The Second Part.

Object. THe high and Sage Master of our Faith hath in vaine spent so much sweat, and paines, if after he passed from hence, he hath left no meanes to as­sure mankind, what it was he taught and practised.

Resp. I suppose this speech is directed at me who (as you conceive) take away all meanes, because I have no Judge; but I would faine know of you, whe­ther Plato, and Aristotle have not left us meanes to know what they taught, although they have not left us any living infallible Judge to deliver us their doctrine verbally, or to expound their works: Or if you intended your Accent upon the word Asiure, and if you mean by that some in­fallible knowledge, I desire you (out of your own words) to consider whether humane nature be capable of it. For my part supposing as I doe, that his Faith is in a sufficient degree, which brings forth obedience, I require not any motives more, assuring (except from them who claime, that they cannot erre) then such as any man unpraepossest with passion or prejudice will beleeve sufficiently to obey; and such in my opinion are mine: For though I know, you count any way without a guide but groping in the dark, yet if God had nor given us so much light as we desired, we must not therefore set up false lights, and because we would be sure to have a guide, make one our selves: But he seemes to [Page 95]me, to have dealt with us in Religon not very un-analogically, to what he hath in the world, giving us two lights, Scripture, and Universall Tradition, whereof one gives light to the other, and both to us: Universall Tradition is our Guide to Scripture (as whatsoever else that guided us to we would receive, if there were any such thing) and Scripture is our way to God; By Universall Tradition we know much better, that these Books were written by Christs Disci­ples (who are sufficient witnesses of what he taught) then the Aristotelians know that these were Aristotles works, or the Academicks knew Plato's, since Christians have both kept them with more care, and in the acceptance of them used more caution, as thinking them so much more important: In the Scripture I conceive, that (according to that rule, which I am sure I have either read in Chrysostome, or very often quoted out of him) [...], all that is ne­cessary is clear, or if any man that strives to square both his actions and opinions by that Rule, chance to fall into any error (for which his understan­ding is onely in fault and not his will) it shall not hinder his rising to heaven: Such an infal­lible way excludes, if not all use, at least all neces­sity of an infallible guide, and is as good as a Judge to keep Unity in Charitie (which is onely need­full) though not in opinions; and indeed since you must grant, that if any man mis-interpret the Councell of Trent, it shall not damne him, so he doubt not of its truth, desire to discover [Page 96]what it meant, and be in a Propension of be­leeving, that when he knowes it, me thinkes (as Cineas told Pirrhus) you had as good doe that at first, which you must doe at last, that is, say the same with us at first concerning Scripture, which after much trouble, you are forced to say con­cerning Councels, and in hard matters let the same implicite Faith in God serve, which serves in them, who can claime no authority but from, and under him: And (which is more then I affirme) that no man, but by his own, being wicked, can come into any error by false inter­pretation of Scripture, see I pray, what Saint Austine saies in his forty ninth Sermon de Verbis Domini, that God hath so hedg'd in all his own sayings, that whosoever would interpret any place of Scripture false, he that hath a circumcised heart by reading what is before and after, may find that sence which the other would pervert.

Yet if you can shew me reason to beleeve that there is any standing guide upon earth (and with­out reason it were unreasonable to hope to per­swade me to beleeve it) I will never be proud so much to my own cost, as rather to venture loosing my way by chusing it my selfe, then be beholding to him for directing me in it.

Object. Those to whom during his life, he had most fully declared his mind, went and told it to others, and all was done; But this way hath the prejudice of humane Fallibility, for seldome it hapneth, that a multitude can carry away all in the same manner, and one thousand six hundred yeares are passed since, [Page 97]yet if we looke into the immediate joynts of the de­scent, we cannot finde where it can misse: for the doctrine being supernaturall, and not delivered by any mans skill, or wit, the maine principle of it can be no other, then to know what was delivered them by their Teachers: when therefore an Apostle had preached over and over again the same Doctrine, not long, nor hard to be carryed away in all the Townes of a Countrey, and let him be gone, and all dead who heard him speake, and some questions arise concerning his doctrine, let us see whether error can creep in if Christians keep to their hold, that is, what they were taught by Christs Apostles. Let there­fore the wisest and best of those Townes meet and discusse the controversie out of this principle, will not there be a quick end of their dispute? For every man can say, Thus my Father heard the Apostle speak, and what is here certaine of the Children of those who heard them, may with as much evidence be deriv'd againe in the Grand-children, and so in every age.

Resp. Those writings, whose businesse is to prove, should be like the houses in the Low Countries, for as there they take such care of their, founda­tions, that what is under ground costs them more then all above it, so in these, the greatest labour ought to be in setling surely the Principles, be­cause [...] one absurditie granted, how fertile error is after, what a heard or swarme of strange conclusions follow, not onely your selfe have observ'd, but Aristotle also hath told all that have read him, and experience daily tels mankind; [Page 98]since therefore a small mistake encreaseth as much, and as speedily as a graine of mustard-seed, I must the earnestlier contradict this [...], this first error of yours, as being the Parent of so many more already, and being likely in time (if by being confuted it be not us'd as Sature us'd his Father) to have yet a more large and numerous Issue.

1 Then you leave out one thing out of your History of the Gospell, which alone consi­der'd, would have much weaken'd what you say; For you speak of the Apostles, but forget utterly their Writings, a mis-interpretation of which might soon spread an error. And certainlie out of them, if Christians had been to receive no Instrucions, but onely to remember what was taught them by word of mouth, both they would have sav'd themselves the labour of w [...]iting them, and Traditors, who deliver'd them to be burnt, would have been thought to have committed no greater fault, then if they had done the same to any ordinary writing: But if the first Christians, and generally their successours since, have ever carefully and assiduously studied (what by com­paring places, what by all other waies) to un­derstand them, and thought themselves bound to beleeve, and obey whatsoever they found, or thought they found there contain'd, and esteem'd that they were taught by themselves, what they learnt from their writings (as they must have thought it the same thing, unlesse the Apostles authority had vanisht, by having their instructi­ons [Page 99]put into paper, which were as if the Kings verball Commands bound us, bat not his Pro­clamations.) Then here appeares a gate at which errors might enter, which you (at least I am sure this part of your Treatise) did not consider.

2 But even their verball might either bee mis-interpreted, or knowinglie mis-alledged, even by those who are counted Archi-Catholicks, Socrat. lib. 5. for I pray, must not one of those two have been done, or by the Church of Rome, or by those of Asia (which example I would not so often speake of, but that I hope [...] is as good an excuse, as [...]:) For since it is im­possible, that Saint John and Sain Peter both inspir'd by the Holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of Truth, should teach contradictorie doctrines, whereof one must necessarily be false, what else can follow, but that one part (if not both) in­tended to deceive, or were themselves deceiv'd in it (and what makes it impossible, that such a mistake by men of authoritie may not generallie spread) and after a plaine example your reason will be no more able to overthrow experience, then the earthen Pitcher, in the Fable, was to break the Brasen one, [...].

One of the Arguments you make for the infal­libility of the way which you propound, is, 3 That the Doctrine, which the Apostles taught was neither long nor hard to he carried away, Out off which me thinkes I can evidently deduce that the Church of Rome is not that, since both it appears how long that s, and since you tell us your selfe, That the cause [Page 100]of many errors among you is the multiplicity of Catholique Doctrines, which doth not oblige a man o the knowledge of every Part, but to a prompt sub­jection to the Church. Truely if there be no con­tradiction between these two Propositions, I will confesse that I have hitherto mistaken what the word signifies, unlesse you mean, that the Apo­stle by teaching subjection to the Church indusive­ly, taught all that she teaches, and so what they de­livered was short, but what implicitely, much; If this were so, certainely the Apostles, when they included almost all their doctrine in the subjection enjoyn'd to the Church, taught some certaine markes by which men might at all times know her, though you pretend to none hut such as the Greeke Church as much claime (which is enough to scru­ple the ignorant) and rightly too, as the Roman (as Antiquity, Succession, Miracles, &c.) excepting onely communion with the Pope, and splendor, whereof neither are proper markes of the true Church, that is such as can never be absent from her, since the Heresie of a Pope (which hath been, and is not by your owne whole Church held impossible) may take away the one way, and a ge­nerall Persecution the other.

It appeares also by what you speake of the imme­diate join es of the descent, 4 that you suppose if any errour come in, some one Age must joyn to teach it, which by no meanes followes, no more then one Age of them at Rome joyn'd to teach their Posterity Italian instead of Latine, but some may have taught a Doctrine to be probable in one Age, more then [Page 101]in the second, and all in the third, according to Seneca's observation. The error of few (especi­ally when Notable Persons) begetting the error of a multitude; and againe the authority of a multitude deceiving Particular men, and so by de­grees it may be thought from Probable, True, from true fere de Fide, from that absolutely a part of Faith, and consequently to have come from Tradition, whilst the contrary opinion being first believ'd the more improbable, next false, from false Temerary, from temerary, Haeresi proxi­mum, and from that absolutely Hereticall, hath by almost insensible degrees met with a mighty change, and is arriv'd at Hell before it almost misdoubted it. And that these progresse-Doctrines have tra­vel'd, it is easie for any man to see who hath been but a little conversant in your own Books, and whosoever denies it, may as well deny that their is any green in Summer, when there is hardly any thing else.

And for the Case you put, that the wisest, and best of the Townes where Doctrines were deli­vered should have met &c. I both suppose, that the controversie of who were best and wisest, would not it self have been easily ended, but allowing that it might have been easily done, and would have been most usefully done, yet it never was; and so suppose the way never so good, it was yet like a Medicine, which be it never, so Soveraigne, can never cure if it be never taken; Councells there have been call'd Ancient, because lesse Mo­dern, and generall, because lesse particular (for the [Page 102]first was not till more then three hundred yeeres after Christ, nor to the largest appeares it, that ever any were summon'd from beyond the bounds of the Ancient Roman Empire, though Christianity were much farther extended: Some lesse meetings or Conciliabula there were indeed before, but none of these accounted infallible by your selves (though me thinks they should by your grounds) and in­deed it would go ill with your own infallibility if you should, for of the two most notable, the one de­fended Rebaptization, and the other condemned Samosatenus, and in doing so taught as plain Arri­anisme, (if we might know mens meaning by their words, which if we cannot, all arguing, especial­ly from what any Authors say, is ended) as even Arrius himself was condemned for at Nice; If these intended to discusse the Controversie out of the Principle you speak of, and yet miss'd Tradition when they meant to have followed it, then so might your best and wisest men have done too; if they did not intend it, then it seemes it hath not been held needfull alwaies by Catholikes to try Doctrines by that Criterium, which you now prescribe.

Object. Who can be ignorant what he was taught when he was a child, as the ground and substance of his hopes for all Eternity?

Resp. Truely the ordinary sort more then most easi­ly: For because either their mind wanders, or their Teachers descend not to their capacities, they commonly goe away both from publique Sermons and private Catechismes, as if they had [Page 103]receiv'd instructions in a language as strange to them, as that wherein they say their prayers: Be­sides their own Fathers teach them little or nothing, because that is as much as they have learnt them­selves, (esperially in ignorant places and times) their Ghostly Fathers teach them most, but that much more concerning life then opinions; so that though they were not ignorant of all they were taught, yet they are absolute strangers to the greatest part of what your Church teaches; And it now no more of their Religion be delivered by Verball Tradition, what was then, when many points, which are now often taught (though not constantly and in all places but upon occasions) were not thought of in many yeeres? Suppose that about the Question of what makes a Priest, a convocation of men had met (I mean of such who knew not what was taught in Bookes) before Luthers time (and what I say would be true in somewhat a lesse degree of this more instructed Age) what account could they have given what they had been taught when they were Children? Truely they could have said, we know it to be the custome for our Bishops to make Priests, and some of us have heard he onely is to make them, what is done and taught in other places we know not: Very far would they have been from all agreeing that they were taught when they were Children (as part of the ground of their hopes for all Eternity) by their Fathers, as receiv'd from theirs, as come down from the Apostles; that he is no Priest, to whom in expresse tearmes [Page 104]Commission is not given to offer for the living and the dead, which now being objected to the Clergy of England, perswades me, that your Church teacheth more then generally men are taught when Children, or indeed at any time by any Verball Tradition: For not onely the Ordi­nary sort, but even your most learned men knew not what is Tradition, if that be still your Rule of Faith; for they disagree among themselves, whe­ther some things be of Faith or no; as for Ex­ample, Whether the Pope can erre in the Canno­nization of a Saint, Wadd. Pag. 30. for if all Questions were that way to be ended, and such Traditions were evident, (as if they were such as you speak of they must be) all your side must be soone resolv'd both in this, and all other such Questions; And if you say that indeed all Particular Doctrines are not taught by such a Tradition, but that by so much as all are taught, they know their Judge and Director con­cerning them, and so are taught them implicitely, I answer, that the Vulgar, although they are gene­rally told that the Church is infallible, yet I doubt whether they be either taught that this Doct­rine hath had any such generall and uninterrupted a delivery, or have heard much concerning those meanes, by which she her-selfe is to he known, or those Circumstances, by which we are to know when she expresseth her opinion: That the Pope is the Head of the Church they know, but whether Tradition teach him to be so of Divine, or hu­mane Right, from God, of Councels, or tacite consent, and what Power is included in that Head­ship, [Page 105]a Mahumetan as much instructed as most of them, and even his head-ship is ordinarily prov'd to them but out of some place of Scripture, our of which they hear his Infallibility concluded too, without being, told the different degree in which those two Doctrines are to be held. Secondly, For the learned, neither are they taught so well some of these things, but that they differ concer­ning them, and your self fly wholly speaking of them, leaving them to agree among themselves, His Opusc. and (as Cardinall Perron saies in one place, he will do us Protestants when we differ) suffering the dead to bury the dead; If then neither are you all agreed by what to know your Church, nor when she hath defin'd, so that even what is of faith is undermined among you, I find cause to be­leeve, that Tradition is no excellent Director of you, even in your grounds, no not to teach you to know that which should teach you all the rest; And if you were, yet at the same wicket, and by the same degrees, by which I have shewd that o­ther errors both may, and have not onely entered into your Church, but ascended also to high pla­ces there; this doctrine concerning your Director might have done the same.

True it is, that very little is generally and con­stantlie taught in all ages to the people, and that which; is seldome, is told them to have been so receiv'd from hand to hand by the verball Tra­dition you speak of; and if they be at any time taught so, and remember it, yet they know not whether the next Curate teach the same, at least, [Page 106]if under the same notion and degree of Necessitie: Indeed it would not be so intricate a worke (as now adaies it is) to be a Christian, if your way had been onely followed: but it is not this Tra­dition, but the writings of past Ages, which transmit to posteritie the opinions of the Doctors of past times, many of them being erroneous, and more unnecessarie; out of these works the lear­ned learne, and teach againe in their workes, what the greater part (the unlearned) scarce ever heare of; out of these they settle the degrees your Doctrines are to be held in, some as probable, some true, some almost necessarie, some altoge­ther, and teach concerning others, that some are false, some dangerous, some damnable, whereas the vulgar have seldome their meat so curiouslie joynted to them, but are told in generall for the most part (unlesse some publick opposition, or other occasion perswade them at some time to descend to teach them more parcicularlie) that this is so good, and this is not so: And indeed the degree in which the last Age held such an opni­on, is both most hard to know (not onely because the ignorant are seldom taught it by word of mouth, and the learned have seldome occasion, without some opposition, to explaine themselves so farre in their writings,) but because also as many, and as considerable Persons not writings, as doe write, we cannot know by the Authors, what the whole Age thought true (except the acceptation of that Doctrine were a condition of the Commu­nion) [Page 107]and most necessarie to be known, because most of our controversies with your Church are as much, if not more, about the necessitie of her opinions, as about the truth of them: For we seeing plainlie, that in the purest ages many of the chiefest Doctors have contradicted some of her Tenets, without suspicion of Heresie, are not able to conceive how a doctrine should, from being indifferent in one age, become necessarie in another, and the contrarie from onely false Heri­ticall,

especially if that way had allwaies been walkt in, which you now speak of.

Object. No judicious man can deny to see with his eyes, (if he have cast them never so little upon the present state of Christendome) that there is one Congregation of men which layeth claime to Christ his Doctrine, as upon this title, that she hath received it from his Apostles without interruption, delivered from Father to Son untill this day, and admits not any Doctrine for good and legitimate, which he doth not receive in this manner.

Resp. What the Judicious (of whom I am no mem­ber) can do, I know not, but I not onely can, but do deny it, you meaning by that Congregation the Church of Rome, for by seeing, that not upon this, but other kind of claim certaine Doctrines have arrived to the very brink of being defined; I have cause to think, that if they received none in up­on [Page 108]on other grounds, these would not be suffered to stand so neer the doore. And indeed there being between your selfe such differences, that Erasmus tels us, Praefat. in Hillar. that he who is a Heretick among the Dominicans, is Orthodox to the Scotists, sure one side hath admitted of a Doctrine for Legiti­mate, which hath not been so received, and then me thinks this being easily endable, which it is, by seeing which claimes such a delivery, (for if both do it, then two Parts may, which you deny, if neither do, then your whole Church goes by some other Rule) that which doth, upon that which you call the Catholique Grounds, me thinks should have obtained a definition for her, and the other, which refists that Principle, upon which they ought onely to build, should have been suddenly and absolutely condemned. This will appeare plai­ner, if we consider the opinions of your Church by the Actions of her Head, in a notable and late Example. A great controversie being risen be­tween the Dominicans and the Jesuites, it was heard before Pope Clement, let us see then what course he took to find which Part held the Truth, since he was not likely (especially in a time wherein, by being more opposed then usually, he had rea­sons to be consequently more cautious) to chuse a new way, by which truth was not wont to be found out by your side upon like occasions; Did he send for the wisest and best men from all, nay from ad­joyning Parts, to enquire of them what they had been taught by their Fathers, to have been recei­ved by them uninterruptedly from the Apostles? [Page 109]did he examine with which of them the first and purest ages sided? did he consider which opinion would make us have the more excellent conceit of God, and work most towards the expelling of Vice? None of all these were his .course, but he appointed both sides, to prove which of them fol­lowed Saint Austine, and according to them, he intended to give sentence, if the advice of Cardi­nall Perron had not prevailed to the contrary: But many days they spent in examining what he thought, who thought so variously concerning it, that he scarce knew himself which, whereas before him all the Ancients that I could ever meet with, were with the Iesuites with an Vnanimous con­sent, and by them (if they must be tried by men as fallible as themselves) it would have better agre­ed with their own Principles to have had both Parts judged.

After the Pope, let us hear Bishop, and allmost Cardinall Fisher, who being one of your own Authors and Martyrs, cannot be thought to prae­varicate against that Church, for whose defence he imployed not onely his Inke, but his Blood.

His words are these,

There are many things of which was no enquirie in the Primitive Church, which yet upon doubts ari­sing, are now become perspicuous, by the diligence of after-times. And that you may see, that he speakes of points of Faith, He addes,

No Orthodox man now doubts, Pag. 496. whether there be a Purgatory, of which yet among the Ancients there is no mention, or exceeding rarely: It is not believed [Page 110]by the Greeks to this day — Neither did the Latines conceive this Truth at once, but by little and little.

And for an Epiphonema he closeth it thus, Considering that Purgatory was a good while un­known; after, Pag. 497. partly by Revelations, partly by Scripture came little by little to be believed by some, and so at last the beliefe of it was generally received by the Catholique Churches—Who can wonder concer­ning Indulgences, that in the Primitive Church there was no use of them? Indulgences therefore be­gan, after men had trembled a while at the Torments of Purgatory.

See I pray how will you two agree? You say the Church of Rome receives, but what she claimes to be come down to her from the Apostles without interruption: He saith some of her Doctrines were long unknown, and came in by Revelations and Scripture; you say new Doctrines cannot come into a Church that, holds this Principle: He saith, Doctrines have come in by little and little: So either she held not allwaies this Prin­ciple, or for all that they might come in: To be short, all, which he hath said, seemes to me, as if he had purposely intended to frame a Ram to batter down that fortification, which you have built about the Roman Church.

Now though he be of so great an Authority that he needs no backing, yet I will desire you to look into Alphonsus de Castro, where he speakes of Indulgences, and see if he mend the matter. He confesseth, that the use of them seemes to be late re­ceived [Page 111]into the Church, yet would not have them contemned, because many things are known to after-commers, of which those ancient Writers were wholly ignorant. Amongst whom there is rare­ly mention of Transuibstantiation, more rarely of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, of Purgatory almost none; For though he speaks af­ter as if he meant onely that the names of these were unmentioned, and not the things, yet it is plaine, that if he brought them into any purpose, it was to prove, that some Doctrines are after of necessity to be believed, which once were not, and Doctrines consist in the Things, not in the Name.

I could next tell you of Erasmus his saying, Epist. Pag. 1164. Res deduct a est ad Sophisticas contentiones, & Articu­lorum Miriades proruperunt. Religion is come down to Sophistry, and a Miriad of Articles are broken out. But knowing that his words will not find so much respect, (because he himself finds lesse favour) as those of others more allowed among you, let us mark these words of Sancta Clara, Pag. 296. 1 Edict. The Church, when it is saidto define any thing, she rests not upon any new Revelations, but upon theancient, lying hid in writings and words of the Apostles, which he sayes not as his private opini­on, but the constant beliefe of Doctors: By which it appeares plainly, that there are at least interpre­tations of what the Apostles taught, drawn forth by Reason, not received: by Tradition, which makes now apart of the present Roman Religion. a sufficient Gappe for Errors to enter at, when [Page 112]either mistakings, or ends may become new opi­nions, and stile them but interpretations of the old. Salmeron a Voluminous Jesuite, one, neither by his order, nor his inclination an enemy at all to the Roman Church, being press'd by the opinions of the Ancients, affirmes, Doctores quo juniores, co perspicaciores esse, Tom. 13. Pag. 467. That the more modern Doct­ors are, the more prespicatious, that perincremen­ta Temporum nota facta, sunt Divina mysteria, quae tamen ante a multos latuerunt: In processe of time Divine Mysteries have been made known, which before lay hid from many; That it is infirm argu­ing from Authority, and answers to the multitude of them, who in times past had opposed him, with these words of Exodus, That the opinion of many is not, to be followed, leading us out of the way, with some other very Anabaptisticall answers, and very contrary to your Tenets, (for sure it were a strange Tradition, which had so many Or­thodox Opposers) and nothing inferiour to that saying of Zuinglius, so much exaggerated, Quid mihi cum Patribus, potius quam cum Matribus?

The same Author in same place saies, that Saint Hierome durst not affirm the Assumption, but Saint Austine durst; and by that meanes, the Church perswaded by his reason believes it: Such a notable Tradition have all her opinions; for even this affirmation, which he confesseth, brought in this beliefs, is it self not now believed to be Saint Aust­ines, for I take it, he must mean his tract of the Assumption, counted not his by your own Di­vinity-Criticks, the Lovaine Doctors, which have [Page 113]set it forth at Cullen.

And because I am willing to spend no more time in the proofe of so apparent a Truth, I will not urge Posa, who, to perswade the defining of an opinion, which hath a great current of the Anci­ents against it, (so farr it is from having any Tra­dition for it) reckons many other opinions con­demned by your Church, In Elucidar Deiparae Pag. 1113. and defended by the Ancients, unlelsse you will believe his impudent Assertion, that they are all corrupted, and will passe to the Conclusion of this, which shall have for a Corollary, the Confession of a Spanish Arch-Bishop, who is to be thought to speak with more authority then his own, because being imployed to bring that to passe, which was desired by so great a Part of your Church, he can scarce be supposed not to have had the advice and consent of many of them in what he sayes.

He then tells us, First, Wadd. Pag. 125. every Age either brings forth, or opens her Truth: Things are done in their times, and severall Doctrines are unlockt inseverall Ages.

Secondly, Pag. 270. To shew that though his opinion had no such Tradition as you say your Church claimes for all her Doctrines, yet it may, and ought to be defined; he desires to know who ever taught the Assumption of the Virgin, before Saint Austines and Hieromes time, and by whom was that opinion deduct from the Aposties: Nay, he ab­solutely affirmes, that before Nazianzene, no man ever taught any thing of her delivery without paine, yet many thought the contrary.

Thirdly and lastly, Pag. 202. For your absolute confuta­tion, he confesseth, that we believe and hold in this Age many things for Mysteries of Faith, which in former Ages did waver under small or no Probability , and many Things are now defined for Articles of Faith, which have endured a hard repulse among the most and the weightiest of the Ancient Doctors, and no light contradiction among the Ancient Fathers; and having reckoned up five Particulars,

• The Validity of Hereticks Baptisme,
• The Beatificall Vision before the day of Judg­ment,
• The Spirituallity of Angels,
• The Soules being immediately created, and not ex traduce,
• And, The Virgines being free from all actuall Sinne:

He shuts it up thus, Pag. 203. Many of these kinds of Opinions there are, which sometimes declined to one Part, sometimes to the other, and contra­ry Favourers, according to severall times, untill a diligent and long disquisition being praemitted, the Truth was manifested either by Pope, or Pro­vinciall, or generall Councels, nay, and saies that the disquisition is made by conferring of Places of Scripture and Reason, which is the way which you mislike.

These things considered, Pag. 204. whosoever shall after say, that your Church claimes all her Doctrines to have come by a Verball and constant Tradition to her from the Apostles, I will not say that he is [Page 115]very, impudent, but I cannot think that a small mat­ter will put him out of countenance; for your part, I esteeme you so much, that I am confident you have not so little Nose as not to find the contrary, nor so little Forehead as not to confesse it, having received the Affidavit of such a cloud of Wit­nesses.

Object. Whosoever pretend Christ his Truth against her, saith, that true it is, she had once had the true way, but by length of times she is fallen into grosse Errors, which they will reform, not by any Truth which they have received from hand to hand from those, who by both Parts are acknowledged to have received their lesson from Christ, and his Apostles, but by Argu­ments, either out of Ancient Writers, or the secrets of Reason.

Resp. This is no farther true then as it concernes the Pro­testants, for the Greek Church will not suffer your proportion to be generall, but forbid the Banes.

They pretend not to have made any Reforma­tion, but to have kept ever since the Apostles, what from them was received: Barlaam saier, they do [...] keep safe and whole the Tradition of the Catholique Church, nay, he proves his to be the found Part, because by them [...], Nothing was ever more esteemed then her Tradition: And he objects it to your Church that she doth [...], disanull the Tradition of the Catholique Church, and setting them at [Page 116]naught, bring in strange and undenizon'd opini­ons: And that Greeke, who is joyned to Nilus, and Barlaam in Salmatius his Edition disputing against a Cardinall, chargeth you, that you do [...], sow Tares among the Tradition of the Apostles and Fathers: if when they make this claime they either say so, and think not so, or think so, and erre, then this proves, that though the Roman Church did make that claime which you say she doth, yet she too might either claime it against her Conscience, or against Truth: For this claime of the last cannot be denyed but by him, who will imitate that Hamshire Clown, of whom you give me warning, and believe no more then he sees himself, especially since your own Authors, when they dispute for Traditions, prove their authority from this profession of the Greeks: but I cannot blame you to forget them, (if we would suffer you) since they cannot be remembred but by your Religions disadvantage; For I verily believe, that if they had but one Addition which they want, (I mean Riches) not onely most of them who leave the Protestants, would sooner go to them then to you, (unlesse they would take their Reli­gion as we take Boates, for being the Next) but money among you, who (though they dislike your pretended Infallibility, that the Popes usur­pations upon the rights of other Bishops, his (not ancient) claime of power to deliver Soules out of Purgatory, &c, And yet are frighted from joyning with the Protestants, by want of Succes­sion, [Page 117]Vocation, and such like Bull-beggers) would goe over to them (as I have heard Spalato meant to doe) if they were not kept, by an unwillingnesse to change the spirituall tyrannie of the Pope, for the temporall of the Turke.

But (although there were no such Churches, or they made no such claime, yet having shew'd out of your own Authors, that some opinions have not been constantly delivered by Tradition, but have entered into the Church upon the grounds (which might at least possiblie deceive them) of Scripture, Reason, and Revelation, and others knockt apace to be let in) I hope we may be excused for making a reveiw of all, and examining what doctrines have been brought in, if not by Scripture (which we think reasonable) at least by comparing what this age teacheth and requires, with what the first Ages did; to which we are encourag'd by your selves, who make agreement with Antiquitie, the chief mark of the Church, unlesse you meane your selves to be onelie Judges, even of those things by which you bid us to judge you: For our examinations by reason, I cannot tell why you mislike it, since those who trust their own reason least, trust it yet to chuse for them one whom they may trust, against which, all Arguments drawn from her fallibilitie with­out question lie. Your Religion is built upon your Church, her authoritie upon reasons, which we think slight and fallacious, and your selves think but prudentiall and probable; ought we not then, nay, must we not examine them by Rea­son, [Page 118]or receive them upon your word? And al­lowing them probable reason, yet I have still cause to examine further, whether your super­structions be not more unreasonable then your foundations are reasonable, for then I cannot receive a more, unprobable doctrine, then that is probable, which it is prov'd by: Yet (in respect of things appearing divers, at divers times) I doe not like my own way so well, as to esteem it absolutelie infallible, but though I keep it, because I account it the best, yet I will promise to leave it, when you can shew me a better, which will be hard to doe, because you cannot prove it to be better but by reason, against which proofe (and consequentlie against whatsoever it proves) your own Objections .remaine; For to be perswaded by reason, that to such an authoritie I ought to submit it, is still to follow reason, and not to quit her. And by what else is it, that you examine what the Apostles taught, when you examine that by ancient Tradition, and ancient Tradition by a present Testimonie? Yet when I speake thus of finding the Truth by Reason, I intend not to exclude the Grace of God, which I doubt not (for as much as is necessarie to Salvation) is readie to concurre to our Instruction; as the Sunne is to our sight, if we by a wilfull winking chuse not to make, not it, but our selves guilty of our blindnesse: Indeed if we love darknesse bet­ter then light, and instead of esteeming it, shut it out, it were but just in God, if we so continue long hardened, not to suffer it to see after when [Page 119]we would, since so obstinatelie we would not when we might, like to that which happened to those Englishmen, of whom Froissard speakes, who having long bound up an eye, and made a foolish vow, never to see with that till they could see their Mistresses, when they returned, and unbound them, they saw nothing, but that they could not see.

Yet when I speake of Gods grace, I mean not, that it infuseth a knowledge without reason, but workes by it, as by its Minister, and dispels those Mists of Passions, which doe wrap up Truth from our Understandings. For if you speake of its instructing any other way, though I confesse it is possible (as God may give us a sixth sence) yet it is not ordinarie, and ought not to be brought to dispute, because so we leave visible Arguments to flie to invisible, and your Adversarie, when he hath found your play, will be soon at the same locke, and I beleeve in this sence, infus'd Faith is but the same thing, otherwise apparell'd, which you have so often laught at in the Puritans, under the title of private Spirit.

Object. This being supposed, either this Principle hath remain'd unto her ever since her beginning, or she took it up in some one Age of the sixteen, if she took it up, she then thought, she had nothing in her, but what she had receiv'd a from her fore-fathers, and if she thought so she knew it.

Resp. This Principle is not yet taken up by her, and suppose it were, yet since some other opinions are confess'd to have been receiv'd by her, not from [Page 120]a constant Tradition, but Scripture, and Reve­lations, and not at once, but by little and little, this very Principle of receiving nothing but from Tradition, might it selfe have been receiv'd not from Tradition: nor need it have been in any one Age of the sixteen, but some might have taught it in one Age, more in another, and all at last, and this so farre from being an impossibilitie, that it were no wonder.

Object. Let us adde, that the multitude of this Church is so dispersed through so many Countries, and Lan­guages, that it is impossible they should agree toge­ther upon a false Determination, to affirme with one consent a Falsity for Truth, no Interest being able to be common to them all, to produce such an effect.

Resp. Although so many Countries could not so well agree upon it at once, yet some might so per­swade others, that in time and by degrees the disease may be grown epidemicall: And trulie, considering in everie Countrie how few there are, who thinke of Religion at all, or of them againe, who walke in it by the directions of their owne eyes, even of them who take upon them to shew that way to others, but for the most part (which they did much more in more ignorant times, when Scriptura sacra cum vetust is authoribus frigebat) are lead by some few, whom they reverence for their Piety and learning, [...], whose words are accounted lawes, Theodoret. and they againe by a Thomas, or a Scot, or at best by Austine, or Hierome, and thinke it Tradition [Page 121]enough to have it from them (for else why thinke they to beare us downe with the Authoritie of one or two Fathers, if they thinke that not ground enough to goe upon themselves) it seemes little stranger to me, what whole Countries should let in not ancient opinions, then that a few should, since a few in all places have ever govern'd all the rest; of this I will bring two very known examples out of the Ecclesiasticall Historie.

The first is of Valens the Emperour, who, be­ing himselfe an Arrian, and making peace with a Nation which was not so, and supposing that they would never have firme concord with him, to whom in Faith he was so opposite, was advised to perswade their Bishop to change his beleife, for which end having employ'd both words and money, and effected it, the Bishop, Theodoret lib 4. directlie con­trarie to Saint Peter, being himselfe weakened, weakened his brethren, who yeelded to commu­nicate with the Arrians (which before they abhorr'd from) and to esteeme the Father greater then the Sonne.

The second, is of that Macedonian Bishop, who, being persecuted by the Catholique Bishop of the same place (who was then gone to Constan­tinople to fetch Souldiers, by whose assistance he might afflict the Hereticks the more) resolved to turne Catholicke, and perswaded all his fol­lowers to joyne with him in that Act, and this in so short a time, that when the other returned, he found him chosen Bishop unanimouslie by both Parties, and himselfe (for his crulelty, [Page 122]not undeservedlie) excluded.

There is besides another thing which helpes to lett in great errors, which is, that men naturally neglect small things, and small things in time na­turally beget great; for which cause Aristotle shewing to us severall causes of the Changes of Government, one of them is [...], ad­ding, that [...], often a great chang comes stealingly in, when what is little is not considered.

Yet besides the generall carelessnesse; The Au­thority of the Teachers, the Flexibility of the Taught, and the smallnesse of the Things them­selves at the beginning, even Interest it selfe (which consists of two Parts, Feares, and Hopes) is able to produce great effects: Of this me thinkes your selves may be witnesses, who use to call ours, a Parliamentary Religion, as thinking, that the Will of the Prince, and both Houses, onely made it to be received: Whereas in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths Raigne, of many thousand Livings which were in England, the Incumbents of not a hundred, chose rather to lose their Benefices for your opinions, then to keepe them by subscribing to ours; all who (for the greatest Part) of neces­sity must be supposed for private interest, to have dissembled their Religion, either then or immedi­ately before.

Secondly, In the Third Booke of Evagrius we find, that above five hundred Bishops subscri­bed against the Councell of Calcedon, which we have reason to think most did unwillingly, (espe­cially [Page 123]if the Infallibility of a generall Councell were so famous a Doctrine for Catholiques as now it is) because we know it was upon Basiliscus his commands, and that a considerable Part of them (the Bishops of Asia) profess'd after they were forct to it, though before they had been very angry in another Epistle with those, who said that they had done by force, rather then Free-will.

And over, and above all this we may see by Erasmus his words, that many might not oppose a Doctrine brought in by great Power, in hope of a time to do it in, when there might be more like­lyhood of prevailing: For he saith in one place of his Epistles, that those who resist opinions, when there is no probable meanes of doing good by it, are like those, who out of season attempt to break Prison, who gaines nothing by it, but to have their Irons doubled upon them: And the same cause which he thinks should move them to stay (outwardly) contentedly in Prison, may have made many others not resist, when they were first by violence and crowd carried thither, who might feare least their opposall might not help their cause, but beget a definition against it. And there being thus many severall motives which may work upon so many severall kindes of men, it is no wonder, if an error may soon over-runne all men, or seem to do so.

Next, Whereas you speak of severall Coun­tries, and Languages, I must desire you to re­member, that the Clergy of your Church are as it were all of one Language, ( Latine either being, or [Page 124]being supposed to be, as much theirs, as that of their own People) and being under the Dominion of one, that is the Pope, which makes them as it were one Country, and from them the Laity re­ceive all their opinions: Nay in ancient times almost all considerable men spoke the Language of the governing Nation, (as all of the better sort of the Irish) do English) and the greatest part of Christians were governed by one man, the Em­perour, and so a new opinion may easily have been received generally, no such barres being set up to hinder it, as you alleadge.

Object. Christian Doctrine is not a speculative knowledge instituted for delight, but it is an Art of living, a Rule of attaining to eternall blisse; hence it follow­eth, that no error can fall, even in a point which see­meth wholly speculative in Christian Faith, but soon it breedeth a Practicall effect, or rather defection in Christian behaviour.

I wonder much to heare you say this, who cer­tainely have a Religion consisting of many points, which are no wayes reduced into Practice: Espe­cially from the degrees in which they are held, (which I conceive introduced) could arise no change in Christian behaviour; I confesse that Christian Religion being a Covenant between God, and Man by the entermise of Christ, we Christians are properly concerned, but in the knowledge of what are the Conditions and Re­ward proposed and promised, what wee are to observe, and what to hope for; and in so farre forth understanding the Nature and Attributes [Page 125]of the Covenant-maker and bringer, as we may be made sure, that whatsoever God hath pro­mised or threatened, that indeed he hath: But though this principally concernes us, yet the necessity of beleeving the veracity of God, ob­ligeth us moreover to give our Assents to any thing, how little soever it have to doe with pra­ctise (as Saint Pauls having Parchments) if it be once made to appeare to us either by Scripture-reason, Tradition, or any way to have been said by God either immediately, or mediately by Christ and his Apostles: And do not your selves count the Greekes Heretickes for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, (though many Fathers deny it too) though, I pray, what hath that to do with Practice or Christian be­haviour, and if you should now change your opi­nion in this point, what outward change would it breed, except onely the blotting out of one clause in a Creed in your Liturgy, wherein it was not at first? And not so much outward change would there be, Cap. 6 Lib. 3 de Romano Pontifice. if you should turne to believe Enoch and Elias, not bo be still alive, the contrary to which Belarmine saies all Catholiques hold now with a certaine Faith: And many more are of this kind.

Object. Whether man have Free-will or no, seemeth a Question belonging to some curious Philosopher; but upon the Preaching of the Negative part, presently followed an unknown Libertinage, men yeelding them­selves over to all kind of Concupiscence, since they were perswaded they had no power to resist, Free­will [Page 126]being taken away.

Resp. At this time it is not my own cause which I plead, [...], since in this point I confesse, I should rather be a Pelagian, then a Calvinist, since the first doth not wholly overthrow Gods grace, (for whatever we have by Nature, His grace gives us) but the second wholly overthrowes His justice, besides the di­rect contrariety of their Doctrine to Scripture, they saying in effect, that the Kingdome of Hea­ven is to take us by violence, whereas that teaches us, that we are to take it so: But yet give me leave to say thus much for them, that though it be true, that ill life followes very consequently from that Principle, and those who hold it, must be ill Lo­gicians, if they be good men, yet it is plaine, that very many of them live as good lives, as any who believe the contrary.

Besides, this in my opinion concernes as neerely your Dominicans, as our Calvinists, since they use Free-will, as Tully saith Epicurus did the Gods, verbis asserunt, re negant, assert it in words, but deny it in deed; yet I think you will not say that they are the more licentious, for (by direct conse­quence) denying Liberty; If therefore an opi­nion, which is so neerely tyed to action, produce no more effects, how much fewer would those other so much more unconcerning Tenets bring forth?

Object. I need not instance in Prayer to Saints, worshipping Images, Prayer for the Dead &c. which it is evident could not be changed without an apparent [Page 127]change in Christian Churches.

Resp. Without change (which though it must be then apparent, yet need it not be so to us) I confesse they could not come in, but with little opposition they might: The doubtfull estate of the dead af­ter this life, before the day of Judgment-audit, be­ing much better that they should have our Prayers, though they want them not, then misse of them if they want them, may not unlikely (and perad­venture not unreasonably) have brought in that Custome without either giving scandale, or being received by Tradition; Though if it had, you would have gotten little by it, for unlesse such a Purgatory, out of which Indulgences may deliver, will follow out of it, the Pope will not care for the other, as being [...], nothing to pro­fit: And though he did establish a Purgatory, yet it might be one after the Resurrection, for such a one, more then one Father speakes off: But it need establish none, (no not any third place, which is lesse) for the Prayers might be first intended for the encrease of the happinesse of the Blessed, and relaxation of the torment of the Cursed, which latter effect, that the Prayers for the dead have, is said by Prudentius, and confess'd to have been said, both by him, and others, by your own Heroe, Lib. Con. Reg. Iac. Pag. 892. Car­dinall Perron.

Of the worship of Images I shall speake here­after.

Praying to Saints may have come in upon consequences drawne out of mistaken places of Scriptures, or others, which inducing the opinion, [Page 128]that they enjoy'd the beatificall vision before the day of judgement, some might conclude, that then they saw all in it, and at first pray to them but conditionallie, till their number increased, and with it the degree in which they held the opinion, till now to deny it is accounted Heresie, though I know no Father which justifies our invocating of them (although they speake of their inter­ceding for us) before Nazianzene, whose ex­ample alone being of so great authoritie might spread it much: though, I pray, remember, who (as saies Nicephorus Calistus.) it was that brought it first into the publick Liturgie.

Object. It is not possible, that any materiall point of Christian Faith can be changed, as it were, by obreption, whilst men are on sleep, but it must needs raise a great scandall, and tumult: For suppose the Apostles had taught the world it were Idolatry to pray to Saints, or use reverence to their Pictures, how can we imagine this honour brought in but by a vehement conflict and tumult in a people, which did so greatly abhorre Idolatry, as the Apostles and Di­sciples did.

Resp. [...]: I spoke cheiflie, not of changing a point of Faith, but of creating one, not of contradicting a doctrine delivered from the Apostles, but of introducing one, of which they were wholly silent, either as theirs at first (as yee must say Pappias did) or onely as True, till being rooted and spread, it be beleeved Apostolicall upon Tertullian's Argument, that else how could so many Churches, errare in unam [Page 129]fidem, erre into the same beleife, which (because lesse time had then been allowed error to disperse it selfe in) was then, though no concluding proofe, yet a better then it was the next Age, and so still grew the worse for the wearing, till now it is worth just nothing.

But as Himerius saith, [...], I say, tis most easie to answer that which is not imputed, for I am so farre from saying that the Apostles taught these two things to be Idolatrie (since on my Conscience they spake not of them directlie at all) that I my selfe will not say they are. For Prayer to Saints (set aside your Idolatrie-like Expressions, seeming to beg that of them, which you professe, you meane onely to have them beg for you) I suppose the Question to be but this, whether they heare us or no (which Martyrs might possiblie doe, and yet no other, how holy and canoniz'd soever, because many Fathers held that none else see God yet) If they doe, I beleeve you may as well (or better, because you are more sure of their being in favour with God) desire them to intercede for you, as you may desire the Prayers of any living Friend, but if they doe not, then I will not say in Chrysostomes phrase, [...], what Thunder-bolts doth it not deserve, but how unreasonable is it to cast men out of the Church, and send them out of the world, for not assenting to an opinion, which you cannot prove.

For reverence to the Pictures of Saints, if you [Page 130]meane onely some outward civill respect, to te­stifie the great honour and love which you beare the Prototypes, It is, I beleeve, no more Idolatrie, then keeping off our hats in the Presence-Chamber to the Cloth of Estate.

Yet this I am so farre from esteeming necessarie, that I thinke they had better never come in, then have occasion'd so much un-christian turmoile about so indifferent a thing. The first and pu­rest Ages did well enough without these Pictures (we heare onely of a Parabolicall one of Christ in a Chalice) after they came to be made, Tertul. after to be set in Churches, after to be prayed before, nay, at last they are come to so great an excesse, that not onely against Scripture, but all Antiquitie, they are now come to picture God the Father himselfe: Upon a Popes Letter to an Emperour, wherein he defends the picturing of Saints and Christ, and speakes improbablie of the Antiquitie of their Pictures, and addes the reason why they pictured not God the Father, Baronius saies in the Margent. Yet it hath after happened, that they pictured him as he hath appeared; a way which the Church of that time could easily have found out, had they thought it lawfull, as it is plaine Saint Austine did not, De fide & Symb. unlesse Nefas est be an Approbation: This alone may serve to shew that beleifes may come in, even contrarie to that of former time (and yet we not know when they entered) unlesse you will oppose a superficiall reason, that a thing cannot be to a plaine example that it is, and force me to answer with Barlaam, [Page 131] [...], you tell me, it is impossible for him to die, whose Corse I look upon.

Object. We remember in a manner as yet, how change came into Germanie, France, Scotland, and our own Country, let these be a signe to us, what we may think can be the creeping in of false doctrine.

Resp. This is but a continuance of the same Para­logisme: For at this time, in these places, a set­led Religion being contradicted, the case is very different from an Opinions prevailing in the mindes of men, when they were yet white Paper, and not filled with any doctrine to the contrarie, either because though once the contrarie had been taught, yet it had slept a good while, or because nothing had before been spoken concerning it: We know, that nothing makes Noise but Oppo­sition and Resistance, and if that be not much, it will not last long, and the memorie of it as little: Besides most of these points making for the power and wealth of the Clergie, you must not expect, that there should have been as great an out-crie and hubbub when they were introduced at first, as when expelled after long prevailing, it being a worke, both more short, easie, and secret to plant an Acorne, then to cut down or remove an Oake ( [...]) although those men which governe the rest, were not in this case so much interessed.

Object. There is no point of doctrine contrary to the Catho­licke Church rooted in any Christian Nation, that the Ecclesiasticall History doth not mention, the times [Page 132]and combats, by which it entered, and tore the Church in peices.

Resp. The combats wherein it tore the Church, per­adventure it doth, but of the times wherein many entered, they are altogether silent. All take notice of Arrius his words, when by reason of Alexander's hot opposition there grew divisions, but of what the Orthodox-counted Authors (which we have) before the Councell of Nice said (though aske Perron, and he will tell you, how like Arrianisme they look) no Ecclesiasticall Historie makes any mention, because they made no bounce like the other, and so in likeliehood tooke no more notice of other opinions, which made none neither. And what is said of this point, may be said of Eutychianisme (see the same place of Perron) for we know how Dioscorus called upon the Fathers of the Pelagians, and others, whose opinions were certainlie in the Church before them, who are now counted the Authors of them.

Nay, even of opinions rooted (as you call it) are not the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the the Father onely, the communicating Infants, the admitting none to the Beatificall Vision but Martyrs, and other such rooted in the Greeke Church? or can you tell when they entered? at least was it not long before any combat concerning them? But suppose this were true, it is but accidental­ly so, for some of those writings which deliver this to us, might as well have been lost, as many others which were, so that no man can conclud that, of what­soever [Page 133]no beginning can be shewed in Ecclesiasti­call story, that hath not been introduced, (especi­ally since I speak not so much of opinions oppo­sing the Ancient Tradition, as of Superfaetations, not onely of pointes indeed Materiall, but of such as in continuance of time, have grown to be thougt so) for how can I tell, many of them having been lost, but some of those would have given me notice of it, if I now had them.

Object. Let it therefore remaine for evidently constant, that into the Christian Church can come no Errors, but it must be seen and noted, and raise scandale and opposition.

Resp. Here Sir not onely [...], you resolve upon a Truth of a conclu­sion before you have proved the Premisses; but even that is such a one as followes not out of them, although they were granted: For how followes it, that because all heretofore have been noted, therefore all at all times must be so, nay, that though at the comming in they found scandale and opposition, we necessarily (many centuries after) must know they did so. For the knowledge, which we have of these things, is but Reliquiae Da­naum, what was overseen by the zeale and neg­ligence, and how much we want of what we might have known, had the rest scap'd, no man can tell who pretends not to Revelation, and to the abi­lity of knowing what was in Books, whereof he never saw any, and never heard of most: But though it followes not, such a thing hath been done, therefore it must ever be, yet it followes (in spite of [Page 134]the most severe exception) such a thing hath been done, therefore it may be; As for example, since Valentinian the Emperour bringing in so contrary to Christian Religion, as you will confesse Poly­gamy to be, and establishing it with a law which allowed it, and yet those who tels us both of his actions and his Edict; speaking no tittle of any op­position which was made to it, but he ever accoun­ted a very good and pious Emperour, and his Son by his second wife (his first still living, and undi­vorced from him) being esteemed Legitimate, and succeeding him in a part of his Empire; think you whether his authority could not have drawn the Principall men, (and inclusively the rest to subscribe almost any opinion, who could keep them from opposing such an Act, or such a Law: And if though this be now counted unlawfull, yet we find not, that either any Bishop advised him against it, or excommunicated him for it, or indeed any man disliked it: If any false opinion backt by great Power, have been not onely (like this) introduced, but spread and setled, how unlikely is it that we should now know what scandals it raised, suppo­sing it raised any.

Object. As in our Naturall Body, the Principall parts are defended by bones, flesh, skins, and other defences, that no outward Agent can come to offend there, be­fore having annoyed some of these; so in the Catho­lique Faith, there are in speculations, those which we call Theologicall Conclusions, and other pious opi­nions, and in practice, many rights and ceremonies, which stoppe the Passage unto the maine Principall [Page 135]Parts of Christian beliefe, and Actions.

Resp. Either these Theologicall conclusions, and pious opinions are derived from the same Tradition, or they are not; if they be, then sure they are equal­ly matters of Faith, and so need some other course to defend them, and you must find Quis custodiet ip­sos custodes: If they be not, but were onely De­ductions either of the first Ages Logick, (which was not alwaies excellent) or of that of more Modern times, then may they so easily be false themselves, that I know not how they can serve to preserve the rest certainly from all corruption in­deed to secure any Truth: But I believe many may be miscounted Hereticks, for onely opposing some of these, what through the over-caution, and too much ardor of some Primum mobile, and of the greater part lead by a few such, what through their being come (having been long) from pious opini­ons, to be matters of Faith, as in great Families Servants, who haue waited long in meaner places, are rewarded with higher: Besides I verily be­lieve, that many Doctrines, which you account ne­cessary, have no such redoubts about them, or at least have not alwaies had, and indeed you onely affirming it by Tullies Rule, (who was no small Master of Reason) Sat erit verbo negare, It will be enough for me barelie to deny it. And for Rites and Ceremonies which you suppose guard your Doct­rines, (many used among the Ancients being not now in use amonst you) either some Tenets, which those did guard, and they did hold, yee hold not; or if you do still, at least they are how unguarded.

But still, I speaking most of the easinesse, that false and new Doctrines not contradicting the old, may be brought into the Church, what answer is it to tell me, how the Principall of Christian Religion are sure guarded, since so they may be, and yet such other may be brought in: As Christs Promises, and chiefe injunctions may be retained, and yet praying to Saints, and Purgatory, and such like, be superinduct.

Object. Let any discreete man consider, what further evi­dence he can desire, or peradventure what greater assurance Nature can afford.

Resp. Sir, I wish you so well that I cannot but give you warning, that this saying of yours doth Sapere Haeresin, since it seemes as if you disclaimed any ab­solute Infallibility, and pretend onely to grounds of most possibility, which the Protestants doing too, use yet to be accused for making nothing certaine, and having no firm foundation to build any thing upon: But as you claime lesse, then by your own Rules you should, so you claim still more, then either you are able to prove, or we likely to grant.

Object. The Philosophers say, it is indisciplinati ingenii, to expect in any Science more exactnesse then the Na­ture of it affords.

Resp. I confesse this to be true, but I desire you also to remember, that as it is absurd to expect as exact a proof in the Politicks, as in Geometry, so it is absurd to expect as high a degree of Assent to the first, as to the second of my objections, being intended against those, who will be infalliblly be­lieved to be infallible upon probable grounds, for [Page 137]they themselves give them no higher a Title, and indeed that it self in my opinion, is more then they deserve.

Object. What shall we expect then in Religion, to see a main advantage on the one Party we cast our selves upon.

Resp. Truely such Advantage on your part I cannot see: Neither if I did, could I in reason joyn with you. A maine advantage it is to have more Truth then any other Society of Christians, but suppo­sing you had so (which is but a supposition, for I verily believe, if the Queston were but, who had most Title to so much, yee would appear to a dis­passionate man, [...], Neither third nor fourth, according to the answer of the Anci­ent Oracle) yet you withall require, not onely that I should believe you erre in nothing, but that you never can, and then I had rather remaine in their communion, I say not, who themselves erred not, but whose conditions of Communion were lesse rigorous, and exacted not of me to professe they could not erre, when I believe they do. And if you answer, that it would necessarily follow, that if they had fewest errors, they must have none, because some society of Christians must be allwaies free from all this; I shall absolutely deny, and the more earnestly, because I know this is a trappe, wherein many have been caught, who taking this for granted, have examined the Doctrines of the most known Churches of Protestants, and finding (as they thought, and peradventure truely) some errors in them, some Doctrines no way to be pro­ved but upon Popish grounds, and by that justi­fying [Page 138]those, and some imputations imposed upon their Adversaries, wherein their Tenets, or the consequences from them were mistaken, they then by the Doggs Logick have run over, without smel­ling to the Church of Rome, as knowing no other Society but these, and being praepossest, that one of necessity must be free from all error: Whereas for my part, as the [...], those who bound not themselves to believe absolutely the whole Doct­rines of any Sect, but pickt out what they thought accorded with reason out of them all, were a wise sort of Philosophers, so they seem to me reasonable Divines, who speak Gods will as they did Truth, (for it is not to chuse by reason, and Scripture or Tradition received by Reason, which makes a Hereticke, but to chuse an opinion which will make most either for the chusers Lust, or Power and Fame, and then seeking waies how to entitle God to it) For since it would be a Miracle, if the Errors of the Roman Church being long gathering could have been all discovered in a Day, or if it had been possible for the first Reformers, (who having their eyes but newly open, it is not strange if (like the man in the Gospel) they saw at first men walking like Trees, and had but an imperfect apprehension of Truth, especially being in Tullies state Quem fugio habeo, Quem sequar non habeo. I see whom to fly, but not whom to follow, not to have left some opinions untaxt, which yet were errors, nor to have expurged others, which yet were none; I cannot see why we may not in some points joyn with the one, and with others in other, [Page 139]and besides find some Truths which ly [...], well in the mid-way betweene the Parties, [...], nay in some points differ whol­ly from both: Which Liberty, if it were gene­rally allowed, and generally practised, if particular interests were trod wholly under foot, especially by the greatest, and if such spirits as those of Cassander and Melancton were more common, no considerable things would in a short time be left, but all would flow againe in the same Chanell, whereas this opinion, that allwaies one part erres not, is both prejudiciall to Truth, and the best Uni­ty, which is, that of Charity, for it perswades them who have fewest errors, to believe those to be none, and to hate all opposers as Hereticks; and of this your Church is most guilty, which not onely affirmes that there is such a one, but that she is it, and prophesies as much of her selfe allwaies for the future, as she promiseth for the present, and upon this ground (like him who having won nineteene games at Tables, threw the Dice in the fire for not winning him the twentieth) though we should yeeld to her in all points but one, and that the least considerable, she would yet throw us into the fire as Hereticks, for dissenting from her in that.

Object. You are bidden to put what yeare, or age, such an error entered, and it is evidently true, that then that yeare, or age, the Church conspired to tell a lie, and deceive their Posterity.

Resp. You would never be loved, if you were a Po­ser, and used to aske such hard questions, for either you must mean by [an opinion entering] when first [Page 140]any man pofessed it, or when first by all in com­munion with your Church it was assented unto: If you mean the first, it is impossiible to be answe­red, for if one should ask, who taught first that Christ was not begotten by God, before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, (through his power and the over-shadowing of the Holy Ghost) one who knew little of Antiquity, would answer Soci­nus, a more learned Person would say Photinus, another Paulus Samosatenus, another might find before him, Artemon and another yet before him, Theodorus [...], (with whom curious Logicians, and great Readers of Euclid, Aristotle, Galen, and Theophrastus were joyned) and yet that he was the first we have no certainty, for if a little of Eusebius had been lost, Theodorus, and Artemon had not been now heard of, which may as well have happened to others before them, either by want of being taken notice of by an Historian, or by the losse of the History, and not onely is this so in this, but in all other points.

If you mean the second, (for so you must by your Inference, though the words of the Question will bear both sences) it is as impossible for you to receive an answer. For how shall I know when all it is granted? For suppose no Author to have been lost, and me to have read and remembred them all; yet (as in England when the Calvinists opinion prevailed most, as wise and learned men, as those who writ, though differing in opinion from the Authors, yet opposed them not so pub­liquely, but that many might believe the more ge­nerall [Page 141]Tenet to be received by all) how should I know that the opinions of the Authors of seve­rall Ages, did agree with that of all equally wise and learned in the same times, for if there be no greater certaintie of the opinions of all of one Kingdome in our owne Age, think what Infalli­bilitie can we have concerning an absolute gene­rall consent a thousand years agoe. And of this, France may as well be an example as England, wherein many called Cassandrians, dissent from the publiquely received Doctrines, though with so little stirr, that our Posterity will not know that there now are such; So that all which any man can answer to this Question, is, that such a one was the first that he knowes of, who taught such a Doctrine, and such a time the first, wherein he knowes not that any contradicted it, or that your Church defines it for a necessary opinion, and ex­acted assent to it, as a condition of their Com­munion; which answer will be nearer to Truth or Falshood, according to the measure of the answe­rers learning; And indeed if you please to remem­ber, that when learning rose againe, and the Re­formation began, most Manuscripts of considera­ble Books, had long layn unreguarded by the ge­nerallity in Popish Libraries, and out of them onely had some few been Printed, you must con­fesse, that it was in the power of your Church, what answer we should be able to make to that Question which you propose, which then it is no­wonder if it were not answered, for your willing­nesse to keep men in darknesse concerning this, [Page 142]even in times of most light, is to be seen by your expurgatory Indexes: For there, though you professe to meddle with none but Moderne Au­thors, (whereas it is plaine you go as high as Ber­tram) yet both that will serve to deceive our po­sterity concerning the generall opinions of these times, and if your Church in former Ages used any course somewhat Analogicall to this, upon those Authors who then were moderne too, (as likely enough they did, or you have cause to hope they did for your more justification) then how can I know when any opinion entered, that is, either first was at all, or first by all taught: since in all times (how little mention soever be made of it) there may have been some Doctors of that opinion, though either no Authors, or allthough Authors, yet by this Stratageme may be kept from us.

Neither indeed can you answer this Question your self, for you know not in what Year, or Age, did either the giving the Eucharist to Infants begin, or end, at least Saint Austine knew not the first, who believed it an Apostolical Tradition; Neither was this a bare Custome, but implyed an opinion of good which Children received, which the change shewes plainely to have altered, and certainely either the first opinion was a Superstition, or the latter a Sacriledge.

But howsoever your Consequence followes not, for though your Church conspired, and de­ceived their Posterity, yet it might not conspire to deceive their Posterity, but to instruct it, being themselves deceived. And therefore when you [Page 143]reckon up the Motives which men have to speak false, I wonder to see Hopes, and Feares put in, and error left out.

Object. It is Gods course deeplier to root and strengthen those things which he would have most flourish. Now Christians know, that he made mankind for his Elect, the world for mankind, and therefore he hath rooted those things, which more immediately belong to his Elect (as his Church, Faith, and Holy Spirit in it) then the principles either of mans nature or of the world, which was made for it, him­selfe assuring us of it, when he told us, That one tittle should not perish of the holy Writ, though Hea­ven and Earth should be dissolved, and so seeing the latter principle relyeth upon the not failing of God to his Church, which should ever watch upon their actions, that nothing should creepe into Chri­stian life, which presently the zeale of the faithfull should not startle at. I thinke it needlesse, to seeke further to qualifie the strength of that part, which receiveth it from the quality of so good a workman as the Holy Ghost.

Resp. [...], I must there­fore observe, that this word [Church] hath so many significations even among your selves, that it seldome comes into the mouth of a Romane Arguer, but there comes withall, foure Termes into his Sillogisme, I could wish therefore, that you would still set downe your Definition of it, and put that (instead of the word Church) into what you say, least what your late Graecian Defen­der Cariophilus saies of Hereticks, [...], [Page 144]that they delight in doubtfull expressions, may seem more properly to belong to you: Cer­tainlie in some sence the Elect are Gods Church, and in that sence, the Church belongs not to his Elect, but is it, neither indeed know I (define it as you please) how it doth, since you confesse, that men may oppose any companie of men, whomsoever you will call the Church, without being obstinate, or consequentlie by heresie ex­cluded from Heaven, and so may, for all that, be elected. Neither indeed know I, how God hath made mankinde for his Elect: It is true, that having elected those who shall persevere in Faith and Obedience, and given man Free-will, which (joyned with Grace universallie offered) might bring him to the condition, and in that to election, and by that to Heaven; God may be said, to have made mankinde for his elect, that is, to be his elect, if they shut not themselves out of the way to be so; And all men (especiallie Christi­ans) I beleeve have, and alwaies shall have meanes enough to performe these conditions, in such a measure (all things considered, I meane, either naturall defects, as in Ideots, never having heard of Christ, as in many Pagans, not having Christs will sufficientlie proposed, as in many Christians, and whosoever is not by some fault in his will hindered from assenting, to him it is not propo­sed sufficientlie) as shall by God be from them re­quired.

But this hinders not, but that all Christians may see what they should, if they stand not in their own light, or wilfullie winke, and if they neglect Christs Instructions or Commands, and make themselves deafe against his voice, charme he never so wiselie, they then may fall from ne­cessarie Truths (much more from others) unto error, as well as from good life into wickednesse, from which, without question, Gods Spirit is as readie to keep men that will be kept, as from the other, and which is no lesse (if not more) part of the conditions required (for in that epitomie, which Christ hath given us of the day of judge­ment, men are onely mentioned to be punished for want of Charitie, and not mis-interpretations of doctrine) though I grieve to see so many of all parts (whereof I am too much one) live, as if God were so obliged to them for their Faith, that he were bound to winke upon their workes, and not to be an Idolater, or not a Heretick, were enough not to be damned.

And certainlie to say, That one tittle of Gods Word shall not passe away, is not to say, that God will keepe here alwaies a knowne companie of men to teach us all Divine Truths, which from them, because of their authoritie, we may without more adoe accept (for unlesse you meane the Church in this sence, it concernes not our diffe­rences) till you can prove that this word makes some such promise. For this seemes to me onelie to shew the veracitie of Gods Word, without speaking at all of any Churches continuall obe­dience [Page 146]to it, or true interpretation of it, or the impossibilitie of her receiving the Traditions of men for the will of God.

Besides in this Paragraph I observe three things:

The first, That you now draw your Arguments from the stedfast Truth of Holie Writ, whereas you neither quote out of it any thing to prove your maine Assertion, and in that way, which you laid before to finde out Truth by, you tooke no notice at all of Scripture, but would have all differences decided, by onely comparing what men had by verball Tradition, like that Dominican, of whom Erasmus tels us in his Epistles, that when in the Schooles any man refuted his con­clusion, by shewing it contrarie to the words of Scripture, he would crie out, Ista est Argumenta­tio Lutherana, protestor me non responsurum; This is a Lutheran way of Arguing, I protest I will not answer to it.

Secondlie, You now bring the proofe of your certaintie from Gods spirit never failing his Church (though you neither define what is there meant by Church, nor doe you bring any proofe, or ever can, that Gods Spirit will stay with any unlesse they please it, or that this will not consist with the least error in divine matters) whereas before you made it a Physicall, or rather super­physicall certaintie, that Traditions must be deli­vered from Age to Age uncorrupted, and this, not because of any other assistance, but ex necessitate Rei.

Thirdlie, You seeme to thinke, that aptnesse to startle in the faithfull, will serve to secure them from all error, whereas I must professe my selfe, of opinion, that in some times, and some cases, that may serve to induce it; for (it being trulie said, that there is as much follie beyond wisedome, as on this side of it, and Nazianzene telling us trulie, that [...], the marke is equallie mis­sed by over shooting, as by shooting short) I doubt whether over much caution may not have made some doctrines, and their Abetters con­demned (especiallie when they appeared some­what new) some Truths rejcted for feare, least they did by consequence contradict some point of Faith, when indeed they did, [...], Arist. Ethick. as Dogs often barke at a friend for an enemie, upon the first noise he makes, before having considered which he is: This made the Ancients so earnest against the now-certaintie of the Antipodes, this in after times, for the same opinion, cost a Bishop his Bishopricke, and truth in all probabilitie, would have then beene defined a heresie, if a generall Councell had been called about it: Since then this aptnesse to startle hath inclined Orthodox Christians to condemn, not onely those who had affirmed in termes the contrarie to Tradition, but even those, from whose opinions they thought it would result, and consequentlie to exact an Assent, not onely to direct Tradition, but also to whatsoever else seemed to them reasonable [Page 148]deductions from it; This seemes to me a way by which Errors may have entered by shoales, the first Ages (I mean then, Cum Augustinus habe­batur inexpugnabilis Dialecticus, quòd legisset Cate­gorias Aristotelis) not having been so carefull and subtile in their Logick, as these more learned times both Arminians and Catvinists, Dominicans and Jesuites, Papists and Protestants, seeming to me to argue much more consequently to their owne Principles, more close to their present businesse, and every way more rationally then the ancient Doctors used to do I mean those which I have seen: And I am confident, that if two or three Fathers should rise againe unknown, and should return to their old. Argument against the Arrians, from Cor meum eructavit verbum bonum, both Parties would be so farr from receiving them for Judges, that neither would accept of them for Ad­vocates, nor trust their Cause to their arguing, who opposed their common enemy no better.

Now that this way of making Deductions out of Tradition, and those both very hasty, and false ones is very ancient, appeares even by an example in the end of the Gospell of John, for there out of Christs words falsly interpreted, a conclusion was drawn and spread among the Bretheren, that Saint John should not dye, and what they did out of these words of Christ, other in other times may have done out of other words of his, and their Collection passe for his Doctrine; which shewes the great advantage which we have by Gods Word being written since, if it had not, we could [Page 149]not alwaies have gone to a new examination of the very words, which Christ or his Apostles taught, and consequently a consequence of them spread in the place of them, would have been more incurable then now it is. I will also desire you to look in the five hundered eighty fourth Page of the Flo­rentine Councell, set out by Binius, and there you will find, that the Latines confesse, that they added the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, to the Creed, because the contrary opinion seemed to them by consequence, contrary to a confessed Tradition of Christs eternall Divinity, to which, yet it will appear out of what Cardinall Perron hath excellently showne, Con. Reg. I [...]c. Pag. 708. (though upon another oc­casion) that it doth not contradict, but that this con­sequence was ill drawne, which may have been in other points too, and have brought, in no small multitude of Errors fince, neither was their Logick certaine to conclude better, nor were they lesse apt to add to their Creeds accordingly, at any other times then they were at that.

Object. I doubt not but whosoever shall have received satis­faction in the discourse past, will also have received in the point we seek after, that is, in being assured both that Christ hath left a Directory in the World, and where to find him, there being no doubt but it is his holy Church upon Earth: Nor can there be any doubt which is his Church, since there is but one that doth, and can lay claime to have received from hand to hand his holy Doctrine.

Resp. That which makes you expect that your Reader should have received satisfaction by what you have [Page 150]said, is, that since Christ hath a great care of his Elect, he must consequently (most strongly of any thing) have rooted his Church. Now I having shewed, that by your own confession, men may be of his Elect, that are out of your Church, I seemed to my selfe to have likewise proved, that there is no necessity of any Churches being their Director. I know you generally think this the more convenient way, to have left such a guide, that because otherwise Dominus non fuisset Discre­tus, or in Epictius his Phrase, Arrian. [...], you conclude that he hath: but we (though indeed in such cases where our [...] the common Notions concerning God, teach us that such a Thing were contrary to Gods maine Attributes to do, some of us conclude upon that ground, that this he hath not done) in these cases which onely concerne convenience, of which we have much lesse certaintie, begin at the other end, and considering first what he hath done, con­clude that to be sufficiently convenient, and so finding no infallible guide by him instituted, sup­pose it convenient that there should be none: Truely if convenience were the measure, and our Understandings the measurers, we should resolve that God hath made every Particular man, at least every Pious man Infallible, and so to need no out­ward guide, which yet it is plain that he hath not done. Though in my opinion, in some sence, he hath made every man (who pleaseth) Infallible, in re­spect of his journys end, though not of all Innes by the way, certaine to find Heaven though he may [Page 151]misse many Truthes in Divine matters: For the beliefe which God requires of being to be thought true of his word, and that man be ready to believe and obey what he saies, as soon as it shall appear to him that he hath said it, and every man being able (according to his meanes) to examine what he hath said; It followes, unlesse God should damne a man for weaknesse of understanding, (which were as strange, as if he should damne him for a weak sight, or a feeble arme) that every man is Infallible in his way to Heaven, so he lay no blocks in it himself, (at least is undoubtedly secur'd of any danger of Hell) For if they neither de­sire to avoide the trouble of enquiry through un­willingness to find that to be true, which is contrary to what he now thinks, and so to hazard either the affection of deare Friends, or the favour of great Friends, or the feare of some other humane Inconvenience, as want of present meanes, Im­probability to get more, or of that, disparagement so terrible to flesh and blood, of descending to confesse that they have so long erred, (like Frobe­nius, qui potuisset vivere, nisi puduisset aegrotare, Eras. Ep. who might have lived, but that he was ashamed to confesse himself sick) If I say none of these or the like things, either keep him from seeking what is Gods will, or from daring to professe it when he hath found it, then such an Error having no re­ference to the will, which is the onely fountaine of sin, cannot by a just God be punished as a sin, and the proofe of the necessity of an Infallible Di­rector drawn from Gods care of his Church, for [Page 152]his Elects sake, is easily avoided.

But say you, if there be a director, it must be the Church, and againe, because you know that all congregations of Christians, pretend to that Title in some sence, (as even the worst men call themselves by better Names then they deserve, as Aristotle saith, Rhetor. [...]) and I may mistake our enemies Camp for our friends, and serve against Christ, whilst I think I fight un­der his Banner (though even then, I beleeve, I should have a share in that prayer of his, to whom none is denied, Father forgive them, for they know not what they doe) unlesse you gave me some certaine marks to know the Church by; you therefore say, what you have before said, that yours is it, because that alone pretends to Tradition, to which I answer, what I before an­swered, that the Greeks serve me to disprove the sufficiency of this Mark, who professe, that they hold the constant Tradition, and that under that Notion, they have both received what you deny, and not received what you propose.

Object. Let us consider in her Presence or Visibility, Au­thority, Power; As for the first, her multitude and succession make the one, that she is ever accessible, ever knowne.

Resp. What you now say, is not to prove your Church a Directresse, but having (as you think, and I think not) proved that already, you now mean to shew, that she hath the Conditions re­quisite in a Directresse: But this I deny, for neither is her presence or Visibility, (for all her [Page 153]multitude and succession) such as were in a Direct­resse required: For she (besides that she must bring notice and proofes with her, to prove that she is instituted by God to direct men, and those plain and evident, if she require meerly but our assent, but if she require us to assent Infallibly, then those Infallible, which yours cannot do) must also be so visible, as to be known to all men, if not as a Directresse, at least as a Company of men, which yours sure was not to those Nations, which were lately discovered by Columbus: But if you except and say, she need onely be visible to all Christians, (though this exception need a proofe) yet even this Condition your Church hath not allwaies had, for I believe, to those Christians whom Xaverius found in the East-Indies, your Church had been as little visible, as to those Pagans whom Columbus discovered in the West: Besides beyond the Abissins, how farre Christian Religion may be propagated, and yet your Church unknown, who can tell? Besides, even to most of them (for any credible Testimony that ap­peares) she may not be very visible. But above all, that reason being answered, upon which you conclude, that there is some Director, and that ground being taken away upon which you build, that yours is that, me thinks it will be unnecessary to dispute long upon the Conditions required to that, which hath no entity at all.

Object. For Authority, her very claime of Antiquity and Succession, to have been that Church which received her beginning from Christ and his Apostles, and never [Page 154]being all united under the universall government of ver fore-went it, giveth a great reverence to her among those who believe her, and amongst those who with in­differency seek to inform themselves, a great Prejudice above others. And if it be true, it carrieth an in­finite Authority with it, of Bishops, Doctors, Mar­tyrs, Saints, Miracles, Learning, Wisedome, Vene­rable Antiquity, and such like.

Resp. There is no Question, but any Church, true or false, which claimes to have ever kept the Apo­stles Doctrines uncorrupted, and is infallibly be­lieved to have done so, must among those Christi­ans who thus beleeve, have even equall Authority with the Apostles. But me thinks that this claime before proofe, should to others be any prejudice for her, (especially to those who have great Argu­ments against her) is unreasonable, and if after consideration it appears otherwise, she hath then onely helpt to weaken her Testimony, and hath destroyed her Infallible Authority in any thing else.

Object. There remaineth Power, which no man can doubt but he hath given it most ample, who considereth his words so often repeated to his Apostles: But ab­stracting from that, who doth not see that the Church hath the nature and proportion of ones Country to eve­ry one. As in a mans Country he hath Father and Mother, Brothers, Sisters, Kinsfolkes, and Allies, Neighbours and Country-men, (anciently called Ci­ves and Concives) and of these are made his Coun­try; So in the Church finds he in way to spirituall Instruction, and Education, all these digrees nearer and further off, till he come unto that furthermost of [Page 155]Christ his Vicar: and as he in his Country finds Bearing, Breeding, Settling in Estates and Fortunes, and lastly, Protection and Security; So likewise in the way of Christianity, doth he find this much more fully in the Church, So that if it be true, that a man oweth more to his Master then to his Father, Bene esse is better then esse; certainly a man also (as farr as Church and Country can be separated) must owe more to the Church, then to his very Coun­try; Wherefore the Power which the Church hath to Command and instruct, is greater then the Power of the Temporall Community, of which he is part.

Resp. I wish you would have set down these words of Christ, so often repeated to his Apostles, in which Power to the Church (I mean such a one as yours pretends) is undoubtedly given; For my Part, Truely I remember none; For I suppose not that the Power given to the Apostles can reasonably be claimed by any Society of men now, no not though you should extend the Definition as largely as Erasmus, (who saies Ecclesiam voco totius Popu­li Christiani concensum, I call the Church, the Consent of the whole Christian People) unlesse that be meant too in all Ages, and so the Apo­stles would come in; They were so signed, and sealed to (as I may say) from Heaven, by having most conversed with Christ, and been most be­loved by him, and chosen especially to teach the World his Will, that it is impossible any men could be indeed Christians, and not receive their Doctrine, as that of Christ, without any other Proofe, but there is no other Church that hath [Page 156]such a Priviledge, The Power of proposing she hath, and so have you, and without Question, if you can convince any Christian that what you said, Christ said first, he is bound both to believe and obey it, and againe let all Churches joyne in pro­posall, yet till he be so convinced, (unlesse his own fault hinder it) it binds him not, neither is it sufficiently proposed, allowing it true, which it is not alwaies necessary that it should be, although so attested. For as a Naturall Foole is not bound to obey any Doctrine or Precept, taught or imposed by God himself, because his understanding can­not discover it to be so: so in my opinion, whose understanding soever is not convinc'd of the same, (how plain soever to others the thing be) he is for as much as concernes this point, in the state of a Naturall Foole, and no more to be condemned.

Neither see I what you prove out of the Pro­portion between the Church, and every mans Country, (for if any Church be intended by God to be so our Director, that her propositions are to be received, because they are hers, then in­deed we owe her much more obedience then to our Country, which if it should require of us to believe an opinion true, because that hath defined it, I believe no man would obey, and he who should press us to it, would be accounted so mad, that we should send him, not to a Doctor of Divinity, but to a Doctor of Physick, to be confuted.

And that any Church is so intended, appeares not at all by this proposition, since the same is even amongst the Church of the Turkes, which is Ecclesia [Page 157]malignantium, for there they find their Metaphori­call Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, Kins­folks, Allies, Neighbours, (which all Here­ticks do too among themselves) all these degrees neerer and further of, till at last they come to that furthermost, of being united under the Univer­sall Government of Mahomets Vicar, the Mufty. But to them you would say, that this proves not Truth, but at most Concord, and that is Factio inter Malos, which is Amicitia inter Bonos, Salust. there­fore the same we answer you, since Pyrats, and Theeves, have as strict bonds among themselves, as the honestest persons, and often gerater conspi­racies, and [...], to destroy these, then they make to defend themselves. And whereas you say, that we owe more gratitude and obedience to the Church, then to our Country, I have told you, that this may be true without owing obedi­ence to all she teaches; But yet even this in some sence is True; To the generall Tradition of Christians of the first Ages who lived with the Apostles, and could not in any likelyhood but know their writings; I owe the knowledge of the Scripture, and to that, the knowledge of Gods will, and to that, Heaven, if I conforme carefully to it both my Life and my Beliefe; and to the Church in this sence, I owe both as much grati­tude as you please, and believe whatsoever this, as generally, witnesseth to have received from the Apostles: But this concerning any present Church, doth as little concerne your present pur­pose: For let us mean by the Church, that com­pany [Page 158]of men which hath kept Tradition wholly uncorrupted, (and suppose there is such a one) yet to know that she hath done so, I must examine her Doctrine; and compare it either with Scripture, or the first Antiquity, and so rather receive her for it, then it for her: Besides, that the whole Church teaches nothing, and if she did, yet by the same waies from any single learned Orthodox man, I may receive the same instruction, to whose commands neverthelesse (except when he delivers Gods) I owe no obedience.

Thus too, when the Orthodox company com­mands as they are Orthodox, that is something of the will of God, then they are to be obeyed, and so am I, and so againe, when the chosen go­vernours for that purpose, command indifferent Things, but if they exceed their Commission in commanding, no man is longer bound to obey, no more then if a Mayor of a Town should com­mand the People to make his Hay, they were bound to obedience, since commanding more then his Magistracy authorizeth him, he in that case is no Magisttate.

Object. This Church can satisfie both learned and un­learned. For in matters of Faith, above the reach of learning, whose spring is from what Christ and his Apostles taught, what learned man can refuse in his inmost soule, to bow to that which is testified by so great a multitude to have come from Christ? and what unlearned man can require more for his faith, then to be taught by a Mistresse of so many prerogaives and advantages above all others.

Resp. The learned cannot reasonablie be satisfied with this (especiallie so farre forth as to beleeve it infalliblie true.) First, because they see great multitudes have and doe testifie contrarie things. Secondlie, because they must have observed with Salmeron, Tom. 13. Pag 468. that a multitude of some opinion may proceed from some one Doctor, especiallie, if he be Illustrious; and some againe, taken with a pious and an humble feare, chuse rather against their mind, to approve what hath come from others, then to bring forth any new thing out of their own understanding, least they may seem to bring some thing unwonted into the Church. This they must needs see, may bring an undelivered opinion to be generall, and then the generallitie may bring it to be thought to come from Tradition, accor­ding to Tertullians rule, Quod apud multas eccle­sias unum invenitur, non est erratum sed Traditum, and that of Saint Austine, that of whatsoever no beginning is known, and yet is generall, is to be beleeved to have its originall from the Apostles. By this way (supposing that all your Church did witnesse, all their doctrines to have had such a lineall succession, which they know to be false) they see, that opinions falslie and illogicallie de­duct from true Traditions, may be equallie be­leeved to be such themselves, Vincentius Liri­nensis allowing the following Church to give light to the former, which they might mistake in doing, at least, the certaintie of her Illustrations cannot have their force from Tradition: By this way they see, that in time, such doctrines may [Page 160]come to have such a generall attestation, which had their first spring from Scripture mis-inter­preted, either by publicke mistakes, or by Coun­cels mislead, either by feare, error, or partialitie, and what proceeded either from consent, or definition, may seem to have been deduct from Tradition: In this they will be confirmed, by seeing plainlie, that more is now required to be beleeved by the Church of Rome, then in all times hath been, that now among you contrarie parties urge for or, expect a generall Councell to end questions, concerning which, neither side claimes any continued verball Tradition, and that the grea­test part are ready to receive such a definition, in as high a degree, as any Tradition whatsoever; They will be also confirmed by your denying Infallibilitie to a Councell, how generall soever, unapproved by the Pope, by seeing, that if (as you say) no man can be ignorant what he was taught when he was a childe, as the ground and substance of his hopes for all eternitie, and if in this, all your Religion were comprised (or else to what pur­pose say you this) then no man bred in the Or­thodox Church could erre, or ever have erred in matter of Faith, without knowing that he had departed from the very Basis of Christianitie, and for Instructions in these points, not onely all Authors, as Commenters upon Scripture, and the like, were wholly uselesse, but it were also a vaine thing, to goe for instruction even to Christs Vicar, and S. Hierome might have resolved his own question, about the [...], every whit as well as [Page 161] Damasus, or Saint Peter himselfe: And for the same reason, it were wholly impossible, that at the same time the Popes, and most notable, and most pious, and most learned Papists living, should have justified, and applauded Erasmus for the same workes (the one by his printed Diplomas, and the rest by their Letters) for which, at the same instant, the greatest part of the Monkes counted and proclaimed him a more pestilent Heretick then Luther, if they had all weighed heresie in the same ballance, and more impossible if in yours; which the learned will yet lesse ap­prove of, when they see how soon the worse opi­nion, and lesser authoritie may prevaile, as how that of the Monkes hath done against that of the Popes, and Bishops, and that so much, that Eras­mus is now generallie disavowed as no Catholicke, and given to us (whom wee accept as a great present) that Bellarmine will allow him to be but halfe a Christian, and Cardinall Perron (which I am sorry for) gives a censure upon him, which would better have become the pen of a Latomus, a Bedda, a Stunica, or an Egmundane, then of so learned and judicious a Prelate.

Now for the Ignorant, I am sure you will never be able to prove infalliblie to them, that your Church hath any prerogatives above others; the ordinarie way cannot be taken with them, because they not understanding the languages, in which the Fathers and Councels are written, cannot be press'd by what they cannot construe, and your way as little, because they are not more [Page 162](though totallie) ignorant of the Authors of past Ages, then they are of the state, opinions, and claimes of the present time; so that I know not how you can attempt them, if they have but a moderate understanding to their no know­ledge.

Object. The body of our Position shoots forth the branches of divers Questions, or rather the Solutions of them: And first, how it happened, that divers Heretickes pretended to Tradition, as the Chiliasts, Gnosticks, Carpocratians, and divers others, yet they with their Traditions have been rejected, and the Church onely left in claime of Tradition; For if we looke into what Catholicke Tradition is; and what the Hereticks pretended, the question will remaine voided. For the Catholicke Church cals Tradition, that Doctrine, which was publiquely delivered, and the Hereticks called Tradition, a kinde of secret Doctrine, either gathered out of private conversation with the Apostles, or rather pretended, that the Apostles, besides what they publiquely taught the world, had another mysticall way, proper to Schollers, more endeared, which came not to publique view, whereas the force and energie of a Tradition, resi­ding in the multitude of hearers, and being planted in the perpetuall life and actions of Christians, it must have such a publicity, that it cannot be unknown amongst them.

Resp. Of the Carpocratians and Gnosticks, I have spoke before, but sure for the Chiliasts this is onely said and not proved: Howsoever this undeniablie appeares, that either Pappias and Irenaeus thought [Page 163]not this Tradition to have come such a way as you speake of, or else they thought it no here­ticall way, but such a one, as was (at least reaso­nablie) to be assented to; and both what was the way by which Traditions ought to come, and by which this came they were more likely to know, then those of following ages; which proves, that this Objection (as much as concernes them espe­ciallie) remaines still so strong, that (in spire of Fevardentius) it will be better to answer it, Scalpello quam Calamo, with a Pen-knife then with a Pen, and no Confuter will serve for it, but an Expurgatory Index, no non si tuus afforet Hector, if Cardinall Perron were alive.

I must by the way take notice of what yon say here, that Tradition must have such a Publicity as cannot be unknown among Christians, and desire you to agree this with what you say in the next Paragraph, that the Apostles may not have preach­ed in some Countries some Doctrines, which we now are bound to receive as Traditions, for sure those Doctrines were then unknown among many Christians; and if they had been necess [...]ry, sure the Apostles would no where have forgot (with so good a Prompter as the Holy Ghost) to have taught them; If they were not then necessary, how have they grown to be so since? Besides, I appeal to your Conscience, whether it appear that the doctrine of the Exchequer of Superabundant merits, of which the Pope is Lord Treasurer, and by vertue of which he dispenseth his pardons to all the Soules in Purgatory, appear to have been known even to [Page 164]any of the best Christians, and whether if it had been known to them as a Tradition, (being a Doctrine which necessitates at least Wisdome and Charity, a continuall practice of sueing for them, and of giving them) it were possible, that of what they knew, such infinite Volumes of Au­thors should make no mention.

Object. Suppose some private Doctrine of an Apostle to some Disciple should be published, and recorded by that Disciple, and some others, this might well be a Truth, but never obtain the force of a Catholique Position, that is, such as it would be a damnation to reject, because the descent from the Apostle is not notorious, and fit to sway the body of the whole Church.

Resp. I confesse, that to have been no more generally delivered, will prove that the Apostles thought not such a Doctrine necessary, else their Charity would not have suffered them to have so much con­cealed it, but yet to any such Doctrine, it is im­possible that any Christian, who believes the testi­mony, that it came from the Apostles, should deny his assent, because it were to deny the Authority, upon which all the rest is grounded; for the Church pretends to her Authority from them, and not they from her, and howsoever, such a Doctrine (although not necessary) could not be damnable as you make this: Besides here will first arise a Question not easie to be decided, how great a multitude of Witnesses will serve to be notorious, and fit to sway the body of the Church, especially so many having not for a long, while been thought fit even by Catholiques, though attesting doctrines [Page 165]since received by you all, and considering that multitude of your Church, which believe the im­maculate Conception in as high a degree, as it is possible without excommunicating the deniers, who either walk not by that which you count the onely Catholique Rule, or else claime such a Tra­dition, who yet are not thought fit to sway the rest.

Secondly, I pray observe how easie it was for the two first Ages, at least the chiefe of them, and all that are extant, to have given assent to Traditi­ons so unsufficiently testified, or to have mistaken Doctrines under that notion, (for so they did to this of the Chiliasts) and then after for it to spread till it were generall, and last as long as men last upon their authority, and when once it is so spread, how shall we then discover how small an Originall it had, when peradventure the head and spring of it will be as hard to find, as that of Nilus, so that the greatest part of what you receive, might possibly appear to be no certainer, nor bet­ter built, if we could digg to the foundation: Wherefore, since the delivery of a Tradition by subsequent Ages hath its validity onely from the authority of the first, me thinks you should either think that they received none but upon better grounds, or else think these grounds good.

Thirdly, I know not why you resolve this opinion of the Chiliasts, to have had onely such a private Tradition, for though they name John the Disciple, and mention certaine Priests who heard it from him, yet they deny not a more general delivery [Page 166]of it, but peradventure least men might think that the generall opinion (that it came from the Apo­stles) might arise from places of Scripture, (which fallacie, their testimony when not so fully expres­sed, was still in danger of concerning any point, but that these books were written by these men) they therefore thought it fit to name to us their witnesses, that it came from Christs owne mouth, and in what words: And if they had done so much on your side, for the differences between us, I believe you would now have few Protestant ad­versaries left, for you would have converted the greater part, and by that have been enabled to burn the smaller.

Object. The second Question may be, How it cometh to passe, that some things, which at first bindes not the Churches beliefe, afterwards commeth to bind it? For if it were ever a Tradition, it ever must needs be publique, and ever bind the Church, and if once it were not, it appears not how ever it could come to be, for if this age for example have it not, how can it deliver it to the next that followeth? But if we con­sider that the scope of Christian Doctrine being great, and the Apostles preaching in so great varieties of Countries, it might happen some point in one Coun­try might be lesse understood, or peradventure not preacht, which in another was often preacht, and well both understood and retained, we may easily free our selves from these brambles: For the Spirit of Tra­dition residing in this, that the testimony be excep­tione majus, and beyond all danger of deceit. It is not necessary to the efficaciousnesse of Tradition, that [Page 167]the whole vniversall Church should be witnesse to such a truth, but so great a part as could be a warrant against mistaking; so that if all the Churches of Asia, Greece, or Affrick, or Aegypt, should con­stantly affirm such a Tradition to have been delive­red them from the Apostles, it were enough to make a Doctrine exceptione majorem: Whence it ensueth, that if in a meeting of the vniversall Church it were found, that such a part hath such a Tradition concer­ning some matter, whereof the rest had either no understanding, or no certainly, such a Doctrine would passe into a necessary bond of Faith in the whole Church.

Resp. Your sword is so sharp, and your shield so weak, that I can hardly believe they came out of the same forge, but when I observe how much you have a better right hand then a left, and that not onely you have raised an objection which you cannot lay, but your answer to it multiplies more, I cannot but compare you to him in Lucian, Philos. who travelling with a Magician that had no servant, and instead of one was daily wont to say to a Pestle, Pestle be thou a man, and it would be so, and when his oc­casions were served, would bid it return to be a Pestle, and was obeyed, thought one time to imi­tate the Magitian, he being abroad, and made in­deed the Pestle a man, and draw water, but could not make it return to the former state, but it con­tinued still to draw, wherefore angry and afraid, he took up an axe and clove the Pestle-man in two, whereupon [...], in stead of one water-drawer there lept up two: For first I pray [Page 168]consider, what could you have found more cer­taine to destroy all, which you had before laboured to settle, about the Infallibilitie of your Tradition, then this distincton of Exceptione Major, since, if not a generall one, but one which seemed such, were required, how easie was it for false opinions to get in, under that colour, testified but by a few reputed honest men, and so received by, and trans­mitted from others of great and generall autho­ritie. Secondlie, how could you have found a better way to answer your owne Objection against the Chiliasts Tradition, for want of being suffi­cientlie publique, since if that had not seemed to them to have had this condition (I mean, if they had thought they should for this cause have ex­cepted against it) it had been impossible these Saints should have received it, and concerning the publicitie of it, and the number and authoritie of the deliverers, they must of necessitie have been the best Judges who then lived, and who were the more considerable Doctors of the most con­siderable Ages: so that you must either confesse, that a Tradition bindes not unlesse indeed gene­rall, or confesse that this doth, supposing this not to have been generall, which you cannot prove.

Object. A likely example of this may he drawn from the Canonicall Bookes.

Resp. I deny it to be now necessarie to Salvation, to admit of any Bookes for Canonicall, which it was lawfull for Christians in past ages to doubt of, and which had no generall Tradition; and againe, this [Page 169]answer helpes against your selfe: for it is plaine by Saint Hieromes Testimonie, that the Roman Church received not the Epistle to the Hebrewes, which the Easterne Churches received (whose Testimonie, according to your grounds, she then should have beleeved to be beyond exception) and it is plaine by Perrons Testimonie, that the Easterne Churches received not the Macchabees, when he saies, the Church of Rome did. Now it is plaine, that the Receivers pretended to Tra­dition, because nothing else could make a booke thought Canonicall, whereas other opinions might be brought in by a false Interpretation of Scri­ptures, and after being spread, might be thought to come from Tradition: So that according to your grounds and these testimonies, not onely the Westerne Church ought to have beleeved the Easterne about the Epistle to the Hebrewes, and the Easterne the Westerne about the Macchabees, but also they ought to have required this assent from each other, which they not doing (as they would have done, if they had thought their testi­monie so valid as you doe) it followes, that you doe differ from the Churches of the fifth and sixth age, about what is exceptione majus, you thinking that to be so, which they thought not, and againe, from all the extant Doctors of the two first ages, you thinking that not so, which they thought was, as also those two times agreed about it, as little with each other, as you with them both.

Object. The third question may be, how Christian Reli­gion (consisting of so many points) is possible to [Page 170]be kept uncorrupted by Tradition, which depending upon Memory, and our memory being so fraile, it seemeth, cannot without manifest miracle conserve so great a diversity of points unchanged for so many ages. But if we consider, that Faith is a Science, a thing, whose parts are so connexed, that if one be false, all must needs be false, we shall easily see, that contrarily, the multitude of divers points is a con­servation, the one to the right, the other wherein we doubt.

Resp. As in Judges, when a battell was to be fought between the children of Israel and the Midianites, the Midianites destroyed each other, and left no­thing to doe for Israel, but onely to pursue them: so truly, your Objections worke so strongly upon your own Party, that I have nothing left me to presse, and much to applaud: For for this very reason, I beleeve, that all necessarie points were given in writing, and onely the witnessing, that these were the Apostles writings, was left to Tra­dition, which was both much lesse subject to error (as being but one point, and that a matter of fact) and could no other way be done, because no wri­ting could have witnessed for it selfe so sufficientlie, that we should have had reason to have belleved it upon no other certificates, and to this your answer seemes to me no way satisfactorie, since, first, I deny Faith to be a Science, it being nothing but an assent to Gods Revelations, neither are those so connexed as you liberallie affirme, and sparinglie prove; Nay, suppose they were, yet though errors would be the lesse likely to enter, [Page 171]yet when any one, by any meanes were got in' then this connexion would be a ready way to helpe it to let in all its fellowes. Besides, those opinions which may be superinduct as Traditi­ons, which such a connexion could not hinder, if they were not contrarie to the true ones; and of this sort is chiefly our question.

That therefore you are no better able to wind your selfe out of this inextricable Labyrinth, is no wonder to me, and no disgrace to you, since a man may as well be good Logician, though he cannot solve an unsolvable question, as he may be exceedinglie skilled in Physick, and yet not able to cure an incurable disease; Besides, that these Objections arose so at the first sight, out of what was to be considered, that it was as impossible for to avoid them, as to answer them.

Object Let us consider in constant Nations, their lan­guage, their habits, &c. how long they continue among them.

Truly there is no Nation that I know, whose language hath not, Note: PLACE="marg"Resp. and doth not daily palpablie suffer change. Consider, that of these English hourely denizoning words of all kinde of lan­guages, these of the Spaniards, Italians, and French, almost made up out of Latine, and that of the ancient Greekes, unknown to those of this Age, unlesse they learn it at Schoole: Habits indeed some Nations alter lesse, but some daily, and none change not sometimes: But this is little to the purpose, since those Nations which have remained very constant in things, which no considerable [Page 172]cause appeared to them why they should alter, may yet have received new opinions (especially if not contradicting the old) taught them by such, in whom they wholly relied, (as most go more hood-winkt in these matters, then in those which are indifferent, out of a Vitious humility) or proved by Argu­ments which perswaded. For when the reasons are probable (as they may be for a falshood) the Persons pressing them, in themselves of authority (as they may be and yet erre) and the people to whom they are prest, full of esteeme of their Teachers, then meet the three waies of working perswasion which Aristotle mentions, whereof [...]: Espe­cially when besides all these, the rewards of beliefe proposed, are more then extraordinary, as also the danger of disbeliefe. Wherefore I count it by no meanes reasonable, [...], like sheep (without more exami­nation) to walk in the steps of those, who have gone before us.

Object. See that forlorn Nation of the Jews, how con­stantly it maintaineth the Scripture, and how obsti­nately their Errors.

Resp. Truely I thank you Sir for this example, since it puts me in mind of an Objection, which else I. had utterly forgot: Many of those errors which they hold, (as the Cabala and others) I pray, upon what other ground hold they them then this, that they have been taught. Moses delivered them to their Fathers, as unwritten Traditions, and that un­der [Page 173]that Notion they have descended: Now may not they defend themselves in them, by the very same Arguments which you use in this Treatise for the Church of Rome: May not they say that they have received them from their Fathers, who received them from theirs, who must either have joyned in mistaking their Ancestors, or in inten­ding to deceive their Posterity, whereof neither is credible: May not they say, what is said of these last Ages, may be said upwards and upwards, till they come to that, wherein their Fathers received these Doctrines from Moses, who was [...], as worthy of credit in the delivery of these, as in that of the ten Commandements, and their Fathers witnesses beyond exception, that these Doctrines be delivered: May they not ask you in what year or age, these errors entered among them, and say it is evidently true, that then their whole Church conspired to tell a lie. May they not bid you besides consider the Notoriousnesse of the lie? such as he is very rarely found, who is so wicked as to venture upon, besides the greatness of the subject and the damage ensuing to himself and his dearest Pledges: May they not adde, that the multitude of their Church is so dispersed through so many Countries and Languages, that it is impossible they should agree; together, upon a false determina­tion, to affirm a falshood for a truth, no Interest being able to be common to them all to produce such an effect: This they may say, and if they do, and retort your own words upon your self, I know not truely what new ones you will find to [Page 174]answer them in, unlesse you change the whole course you now steere, and come about the same way which I now use to you, that is, shewing by what waies such an opinion may have spread among them, although not at first received, and pro­ving out of their owne Authors, that this hath not been alwaies held a Tradition among them, though now so accounted, which is sometimes (as I remember) your owne Galatinus his way, and the best that is: But if to that they should againe reply out of your own words (the Names onely changed) that if what Moses delivered were cer­tainely true, and what he delivered be to be seen in what they beleeved who heard him, and so till now, it is evident, that they who seek for truth in learned discourses, must needs forego the most certaine and easie way of attaining what they aime at: That Jew, who should retort this, and much more of this kind upon you, and keep you to Tradition, and make their present Tradition (upon your grounds) the Judge of that, I am of opinion, would make you as silent, as if (according to the Pro­verb) you had seen a Wolf first, or were a Pitha­goricall-Freshman, and you would wish you had ne­ver put into an enemies hand such a weapon against your self, as this present discourse: So that in An­na Commenas Phrase [...], you have digged a ditch on either side of your selfe: For either you must grant these Arguments not to be sufficient for your Party, or you must allow them to be sufficient for a Jew.

Object. Wheresoever Christians labour to convert Ido­laters, [Page 175] they find the onely Argument for their errors that they received them from their forefathers: The King of Socotora thinking to please the Portugalls by reducing a Nation that had the Names of Christ­ians to true Christianity, he found them obstinately protest to him, that they would sooner loose their lives, then part with the Religion their Ancestors had left them.

Resp. This is no newes to me who lived seven yeares in Ireland, where, this is all the reason the Vulgar either have or give for their Religion, and it is the lesse strange, when I remember Aristotle's Ethicks, where he tells us of one, who defended the beating of his Father, thus, [...], because it had been the lineall custome of his Familie to do so. Yet for all this, that those who earnestly desire to keep the Religion of their Forefathers, and think they have done it, may yet be deceived, may appear to a Christian by the ex­ample of the Jews, and to any Romanist, by the example of the Grecians.

To your example of the answer to the King of Socotora, I answer,

That either those heterodox Christians had been at first convened by Hereticks, or by Catho­liques; If by Catholiques, (and your Church be that, and your grounds be hers) then it is plaine, that men may grow in [...] great error, who hold fast, as they think upon Tradition, and may swerve from that Rule, whilst they think they walk by it: If by Hereticks, then it seemes Catholiques (as you call them) are not the onely Religion that have [Page 176]converted Nations, and that note of the Church which isso daily and so eagerly prest, appeares com­mon to more then it: And so you may take which horne of my Dilemma you please.

Object. To come at length to give an answer to him that demands a guide at my hands, I remit him to the moderne Visibe Church of Rome, that is, her who is in an externe sensible communion with the ex­terne sensible Clergie of Rome, and the externe sensible Head, and Pastor of that Church. If he ask me, how he shall know her, I must counter inter­rogate him, who he is. Is he an ignorant man? is he unlearned, yet of good understanding in the World? Is he a Scholer, and what Scholer? A Grammarian, whose understanding hath no other help then that of Languages? Is he a Philosopher? Is he a Divine? (I mean an Academicall one, for a true Divine is to teach not to ask this Question) Is he a Statesman? For he that can think one answer can, or ought to be made to all these, may likewise expect, that one cause may produce all effects: Yet I deny not but all must have the same guide, though they are to be assured of that guide in divers manners.

Resp. I confesse Sir, you come to the Demander but at length, for till I had read further, I had not known that your Treatise was intended for an an­swer to mine, if I had not been told so when it was given me. For hitherto, as Baash a King of Israel, in the Chronicles, when he came against Judah, assail'd not their Cities, but built Ramoth against them, so you have not attempted to destroy what I had said; but raised another consideration, a [Page 177]City, a Ramoth of your own; against which I have brought such battery, as seemes to me suffici­ent to demollish it.

Now for your directions to a guide, I answer, supposing that there is one, and that this you speak of be now it, (for you will not say she alwaies is) and not to quarrell with you for giving me an acciden­tall and mutable guide, that being a thing which you suppose so necessary to be alwaies known, I will joyn issue upon this with you, whether she be to be known to be a guide by any Infallible Notes, for such are required by reason to beget such an as­sent, as is required by you, all other being tear­med by your selves, not Faith, but Opinion. To your Contra-interrogation therefore who I am, that is, in whose Name I speak, I answer and pro­fesse my self one of the notably ignorant, but though I act my own part onely, when I speak in his person, yet for once I will adventure to answer you, in the name of the severall persons you speak of, and will shew, that none of them have suffici­ent cause to receive the guide which you propose upon the reasons which you alleadge.

Object. If the ignorant man speaketh, I will shew him in the Church of God decencie, and Majestie of ceremo­nies, above all other Sects and Religions, whereby dull capacities are sweetly ensnared to beleeve the truth they heare, from those whom they see to have the out­ward signes of Vertue and Devotion.

Resp. To this I answer, in the ignorant mans person (that is in my own) thus, I for my part, neither see what you say you shew me, (for in all decency and [Page 178]Majestie of ceremonies, the Kings Chappell seems to me to equall the Queens, and our Cathedrall Churches, much to surpasse your cock-lofts) and if I did, yet the decency of them would not prove your Church to be a good guide, so well as a good mistresse of ceremonies, and if by their majestie you mean their Magnificence, then that would one­ly prove her rich and not orthodox, since this is such a note, that (her doctrine remaining as true as it is) one persecution would serve to destroy it, and with it, all that meanes which you allow the Ig­norant to find his guide by; And whereas you say, that dull capacities are by this sweetly ensnared to beleeve the Truth; I answer, that by the same meanes they may be as sweetly, and as easily ensna­red to beleeve falshoods, unlesse you could shew that Majestie and Truth are inseparable Compa­nions.

Object. If the unlearned ask, I shew him the claime of Antiquity, the multitude, the advantages of Sanct­ity, and Learning, how the World was once of this accord, and those who opposed, when they first parted, first began the contrary Sects, how the points of diffe­rence be such, as on the Catholique side help devotion, and on the contrary side diminish the same, and such like sensible differences, which will clearly shew an advantage on the Catholiques side, which is the pro­portionall motive to his understanding.

Resp. I see indeed you claime Antiquitie, but do you think it reasonable that I should take your word. Our Divines (whom because I know more, I have more cause to trust then you, in a case of which I [Page 179]my self can take no cognizance) absolutely deny it, and to me you cannot disprove them, unlesse I had at least some learning to enable me to judge, who quotes that trulie which now I cannot construe: For multitude, I find not what that proves, it may work upon my feare rather then upon my assent, yet I am told, that many more Christians disagree from your Church in this maine Question of her being a guide, then she consists of; that the Turks are more then both, and the Pagans more then all three, so that if they relate the state of the world aright, multitude must rather seem an argument against truth then for it: And forasmuch as I can see my self, your Religion is the least in this Kingdome, and I know no other: For the ad­vantages of sanctitie and learning, to the first I answer, that since in a Countrie where the State is their adversarie, and where for feare of scandale, and hope of gaining numbers to their Church, (to help both to the suretie and ornament of it) by commending their Doctrine by their lives, in likelyhood they are more vigilant against vice, then where they have no such thornes against their brests to keep them awak, even here I can find no such advantage as you pretend, I have no cause to guesse that I should find it where the incitement of emulation and such like, are absent, and the charmes of greatnesse, wealth, power, and by con­sequence likelyhood of impunity are present: For the advantage of learning, I answer, that speaking to me with the fore-knowledge of my being unlearned, I wonder you should make [Page 180]use of such a motive, which (how true soever it were in it self) I am not capable of discerning to be so, any more then a blind man is likely to assent to an argument drawn from Colours, of which he could have no possible notion. Now whereas you say that the world was once of this accord, it is more then I know: we are told that whole Churches in the East, had long denied this, when Luther first left you, and howsoever, that it could not be brought in time by arts, propt by power to accord in an error, is more then you have proved. Where­as you say, that those, who opposed this, when they first parted, first began the contrary Sects: I answer, that our men pretend that they began no new Doctrine, but onely scoured off the rust which time and worldly ends in some, and negligence in others, had suffered to grow on. Which Questi­on againe remaines to be tried, (if you refuse Scrip­ture, as your side useth to do) by a Jury of such who are for the most part untranslated, or those which are by Parties) and whose language I cannot spell, nor consequently determine by their evidence: Now whereas you say, that the points in contro­versie on your side help Devotion, and on ours di­minish it, I wish you had instanced which, and wherein, for I for the most part see nothing to­wards it, they being meere speculative opinions, and not reduceable to life, as especially this where­of we most differ, which is your Churches being a generall guide: Those, which most may seem such, are either Confession, (which yet we denie onely to be necessary, not profitable, if well used, [Page 181]which is practised by some of us, and recommen­ded to all, and which as you have tempered it, making contrition sufficient for his salvation, who hath till his hour of death lived in all sin, and making attrition with absolution of the same force as contrition, and requiring to attrition, (as I am told you do) onely sorrow for sin, though arising from the feare of Hell, so some love of God being joyned to it, which none can want but an Infidell) will not help Devotion much, but rather dimi­nish it) or Monastick life, (which was grown into great excesse and disorder, which yet many wise and moderne Protestants think might as well have been reformed as the other parts of the Church, without totall obolition, and so upon this is left no Question) or Fasting, (which if you think Protestants are against, I pray read Bishop An­drews his Lent Sermons, and which if it be not so much used among us as it should, is not so much the fault of the Religion, as of the Men) and all these things considered, I find none of your mo­tives to shew a maine advantage on your side, and therefore I have yet no cause to leave my owne: And if in some of these things you should seeme to have more Truth then we, yet that would not free you from having more error in other points then this comes to, much lesse from having any at all, without the beliefe of which, I should not be re­ceived among you, though I were willing to come: And this lieth upon you to prove, and that not by probable, but by infallible arguments, if you require (as they say your side useth to do) an assent of that Nature.

Object. To the Grammarian I will give two Memorandums; first, that seeing the Catholick's were first in possession both of the Scriptures, and the Interpretations: The adverse part is bound to bring such places as can re­ceive no probable Exposition by the Catholickes. For who knoweth not, that is conversant in Criticks, how many obscure and difficult places occurre in most plaine Authors, and the Scripture of all Bookes (the greater part of the men that wrote them, espe­cially the New Testament, being not eloquent, and writing not in their native Tongue) for the most part, are subject to much impropriety: The other Memorandum is, that, to prove a Catholique point by Scripture, it is sufficient, that the place brought, beare the Exposition the Catholique giveth, and if it be the more probable by the very letter, it is an evincent place. The reason is, because the question being of a Christian law, the Axiome of the Jurists taketh place, that Consuetudo optima Interpres Legis, so that if it be manifest, that Christian practise (which was before the controversie) bee for the one sence, and the words be tolerable, no force of Grammer can prevaile to equalize this advantage: The Grammarian therefore, who will observe these Rules, I turne him loose to the Scriptures and Fathers, to seeke there what is the Faith of Christ and proprie­ties of her Church to know her by.

Resp. To your first Memorandum, I answer, that you have grounded it wholly upon begging the question: for if those of your Religion had first been in possession of the Scriptures, then the Christians had been of it in the Apostles times, [Page 183]which if you could prove, you would need to prove no more, but all would easilie follow: and then for your consequence, that is equallie false, for though I confesse, to make any Doctrine a point of Faith, it is required, that the place be as plaine as you please, yet to the making it the more probable opinion (and consequentlie excluding the contrarie from being necessarie) so much is not required. The greatest cause of the obscu­ritie of those bookes, in which Criticks are con­versant, is the negligence and ignorance of Tran­scribers, so that some Authors would scarce know their own Bookes, if they were revived, whereas the great care of Christians about so deare a pledge, hath much, if not wholly hindered, the same cause from perverting, and so obscuring Scripture: At least, if it have not, it seemes your Church is not so faithfull a Guardian of her deposit, as her deare friends (moved by partiallitie or ends) would make us beleeve: Besides, till now I ever thought, that Eloquence rather lead men to speake impro­perlie, then the want of it, since ignorant persons keepe themselves within the bounds of what pre­ciselie they meane, whereas the eloquent wander into figures, which are so many, and have gotten such footing in language (whilst in the search of significancie proprietie is lost) that those, who use them, are obliged to those who will please to understand, because all they say may beare two sen­ces, the one proper, the other improper: And though it be true, that they have over-flowne, even into the language of the ignorant, yet it is as true, [Page 184]that both they are much lesse used among these, and that they had not hence their beginning, but from Eloquence: And though the Apostles write not in their native Tongues, yet they write in an inspired language, so that they were not likely to commit, at least, any such soloecismes as should destroy the end of the Inspirer, which was, that they should be understood by it.

To your second Memorandum I answer, that since every man is free till some thing binds him, you (who pretend, that we are bound to receive more doctrine as necessarie, then appeares to us to be so) are in all reason to give us plainlie evin­cent proofe, that what you thus require, God requires too, for till then (to returne you to ano­ther Axiome, for yours) praesumitur pro libertate; whereas wee (the burden of the Negative proofe not lying upon us) if we bring probable Argu­ments, we doe it ex abundanti, and bring more then we need to bring; And whereas you stand upon Customes, having power in Law matters, I answer, that in all cases that is not of force, for we hold, that it must not prevaile against a Statute, which shewes, that they may be contradictorie, and as Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, is thought to be a good civill topicall Law, so me thinkes, Nullum tempus occurrit veritati, is a good publique divinitie Law, your owne Scripture too telling us, that Truth is stronger then the King; Besides, where it is of force, it is in such cases as the law hath appointed that it should be so, and if you can prove out of Christs Law, that there it is so ap­pointed [Page 185]to be in matters of Divinity, wee shall willinglie yeild, but seeing that our law, which allowes this force to custome, sets downe also in how long time it is, before it become of force, and I have cause to thinke, that Christ would have been [...] carefull as our law, and have set down this too, if he had had any such meaning, and if it were setled to be a custome of such a standing (as by Saint Austine sometimes is spoken of) as that in no time it be known that ever it was otherwise; in most of your affaires this would stead you a little, though one side have burnt the evidences of the other, to which in likeliehood you owe it, if this stead you in any; of questions, whereof Scripture and Antiquitie are wholly silent, or meerly speculative, and unreducible unto act (of which sort are the greatest between us) or not concerning the lawfulnesse, but the necessity of an Action, to the first kind no ancient custome can belong, nor other to the others then a custome of Interpretation of some text concerning it, not enough to conclude upon (besides, that it is not that which you speake of) since daily your men differ, and defend their differing from all that went before them, about more then many texts, as Cajetane, Salmeron, and Maldonate shall beare me witnesse, unlesse, like Sampson, you may breake those Ropes by which others must be bound: And adding to all this, that our custome may serve to shew the meaning of the law, when our selves were Authors of it, though not when God is, and that our generall custome arguing our united consent (which [Page 186]onely gives force to our lawes) may be as fit to bind, as a law in civill cases, and yet not in di­vine, where the lawes proceed from a higher foun­taine, that such a rule may be good in civill reso­lutions, which require but probable proofes, and yet not in divine ones, where (according to the grounds of your Party, which requires an un­doubting assent to her doctrines as infallible) in­fallible proofes are necessary, especially this, like other Topycall arguments, having onely force caeteris paribus, and againe good where it is not so necessary, that the will of the Legislator be followed, as that peace and quiet be preserved, to which, all alterations, even to the better, are ene­mies, and yet not in these cases, where we are to prefer the will of our Law-maker before any hu­mane convenience, or good, if the custome past unquestioned, when the Law was first promulga­ted, but not, if crept in after by negligence, or plainely appearing to have been brought in-by power, all this perswading me not to be so farr swaied by your Rules as you would have me, I suppose you have small hope, that not being so, I should find either in Scripture, or the first An­tiquitie, either that Faith which your Church pro­poseth, or these properties of Christs Church, by which your Church proves, or rather strives to prove, that she it is: Give me leave besides to aske you one Question, and that is; What we shall conclude when the Christian practice of severall places have ever differed; as that of Greece from that of Rome, which it may also do in more places then [Page 187]we are acquainted with, the extent of Christianitie being unknown to us, as are the customes of some remote Christian Countries which we know.

Object. Of the Philosopher, I exact to goe like a Philoso­pher, and to search out the specificall differences of every Sect, and when he hath found them (if any one but the Catholique hath any rule of faith and good life, which I remit to him to enquire) but at least, when he hath found the Catholicks to be this claime of Tradition before declared, then if this doe not bring him as demonstratively as he knoweth any Conclusion in Philosophy, and Mathematicks, to the notice of this, is the onely true Church of Christ, for my part I shall quit him before God and Man.

Resp. I have examined the differences between all parts as you bid me, and find the Protestants to have a sufficient rule of Faith, and good life, yea such a one as by Master Knotts confession, (Quem hono­ris causa nomino) is as perfect as a writing can be: And since a writing may containe all Doctrines, and onely cannot give testimonie to it self, nor be [...], I have no reason to think it inferior to that of their adversaries: Your claime of Tra­dition I see plainely enough, and as plainely, that it is but a claime, many of your side overthrow­ing it, and others not of your owne, preten­ding to it: Bishop Fisher confesseth, that Scripture and Miracles brought in the Doctrine of Purgatory, and that againe the doctrine of In­dulgences.

Erasmus, who though himself no Martyr, yet one who may passe for a Confessor, having suffe­red, [Page 188]and long by the Bigotts of both Parties, and a dear Friend both to Fisher, and his Colleague in Martyrdome, Sir Thomas Moore, (who were the Deucalions of learning in this our Country) makes yet a larger confession. Non obscurum est quot opinio­nes invectae sunt in orbem per homines, ad suum Quaestum callidos, conflictorum Miraculorum praesi­dio: These reasons alone (allowing for brevities sake that I had no more) would make me believe, not onely that what you say concludes not geome­trically, but perswades not probably, and conse­quently, you by your promise have quitted me, which without it I doubt not but God would have done.

Object. The Divine, if he hath truly understood the Prin­ciples of Faith in the nature of a Divine, I mean Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, Eucharist, Beati­tude, the Creation and Dissolution of the World, and hath seen the exact conformity of the deepest Princi­ples of Nature, with an unspeakable wisdome of the Contriver: If he doth not plainely confesse it was above the naure of man to frame the Catholique Religion, and seeth not that onely that is conformable to Nature, and it self, I say, he hath no ground suffi­cient to be of it.

Resp. Supposing the greatest part of what you say to be true, (for I see not how a bare consideration even of these Doctrines will serve to prove them to come from Gods Revelation) it might prove the Christian Religion against Pagans, but for yours against Protestants, I can draw out of it no Argu­ment, which if upon your explanation, it ap­peares [Page 189]not to be through the default of the Lym­beck (which I expect) then the better I think of you, the worse I shall think of your cause, which would have ministred to so sharp an inquirer, bet­ter proofes, but that the old Axiom hindered it of, Nihil dat quod non habet: These Principles of Faith you speak of, are agreed on by both Parts, so out of their Truth, and the impossibility of their being forged, all the other points cannot be pro­ved, which have upon them no necessarie depen­dance: and that your Religion is conformable to the deepest Principles of Nature, I am so farr from seeing, that I conceive your own opinion of Tran­substantiation contradicts them almost all: Neither see I any such unspeakablenesse in the con­triving, but that ordinary understandings by se­verall degrees, in a long tract of many ignorant negligent ages, egged on by ambition, cloakt over by hipocrisie, assisted by false miracles, and main­tained by tyrannie, might easily both induce and establish them, so that though we have hitherto differed in our premisses, yet we meet in the Con­clusion, which is, that I have no sufficient ground to be of your Religion.

Object. The Statesman, who is truely informed of the Church, how farr is really of Christs institution, and what either pious men have added, or peradventure ambitious men encroacht, if he doth not find a govern­ment of so high and exotick straine, that neither mans wit dare to have attempted it, neither mans power would possibly have effected it; If he find no emi­nent helpes, and no disadvantage to the temporall [Page 190]government, I shall think there wants one starr in the heaven of the Church to direct these Sages to Bethlehem.

Resp. I answer now in the person of a Statesman, (a part which but for this occasion, I am sure never to have acted) Thus,

I find so much policie in your Church, for most part really, and alwaies in voto, aimed at, although miss'd, that of no body of men did ever Aristotl's saying appear to me truer, [...], Among some men it is the end of the Lawes of their Common­wealth to be masters of their neighbours, but I find nothing in the government that should prove it, to proceed from a divine fountaine: In Ec­clesiasticall Monarchie you have, so have also the Turks, the Pope pretends to a power of ending all controversies, so doth also their Mufty, and since mans wit attempted that, and mans power effected it, why it might not do the same in the West it did in the East, (having the aide of some Tinsell-reasons, and some not wholly averse places of Scripture) I cannot conceive: And what help is by your Church given to temporall government, I see not, unlesse giving the Pope power in tem­poralls, even to depose Kings be the helpes you mean: I know that some of your side are not concerned in this, but it is grown so generall, that though it be as yet no necessary part of your Reli­gion, it is like to be shortly; And truely through­out I find somethings which pious men have added, many, which ambitious men have encroacht, (though [Page 191]of your Church I could not be informed in this, who hath not decided the Question) but nothing that you alone hold instituted by Christ, and so to your Bethlehem, for want of a starr I am not like­ly to travell.

Object. Let every man consider which is the fit way for himself, and what in other matter of that way he ac­counteth evidence, and if there be no interest in his soule to make him loath to believe, what in another matter of the like nature he would not stick at, or hea­vie to practise what he seeth clearly enough; I feare not his choice; but if God send him time and meanes to prosecute his search any indifferent while, it is long agoe known of what Religion he is to be of.

Resp. I see yet no cause to think that your Religion is that which will be chosen, though we agree about the state, in which every enquirers soule ought to be, and in which those of few are; I see all parents labour to fix opinions into their Chil­dren before they come to an age fit to judge of any greater doubts, then what may happen at span-counter, or cherry pit, and they againe seldome labour to set right what Education hath swaied: Neither are they wrought upon onely by preju­dice, but some because of gaine like Demetrius, [...], because by this craft they have their Gods, some because of tem­porall honour, like the Pharisees, [...], least they be cast out of the Synagogue, loving the praise of men more then the praise of God; some for feare like the High Priests, [...], [Page 192]The Romans will come and take away both our Place and Nation; Some because of the contra­diction in the true Doctrine to their vaine or wick­ed desires, and so as some Disciples said, though somewhat upon another occasion, they account it, [...], a hard saying, (which made Epictetus say, [...], indeed most Christians, who oppose any of Christs Commands, either for some of these rea­sons, dare not enquire whether Christ hath com­manded them, [...], or enquiring find, but confesse it not, like those I spoke of before, who who [...]: As Epictetus therefore saith, that we should enquire of God, who is our guide, as Travelers do of them they meet, [...], having no desire to turne rather to the right hand then to the left, or againe, as we enquire of our eyes concerning what is to be seen, [...], not perswading them to shew us one thing rather then another, so say I, ought we to goe to reason to find Gods will indifferent, which is Truth, or else we are likely very lazilie to seek what we are unwilling to find, and a probable argument for what we desire, will seem a Demonstration, and a Demonstration against it scarce a probable Argument. This I insist upon the more, because I think we have more cause to put you in mind of this, then you us, being too little practised on both parts, but not most by yours, whereof the greatest part com­monly arrives not so farr, as at the fault of not [Page 193]seeking as they should, because commonly they have not leave given them to seek at all: for be­sides those who neglect to seek and may, no Bible being allowed by you to most, as no Smith was suffered by the Philistines in Israel, they fear­ing least the Hebrews should make them swords and speares, and you least they should make out of it, Arguments to perswade them to revolt from you. It is no wonder if your Church, be like the Congregation in the Acts, [...], the most part know not why they are come together. And truely if thus it were not, if all had liberty to seek Truth, and if all who sought it were indifferent in their seeking, and their judgments were absolutely unbridled by their affections, and unswaied by pre­judice, I cannot perswade my self that so many could meet in thinking it fit to receive (for so they seem to me) such impossible Doctrines upon such improbable grounds, or to require a more then probable assent to but probable Doctrines, (al­lowing them to be such) and mould not see what is grounded upon them, (if not impossible) is at least much more improbable, then the Motives are probable, which kind of Assent cannot be ex­pected by God, who as he requires onely [...], a reasonable service, so also a reasonable Faith.

Here followeth the Third Part of this Discourse, which is a Reply to such Answers as you have been pleased to make to a little of that little, which I at first opposed.

Resp. SPeaking of the Church Rome, as this day it is the true Church of God. I answer the doubter, she neither hath, nor can have any error which he need to feare, and be shie of.

The which two limitations I adde, for avoiding Questions impertinent unto our businesse.

The first, for those which concerneth the connexion of the Sca of Rome to the Universall.

The latter, to avoide such Questions as touch that point, whether the Church may erre in any Philosophi­call or other such matter, which Questions are not so pertinent to our Matter.

Repl. Meaning by the true Church a companie of men, which hold all (and no more) that Christ taught (for other interpretation, I beleeve, you will not give it) then there is no question, but that not onely it hath no dangerous error, but none at all; but that yours is such remaines unproved, and I beleeve, manet aeternumque manebit. For upon examination, I doubt not, it will appeare, that as I have read of a Cohort of Persians, which they called [...], the Immortall Cohort, which all died in one battell; so your infallibe [Page 195]Church will be found to abound in errors, and to belie equallie her title, being troubled her selfe, with what she undertakes to secure others from, like the Apothecary in Lucian, who undertaking to cure all men of the Cough, [...], could himselfe scarce prescribe his Medicine for coughing the while. Besides, of what sort soever the error be, yet since the Con­dition of her Communion is to professe a beleife that she hath none, such a one as to them, who in­deed beleeve so, would not be dangerous, yet to me, who cannot professe this but against my Con­science, how slight a one soever, may be an occa­sion of damnation: Againe, as to me your an­swer appeares false, so to those of your own side it will appeare hereticall; to me it would give no satisfaction (though you had proved what you but affirme) because I desire to know an eternall, not a temporarie Guide, whereas if in your Church there should happen any Schisme, your answer then would give me no meanes to resolve my selfe which part were the guide (that is the true Church) without a new, and perad­venture (by the way) an endlesse search. To them it will give scandall, because, first, you pre­suppose that we must know the Church by the Doctrine, and the Doctrine by the Church; and secondlie, you imply a possibilitie, that the Church of Rome is now but by accident (and may come not to be) the true Church, and so all their con­fidence built upon her, as the Directresse of all Churches, and the eternall Admirall of Gods [Page 196]Fleet will appeare to have a very fallible foun­dation: Besides, in the cause of your Limitation I find more reason to commend your Discretion, then your Ingenuitie: for, for the first, if you had said, that the Universall Church of Christ must alwaies be connected to the particular one of Rome, which were to allow her Infallibilitie, you knew Antiquitie to have said much against you; and besides, that this being not yet de fide among your selves (nor evident in it selfe) could not serve for a foundation to the whole bodie of our faith; if you had absolutelie denied it, you knew, that you should incurre the displeasure of the most pre­vailing part of your own men, and that then the maine (and to the Ignorant the onely visible) signe would bee taken away. For the second, if you had affirmed, that the Church could erre in nothing, how slight soever, you would both have contradicted many of your own side, as Stapleton by name, and have asserted more then there were any colour of proofe for, and would have wanted this distinction to retire to: if you were confuted in any particular, if you had re­strained her Infallibilitie to things necessarie, or weightie, or the like, then the question would again have risen, which are those (for many errors, which we lay to her charge, concerne not things indeed necessarie, though she adde to the error, that other of thinking, that whatsoever she holds be­comes necessarie by her holding it) and then for all you have said, the doctrine of Purgatorie might be false, and yet she the Church, and that infallible, [Page 197]as farre as by your Doctrine her Infallibilitie had need to be extended.

Resp. Neither doe I remit the questioner to Scripture for his satisfaction, although I hold Scripture a very sufficient meanes to satisfie the man, who goeth to it with that preparation of understanding and will which is meet and required. Howsoever this I may answer for them who prove it out of Scripture, that because they dispute against them who admit of Scripture, and deny the authority of the Church, if they can convince it, they doe well, though they will not them­selves admit generally of a proofe out of Scripture, as not able to prove every thing in foro conten­tioso.

Repl. If you hold Scripture to be so sufficient a mean, I wonder, Sir, why you thinke not fit to remit me to it, unlesse you thinke, that you have severall sufficient waies to prove so evident a Truth by, or thinke me not to come with meet preparation: Indeed if that be (as among you it is counted) to come resolved, not to judge of what the Roman Church holds, by what the Scriptures say, but to beleeve, that they say whatsoever she holds, then I confesse, I come not with the Conditions re­quired; but if it be to come desirous to finde the Truth, and to follow and professe it when I have found it, in spite of all temporall respects, which might either fright or allure me from so doing, then I suppose, that Charitie (which hopeth all things) will encline you to beleeve, that I come as I ought to come, untill some evident reason perswade you to the contrarie: That the Scripture [Page 198]cannot prove every thing in foro contentioso I beleeve, but all necessarie Truths, I beleeve it can; for onely those, which it can, are such; I denie not, but that a contentious person may denie a thing to be proved, when his own Conscience contra­dicts his words, but so he may Arguments drawn from any other ground as well as Scripture, so that if for that cause you refuse to admit of proofes from thence, you might as well for the same, refuse to admit of any by any other kinde of Arguments: And certainlie, if the Scriptures (I meane the plaine places of it) cannot be a sufficient ground for such and such a point, surelie it cannot be a sufficient ground to build a ground upon, as the Churches Infallibilitie, and therefore, though it it seemes you desire so much that this be beleeved, that so it be, you care not upon what proofe, yet a considering Protestant, who is not as hot to re­ceive your Religion, as you are that he should, may presentlie say, when he is press'd by you with Scripture to this, since this is a way of proofe which your selves admit not of, an Argument from hence may bring me from my own Religion, but never to yours, because it is a beame which that relies much upon, that by any other way, then the authoritie of the Church, no man can be suffi­cientlie sure of the meaning of Scripture.

That they say, the Church is made infallible that we may have some guide, I thinke it very rationall; for Nature hath given ever some strong, and un­controulable Principle in all Natures to guide the rest. The Common-wealth hath a Governour not [Page 199]questionable, our Understanding hath Principles which she cannot judge, but by them judgeth of all other verities. If there should not be some Prin­ciple in the Church, it were the onely maimed thing God had created, and maimed in its Principall part, in the very head. And if there be such a Principle, the whole Church is Infallible by that, as the whole man seeth by his eyes, toucheth by his hands.

Repl. Christ is our unquestionable, and infallible Governour, and his Will the Principle by which we are guided, and the Scripture the place where this Will is contained, which if we endeavour to find there, we shall be excused, though we chance to misse, and therefore want not your guide, (who either is not, or as hard to find as the way: and againe, when he hath defined, the certaine mea­ning of that definition, as hard to find as herself.) Neither is a company of men thus beleeving, maimed in the head, though having no other more uncontroulable Principle: If your guide were evi­dent of her self, as those Principles are by which we judge all things else, then your Similitude would hold a little, whereas being neither knowable in her self, nor proveable by ought else, what you have said onely shewes, what an ill match is made, when Witt is set against Truth.

Resp. It is sufficient for a Child to believe his Parents, for a Clown to believe his Preacher about the Churches Infallibility: For Faith is given to mankind, to be a meanes of believing, and living like a Christian, and so he hath this second, it is not much matter in what tearmes he be with the first.

Repl. To what you say, I answer that I confesse that it is not possible that without particular Reve­lations, or Inspirations, the ignorant, even of the Orthodox party, should receive their Religion upon very strong grounds, (which makes me wonder, that even from them you should exact an assent of a higher nature, and a much greater certaintie, then can be ministred to them by any arguments which they are capable of) yet if they believe what they receive, with an intention of obedience to God, and supposall that their opini­ons are his Revelations, and use those meanes which they in their Conscience think best to exa­mine whether they be or no, (though it be when they find themselves unable to search, by trusting others whom they count fittest to be trust­ed) I beleeve they are in a very saveable estate, though they be farr from having of me truth of their Tenets any Infallible certaintie; and the same I think of those which are in error, for since you cannot deny, but that a Child, or a Clown, with the same aptnesse to follow Gods will, may be taught by his Parents, or his Preacher, that what God forbids, he commands, that Christ's Vicar, is Antichrist, or the Church, Babylon, and scarce teacheth any truth, though it could not teach the least error; why should such a one be damned for the misfortune of having had Here­ticall Parents, or a deceiving Preacher: For no more it seemes is required of such, then to give his beliefe to those; (And indeed the same reason extended, will excuse him, who though learned, [Page 201]impartially aimeth at Gods will and misseth it) for though you seeme to insinuate, by the cause you give of what you say, that so men believe and do what they heare God command, he careth not upon what grounds, yet I, who know that God hath no other gaine by our so doings then that in it we sacrifice to him our soules and affections, cannot believe, but that they shall be accepted who give him that which he most cares for, and obey him formally, though they disobey him materially, God more considering and valuing the Heart then the Head, the end then the acti­ons, and the fountaine then the streames; And truely else he who through stupidity or impotence abstained from any vice, or through negligence or prejudice miss'd some error, would be as well accepted of by God, as he that by a care of his waies and of obedience to him who should rule them, did avoide the first, and by a studious search, the second.

I cannot part from this Theame without one consideration more, and that is, that if so Fallible a Director as you speak of, may be cause enough of assent to one Truth, why may they not be so to another, and why shall not the beleefe of our ignorants, upon their testimonie, that the Scripture is the Word of God, be as well found­ed, as that of yours to the Infallibility of the Church upon the same? And yet it is daily ob­jected to us, that this beleefe of ours is not surely enough founded, since not received from their Church, although the unlearned among us receive [Page 202]it from their Parents and Preachers, and the lear­ned from Tradition; as from the first of those your unlearned do, and from the second of which your learned pretend they do receive the authority, and infallibility of the Church it self: Although we be so much more reasonable then you, that we require them not to be so sure upon it, as they are of what they know by sence, but onely to give them so much credit, that they may give up their hearts to obedience.

Resp. Neither do I remit him to a generall and constant Tradition, as if himself should climbe up every age by learned Writers, and find it in every one I take it to be impossible testimonies one may find in many ages, but such as will demonstrate and convince a full Tradition I much doubt: Neither do I find by experience, that who will draw a man by a rope or chaine, giveth him the whole rope or chaine into his hands, but onely one end of it, unto which if he cleave hard, he shall be drawn which way the rope is carried. Tradition is a long chaine, every generation or delivery from Father to Son being a link in it, &c.

Repl. Of this opinion I was wholly before, First up­on my own small observation, (which also per­swaded me, that no controverted opinions had so much colour for such a Tradition out of antiquity, as some which now are by both parts condemned. And after, by consideration of what hath been so temperately learned, and judiciously writen by our Protestant, Perron D' Aille; But though I think that nothing is wholly provable by suffi­cient testimonies of the first ages, to have had [Page 203]Primary and generall Tradition, (except the un­doubted books of Scripture, or what is so plainly there, that it is not controverted between you and us) yet I think the Negative is easie to be proved, because any one known person dessenting, and yet then accounted a learned and pious Catholique, shews the Tradition not to have been generall, and that the Church of this Age differs from that of those times, if it Anathematize now, for what then was either approved of, or at least thought not so horrid but it might be borne with. And again, though we agree upon what will not serve to con­vince a full Tradition, yet we disagree about what will serve; for allowing there were any contro­verted opinions delivered, with equall Tradition to the Scripture (which I deny to have beene, but would receive if it so appeared) yet sure you beginne at the wrong end, in the examination of what those are, which ought to be done, by consi­dering the testimonies of the first ages, and not of the last, for in your own similitude of a rope, though to helpe me to climbe by if, you put but one end into my hands, yet you must shew me, that the other end is somewhere fastened, or else, for ought I know, instead of getting up by it, I may onelie get a fall, and this fastening appeares not to me, till I be shewed some more certaine con­nexion between the Opinions of this Age, and those of the Apostolicke times, then yet you have done, or till you have answered those Arguments, by which, as I perswade my selfe, I have made it ap­peare, that it cannot be done,

Resp. As for the two places concerning the Popes and Councels Infallibillity, it is not to my purpose to meddle of them, because of one side the way I have begun, beareth no need of those discourses, and on the other, I should engage my selfe in Quarrels betweene Catholique and Catholique, obscure the matter I have taken in hand, and profit nothing in my hearers, more then to be judged, peradventure to have more learning, then wisedome to governe it with­all.

Repl. With your favour Sir, these places concerne, not onely questions between your selves, but be­tween you and us; for I thought you had all a­greed (though I knew you had not alwaies done so, and though it seemes by your declining to speak about it, that you doe not yet) that generall Councels, confirmed by the Pope, are infallible, and the Doctrines defined by them, are to be be­leeved de fide, which if you be not, then the Glew, which it is so bragged, you have to keepe you still at Unitie, is dissolved and if you be, then you should both have answered upon what grounds you are so, and have destroyed my Objections against the possibilitie of certaintie, knowing when it is, that these (which used to be called the Church) have defined: finding therefore Altum Silen­tium, where there was so much cause of speaking, makes me beleeve, that the cause why you have not answered is, onely because you could not, and then you have a readie Apologie, that Nemo tene­tur adimpossibilia, which I beleeve the rather, be­cause I know, that to so cleare a judgement as yours, [Page 205]that place of Scripture, When two or three are ga­thered together, &c. which is so often press'd for the Infallibilitie of Councels, must appeare to make as much for the Synod of Dort, as for the Councell of Trent, and to so great a learning as yours, it cannot be unknown how few (if any) of the Ancients have asserted their Infallibilitie, and how many, both of the Ancients, and your Modernes, have denied it; I am confirmed in this beleife too, because you, I know, would never have accepted that as a sufficient excuse from me, if I had avoided to answer an Argument so, be­cause Protestants are not agreed upon the point, if you had thought it such, as that they ought to have been agreed upon it, and truelie this is as great and considerable a question, as any among us.

Resp. As for the two places of Fevardentius, which alloweth many Fathers to have fallen into errors, I thinke it will not trouble him who is accquainted with the course of this present Church, wherein di­vers, who be thought great Divines, fall into errors, for which their Bookes are sometimes hindered from the print, sometimes recalled, or some leaves com­manded to be pasted up, the reason is, the multiplicity of Catholike Doctrine which doth not oblige a man to the knowledge of every part, but to the prompt sub­jection of the instruction of the Church, wherefore many men may hold false doctrine inculpably, not knowing it to be such, even now after the learned labours of so many that have strived to open and facilitate by Method, what is true, and what is false; [Page 206]much more in the Fathers times, when there was great want of so many Compilers as these latter ages have produced.

Repl. First, What Fevardentius confesseth, proves plainlie that, for which I intended it, which was, the ridiculousnesse of proving their Doctrine to be true, by being conformable to that of the Fa­thers, and yet making themselves Judges of those Judges they appeale too, and confessing, that many of them erred in many points, which if they did, they might as well doe the same in those about which we differ, although they agreed with you, and dissented from us.

Secondlie, What both he confesseth, and you confesse with him, disproves that way of knowing divine Truths which you propose, for neither the Doctors of the ancient Church (who were sure more likelie to know what was then taken for Tradition, then any late Compilers) nor of the Modern, who had a mind to deliver truth, and trac'd and followed your way of finding it, could erre in points of faith, if Qui docet ut didicit, he that teacheth as he hath been taught, must still be in the right, for publique Tradition, no learned man, at least can be ignorant, not any man (say you) of what he was taught when a Childe, as the substance of his hopes for all eternitie, and so cannot in reason have his books either forbidden or pasted up, for delivering any thing contrary to it.

Secondly, Who are these Censors who forbid and paste up books, certainly not the Universall [Page 207]Church, nor yet the Representative, the latter is not alwaies in being, nor when it is, at leasure to consider and judge all authors, and of the first these Authors are a part, if then they be fallible, (as they must be if they be not the Church) why may not they erre, and the Martyr-books speake truth, which yet will easily by this meanes be kept from Posteritie, if those in the Dictatory Office dissent from it as they will be sure to do, if the opinion contradict never so little the power or greatnesse of the Pope, upon whose favour these Oecumenicall Correctors must depend, or they not long remaine in their places: and yet you ex­pect that your adversary should produce successi­on of their opinions in all ages, though nothing be let passe but what a few please, and though when in time all of you are agreed (as you will soon be or appear to be, if one side appear to be gag'd) then this consent, though thus brought about, be­comes the consent of the Church, and a very notable Motive.

And since you say, that what all are bound to, is onely a prompt subjection to the Church, why leave you it so in doubt, what is the Church, as if men were tyed to be subject, but must not know to what; you say indeed, that the adherers to the Church of Rome are now the Church, but what they may be, you will not plainely declare; So that if a Schisme among them should happen, we are all as farrto seek as if you had been wholly si­lent, for since the infallibility lies not in the parti­cular Church of Rome, and consequently the adhe­ring [Page 208]to her is not ever a sufficient note of the Church, (as you will not say) nor is it among your selves de fide, since the Universall Church (whatsoever she be) can never define any thing, and of the authority of the definitions of the Re­presentative, and of what constitutes both her and her decrees, you refuse to speak, what remaines there, to which this prompt subjection is to be the onely everlasting Note of the true Church, but onely the Truth whensoever she appeares; Thus as the Priests of Apollo (therefore peradven­ture called Loxias) used to spread lies, and secure his reputation, the first by the antiquity, and the second by the darknesse of his Oracles, so doth your Religion gaine upon many men, and secure her seflf rom many objections, by the manyfold acceptions, and consequently difficulty of this tearme Church; For whatsoever is said in Scrip­ture concerning her being free from all spot, or prevailing against the gates of Hell, or their dan­ger who resist her, the first meant (as I believe, and the place denies not by any circumstance) of the Church Triumphant, the second of the Church of the Elect, and the third, of the Professors of Christianity in generall, or at most of those who are in all necessary points Orthodox among them; That they without sufficient proofe resolve to be spoken of the Church in their sence they have fan­cied; That is, some ever known body of Christi­ans which must be still guide to the rest, and then claime to be that, because no other (all else being more ingenious) claimes it besides themselves, [Page 209]whereas, if (considering that [...], and the Oraculous truth of my great Lord Bacon's observation, that unlesse men in the beginning of their disputes agree about the mean­ing of their tearmes, they must end about words, where they ought to have begun) they had mark­ed what other sence these words were capable of, (for if it will here beare another, then this cannot hence be concluded but by leave) they would then soon have seen the weaknesse of their building, by the slightnesse of their foundation. Againe, they prevaile much by working upon mens assents, by the meanes of their modesties, and presse it to be an intollerable pride to oppose their opinions to the consent of the Catholick Church; whereas, if it be weighed how small a part of it they mean by that word, and yet of them how many follow blindly the decrees of one, and how soon those prevaile against that few not backed by any power who do not, it will then appeare, that not onely other Churches, but even a John or a Tho­mas have as much reason to be lead by their own understandings, as by the opinions and decrees of and Vrban or a Gregory, upon which that con­sent is so often founded; And as they make their advantage of this word in their offensive warres, so do they in their defensive, for when they are press'd unto the absurdity of their Tenets, then (though indeed they be generall) yet they pretend, that they are the opinions but of private, though many men, and not of the Church; and againe, when any Fathers (who yet sometimes they say [Page 210]are wholly theirs) are shewed to contradict some of their Doctrines so plainely, that none of those subterfuges, which in one of their expurgatory Indexes, they confesse they often use, will serve to palliate it; then they strive to scape by answe­ring, that the Church had not then defined it, whereas if it be examined, how farre they consent about what is the Church, and what are her De­finitions (whereof they are not yet agreed, for some say, she hath defined what, others say, she hath not) this onely will be certainlie found, that it never can be certainlie found, what are her opi­nions of any point, or when she hath declared her selfe: As (besides manie other Arguments, some press'd by my selfe, and others, by other Pens more fit to treat of so weightie a matter) appeares by your refusing to leave your Latibula; and declare plainlie your opinion concerning it, which if you saw defensible, and you were all agreed about it, you would quicklie have done, and not incurred the reprehension of that Axiome, which teacheth, that Dolosus versatur in generalibus, which makes me thinke, that if this were generallie enough mark'd, you would no longer be able to dazle any mans eyes with the splendid title of Sonnes to the Catholique Church, as Alexander hoped to doe those of the Barbarians, with stiling himselfe [...], the Sonne of Jupiter, although indeed he was so much the more moderate then the second, as never to denie, that any other could be Sonne to the same Father, whereas you will not allow, that any may have interest in your Mother besides your selves.

To conclude this Paragraph, give me leave to aske one question, and that is, how your saying, that Truth is more easie to finde now then in the Fathers times, will agree, either with the way which you say, is the onely Catholique one to finde Truth by (for sure such a Tradition was alwaies equallie easie to finde, and if the first ages had erred in it, we must of necessitie, following your advice, have followed their error too) or with the saying of so many of your side, that if I should reckon them up, I should make a Catalogue of Authors, equall to those of Photius, or Gesner, or Possevine, who all joyne, that Truth was most likelie to be most certainlie known that time, which was, in Campians words, Christo propior, ab hac lite remotior, neerer to Christ, and conse­quentlie to Tradition, and to which, for that cause, all thinke fit to appeale against us, or with that custome of your Church, which suffers none to take Orders before they have vowed to interpret Scriptures according to the Fathers, which if men now adaies be more likelie to find the Truth, then at that time they were (as they must be, if truth in this age be more easie to be found; whether through greater abundance of Compilers, or what else soever) then this Vow is as much, as if they had vowed to leave the best way of Interpretation and teaching, to follow the worst.

Resp. As for the two points, he saith, avert him from Catholique doctrine, I am mistaken, if he be not mistaken in both. The first is, that the Catho­liques doe damne all who are not in the Union of [Page 212]their Church. He thinkes the sentence hard, yet I thinke he will not deny me this, that if any Church does not say so, it cannot be the true Church. For call the Church what you will; the Congregation of the Elect, the Congregation of the Faithfull, the Congregation of Saints, or Just; call it, I say, or define it what you will, doth it not clearly follow, that whosoever is out of the Church cannot be saved, for he shall not be the Elect, Just, Faithfull, &c. with­out which there is no salvation. How then can any Church maintain these two Propositious; I am the true Church, and yet one may be saved without being in me:

Repl. This is, by your favour, a meere Paralogisme; for though those who define the Church by qua­lities, which both Parts agree, to be the conditio­nall Keyes to the Kingdome of Heaven, must needs affirme, that none out of the Church can be saved, yet what is this to them, who meane by the Church, the Companie of the Orthodox in all points, and by them your selves, out of which (allowing that there be such a one, which I doubt of, and that to be yours) I shall beleeve, that some may be saved, till I see some more cause to thinke all error in Religion alwaies damnable, which it is plaine, by what after you say, that you thinke not your selfe, and the Church taken in this sence, which is your sence, may maintaine both Propo­sitions; or to shew you, how much, what you say, would make against your selfe, thus I argue; The true Church must hold that none can be saved out of her, but your Church denies not, but that some [Page 213]out of her may be saved, therefore yours is not the Church: My Major is included in your own saying, that those two Propositions are not main­tainable together: My Minor, though false, yet is also your confession (where you say, that the Churches Proposition is not so cruell as it seemes, though the words be rough) and therefore so ought you to make my conclusion too: Besides, those who exclude all from Salvation, who are out of the Church in the other sence, meaning by it the Elect, as they are not like them in the wrong, so they are not occasion of much harme, like them, who stiling the Church, a companie of men of such a beleife, and under such a govern­ment, affirme an impossibilitie of being saved out of it; for they giving no visible signe of who is in the Church (for who can know the Elect, but the Electer) cause no want of Charitie, nor fre­quencie of Warre, and persecutions by it, as the others doe, who having made first a visible par­tition, least those who are out of it may draw others out too, they send them out of the world by way of prevention.

Resp. But per adventure he is scandalized, that the Ca­tholick Church requireth actuall Communion exter­nall with her, which he thinketh may in some case be wanting without detriment of Salvation. But how would he have the Church speake, which speak­eth in common,, but abstracting from such particular cases as may change wholly the Nature of the Questi­on.

Repl. I am scandalized, not because you require to Sal­vation [Page 214]joining with you in Communion, but because also you require joyning with you in opinions, and if it were onely this, yet am not I any whit satisfied with what you say for it, for with the true Church, that is the Commpany of true belie­vers, in points any way materiall (or rather the truest) I conceive it not damnation sometimes not to communicate: For if they have any never so slight errors, and which appeares so to me, which yet they will force me to subscribe to, if I Commu­nicate with them, my assent would be damnable, or if they require the same subscription to some truths, which yet after my reall indeavours in inquiry, ap­pear errors to me, I doubt not but my refusall is no way damnable: Neither can I absolve your Church concerning this her saying for your reason, because she speakes in generall, wholly abstracting from particulars, which change the nature of the Question, for why doth she so, why doth she not expresse her exceptions, or at least tell us, that the rule is not so generall, but that it will beare some, and not make men (who know not that she intends to restraine at all, what she so absolutely pronoun­ceth, and who will find no cause to take your bare word for her intentions) many times, at least to hate them as Gods enemies, whom he loves as his friends, and beleeve them to fry in Hell, who shine in Heaven? Howsoever if she use to expresse herself in rougher words then her meaning is, how apt may she be to be mistaken in severall of her re­solutions, and consequently how easie is it for some age to have misunderstood the past, and de­ceive [Page 215]the following: Neither do I like your ex­ample, because that is not to differ from the Church, but to mistake her meaning, though even he, who should denie that there were three Gods, if he thought that by the Trinitie your Church so meant, must consequently think her not infallible, and so by your grounds be conse­quently a Heretick.

Resp. The current of Catholick Doctors that no man shall be damned for infidelity, but he who doth wilfully misbe­leeve, and that to do so it is required that Faith be suffi­ciently proposed unto him, and what is to be sufficiently proposed, is not determined amongst them. There want­eth not Divines who teach, that even ignorantia affect­ata, doth excuse from Heresie. On the other side it is most certaine, that no man is damned for not profes­sing, what he is not damned for not believing. Wherefore, profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church, according unto the or­dinary opinions of the Catholicks, it followeth, that no man is condemned for not being of the Church, who is not for infidelity, for which it is a very un­certaine Case who be damned, and who be not.

Repl. As the King of Spaine, after long calling the Hollanders Rebels, at last for his own sake descen­ded to treat with them as free States, so those of your Religion, when they hope to gaine a Prose­lite, thunder out to him crudelity, and without any of these Mollifications which you now use, that extra Ecclesiam Romanam nulla est salus, there is no salvation out of the Roman Church. And Master Knot peremptorily avers, that no Ca­tholick [Page 216]of an entire fame ever taught, that a Pro­testant so dying could be saved, yet when they are press'd with the consequences, they can (as it seems) vouchsafe to give us better words, and find [...] enough to soften this opinion, though such as bring them more disadvantage in other considerations, then help in this. For first, as before it seemed that you are not fully agreed either about the authority of the councels, or what constitutes the Church, (by your avoiding to speak concerning it) so now it seemes, that neither are you resolved of what constitutes an Heretick, and then what remaines there for you to know, if what you account in­fallible and what damnable, be yet both uncertaine to you.

Secondly, Since you confesse none to be a Heretique, but he to whom the truth is suffici­ently proposed, and when that is, you are not re­solved: what a more then Sythian Barbarousnesse is it to make a coale of a Christian, onely upon suspicion of Heresie? especially since the Pagans themselves had Christian Charity enough to perswade them, that it was much better that a guilty person should escape, then an innocent be punished: much more should you rather suffer the tares to grow, then venture to pluck up the corne with it, and beleeve the best, when the truth lies hid in a place so hard to search into, as is the heart of man, into which (as none entered the Sanctum Sanctorum but the High Priest) God onelie can have admittance.

Resp. The other point was of putting Hereticks to death, [Page 217] which I think he understandeth to be done vindica­tively, not medicinally, I mean, imposed as a pu­nishment, and not in way to prevent mischiefe, and oppresse it in the head.

Repl. I suppose it small satisfaction to a poor man, car­ried to the stake for his Conscience, to know by which member of a distinction he is put to death, and that this as little excuseth you, as it satisfies them, I hope to shew before we have ended the consideration of this present Paragraph.

Resp. If the Circumcelians were the first, that is, an­cient enough for the justification of the fact; al­though for Banishment, which also he seemeth to reprehend, we know the first that could suffer it did suffer it, Arrius I mean, by the hand of Constan­tine, whom he praiseth for a speech he uttered before he knew the consequence of the danger, and seemeth to reprehend for his after and better witts.

Repl. I wish to you what Erasmus wisht to Augustinus Steuckius, which is, that you were but equall in probando diligens, as you are in asseverando fortis: For how unlikely is it that we should give you cre­dit without proofe onely, [...], that the antiquity of a thing, which began so long after Christs Apostles, were all dead, is enough to prove it lawfull: Howsoever it would at most but prove it lawfull, to put such Hereticks to death, as force men to do so in their owne defence, for such were they: Besides I object not onely against this custome the not being ancient, (for I con­confesse there might have been before a power to do so too, though not used to the uttermost, [Page 218]though in likelihood what perswaded you to use it, would have perswaded them to the same, if they had thought they had it) but as being also condem­ned by Hillary, and Athanasius, and other Ortho­dox: For though some punishment of a lesse de­gree were inflicted upon others too by their own side, (as you trulie instance) when their power prevailed; yet Constantine saies, not onely in an Edict for libertie of opinions, (which he, who was then Pope never appeared to stomack, as his suc­cessor, undoubtedly would now doe the like) [...], let no man trouble another, but let every one do as his own soule will: but also gives this concluding reason against you for it, [...]. For it is one thing willingly to take upon them this combate for immortality, and ano­ther to force them to it with punishment; and so in whatsoever he did contrary to this in any case, wherein this reason held his words, condemne his action: And whereas you say, that when Constan­tine made so slight of the question between Arrius and Alexander, it was, because he knew not the consequence of the danger: I shall desire to know of you whether you must not confesse, that there is now no King of your Religion so ill instructed in it, (though none of them be never so learned or curious as Constantine was, who, if any man in his dominion should arise, denying Transubstantiation, would not presently know the danger of the consequence, and resolve him [Page 219]for an Heretick, and to the stake instantly, and not speak against his opinion onelie as impertinent, and de lana caprina, and [...], and if this had been as resolved a thing then among Christians, to have come from Tradition, as Transubstantiation is now amongst Papists, he would necessarilie as soon have discovered it too: Howsoever I be­lieve his after-witts to have been his worser witts, in punishing, though not in condemning of Arrius, and to me it yet seemes (for to be sure, not to speak Heretically, I will not speak obstinately) that to have laboured in stopping of disputes on both parts, and tying them to Scripture Phrases, and to speak of God onelie in the Word of God, had been at least in respect of Unity, not a worse way, then to have given an example to what after followed, I mean, the frequent explication (with Anathema to boote) of inexplicable misteries; Neither would then so many questions have so long troubled the Church, which for their slight­nesse were unworthy ever to exercise the Schooles; But for that or any other meer error, as it may be for ought any one knowes, unlawfull in any to punish at all, I by no meanes like not to put to death, for the same seemes to me it self [...], a sin above measure sinfull, though even the act of it proceeded from an opinion of doing God some service, and that opinion from a meer error too, then I conceive but a materiall no for­mall sin for the same cause, and so, neither this materiall Murtherer, nor that materiall Heretick, be guilty before God, who onely can distinguish, [Page 220]and to whom it is fit to be left. Howsoever the long doubt of some, and opposall of other Or­thodox to this course, and that arising not from their Policie or Compassion, but their Conscience, not as thinking it unprofitable or unfit, but unlaw­full, shews, that there was then no Tradition that the Apostles taught it to be lawfull so to use Hereticks, upon which onelie, all the Infallibilitie, which you claime for any beliefe or custome of your Church, is founded,

Resp. Saint Austine justifieth such proceedings against Hereticks.

Repl. Truely for putting them to death (unlesse when they first assaulted) which makes a wide difference, for then it was not done as to Hereticks, but as to Assassines, from whom Nature teaches us to defend our selves, and consequentlie to re-offend them whensoever Religion barres it not, experience shewing us the danger of meerly defending, to be neer to that too, of not doing it at all) I know not that ever he did, nor do I beleeve it: That some degree of punishment should be inflicted up­on them, I confesse he at last consented, but chief­ly to force them to come and see what the Church did, (whose actions the Hereticks impudently be­lied; as if they set pictures upon the altar, and did what you both doe and defend, and they did not) i. e. denied it. Howsoever we have Saint Austine against Saint Austine, and not onely his authority, but his reasons more valid by much, then that when he saith, that such oppressions would make them think themselves vi victos, [Page 221]non veritate convictos, overcome by force, not convicted by Truth, and consequently dislikes it, ne fictos Catholicos habeamus, quos apertos Hereti­cos novimus, least they become from open Here­ticks, but fained Catholicks: Reasons, which (though these be not all we have) in my opinion it was as impossible for him reasonably to an­swer when he was living, as it would be now for him to do it when he was dead. Besides, as he useth these strong arguments against it, so he is himself a strong example against it, for the Church had lost this her so notable Champion, if they then had been as severe to the Manichees as you are to us.

Resp. Saint Gregory vseth the like against Pagans, (if I remember) and the Church laterly hath rather encreased, then decreased in the practice of it.

Repl. I believe your memory deceives you in this, which you have cause to hope it doth, for else the Church of Rome differs from that of Saint Gregories times, it being now with her a judged case, that Infidels may not be compelled to the Faith, as I am told is shewed by Valentia, Saint Thomas, Hartado, and others, the Church having no power over those who are out of it, and there­fore they please to say, that (like them who among the Romans were onely Cives ad oncra, liable to the taxes of Citizens, without Interest in their Priviledges) Baptisme hath made us of the Church enough to be liable to her Punishments, though not to be benefitted by her Communion: Though indeed the same cause why you would [Page 222]have Hereticks put to death, for feare of harming others with their opinions, me thinks should ex­tend to their punishment too, unlesse you believe us to be as bad as Malefactors, and not them, or that their opinions are so irrationall as not likely to spread, and ours so reasonable, that against them the sword is the best shield, and therefore (as Brennus did his) you put that into the scales for want of weight, it being of giving Reasons as the Poet saith it is of giving Requitalls, Irasci quam donari vilius constat.

Another reason which perswades me that you are mistaken in what you say of Gregory, (as this mistake facilitates my beliefe, that you are so about Austines too) is that Bede tells, that some Romanists, having converted the King of Kent, that King did not yet force any to become Christians, for (saith he) he had learned of these his Masters, that the service of Christ (WHICH REASON EXTENDS FARTHER THEN TO PA­GANS) must be voluntary, and not forced; Now if these received what they taught from Gre­gory, (as you often tell us) then either he did not as you often say, or thought that unlawfull which himself did; And howsoever this Custome hath encreased since is very unconsiderable, for unlesse it have its authority explicitely or implicitely from the Apostles, it can give none since, and unlesse it be proved to be well done at first, no con­tinuance can give this, or any other action more justification then at first it had.

Resp. Moses speech I believe is mistaken, the force of [Page 223]it being, that the banishment of Bishops shewed his faith, because the banished were Catholickes, which shewed Lucius to be none.

Repl. If Moses had meant as you would have him, he should not have said, onely [...], but [...], not indefinitelie the banish­ing of Bishops, but the banishing of Orthodox Bishops, the leaving therefore of that out, wherein, according to you, the whole sence of his Argu­ment lay, seemes to me plainlie enough to shew, that he meant what they and you denie: especi­allie he adding (as you may see in Zozomon) their being punish'd by labour, as well as punishment, and then saying, [...], which things are whollie, abhor­ring from Christ, and all right Beleevers concer­ning God, and in Socrates, [...] for Gods servant ought not to fight, for so he coun­ted to punish.

Resp. But what can be said, if the Church useth that for the prevention of a greater and more dangerous evill, which all politique Estates use for the remedies of lesse, and tesse dangerous evils, and are commanded for it. For if Faith be the way to Salvation, and Heresie be the bane of Faith; if Salvation the greatest good, then the danger of a Countries being over-runne with Heresie, is the greatest of dangers, greater then the multiplicity of Theeves, greater then the unsurety of the wayes, greater then a Plague, or In­vasion; why then doth not reason force us to use meanes to prevent it, which the same reason and experience teacheth us to be most efficacious in this, and all [Page 224]other contagious and gangrening maladies of the Common-wealth. I hope reason it selfe, and the zeale of the Author to his own, and Countries sal­vation, will supply my shortnesse in this, point, for supposing a Church be assured she is in the right, and that the doctrine preach'd, as then leadeth to damnation; I know not why Caiphas his words should not be propheticall in this case, and that truly it doth expedire, that Unus moriatur pro populo, & non tota gens pereat.

Repl. I wish heartilie, you were as good a Caterer as a Cooke, I meane, that you brought as good rea­sons as you dresse artificiallie what you bring; For I finde there is in your words a verie nota­ble [...], able to steale a man into your opinion, before he hath askt himselfe why; but if he stay to doe so, then all your excellent embroiderie will not keepe him from discerning manie bracks in your stuffe: To prove which, I will bring many reasons (besides what I have taught alreadie) by which it shall, I hope, appeare, why those, whom you call Hereticks, should not be put to death, although Malefactors may, although even the lawfulnesse of that (since other punishments, which would not shorten their time of repentance, might peradventure serve to represse them) is not absolutelie certaine.

First, Malefactors plainlie offend against their Consciences, at least, thinke not themselves bound by them to commit their villanies (neither pre­tend they otherwise) which they, whom you call Hereticks, either bona fide follow, or doe for ought at least you can know.

Secondlie, What are Malefices, must be known bef re Malefa ors, and Heresies before Here­ticks; now of the first Mankinde agrees, but of the second but you onely, a small part of Chri­stians, and yet you differ too about the waies of knowing them, and consequentlie, whether some things be Heresies or no (as for example, whether the Oath of Alleagiance containe any) wherein since some of you are deceived, me thinkes it should incline you to thinke it not impossible for you all to doe so, in what you all agree to be such.

Thirdlie, Malefactors are not, or should not be punished for such, without a plaine knowledge that such they are; but although there were an impossibilitie of mistaking what is Heresie, yet there is no possibilitie of knowing who are Here­ticks, the forme of which is obstinacie, a secret, and (to man) an undiscoverable qualitie, whom he onelie should punish who onelie knowes.

Fourthlie, Malefactors are certaine to hurt others, whereas neither are Heretickes sure to per­swace any, and if they doe, yet they may hurt none, since who receives their beleife bona fide, and through meer error, is unharmed by it.

Fifthlie, Whom they doe harme, it must be brough their own fault, and by their own consent, whereas without either, the Malefactors are cause of much mischiefe, even to the most guiltlesse.

Sixthlie, Malefactors passing whollie un­ [...]nish'd, peradventure not put to death, would [...]ring a certaine destruction to the state, which [Page 226]temporall Magistrates are appointed to watch over, which yet in speculative opinions is not con­cerned.

Seventhly, The punishment even by death, of Malefactors brings not any temptation of sinning, upon them, the same to others is in all probabilitie a cause to keep many from a carefull search of Gods Truth, (least they might find the punishable beleefe to be the true one) and from professing it, when they think they have found it; both which are sinns of the first magnitude.

Eigthly, This course with Malefactors was not, for ought appears, ever thought unlawfull in the purest times of Christianity, and was then in use, whereas towards errors in beleefe, it was dis­allowed of them by the chiefe, and long before death was at all inflicted upon them, though then understood as well the danger of Heresie, and were as carefull to preserve their flocks from all danger by all lawfull waies, as any since.

Ninthly, It no way redounds to Christs Glo­ry, that Malefactors be unpunisht, but it makes much for it, that his Army appears to consist of Volunteers, and not of Press'd men, that his Truth should prevaile by no humane force, but onely by the power of the first teacher, and the light of the Doctrine, which for us unbidden so to assist, is to think the Arke must fall, if we hold not forth our hands to hold it up, and takes from it the ho­nour of subsisting by the way, by which it took roote, when (to borrow Saint Chysostomes words) [...]. [Page 227]The weak were to hard for the strong, and twelve for the World, and that [...], They being naked, and their adversaries armed.

Tenthly, That death is the most effectuall way to suppresse Malefactors, you say reason and ex­perience shewes, and it is generally agreed of; but in this case it seems even to your best men the worst course, as appears by Iburranes resolution concerning the Hyper-Ephanians, by the 267 Page of grave and judicious Cardinall D' Ossat his Letters, by the Epistle of Cardinall Richelieu to his King before a Book of Controversie, and by Erasmus his Testimonie, who tells us, that a Carme­lite having then this power in his hands, Ubicunque saevitiam exercuit Carmelita, ibi diceres fuisse fact­um Haeresεων sementum, wheresoever he exercised his crueltie, he seemed to have sowed Heresie. All which reasons make me beleeve, that there is much difference between the striving to destroy these two sorts of men, and if there were not, yet for fore-touched reasons, and others which I will touch at, I should as soone think it unlawfull to put Malefactors to death, as lawfully to kill Hereticks. For indeed since [...], it disadvantageth what you would aide; to seem to beleeve that truth, without other assist­ance, would not sooner roote out falshood, then that it, that the Orthodox are not more likely to cure the seduced, then to be infected by them; and that there is no way to end the Heresies, but by ending the Hereticks: And thus you runne into three in­conveniencies.

First, You put reasonable scruples into consi­dering mens minds, least as a Greek Orator saith against Ulysses for striking Thersites, [...]. It was a signe he could not confute him, that he stuck him; so that it be want of arguments, which makes you fall to blowes, and cause them to suspect, that if you were not (peradventure for some better reasons then appear to them) diffident of your cause, you would give your adversaries leave to speak as loud as them pleased, and not seek so suspiciously to stop their mouthes, whilst they dispute with you at as much odds, and upon tearmes of as much dis­advantage as Saint Paul did with the Grecian Jewes, [...], he disputed against them, but they went about to stay him.

Secondly, It destroies those plausible Argu­ments so often used of Unity, and Tradition, and Multitude, for, first Uniformitie may be indu­ced by power, but Unitie and Impunitie can ne­ver be parted; all other agreement being but as a theefe and a robbed person agreed, the one to take his purse, and the other to give it againe. Againe Tradition it lames as much, for how can any man tell, but that two parts claiming contra­ty Traditions, or one part claiming it upon false grounds, and the other denying it, the truth may not by this force have been over-born, when we receive not what men would have delivered Posteritie, but what Power would suffer them.

Againe, how shall we know but that the greater [Page 221]part of your multitude beleeves not as they pro­fess [...]; no man knowing his Neighbour to be of his mind when it is so probable, that many may not think as they speak, when it is not lawfull for all to speak as they think.

Thirdly, By this way you are causes, that you suffer often where you have not the State on your side, as much as you inflict when you have for though you will say that none should punish but the Church, yet every divided companie of Christi­ans, thinking themselves to be that, (that is to be the orthodox) will use your own custome to your harme, and you will be shott like the Eagle in Esope, [...], with your own feathers; and so Truth weresoever she be (if all follow this way) will by force by many parties be opposed, and but by one propagated and defended; so that not one­ly in consideration of Christianity, but even of Policy I mislike this course, as being alwaies wick­ed, and often hurtfull, and more often uneffectu­all: And for my part, I desire so much that good be done for evill, that (though you be most fit of any to be so used, who use us so where your power extends, and whose cruelty will extend with your acquisition, if you make any, and you hold your selves, that impendens periculum is cause enough for a warr) yet I heartily wish all lawes against you repealed , and trust, that disarmed Truth would serve to expell Falshood, whereas now they being in force against you, give you the honour of a persecution, and not being executed, give you not the feare of one: It is truely said, [Page 230] Militia Christiana est Haereses expellere, but it needs this limitation, sed armis Christianis, that Christian warfare employ onely Christian armes, which are good arguments and good life else if they use such a course, as is more properly [...], and go to force that part of man, which is liable to no power but that of perswasion, (which if it do not beget a true and pious assent, in likelyhood it will a damnable dissimulation, and which, if Christ had meant for a prop for his Doctrine, he would as soon have at first made it a part of the foundation, and have charged his Apostles not to shake the dust off their feet, but to draw their swords out of the scab­bard at those, who rejected what they taught,) then it often (though sometimes by reason of the diffe­rent dispositions which reigne at severall times among men, and may happen otherwise) misseth of the intended end, and works not often so much as upon mens tongues, and never upon their Heads and Hearts: A great example of which happened not long since, Calvin with all his works since the time they were written, having scarce made so many Protestants in France, as I have credibly heard it reported, that the Massacre made in a Night, which act though I impute not to all those of your Religion, for many of them I know did, and do mislike it, yet it both had its fountaine from the Popes Legate, (and conse­quently in all likelyhood from the Pope, who gave God publick thanks for it) as one of his suc­cessors confess'd to Cardinall D' Ossat, Page [Page 231]432, and it may be justified as well as any judici­all proceeding, upon that reason which you give, why Heresie may be stopped with the sword, least they who are wrought upon by it, may work upon others.

To conclude, I should be better contented with this course, if the opinions were infallibly errors, and infallibly damnable, and this were alwaies an effectuall way, (and no other could be found more mercifull) to stop their spreading, but since you have no infallible way of knowing the Church to be infallible in her definitions, and consequently, that the contrary opinions are false, since you know not infallibly which is she, (for you pretend but prudentiall Motives) since your knowledge having defined, is likewise fallible, as depending upon many uncertaine circumstances, since; not onely the matter of Heresie is thus uncertaine, but the form too: for you confesse you doubt whether Ignorantia affectata be it or no, and since though the form were certaine, yet in whom, it is by no meanes plaine, but rather impossible to be known, (as who is obstinate, and consequently to whom it is damnable) since this course often gives growth, and strength to that, from which it would take even Being and Subsistance: I cannot but think you have cause to change your proceedings, least not onely you expell not, but least you encrease Heresie, and againe least you oppose it not, but mistake the Truth for it, and applaud your self for cutting off a Gangren'd member, when you de­stroy a sound one, and instead of ending a Here­tick [Page 224]make a Martyr, and againe least (allowing this to be the Truth) yet you put to death inno­cent persons instead of guilty; especially since if the opinions were damnable in whomsoever they were, yet some better way might be found, (as close imprisonment or the like) to keep them from harming with them, rather then (as you do by putting them to death, when else they might live to be converted) to damne them certainly, least they may possibly damne some others; Againe for Protestants, who joyne with me in beleeving that there is no way to know the true Church, but by true Doctrine, nor to know that but by the Scripture, (for Universall Tradition seemes to us to deliver nothing but what is so plainly contained there, that it is agreed upon) in them I beleeve it must be intollerable Pride, and rashnesse, (and the same in Papists concerning those places out of which they would prove the Churches infallibility) To conclude, this seemes to me the sence of this place of Scripture, therefore this infallibility it is, and no man can denie it, who either gainsaies not his Conscience, or hath it not mislead by some sinfull passion or affection, and therefore the de­niers must be damned, and therefore least they damne others, we will send them through one fire to another. And this, though it be an equall fault in both Protestants and Papists to say and do, yet it is more Illogicall in the former, as contradict­ing at first sight all their Principles, and de­stroying the whole Platforme upon which the Re­formation was built.

Resp. He urgeth afterwards against the Unity of the Church, that it is none such as we brag of, And I confesse we brag of it, and think we have Reason. And if it please him to look into the difference of our Country of England, and some land of Barba­rians, as Brasile, or such other, where they live with­out Law or Government, I think he will find our bragging is not without ground. For wherein is the difference betwixt a Civill Government and a Barba­rous Anarchie? Is it either that in a Civill Estate there be no Quarrells, or amongst Barbarians there is no Quiet? The former would prejudice our Courts and Justice; the latter is impossible even in Nature. What is then the goodnesse of a govern­ment, but in a well Governed Country there is a means to end Quarels, and in Anarchie there can be no assured peace? This therefore is it we brag of, that amongst us if any controversie arise, there is a way to end it, which is not among them who parted from us. And Secondly, That there is no assured agreement amongst those who parted from us, for al­though to day they agree, there is no bond or tie why to morrow they may not disagree. These two things we brag of, and I think the Author will not denie it. For he confesseth that we all agree, in that the Church is an infallible Mistresse. Then it is evident, that if in any controversie she interposeth her judegment, the controversie is ended. He likewise confesseth, that who part from us have no such definitive authority amongst them, and that Scripture, whereon they rely, hath no such vertue to take up Controversies clearely.

Supposing that we agreed much lesse then you, yet a little, all in earnest, that is enforced, is more considerable, then much constrained, and so per­adventure much of that much but in appearance; Besides, that you all agree in those points, wherein if any disagree, he becomes none of you, is no more then is so common to all Religions, that even the very. Anabaptists may say as much for them­selves; For either all the Parts of them remaine of assent, insomuch that they are all still of the same Religion, and so agree as well as your Do­minicans and Jesuites, or else their differences are such, as to make them of severall Religions, and then, why is want of Unity objected to them any more then it is to Christians in generall, among whom are so many divisions, and yet not the whole, but the faulty party taxed? And truely in my opinion some Questions among your selves are as great, not onely as any among your adver­saries, but as any between you and them. I but you answer, we have a way of being agreed, we reply, is it a way sure to lead to Truth as well as to Unity, or else so might we have by going to most at three throwes, and resolving to stand to that. Besides, if you have, and make no more use of it, it seemes there is no such need that Questions be ended, as for that purpose to introduce a necessitie of an Ender. But say you, neither are all suits in the Common-wealth ended; We reply, that yet truely those Judges, who should make no more hast end them, then your Judge doth these, would deserve to loose his place, but this they [Page 235]do as fast as the nature of the thing will permit; which being or depending upon matter of Fact, cannot be known enough to be judged before ex­amination of witnesses, and the like, be ended, and if they willingly deferre the ending, they are confess'd to be in fault by all men, but those who hold Perjury to be none. But you seem to con­ceive our grounds faulty, as not leading even to a possible Unity, whereas to a possible one I am sure they do, (since what is concluded out of them by many, may be by all) nay indeed am confident, that all who receive the Scripture for the onely rule, and believe what is there plain to be onely necessarie, would if they truely beleeved what they professe, and were not lead aside either by prejudice, or private ends, or some Popish re­licks of holding what they have long been taught, or following the authority of some by them much esteemed, persons either alive or dead) soon agree in as much as is necessarie, and in concluding no necessity of agreeing in more, there being no doubt, but it would soone appear plainly what is plaine.

Besides if no grounds be sufficient for Unitie, which produce not the effect, then it seemes, the grounds of your grounds, those Arguments, by which you prove, that there is a Judge, and a generall Councell is it, are insufficient, since they are not able to make all Christians about this question: Again, although a Judge, and this Judge be received, yet this is still an insufficient ground for Unitie, since the Greek Church agree thus farre with you (which is as farre as you agree with [Page 236]one another) and yet are not so bound by it to any universall Unitie with them, but that they esteem you Hereticks, and are esteemed so by you: and if you say, that it is not, because the grounds, upon which the Infallibilitie of the Church are built, lead not sufficientlie to Unitie, that we joyne not with you in beleeving them to be infallible, not because the determination of generall Coun­cels is not a sufficient meanes of Unitie, that the Greek Church admitting their authoritie, admits not of your opinions, but it is the fault of us (and of them) hardening our hearts against the truth; then we may as well say, that some of those, who agree in our grounds, yet disagree from our doctrine, not that the grounds lead not to Unitie, but that our Adversaries will not be lead; or if (as you doe, and some others of you some­times) you confesse, that they through an inno­cent error dissent from you, and doe this without any imputation in this respect to your grounds, I hope it will be lawfull for us to allow the same possipilitie, without any disadvantage or prejudice to ours: Besides, say you, though we agree to day, yet we may not to morrow, which to prove, were [...], paines whollie lost, we confesse: For though Tully make it an expression of his contempt to Piso, in an Epistle to Atticus, Ita nihil est, ut plane quid erit, nesciat, yet I take it to be a true saying of man in generall, who knowes little of present things, and nothing of future; but this is common to us both, for if we change not our opinions, we shall agree as we doe, and if you [Page 237]change yours you shall not, which is possible, for not onelie that opinion of the Infallibilitie of your judges decrees may it self be altered, which holdeth together all the rest, but some of you may holding that ground (like the Greek, either change their o­pinions concerning the authority of such or such a Councell, as beleeving it unduelie called, factiouslie carried, or not generall as is pretended, or not so consenting as is requisite) or differ from the rest, concerning the sence of the decrees: for whereas, you say, you agree that the Church is an infal­lible Mistresse, and when she interposeth her judgement, the controversie is ended.

I answer, that, first, some of you, with whom I have spoken my selfe, hold, that the Churches authoritie in defining, extends no further then to such points, whereof Tradition is of one part (as in many controverted there is, I beleeve, no such) and that this rule she may transgresse, and so erre.

Secondlie, Neither the Dominicans nor their Adversaries, are very readie to remain in suspence to await her decision, but define all readie concer­ning her definitions, Cum utraque pars tenax con­tendat suam non aliam posse definiri sententiam, ei­ther part tenaciouslie urging, that the contrarie opinion cannot be defined, which if they did to fright the Pope from defining, least the condemned partie being even before, should after make a Schisme, they obtained their end.

Thirdlie, What are you the nearer to Unitie for your Infallible Mistresse the Church, when [Page 238]you neither agree of any certaine and proper markes to know her by, nor when it is that she in­terposeth her judgement; some take it to be the particular Church of Rome, others (of which number you are) all which communicate with her, supposing the first to be true, yet not being de fide, it will serve but ill by your rules to build our faith upon, and even when she delivers her opinion is not certainlie agreed, whether the peo­ple of Rome be to have Votes, or onelie the Clergie, or of them, onelie the Pope with the Cardinals, or the Pope onelie without them, if the Pope, whether, onelie in his Chaire, and what circum­stances arc required to his decreeing in Cathedra, would beget more questions: If all that commu­nicate with her (as you say, it is as things now stand.)

First, I would know whether they be sure to be at all times the Church, to that you refuse to de­rermine, and so inclusivelie denie.

Secondlie, It is not possible, that such a multi­tude should ever give any sentence explicitelie, nor can we ever know, that it hath even tacitelie done so, if they be to decree onelie by represen­tation, then how large a companie represents them with all their power, of whom that companie is to consist, how many of them are to agree to make it a binding sentence, &c. are things yet unde­fined, and like to be, and if any goe about to de­termine them, their power being it selfe still a question, could not end these: Therefore, where­as you say, that we have no definitive sentence [Page 239](besides that truly to have one, and not to know when we have one, is much alike;) I answer, that whensoever the Scripture shall seeme to us to have defined, we are according to our doctrine readie to yeeld, and so the controversie is ended (and sure the Scripture may be said to be a de­finitive sentence, as well as the written Councell of Trent) and till then, though we differ about interpretations of not plaine places, we have as much Unitie as you, who are not resolved upon the sence of manie decrees of that and other Coun­cels: and if a desire and diligence to finde the true meaning of them, and an aptnesse to assent when it is found, be thought to secure among you, those who mistake the true sence of these Councels, why should not the same disposition in us towards the Scripture, be thought every whit as sufficient, not onely to keepe us in unitie, but to secure us from danger.

To conclude, though unitie be a thing much spoken of by you, yet I finde it chieflie onely in your discourse; your differences are many and great, onelie you say, you agree in what is necessarie, and make the measure of things necessarie what you agree in, so the summe is, you agree in what you doe agree (which it is impossible you should not, though you had carried away the bayes from Bibrias his Tombe) eager against us, and yet divided among your selves, like the state of an Armie in Tacitus, Manente Legionum auxilio­rumque, ubi adversus Paganos certandum foret, consensu, and if your Church brag of such an [Page 240]Unity, I perceive a small matter will make her brag.

Resp. Againe, I do confesse most English- men confesse a Trinity, the Incarnation and Passion of our Savi­our, but if to morrow, any one or more of them light upon some Book of an Arrian, Trinitarian, or other Sect, so wittily written that he putteth probable soluti­ons for the places of Scriptures, shewes slight waies how our well meaning fore-fathers may have slipped into such an Error, what is there to retaine those men from disagreeing with the rest of their Bretheren, and betake themselves to the Arrians? And when the heat is past light upon some Rabbi, who shall cun­ningly exaggerate the absurdities, (as he shall tearm them) of the Trinitie, Incarnation; Say our Savi­our did strange things in vertue of some Constellation, and delivering these things so Oratorically, that for a new heat, some of these things shall seem more con­formable then his Arrianisme, what then shall hin­der this man to become a Jew, and at last to prove himself so great a Clerk as to write de tribus Impost­oribus: Take away the power of the Church, which every man doth who taketh away the Infallibility, what can retaine any man why he should not yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest, seeing nothing is certaine?

Repl. And if you should meet with a book: which should give probable solutions to the places of Scripture, and reasons which you now think prove the authority of the Church, and bring other (though suppose but slight, yet such as may seem strong) Arguments to prove it not infallible, and [Page 241]shew waies of the same kind, how your ancest­ors may have slipt in that, and by that into other errors, what is there to retaine you with the rest of your Bretheren, and betaking your selfe to us? If you say this is impossible to be done, so think the Protestants, that the Arrians can give them no probable answer to their places of Scri­pture, and such as will seem so to some, is no im­putation to their grounds, since so may, and do our Answers and Objections to some of you, who thereupon leave you, and yet you count not your grounds disparaged. For my part, I pro­fesse my self not onely to be an Anti-Trinitarian, but a Turk, whensoever more reason appeares to me for that, then for the Contrary, and so sure would you be too; for the pretended infallibility of your Church could no longer hold you, if you thought you saw reason to beleeve it fallible, as you must do, if all weighed, more reason ap­peared of her adversaries side, either your proofes of her authority not to be probable, or else your Doctrinestaught by her, more contrary to reason, then her authority (though probably founded, yet not upon demonstrations) is sufficient to caution, and answer for; It is true, so long as you stick to this hold upon the Roman Church, you are sure to receive no error, but which she offers you, (and indeed you need not, for those are enough) but that destroied (which is apter to be destroied then most of the Protestants, as weaklier supported by rea­son) then no error that a Protestant may fall in­to, but so may you too, and the other is but such a [Page 242]Priviledge, as I may have by sticking to the Eng­lish Church, as well as you to the Roman; And though this following your guide, may be able, as long as she keep her self, to keep you from some Ditches, into which you might otherwise fall, yet it may lead you unto others, and indeed there is no error but by this way you are liable too, yea, even of those which she now condemnes, since though she changed her opinion, which is neither impossible, nor unlawfull, yet you are by your blind obedience to believe that she had not, and to submit your understanding in this Question to some distinction, though without a difference. These things then I dislike in what you say.

First, Your saying, as though there is nothing to retain a Protestant from being of any error, when it shall appeare more probable to him then Truth, therefore there were nothing to keep him from those errors, whereas you should have con­sidered, that the greater probabilities may serve rea­sonably to hold him without a demonstration, and the evidence of the thing, without a guide, and that if those be not ground enough for a man to fix upon, in how ill estate are those of your Church, in the Question concerning the Church, in which they follow no guide, nor have any de­monstration, but professe they yeeld to her autho­rity, but upon prudentiall motives, which kind of arguments sure may as well, and as fixedly preserve a Protestant in an Orthodox opinion against a He­retick, as the authoritie of the Church no sure­lier founded, can you against us: That every man [Page 243]should yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest to him, I confesse, it is alwaies, not onelie safe and fit, but also necessarie, even for them who receive the Infallibilitie of the Church, since those who beleeve that, beleeve it, because that appeares fairest to them, and as you object to us, the possi­bilitie of being perswaded from the truth by some wittie Author, why thinke you not the same Au­thor may possiblie too, appeare to you to destroy your prudentiall Motives, and so consequentlie your whole Faith, which is built upon the Church, which is built upon them.

Secondlie, I dislike your seeming to beleeve, that any grounds, which are not demonstrative, are too slipperie to rest upon, as not onelie being contrarie to reason, but to your selfe, who told me before, that no more was required, then a maine advantage on one side, and that we had reason to be satisfied with Probabilities to guide our Actions in Religion, or since by them we were content to regulate all the other Actions of our life.

Thirdlie, I dislike in your own parties behalfe your saying, that a Protestant is in good likelihood to turne Arrian (for if you meane onelie that it is possible, it concernes you as much as them) since this seemes to inferre, that the Scriptures doe make more probablie for them (which if they did, it is not Heresie) and to contradict all those, whom both parts call Fathers, who thinke enough plaine in Scripture, not onely to keepe, but also to convert men from Arrianisme, as it appeares, [Page 244]by their employing so solelie those Armes against them, that they needed the admonition of a He­retique, to counsell them to the use of another.

Fourthlie, I dislike your saying, that after being made an Arrian, he is not unlikelie to turne Jew, especiallie, that he is likelie to be perswaded by any exaggeration of the Absurdities in the Trinitie, since both Grotius and other Authors, seeme to say, that the Jewes have their Trinitie too in the same Notion, and howsoever the Arrian is so fullie perswaded alreadie, that those are ab­surdities (that perswasion being almost the forme of that opinion which constitutes him an Arrian) yet the exaggeration of them can never worke upon him; And for the Constellation you speak of, it were so irrationall, and so unprovable a Crotchet, that no Oratorie could ever make it seeme to a reasonable man, to have any inclination to sence (and a foole may be made beleeve any thing, how contrarie soever to his grounds) un­lesse he be of those, who are given over to vaine imaginations, because they love darknesse better then the light, and the fault of no particular mens understanding or will, is to lead any man to con­demne his grounds, for they are to be accused, not of whatsoever he concludes who holds (or rather in this case hath held) them, but onelie of what he concludes reasonablie according to them. Besides, for this cause it appeares strange to me, that trusting to Scripture alone, and without, meaning the Church, for my certaine guide, should bring a man into danger or parting with his Christianitie, [Page 245]since nothing can hold a man longer then he be­leeves it, and as long as our ground, the Scripture, is by him beleeved, no man can possiblie turne either Atheist, or Jew; and he who leaves to beleeve your ground, the Church, cannot by that be any more with-held from either: Besides that, I thinke it is impossible (I am sure it is irrationall) that any of you should beleeve in Christ, upon the authoritie of Christs Church, since beleeving the latter (which claimes no authoritie but from Christ) praesupposeth the beleife of him, and so Christianitie is not the apter to be overthrown through the absence of that, upon which it is not built: I feare rather, least your doctrine known to be grounded it selfe upon Tradition by such a way, according to which, a Jew would have much advantage of a Christian, may incline a man to Judaisme, and your sides generall slighting all waies of knowing Gods will, but onely by the Church, and then neither proving her power stronglier, nor teaching how to know her plainer, may make men sinke into Atheisme, by being perswaded by you, in letting goe other strong holds upon Truth, and receiving such weake ones from you. Not to speake of your loading Christia­nitie with such impossibilities as the Pillars of it, which are not absolute Demonstrations (of which it may be scarce any thing is in nature capable but lines and numbers) are able to beare, and using all your Wits and Industries to perswade men, that it is equallie unsafe to refuse any part of your Religion, as to receive none; and so instead of [Page 246]making these your beleefs admitted for the sake of Christianitie, causing Christianitie to be re­jected because of them.

Resp. But peradventure some may attribute Power to the Church without infallibilitie, whom I would have consider but what himself saith. For his Church by the Power it hath must either say I command you to believe, or I command you to professe this, whether you believe me or no. The second, I think no enemy of equivocation will admit, and the former it is as much as if it should say, I know not whether I say true or no, yet you must think I say true.

Repl. We having received a command, that all things be done decently, and in order, and this being to be appointed by them, whom either the Law of the Land, (if that consist of faithfull) or the con­sent or custome of Christians hath appointed, for Ecclesiasticall Rulers in this matter, in every place the Church (thus restrained to the Gover­nours of the Church) may have in some cases (though not to your purpose) power without the least Infallibilitie. And for instruction (which you aime at) no Church can give it, yours espe­cially being too large a body ever to meet or joyn in doing it, and if you restraine the Church to the Cleargie, (whereof yet many teach not, and they too are too many for any man to be sure what they all agree in teaching, and when they differ, how shall I know which to follow, otherwise then by your Rule which I have answered) their duty indeed, but not theirs onely, (though Principally) is to instruct us in the way to Heaven, which they [Page 247]doing in the Persons of Embassadors between God and us, and having no absolute Letters of Cre­dence to bid us to beleeve that God saies, whatso­ever they say, he saies, (as much as can be wrested out of Scriptures for any present Church, being said of the Scribes and Pharisees, who yet proved themselves not infallible) our best way is in my mind to examine their Commission, and if they can shew that they treat according to that, to sub­mit to them, (as in the same case we must to any of the Layetie) or rather to God, of whose com­mands they are but Organs, and if not, to beware of their Leaven. Yet it may be that some man may hold that such an opinion is to be beleeved onelie, because such a Church proposeth it, and yet not believe her Infallible, since he may think her authoritie (by reason of her Learning, Multi­tude, Sanctitie, Unitie and Libertie) to be more probable then any contradicting argument, and that men are to assent to what is most probable, and truelie if he could prove to me his Major, I am alreadie so much of the opinion of his Minor, that I should joyne with him in his Conclusion.

Resp. So that if I understand any thing, where there is no Infallibility, there is no Power; where no Power, no Unity; where no Unity, no Entity; where no En­tity, no Church.

Repl. How you tie Power to Infallibilitie I guesse, but cannot how you tie Unitie to Power: For how many things are all men even at Unitie about, though one have no Power over another in them, onelie cemented together by their clear evidence. [Page 248]And how many more do whole Bodies, and Sects of men agree about without any such power, though they differ in other points, as so do you too; Do not Protestants agree with you about manie, and the chiefest credenda, and about al­most all the meerely facienda? Though not per­swaded to this agreement by the Power of any Judge which they do acknowledge; Nay if men could be at Unitie about no thing, which were not proposed by some Guide, or defined by some Judge endued with such a power, how came all you to agree, that there is some such Guide and Judge required, since sure you receive not that upon its own authoritie, and if men may find the necessitie of a Guide and Judge, without any Guide or Judge, and remain in Unitie about that, why may they not also about whatsoever is clearly taught by God, which reason assures us to be all that is necessarie, and if you say that all things necessarie are not clearlie taught, because we do not (though it proves not that we might not) agree upon them, then I replie, that I may as well say, that neither is it cleare that there is a Guide, because we dissent from you in it, although receiving the authoritie of the Scri­pture (out of which Cardinall Perron confesseth, that Saint Austine saith, that both the necessitie of your guide, the Church, and she her self, are to be known) and reason, which as they may be plain in this point for you, and yet perswade us not, so may they be in all necessarie points, and yet we who make theirs our ground, not perswade one another.

As little see I why there can be no Entitie nor Church, where there is no Unitie.

For the first, though there be small Unitie among Christians, yet certainly Christians and their Religion have some Entitie, indeed if what you say were true, there were no Entitie in yours.

For the second, I know not why two parties over-valuing their differences may not conceive each other to be none of the Church, and so de­clare even by excommunications, and yet remain both Parts of it, (for if a Husband misse-suspecting his Wife of Adulterie, declare her to be no long­er his Wife, this cannot make her give over being so, if the bond be indeed not broken) as well as Chrysostome and Epiphanius, both excommunica­ted by each other, and yet both Saints, or as particular men may by your own confession be in­teriorly in the Church, although seeming out of it, even to the Church her self, and so those be both of the Church between whom there is no Unity: For not onely in your own Cariophilus his words [...], but also though the persons have power, yet if the cause have not sufficiencie, I take you to agree, that an excommunication is but a brutum fulem, as Victors of the Asian Bishops: The best therefore and strictest definition (and which I think you will not refute) which I can give for the Church, is (especially in that sence, as out of it there can be no salvation) those who are desirous to know Gods Will, (or Christs at [Page 250]the strictest, for I am not certaine, nor I beleeve is it defined among you, whether an explicite knowledge of Christ be absolutely necessarie to Salvation, though I know no guiltlesse ignorance of him, can bring unavoidably upon any man eternall torments) and ready, when known, to be­leeve and follow it; and sure many of these may eternally disagree even in points which are necessa­rie, abstracting from particular cases, and yet their differences not exclude them from the Church, and consequentlie a Church may be without Uni­tie, Quod erat demonstrandum.

Resp. Now for the Controversies mentioned, besides that there is a meanes to terminate them, they be such as bring no breach of the ancient life and action of Christians, which all those opinions do, which for the most part are reputed to make Hereticks.

Repl. You saw verie well, that if [no Unitie, no Church] were a true Proposition, yours hath in it differencies enough to destroy its being a Church, and therefore are faine to applie what salves you can, but all in vaine: For your meanes to termi­nate them, doth not make them not to be before they are terminated, and consequently by your Rule yours is no Church till then. Besides, their bringing to breach of the ancient life and action of Christians proves not but one of them may be a Heresie, since you say not your selfe, that all Heresies are such; but onelie for the most part; and indeed to prove that, you must be able to set down what those opinions are, which before a de­finition may make a Heretick, which I beleeve you [Page 251]will not venture to doe in haste, though we much desire it at your hands, that we may know if none of them be such.

Resp. That some controversies amongst us are not re­solved, is a thing necessarie amongst humane affaires, where things must have a time to be born, to encrease, to fall, and the greater things are, the greater is their Period.

Repl. It is true, that some time to be taken notice of must passe between an opinions rising, and being condemned; but that so long they should run on, and many of your Councels having since been held, is sure not necessarie, and shewes, that you esteem not Unitie so necessarie as you pretend: some opinions I am sure you can soon enough quash, as that not long since risen in Spaine con­cerning Fornication being but a Veniall Sin: And whereas you say, the greater things are, the greater their period, though this be ture in some things, yet not in this, for sure the greater a difference is, the greater necessitie is there that it be soon decided, and so if your decision have power to effect it, as you pretend among you it hath, it must fall as soon as it is born, like the [...], Creatures that live but a day.

Resp. Wherefore I do not see why this may hurt the Church, more then the suits, which hang in our Courts, preju­dice the government of the Land.

Repl. If any of these opinions be of that importance, as that though uncondemn'd the Holders are Here­ticks, as some may be, and my definition being concluded of such among you, some of these [Page 252]may be some of them, then sure they hurt the Church much, and more then the Suites hurt the Government, which their hanging hurts not at all, though it hurts (sometimes unavoidablie) the Parties. But if where there is no Unitie, there were no Common-wealth, as you say, where there is no Unitie, there can be no Church, then the Government were much prejudic'd by the Suits, as your Church by this rule, is made no Church by the differences; And indeed if men were not agreed about the power of the Governours (as you are not about some of your questions) it must be a maime to the government of any Com­mon-wealth, as consequentlie these are to the go­verment of your Church.

Resp. The last point of the Authors discourse is, to shew how errors might have crept in, wherein I shall have no opposition with him, for I doe not thinke the que­stion is, how they should creep in, but how they should be kept out.

Repl. Here Sir, I cannot but beleeve, that you inten­ded to refresh your selfe with some Mirth, as with Musicke between the Acts; for though both our ends be, that errors should not creep in, yet the question was, whether it were possible that they might creepe in, and to my affirmative part it conduced to shew those waies, by which either they have entred, or easilie might doe so, this shewing how they may steale in, teacheth how to keep them out, as it is an aide to the saving of a Town, to discover the breaches, which cannot be guarded without they be first known.

Resp. For the Fluxibility of humane Nature is so great, that it is no wonder if errors should have crept in, the wayes being so many; but it is a great wonder of God that none should have crept in. This never­thelesse I may say, if the Author will confesse, as I thinke he will not deny, but that it is disputable, whether any error in sixteen Ages hath crept in, this very thing is above Nature. For if there were not an excellency beyond the nature: of corruptible things, it would be undeniably evident, that not one or two, but thousands of errors had quite changed the shape of the Church in so many yeares, tempests, dis-uni­ons, want of Commerce in the body of the Church.

Repl. The greater wonder it were, if your Church had no error, the greater it is to me, that upon one, at most but probable, Reason, you should require all men to beleeve she hath none; Neither doth it appeare to me disputable, whether she have or no, but evident, that she hath, not by Demonstrations, yet by Probabilities of that multitude, and weight upon which you say (and say trulie) that in all other cases we relie, and venture that we most esteem: whereas indeed you, as you are of the imposing Partie, ought to bring at least such proofes, that you are fallen into none, and as you are of the Infallibilitie-pretending-partie, your proofes are likewise to rise from probable to In­fallible: Neither doe I conceive it to be probablie argued, it is disputable, whether this bodie of men have ever let in any error, therefore it can never let in any, since it is at least as disputable, whether the Grecians have let in any, yet you will not allow, [Page 254]that upon this we should adjudge to her Infalli­bilitie: Nay if it were demonstrative, that your Church had yet never erred, yet it would but un­willinglie follow, that she never could, since all things necessarie are so plaine (without the con­fession of which you seeme to tax God) and it is naturallie so plaine what is plaine, that I cannot but thinke it a miracle, that some one bodie of Christians among so many, should be free from any such dogmaticallie-defended error, especiallie if Truth were so indifferentlie sought after as it ought to be, and Passion were not often called to counsell, and Reason shut out of doores.

Resp. But this one Maxime, that she receiveth her Faith by Tradition, and not from Doctors hath ever kept her entire: And he that will shew the contrary, must shew how it should come to passe, that those, who lived in such an Age, would say unto our Children, this we received from our fore-fathers, as taught them by our fore-fathers, to have been received from Christ and his Apostles from hand to hand, which if it could not be, the question is resolved, that no error is in the Church of God, which holdeth her faith upon that Tenure.

Repl. Not to repeat, usque ad nauseam, what I have heretofore answered, as that others differing from you, hold upon the same Tenure that your selves have not alwaies held, nor hold not upon it, &c. I will onelie tell you what Cardinall Perron tels me of the Jewes out of Isidore, and that is, that they seeing in the book of Wisedome so cleare proofes of Christ, plotted together to put it out of the [Page 255]Canon, which serves not so much his turne, if it were so, as it makes against yours, and shews how that might come to passe, which you judge impossible, the Posteritie of the Jewes having been deceived by this Complot; although pre­tending at least, and for ought appeares, beleeving that the Tradition of their Church is still uncor­rupted.

Resp. And truely if the Author desires to examine di­vers Religions, let him look their maine ground wherein they relie, and see whether that be good or no: And I think amongst Christians he shall find but two, Tradition, and Scripture,

Repl. First, I allow not of your division, for not to say now that you relie not onely upon Tradition, these Protestants, whose part in this I take, depend not onelie upon Scripture, but upon Universall Tradition too, from which they receive that, and would more, if more seemed as clearly to them so to be delivered.

Secondly, I think it reasonable not onely to examine what their Principles are, but whether they do constantly follow them, for a man may write awrie, that hath a streight Ruler, if he ob­serve it not carefully.

Resp. And the Catholiques onely to relie upon Tradition, and all the rest upon Scripture; and he shall see, that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it, and more then one cannot relie upon Tradition.

Repl. If all that relie upon Tradition be Catholicks, you must admit the Eastern Churches into your [Page 256]Communion, although you now account them both Scismaticks and Hereticks: If all Catholicks do relie upon Tradition as their onelie grounds, and Tradition be so sure and infallible, and un­mistakable a deliverer, as you would perswade us, how come so manie differences between you, some ever counting those things matter of Faith which others do not; which differences shew, if they all relie on these Questions, upon the ground you say they do, that more then one may relie upon Tradition, and neither can Tradition, any more then Scripture, draw to an Unitie, those who re­lie upon it; if either neither part do, or either do not, then Tradition is not the Common Te­nure of Catholicks, (not onelie in different opi­nions, but even in such as are most de fide, and as both parts think nothing but a definition (and some scarce that) to make the Holders of the contrary to them Hereticks) since if it were, neither could one part of Catholicks relie upon any other then the Catholick ground, neither is it to be doubted, but that side which builds their opinion upon an Hereticall foundation against another, beleeved upon a Catholick ground, would long agone have been among you exploded, and the Pope have been not onelie with so much paines perswaded, but even of himselfe readie to have past his cen­sure upon them; if not for their superstructions, yet for their foundation.

Resp. If I will be a Christian, I must be of one side.

Repl. If you mean I must be of one side, that is take one of these grounds, I answer, That I take both [Page 257]one from the other, Scripture from Tradition, though not from the present Tradition of a Part, but from the Universall one of the first Christi­ans opposed by none, but by them, who were in­stantlie counted by the generallitie heterodox, and as soon opposed as known. If you mean that I must be of one side in points, I whollie denie any such necessitie.

Resp. By falling on the one side, I see my fortune in thousands who have gone before me, to wit, that I shall be to seek all my life time, as I see they are, and how greatlie they magnifie verie weak pieces. On the other side, I see everie man who followeth, as farr as he followeth it, is at quiet.

Repl. I see not but the greatest part of those who take the ground which you mislike, are yet setled and confident enough in their opinion, and if they continued alwaies seeking Truth for the love of it, I know not why they should be the lesse likely to find Heaven: Neither think I that you will say (nay it is plaine by your own words, that you will not say) that Saint Austine had been damned if he had died in his search, nor consequently any other in his case. And whereas you say, that all who follow the other, are at quiet as farr as they fol­low it, I answer, So are all who fixedly beleeve themselves to follow an infallible (although indeed a false) Guide, as the Mahumetans, being led by their Mufty,: Which proves Quiet, no sufficient caution for Truth, nor Securitie for Safetie, and that, supposing yours the more easie and satisfy­ing way, it followes not that it is the more reason­able: [Page 258]And for what you say of a mans duty to judge himself rigorously, whether he seek as he ought, I subscribe to that opinion, and approve of your Councell.

Resp. Besides this, he must have this care, that he seek what the Nature of the subject can yeeld, and not as these Physitians, who when they have promised no lesse then immortality, can at last onely reach, to some conservation of health, or youth in some small degree; So I could wish the Author well to assure him­self, First, that there is possible an infallibilitie, before he be to earnest to be contented with nothing lesse. For, what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good, would he therefore think fitting to live without any Religion, because he could not get such a one as himself desired, though with more then a mans wish.

Repl. What you now say, I confesse is very rationall, (as indeed all you say, is as much as your cause will suffer) and I require you not therefore to prove your opinions to be infallible by infallible argu­ments, as necessarie to be done in it self, but as necessarie to be done by them, of whose opinions their Churches infallibilitie is not onelie a part, but a ground, and that the chief, if not the onelie one, and of which an infallible certaintie is the first and main condition of their Communion, and our want of it, one of their maine Objections against us.

Resp. He that will make a judgement in an Art he is not Master in, if he be deceived, it is to be imputed to himself. The Phrase commandeth us to believe eve­ry [Page 259]man in his Art, he who knoweth and understand­eth himselfe beleeveth not. Therefore when wee see Masters in an Art, we are not skild in, oppose us, we may beleeve we are in the wrong, which will breed this Resolution in the Author of the discourse, that if himself be not skild in all those waies in which he pursues his search, he must find himself obleiged to seek Masters, who be both well skilled, and the mat­ter being subject to faction also, very honest, and upright men, or else he doth not quitt himself before God.

Repl. Truelie I am farr from being Master either in this or any other Art, but if for this cause I ought to doubt, and because much learneder persons oppose me, I ought to beleeve my self in the wrong, then so ought those of your part to do; who are as Ignorant as I, we having many much more learned then they who oppose them, and take our part, though therefore I think not of my self (what Tully in a Complement would perswade one of his Friends, that Nemo est qui sapientùs mihi possit suadere meipso, yet I dare not chuse (as you would have me) some Master to search for me, and beleeve him blind-fold, (though if I would, I see no cause why to chuse any from among you, who have so many able Teachers at home (for you confessing that the matters are sub­ject to Faction, and it being certaine, that not onelie who are honest is impossible to be known, but that eagernesse and desire to have, what they think Truth, prevaile, makes even the honest men sometimes deviate from the line of exact honestie, [Page 260]and lie for God, which he not onelie needs not, but forbids, (as is to be seen too frequentlie in the Quotations of both sides) I conceive it the best way to follow my own Reason, since I know I have no will to cozen my self, as they may have to cozen me: Especially since neither could I build upon such a way, an assent of such a degree, as your Church requires, since such Masters, al­though learned, which I being unlearned may be deceived in, and honest, which all men might be deceived in, yet not infallible, could not in reason make me infallibly certaine of the Ortho­doxnesse of that side, which they should chuse for me: So that what was said by the Pagan Solomon Socrates, (who yet was no confident man of his knowledge) [...], is my resolu­tion too, and indeed in effect if not whollie, yet almost every mans, for those who trust their Rea­son least, yet trust it in this, that some other instead of it is to be trusted, and so chuse who they are to trust, against which the Arguments either from the fallibilitie of Reason in generall, or in this particular remaine equally, an ignorant man being as likely to be deceived in the choice of his Guide, as in that of his Way, and that course being rather the shorter then the better, as ventu­ring in the same, and no stronger a Bark, onelie venturing all his wealth at once.

Resp. It is not all one not to incurre damnation for infi­delitie, and to be in state of damnation; for the man to whom infidelitie is not imputed, may be in [Page 261]state of damnation for other faults; as those were, who having known God by his works, did not glori­fie him as they ought.

Repl. That men may be damned for other faults con­cernes not our Question, nor indeed is any.

Resp. Nay, they may be damned for want of Faith, and yet not be damned for incredulitie, As for example sake, if when they have sinned, they know not what meanes to have them forgiven, though they be without fault in not beleeving, neverthelesse dy­ing without Remission of sin, they are not in sate to come to life everlasting.

Repl. This concernes no Christians, none of which that I know differs from you in the necessarie meanes of obtaining forgivenesse for sinnes, for though you require Confession, yet you allow that Contrition will save without it: Neither do I believe, but an imperfect Repentance caused through faultlesse Ignorance, of what it is for it to be perfect, will still be accepted by him who re­guards the Heart more then the Action; indeed onelie the Action, because of the Heart, and knowes, that if he use not the appointed meanes, it is onelie because he knowes it not, else conside­ring the manie impositions from above the great frailtie within, and the great and manie tempta­tions without, so that to fall into no sin, were morally impossible, he who [...], gene­rally observed what he counted himself bound to observe, if for some faults which he was after heartilie sorry for, and had sincerelie reformed, he should be damned for want of knowing more, [Page 262]how to purge himself from them then he could possiblie know, God would not be desirous of the Salvation of all men, and it would seem agree­able to no Mercy, nor to any Justice, except that Summum jus, which ever hath been thought con­demnable in man, and consequentlie incompatible in God.

Resp. As the man who should venture into a wood with­out a Guide, although he did his best to have a guide, nothing lesse might fall out of his way as well as he who neglected the taking of one; so if God sent us his Son to shew us the way of Salvation, as well is he like not to be saved who never heard of such a way, as he that heard of it and neglected it, for neither of the two goeth that way: And who goeth not on the way, is not like to come to the end.

Repl. The way is beleeving and obeying Christ, for them to whom He and his Commands are suffici­entlie proposed, I mean so, that it is their fault if they know them not: In generall then, it is seek­ing the Truth impartially, and obeying diligently what is found sincerely, and who treads this way, though he misse of Truth, shall not misse of his favour who is the Father of it, and if he be ex­cluded Heaven, sure God meant that he should never come thither, and desires not that he and all else should, else he would not have proposed one­lie such a way, which if it were possible for any to misse without his own fault, and which he knew that many would. Truely, that no opinion, that no error is a sin without the cause of it be one; and that God is not displeased with any man for not [Page 263]seeing what it is not his fault that he doth not see, is agreeable to the common Notions of Justice, and God, and it is a verie good Negative way to trie superstructions by, to see whether they agree with these grounds of all Religion, whereof, rather then beleeve such men should be damned, I would beleeve they should be annihilated, or keep your Children companie, and have poenam damni, though not sensus.

Resp. I know God is good and mercifull: But I know his decrees as farr as we know are dispenced by the order of second Causes, and where we see no second Causes, we cannot presume of the effects; and how am I assured he will send Angels to illuminate such men as do their endeavours, that their Soules may not perish.

Repl. A carefull search of Gods, and inclusively Christs will, and readinesse to obey it, is second Cause enough; For, for want of that second cause, we must not suppose any thing to the dishonour of of the First. As to beleeve, that they should be so punisht who do their endeavours, is to lay their damnation to Gods charge: One of the chiefe waies with which the Ancients opposed the Pagans, was shewing them that their Religion taught such things of their Gods, as no Reason would allow not to be dishonourable to the Diety. Now true­ly if when by this Argument we have rooted out the Pagan Gods, we lay as strange imputations upon the God of the Christians, what effect is it likely to produce, but onely to make men call for their old Gods againe, and think that we had as good kept those, who delighted in the Sacrifices of men, [Page 264]who deposed their Fathers, and eat their Chil­dren, as have changed hardly for the better. It is reported in the Ecclesiastical History that a Painter for drawing Christ in the likenesse of Jupiter, had his hand dried up, and certainlie they who figure him to themselves, and others with Attributes so contrary to his, and more fit for a Jupiter, do him much more wrong, then if they had drawn him Tela trisulca tenentem, with a thunder bolt in his hand. What Master, Father, or King, would not be esteemed a Tyrant, who should inflict not onelie an infinite, and an eternall, but a slight and a short punishment upon a Servant, Child, or Sub­ject, for not doing when commanded, what the Commanders saw with all his endeavours, which he had diligently applied, he could not do; and shall we lay such an aspersion upon that God, (who though he be Justice it self, is more Mercifull then Just, who is [...], the Father of Mercies) as that like a Pharaoh, he should exact Brick, when there is no possibilitie of getting Straw. You may beleeve what you think fit, but rather then I will beleeve that any mans Soule that hath done his endeavours, not onelie shall, but that it is possible it should perish, (although not illuminated by Angels, which yet, if Illumi­nation were necessarie, I know some way or other he should have) rather then I will beleeve, either that any be damned for what is no sin, or that sin is [...], somewhat out of our power, (which if we thought, it would be soon out of our care) rather then when God hath so often told us, That [Page 265]he desires not the death of a sinner, I will give him the lie, and say, that he desires his damnation, even as a Creature without any reference to his sin, by chalking out onelie such a way from Hell, which it was impossible for his search to lead him into, and so make him as much a worse Fa­ther then Satan, as to damne is worse then to de­voure; rather I say then this, I will make yours, or the Pagan Legend, Ovids Metamorphosis, my Creed; nor would I be a member of the Christi­an Church, if this beliefe were a necessaries part of Christian Religion, but should crie out with Aver­roes, (whom Transubstantiation kept a Pagan) Sit anima mea cum Philosophis, for the excellencie, and puritie of the doctrine in all other points tending wholly to the honour of God, and the common hap­pinesse of man, he sanctified life, constant sufferings, and wonderfull Miracles of the Divulgers of it, the wonderfull progress of it, (not a much lesse Miracle then they) the weak things of the World confounding the strong, and Fishermen confuting Philosothers, that a Doctrine to strict and con­trarie to humane desires, and not onelie barring from so much pleasure and glory, but also make­ing the Sectators liable to such crueltie and con­tempt, should perswade so manie, and so wise per­sons to leave present things in hope of future, all this and whatsoever else, any Raimond, Seband, Vi­ves, Plesiis, Charron, or Grotius, could either more sharply designe, or more eloquentlie expresse, would not reasonablie prevaile, if such a block as such a Doctrine were laid in the way, (of which [Page 266]sort your Religion hath yet more) and that one dead flie would corrupt the whole ointment; the excellencie of the rest of the Doctrine of Christi­anitie would be thought the Art, and the great and and manie miracles would be thought the Act of some evill Genius, such as befriended Apollonius, to ensnare men by those meanes into the beleef of that opinion, which so much derogates from the Maker of things, and the prevailing of it, though a very probable argument, would not serve for a Passe-Port to such an impossibilitie.

Resp. But farr more do I doubt, whether ever man, who had not the way of Christ, or even of those who walked in it, did ever do his best (except some few, and very few, perhaps not two of Christ his greatest Favourites) and was not so culpable, that his Perdi­tion would not have been imputed unto himself. God of his mercie put us in the score of those of whom he saith, He will take pittie upon whom he plea­seth, and Compassion of them he pittieth.

Repl. How few their number is we will not dispute, since Gods justice is in them vindicated, and they, not He, the Author of their damnation. But neither beleeve I, that God is so rigorously just, as to stand readie to catch at a slip, (like an Usurer for the forfeiture of a bond) but is of long suffe­ring and Patience, and will as well accept our Re­pentance, (joyned with amendment for this neg­lect in our search, as for other sinns: Howsoever I am so farre from thinking your prayer needlesse, that I both thank you for it humbly, and joyne with you in it heartilie; but [...].

To conclude, I am to make two very contrary excuses; The one that my Paper hath left some things in yours unanswered: The other, that I have answered others too often.

Of the first, I protest (which the Reader will beleeve me in) nothing is left out, in which I con­ceived any weight of Argument lay, but onelie such things, as though they were superfluous for the Logick, yet conduced to the Rhetorick of your work, an eloquent Treatise, being alwaies like a hopefull young Man, in quo aliquid amputandum.

Of the Second, My Method, or rather my no Method was one, and your own Repetitions ano­ther Reason, so that you may the better pardon me that fault, of which your self are a partie-cause.

But to seale up all, I desire you, that how lit­tle assent soever you give to my Arguments, you will be pleased to give credit to my Assertions, when I seriously professe my selfe,