it will conclude for Heretickes once grown numerous, as the Arrians were, as well as for the best Catholickes, since naturall Ap­petences are not to be suppos'd more frustrate in the one then in the other: Lactantius Divin. Inst. lib. 5. cap. 13. An boni nostri qualitas ex populi poti­us pendebit erroribus quam ex con­scientia nostra & judicio Dei.

Thirdly, because though I grant your Ar­gument, I am never a whit the surer of truth, where I finde many professors of a doctrine held as by tradition, since the prime naturall appetence of truth (whence you draw your ra­tiocination) is to the knowledge of truth, not the teaching of it. Now in our question this is as much or more requisite in the deliverers, then the other in the receivers, since they [Page 98]look no further then the hands they had it from, and to hold fast in truth what they presented them for such, and for so conveyed by their preceders to them.

And lastly, your argumentation cannot be usefull, because you extend it only to prove that multitudes cannot agree together, on an untruth to complot it; whereas to overthrow your imagined infallibility, it is enough that they agree in, or to an untruth to believe it; Between which two there is so great a diffe­rence, that I think the first very improbable, the other very frequent: Nay farther, I do conceive the very frequencie and (if I may so say) aptness in Individuals, whether few or many (which makes a multitude) to be led into errors, to result from mans natural af­fection to truth, which is such and so trans­porting, that we are glad to embrace and hug the very shadowes of it; And being rarely a­ble in our imperfect and deprest condition here, to arive to a solid enjoyment of that prime essence of Intellectual delight, we grow fond of the appearances, and cleave close to what is like it. Mans affection to this tran­scendent, expressing it self after the same man­ner that it usually doth to the other prime fellow appetence of our Nature (good) which our soul here below, interially and naturally aims at in all its pursuances: But the onely [Page 99]true good being too farr elevated for it to a­scend to a full enjoyment thereof, whilst it beares the clogg of flesh upon it, our ardor directs it self to what we think of nearest de­rivation from it. But alas, we misse even of that, and embrace false shadowes for it, easily conceiting any thing the same that's but clad like unto what we love, whilst almost all man­kind courts, pursues and enjoyes what's ill, yet seldome or never, but sub ratione boni. And thus by easily believing what we fain would have, by a naturall passion both to good and truth, we are betraid to a mistaking credulity in both.

Thus Cousin, I have presumed to give you an Answer in my immethodical and unpollisht way, to what I finde repugnant to my under­standing, in the discourse to which you refer'd me for proofe of infallibilitie in all the Tra­ditions of the Church of Rome. To discusse that learned and eloquent Discourse through­out, in any correspondency to its weight and beauty, belongs I consesse to farre greater emi­nence then I have vanity to aim at. And there­fore what I have ventured upon, hath been onely to shew you, that although I am in the highest measure delighted, yea even ravished with that excellent piece, I am nothing a paid therewith in this particular; which may serve for an argument, that goodnesse many times [Page 100]delights the soul in spite of truth, and so proves a transcendent above it. Now that the falli­bility, and consequently the insufficiency of your rule of faith, tradition, hath been made appeare, it will be fit to vindicate the suffici­ency of that rule which we relie upon. In which work the first hinderance that I meet with is this objection of yours, That the par­ticular books of Scripture were written for o­ther particular ends, and not to give us a com­pleat body of faith.

To which I answer, that if by particular books of Scripture you understand each book a part, severed from its relation to the whole, I then agree with you, that every particular book was no more intended for a compleat body of Faith, then every particular Chapter for a compleat body of the book, or then a Win­dow or a Door, to be a compleat body of a House; but as the one was designed to give entrance, the other light to some room or pas­sage of the Edisice; so the several books of Scripture were written; some to give entrance to Christianity; some to illustrate dark pla­ces of the whole; some to inform us of mat­ters of fact, that we might understand in what chiefly to praise God; some to discipline us in matters of practice, that we might know how aptliest to serve and please him: And others to instruct us in matter of belief, that we might [Page 101]learn to relie upon him. But on the other side, if you remit the least of this abstract and Independent consideration of the particular books of Scripture: I must then profess that I stedfastly beleeve that they were all designed to this chief and primary end of composing that compleat body of Faith, whereon Christs perfect Church should be built as certainly as so many several parts of a building having each a particular end, besides of their erecti­on, are yet in the general and main intention all destin'd to the making up of one compleat and intire Fabrick; yea further, (without urging the comparison till it halt) I am per­swaded that as the Master Architect having an Idaea form'd of the whole, directs many a part to the perfection of that, when the subordi­nate workman that frames it thinks of nothing farther then of the peice he is in hand with: So oftentimes the Almighty Architect, when his Ministers perhaps never look'd further then that service in particular, wherein they were imployed, some perhaps in a Gospel, in an Epistle some; he by his infinite Wisdom directed each particular to the making up of the whole and compleat body and rule of Faith, the written Word; which by his ad­mirable providence he hath, and will I am consident ever preserve intire and uncorrupt in all parts necessary to its own perfection [Page 102]and harmony, and to mans eternal safety and direction: Insomuch, that I cannot but think it at the best loss of time, to be solicitous after any other rule; and irreverence, if not impiety, to question the sufficiency of this. But be­cause my opinion is little considerable with one of so far a better Judgment, take in this Point the Opinion of the Fathers, which you so much relie upon. To begin with Tertullian, these are the last words of his 22. Chapter against Hermogines, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina: If it be not written (saith he) let him fear the Woe destin'd to such as shall adde or take away. Can any thing be inferred more rightly then from this passage, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the superfluity of any other rule. But take yet somewhat more direct from Oratio ad Gentiles. towards the beginning. Athanasius. The holy, and from God inspired Scri­ptures (saith he) are [...], of themselves sufficient to the discovery of truth. I appeal to St Basil himself, of all the Fathers the greatest attributer to Tradition in all things wherein regard is justly due unto it. Hear what he sayes, handling a point wherein Scri­pture (I think) is as dark as in any necessary one whatsoever; I mean that of the Trinity: Believe what's writ­ten, (saith Hom. 29. ad­vers. Calum. stan. Trin. page 623. he) what is not written, seek not. And in another place, It [Page 103]is a manifest falling from the Faith (sayes De vera ac Pia side, page 251. he) and an argument of Arro­gance, either to reject any of those things that are written, or to in­troduce any that are not of the written. And lastly, to sum up all that can be said by a Protestant, in one sentence of a Father of greatest Learning and authority: Listen but to St. Augustine, De doctrina Christian. lib. 2. cap. 9. In its quae appertè in Scriptura positasunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi. He had need be a confident Sophister, that would undertake to evade these Authorities; but yet if they may not be admitted, let Scripture be heard for it self: It is a priviledge and preeminence solely peculiar to that sacred Volume to be Witness, Advocate and Judge in its own cause. Surely the Spirit spake in St. Paul, when he told Ti­mothy, That holy Writ was able to make him wise unto salvation, 2 Tim. 3. in fine. And when numbring up almost all the particular parts that can be required to the compleat In­stitution of a Christian, he concludes, that in these by Scripture the man of God is made perfect, and fitted to every good work. And I am confident by the same Spirit he spake his own minde, when he spake ours so directly to the Corinthians, Ʋt dicsatis in nobis supra id quod scriptum est non sapere, Epist. 1. cap. 4. [Page 104]Where by the way it is to be noted, that the Apostle applies this doctrine as an Antidote to that very inconvenience which I have heard some Papists object against the reliance on the search and use of Scripture, namely that by it those of greater capacity were lkely to be blown up, and to glory in their clearer discern­ing over weaker, whereas the guidance of the Church and Tradition was equaller to all. To this I say, 'tis worth observing what he delivers as it were by way of reason, for the contrary Doctrine, to wit of confining our selves to Scripture, [...].

I profess Consin, that these and many other passages of Scripture which for brevities sake I note only in the Deut. cap. 4. & cap. 12. Epist. ad Gal. cap. 1. Margent, pre­nounce to me in as clear a sense as may be the sufficiencie of Scri­pture, and supersluity of relying on tradition for a rule of faith. And yet I sweare I am none of those of whom St. Basil speaks, p. 621. [...].

How they may sound, or what other sense they may bear to you I know not, since now a­dayes Gods Word proves to men of divers o­pinions, as the Apostles language, when the [Page 105]devided tongues had sat upon them in Dr. This was likewise the fantastique o­pinion of the Authour of the book de Spiritu sancto, fathered upon Cyprian. Alabasters conceit to severall Nations at one and the same time, Hebrew to the Jew, pure Greek to the Athenian, and La­tin to the Roman. Lastly, if the Fathers Testimonie may not pre­vaile, they being of an uncertain Authority, nor Scripture swey, as being of an uncertain sence, let common reason be heard in the cause, which for as much as I can judge of, it is as strong for the sufficiencie of Scripture (that is, its containing all points ne­cessarie to salvation) as any prudent man need require for warrant of his belief. It is agreed upon by all sides, that Man being ordained to a supernatural end, nature is not sufficient to lead him thither, but that he must have some meanes above it, and proportionate to the end, such as may either shew him the way, if he can discern, or lead him in it if he be blind, or which is happiest and surest of all, both instruct and conduct him in it. This last kinde of guidance, it were presumption for man to claim, however Gods grace may afford it un­to some. The second, it were stupidity for all to expect, however some have little hopes without it; And therefore it is the first that belongs to man in generall; that is a directory to all those pathes and windings, without the [Page 106]knowledge of which he cannot arrive to his primary end; And by the knowledge of which he may, and is responsible himself if he do not follow the direction; which if God should withhold from us, although I could not ven­ture with some to apply to his Justice that of Pharaoh's requiring brick where he gives no straw, nor to pronounce it a stain to his goodnesse, should he condemn us for mis­sing the way, when he gave us no Map of the Countrey, since to a life actually forfeited as all mans was in Adam, the least reprieve is a grace, a grace to be let row in the Gallies; to him that the Gallowes expected; A grace to take out of the ditch, a man that put out his own eyes, though you leave him to grope out the rest of his journey with perpetuall hazards of falling in againe: I say, though I dare not in this case pronounce the with-holding a directory from us, inconsi­stent with his justice, wisdome or goodnesse, yet truly I think you will yeeld, the man hath not so fitting a belief of Gods mercy & wis­dom as he ought, who conceives that he would suffer those to perish for want of such a neces­sary directory, for whose sake he gave up his own Son to death. Now to suppose such a di­rectory from God, and to think it defective, is again to fall into undue thoughts, either of his mercy or of his power; nay, it is to destroy [Page 107]what you do suppose, since the omission of a­ny thing absolutely necessary in a direction, makes the direction none.

This conclusion then I may safely draw, and I doubt not but with your consent, that the Supernatural Directorie and rule whereby we are through Gods grace and mercy to be instructed in the way to our supernatural end, must needs be compleat and sufficient in all parts absolutely necessary to that end. It on­ly remains then to shew which is that rule and directory sufficient and compleat in all necessa­ry parts: Now as in a journey, directions of the way, how sufficient, how exact soever, will little advance you; unless you beleeve them, or the knowledge of the way, unless you have legs to go, or somewhat else to carry you: so in our Souls progress to beatitude, it must have reliance and its instruments of gradation too, which is Faith, the strongest vehiculum of Hu­manity to Divinity.

Now as I said before, that the means must be proportionate to the end, so it is certain that the way, & the Organs by which we move in it, must be proportionate one to another, or we shall never arrive at our end: As that let all other things be never so well fitted, yet if our way must be thorow the Air or the Sea, good legs or directions will little avail us. The Organ then of our motion to Heaven being [Page 108]Faith, and that Faith the strongest assent of our souls; the ground upon which it must march ought to be no less folid then infallibility, since the strongest Assent cannot be given but upon the strongest inducement: Forasmuch then as particular Tradition, that is the unanimous testimony of any Church, of what numerous parts soever, hath been already concluded fal­lible and universal Tradition, is, as it were, co­incident with Scripture, being only, (as Cle­mens sayes, Strom. lib. 6. p. 679.) as it were, an unwritten Transcript of that in mens hearts, and gives attestation to no materiall Object of Faith, but what is deducible thence. It follows, That Scripture is the ground propor­tioned by unquestionable infallibity to Faith, as correspondent likewise in all things else, both to the goodnes of God that gives the directory & to our necessities that are to follow it. The sufficiency and perfection of Scripture having been shewed, and likewise the defectibility of that kinde of Tradition for whose Authority you labour; The preferring of this latter be­fore the first in governing the Tenure of our Faith, is of consequence such an error as I am sorry should be countenanced by your conti­nuing in it. But because the precedency which you give to the Churches Tradition be­fore Scripture, is pretended due upon another ground also, which I have yet spoke little un­to: [Page 109]give me leave to say somewhat to that. You lay Obscurity to the charge of Scripture; That Articles of Faith are not there so plainly exprest, that every body can understand them. If it were so, truely the Laytie of the Church of Rome is much obliged to it, for easing them of the trouble of reading what is unintelligible unto them; but little beholding unto S. John, for passing for a precept of Christ's, Search the Scriptures. But how shall they take it now, forasmuch as the con­trary to your Assertion, is a manifest Corollary to the proof of Scriptures sufficiencie and perfe­ction? the compleatness of a Rule or Directory consisting as well in its Evidence, as its Fulness; and must need Interpretation, as little as Additi­on. Yet let us grant your supposition a while. Scripture is obscure, you say. What follows? Tradition is to be preferred. Tradition then is easier; Tradition is clear, say you, to the Vul­gar. I should rather think Tradition impossible to be learn'd, since Man can speak but with a few; and millions must make up that; unless you bring all lines that can be drawn from the Circumference, into a Centrical point, the Pope. But you are too much a friend to the Doctors of the Sorbon, to do that. Besides, if you do so, the difficulty will still remain: For here the Rule in Geometry will not hold. The lines drawn back from the Centre to the Circumference, are not equal. Men are not all at an equal distance [Page 110]from him; all cannot hear him: How shall the Vulgar understand him? By their Ghostly Fa­thers? You will not attribute to private men a clearer, fuller, and evidenter capacity to instruct, then the whole Body of Scripture: Or if you do, What are Private Instructions of kin to Tra­ditions?

Thomas of Aquine puts, in this kinde, the highest complement upon Idiots, towards the be­ginning of his first Book adversus Gentiles, by sinking down the learnedst to their level. For he teaches us, I remember, to this effect: That the wisest ought not to embrace by Natural Reason and Discourse any Article in Religion, were it as manifest as that the Whole is bigger then the Part; since there may be one so ignorant, as to have no notion of what the Whole is, or what the Part. And Religion, that imparts all alike, must be grounded (says he) upon some Principle common and equal to all. Herein the Doctor, I must needs say, is rightly Angelique: for he walks to me in the clouds. If he mean, by that Principle Faith, I understand not how that can be severed either from Reason and Discourse, of which it is the last result; or from Grace, which is not common. If he mean, by the Principle, that Tradition of the Church which you relie on, I know not how that can be an easie guidance to the Ignorant, since it is so difficult a matter to the wisest, to know which is the right Church, [Page 111]whose Traditions are so sacred: for unless that appear, neither the Ignorant, nor the Wise, are like to be much satisfied in conscience, by govern­ing the tenour of their Faith according unto them. If we must judge of the Church by Bel­larmine's Marks, in what mis-mazes shall the Ignorant be guided, whilst we finde the most Knowing involved in such intricacies, in the exa­mination of what is meant by Visibility, Succes­sion, and Conformity with Antiquity; and to what Society of Christians those attributes be­long! If you will have the true Church known by Scripture, which is surely the easiest and best course, (even in the opinion of many learned Papists) what is that but to flee back, and make Tradition clear and certain, by that Rule from which you flee, as from what you judge obscure to Tradition, that you pretend to be evident. And then the Protestants will have reason to take it heavily, that they should be condemned for founding each part of their Religion upon the same ground whereon the Papists build all theirs at once: Yea, great reason shall we have to re­sent it, unless a Patent be produced from God Almighty, declaring the Rule of Faith for such a Commodity as may be taken from Scripture in gross, but not by retail.

Now that I have answered your Objections, I will not be nice in declaring unto you, to the full, my sence concerning the Sufficiencie and Perspicuity of Scripture.

I believe that those Canonical Books which God by his providence hath preserved unto these Times, and which are acknowledged by all Chri­stians to have been Divinely dictated, do make up a compleat Body of all the material objects of Faith necessary to salvation; whether explicitely or implicitely necessary to be believed.

I further believe, that in that blessed Sacrary there is not onely an inclusive sufficiencie, to wit, a perfect comprisal of all Saving Doctrines abso­lutely essential to Christianity; but an exclusive also, that is, such a sufficiencie as excludes and forbids any Doctrines should be imposed on Christians for a necessary Article of Faith, that is not recorded there. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium, cùm credimus; nihil de­sideramus ultra credere: hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debe­mus. Tert. de prax. advers. Haeret. cap. 8.

And lastly, I believe that all points whatsoever of Christian Religion are there set down as per­spicuously, and as clearly intelligible to all capa­cities, as they are clearly necessary to be believed by all: And that God's mercy in the merits of Christ, accepting alike the Faith resultant from the dark mists of the Ignorant, and from the clearest intelligence of the Learned,

The Lamb may wade to his bliss thorow the same water thorow which the Elephant may [Page 113]swim. Quicquid est (mihi crede) in Scri­pturis illis altum & divinum est, inest omnino verit as & reficiendis instaur andísque animis accommodatissima disciplina & plane it a mo­dificata, ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod tibi satis est, si modo ad hauriendum devote & pie, ut vera Religio poscit, accedat. Here is the saying of Heraclitus most truely applicable. [...].

Nor truely do I conceive (besides God's equa­lizing capacities by his own gracious acceptance) that there needs more then a very ordinary one, to understand the Scripture in all points abso­lutely necessary to salvation. [...].

It may be as well understood of the Word of God, as of God the Word, to whom Clemens (pag. 56. advers. Gent.) applies the saying. Magnifice igitur & salubriter Spiritus san­ctus ita Scriptur as sanctas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus famae occurreret obscuriori­bus autem fastidia detergeret. Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur. Aug. The great difficulties and obscurities which are there found, I understand chiefly to be in those less ma­terial points, wherein mens part-taking subtilties [Page 114]have given to God's Word many various acce­ptions, whilst not seeking the doctrines of Scri­pture, but those that themselves are imbued with in it, they use it not as the straight and stedfast Rule to judge of, and avoid Obliquity by, for which it was ordained, but rather as a Lesbian Rule, to be bent and deflected according to the several purposes of their own Architecture.

Verifying of the heavenly food of the soul, that fantastick imagination of Israel's heavenly food of the body, Manna, which was said to have been to all differing palats the morsel that each one would have it, and the taste that his mouth was made to.

Since then I am thus perswaded, that God hath lodged within us a Pilot, Reason, how weak soever, yet proportionate to the Vessel and the Voyage; and that he hath likewise laid open before us a clear and faithful Card, that varies not for any Elevation, Scripture: you must par­don me, Cousin, if I chuse rather to steer by that Compass thorow the depths of Religion, to our Haven of rest and beatitude, then like those an­cient Navigators that wanted a true Directory, to coast it from Doctors to Fathers, from Fathers to Popes, from Popes to Councels, and from all these to (but pretended unerring) Tradition. Quare oportet in care maxime, in qua vitae ratio versatur, sibi quemque confidere suóque [Page 115]judicio ac propriis sensibus nati ad investi­gandam & perpendendam Veritatem, quàm credentem alienis erroribus decipi, tanquam ipsum Rationis expertem. Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione sapientiam, ut & in­audita investigare possent, & audita perpen­dere: nec quia nos illi temporibus antecesse­runt sapientia quoque antecesserunt, quae si omnibus aequaliter datur occupari ab antece­dentibus non potest; sed hoc eos fallit, quod majorum nomine posito non putant fieri posse, & aut ipsi plus sapiant, quia minores vocan­tur, aut illi dissipuerint, quia majores nomi­nantur. Lactan. Divin. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 8.

And now (noble Cousin) that I have exami­ned your Opinions, and discussed your Argu­ments, let me have your patience, or your par­don, a little further, while I give you an account concerning those Directions wherewith you fa­vour me in your Letter, and in what state I am to follow some, and to excuse my self in others.

To the first, namely, The use which you con­ceive we are to make of reading of the Fathers, I willingly conform my self in one part, that is, in letting pass those things which they write as Divines and Scholars onely, allowing them no more weight with me, then the reasons wherewith they are accompanied do give them. I am like­wise very willing to let pass, for the most part, what they write as Commentors upon the Scri­pture; [Page 116]their interpretations in that kinde being many times (if I may so say) very Chymerical. Although I must tell you, that were I perswaded of any third Authority by whose seal the Fathers could transmit unto us, in all things of Religion, such certain and unquestionable resolutions as you imagine, I should not expect their aid more earnestly, nor take the omission more unkindly of them in any thing, then in point of giving us the right and well-handed interpretation of Scri­ptures. I further obey you, in laying hold and relying on what they teach us as Pastors of the Church; relying (I say) upon that chiefly, to wit, in the great Fundamentals of Christianity; but not generally, that is, not in those Questions which we disagree on; wherein they were neither willing nor able to be exact: and least of all, when they inveigh against Hereticks; their pas­sions and transportments being at such times greatest. As for such Opinions as they deliver Dogmatically, without alleadging texts of Scri­pture or learned Arguments to maintain them; although they appear delivered with never so ear­nest an intent, that they should be taken as mat­ters of Faith, you must pardon me if they sink no deeper into my belief, then they are driven by such Arguments as my own or others discourse can finde for them, either in Reason, Scripture, or Universal Tradition.

Your second advice is, that I should apply my [Page 117]care to collect thorowout the sence of the Fa­thers, and, by what they say, to frame to my self a Model of the Practice, Government, and Be­lief of the Church in their times; and then to tell you whether it be like to yours or ours. The Care and Attention you wisht me, I brought at first to the studie of the Fathers: but I cannot brag of the Model I have framed out of them; finding that truely a work hard enough for the best Antiquary: And to me 'tis an improvement of the difficulty to an impossibility, to be put to tell you which of the present Churches hath most resemblance to that of their times: I could as easily resolve you which of two men that stood before me, were likest to an hundred differing faces. For I do not think there is a greater va­riety of countenances at a Publike Assembly, then there are differences in the several Ages wherein the Fathers lived, touching those three parts of Religion; especially these two, of Practice and Government; of which, Tertullian, having summ'd up all the chief particulars of the Creed, pronounces, Hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis. Tert. de Virg. Velan. cap. 1. For matters of Practice, 'tis a clear case, what libertie was taken to varie them ac­cording to several evasions and ends, since some of the Apostles themselves, you know, did not stick to practise Circumcision: nor do the [Page 118]several ages appear to me ere a whit the more exquisite, in the imitation of their fore-fathers, then you will say the Church of Rome is at this day of the Apostles in that, and of those that followed after in administring the Eucharist to children, and yet 'tis she that pretends to be the Pantomime of antiquitie for matters of Govern­ment, how Camelion-like that hath been, how various, is as visible as green, and he that would reduce the Church now to the form of Govern­ment in the most primitive times, should not take in my opinion, the best nor wisest course, I am sure not the safest, for he would be found pecking toward the Presbytery of Scotland, which for my part, I beleeve in point of Go­vernment, hath a greater resemblance then ei­ther yours or ours, to the first age of Christs Church, and yet is nere a whit the better for it, since it was a form not chosen for the best, but imposed by adversitie and oppression, which in the beginning forc'd the Church from what it wisht, to what it might, not suffering that dignitie and state Ecclesiasticall, which rightly belong'd unto it, to manifest it self to the world; and which soon afterwards upon the least lucida intervalla, shone forth so gloriously in the happier, as well as more Monarchicall conditi­on of Episcopacy; of which way of Govern­ment I am so well perswaded, that I think it pittie 'twas not made betimes, an article of the [Page 119] Scotish Catechism, that Bishops are jure divi­no. But as it is a true maxime in nature, Cor­ruptio optimi pessima, so it holds likewise in Government, both civill and Ecclesiasticall. The best of all, Monarchy, festers oft-times and swels into the worst of all Tyrannie. To which after the first 500. years, Policy having or'e­topt Pietie, the Church made a hastie progress, and of the following ages in this particular, I grant the present Church of Rome, to be a co­py farr exceeding the originall, verifying now of the Roman, the imputation that Aristides layd by way of reproach on all other Empires; [...]. For matters of belief, the sal­vation of Christians depending chiefly upon them, 'tis true, in the primary and fundamental ar­ticles, they have been more constant, unanimous, and exact, and in those comparing the Church of their times with yours and ours, I think I may pronounce them all three alike to one ano­ther; but in points less material, such as I esteem those, wherein we two differ, I should contra­dict my self to undertake the framing out of the Fathers a certain judgement, which of the two present Churches were most correspondent to that of their times. Notwithstanding, if you com­mand me to say for which side in my guess the Fathers do make most, I will tell you truely and freely what I think, holding then the ballance [Page 120]as even as I can, I conceive the Fathers in some few poynts, do lean somewhat more to you, as in that of Christs descent into hell, and also in that of free-wil: (those excepted that wrote in heat against Pelagius) but in other differences, and those of greater importance, I collect, and pro­bably, if I am not much deceived, that their sense is much clearer for us, as in the doctrines of Purgatory, and of the Eucharist, for as touching the first, although you may pre­tend in some that the words and outward shell, wherein the Fathers opinions were con­veyed, belong more to you; yet, if the mat­ter be carefully pick'd and examined, I doubt not but the sense and kernel will prove ours; & it will be found that when ever any of the Fathers, Origen onely excepted, and his ad­herents, who held the very flames of Hell but Purgatory & Temporal; I say, those set a­side, all the expressions of the Fathers this way appear clearly to me to have been understood, not of a Purgatory, but onely of a probato­ry fire, whether they meant that of affliction or that of the day of judgement; as for that place in St. Augustine formerly alledged for Purgatory, his best commentator Lod. Vives, confesses he could never meet with it in the ancienter copies of that Fathers admirable works, however crept into the vulgar Edi­tions.

In point of the Eucharist, I believe my former instances will deserve a confession of the bal­lances being so equally poysed in this affaire, as far forth as expression at least, that the o­verbearance of either scale is hardly percepti­ble: but did I grant that their words weighed incomparably more on your side, yet I should not doubt to challenge their sense for us, and that most confidently upon this reason; That supposing the Fathers to have believed as we doe, the Sacrament to be Bread, great reason might they have notwithstanding, to raise the majesty of it in their expressions, and to term it the body of Christ, it being usuall, and thought necessary in the primitive times to wrap up the Sacraments of the Church in mysteries, that the Catechumens might be possest with a more awfull reverence towards them, and be whetted and fan'd as it were to a more keen and ardent desire of being ad­mitted unto them; especially the danger be­ing much more easie for them to think too meanly of what bore the name of Christs bo­dy, but was palpably bread, then that they should fall to adore that for God, which their eare onely told them was the flesh of Christ, and all their other senses assured them to be the commonest food of mankind; wheras sup­posing them to have believed as the Church [Page 122]of Rome doth, that the Sacrament is the very Flesh and blood of our Saviour, and to be re­ceived with the same reverence that belongs to God himselfe, there can be no warrantable reason why they should at any time lessen the majesty of so sacred an object of our adorati­on, or give it so often the name of those or­dinary elements, whose evidence to our sense should they alwayes have said all they could invent, of dignifying, would still have been apt enough to give an allay to the faith and ve­neration that's pretended to.

These being as I conceive, two of the most important Articles of difference between your Church and ours, what hath been said will suffice to manifest unto you, that throughout this discourse I decline not the trial by the Fa­thers out of any distrust of our cause: for tru­ly though I will not allow their, Writings to be the proper tribunall at which our contro­versies are to be judged, I should be content to referre with you the whole matter to their arbitration, and voluntarily to allow them that determinating power which in right they cannot claim; so farre am I from acknow­ledging a greater conformity in the Church of Rome then in ours to what they teach, to have been either the Government, Practice, or Beliefe of the primitive times, nor yet should I refuse them for Arbitrators as perempto­rily [Page 123]as I doe for Judges, I would not think my pains lost, or study of the Fathers not worth the while: For besides the addition of knowledge and general improvement of the Soul, which one must be a very stupid Reader of the Fathers, not to advance in, by the helps of their great and universal learning, besides the admirable excitations to piety and zeale; I conceive that even in the affair of directing us to a soul-saving Religion, a Christian by searching into their ancient me­morials may as you say, reap a far greater ad­vantage, then either Criticks or Lawyers do in their several Sciences from their worm-ea­ten monuments of Antiquity; for they, Cou­sin, from those maymed evidences of broken and disjoynted Records, draw out principles; it is true, so probable, as may prudentially in­duce a rational and equal Surveyers assent, from which they frame perhaps some such text, whereby indifferent men, do consent to be regulated; but we by our holy search into the Sacraries of former ages are led to a text already divinely framed; A text perfectly comprizing all parts requisite to the supreme Science it concerns; A text whose very affirma­tion, is an uncontroulable resolution; from our Records of antiquity, wee draw not on­ly Topical Arguments, but proofs to any dis­coursing man above demonstration; such as [Page 124]it were madness and impiety to reject upon a­ny argument to the contrary; and this in all points of Religion, mistake me not, I mean that do really and confestly on all hands im­port Heaven or Hell in mens beliefs and pra­ctise: and from hence, though I should deny the Fathers any usefulness at all in our contro­versies, yet, I should extreamly gratulate to my self the labour and ambition to be in some good measure skill'd in their Antiquities, and to you your great and (according to your principles) most judicious progress in them.

Your next advice is, that I should apply my understanding and industry to build up as well as to pull down, and to examine as strictly the reasons of my own belief, to see whether that be wel grounded; as those for the contra­ry opinion, to observe whether that be conclu­dingly demonstrated; I must confess, I ever thought it a superfluous labour, to seek to esta­blish one part of a contradiction, by any fur­ther proof then the destruction of the other; and you your self supposing our Tenents con­tradictory, do warrant that for a truth, (to me) sufficiently proved, and press on me a necessity of imbracing whatsoever is contradi­ctory to a falshood.

'Tis true that St Jerome passes upon La­ctantius, a censure in a wish; Ʋtinam tam [Page 125]nostra confirmare putuissit quam facile alie­na distruxit; but his case and ours are not a­like, 'twas not so convincing an Argument; Paganism is ridiculous, Judaism exolete; Therefore Christians are in every thing in the right, as 'tis with us, the Church and tradi­tion is not infallible in all things, therefore fallible in some; the bread is not transubstan­tiated, therefore it remains bread. There is no third place for us after death, besides hea­ven and hell, and no fall from the one, and no redemption from the other, therefore no Purgatorie; In these and the like cases, one partie is sure and firm setled when ever the o­ther falls, as certainly as in natural generati­on, the decay of one thing is infallibly the pa­rent of another: And therefore in point of wrong and unfitting superstructures, such as most of the Romish Tenents are, which we lay battery to, it may suffice to pull down, those being demolisht, what's rightly built will stand fast of it self, since both suppose a foundation.

Now for the second part of your direction, namely, that I should strictly examin the rea­son of my own belief, I have obeyed you to the full; And that you may be able to judg whether they be well weighed or no, take here a sum of my belief; I believe the unity and Omnipotence of God, and an inexplicable Tri­nity [Page 126]in that unity; I beleeve the incarnati­on of the second person of that Trinity, that's Gods assumption of perfect humanity from the womb of a Virgin; And that he humbled himself, not onely to manhood, but also to mortallity; that after he had set our practice an exact pattern by his life, and by his words imbued our Theory with all necessary docu­ments, he might purge our staines with his blood, redeem our forfeitures by the price of his passion, and present a plenary satisfacti­on to his Fathers Justice for all our misdeeds; I beleeve further, that to make us capable of the effects of his merits, Beatitude, he illu­minates our understanding by the gift of the holy Ghost, by whom is created in us that divine faith, by which these misteries are to be apprehended: I beleeve also, that our blessed Saviour gave his Apostles commission to preach to all the world his saving Doctrine, who did accordingly, and have left to poste­rity, both written records, and living ones in successions of the faithfull, that shall preserve even to the end of the world, these and all o­ther articles necessary to salvation. I like­wise beleeve that the Apostles established Pastors in several Churches, whom we are to hearken unto with reverence, and to re­ceive of them the Sacraments of regeneration to Christ, and of Communion with him, both [Page 127]which by Gods grace, have a divine and supernatural effect in the cleansing us from sin; I beleeve that heaven shall be the re­ward of the good, and hell of the wicked: and lastly in a word (to supply whatsoever may have been omitted) I firmly beleeve whatso­ever is evidently contained in the Creed or Scripture, or clearly deduceable from either. I am perswaded that you will yeild that the reasons upon which these are built, will abide the strictest examination. None of these as­sertions I hope betrayeth its own weakness? And yet these are the only opinions which I have been imbued with, these are the parts of faith that integrate my Religion, in these are comprised al points that I think necessary to be believed; And he that believes any thing more, if he have but his share of good works, is safe in my opinion, for he hath faith of supererrogati­on; my firm and resolute settlement in these ve­rities, defends me from being at all concerned in those severall imputations which towards the close of your letter you do most judicious­ly and justly lay upon Sciolous and Sapticall witts, that floating in uncertainty, would fain reduce every thing to that pass, seeking ra­ther to puzle and imbroil an adversary, then weightily to establish a solid truth. 'Tis that solid truth, and such as bears no dispute, that I wish we might all stick to; and let pass those [Page 128]quillets, and niceties imposed by the Church of Rome, for Articles of importance, and which her adherents dwell upon with too scrupulous a diligence; such as admit arguments on both sides, and are fitter for a declamation then a Catechism, in which whilst men vainly busie themselves, they let slide away many times unnoted, as you say, that great deal which is uncontroulable and plain points, which can be thought at best but at the skirts, none be­longing to the main body of religion; doctrines for the most part (at the least in my judge­ment) so little material; that I applaud the Fathers for spending so little time or labour on them; such, as I am so far from delighting to make objections in, that where ever I have touch'd upon particulars, it hath been a Contre­coeur, and onely to disperse such dust as others raise; for I swear there is no man living hath a stronger aversion then my self from all cavils in Religion; it being justly to be feared, as our great Prelate (Arch-Bishop of Cant. in his Epistle to his Majestie) sayes, that Atheism and irreligion gathers strength, while the truth is thus weakned by an unworthy way of contending for it; and I am perswaded that mo [...] men, while their thoughts are so busied in chicanes of controverted points, grow ne­gligent of those more weighty ones that neer­lyer import salvation, and so runne out of the [Page 129]most essentiall good of their soules, as imperti­nently as many a peevish freeholder that wasts a solid estate, in endless law suits for a trifle; & as I think these points little important for use, so I concur with you in esteeming both these, and all other matters of Religion very unfit to be argued on for ostentation or applause, which I am sure I am as farr from aiming at in this subject, as I shall be farr from attaining it. 'Tis true, the condition of the knowing & ignorant, is usually quite contrary to the Lords servants in the Gospel, there he that had least, wrapt up his single talent in a Napkin; but amongst men now a-daies that pretend, whoever hath least, it is he longs most to shew how much he hath, and so pub­lishes how little; yet, thus far they oftentimes both agree, that neither improve their store: and thus by my ignorance unless you be chari­table, I confess my self liable to be suspected guilty of the vain appetite of oftentation that usually accompanies it; but as my Ignorance exposes me to the suspition, so my conscious­ness of it (the sole knowledge that I can brag of) frees me from the Ambition suspected, and layes upon me a necessity of concluding with a huge Apologie, for presuming to give you so much trouble, and, I fear, so little satisfaction: I confess I ought to have been restrained from venturing at all upon this [Page 130]Debate, the Subject it self being so farr above the pitch of my literature; And the Person with whom I presume to argue the difference of Opinion, confestly my superiour in all ad­vantages both of Nature and Acquisition, beyond all hopes of comparison; Considera­tions either of them able to deterr a much considenter man then my self: But Friendship, which always findes, or makes men equall, hath long since licenc't me from the latter, and hardened me to impart my con­ceptions, how low so ever, as freely to you, as I could doe to any inferiour Wit of mine own levell: And for the first, I have neglected it upon this perswasion, that I shall be better able to answer to the Divines, a young, a Lay, and ignorant mans adventuring to treat of their Business, then to you, and to my self so womanish a wrong, as not subscription to the Dictamens of your strong and powerfull Soul, without yeelding my reasons for the variance, which how light soever they may be found, when pondered by your excellent judgment, yet being really such, as are most convincing to mine, they will serve to excuse me to you, to justifie me to my self, and I hope to make my Errours even pardonable with God, who when by St. Peter, he bids us be able to give a Reason of the hope that is in us; I am confident he expects it no better [Page 131]then proportionable to the capacities that his goodness hath endowed us with: Answerable to them is this Discourse, weak I confess, dis­joynted, and without Nerves; and yet I doubt not but it may be so evictuated by Truth and the goodness of my Cause, that I shall not be ashamed to have encoun­tred a GOLIAH with a Sling. A Straw kept in a right Line, might batter a tower; from which right line of truth and reason, I may safely protest I have not so much as once voluntary swarved in this Trea­tise, through any partaking passion, or forelaid designe, neither have I suffered my self; herein to be so far wrought upon by civility, as to forbear a free and round expressi­on of my sense, where ever it differed from yours: and truly, there was no cause why I should, since in our disputes, the strongest opposition, that I or the best wit for me can possibly make to your opinions, will de­rogate no more from your unquestionable exellency of judgement, then it would conclude either of us ill-sighted should you affirm such a Garment to be red, and I that it were green, the object being a change­able Taffaty, and we seated in contrary lights, or looking through mediums diversly tincted; a like affect upon the soul, to these upon the sense, hath diversity of education, and [Page 132]discrepance of those principles wherewith men are at the first imbued, and whereon all our after reasonings are founded: Conformity and uniteness of minde, as rarely flowing from contrary Educations, as the same River from opposite springs; sweet, happy, and I think sole, is the self-sameness which arises from pure principles of nature, never sophi­sticated by the artifices of our breeding, but little derivation from those Fountaines hath this or that Sect of Religion, & so no marvel if we agree not therin to be one, as we do in the other most true & prime Emanation of nature, Friendship; which, on your part to me I am confident must needs spring from thence, since my small merit affords no other motive; and for mine to you, I am sure it is impossible without an intire concurrence of all the forces of Sympathy, for any man to reverence, ad­mire, and love another, with that Ardour as I do you dearest Cousin, and which you cannot but own in