THE DIALOGVES OF WILLIAM RICHWORTH OR The iudgmend of common sense in the choice of Religion.  
Printed at Paris by JOHN MESTAIS, 1640.   

TO THE READER.  
M. r William Richworth borne in Lincolnshire studied in the English College at Douai, there was made Priest, and afterwards discharged the place and office of Perfect with much commendation, all which time he was known by the name of Charles Rosse. Coming into England he lived in divers places with good esteem until the year 1637 in which he died. He was a man curious in Divinity, Controversies, Mathematics, and Physic, but chiefly delighted in Mathematics, and by the name of Robinson entertained correspondence with the learned Oughtred. He affected the rigour of mathematical discourse even in his controversies, as you may perceive by this work, and thought no man truly learned but who aimed to do the like. These Dialogues he framed some years ago, and shown them to several friends of his, which finding they gave content to divers judicious persons, he intended to enlarge and publish them, but hindered by some occasions so that he could not finish and perfect them before his death, he bequeathed his papers and this charge to a friend, to whom he had often communicated his design. Here now you have them divided into three parts, The first containing and declaring how, and what points of controversies are of necessity, The second showing that scripture alone is not a fit judge nor able of itself to decide controversies in Religion, The third and last demonstrate's an evident and infallible means of determining and deciding all questions and disputs of faith and Religion, which God grant may be to your profit.   

THE APPROBATION.  
Having perused and considered by leave and order from our sacred faculty of Divinity a little treatise entitled The Dialogues of William Rishworth, or the judgement of common sense in the choice of Religion, containing 36. sheets in writing, and 24. printed in 12. we do certify that there is not any thing contained therein against Catholic faith or Christian piety, but many rational and connatural proofs and motives of them both, And therefore do judge it truly worthy our Approbation and the public. Paris this 7. of April 1640.  
E. TERRELL. H. HOLDEN.   

The Printer's ignorance of the English tongue hath caused many errors in the print, amongst others these  

Pag: 87. or. cor. of.  
101. at. cor. a  
102. the, cor. these.  
109. hath, cor. have  
112. so be saved cor some may be saved  
119. that, cor. that's  
120. hath, cor. had.  
124. wain, cour, waive  
132. thenth, cor. tenth  
144. and in Gover etc. cor. in Gover etc.  
149. hat, cor. that  
151. o, cor. of  
152, n, cor. an  
153 th'. cor. that  
〈…〉 the, cor, ready  
162. v, us  
187. Religion's order cor Religious  
236 and, cor. and  
254. posseth, cor. passeth  
309, ou, cor. out  
386. althought cor. although  
434. dockrine, cor. doctrine  
450. you, cor. your  
481. such, cor. such  
482. sitle, cor. little  
501 6 of, cor. of  
527 prrt. cor. part  
529. he, cour the  
●●7. 〈…〉, cor. is not, nor etc.  
545. de cor do  
546. theses, cor. these  
553. pleasont, cor. pleasant.    

THE FIRST DIALOGUE. What points of controversy in matters of Religion are to be Known of necessity?  

This Dialogue containeth 12. parts or paragraphes.  
1. THe Preface or Introduction.  
2. Whence proceedeth and dependeth the necessity of knowing points of Religion?  
3. That the points wherein the Arrians and other ancient Heretics differred from the Catholic church were points of necessity to be known and believed.  
4. That the belief of the Hierarchy establissed by Christ in his church is of necessity.  
5. That the administration of Sacraments by the Hierarchy is likewise of necessity.  
6. That the resolutions of General Counsels are to decide controversies both in points of necessity and of indifferency.  
7 That the maintenance of the unity of the church is of necessity.  
8. That some things may be of necessity in a lower degree, and in particular the use of pictures.  
9 That the honnoring of Saints, their Canonization, and the institution of Religious orders are necessary in this same degree.  
10. That the Sacraments of order and Matrimony, the Generality of Ceremonies, and the opinion of miracles are alsoe necessary.  
11. That prayer for the dead, Extreme unction, and Confession be likewise necessary.  
12. That good institutions are not to be given over for small inconueniencies, the abuses are to be mended, not the things taken away, and therefore that the party Which broke communion is 〈…〉 to the other.   

§. 1 THE INTRODUCTION.  NEPHEW. 
Come, uncle, this is the first day of the new year, and therefore me thinks it would be a great offence to employ it wholly in Pastimes, and not give some handsel to virtue by some serious and good discourse, which may engage, and serve me for à Pattern of well doing all the year after. Wherefore though it be late, yet I know uncle, that you (whose well spent age and travailles have made you able and fit to give light and guydance to my unsettled years) can presently give me such a lesson as that I shall easily better myself thereby all the year following.  uncle. 
I should be very unkind, loving cousin, if I should refuse such a request to you, whom the marriage of my nee rest and dearest kinswoman maketh me love and tender as one who hath mine own blood and joy in his care and custody. But as I am glad to see this inclination in you, which I hope will strengthen with your age, so doth the choice of the time you make, being now the hottest season of the day for gaming, make me wonder at your unusual temperance.  Nephew. 
Yesternight was the end of the last year, and so I made even with the world, nor have I as yet begun again, and therefore I took occasion to withdraw myself when the company sat down to play, with intention to bestow somewhat better the little that's left of this good day.  uncle. 
Why then, cousin, I think I know my theme, you lost all your moneys yesternight, and now you are weary with looking on others all this day, and therefore I must tell you how damageable and fruitless a thing play is, especially to young gentlemen who are coming, or newly come to their estates▪ speak plainly, sweet cousin, is it not so?  Nephew. 
In deed, Uncle, for the first part you have hit very right, but for the latter I shall entreat you not to touch upon that string at this time, at least until the twelft-day be passed. For my father promised me moneys when mine were lost, and you know how sweet revenge is, so that I shall be in a better disposition to hear you discourse of this subject after Christmas when all the company is gone. What you should now say of this matter, would be, I fear, a bitter and distasteful pill without effect, my disease being at this present in its crisis, Any thing else will take much better, I shall profit more, and you will be in less danger to lose your labour.  uncle. 
Well, cousin, seeing you are unwilling of that discourse I will not trouble you therewith, upon condition that after twelftide you will not fail to come to me with preparation to receive that doom which I shall say upon you for your christmas trespasses. In the interim I conceive nothing more fitting then to inform you of the chiefest and most important affair that you can have upon earth. You know you have been borne and bred a catholic, And you know it is their belief and tenant that all we catholics are obliged to venture life and fortunes for the profession of our faith. Is it not then a great 〈◊〉 for a catholic gentleman to know full well how to govern his temporal estate, till his grounds, breed his cattles, solicit his suits in law, and menage all his terrestrial affairs, and not know Why in such an occasion he ought to hazard, yea and if need be, to lose and cast all away in the very sight of his lamenting friends, some upbraiding and some condemning his action as foolish and indiscreet?  Nephew. 
I pray, uncle, do not say so hard a censure vpon me, nor think me so ignorant of those things with out the knowledge where of. I cannot be a catholic. And you know we cannot be admitted to the Sacraments, nor can we be esteemed and reputed catholics unless we believe that the reward we expect in heaven is far beyond the pleasures of this world. And truly considering what Christ jesûs hath done and suffered for us, it were most base and unworthy of a grateful soul to fear to yield up life and goods when it is for his honour and glory. Nor do I think that more violent and efficacious reasons and motives can be given to a noble ha●t than these. I confesse if you would search into the metaphysical grounds and principles of these truths, I should perhaps light short of giving a full account, but my age and natural unsteadfastness plead my excuse as yet, peradventure when I grow elder I may prove more bookish and then turn the scripture and fathers, and so become able to give a more solid account of our tenants, but as yet this is not to be expected at my hands.  uncle. 
Fear not, cousin, any hard measure from me Who love you so tenderly, nether is that the point I intended to deliver unto you. But since the greater part of your kindred are of a different belief from you, I desire to enable you to give them satisfaction why you adhere so strongly to the Catholic party, as to hazard your own and posterity's welfare for the maintenance of your faith and profession. Nether am I ignorant of your youthful disposition, and therefore Will I abstain from mystical and sublime metaphysikes, and only, or at least chiefly make use of what you know already, and what common sense and ordinary natural reason is able to perform. wherefore to make the first breach, I pray tell me, cousin, what answer would you give to a near friend Wh● should blame you for ruining your estate in the defence and maintenance of a position which is against the judgement of your kindred, friends, country, and state?  Nephew. 
I would say open unto him how that our church and our doctrine hath been ever preached and taught from Christ's time in all countries of the world, what abundance of holy martyrs and learned men we have had, how all christian nations have been converted by us, and such like motives, which are able to secure any Wise man from doubting, and must needs convince the truth to be on our side, our Adversary's being but upstarts of an hundreth years old. Which if any should contest, and deny these things to be true, I Would offer to produce men Who should prove and justify all I said against any Doctor he should bring.  uncle. 
Very well, burr if your friend reply, that they willingly confesse these things have been done by the common Ancestors of both Catholics and Protestants, which were the true church, but many errors by little and little have encroached and crept in amongst them, which when they were discovered, those who now adhere to the Roman church would not acknowledge, but through obstinacy and desire of sovereignty broke communion. And farther that these divisions are not truly divisions in Religion but in opinion; so that both sides remain still parts of the true church, though so much transported by their first heats and passions as that causelessly they deny communion one to the other. And, says he, if you look in to the points of these divisions, they are but such as be in the Roman church itself betwixt Thomists and Scotists, Dominicans and jesuits, who proceed so far as to charge one an other with Pelagianisme and Caluinisme, which nevertheless doth not make different churches, even by the Catholics own confession. And why then should the Protestants be of an other church than the Catholics are of? What would you answer to this?  Nephew. 
I am not so ignorant but I see well enough that all manner of differences ought not to make a breach in churches, 
W● diff●ces Reli● ma● sch●  and yet that some may. For I see men go to law and have quarrels, and both parties not only tolerated in the in the common wealth, but held good members of it. And yet others I see punished for their quarrels and contentions. And if I do not mistake the reason of this disparity is, that as long as these quarrels are betwixt private men, so long they are suffered and borne withal, but if once the common wealth take part with one side, giving iudgment in the cause disputed and thereby interest itself in the business, if then the other side yield not, it is justly accounted punishable and an evil member of the commonwealth. And in deed thus to disagree under a head or rule which can bring the disagreers to agreement, is rather to agree then disagree, because they agree in a thing (to wit in a mutually acknowledged head and common rule) which is stronger then the causes of their disagreement, and therefore their disageement is only for a time, until that head and rule have a convenient and fit opportunity to reduce the disagreers to a full and total agreement. This daily experience teacheth us in our own commonwealth, which having once given a final sentence and determinate judgement betwixt party and party the suit is ended, and who should disobey would be punished for contempt. So likewise in the church, which is a spiritual common wealth, such differences as be amongst those who refer them selves to her judgement, and acknowledge her decisive authority, are and may be tolerated to what terms soever the parties grow amongst themselves. But such differences as trench upon her authority, and are betwixt those whereof the one party will not acknowledge her defining power, nor stand to her judgement, such differences, I say, make Aliens and deserve to be cut of from communion.  uncle. 
You have discursed well, but not home at least to the second part of the reply, about the points themselves, whether they be but matters of opinion or no, what say you to that?  Nephew, 
That also is evident to me, to wit that the points disputed betwixt Catholics and Protestants are most material and substantial ones. For suppose Christ's body be truly and really in the Blessed Sacrament, and that 'tis God himself which the Priest showeth the people to adore, it surly can be no slight offence not to give him due honour; nor contrariwise no small crime to adore that for God which truly is not so. If Christ have left the authority of government to Bishops, of Absolution from sins to Priests, it is no indifferent nor pettit business to take them out of the church. If it be Idolatry to honour images, pray to Saints, and the like, can we think it no great matter whether we do so or no, seeing the scripture full of so many plagues falling upon the jews for Idolatry?  uncle. 
Why, cousin. may not a Protestant answer you likewise, that if one of the opinions controverted betwixt Thomists and Scotists be Pelagianisme the other Caluinisme, can you think that such points are of small importance? Wherefore he will tell you, that all such points are very hard questions, grave, learned, and unpassionate men on both sides, and therefore what so ever the truth be in itself, yet so long as God almighty see's our hearts to be right towards him, and that we desire to do what his law teacheth us, so far as we are able to know it, all these and the like opinions are but only material errors, and do not hinder us from being good Christians.  Nephew. 
Truly, Uncle, you have puzzled me now, for unless such points and questions do trench upon the church's authority, why should not the church bear with such opinions, but so severely cast them out of communion, ad shut heaven gates upon the Authors and Beginners of them? Certes unless there be some necefsitie why certain points are to be known by the whole church, others not, I confess I cannot answer you, but I come to learn, and therefore when my own discourse reacheth not, I must crave your helping hand to direct me. And I shall think the year well hanselled if you make me understand what points are to be known of necessity and why? but first, I pray, tell me   

§. 2 Whence proceedeth and dependeth the necessity of knowing points of Religion?  UNCLE. 
To set you in the way you must first tell me what you think this word necessity doth import, so far as it concerns our purpose?  Nephew. 
You know I am no great clerk, and therefore I cannot speak of necessity, nether as a Grammarian nor as a Logician, but as far as I understand and intend by my question, there is two sorts of necessities, the one so absolute as that the thing we desire cannot without such a means be any ways gotten or done; the other in respect of such a means without the which our desire cannot be well and conveniently obtained. For we commonly say that such or such a thing cannot be done or gotten, when it is extreme hard and painful to get it. And therefore some times we call that necessary without which our desire cannot be fulfiled but with great labour and difficulty, and some times that, without which it cannot absolutely be compassed.  uncle. 
Marry, cousin, you need nether Grammarian nor Logician to help you, 
The necessity of knoving points of faith is to be compared to a church or company of believers and not to every particularman.  nor to mend what you have said. But since you are so skilful, and that you now see what is necessary in general, to wit the know ledge of Christian doctrine, and what it is to be necessary, I will trouble you with a farther demand, giving you first this caveat, That my intention is not to examine or declare what express and distinct knowledge or belief ought every particular and individual man to have, without which he cannot possibly be saved, this being a thing depending of so many secret and unknown circumstances, as that it seemeth to be specially reserved as only befitting God's infinite wisdom and divine justice. though some times a prudent man may shrewdly guess, and in a possible supposition of a particular man's dying without repentance in a positive and wilful contradicting belief to the doctrine of the Catholic church, it would be no breach of charity to conclude his damnation. Yet at this present we will only speak of the necessity of knowing and believing several controverted points of Christian doctrine in respect of a church or company of professed Christians in common, and not as the knowledge thereof is necessary to every particular man. Now therefore tell me, what is the end for which this knowledge of Christian doctrine is necessary?  Nephew. 

How be knowledge of Christian doctrine cometh to be nessarie to salvation.  That I suppose no man doubteh but 'tis heaven, or in more learned terms, the sight or true and proper knowledge of almighty God, who being the cause and Creator of All things, he that clearly see's and tru●y knows him, will see and know all other things in him, which all together fall so far short of giving such content as is taken by seeing him that the sight of him is only accounted Bliss, and the sight of all the rest is but a retinue and convenience of that first and chief sight, which of itself alone is our essential Happiness.  uncle. 
This I confess, cousin, is both very true and very well said of you, but yet I must have an other answer: for sure you have over skipped some thing. What connection is there, I pray, betwixt the knowledge of Christian doctrine and seeing of almighty God? Some thing, I say, must of necessity be betwixt them, for which, what soever it be, the knowledge of Christian doctrine will be more immediately necessary. Which if you can tell me what it is, we shall thereby more easily discover and conceive what and how far this knowledge of Christian doctrine is necessary for us.  Nephew. 
Why uncle, you know I have been taught no farther than to know what I ought to believe and do, and that in believing and doing so, I shall come to heaven.  uncle. 
And were you not taught that the commandments were resumed and comprehended in two, to wit in the love of God and of your neighbour?  Nephew. 
Yes that I was, but what that appertaines to your question, that I understand not, unless peradventure your meaning be, that the accomplishment of these two laws is the immediate step to our Bliss. Which as I see 'tis very likely, yet do I not fully conceive why it should be so, unless heauen go by wishing, whereas I have still been taught it goes by working, and that violence must carry it.  uncle. 
Did you never take notice of yourself, how that if you hearken to a discourse of any thing which you vehemently desire to know how attentive you are? how fearful that any word should slip unheard or not understood? how quiet you keep all your thoughts? how still and untroubled your fancy? that what you hear may sink down into your soul as distinctly, and in the same frame and order as it floweth from the speaker? So you see that the love or desire to know any thing is the most efficacious disposition we can have to attain to the knowledge thereof. Now you know that this life and conversation of the soul in her body is given her to prepare and dispose herself for the next life, Is it not therefore evident that that soul which most desire's to see and know God, that is, which most loveth God, in this life, and particularly in the time of her departure out of this world, goes out of her body with the best and perfectest preparation and disposition to see and know God in the life to come, which is our expected and eternal happiness? Nor is this against what you have been taught, for love is the most active and consequently the most violent thing in the world, and therefore if heauen must be obtained by violence, love certainly must be the way. Wherefore you see, we are to considere the necessity of controverted points of Religion in as much as of their own nature and of thē selues they do cause and make professors of christianity to love God, and desire to see him. For since this love and desire is the means and way to heaven, it must needs follow that according as any point or position doth produce or contribute to this effect in the souls of Christians, the necessity of such a point must be of the same degree. There is a necessity of believing all points of faith in general, out of an other principle, to wit, in that the church proposeth them unto us as such, which we must accept and believe in all or none, being the same reason and motive in all, but this I shall take occasion an other time to show unto you. You will say peradventure if this be so, what need's the knowledge of Christian doctrine? can there be imagined a greater motive of love then that God is, and that he is goodness it self? Is not this alone a sufficient motive to make all creatures melt into the love of him? And this surly may be known by pure natural reason. Why then is the knowledge of points disputed betwixt the Protestants and us to be held necessary? Nay to what end must we needs know any part of Christ's law for the attaining of Bliss, since love will do it, and the most efficacious motive of love is to be had with out it?  Nephew. 
You have posed me now, for truly I see that goodness is able to ravish all the hearts in the world, and this is so clear and common that it need's no proof. Wherefore me thinks if men would considere and follow this motive of God's infinite goodness, they would not want love, and not wanting love, according to your discourse, th●y must of necessity attain to everlasting Bliss and Happiness. Why therefore any other knowledge should be absolutely necessary I see not, much less do I conceive wherefore we should think   

§. 3 That the points wherein the Arrians and other Ancient Heretics differed from Catholics are points of necessity to be known and believed.  UNCLE. 
What think you, cousin, if the motive of love which we speak of, were such, 
why God's goodness as knowable by nature is not a sufficient motive of love to all mankind.  as that few men and great clerks only were able to reach and conceive it, not consequently be moved and affected with it? Do you think some other motive more easy, more general, and more common, were not necessary, whereby the people and ordinary sort of men might be moved and affected? Or do you think that mankind could be said to have sufficient means to attain to Bliss and Happiness, if it had only such an one, as that very few could make use of? And that you may the better conceive my question, put the case, that on the one side there were such a means as that very few could reach unto it, on the other side such an one as were accommodated to the capacity of every man, do you not see, that to say mankind may be saved by this or that means, hath a quite different sense? Mankind in the one signifying the whole multitude, in the other a small, or as it were no part of the multitude. For that part of any thing which is so little as that it beareth no moral proportion to the whole, is, in our manner of speaking, accounted as none. Do you not then see that it is necessary that the means of our salvation be of this more general and common nature?  Nephew. 
I doubt it not, and mine own interest makes me more inclined thereunto, being, God knows, I am of the weaker sort. And when I consid ere the good of salvation, and the harm and misery which followeth the loss of it, and that we all acknowledge every man to be capable thereof, 'tis evident that the means of attaining such an infinite good, whereunto we are all ordained, aught to reach and lie within the power of all, or at least, of the most part of men. But yet I see not why the infinite goodness of God is not a motive sufficiently general and common to move and affect all the world.  uncle. 
Why, cousin, 
Three degrees of tending to any good.  you must considere that there be as it were three steps or degrees by which we go or tend to any good. The first, to apprehend or understand what it is, The second to conceit and esteem it, And the third to desire and poursue it, And in the prosecution thereof to prefer it before all other goods which deserve not so well, and in our case to prefer it before all other goods whatsoever, as being the greatest of all. These three degrees be so disposed, as that the last cannot stand nor be put without the second, nor the second without the first, though contrary wise the first may be without the second, and the second without the third by reason of man's weakness. 
HoW hard it is to conceive God's goodness or any spiritual thing.  Now if you considere that God almighty and his goodness is the most simple, sublime, and abstract thing that can possibly be imagined, And reflect but upon the nature of Angels, or of a soul, nay euen of a corporal substance separated from all his sensible accidents, and if you had the experience that I have, you would say it were hard even for the best wits to apprehend rightly, and discourse consequently of these things. And shall we not then think that 'tis either absolutely impossible, or extremely difficile to make the grosser sort of men apprehend or understand any thing likely or to the purpose of God and his goodness? Suerly we may. And the reason is, because sense and sensible objects are the perpetual matter and subject wherein our understandings are exercised, not only in our childhood and youth, but euen in our whole life, unless some few by the study of metaphysikes do elevate their understandings above the ordinary pitch of men and course of nature. And therefore it must needs be hard, and as it were impossible, that the greatest part of mankind should be able to frame any fitting and likely conceit or Idea of almighty God, or of his goodness. Look but upon the jews, who had this knowledge inculcated into them by perpetual miracles and Prophets, and yet they could not keep thē selues long from running after Idols, because they had nothing to entertain their fancy and their sensible manner of understanding. And now if you call to mind the common saying of philosophers that nihil est volitum quod non sit praecognitum, to which is Parallel the Poet's Apopthegme quod oculi sunt in amore deuces, you shall find that what is not well rooted and imprinted in the understanding, can never be deeply fixed in the will, nor consequently the will efficaciously moved and affected by it. And that nothing, and I know not what are of the same force and effect in our case, according to Aristotle's maxim, that in respect of love it is all one not to be, and not to be known, it must necessarily follow that the greatest part of men being not able to make any strong and deep conceit of God and his goodness; that 'tis not possible they should be efficaciously moved and affected therewith. And if a preacher after a long discourse of the love of God, and of his great benefits towards us in the order of nature, could not give a satisfactory account, by reason of the weakness of his Auditory, to one that should ask him who is God, or what is he that hath done all these things for us? Would not his learned labours vanish into a dream, and the people go away as from a playe● where they wept at a thing which concerned them not, and were no longer carried a way then whilst they fate hearing? I could cite a witness and name a gentlewoman of your acquaintance, of as sweet a nature and as pure an understanding as is to be found amongst a thousand, with whom having some time's occasion to discourse about the state of the next life, she hath often told me, that she bebelieved all those fine things, having ever been taught she must do so, but that they seemed to her as things in a dream, for, quoth she, I shall never be able to conceive what a soul is, when all the body is taken a way.  Nephew. 
Truly, uncle, you have quite convinced me, for as I see men talk of nothing more familiarly then of God and his goodness, so likewise I see that if they discourse but of an Angel, they presently conceit him to have a body and wings. And if one would force them out of it, they would be besides themselves. So that in very deed not one in ten thousand can make any right conceit of spiritual things. And if you talk to the common people of heauen they conceive it but a dry thing to sit looking upon God almighty and singing Psalms for all eternity.  uncle. 
Well then, cousin, this being so, 
Wh● the knoWledge of the Incarnation is necessary?  that God's goodness is so abstract and sublime as that very few can either know or love it sufficiently in it self, Suppose Allmigtie God of his infinite mercy and goodness towards us, hath so tempered and abessed this too high and inconceivable object by taking man's nature upon him, and hath thereby made it palpable and tractable even to the weakest and grossest understandings, in so much that any man, how dull soever, may with sensible facility fix his mind and love upon it: Nay if he hath adjoined there unto the greatest causes of love that hart can wish and bear, to wit the pains and sufferings of his sacred life and bitter death practised upon his divine person as he was man, the tender expressions whereof we find recorded in the holy history of the Gospel, can we think that who takes this point of God's Incarnation out of the church and world, by either denying or doubting of it, but that he doth move an Important stone, and that this dogme can be no less then of extreme and main necessity?  Nephew. 
Certes no, 'tis clear in my mind, not only what you say, but also that such a man as would wrest out this corner stone and pull down this pillar of the church, what soe'er he prat's of Christ, and bear's his name in show, in truth and verity is no Christian. For he takes away Christ, and Annullates his coming. Wherefore if there be any such, no sword, no fire, no torment sufficient to exterminate him, no aversion, no horror, 
The variety of the Oriental errors against Christ's being God and man.  no abomination great enough to make true Christians avoid him.  uncle. 
I commend your zeal. Now therefore cast your eyes upon the oriental Heresies which anciently reigned, whereof some denied Christ to be God, some denied him to be man, some said he was nether God nor man but a third thing made of both, And some said that he was two things whereof the one was God, the other was man. All agreed in this, that the same person was not truly God and man, and consenquently took away this efficacious means and pregnant motive of love, that God did do and suffer for us those sensible and easily conceived benefits which he could not unless he were man. And in this consisteth the great and main help of humane nature, that by and in the person of a true and sensible man we might fix our hearts and settle our utmost desires upon our eternal good and happiness. We may therefore conclude with S. john, that who soever dissolveth Christ is Antychrist, 
1. joh. ●.  Which all these ancient Heretics did, to whom we may annex all the Authors of heresies concerning the Blessed Trinity, the knowledge whereof being revealed and delivered unto us to direct us in this great mystery of the Incarnation, the errors against that must needs reflect upon this, and be of the same nature and importance, and consequently of the same necessity, by reason this mystery of the Incarnation cannot stand unless the mystery of the Trinity be likewoise true.  Nephew. 
I am fully satisfied in this point, but I pray tell me, good uncle, is not   

§. 4 The belief of the Hierarchy established by Christ in his church likewise of necessity.  
FOr what availeth it mankind that there be such easy means to come to heaven, if out of weakness, waywardness, or carelessness they will not look after it? Suerly I cannot see but 'tis only to the increase of their damnation. Like unto an ambitious man who whilst he is yet a far of from the honour which he aspire's unto, he can bear it patiently, but if once he come to a fair possibility, and have it as it were in his hand, o! Then if he miss it, he is incapable of all comfort and consolation, and thinks himself the most unhappy and unfortunate man in the word. So I conceive that when a soul is out of her body and comes to see how easily she might have attained to that eternal Bliss and Happiness, where unto she was ordained, and that through her own neglect and carelessness she is now to be everlastingly deprived thereof, o God Uncle, how infinitely will she be grieved? how she will curse herself? and thereby increase her pain and misery.  uncle. 
You say well, cousin, Can you doubt therefore, or can a Christian think, but 'tis a point of great necessity to man Kind, If there be any order established by Christ jesus in his church to make men embrace, accept, and poursue those facile means to salvation, that they know and believe it? Can a man of common sense and judgement imagine chat this is not a point of main importance? Or that who disagree's about this position doth only disagree in matter of opinion, wherein each one may hold what he pleaseth, and not in a matter substantially and fundamently necessary to salvation?  Nephew. 
I confess, Uncle, when I considere the frailty of man, and see how easily and ordinarily he is withdrawn from willing and following the means of his beatitude by the least terrestrial, sensual, and momentary pleasure, it where madness in me to believe that supposing there be any such order established by Christ in his church to incite and provoke men to accept and practice these saving means, it were, I say, madness not to think the knowledge and belief of such an order to be one of the most important and necessary points of christian doctrine.  uncle. 
Remember then, cousin, the three steps or degrees we talked of before, of knowing, esteeming, and poursuing any good. And you will find that, for the first it is necessary the truth of Christian doctrine be conserved and often inculcated in to the hearts and minds of Christians, for the second that those who are to do this, have such qualities as will give them credit and make men believe them, and for the third that there be means taken (so far as human nature giveth leave) to cut of all such impediments as hinder men from preferring eternal good before the temporal temptations and sensual pleasures of this life. The first of these conditions requireth that there be men appointed to have care of the people by instructing and often putting them in mind of Christian doctrine. Which if Christ have done, 'tis euident that whosoever seeketh to change his order and appointment doth not quarrel upon a sliglt point, but upon a most weighty and necessary one.  Nephew. 
I see well that who seeketh to destroy such an order established by Christ, playe's with his church as Esope's wolves played with the sheep, offering them prey upon condition they would deliver up their dogs unto them, which being done, they slew and preyed upon the sheep. And me thinks, common sense telleth me there cannot be a point in all Christian doctrine of greater importance than this. For when I considere why treason is the greatest offence that can be committed in a common wealth, I see 'tis because no law can subsiste and hold without guards and lookers to it, so that who striketh at these guards in a common wealth (of what nature so ever it be) striketh at the very essential form of it, at all the laws, and at all what so ever doth conserve the peace and liberty of the whole people and multitude, where vpon the common wealth doth subsiste. Wherefore 'tis evident by natural reason that who seeketh to remove and abolish those whom God hath pla●ed to guard his church, striketh at the total ruin thereof.  uncle. 
'tis true, and therefore you may infer that questions of the Pope's authority over Bishopps, of Bishopps authority over Priests, and of Priest's authority over the laiety are of no small moment. And that who goes about to destroy this Hierarchy aimeth at no less than the utter overthrow of Religion, and ruin of the church planted by Christ jesus with so much sweat and blood, and espoused so dear unto him with his sacred promises. These are the Angels to whom God hath trusted and committed the charge of his flock. These are they by whose continual succession we convince the perpetuity of the Catholic church. These are the men who when any new Blasphemy arriseth meet in Counsels to give testimony to the doctrine of Christ ever dwelling in the hearts of the faithful, and thereby crush the serpeni's head. These are they who in their wisdoms, may and ought enact laws and Canons to Christ's flock, and correct abuses creeping in both in discipline and morality, leaving still untouched Christ's sacred institutions, And therefore who seeketh to extirpate or infringe this authority in the church, setteth his axe at the root of faith and virtue, by which the church of Christ doth subsiste. Nay even in schismatical churches the wiser and more learned sort of men have ever detested and abhorred the confused Anarchy of brainsick Puritants. And 'tis said that wise state's men do vehemently suspect, and have just cause to suppress all An●y-Hierarchists.  Nephew. 
Certainly no prudent and moderate man can doubt of the importance of this point. And me thinks, uncle, these zealous societies do to the mainteners' of this Hierarchy as Diogenes did to Plato, scorning his vanity with a far greater pride, for whilst they cry out against the pride of those who seek these dignities established by Christ in his church, they discover a far greater pride in themselves by endeavouring to destroy so sacred an institution, that they themselves may usurp the power and place. But to the second degree and condition of the division you made, do you think   

§. 4 That the administration of the sacraments by the Hierarchy is of such great necessity?  UNCLE. 
How say you cousin, what power, preeminency, and qualities do you think are necessary for these guards and teachers of Christ's law and doctrine, to the end that the people may conceit such things as they tell them, and think them to be of moment? for surely the most part of men have need of all the helps that may be, to elevate and raise their minds to celestial cogitations?  Nephew. 
I see well enough that such men must needs have credit with the people, and ought not only to be accounted wise and good men, but should be also esteemed wiser and better than the laiety, for I have heard the Prophet's curse cited, sicut populus sic & Sacerdos. But this me thinks should not touch upon any necessary point of faith, seeing it depende's on their particular lives and employments, which are known by sense and experience, and not by any tradition from our forefathers.  uncle. 
You are mistaken, cousin, for although 'tis true that the clergy's evil lives may disgrace the motives of reverence bestowed upon them by Christ jesus▪ yet if their lives be but tolerable▪ Christ may have given them such eminent power and dignity as that they will not want, that reverence and respect which is fit and conformable to the function and profession whereunto he hath called them. And certes not with out necessities, if we considere the credulity and obedience which are required at the people's hands. Credulity, of things beyond and above nature, nay beyond all the fables (be it spoken with respect) that ever man invented. Obedience of hazarding lives and fortunes, nay of entirely ruining themselves and their posterity (in respect of this world) in such cases as these instructors shall tell them that the law of God commande's it and require's it. Wherefore as Kings and Magistrates find by experience that Pompes and Ceremonies, and the reserving of certain actions and creations to themselves, do breed in their subjects (yea and in strangers too) honour and respect, and therefore are very careful how they impart and communicate them, still keeping to themselves alone some Regal privileges and prerogatives. So likewise Christ jesus not unmindful of his Ministers, left them, and to them only, the church's Pompes and solemnities, but specially the Sacraments, to give them credit and authority thereby. To Bishops the giving of the Holy Ghost or Confirmation (Which is a continuance of the Mission of the third person of the holy Trinity in the first Christian Pentecoste, and therefore who slight's Confirmation slight's that Mission) and the consecrating of Priests. 
Why Priests are to be honnored.  To Priests the rest of the Sacraments, except Baptism, which by reason of the people's necessity could not conveniently be reserved to Priests only, whereof there were to be but few. But chiefly he gave them charge of the Bloudilesse sacrifice of his own body, and the power of remitting sins, whereon is prinpally grounded and subsiste's the reverence due unto the church of God. The one being a privilege beyond man's invention, and such an one, as if all the learned clerks that ever lived since the beginning of the world, should have studied to raise, advance, and magnify some one istate of men to the highest ptch of Reverence and Eminency that could be imagined, they could never (without special light from heauë) have thouht of any thing comparable to this, And yet so adapted to the secrets of nature, that who should dive in to her mysteries would straight at the first proposing of it acknowledge it to be true, because a thing so hidden in the depth of nature's bowels could not be invented and applied in this manner by any but the Master of nature itself. The other being so mighty a power over man's nature and so extremely useful to mankind, for their help and direction to eternal Bliss, that nether in respect of the awe which it strikes in to their subjects, nor in respect of the profit, which (being convenieniently used) resulteth from it, there is nothing in this world any way estimable in comparison thereof. What think you then, cousin, who seeketh to take away the real presence of Christ's body in the B: Sacrament, and the power of Absolving sins, doth he quarrel upon trifles? Be not these points (which we hold as true and as certain, and upon the same grounds, as we do the Trinity and Incarnation) of main consequence and importance? And doth not he shake the fundamental Basis, and chief cornerstone of the church's building who takes away this power and authority from her judges and ministers, whereby they were so reverenced and honnored as that they were believed and obeyed? And finally be these questions to be left indifferent to every idle brain and private fancy to think and practice what he please's?  Nephew. 
I must needs confess I never considered thus much before, for truly I see that the Administration of the Sacraments are necessary for this end, thoe I have heard the Sacraments are necessary for many other ends. But now I easily conceive that if the clergy be not of credit, it cannot have the effect which it was made and ordained for, and if it hath not its effect, it causeth not the keeping of Christ's law, and if Christ's law be not kept, there is no salvation. So that 'tis evident the Clergy needeth the greatest props and means of credit and reverence that can be had. And surely what common wealth soever highly esteeme's of God's law and Christian doctrine, would wish the Clergy these very qualities, if they had them not already. Wherefore I wonder not that the Puritants, who mainly oppose Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, do foe hate and detest the doctrine of the B. Sacrament, because they think all Popery is built vpon that great sacrifice. And I remember when I was in France, I perceived that going to Mass was h●ld the chief distinctive sign and action betwixt a Catholic and a Caluinist. So that considering these supernatural and never sufficiently honnored qualities of Priests, I cesily believe the story which is told of S. Francis, that he said, if he should meet a Priest and an Angel he would first salute the Biest.  uncle. 
You say well, and surely were all Priest's lives such as did not partly disgrace theses gifts bestowed upon them, I doubt not but Kings would say their crowns and sceptres at their feet, and wear their swords at their devotion, which antiquity telleth us haveth been done and practised. Yea those Tribunalls and that temporal power and jurisdiction (concerning which the clergy doth now perhaps too much contend with the laiety) were at the first forced vpon holy Bishops against their wills; either by particular men's pretty and agreement, or by the Emperor's commands. The world then thinking him unworthy to live that would not condemn himself if the Bishop judged against him, And both anciently in S. Hugh of Lincoln, and lately in S. Charles of Milan, the Christian world hath seen how great a power the Reverence of a Bishop hath, even in respect of Kings, when his life corresponde's and seconde's his Dignity.  Nephew. 
But I pray, uncle, do you think that the greatest necessity 〈◊〉 the Sacraments doth consist in this, that by the reservation of their administration to the clergy, the clergy's authority might be more exalted and fit to serve the church? I have heard other reasons preferred before this, and▪ therefore me thinks you should more insist upon that necessity which in itself is the greatest and most forcible, then upon a lesser.  uncle. 
Why, cousin, I do not intend to allege all the reasons wherefore the Sacraments are necessary, but only some forcible one, whereby it may follow that such questions as are betwixt Catholics and Protestants concerning those points, may appear to be of impor●ce, and so fundamental, as that Christian Religion cannot have its subsistence and progress without the knowledge of the truth in such questions and positions. And certes if credit and authority be the only, or at least, the main instrument and principal means whereby the preachers of Christianity can press and promote Christian doctrine, And that this credit and authority is incomparably more raised and strengthened by the Catholic position then by the Protestant's negative, it must needs follow that the efficacity of Christian Preachers, and the strength of their cause is without comparison greather amongst Catholics ten amongst Protestants, which doubtless cannot but move any reasonable man, who thinks and belieue's that our eternal good relye's and depende's upon Christian doctrine. I know there be other necessities of the Sacraments. As for the unity of the church, which being dispersed though the whole world could not be otherwise conserved then by the practice of some external actions common to them all, whereby they might know one the other. As alsoe for the augmentation of charity and grace by the frequentation of them. But these points have their proper treatises and places belonging unto them. It sufficeth I have showed you that there ought to be men appointed whose care, function, and employment is to teach and conserve in the people the truth of Christian doctrine, and that for this effect those men must needs have some qualities above the ordinary sort of men to authorize and give credit to their documents. For although this doctrine of its own nature tend to the highest degree of perfection, and consequently deserves of itself to be infinitely esteemed and honnored; yet being supernatural, that is fare above the innate capacity and reach of man, the preachers and teachers thereof must of necessity be endowed with extraordinary power and authority to give credit thereunto. Which supposed we may proceed farthe, to the third degree and condition of removing impediments hindering the prosecution of our eternal good, and first inquire whether   

§. 6 The resolutions of General Counsels be sufficient to decide controversies of faith, both in points of necessity, and of indifferency  
TEll me then, cousin, is it think you lawful for a private man to whose care the church is not committed, to doubt in himself, and breed doubts in others, touching such points as these pastors of Christ's flock, (who by their function and profession have the church's government committed unto them) are agreed upon, and teach with common consent to the whole church?  Nephew. 
First I see, uncle, that such a man shall not easily induce men to believe him against so great an opposition's and that therefore he had need of better grounds in such points then in others. Secondly I see that no wise man will oppose the opinion of so many authorized experts, or held for experts, and that in a matter of their profession, without fare greater and more pregnant reasons in this particular business, then would be necessary in an other, wherein he had no● such main prudential motives against him. But whether there be any obligation in conscience, or whether this be a matter of such importance as to make a fundamental point of Religion of it, that I know not. For contrariwise me thinks there should be also an obligation in conscience, when a man finds that these governors are mistaken, that he should oppose them to the utmost of his power.  uncle. 
You do not fully conceive my question, which is this, whether because these men have the charge and care to reach God's law in the church (setting a side all other difficulties) there be an obligation in reason upon this precise grounds, no● easily to oppose their determination without being certain and secure of very good footing? nor to attempt any thing against their verdict with out evidence? Because, say I, to what purpose is their judgement if it be as free to oppose them after as before▪  Nephew. 
As for obligation I told you, uncle, I know not of any, but this I see, common sense and natural reason teacheth us, that such as have the charge and care of instructing others, are supposed to have more understanding in the doctrine which they teach, then those who learn of them. And therefore if any disputs or controversies arise in such matters, I see't is ●●ter these teachers should be the judges thereof then those who learn. And in a matter of 〈◊〉 to appeal from them (when a great and universal part of the wisest have given their consenting iugdment) to the 〈◊〉, is as absurd as to appeal from Masters to scholars, or from men of one profession to men of an other.  uncle. 
Why this is all I ask, for where one part is absurd in reason, the other must needs be certain by the same reason, And what is absurd in practice, 'tis certain that aught to be avoided. Wherefore if I mistake not, your discourse concludes, that wheresoever the question is of skill, there no man ought to appeal from them who have charge and care to teach, to those who learn in matter of that art. And therefore if those who have the charge and care to teach Christian doctrine do constantly and generally agree in any point after they have heard and considered the oppositions made against them, nether aught any man appeal unto the laiety, nor can the laiety without presumption and rashness accept of his appeal; nor make themselves judges in a business of other men's profession, wherein themselves are ignorant, or, at the most, scholars. Now therefore since in our case there is no means for any man to prevail against the Clergy (whom we suppose agreed amongst thē selues in any point or position) but by making the laiety judges thereof, 'tis euident that it willbe still against reason for any man to attempt the innovating of any new point or position against the clergy's common verdict, and general consent, And consequently an obligation of reason and conscience not to do it. Hence it follow's that there is a power and authority in the Clergy of determining and deciding questions of Christian doctrine (whereof they are the teachers) and a necessity in the laiety (who are their scholars) of obeying and quieting themselves. For the nature of sedition and faction is nothing else, 
What is sedition.  but to remove the question from them who truly have, or by their places are supposed to have skill, to them who have, or may be presumed to have, none, that is from the Governors to the subjects, from the skilful to the ignorant, and from natives, to Aliens. Secondly it follow's, 
Nothing but evidence is a laW full Warrant to opoose judgement.  that there can be but two cases only in which one may oppose these determieations and decisions. For 'tis manifest that nothing but evidence of the truth can justify any innovation of this kind, because where there is no evidence the case ought to be put to judgement and supreme judgement being already known and given (as in our case) there is no farther place for judgement, and therefore only evidence can be heard. Now this evidence either is so great as that there need's no skill to conceive and understand it, and then the laiety may be admitted as judges. Or else the Eminence of the Introducer is such, as that a point may be evident to him, and yet not to the greatest part of the Clergy, who are the natural judges of this cause. Wherefore every Innovator must of necessity pretend one of these two. The first he cannot without charging the whole Clergy of perverse and will full opposition and contradiction of the known truth; and so plainly known, that every man see's it at the first opening and proposing of it. Which whether it was ever done, or is possible to be done, I leave it to the iudgment of any indifferent man. The second cannot any way, belong to the ignorant and unskilful people, And therefore the Innovator must in such a case s●eke out the most learned of the Clergy, and to them propose his reasons, but must not in any case publish his science to the vulgar ignorant (whom we suppose uncapable of it) for fear of sedition and faction. And in this case, as perhaps this point of doctrine may be necessary, or at least convenient for the higher orders of the Clergy, so likewise it cannot be necessary for the vulgar people, since we suppose them incapable of it. And therefore this ●minēt introducer must never m●ke it common to the laiety, much less appeal from the Clergy to them? And thus you see that all controversies in Religion must in be remitted to the judgement of the Clergy, that is in Catholic language to an ecumenical Council.  Nephew. 
Me thinks, uncle, I could object one thing against your discourse, to wit, that 'tis not in man's liberty to think or judge what he will of any position, such an act being a natural operation, and therefore that no man ought to be forced to believe this o● that. And to say the truth, what can I think whether the great Turk be a tall or low man? whether the number of the stars be odd or even? if my life laid on't, I could not think either part.  uncle. 
I, cousin, but if the great turk's true statue were in westminster, and that for going thither you might know his height, or that the true number of the stars were set down in an Almanac which you might buy for a groat, I believe if your life laid on't you would easily be resolved to think the truth.  Nephew. 
Marry, that's true, but then I were not forced to think or judge one part, but only to seek out the truth, and so come naturally to think it.  uncle. 
Why then likewise if the church commande you to think and believe that, which by seeking you may easily come to know, not she but you are to blame if you do not believe what she commande's. And if her authority be greater than any argument which can be brought to the contrary, and greater than the most part of the reasons where vpon you build all the beliefs which govern your life and actions, may you not securely believe what she belieue's? Or if you please do but seek out the motives which makes the church herself believe what she teacheth, and you will easily believe with her. But if you will not attend to the means which would make you know and believe the truth, is it not fitting you should be forced to your own good, as fools and vicious men are to follow reason? Some men, you know, do things by force which otherwise they would never do. And as dogs abstain from good bits for fear of beating, so passionate men come now and then to reason for fear or punishment.  Nephew. 
T is true a passionate man doth never see reason, and yet thinks all other men unreasonable, his passion ever making him judge amiss. And therefore truly I do not see why men should not be punished for their passions, and so be forced to leave them.  uncle. 
If that be so, cousin, you will find that your argument hath a greater extent than you are ware of. For if you considere how few there be that are not carried away with passion, or interest, and how secretly these dispositions lie hid in the minds and actions, even of the best men; And then look into the nature of our soul, and see that nothing but evidence can strongly move and draw her of itself, or by its own force, you will plainly perceive that all opinion is generally grounded upon passion and interest, and therefore according to your argument all false opinions should be corrected.  Nephew. 
I think in deed there's a great difference betwixt disputing wildly to and fro with arguments on both sides, which most men use, and taking known and agreed principles and proceeding upon them to draw forth a long thread of science, as me thinks your manner is. For I conceive that if this method were strickely observed, men would attain to fare more knowledge in things necessary to our well being, and to a greater Eminence in profitable curiosities.  uncle. 
Howsoever, cousin, I hope you now perceive that this point hath resolved all controversies. For if all disputs betwixt us and others of a different communion be in matters subject to judgement, and that there can be no higher judgement upon earth, for the resolution of such difficulties, then of a General Council, And that we do not refuse communion to any man but for matters thus resolved, it evidently follows that all questions betwixt us and what church soever of different communion are already past judgement, and consequently past dispute. For what opinion, I pray, can you have of those, who will not admit, nor be content with any judgement which God hath left upon earth for such matters as they themselues call in doubt? I think both common sense and natural reason will condemn them. But let me ask you one question farther. Suppose that some thing be ordered in the church of God according to the judgement and discretion of those, to whom God hath given the power of Government and judgement in such matters, which perhaps of itself might be otherwise ordered without any prejudice to the church, but they thought this way the fittest; now comes others, to whom this charge is not committed, and say 'tis ordered amiss, requiring it may be altered, whether do you think that in this case, this order ought to be changed upon their demand and proposition?  Nephew. 
If those controwlers can show an error in the order, then, me thinks, it were fitting to change it, but if not, than I should absolutely condemn them of disobedience and schsime, if they should persevere to stand out, And he that should excuse them, were to be suspected as not true to any authority though he profess to acknowledge it.  uncle. 
Softly, cousin, softly there's nothing more frequten amongst men then through passion and oversight to forsake their own principles, and contradict in one matter what themselves confess in an other. And therefore although it be true by consequence of reason, that who soever doth rise against the church in this kind, may vpon the same ground and principle be false to any other authority or government, yet upon other reasons, or by not seeing the consequence of his fact, he may likewise be true and faithful, And therefore it were rashness to condemn, for this reason alone, those truths, which such an one may perhaps maintain in other matters. Howsoever is not our conclusion manifest, that there is no place for Ifs and Ands in our case, where there can be no evidence brought against a point of doctrine, which the highest Tribunal and judgement upon earth hath already decreed? But suppose some one or few of these innovators had Evidence on their side, yet the vulgar people, whom they put on to mutiny, cannot have it, no nor any certainty that these their ring leaders have Evidence, being not able to compare understandingly the worth of divers men in a business which surpasseth their capacity, And therefore this common people, in such a case, must need's proceed and do, whatsoever they do, upon passion, surprise, or interest, And consequently those innovators who moved, carried, and pressed them thereunto, cannot be excused from being culpable of temereity, obstinacy, and Archi-Rebellion. Yet as a Prince doth some times condescende to his Rebellious subjects, that he may gain time, and so bring them to reason, as Roboam's wiser Council thought fit to give ear to the cries of the communities for once, that they might serve him ever after: So I doubt not but the church both may and will relent some times a little to establish her Government and good order more strongly an other time. Nor is she to be reprehended if contrariwise she be rigorous vpon occasions, to wit, when she see's that relenting weaken's her authority, and doth rather increase then assuage the mutiny. But what is now and then convenient to be done, that belongs to them who are in place to judge, And for us to obey, and s●ill suppose they do the best.  Nephew. 
Hitherto, uncle, me thinks I am well satisfied, but there's a main difficulty about the diversity of the rule of faith. I pray, tell me, do you not think   

§. 7 That the maintenance of the unity of the church is of extreme great necessity?  
FOr we profess, you know, that tradition, or the receit of our doctrine from father to son, is our chief authority, and our prime motive of faith, All others will acknowledge no other rule then their own interpretation of the scripture. This in my mind is the most important question of all the controversies in Religion, and upon the resolution of this point doth rely and depend all other disputs and difficulties of christian faith, nay euen our being truly and properly Christians or faithful. For if Christ was a lawmaker, not every one who professeth his name, but who observeth his law is truly a Christian. 
What it is to be a Christian.  And if Christ have set down a certain rule or manner, and certain Magistrates, by whom we are to know this law, whosoever doth not follow that rule and acknowledge those Magistrates cannot be said to observe his law, and consequently profess Christ's name wrongfully.  uncle. 
Do you think, cousin, that who doth not observe Christ's law is no Christian? what then shall become of sinners? shall none of them be Christians, nor of the church of Christ? you will make a church of only Elects or Predestinates, as the Puritants do.  Nephew. 
It may be I go to far, yet certainly who doth not keep Christ's law, or profess to keep it, is no Christian. But then me thinks I go to far on the other side, for all those that profess Christ's name, do likewise profess to keep his law, how little soever they do.  uncle. 
Why then cousin, I will help you out, and open the state of the question unto you. First you must know that this word Ecclesia in its primitive sense signifieth a meeting or congregation of men called out of a greater multitude, 
What is a church.  as a Council or Senate is. And because the first Christians were called in that manner by Christ and his Apostles, 
joh. 15.  Ego vos elegi de mundo, therefore we properly and deservedly call the multitude of Christians a Church. Now a multitude called to gether, is not only and simply a multitude, (which may import confusion) but a multitude gathered together and united. 
wherein consists the unity of the church.  If you ask wherein this multitude, we speak of, is united, 'tis known that 'tis to do the will of the caller, who being jesus, (that is, saviour or Director to salvation) their calling must be to walk the paths of saluation, And since we have no other Master of our salvation but jesus Christ, 'tis evident that the unity of his church must consist in the observance of his law. Secondly you are to note, that there are two sorts of unities, the one of similitude, the other of connection. We say, all men are of one nature, that's an unity of similitude, we say likewise, all the parts of a man (though dislike in themselves) make one man, there's an unity of connection. Now if the church of Christ had been to continue only for his own, or his Apostle's time, the former unity would have served. Nay even now, if all the Christians, who live at this day, do, and perform the same things, practice the same faith and good life, and use the same Sacraments, This unity of similitude would suffice to make the church of Christ one for the present, but could not make it subsiste and continue, there being no connection amongst the parts and members of this multitude to make them stick together. Wherefore Christ having planted a multitude of faithful which he intended should subsiste and continue for many ages, no doubt but he hath given them such an unity as is necessary for continuance. Thirdly therefore you must note that there are two sorts of multitudes in this world which subsiste and continue, the one natural, as the parts of a living creature, the other moral as the members of communities or commonwealths, and both have their proportional unities. For the first we see that in plants all the members have a due connection to the root, from which being cut of the part dyeth for want of continuity. In other living creatures we likewise find at hart (or some thing else that supplie's its function) by connection whereunto every part receiveth life and subsistence, and whose passage or communication with that hart being stopped and cut off, the part by little and little fades and dies. For the second subsisting and continuing multitude, we see in all communities or common wealths there is a head, common Council, or highest authority, whereunto all the members repair in necessity, and by their connection therewith, they receive security, life, and motion in that moral kind of being, every man doing his duty according to the laws of that community, and the head or supreme authority providing for the observance of the laws in general, and particularly for the direction of such cases as the laws reach not unto. So that if you take away this head or common wisdom, the multitude must of necessity be short lived, and quickly come to ruin. Hence it is evident to common sense and natural reason, that the church of Christ being a multitude ordained to subsiste and continue, must not only have the unity of similitude and be one by the similitude of actions which Christ hath prescribed, and all Christians practice; but also by the unity of connection to some common head and supreme Council, whereby it may conserve itself, and keep its subjects in the continuance of the law of Christ, and in the practice of those actions which he hath commanded. And here you may note, that were this law natural, there needed no more to be of the church then to be a member of this community, 
The Want of the true rule of faith excludes from the church.  and he would be out of it, who should not participate of the two unities. But our Christian law being above nature, and consequently not to be learned by man's iudgment, but by authority, (that is by receiving it from Christ) those who do not receive it by that means and rule by which Christ hath ordained it shall be received, are not truly of this community, whatsoever be their material belief and opinion. Wherefore you are to considere farther, that this Receipt of Christ's law and doctrine may have been ordained by Christ himself to be effected two several ways. First by word of mouth, that is, that this law and doctrine should be vocally taught and delivered from hand to hand, from father to son to the world's end: secondly, by writing. Now therefore if Christ have ordained both these ways, who should not accept of them both, is not truly and properly a Christian, nor consequently of the Christian community. If Christ have only instituted tradition to be the means and rule of the receit of his law and doctrine, and hath given scripture only for superabundant instruction and consolation, than who should reject tradition, and fly to the scripture, making it his only rule and means of receiving Christ's law and doctrine, were not truly and properly a Christian, nor of the Christian community. Lastly if Christ have ordained scripture alone to be this rule and means, than who cleaveth to Tradition is not truly a Christian. The resolution of this question doth properly belong to the Governors of the church, who if they have the true rule, their subjects are safe, if not, their subject's souls will be required at their hands by whom they perish. But I will take an other time to give you a full resolution of this main difficulty. 
Three things are required to make a legitimate Christian  In the interim you may infer out of this discourse to our present purpose that three things are required to make one a legitimate Christian, and such an one, as every Christian ought to be, if he will be truly one of the community and church of Christ. Though perhaps one may be in some sort a Christian, and go to heaven too, by an exttaordinarie means, without having all these three subsequent dispositions and qualities. The first is, that he believe and practice the law of God, which in respect of a particular man is but short, and 'tis, in a word, to love God above all things. The second is, that he be united to the multitude of true Christians, that is, that he depend of the Government left and instituted by Christ here upon earth. And for this point or quality, as I doubt not but some one or few may be saved without it (yea peradventure with an opposition to it in fact through ignorance, so his hart be true and without passion) yet to think this a common, ordinary, and high way to salvation, and that 'tis as indifferent to live from under this Government settled by Christ, as under it, were ridiculous and absurd in common sense and reason, and in deed it were to annultate Christ's coming, and make his law void and fruitless. And if you desire to conceive the necessity of this point more fully, do but reflect and considere the nature of all civil and political commonwealths, wherein if any member do not live under the Governors, and depend of the Magistrates established by the highest power and authority thereof, he cannot be truly and properly said to be a part and member of that community, nor can he assuredly know (ordinarily speaking) nor constantly perform the law and orders of it. The third point is, that this community, whereof every particular Christian is to be a share and member, hath the true rule and means to know and observe the law of Christ. And it is necessary that this point be more exactly known by those who live amongst diversity of opinions in this matter. For where there appears learned and morally good men taking parts in this question, a private man seems to have just reason to doubt whether side he shall take for his guide, and therefore this point well dicussed amongst such, give's a man full and general satisfaction for his whole belief and practice. And these two last points clear one the other, for that community which hath the true means of the receipt of Christ's law and doctrine, that is, the true rule of faith, must of necessity be it, of, and in which we are to seek, and shall find, Christ's law: And contrariwise if we find the true community, we are sure it hath the true rule of knowing Christ's law and doctrine. Hence it is that the Catholic church ever pressed her Adversaries with two special arguments, 1. with the novelty of their church, showing that none of them ever had a continual visible succession. 2. that they receive not their opinions from their Ancestors, and by them from Christ, but that they were invented at such a time, against the received tenet of the church in that time, that is, tradition for the church, and novelty of doctrine in her Adversaries. And now I think you see the resolution of our first question.  Nephew. 
I think I do, and 'tis (if I be not deceived) that such as profess to keep the law of Christ (though in effect they do not perform it) are to be accounted of the church, and consequently sinners are not to be excluded, so long as they submit themselves to the church's Government established by Christ: And on the other side, though divers pretend to Christ's law and doctrine, yet unless they be joined and united to that community which hath this government, and the true rule to know and continue Christ's law, they cannot (generaly speaking) be saved. 
HoW some may be saved out of the church.  But you said one thing which truble's me to wit, that some be saved even without these conditions, which is against our common saying, that there's no saluation out of the church of God, and therefore, you know, we labour to get people reconciled and united to the church even in the hour of their death, which would not be so needful if salvation could be had out of the church.  uncle. 
Why, cousin, do you not say, that every man hath two legs, two eyes, and the like, though some particular men be destitute of both? we say men cannot live without meat, and yet some have lived many years without it. We say men cannot live in the water and yet 'tis writ, that the portugals in their discoveries found a man whose habitation was in the sea, and came only to land as Crocodiles and seacalfes do. So you see we put universal denominations upon the common▪ and general, and that without prejudice to lawful exceptions of rareties or prodigies. You know there's no general rule but hath an exception, and Logicians say, ars non curate de accidentibus ac fortuitis.  Nephew. 
But, I pray you show me, why 'tis a rare accident for a man to be saved out of the church. For example, if we look into the tene●● of our Protestants, I see not, why they may not be said to hold sufficient points of faith both to attain to the love of God, which is the chief path of salvation, but also to live an ordinary and competent good life amongst their neighbours, which is the completeness of God's law.  uncle. 
Were not man a civil and social animal, that is, to live with others, I should not deny, but a Protestant might more ordinarily be saved. For as you said well, they hold as many tenants with the Catholic church as be in some sort sufficient for the direction of a private man's life. But God hath commanded every man to have care of his neighbour, at least so far, as not to hinder him from such things as be necessary to his salvation. And many things being necessary to a multitude, which are not needful to every particular and private person, he that hindre's the multitude from such necessary means and assistance, can never be saved himself. As if some Province or part of a commonwealth▪ should start up and refuse divers ancient laws necessary for the good and peaceable living of the whole multitude, some private men perhaps of this province might so live and be●i●●● themselves as to correspond and comply with the end and intention of the whole common wealth in virtue of some such other laws and status 〈◊〉 might be generally admitted and commonly received by them all, but sure it is, that the multitude and community of this province would never reach to this perfection, wanting (as we suppose) several laws and institutions necessarily for them in common and in general. Now that the Catholike's tenants, which the Protestants refuse and contradict, are of this nature, to wit, that they are necessary for the multitude, 'tis evident. As Government of the whole church, and those laws and Canons which these Governors universally assembled do ennact and ordain for the good of the total multitude, and in particular, praying for the dead, praying to Sancts, The use of pictures, Sacraments, Ceremonies and the like, which Christ, or his Apostles, or their successors instituted for the benefit of the universal community and multitude, Amongst whom there being divers tastes, one is pleased with one thing, an other with something else. Wherefore the Protestants in contradicting these points, hinder the multitude of their saluation (supposing these things be good and necessarily ordained, as we Catholics suppose, and as I will show yo● presently) and therefore t● pronounce generally of th● Protestants that they canno● be saved, though we do no● absolutely exclude every particular man, who through ignorance may (for any thin● I know) be excused from th● guilt of protestancy.  Nephew. 
I am heartily gla● to hear you say that som● may be excused, for I sha● have better hopes of some o● my deceased friends then hitherto I have had. But sin●● you are fallen into this discourse, I pray, let me understand why the Protestants ce●sure us of being uncharitable when we say, they shalb● damned unless they be excused by ignorance? For sure they themselves must needs say as much of us, since they accuse us of Idolatry, and other heinous crimes, and consequently they must be as uncharitable as we, or else they will run into a contradition.  uncle. 
The mixture of Protestants and Puritants in one common wealth hath, and must of necessity draw many into error, who cannot distinguish which be Protestants which be Puritants, nor whether's doctrine it is, that urged. For this very blaming of our uncharitableness (which I think is as old as protestancy itself) showeth that the true Protestants have ever been of this opinion, that the disputes betwixt Catholics and them, were but matters of indifferency. I remember when I was a boy there died a virtuous Catholic a Kinsman of mine, and at the same time died a moral honest Protestant, and the country said they were both gone to heaven, but the one by Rome the other by Geneva, and so the Papist hath the longer journey. And the imputation which the people generally laid upon Catholics was, that they oppressed men with too great and unnecessary burdens, and forced men to their opinions. And this cannot be otherwise according to the grounds of Protestants, for we have all that they have and more, and in particular we refuse nothing that can be proved by scripture, which is the main principle of Protestanisme, being the only rule and foundation of their belief, and we damn, as well as they, who soever will not believe what is euident in the scripture, only we stick to what our forefathers have taught us, according to the principles of nature, common sense, and the examples of all the laws and common wealths of the world, until the contrary be cleared against us. Wherefore Protestants being strongly urged must either say in their heat, that Catholics can give no probable or apparent answer to those places of the scripture which they bring and allege against them (which must needs be either an ignorant or a mad man's speech) or else that such questions as are disputed betwixt them and us are of indifferency and not of necessity. Wherefore I believe that those who say that they ought, and may, censure us as freely as we censure them, smell of Puritanisme, leaving the Protestants in the main point. Nether is this to answer, but to acknowledge that want of charity which true Protestants object against us, and so condemn themselves. 
Why Catholics censure Protestants so hardly.  But we Catholics censure Protestants, first, because they refuse that, which we hold to be the true rule of faith, to wit, the church's authority or tradition. And since the rule of faith runne's through the whole course of our belief, and is the tenor and principle upon which we hold every particular article, 'tis evident that who doth not accept of this right and true rule of attaining to the knowledge of Christian faith, cannot believe aright, nor have true faith but by chance, and therefore will miss it for the most part. Secondly this rule of ours tell's us, that Protestant's negative positions are against the general good of the multitude of Christians, that is, against charity, and God's law, hindering them from divers important and necessary means conducing to salvation. Lastly it were mere folly to leave possession upon a slight argument. For as in equality the better proof, should carry the cause, the equal divide it, so where there is possession on the one side, there nothing but such conviction as the nature of the cause doth bear, aught to wain possession, otherwise no human possession would be stable and constant. Now Catholics are as certain of these two points as that they live and breath, to wit, that they have possession, And that there's no evident conviction hitherto passed and showed against them. Wherefore I see not why a Protestant should be offended that the Catholics censure all their Adversaries in general so severely, since 'tis manifest, that if they should not do so, they would not only betray their own principles, but also deny their breetherens that fraternal rebuke and admonition, which the law of God and good neighbourhood require's at the hands of men so persuaded as these grounds force and oblige us to be.  Nephew. 
Surely then this is the reason why the church now and then chasticeth such subjects as rebel in belief against her, which the Protestants so exclaim at.  uncle. 
'tis so in deed, and being no other church can have this principle against us, if at any time they persecute us for our faith and belief, they must needs do it more out of passion and revenge, than out of any rational love and knowing zeal to God and Religion. And now, cousin, I hope you conceive the extreme necessity and main importance of these points which we have talked of, being such as that the church of God cannot subsiste without them, and essential to Christ's coming, to wit, to establish some to have the charge and care of teaching and governing his church, And that these teachers and Governors have great credit and authority, even supernatural and more than human, And that their judgement in matters of belief and Religion is to stand good, nor may be subjected to the weak and wavering iudgment of the laiety, that is of men ignorant in the principles of their science and discipline: And lastly that being thus united they have the true and right rule of knowing Christ's law, and those things which are to be believed and practised. All which you see are of that nature, that the very essence of a Christian church and community cannot subsiste and continue without any of them all, And without such a church the Generality of mankind cannot be maintained in charity, nor without charity arrive to eternal Happiness, for which both charity and all these other points are absolutely necessary. This hath been the chain of our discourse hitherto, if you have well understood and conceived my intention. Which likewise you see I have done by the light of common sense and reason, according to my promise, And since you would have me to go this way, and nether fly up to sublime metaphysics, nor drown your memory with tedious allegations of authors, we will still continue in the same path, insisting in the principles of nature, and showing that divers points of our faith and practice, which the Protestants deny, are, even by their conformity to natural reason itself, and by their own proper force and efficacity of causing and producing good and virtuous effects in a Christian community (and thereby contributing to salvation) are, I say, of no small consequence and importance. First therefore tell me, whether you think there be any other necessity in respect of the points controverted betwixt us and the Protestants, than this absolute and main one, which we have already talked of? I mean whether there be not an other necessity, which though not altogether so great in itself, and of its own nature, yet such an one, as is sufficient to make a point of importance, and of such importance, as that to reject it, would be a lawful and just cause to refuse and deny communion to the refractory and obstinate opposers thereof? And let us put the question thus.   

§. 8 Whether some points may not be of necessity in a lower degree, as in particular the use of pictures or Images?  NEphew. 
I told you before how I thought necessity might be distinguished into an absolute necessity, and into a necessity of a means for abtaining the thing we desire with greater ease and conveniency, and you liked well of it. But me thinks it were a hard case to deprive any man of that means and quality, without which he cannot absolutely attain to his end, that others may come to their ends with greater ease and security. And therefore I should think that no other necessity but an absolute one, were sufficient to deserve excommunication, which I take to be a depriving of a party from that, without which he cannot obtain eternal Bliss.  uncle. 
Why, cousin, let us suppose that in a community of one hundreth thousand, eighteen thousand would never attain to Bliss (though absolutely they could) unless the way were made easy, do you think it were fit or tolerable in any one, or in a dozen, to take away the means whereby the way were facilitated to the rest? Nay suppose ten thousand of the hundreth thousand would arrive to happiness with great pains and labours, were it not better in the Governor's eye, who ought to be a common father to them all, to let the thenth part perish, than all the other nine?  Nephew. 
I confess I see mine oversight, for truly the church is bound in such a case to proceed with rigour, And the party which will not condescend to help the frailty of their breetherens, doth by this very fact deserve to lose the protection of charity, which it wilfully abandon's, And in effect such a party hath already put itself out of the secret community of God's church, and the Governor is only to perform it in external appearance.  uncle. 
Add to this, cousin, that such a party doth wilfully stand out in this manner upon pride and faction to justify their opinion, And that they trench upon the Government ordained by jesus Christ, themselves not being called thereunto, proudly setting themselves in the seat of judgement to determine what's fit and convenient for the whole Christian community, and struggling to force their opinions upon the church against the sentence of the church's Governors, which surely ought to prevaille in such a case. Look but into the exemples of any political common wealth, and see what inequality there is betwixt twelve pence and a man's life, and yet our laws ordain the loss of life for the stealth of a shilling or there abouts, not considering the value of the thing stolen, but that such a fact is the breach of public justice in the common wealth, which if it were permitted no man should be Master of his own. This then being supposed, I doubt not but you will grant likewise that in a church, virtue is to be engendered and conserved with great care and diligence, And although the same things which first breed piety and devotion do afterwards conserve it, yet may there be some things more proper for the conservation then for the breeding of it, and contrariwise others more proper for breeding then conserving it, according as the different state of any thing that grows towards perfection doth require a divers care and attendance. Tell me then, cousin, how think you is the breeding of virtue performed in man kind? I mean not the first breeding, 
How virtue is bred in man.  which is done by instruction, but the flourishing increase of it, and the bringing of it to strength?  Nephew. 
Since virtue is nothing but the love of what is truly good for man, and that we cannot love what we know not, virtue must needs be chiefly increased by clearly seeing and often thinking of the thing we ought to love, and of such things as belong unto it, and make it appear worthy of love, Amongst which one is, that it be in our power to obtain it. Where upon I see that the breeding of virtue consisteth in three things, often thinking of its object, highly esteeming of it, and conceiting it to be possible. Which corresponde's to the three steps and degrees, you made, of tending to any good. And if these three things be well observed and performed by any society of men, virtue must of necessity increase and flourish in that community.  uncle. 
I am glad you profit so well, and make such good use of what I say, If now therefore, cousin, the disputs and differences which are in particular positions betwixt us and Protestants, do concerns all these three points, and that highly, will you not confess that they are of great importance? For the first you have heard I am sure how God almighty in the old law would have men's hearts perpetually busied about his law, how he would have them to think of it at home and upon the high way, morning and evening, how he would have his comandments bound to their hands, and so ever wagging before their eyes, and written upon the frontispiece of their houses. All which was to signify that the memory of God's law could not be too great, being not sufficient to think of it in the church only, or at vacant times from necessary labours, but that our thoughts ought ever to be employed that way. The like doth the Catholic church, causing to be erected upon the highways, in market-places, and in corners of streets some times crosses with our saviour's image nailed upon them, some times his flagellation, his coronation, his resurrection, his ascension or some other mystery of our redemption, or pious representation, to put us in mind of what ought to move us to the love of God, which are frequently to be seen in Catholic countries in every house, in every room, over every door, whereof there be yet some marks in our own Country. And can you think that this diligence of our forefathers compared to those commands of God almighty in the old law, to be over much? Or that the zeal of those who pulled down these memories of Christianity was according to science? Doth not the question of this point clearly concern the increase of virtue, and the church's Government? Surely it doth. For I think no wise and indifferent man can doubt but that pictures must needs breed many good thoughts which would never have been without them. What true Christian can look upon the representation of any bloody passage of our saviour's passion, but he will be moved to some good thought or sentiment if he have any feeling of Christianity in him? Or if some be not moved to pious thoughts by such an object, will not many others be? And none can doubt but that from such devout thoughts do naturally proceed and flow many virtuous affections, and these affections do engender perfection, it being their connatural leave and effect, And this perfection is that which saveth our souls. So that you see some come to salvation, others to a higher degree of perfection, and consequently of Bliss, by the use of pictures. Where by the way you may note that if pictures have this effect in our souls, to what degree of reverence and affection will not the blessed Sacrament itself raise them who truly and assuredly believe Christ's real, corporal, and substantial presence to be continually in their churches and upon their Altars? And what a motife of love do they take from the church, who refuse and deny this point.  Nephew. 
You speak with reason and common sense in my judgement. And in deed the price of one soul is more worth than any temporal good, even of state, nay even of the whole world, which (besides the pregnant reasons I have heard you give for this point) our saviour himself doth testify it in express and plain words. Nevertheless, uncle, 
Math. 16.  I see 'tis the course of the world not to esteem of a small part of a great number, but to look only upon the greatest part. Which whether it be the shortness of our discourse, and in Government, not able to reach to particulars, or whether it be the mutability of nature, not suffering itself to be bound to some one strain though the best and perfectest, which causeth this our unhappiness I know not, but so 'tis that a small number is not regarded. Which I speak to this purpose, that one might answer your discourse in a word, and say. The good which the use of pictures bringe's is so small and little, that it is not worthy looking after, and therefore may well be neglected without any great loss. 
HoW the use of pictures Work its effect in man.   uncle. 
Few words, cousin, may put a man to a great difficulty, And the rather in this matter because the use of images hath two conditions, the one that it work's its effect by little and little, so that the present effect is almost still imperceptible; the other that it is never the jmmediate nor the sole cause of its effect, but hath eversome other cause joined with it, which may produce the same effect without it, so that, I say, having these two conditions, 'tis hard to show the efficacity of this cause, seeing we can neither proceed by showing the want of the effect, this cause being substracted, nor by the change of the effect when this cause is put. Nevertheless to give you some light and content in this point, Do you remember the Turner whom I was wont to employ in London, how by taking away little shave, and in deed so small and thin as that you might see through them, he would in a quarter of an hour bring a great and rough stick to be as little and smooth as he desired, which suppose he had been three days a doing, and yet perpetually a working of it, by reason of the matter or quality of the work, he might be said perhaps to have wrought well and hard, though the effect of every particular stroke did not appear.  Nephew. 
I conceive your meaning already, for as those shave would be (specially in your supposition) as it were invisible, and a looker on, not seeing where the shave were heaped together (for there I doubt not but they would be easily seen) would think the workman did only press and smooth his work and no way lessen it. So I imagine you will tell me, that the pious affections gained by the use of pictures produce at length a great effect in our souls, though it be imperceptible in every particular action, and consequently the time employed therein nolesse profitable for our end, than the Turner's for his.  uncle. 
You are in the right, nephew, only I will tell you Aristotle says that Poetry is a painting in words, And although I intend not to compare the force of a picture to the force of poetry, yet if you knew as well what strong and vehement motions and affections may be, and are produced and imprinted in the people's souls in some countries by mere dumb shows and representations without all life and action, as well I say, as you know the force of our plays in London, you would say there's more truth in Aristole's words then every one conceaues, And that the effect of pictures and of poetry is of the same kind, And may be compared as a slow and unready Turner to a quick and nimble one. And therefore conclude that the effect of pictures is not little, but but their operation sometimes imperceptible.  Nephew. 
You have said so much, that now I have a scruple on the contrary side, I rather fear that the use of pictures should be taken away, lest they should work too much, and induce men to Idolatry, conceiting that the very material Images have some hidden virtue in them. So I have heard the Emperor of Constantinople caused statuas to be taken out of Churches, because some Priests abused them by counterfeiting miracles, And I am told that in some Catholic Countries the people will not suffer old pictures to be changed into new, Nay that even our Divines attribute I know not what particular assistance of God to one picture rather than to an other, And lastly hat some ignorant people having been asked, have professed that a Crucifix was Christ, others have spoken unto pictures as to living things, and the like.  uncle. 
And I have also heard that a poor woman being examined upon her death bed about the three persons of the S. Trinity, said the son was this great light which brings us day, nor could she be taken of it, having been long deceived by the equivocation of sound betwixt son and sun, think you therefore, cousin, that it were fit to take away the preaching of the B. Trinity for such errors? I know you do not. In such questions we must balance the good of the institution with the capacity and likelihood of error and harm which may come thereby. For every discreet man knows well that man's nature is subject to do itself mischief even by the best things. How dull and blockish, and how nothing better than the stock or stone itself which he admire's, must that man be (if he have but had any indifferent instruction in Christianity) who can believe that a piece of wood or marble is that God and man whom he hath heard preached to have been borne, lived, and died upon a cross, and now to reign in heaven? Certes, cousin, 'tis evident to a wise and moderate man that the fault is not in the doctrine but in the want of instruction, and consequently, that were to be mended, not the use of pictures taken away, which do universally good, though some particular harms come by their occasion from n other cause. Wherefore the Greek Eperour had done more wisely to have punished severely those impostors, then to have taken away such an instrument of devotion. And this same answer may be applied  convenient proportion to those people who are so zealous towards their old pictures. And for Diuine's opinions I intend not to bind controversies of Religion to their Quaeres, nor to mingle them in our discourse, the more common this fault is amongst us, the more it is to be avoided. Only I will add that if any tell you the frequent use of pictures makes them to be of little or no effect, your answer is radie, that the like may be said as well of those common and continually present means which God almighty ordained in the old law to put men in mind of his commandments, as alsoe of any other means how efficacious soever, to wit preaching, prayer, frequentation of the Sacrements and the like, if they be commonly used and practised. But to go on in our discourse, what shall we say, cousin, of   

§. 9 The honnoring of Saints, their Canonization, and of the institution of Religious orders, are they likewise necessary in this same degree?  
Which that we may discover the better, let us considere the other two parts and conditions, which you told me were necessary for the breeding of virtue, to wit of esteeming it, and seeing it to be possible. 
How the veneration of Saint's breeed's deuotion.  And I pray, what means of making a deeper impression of esteem can there be found then the veneration we give unto Saints? For they being the men who have footed out the steps which we must tread, if we intend to come to the same rewards, and attain to the same happiness whereunto they are arrived, which is the greatest motive of our virtuous living, can we doubt but the higher conceit we make of the excellency of their state, the greater and more ardent must needs be our desire, and the stronger our courage to do and perform what they did and practised. The greater esteem the souldjer makes of the quality of a commander, the more he is ready to perform those actions whereby such honours are to be obtained. And the like in all conditions of the world. 
Saint are honoured three Wai●s.  Now if you considere wherein consists the honour which we give unto Saints, you shall find that 'tis chiefly in three things. 1. In keeping their holy days, 2 Reverencing their relics and pictures, 3. In hoping good of them by praying unto them. For we naturally think the greatest goods to be in those who deserve honour and candoe good to others, and therefore we never make any great conceit of those things whence we can neither expect any good, nor whereunto we think no honour due.  Nephew. 
I cannot but interrupt your discourse with admiration to see how men, who surly had not cast away all thoughts of virtue, (since they had so many followers and were in so great esteem) should under slight pretences, so weaken the main strings by which poor men were drawn to heaven, and that for a little vanity and desire to appear more learned than others How true is it, uncle, that man hath no foe but himself? For not all the Tortures and Tyrannies, not all the inundations of waters, and ravagings of fires that can be imagined, could ever have done so much harm to man kind, as the very taking away of the esteem and conceit which we Catholics have of the excellency and greatness of Saints, and of the happy estate which they enjoy, and which is the end we all aim at.  uncle. 
Oh! cousin, if Alexander, Cesar, or any of your great glory hunters had considered in their life time (what now peradventure to their great grief they cannot be ignorant of) the difference that there is even in this worldly and vain glory betwixt Peter the fisherman or Paul the tentmaker [who never aimed at this honour, but thought it worse than the dust which they shaked from their shoes) and themselves, who poursued it so keenly with perpetual danger of their lives. wasting their estates and Countries, and ruining their neighbours, if this, I say, they had then known, would they not have changed their minds, and followed other courses? And do they not now maugre themselves and tear their very souls in pieces to see their own folly, and their no less witless than graceless ambition? And do you not then think that the holy church useth in this a most efficacious means to bring men to a virtuous life, being she doth by this doctrine of honouring and praying to Saints so strongly commend unto us the glory and Bliss after which we ought to thirst and hope, if we be true Christians?  Nephew. 
For the two first points I confess you have reason, but for the third I fear you will not come so well of, For the easier it is to obtain any good the more we esteem it ours, and consequently the more hart we have to go about it. And what way can be thought more easy then to make a conceit of Christ's goodness, and think that without any pains or deserts on our side he will give us that great reward according to his own pleasure more or less purely and only out of his mercy and goodness whitout any respect or regard to our works or lives in this world? Whereas we Catholics make the gates of heaven so narrow, and the paths thereunto so rougged, that we seem rather to deter then exhort men to virtuous lives.  uncle. 
If either we or they could think to come to Bliss without good life, I should not wonder at your proposition, for in that case it were the best and only course to have a great confidence in him whose gift it is, But if Christ hath nether left any such way, nor you or any understanding man believe that faith with a wicked and careless life will bring a man to saluation, Can you think that such an exaggeration of faith and confidence, and such a disesteeming of good works can be a means to persuade and incite men to stick close and persist in virtuous actions, which by all our confessions are requisite and necessary to salvation? Surely the Catholic church taketh the securer way, And the reason is, because works in the way of merit (that is, done for God's sake and with hope of heaven) cannot be without faith, but how easy it is for a man to persuade himself that he hath much faith without working, we find by daily experience. Hence it is that the Catholic church doth move and persuade us to labour for our eternal happiness by proposing unto v the examples of men; 
The force of examples in man's life.  as we are, who have made this great conquest, in the most exact and solemn act of canonisation of Saints. And also of others who by professing of extraordinary labours make it appear that the way is not so hard but that many daily tread the paths of it, I mean in Religious professions, in which all sorts of austerities are daily practised before our eyes, which ought not to be derided and scorned, as many do. For what power the examples and conversation of good men have, every wise man knows. And for examples we see that all the dangers of the sea and wars, that diving into the bottom of the Ocean, and delving to the centre of the earth, hanging on ropes and scaffolds, and what soever man hath invented in this kind do not deter men, where there is either profit or Admiration. Let but one desperate beginner show the way, and he will not want multitudes of followers, so either vanity or gain second his adventures. And if the force of Example be so great, the loss of wanting it must needs be equivalent, and consequently the wrong done to Christians by taking it away must be no less. And therefore the question and controversy whether it should be maintained in the church or no, is of no small importance.  Nephew. 
I perceive well that you still continue (according to your promise) to show the necessity and importance of controverted points of Religion by showing their force and efficacity of producing profitable and advantageous effects for mankind's attaining and coming to eternal Bliss; and I see that this is a very connatural and efficacious proof. But I fear all points of controversies cannot be proved that way. For, I pray, how should any man show me   

§. 10 That the Sacraments of order and Matrimony, the Generality of Ceremonies, or the opinion of miracles are necessary?  Uncle. 
You remember I proposed unto you but now a division of some things which concerned the breeding, others the conservation of virtue and devotion. For although such things as augment virtue do likewise of necessity conserve it, yet there may be some things which properly are to conserve it, and not to augment it, or at least of two things which do both, the one may conserve it because it breeds it, the other may augment it because it conserue's it. Now therefore if we find any thing whose principal effect is only to hinder such contrarieties as would destroy piety and devotion, such, properly speaking, do not augment it of themselves, but yet they may be truly said to conserve it. Farther if you considere you shall find that this hindering of contrarieties and opposites to virtue is performed two ways. First by removing all such things as put men in fear of yielding to the contrary, which is a kind of strengthening of man's weakness against these contrarieties. Secondly by diminishing and aswaging the force and violence of these contrarieties, either in themselves, or in their action. In the first manner do contribute all kind of Ceremonies, and particularly those which are used in the instalements and Beginnings of offices and charges, as the Sacraments of Order and Matrimony. And likewise the opinion of miracles. For Ceremonies, their nature in general is to put in men's heads the conceit of a high and sublime thing, whereby we proceed with greater caution and wariness in the business which we have in hand. And for miracles, the belief and opinion of them once well grounded (as it ought to be) makes the people extremely apprehensive of the presence of Almighty God, and of his immediate government of human affairs. So that as to be over credulous of miracles is the sign of a light and imprudent man (for according to reason the stranger the thing is, the greater ought to be the proof which should make us believe it) so likewise not to think that some miracles in common have been and are now done in the Catholic church, were to contradict the universal and constant opinion of all good Christians, and deserves to be suspected of not believing the particular providence of almighty God; which is the main string where upon all Christianity and supernatural Religion hangeth, and which all Masters of piety and devotion have ever souht to ground strongly in the hearts and souls of men.  Nephew. 
But I pray, uncle, how will this be true in Matrimony (for that concerns me he use whereof consists in such a material and sensual pleasure? I have often reflected why the Catholic church (which makes so great esteem of virginity) should place marriage amongst the Sacraments, and make such great Ceremonies in the administration of it.  uncle. 
You speak like a youngster, And I would to God your conceit and thought were not so deeply rooted in the hearts of many young men like yourself. The Apostle tell's you that the right and lawful use of the bed is honourable, 
Why 'tis fit that Matrimony should be a Sacrament? Heb 13. 1. Tim. 2.  and that women are to be saved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, bringing forth of Children. God Almighty hath bestowed this procreation of children upon his servants as a chief temporal Blessing, so we see in Abraham and in the good woman that entertained Elizeus; and surly it was the first Blessing that God bestowed upon his creatures. If you considere for what end God sanctifie's any action, you shall find 'tis only for man's use, And then reflect upon the goods which follow the lawful use of this material action betwixt man and wife, and you will not wonder that God hath placed a Sacrament in matrimony. I do not doubt but the light of reason tell's you, that in respect of good economy a man's having but one wife, and his perpetual cohabitation with her, is the best manner of secular living that can be, both for temporalities sake, and for having a quiet and contented life. Which supposed, Marriage must needs be a matter of great consideration. For either a man must live without a woman (which kind of life is but for few) or with this woman after he hath once taken her, And therefore 'tis of great importance that this manner of life of its own nature be convenient and grateful. Besides you know a man takes a great deal of natural content in his wife, generally speaking, (which some time's drawe's him to strange inconveniences, unless his passions and affections be well moderated and settled) for you know he takes her for his best friend, his best servant, and his dearest partner in all his businese, supposing she be wise and prudent, and consequently ever complying in reason with her husband's humour. Whereby you see that the making of a Marriage, and the usage of it when 'tis made, is the pin whereon doth hang the chief content and sweetness of a married man's life, the good of his posterity, the main success and prosperity of his temporal estate or fortunes, And above all the breeding of his children, and the instilling of piety and virtue into their tender hearts, which may grow with their age and carry them to felicity. judge now, cousin, whether it was not convenient and fitting that in the law of grace this Action should be elevated and ranked in the highest degree and order of those actions which God hath sanctified for the use of man. And ought we not to commend and prefer the wisdoms of our forefathers before all other nations for making so great esteem of it, and celebrating it with such great ceremonies?  Nephew. 
Truly I am to thank you for this good lesson, because it may be of special use for myself, And I could wish it were given to all men before they marry. For myself, I thank God, I am so well sped, that I need not wish to have learned it sooner. But I pray, uncle, let me know the other part of your division, that is which be those things you said were necessary to break the force of contrarieties and temptations against virtue, and which might comfort and strengthen men in this distress? I do imagine that you aim at some things which you will hardly prove. As for Example, do you think that for this end   

§. 11 Praying for the dead, Extreme unction, and Confession are necessary?  UNCLE. 
Setting a side the temptations of sensual pleasure which we suppose to be moderated by marriage, there remaines fear and grieefe. Fear is chiefly of death and judgement following. Grief is of loss, which to rational men is, above all other things, of friends, of whom the chiefest is almighty God, who is lost by sin; the next is of temporal friends, who are principally lost by their death. This last is taken away by the belief of their surviving, and that once we shall enjoy them again. Whence proceede's the desire of continuing amity and communication with them, 
HoW prayers for the dead do appease the grief of the living.  which being only to be had by the mediation of Almighty God, it cannot be performed but by praying for them, if we think they stand in need. And so a great part of this grief is taken away amongst Catholics by the diversion of care to get prayers said for them, and an other part turned to Almighty God by hoping good for them at his hands. Whereas others give their friends over in death with a farewell frost, or else are plunged in uncurable sorrow for an uncurable loss, for the belief of enjoying them again when there is no communication in the interim is but cold comfort, and sinke's not deeply, as things fare from us, do generally little move us. The fear of death is much moderated by the Sacrament of Extreme unction. 
How Extreme unction doth moderate the fear of death.  The assistance which virtuous parish Priests afford to the poor languishing patient by the Administration of this Sacrament, comforting him and praying for him, according to S. james his command and the Church's practice, 
jac. 5.  must needs be of great consequence in such an Exigent. Nay what comfort so little which in this period of distress and last moment of death's agony is not great? It was not surely without mystery (said a great pattern of perfection even in our age) that our saviour jesus Christ would have his Apostles accompany him and pray with him in that dolorous Agony which he passed in the garden of Gethsemani, 
Gregory Lopes.  and how much he desired it doth sufficiently appear by his twice going to them to see how they performed their charge, and by his exprobration to S. Peter. Now there resteth only to seek a remedy for a conscience loaden with sin, which how great a torture it is of itself, you may easily jmagine by the expression and apprehension which the heathens had of it, who were persuaded that Devils or furies did stand continually with burning torches before wicked men's eyes, and that the Ghosts of murdered persons did haunt the murderers until they brought them to madness or some mischief. 
HoW confession is grounded in nature, and What comfort it bring's to a sinner.  And we are taught both by nature and experience that the best and only remedy to a soul loaden with a secret grief, is, to disclose her case, and the cause thereof, to some faithful friend who may aftord her comfort and assistance. For this end did our saviour jesus Christ institute the Sacrament of Penance, with the privilege of silence not violable at any rate, no nor God nor man's law can exact in any case the revealing of this secret, what damage so ever where to come of it. Which let but any unpartial and understanding man considere, and then let him judge of what profit and commodity it is to a multitude of men, (not reigned down from heaven impeccable but framed like scarabees of the dung of the earth and thereby fullof imperfection and weakness) to have by order of law some selected persons of learning and discretion, unquestionable of what they shall hear, and extremely to be punished if they speak the least word of what shall come to their knowledge by this means, set to comfort and direct them for the amendment of their lives, and on whom they may confidently rely for Counsel, and open the truth of their cause. He knows not what a friend is worth, who knows not how great a benefit this is.  Nephew. 
I easily believe, (and I think every indifferent man must needs believe the same) that the practice and execution of this point alone would make so great a change in the people's behaviour, (if it were as well performed as it may, and aught to be) that hence only it would be clear and evident that Religion to be better in which this were practised, and that, the worse which refused it. But I wonder, uncle, that all this while you have said nothing of that famous question of communicating under both kinds, which so many very moderate Protestants stand upon as a chief stumbling block which offendeth them.  uncle. 
That's a point, nephew, in which the affirmative part belonge's to them, 
Why communicating under both kinds was not commanded.  And therefore it behoue's them to show the utility or necessity of communicating in both-kindes. Which if they cannot do, and that we know God give's us no laws but for our good and profit, a discteete man will easily, and may justly presume that Almighty God never commanded it, but left it to discretion. And for them to bring any evident proof of a positive command (since the contrary hath been practised in some churches and to some persons (as children) in all ages) I think it never was nor can be done. These points are sufficient to show that it is not out of obstinacy, or vain glory that the Catholic church mantaines her positions, and forbidde's communion to Protestants, but forced thereunto by great necessity and true grounds of Government, without which no community can subsiste. For if every point may be thus showed to be of no small importance for the increase of virtue, as it may be, [according as you see by these which we have talked of) how much more doth the Bulk of all together make a schism deserving to be lopped from the tree of life? But chiefly that headstrong taking the bit in the teeth, and that unbridled ranging in matters of consequence without any respect and awe of the power and authority ordained by jesus Christ, or any reverence to their fore fathers or present Government, the ready way and common maxim of all sedition and rebellion in what community or common wealth soever either spiritual or temporal, which we see do ordinarily follow when such Archi-revolters begin to feel ●heir party strong.  Nephew. 
This your last consequence touche's, me thinks, a point which I have a great desire to hear well discussed, to wit of the Pope's authority, which you know our Protestants pretend to be a great inconvenience in all political Government.  uncle. 
The old phrase permitte's not the shoemaker to judge of any thing above the shoe, nor am I willing to meddle in this point or determine what is convenient or inconvenient of the Pope's authority in respect of secular Goverments. For being not skilful in this matter and discoursing only, as you see, by common sense, I might perhaps offend, though blameless, in venturing beyond my skill, which would be imputed to the weakness of my cause. Only, this I know, I must and will honour the Pope as S. Peeter's successor, and head of Christ his church upon earth. Which authority I am sure was never instituted, nor doth it tend, of it's own nature, to the detriment or prejudice of any lawful Government of what quality soever. And if those were present, who, perhaps as ignorant as myself in the rules of Government, object so many things against this authority, I durst under take to answer and satisfy them all.  Nephew. 
Though you will not be pleased to meddle in this point yet can you not refuse to teach me how to answer the ordinary objections which are made against our Religion, Which if I could solidly perform, I should make it clear and evident   

§. 12 That good institutions are not to be given over for small inconveniences, that the abuses are to be mended not the things taken away, and therefore that the party which broke communion is to return to the other.  
Wherefore, I pray uncle, tell me what shall I say to them who cast in our teeth that the Catholic Clergies being unmarried fille's the world with whoredom and Adultery. That the riches of the Clergy depriue's common wealths of the use of a great part of their Country, by reason of their immunities. That the clergy's strength is able to bandy now and then against the state. Nay that a Religion's order, especially such an one as hath great power over its subjects, is able, and not unpractized, to bandy and make good its part against both church and state, with no small damage and danger to them both, if it they were not prevented. These things must needs averie any state, much more a schismatical one, from out Religion, since we suppose them to be of necessity.  uncle. 
As for the clergy's chastity every one knows we confess 'tis not a matter of necessity by the law of Christ. 
HoW the clergy's chastity and single life is convenient.  Yet that 'tis most fit and convenient, I think, no wise man can doubt. For of all pleasures the carnal doth most affect sensible nature, and produceth the greatest extremities of passion in man, and consequently is the greatest binder of man to earthly things, and the greatest hinderer from heavenly and spiritual thoughts that nature hath placed in man. It were needless to tell you how unfit this sensual employment is for those men, whose main life and action ought to be in preaching and teaching celestial and supernatural doctrine, and whose aim, even by their function and profession, is to draw people from this clodd of earth and elevate their minds to God and spiritual affections. From wedlock follows the love of wife and children, 
1. Cor. 7  and the necessary cares of household (which the Apostle cale's the afflictions or tribulations of the fleth) And from them the Evil Government of the church, which either must be hereditary, or neglected, the decessour ever streeving to leave nothing to his successor which himself can make use of for the better providing of his children. And lastly the very conceit of chastity and the solitude or loneness of an unmarried man, breedeth an apprehension of the person in whom they are, whereby the people are much better governed by such an one. Nor is Celebate the cause of such disorders, as truly are found in some places too frequent; but the multiplication of Priests. Which in deed brings this sacred function into contempt amongst the laiety, 
Why there should be but few Priests in the church.  (whose tutors and teachers Priests are by Christ's institution) and maketh them esteemed as servants. And this also makes the Priests themselves to have a less conceit of their own dignity and duty, whereby they become careless of their honour and carriage. And to say the truth considering the difficulty of chastity in the frailty of man's nature, 'tis not likely that whole multitudes of men living in liberty and perpetual occasions of falling, should observe so hard a rule as is expressed by Qui potest capere capiat. 
Mat. 19  Wherefore not the Ecclesiastical command of chastity (which you see is good and necessary for the Government of the church) but the multiplication of Priests [especially of young and unworthy ones) ought to be taken away and so the scandal would cease.  Nephew. 
You say well, but I have heard that multitudes of Priests are requisite for the magnificence of the church, for the convenient hearing of Mass, especially on Holy days, and for the better Administration of the Sacraments and helping of both living and dead by the inestimable sacrifice of the Altar, which causeth many to take priesthood merely out of devotion.  uncle. 
I have heard many say so too, but they did not considere that the necessity of Government and instruction is the chief necessity of the church, and that the Clergy is made and instituted for this Government (having the administration of the Sacraments pourposly reserved unto them to procure them veneration and authority for the better performance thereof) and therefore not any one ought to be made Priest, but for this end, to wit, for the necessity of instruction and Government. And this Bishops ought to take care of, nor to bestow Priesthood but where the man's creation is necessary for his flock, and then Priests would live better and be more honoured. This was the practice of the primitive church, until the Ambition of Deacons (who had the temporalities of the church in their hands) made them desire honour, and so were made Priests. And the like ambition I believe was the inventor of those fair reasons which you allege, for well may it be magnificence in a Prince to have many servants, but to have many chief heads and Governors that must needs lessen their esteem. And for hearing of Masses, if the people be well ordered and governed few Priests will suffice, nor is the inconvenience so great as the multiplicity of Priests. And the like may be said for the administration of the Sacraments, and for the helping of both living and dead by the holy sacrifice of the Altar. As for those who desire to be Priests out of devotion, I think their deuotion would be more conformable to the piety of our forefathers, if they did rather shun than desire Priesthood, especially where there are so many already. And as in my opinion there cannot be an outward work of greater piety and charity then to provide the people of fit instructors and Governors, nor alms better employed then to procure this effect: so contrary wise I think there cannot be an act of greater sacrilege and impiety, then to order and employ unworthy subjects in this kind, and who soever out of faction, friendship, or carelessness should do it are worse than Adulteres, Murderers, or those whose sins cry to heaven for vengeance. But this I speak only of my own opinion.  Nephew. 
Truly, uncle, I think you are in the right, though peradventure there be not many of your mind. For I see well enough that as to multiply unworthy judges and Governors in a common wealth were to ruin it, so likewise to multiply unworthy Priests is to hazard the spiritual good of Christianity, and to make an unworthy parish Priest is in a manner to damn the parish.  uncle. 
For your second objection of the clergy's riches, 
That the clergy's riches are no prejudice to the temporall state.  though I am none of those that think the Clergy, or any other spiritual company whom they affect, cannot be too rich, yet I see no such inconvenience in their riches but 'tis easily remedied. For in all Catholic countries there be means found out to diminish their riches, and make them contribute to the necessities of the state and common wealth as fully as others in proportion, though in an honourable way, as to let them have their own Collectors of the moneys required at their hands. Besides the Clergy not making any vow or profession of renouncing either riches or honour, and bearing the greatest charge and office in the common wealth, 'tis both fitting and necessary that they have so much wealth as is requisite for the due performance of their function, as, first to be out of solicitude for convenient mantenance, 2. to have an equal conversation with their subjects, 3. to give example of the due and true use of wealth, and 4. to breed a convenient respect of their quality and persons in those whom they are to govern by their persuasions and authority. And by these rules it may be easily known when the clergy's riches are excessive. You will say perhaps that the clergy's authority ought to be grounded upon their learning, 
Why the Clergy ought to have Wealth besides virtue.  wisdom, and chiefly upon their virtue. And 'tis true, but those whom they are to guide and direct having not, for the most part, eyes to see and judge clearly of such internal qualities, but generally esteem of the inward man by the outward appearance, 'tis necessary that they likewise have those exterior helps. For your third and last objection I could quit myself in a word and tell you, I intend not to justify the practice of any, but only the tenets of the Catholic church, And if at any time either Clergy or Religious should bandy against the state or common wealth it were the fault of the men and not of the institution, in which case God hath left means to curb and punish them, for the Clergy being an essential and principal part of the common wealth, as well as either the Nobility or commons, 'tis the same case for all three, And such an act were to be imputed to the weakness of man's nature as well in the Clergy as in the other two. And so I hope you are now content for this point.  Nephew. 
I am for the Clergy, and see you have reason, but for Religious orders 'tis not the same case, for nether is there the like necessity of them as of the Clergy, nor are they any public part of the common wealth, but only private institutions within it. Besides I have heard wise and experienced men say, that Religious obedience is easily turned into an instrument of faction. For their subjects being bound under pain of damnation to obey their superior in any thing that is not manifestly sin, it give's the superior a mighty command over the whole body (specially if it be purely monarchical and that one man govern all) and thereby a main power to sway gteat multitudes at his will and pleasure. And I heard not long ago an able man, (who hath been employed of late by our state in Catholic Countries) say, that Princes some times were vehemently afraid of their puissant combinations, and held it no small point of policy to employ and engage Religious orders in their interests of state. Whereas for the Clergy they feared them not, having no such obligation of obedience amongst them, but only according to the Canons, nor any dangerous dependence of foreign states, but every man for himself and therefore unable to do the state any great either service or prejudice by any factious intelligence abroad.  uncle. 
Lord! cousin, how different is the truth from the common opinion of the world. The truth is, cousin, Religious men are governed by vows and rules or constitutions, their vows make them Religious, their rules are directions for their, living in peace and virtue. Their vow of obedience, which you speak of, reacheth only to the spiritual education and progress of their subjects, their rules are for the rest. If their vows did reach to their temporal government, than I confess they were no Religious vows but were to be suspected of factious combinations, and both church and state might and would be jealous of them, but 'tis not so, and therefore they are laudable and no ways hurtful in a common wealth. And for the Religious man's rule, which only, and not his vow binds him to all temporal subjection, 'tis of no great importance, nay some of them profess that their rule obligeth not in conscience (as the canon and civil law doth) no not under a venial sin. Wherefore you see 'tis far from Catholic Religion to patronise any banding against either church or state, and so far that every Divine will tell you, that obedience in such a case is damnable both to the commander and obeyer. Nay they will tell you that if any Religious order were come to that height of ambition (which God forbidden) as to bend their aims and endeavours generally to the prejudice of the church or state, seeking to to ruin the ancient and lawful government of either of them, to set up their own, that in such a case it were a sin to enter into any such order, and that the vows of such as should be already professed therein would not oblige them to obedience, nor could such a institute be truly esteemed a Religious institute. And now I hope you are fully satisfied. I know there be divers objections besides these which you produce, but either they pitch upon abuses in stead of uses, as these do, or else they aim to take away the substance of a thing, because of some accidental harms which fall out in the use and practice of it. As if one should forbid iron tools by reason some times there happene's mischief by them, not weighing the utility with the harm. Wherefore the Protestants, what soever they hold, and say that they do not condemn Catholics (which according to there rule of th' Errabilitie of all men, and of the liberty they assume unto themselves, they are bound to do) yet in effect and in practice they do it, And must needs or else desert their pretences and disputes with the Catholic church at the very beginning. For example if Luther or Caluin were urged, Is the use of reverencing pictures Idolatry or no? They must of necessity answer yes, or else they are convinced to break from the present church (whereof they are yet apart) without a sufficient cause. If they be farther pressed, Can you evidently convince that 'tis idolatry? or may it be probablely mātained that 'tis not? If they acknowledge they cannot, than they are oppressed again, If it be but peradventure yes, peraduamture no, why do you make a schism and division in the church, and not submit yourselves to the belief of your forefathers and of the present universal church? If they reply that when nether part is certain, than each one may hold what he thinks fit. You urge them again, is this your reply certain? can you convince it evidently? or is it but only probable? if only probable, they are still in the same snare, if certain and evident, they might have said so of the first proposition. But in deed it were against common sense and too ridiculous for any private man to undertake to make an Evident conviction and demonstration against the general belief of the universal church for so many ages. And thus you see that these men who cannot convince any thing against the Arrians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Berengarians and the like (though condemned many years ago by the Catholic church) and think all probable that a company of learned and indifferent men have doubted of, yea use this for a maxim that such points must of necessity be doubted of, as being not with in the reach of evident conviction, Let but, I say, these men come to write against Catholics, and you shall have them pretend whole lists of demonstrations, and whole pages will not suffice to reckon up the absurdities which they imagine do follow out of some one Catholic point, so necessary it is that these men contradict themselves who contradict the truth of Christ and his church.  Nephew. 

Why the Protestants ought to return to the church of Rome  Your argument, me thinks, is good against the first beginners of the breach from the Catholic church, but will not suffice against men that now live, who seem to be a framed and settled church, and have received this doctrine from their fathers. For we see that possession, though at the first unlawfully gotten, doth in time prevaille, and quarrels cease even where Princes are pretenders. If the welsh men should now pretend to have been unjustly put out of England by the Saxons, The Romans out of France by the french, The Greeks' out of Italy by the Goths, who would think their quarrels just? So likewise why should the Protestants (though their time be not so long, nor their possession so quiet) rather yield to the church of Rome, than the church of Rome to them, or to the church of England for example, unless the church of Rome can demonstrate her positions against the Protestants, which I have not heard any of our learned men say she can?  uncle. 
Although it be both reasonable in all liklyhood, and peradventure may be convinced, that who first parted and made the division ought in law of good government to return. And although I could likewise pretend, that the church of England compared to that church which liveth in community with the church of Rome is but a small part and therefore bound to yield to the greater, (for to say that the Protestants of England live in community with all other churches but the Roman is manifestly false, since all other churches will Anathematise divers of their tenets, and they also the tenets of other churches, nor is there any rule of unity and communion amongst them) Although I say I could urge these and other reasons to this effect, yet I will only propose you two. 
The Catholic church cannot come to the Protestants.  The former shall plainly show that the Catholic church cannot yield unto Protestants without essentially ruining herself, and therefore no possible union betwixt the churches unless the Protestants will bend. For if the Catholic church doth essentially subsiste and maintain herself upon this principle and ground, that she hath received her doctrine from jesus Christ by word of mouth and succession from hand to hand which cannot fail, put the case she yeilde's to the church of England in any point which she holdeth vpon this principle, is it not evident that she must of necessity forgo her hold, and for sake her only principle where upon is built all her faith and belief? is it not manifest that she may as well forsake all, as any one point which she holdeth vpon this tenor and motive? sure it is. But the Protestants holding their doctrine and positions upon no such tye, but only upon their own (at most probable) interpretation of the scripture, which they may change upon better consideration, are upon far easier terms to yield, and that without prejudice to their Religion or judgement. Because tenets only held upon probability may be changed upon any good occasion or new known motive without disparregment to the Author. And certainly what church soever doth not think herself unerrable in any point, what she holdeth may be false, and therefore it were temereity for such a church to hold any point certainly true, And if she hold not any point certainly true, why should not the very reasons of state and interest seek to have them changed and settled secure and infallible, since humane nature is ever inclined to believe what's for her own profit. The second reason doth prove that the Protestant is bound in nature and by the light of reason to yield to the Catholic communion. For if nature teach us that a Protestant's practize ought not to contradict his principles and judgement of his reason, And that the necessity and force of Experience doth convince most evidently, that there is no Government in a church without prescribing of some tenets and forbidding of others (restraining or punishing, if need be, such as will not comply with those prescribed Canons or articles) And that 'tis likewise evident that this is contrary to the liberty of opinion which the Protestant puttes for his first and chief maxim to approve his separation from the Roman church; will it not follow with out contradiction, that either the Protestants must break with reason and the nature of man, in holding liberty in their judgements and understandings, and obliging to obedience in their will and practice: Or else they must close with the Catholic church in their judgements, and profess the inerrability, of the church, at least so far as obligeth her subjects not to withstand or oppose, but to submit and obey her Canons and commands. And for your examples of politic states, which by possession and prescription have at length obtained right, you must remember that all their beginnings and grounds are upon humane nature and consent of men, and therefore by the same law by which they were made they may be likewise altered. But the church of God was made by Christ and his Ministers, and therefore reason tell's us, that her institution is to be inviolably conserved, nor ought or can any prescription of time prevail against her. Wherefore since that church which the Protestants parted from, held an holdeth still that the church of God nether is nor can be but one in all ages and places (which position she professeth, to have teceived in the same manner and vpon the same ground as she hath received the rest of her doctrine) they Protestant's must of necessity first show that they are the true church of Christ, before they can plead possession or prescription. For if there can be but one church, no prescription can make them that one, since at their very beginning and ever since, an other both was and is in more quiet possession than they, and pleade's the same title more strongly.  Nephew. 
Why then, uncle, I see there remaineth no other question but whether the Protestants can convince their positions or no? Which I believe would be a hard task. Wherefore, uncle, I thank you heartily for this good lesson, It grows late, I fear I shall hold you up to long, 'tis time for you to take your rest.  uncle. 
'tis true, nephew, they ought in deed to convince and demonstrate their tenants, and I know of no other way they have to do it but by the scripture which we do not hold to be sufficient to determrne controversies without tradition. So that I have no more to say to you, but wish you may begin this new year with a good night's rest, which God send us both.    

Whether scripture alone is fit and able to decide controversies in Religion?  

THis Dialogue containeth 15. parts or paragraphes.  
1. The Preface or introduction.  
2. That tradition for scripture is not of as great force, as for points of Doctrine.  
3. That tradition for scripture is not more universal than tradition for doctrine.  
4. That it is impossible the text of scripture should have remained incorrupted.  
5. What uncertainty the errors of writers and copyists hath bred in scriptures?  
6. What uncertainty the multiplicity of translations hath bred in scripture?  
7. That the very repeating and reciting of an others words breedeth a variety and uncertainty.  
8. The uncertainty of Equivocation which of necessity is incident in all writings.  
9 That there riseth an uncertainty out of this, that the scripture was written in languages now ceased.  
10. The uncertainty which followeth the particular languages of Hebrew and Greek, wherein the scripture was uritten.  
11. That the nature of the books of scripture is not fitting for deciding of controversies.  
12. Two manners of judging of Religion out of scripture.  
13. How scripture doth determine controversies.  
14. what laws are requisite for disputation out of scripture?  
15. Of an other manner of disputing out of scripture.   

§. 1 The Introduction.  UNCLE. 
How now, cousin, what makes you so early this morning? could you not sleep this last night?  Nephew. 
Yes indifferent well, I thank God, but 'tis not very early. Howsoever if I be troublesome I will expect your better leisure, for I am come only to tell you a scruple that I had yesternight, which hath tormented me ever since, And it is, that we Catholics who bear so great reverence and veneration to the holy scripture, receive more of it than others, writ infinite volumes of commentaries upon it (as Paul's church yard can witness), and are so exact to improve ourselves (I mean our learned men] in the knowledge of it, should nevertheless, when we come to join in the main point, that is, to the decision of controversies in Religion, seem to fly of and recurre to other judges, though we acknowledge it to be Christ own word and law. And now I have told you my difficulty, I will leave you to your better employments, knowing how much you esteem, and how precious you account your mornings, and therefore I will make bold to call for your answer an other time.  uncle. 
Nay stay, cousin, God forbidden I should think I could better employ my time then in giving you satisfaction in: question of such importance, or that you should be importune unto me by desiring the knowledge of a thing so necessary and so be seeming you. I were to blame if I would not leave even my prayers to assist you in this point, and perhaps an other time you will not be so earnest on it. Although I must confesse I am some what unwilling to dive into this question, for I see by experience, that the one part seeketh by all means to destroy the authority of God's church, and the other seemeth to lessen the power of scripture for the deciding of controversies, so that indifferent men, and as yet unsettled, be left as it were without all means of coming to the truth. How soever necessity excuseth us, for were our Adversary's able to perform what they promise, that is, to resolve points of controversies by scripture, we were worse them beasts if we should refuse to be judged thereby. But if to stand to scripture only, as they do, be but a plausible way to Atheism, and so the question will only be, whether we must rely upon a church or be Atheists, (for we think by scripture alone; lef●t without the guard of the church, nothing or at least not enough for the salvation of mankind, can be sufficiently prowed) then every man will see that we are forced by reason and Religion to make evident and known, as far as we can, the necessity of relying upon a church, and to use all our power to persuade men thereunto. And if you remember we said yesternight that Christian Religion, or the law of jesus Christ, cannot be learned by wit and study, but by authority, and by receiving it from jesus Christ, And that we said likewise, that he is no true Christian, nor truly of the community of Christians (what so ever be his material belief) who doth not accept of that rule and means which jesus Christ hath left and ordained for the receipt of his law (and the like of him who should follow any other rule) which must needs be either scripture, or tradition, or both, it will therefore evidently follow that either we must be no Christians, or accept and acknowledge tradition to be this rule, if we can show that the scripture is not fit, nor hath the conditions requisite for the deciding of controversies, nor was made or left to the church for this end.  Nephew. 
The greater is the necessity of this question, the more glad am I that I have moved it, though me thinks I myself might well see it is not fit to make the scripture judge of controversies, because we find by experience that after so many disputations, and so many books written on either side there is nothing resolved, nor are we the nearer an end, and therefore 'tis evident that scripture alone will never decide and determine our quarrels and disputes.  uncle. 
Well, cousin, since you will have it so, our first question shall be   

§. 2 Whether tradition for scripture be of as great force as it is for points of doctrine?  
ANd first I pray you tell me, do you think that the Apostles, when they went about the world to preach Christ jesus, carried with them all the books of the old and new Testament, either ready translated into the languages of the people whom they preached unto, or else caused them to be translated by the first Christians?  Nephew. 
I never thought of this question before, but I see well enough that they could not carry all with them, for some parts certainly were not made before they went to to preach, nay I a'm not assured whether any part of the new testament was made before their dispersion from Jerusalem, so that well may they have carried the old Testament with them, if they thought it sitting, but for the new, they could not, if I be not mistaken.  uncle. 
It is very true. I will tell you therefore, cousin, how the authority of the scripture, that is, 
Now the neW Testament Was pro aga ted.  of the new Testament, came into the church. An Apostle or Disciple writing a book or Epistle composed it to that church or Country wherein he preached or to which he written it, that church composed it to their neighbours as the work of such an Apostle, so by little and little it grew from one country to an other until it was spread over the whole Christian world. So that some countries had not the new Testament complete, (that is, all the books of it) for a long time. Wherefore no wonder that some have doubted of several parts thereof, being not able to aver, as not assured (by reason of some accident) that such books were truly the works of such an Apostle or Disciple, which not withstanding, 
Why the canon of scripture is chiefly to be had from Rome.  better intelligence being gotten might be afterwards received for scripture. And here you may note by the way, that the Roman church is that church to which in reason we ought to give most credit touching the canon of the scripture. For Rome being at that time ●that is, at least for the first 300 years) to the Christian world or rather to all the Christians dispersed in divers parts of the world, as London is to England; And that we see the collection of things estimable, dispersed in several Provinces of our Kingdom, is sooner and better made in London then in any other part of our Country, it must needs follow that the collection of the Holy scripture, or new Testament, was more exactly faisable at Rome, then at any other place. But this by the way. For my aim is to make you judge, whether any one substantial point, 
The state of the question.  which the Apostles  common consent preached through the whole world, compared to any one book of the new Testament, which soever you think first or best received, whether, I say, of these two have descended unto us with more certainty, the one to be the Apostles doctrine, the other to be such an Apostle's book?  Nephew. 
I should distinguish your question, for either it may be compared to that particular Province or church where the Apostle himself delivered it both in word and writing, or to the whole church. And I confess that in respect of the whole church, that point of doctrine which is every where preached must needs have more certainty: but where both are equally delivered by the same Apostle to the same church, I should think the work should have more authority then the word. For 'tis an easy matter to let slip a word some times, Whereas writing requireth a more settled consideration.  uncle. 
If the question be but of a particular church or Province, I doubt it will not be sufficient to give us a firm authority for either one or the other, unless we add more circumstances than we have declared. And the reason is, because one Province may have had Religion so ruinated in it by the incursion of infidels, that recovering thē selues after a long time they may as well mistake one book for an other, as one doctrine for an other, and so this point is not much to our purpose. Although even in this case the doctrine taught by word of mouth hath these advantages. That it is delivered to many, the book to few, or in some one place. The doctrine heard and understood by many, the book only to such as can read, nor to all them nether, but to such as are careful. The book belonge's not much to the practice of the multitude, the doctrine governs their whole lives. The book brought often times by some one man, as some messenger if it be an Epistl, or other wise sent from some other place or from some one person, as from Titus of Timotheus, to whom it was first written, and upon whose authority only the whole verity must originally rely. But to return to our case. Do you not see that the whole church trusteth some one particular man at the first upon whom she buildeth her belief  this is such an Apostles work, that is, scripture? But for any material point of doctrine she relieth vpon the universal knowledge of them who heard it preached in divers parts of the world. So that, as I do not intend to say, the one is certain, the other not, (for a particular church's authority may be certain in some circonstances) yet I must needs say that betwixt these two certainties, there is such a difference, that if the one were to bring in verdict upon the other, it would be much more forcible and evident to conclude, that this book is scripture, because it is according and conformable to the doctrine taught and preached, then that this doctrine is the Apostles, because it is conformable to this book. For if it be true, that the whole church once relied upon some one particular church for this verity, it can never come to pass that the certainty of this book prove greater than was the authority of that particular church at that time, And consequently the same comparison which is to be made betwixt the authority of this particular church and of the universal church, the same, I say, is to be made betwixt the certainty of this book's being scripture, and of this point of doctrine's being catholic and Apostolic. And for the inconvenience you were jealous of, it falleth out quit contrary. For whether we considere the inspiration and assistance of the holy ghost, or the industry aed carefulness of man, you shall ever find that the end is more principally aimed at, than the means to compass the end, and likewise amongst divers means the most immediate to the end is still most aimed at, wherefore in our case the end both of writing and speaking being the delivery of this doctrine for the good of the people, no doubt, I say, but that both the Assistance of the holy ghost, and the care of man tendeth more principally to the delivery of this doctrine then to other things that came in by chance, in which only there might be a slip, as you imagine. Wherefore since tradition containeth not all the words the Apostles spoke, but merely what belongs to Christian doctrine, (which was principally delivered, and the chief errand of the Apostles) and that in the scriptute many things are written upon occasion and as it were by the buy, no doubt but in both these respects, to wit, of the assistance of the holy ghost, and of the care of man, the certainty will be greater of the doctrine delivered by word of mouth, then of the holy writ. Besides the slips you speak of, are when things are only once delivered, or spoken without great premeditation, whereas this doctrine was a thing perpetually beaten on, so as there can be no fear of such slipping. 
HoW the old Testament came to Christians hands.  For the old Testament as I confess 'tis possible that the Apostles might have delivered it in all Countries where they preached; so likewise I think 'tis evident that they never did it, being that the church hath no such memory, And that the Canon hath been doubted of by some, and the jewish Canon alleged, whereof there had been no use nor need, if the Apostles had left to all churches the book itself. It is likely therefore that the old Testament was brought in by the first Christians ' of the Circuncision, who accepted of those books which they saw the Apostles honour and make use of, and from them it came to the Gentle Christians, and so by little and little was accepted of by all the Christian church with the same veneration that the Apostles and jewish Christians gave unto it. But how soever shall we not think at least   

§. 3 That tradition for scripture is more universal than tradition for doctrine.  NEphew. 
Surely, uncle for my part I cannot think but that the scripture hath a more universal tradition then any point of Christian doctrine, or at least than any of those which are disputed betwixt us and the Protestants, seeing that all Christians do agree in the acceptation of the scripture, and far fewer in divers points of doctrine. For such churches as are in communion with the church of Rome are no such extraordinary part of christendom if they were compared to all the rest.  uncle. 
For the Extent of the churches I cannot certainly tell you the truth, because I fear many are called Christians who have little either in their belief or lives to verify that name. But you know in witnesses the quality is to be respected as well, and more them the quantity. So that such countries, in which Christianity is vigorous, are to be preferred before a greater Extent of such as are where little remains more than the name. But to come nearer to your difficulty, suppose that in a suit in law, one side had seven lawful witnesses, the other had as many and twenty knights of the post, known perjured knaves or unlawful witnesses more, would you cast the other side for this wicked rabble?  Nephew. 
No truly, for seeing the law doth invalidate their testimony, I should wrong the party to make any account of them, and therefore I should judge the parties equal.  uncle. 
Why then you see that who will challenge a more universal. Tradition for scripture then for doctrine, must first be certain that there is no lawful exception against those Christians whom he calleth to witness, to wit, against the Armans, Nestorians, Eutychians and the like. Now the Catholic church accounteth these men wicked in the highest degree, that is, guilty of Heresy and schism. And therefore the party which esteemeth of their witness, must, by taking of them for honest men, bear himself for their fellow, and account the Roman church wicked and not fit for testimony, from whom nevertheless he hath received what soever he hath of Christ. Besides the witness and testimony which these men give, is only that they received scripture from that church which excluded them from communion at their beginnings, and ever continued in opposition against them, to wit the Catholic. Wherefore it is evident that their testimony addeth nothing to the testimony of the Catholic church, but only declareth what the testifieth, nor consequently maketh any tradition more universal. Let us therefore now see whether   

§. 4 The text of scripture can have remained incorrupted or no.  
FOr hitherto, we have only compare the and 〈◊〉 of scripture in itself to tradition, now we will come a little closer, and compared it as we have it, to the same doctrine delivered once 〈…〉 tradition. I mean that hitherto we have spoken as if we had those very books which the canonical writer made with their own hand, and of what authority they would be. But now we will considere their since we have but copies of them, of what authority these copies ought to be. Can you resolve this question?  N●phew. 
I doubt not, sir, but for that end which we seek, that is, to make a judge of controversies, every word, every letter, and every title must be admitted of absolute and uncontrollable certain●ie, And so, I hear, the vulgar edition in latin is commanded to be held amongst us. For I easily see that if any one sentence may be quarrelled, every one will incur the same hazard, all being equally delivered and equally warranted with reason and authority.  uncle. 
You say very well, for where there is no less then the souls of the whole world at the stake, I see not what advantage can give sufficient security, if there remain any notable uncertainty. Our saviour saith, what can all the world avail any man if he lose his soul? So that where the question is soul or no soul, salvation or damnation, nothing less than certainty can serve to proceed upon. And therefore no doubt but if the Apostles had intended to leave the holy writ for the decider of controversies in Religion, they would also have provided that infallible copies should have been kept and come down to the church to the end of the world. For such care we see that private men have of conserving their bargains and cowenants by making their Indentures uncounterfeitable, and enrolling them in public offices, were they are to remain uncorrupted the like care hath common wealths to conserve their records, specially their laws, keeping the very originals or authentical copies with very great care. But what need we took into the examples of ●●●en, seeing all mighty God in his own person hath given us a pattern, commanding the Deuteronomie to be kept in the Ark, which he would have to be the authentical copy to judge betwixt him and his people; and this with the greatest veneration that could be imagined, or that ever was given to any thing. But this was impossible for the Apostles to do (otherwise surely the would have done it, if they had intended that Christ's written law should have been our judge) by reason of the multitudes of nations and languages which hindered that not any one book could be conserved with such security and incorruptibility as would be requisite in that case, both because of the language, and of the mutability of the world, ever subject to a thousand accidents, whereby such books might fall into the hands of those who would not only neglect them, but either wilfully corrupt, or seek utterly to destroy that which was to be the rule and pattern of Christian faith. And for that which you say is commanded us, you conceive amiss. For no wise man thinketh that the vulgar edition is so well corrected that much may not be mended; 
How the vulgar edition is to be received.  but 'tis that the church hath secured us that there is nothing against Christian faith or behaviour contained in those books, which have so long passed for scripture, and are so in deed for the substance of the books, and therefore hath commanded us not to refuse this r●●● in any controversy; on disputation. And this we, and we only can do, for the church's security ●●seth out of this that she hath an other more forcible ground of her faith, to wit, tradition, by which being assured what the truth is, she can confidently pronunce that in this book there is nothing contrary or prejudicial thereunto, which no profession that relieth only upon scripture can do, because they must first be assured of the text, before they can judge of the doctrine: wherefore if the text itself need a judge, and that it is questionable whether this be the true text or no, they must needs be at their wit's end, according to the principles of raisin. Let us therefore see what ambiguity or question falleth upon the text itself by the succession of so many ages in which it must needs have been in some sort conserved to come to our hands There be three ways chiefly whereby the text may have been corrupted. 
Three Ways have corruptions come into the Text.  The first on set purpose, as the fathers accuse the Heretics of their times to have done, and the jews also are suspected of the same. And this kind, though it extendeth itself but to few corruptions, yet they come to be inevitable, when amongst so many copies none can discern which have been so abused which not; and as it is but in few points or places so it is in such as be important and material ones. The second sort of corruptions may have come by the negligence of servants, which copied the Bible, some being mercenary people that made copies to sell, others wittlesse people, who greedy and desirous to have the Bible out of vanity, hypocrisy, or the like, cared not for more than to say they had it, and a great part of these copyists may have erred in writing the Bible by the very defect of nature, which permitteth not an absolute exactness in any thing, and causeth a man in his weariness, nay and in his too much wariness also, to make escapes unwittingly, which be the more dangerous by how much the copies seem more exact, whereby some times the bear down true copies. The third way of corruption may have been by half-witted men, who will now and then undertake to correct copies by aim and vnderstanding, who for having lighted right in some one place, will venture confidently to spoil ten. And of these men 'tis like before printing began, and copies were not so frequent, and so a corruption went not far, 'tis like, I say, there hath been divers, who when they met with a place they could not make sense of, and saw that a little change would make it sense, such rash their would easily vener to make such a small (as they thought) mutation, not knowing peradventure how to come to a better copy than their own: The Hebrew and Greek Testament have been very subject to the first sort of these corruptions, the former being delivered unto us by the professed enemies of Christ, who, as it is reported, in the greatest heat of their hatred to Christianity, sat at Tiberias to determine all the vowels of the old scripture, the which every Hebritian knoweth what power it gave them to change the whole text, and this to men publicly accused of forgery in that kind. The Greek, as long as the condemned Heretics held so great power in those parts, 〈◊〉 is publicly known they did for some ages, was in little less jeopardy, they being also taxed with the like impiety. But the other two ways and means of corruptions are common to all, and in deed unavoidable in so great a multitude of copies as were in all the three languages, at least of Greek and latin. And now, cousin, can you tell me what hazard this must needs breed in the text itself that is   

What uncertainty the errors §. 5 of writers and copyists hath bred in scripture?  NEPHEW. 
Nay marry that posseth my understanding, for if I should calculate so many copies to have been m●de, and then estimate what errors may have escaped in every copy, the number peradventure would exceed the words of the Bible. For let us take a book of 2000 columns, and let us likewise suppose, (which is very likely) that as many copies were made in some age of an hundreth year, and let us then put 56. lines to a column, and 6. words to a line and so there will be in one column 336. Words, And farther may we not well suppose that there was as many faults escaped in every copy (one with an other) as there be words in a column, which being supposed you will find that the number of all the errors escaped in all the copies which have been made since the Apostles time, will amount to 15. or 16. times as many as there be words in the Bible. Wherefore by this account it would be 15. or 16. to one of any particular place that it were not the true text. Which me thinks cannot be true.  uncle. 
I do not think that you have taken your proportions too high, for if you look into the most part even of printed books of such a great volume as the Bible is, revewe them well and you will find a whole column of errata in every one, and you know printing is done with more ease and less toil to the brain, and hath ordinarily 2. or 3. corrections before it be drawn, which helps written copies have not. But yet I must tell you that you miss it in one thing, you marked not that the errors of so many copies may have been the same in divers of them, otherwise truly your calculation would prove that we might look for scripture in scripture and not find it, and the like with some proportion, in all books, I say with some proportion; for to think altogether the like of Cicero, Demostenes, and others, is not reasonable, because there were few copies made of them, as only for some curious and learned men, whereas the Bible concerned every man so nearly that few would be with out it that could understand Latin, And yet I doubt not but you remember well enough, since you were a student what variety of texts and pretensions of corruptions you found amongst the Critics and commentaries even of those profane authors. And to your calculation I will add an other suppose there were as many written copies extant as the number of your columns, and as much variety in those which have not been examined as in those which have been looked into, And farther that Sixtus Quintus for the setting out of his Bible caused only an hundred to be examined, And that in his Bible the corrections amount (as it is known they do) to the number of two thousand, do you not see that the computation made of the various sections of all those copies would make twenty for every colunne? And truly we cannot, imagine that there hath been so for either Latin or Greek copies; And whereas in this computation we only esteem them to have been but 2000 suppose, as it is very like, that there hath been at least an hundreth thousand in either language in so many ages, and in so great an extent of readers, And those which are not Extant (Whereof none in particular can be rejected) make the case more ambiguous, because they give men power out or such or such a probability to conjecture a truth, and out of conjectural proof to believe it. For as we all confess that what soever is certainly known to be scripture, is not to be touched, so we know likewise that what soever may be doubted of, whether it be scripture or no, obligeth to no such respect. Wherefore if reason conclude and tell us, that in all likelihood there hath been twenty variae lectiones in every particular column, though perhaps two or three only are extant, the rest probably known to have been, yet so as that there is no certain sign of which or where they were, And now there cometh one to press a place in this or that column, which his opponent thinketh to be contrary to other places, may he not then justly sai●● sir, I mistrust this place to be corrupted? Or can his Adversary in prudence urge it on as an assured text▪ Or can he press and aver for certain that this is none of the 17. unknown variae lectiones? Certes he cannot, abstracting from all warrant and command of the church and standing to pure and precise reason. So that all controversies would be ended, where nothing but scripture is admitted as judge, with a Non liquet.  Nephew. 
I expected you should have showed me how hard it is to agree about the true sense of the words of the scripture, but as I now perceive there is as much difficulty to know whether we have the true and right text or no, which if it were well conce●●●d and understood by our devout and pure citizen's Wives of London, who turn and view the text so curiously when the preacher citeth it, I believe it would much cool the zeal of their spirit if such a qualm should come over their stomaches as to think, these words peradventure are not the Holy scripture. But to this, uncle, may you not add the variety of translations: I pray tell me   

§. 6 What uncertainty the multiplicity of translations have bread in scripture.  Uncle. 
No doubt, cousin, but great uncertainty is sprung from the variety of translations, Whereof we may first suppose, that there is no constat of any infalibility in the translatours, no not of the septuaginta themselves, 
what of the septuaginta translation.  which the Protestants will easily grant. I know there is a story how that the septuaginta being separated one from an other, their translation light to be the same word for word. Which if it were certain, I should esteem their translation of as great authority as the original text itself. But we see that euen in the Apostles time some sought to mend their interpretation, as Theodotion and Aquila, whose translations were nevertheless accepted of by the church, and conserved and esteemed. Wherefore there is no likelihood that the Apostles and the church of their times held the septuaginta tranlation to be specially from the holy ghost. Not doth it import that the Apostles some times used in their speeches or writings this translation, for they must needs use it or none when they wrote to those whose language was Greek, and therefore would have thought them to have mistaken the text if they had cited the scripture's words according to the Hebrew. When the Hebrew was different from the Greek. Nor can we certainly tell that is was always the Apostle that used it, and not the Historian, Who writing in Greek and to Grecians cited the Greek words, what words soever the Apostle had used, being both to the same effect. The next point which we may considere in this variety of translations is, 
why divers translations in the same tongue.  that never any began a new version in the same language but for some mislike in the former. For if he thought a new translation to be necessary, he must needs conceive that the former translator had in many and important points miss and altered the mind of the author. Whereby every wiseman will see that a book of importance is never left of to be translated, until there be some inhibition to the contrrrie. And hence we may conclude that it is impossible for a translator to be so exact as that his words shall be taken for the words of the author. Nay contrariwise it is the law of a good translator not to yield word for word with the very original, but to express the sense thereof in the best manner he can: For since no two languages jump equally in their expressions, it is impossible that every word of the one should have a full expression of every word of the other, much less that their phrases should be the same, so that per force there must needs be a great difference in particulars, although the substance of the sense and meaning be the same. And who should confer any one chapter of two translations in the same language, and see whether any one sentence do so exactly agree as that scanning rigorously the variety of their words, there may not be some different sense gathered out of them, And he will not deny but 'tis impossible to put fully and beyond all quarrel the same sense in divers words. And truly I think that every one will admit at least as much difference and variety betwixt the original and the translation, as betwixt translation and translation, these agreeing in the same tongue, those not, and yet having all the other reasons of disagreeing. And do you not think cousin, that if one should take twenty of the best scholars in a school and give them an author to translate either out of latin into English or out of English into latin, that their translations would so differ in many sentences as that divers senses might be easily gathered out of them, And judge there upon that when wits are set contentiously to discuss every possible variety, what truth can be convinced where any two may disagree, though both acknowledge the author? An other considerable circumstance is, that amongst all ancient translations none can be rejected, because it may ever be supposed, that the reason of this variety may proceed from a various copy out of which they were translated, and by reason we cannot disapprove the copy, as we said before, we cannot therefore likewise nether justly nor certainly refuse the translation, having nothing to ground such refusal but conjectures and likelihoods which be very imperfect. And if we come to calculate, we may very well suppose that there are now some twenty translations made into several languages. I might put more, for there hath been peradventure 200 latin translations, considering the greatness of the Roman Empire for so many Ages, and the esteem of the book making every man desirous to have an exact text, none being as yet ever acknowledged for such, nor any prohibition of translating scripture. Which variety of latin translations the Protestants themselves acknowledge, and say very well that they perished after S. Hierome's correction and amendment of the Bible, whose complaints of the variety of texts all the world knows, and indeed the inutility and discommodity of such multiplicity caused them all to be neglected, though some think our vulgata editio to have ever been conserved. Howsoever we may go on with our supposition, and add, that of those twenty translations now extant every one is equal to any other, Let then a sentence be proposed, whose nature and definition is to decide a controversy, but with this condition, which ordinarily happeneth in such a case, to wit, that it dependeth on the propriety of some word, or on the Emphasis of some manner of speaking: Is it possible that any reasonable man should think that all these translations will agree in such a thing? Three or fover peradventure may, but for twenty 'tis absolutely impossible, And if any one of these translations be substantially different all the rest cannot with certainty or evidence bear it down, since this might be out of a different copy with which perhaps agreed more than we have, so that we shall still return to our former non liquet. And hence followeth that although a translation in the whole bulk be morally the same book with the original, yet metaphysically and rigorously there is great diversity, and at least such, as in our case maketh all translations of the scripture unfit to decide controversies by them.  Nephew. 
Your discourse will not only make me believe what I have heard reported S. Augustin should say, 
Epist. Man. funda. cep. 5.  that he would not believe scripture, unless the church's authority moved him thereunto, but I fear it tendeth to the too great weakening of the scripture, which hath been so happily planted in the church, and got this supereminent authority which it hath, to some good effect, without doubt, though not for the decision of controversies, and therefore you will prove to much, and in seeking to destroy one error you will be in danger to fall into an other. This I am sure of, that if you should preach this doctrine at S. Antolins, the people would stone you with their brasencornerd Bibles, though peradventure if they laid all their heads together they could not give you a sufficient answer. But thus much I learn, now when I reflect upon them, that they have no reason to object against us our trusting of our church and Pastors for the sense and explication of the scripture, whereas thē selues must needs rely upon a dozen or twenty Parsons or Ministers (if there were so many employed in their translation) for the very text itself, whose skills or wills might be defective according to their own maxim, so that we rely upon the whole church, they, poor people, upon what they neither think certain, nor infallible, nor probable, but as far as they please.  uncle. 
I will find a time to satisfy your fears of my diminishing the scripture's authority, and will show you how all I have said doth nothing prejudice the layfull and intended use of the scripture, and if I should chance to forget, I pray you put me in mind before we part. For the present I will propose you an other difficulty, which is,   

§. 7 Whether the very rehearsing and citing of an others words do not breed variety and uncertainty?  
ANd let us suppose the writer himself play the translator, As for example, that our saviour himself having spoken in Hebrew or Syriake, the Holy writer is to express his words in Greek or Latin, And farther that this which we have said of translations be (as truly it is) grounded in the very nature of divers languages, and therefore unavoidable by any art or industry, will it not clearly follow that even in the original copy written by the Euamgelist's own hand, there is not in rigour the true and self-significant words of our saviour, but rather a comment or Paraphrase explicating and delivering the sense thereof. Nay let him have written in the same language, and let him have set down every word and syllable, yet men conversant in noting the changes of meanings in words, will tell you, that divers accents in the prononciation of them, the turning of the speakers head or body this way or that way, the allusion to some person, or to some precedent discourse, or the like, may so change the sense of the words that they will seem quite different in writing from what they were in speaking. So that you see how like negligent men we commonly use to press words, as the proper and identical words of our saviour finding them registered in the Holy writ, Which in rigour and exactly speaking are but in some sort an imperfect and equivocal paraphrase or expression of Christ's own true words, the weakness of man's speech and expression bearing no greater exactness. And surely all experienced men, but especially disputatife scholar's (who find means daily to explicate the planest words of ā author to a quite different sense) will tell you, that to seek to convince an exact truth out of bare and dead words, is to put yourself into a dark some and wild labyrinth, And to rely upon them, is to fix the Chameleons colours in the current of the wind or water. Wherefore, cousin, having, I think, sufficiently told you my mind concerning the text itself, let us go farther and look into   

§. 8 The uncertainty of equivocation which of necessity is incident in all writings.  
ANd to proceed more clearly we will suppose for the present that there is but one authentical copy of the scripture, written in some one language, and hereby abstract from all varieties of texts by translations, or errors, or any such accident, and merely considere what of necessity follows out of this, that the scripture is a book written in words of men, and whether, this supposed, there can be any decisive and decretory sense evidently and certainly gathered out of it. Tell me then, cousin, do you think 'tis an easy matter to decide controversies by words? or why not?  Nephew. 
I know words are but signs of what is in our minds, set and ordained to that end by the will of man, 
wha are words.  and therefore that divers men signifying their minds by divers signs, come to make divers languages. And I know likewise that though it be an ordinary thing amongst us to hang up a bush to signify thereby that in the house there is wine to be sold, yet peradventure in an other country some thing else may signify the selling of wine, and a bush some other thing. So may it happen that the same word in one language may signify one thing and in an other, some thing else, And because I likewise see that it may so fall out that these two nations join in one, or have much commerce together, by use and custom this word may come to have two significations, even in the same language, And so will breed a difficulty in whether of the two senses it is to be taken, which I conceive is called Equivocation. 
The origine of equivocation.  And since there is no other ground for either of these significations but man's will, which cannot be easily demonstrated, I know not well how the truth can be certainly known.  uncle. 
You say very well, for the signification of words must needs depend of man's will, and of the custom or use of them, two very mutable things. Wherefore separating these two, and taking words in themselves, you shall find that man's will doth put divers significations upon the same word, either by chance, or onsett purpose; by chance as you declared but now, which in deed doth not teach to many words, but is casual as the cause of it is; on set purpose, and that either for want of words, or by desire of elegance and variety in our delivery, And this belongeth to almost all the words we have, for there is scarcely any word (if you note it) but may be so used, and if it may be so taken, it is so one time or other. This multiplicity of variously taking words in Logic is said, by who maketh the least, to be eight fold, for some make no end of multiplying the sorts of it, And under the name of Equivocation or Analogy it much confoundeth all scholastical learning. Now for the custom and use of words there be many things to be respected, as the varieties of times, and qualities of persons, for in one time a word may signify one thing, and in an other a quite different thing, So we see that those who writ of eloquence give words their births ●nd old ages. And likewise who knows not how great difference there is betwixt the use of words in the Court or university, or great cities, and the use of the same words in remoter parts and villages. Nay if you mark it you shall find that as languages in general are the institution of a multitude of men, so almost every particular man is Master, and as it were founder of some particular expressions or phrases not common to others, whereby some declare themselves more exactly and plainly, others more confusedly and ambiguously, in so much that Critics, curious in ancient Writings, Will attribute or derogate certain works from Authors upon this only ground. And now I pray, cousin, in such an ancient writing as the scripture is how many ambiguities may grow from all these principles? Or rather what certainty can be had out of such multiplicity of uncertitudes? But let me particularly urge one thing, that is, whether 'tis possible that a language should be entirely conserved in written books, which still remain the same?  Nephew. 
Why not? if there be books enough, 
How a language is conserved.  for then all the words of that language may be found in them, in all their senses, and then I think the language cannot perish.  uncle. 
Your answer is partly true, but not sufficient, for you were to considere whether so many books of one language may have been conserved▪ for if the Country be little, few books will be written in the language, but if the language be dispersed through many Countries, it will have it's proper words and significations for every Country. So that books being written for the subjects, and not for the language, (as Dictionaries and phrase books are) it must needs follow that only so much of the language will be conserved as is necessary for the understanding of those books, which of themselves are so good, as that the people will still desire to have them and continue them. Wherefore nether all books that are written, nor, (if we judge by these of our time any notable part will be conserved, nor yet the whole language contained in all the books that are written. And if part of the language be lost, part conserved, of necessity the conserved part must be imperfect by the mistake of such words as be rarely found, and where they are found, only guest at by the rest which are to make sense with them. And all this equivocal ambiguity is purely in the bare words, not yet placed in construction.  Nephew. 
I think so, uncle, for altough I see there be cases, numbers, moods, tenses, and persons in every language, yet I hope those do rather take away equivocation then make it,  uncle. 
It is true those things are made to take away equivocation, but if you reflect you shall find that the want of them, and the confused or unexact use of them, doth likewise cause it, and where they are more abundant (as in some languages) there the abuse of them is more frequent people being in nothing more unwary then in their words; And where they are but rare and few, that likewise of itself causeth ambiguity. And if you will look into those particular languages wherein the scripture was primitively written, you shall find that the Hebrew hath eight moods wholly different from any of either the Greek or Latin moods, and ever varying the sense, as much as the active and passive do in Latin and Greek. The Greeks' have seven tenses all of different significations, and of numbers, genders, persons three a piece. The Latin six cases. So that you see new occasions of Equivocation almost in every word, and consequently what obscurity and doubtfulness must of necessity follow any language or sense relying upon words; and yet for brevity sake, I have not told you the half of what the matter giveth me scope to say. for the scripture dependeth and hath been originally written in more languages than I have spoken of, Where of some have much more variety than any of those that I have expressed. For construction you may first conceive that the very pointing and accenting of words doth beget a number of doubts and Equivocations, a divers comma or virgula making some times the sense quite different. Secondly that word which is construed with an other to clear the signification of it, is some times itself of no less ambiguity than the other. Thirdly in the same construction it may happen that the same two words will have divers senses. And of all these your Grammar and Oratory Masters, do enlarge their precepts. And above all there is an Equivocation in the most common words we use, rising out of a kind of custom depending of particular times and places, which the compilers of the Civil law thought to be of so great importance as that they judged it necessary to make a special book de usu & interpretatione verborum, and that for the commonest words that were in use. These reasons, being unavoidable in any language by human industry, are more than sufficient to let you see that 'tis impossible to convince and demonstrate any thing out of bare and dead words, and that who undertakes such a task doth not see what he attempteth.  Nephew. 
If all these things be true which you tell me I wonder with what face any man can pretend to convince points of controversies so clearly out of the scripture, which some do with such confidence, for surely they must either be proud dunces, and ignorant dolts, not understanding what is proof and what is not, or else prevaricating miscreants counterfeiting what they do not believe, and think our learned men unable or unwilling to discover the folly of their enterprise.  uncle. 
Your blood is too hot, nephew, but if you said only, that such men as promise themselves victory with so much confidence in this case, are rash and unadvised, I should think you wronged them not. For the truth is, there's none but is so in his measure. And where interest or affection is joined to some little appearance, which the first sight of the text affordeth, there's presently a great impression made. It is true in so grave and important a case they ought to be more stayed, but he whose conscience quitteth him from all too forward judging of his neighbours, even in matters of consequence, let him cast the first stone for me. I will leave them to themselves, and let you see that we are not yet at an end but farther   

§. 9 That there riseth an uncertainty out of this that the scripture was written in languages now ceased.  
FOr not only the languages in which the Holy scrtpture was written, do of their own nature as I told you, breed great ambiguity in the text but also in this, that those languages are now extinct. And therefore we see that the knowledge of them is not common ad universal, but only of some particular men, and amongst them in most things mainly controverted. And of this disputable uncertainty amongst our famous linguists none can be ignorant, the number of Critics in this age, and the multitude of their volumes give sufficient testimony of it. 
The uncertainty of criticism.  Nay they will tell you that an exact and skilful knowledge in this Criticism is a necessary part and quality for all those who will profess the study or interpretation of scripture. And yet God knows upon what slight grounds they proceed, what weak ghesses are their judgments, how full of quarrels, and mistakes, so that a wise man no sooner seethe them, but seethe likewise that there is nothing but varieties of disputs upon conjectural probabilities, and nevertheless you shall have them cry out, run to the fountain, go to the spring, see the original texts, not considering that there is nothing there but troubled waters, that is, obscure conjectures. I could tell you also that often times it happeneth that such as are employed in the translations of these ambiguous originals, have got by friends and favour that preferment, and so have let pass some places in their tranlations [which I could cite) against their own judgement, to comply with the will of their patrons, and higher powers, whom they durst not resist. But in deed their principles in themselves are so uncertain, as that the best and wisest of them will confess they have been often mistaken and will not stick to change their minds now and then even in such points as they thought they had the greatest evidence their art could aftord them. What think you then, dear cousin, would become of Christian faith if it were only to rely upon such a weak foundation? Which must needs follow, if the most substantial points of Christian Religion must have their only warrant and decision from the bare written word, and be ever agitated by places of scripture, and never concluded by a definitive sentence. Were it not too tedious I would let you see the uncertainty of divers particular languages wherein several parts of the scripture are said to have been originally written, but I will only tell you in a word   

§. 10 What uncertainty followeth the two particular languages of Hebrew and Greek wherein the scripture was written.  
FIrst therefore the Hebrew hath two proprieties very considerable, the one, that it is thought to be the shortest language in the world, the other, that it is the most eloquent. For the first, it consists chiefly in the writing of the words, and in the scarcity of books. For the writing, all the vowels are supposed, not expressed in the original copies, and therefore only conserved by memory, and to memory we must trust for them. I confess they are now expressed by points, wherein there is great mistaking, the rules thereof being very uncertain, and the more in that these rules and the practice of them were varied according to the diversity of the countries wherein the jews have been dispersed. The reason of their writing without points I conceive was, because their vowels being at the first but five, by making long and short grew to be more; and so the first figures of them to stand only for the consonant use of some vowels, or else to have no sound. But what soever the origine was, the effect must of necessity breed a great obscurity and doubtfulness in the language, the vowels though fewer yet in use being very near as much as the consonants. The words are all of one or two syllables if any be of more, they are accounted exotic, and therefore very like one an other, which is also increased by the nearness of divers of their letters. So that both their pronunciation and writing being easily mistaken and confounded bring's a great disorder in the language. This is likewise augmented by the want they have of conjunctions and prepositions, which not being of a sufficient number make the construction very equivocal many times. For the scaretie of books, you may well conceive it, if you do but know that the legitimate Hebrew is wholly contained in the old scripture, whereof some parts were not written in Hebrew, and if you saw the book in a small print, and yet the letter bigger than our little latin character, you would see it is but a very little book. And what soever besides is written in Hebrew is not warrantable to explicate the text, The Rabins affecting many diversities as well in words and stile, as in writing. Nay perhaps I might add to this, that the characters themselves have been wholly changed since the beginning, and that it is credibly reported to have been once lost and restored only by the memory of Esdras. So that we have the least assurance of this language that almost can be of any not entirely extinguished For the propriety of the Hebrew's Eloquence it consisteth chiefly in figures, translations, and number. Figures or schemes are the highest part of proper Rhetoric, because they contain the greatest force and sway that words can give to our appetit, and if they be rightly applied carry a way the auditor even against his will unto a strong and sadaine action. These, although the Prophets use them more perfectly than ever any Poet or Orator did, yet do they not cause much obscurity, unless it be when they are used in Dialogue form, which where it is used in scripture, 'tis hard to discern, How soever they are a convincing proof that who useth them much intende's not his writings should be dogmatic and decisive. Translations or metaphors are cause of great obscurity, and therefore we see the Poets who chiefly use them; are not to be red (until a man be exercised in them) without study and pains. Nor do any Greek or Latin examples show that strength which the scripture hath in this kind. The number or Cadence; which one would think could not be suspected of any such matter, is a cause of great ambiguity, for the Hebrews being wholly given there unto in their scripture, have so many accents of divers effects, whereof one many times standeth for an other, or is like an other in figure, that you had need of an Ariadne to lead you thorough. Some of their accents are Grammatical, some Rhetorical, some musical, and as much a do with them as with the rest of the words, and very hard it is to know when it is one accent, when it is an other, and when it hath this effect, when that. Who therefore would have recourse to the Hebrew Text for precise and convincing decisions, doth like him, that being not skilful at his weapon, would choose, upon a challenge for the hour of his combat, a moonelesse midnight, when the skill of his enemy could not prejudice him.  Nephew. 
Marry sir I think such a man should do wisely, for the question being not of fencing but of valour, his enimie's skill would be no disadvantage unto him. But yet I cannot commend him that chooseth obscurity for the decision of a doubt, unless he fear his cause and think himself in the wrong, and then peradventure his wit may be commended.  uncle. 
It is sufficient for me, that you conceive that this is not the way to clear the truth. To the Greek text therefore, which I will tell you, that the ambiguity of it is nothing so great as of the Hebrew, yet hath it two defects. The one that it wanteth those sense varying coniugations whereby the Oriental languages express them selves, the other that by abundance or rather redundance of unprofitable varieties it is both hard to learn, and uncertain in sense, the same word signifying diversely, either because of divers Dialectes, or of divers applications of authors, so many having written in several countries not depending one of an other, and having great diversity of fancies. Their prepositions both in construction and composition are irregular, changing some times the sense of the primative very extravagantly, in so much that mere guess and conjecture must prevaille, the word, if it be common, being used in sundry senses, if it be rare, the meaning of it must be gathered out of some thing adjacent.  Nephew. 
Here is enough, uncle, of this verbal and Grammatical stuff. Wherefore I will now put you in mind of your promise, to wit, that you will tell me to what end the scripture was left to the church since by reason of its ambiguity it is not fit to be a judge of controversies?  uncle. 
I will tell you presently, but first I have a word more to say unto you, wherein, because I see you are half weary, I we willbe short, and it shallbe to show you   

§. 11 That the very nature of the books of scripture is not fitting to decide controversies.  
TEll me then, cousin, suppose you were to give a law in writing, which should last for manies ages, and be observed in many countries, how would you cause it to be written? I mean not for the language, but for the frame of the work, and for the manner or method of the delivery of it.  Nephew. 
I do not profess myself able to be a lawmaker, yet according to the example of our laws, and of the civil law, 
In What form laws ought to be made  (and I imagine the like of the laws of other countries) it were me thinks to be done thus. I would first cause the most common things to be commanded, then by degrees I would descend to particulars, still observing that several matters should be under several chapters or divisions, and not one piece here, an other there, every chapter containing all things necessarily belonging to that matter. Farther I would distinguish the degrees of commands by the degrees of penalties and rewards, And if any thing were fit, partly to be declared, partly to be left to discretion, I would express so much that there might be no mistake, As for the stile, I would endeavour to make it the most proper and exact that possibly I could, explicating ambiguous words to my power, and declaring in what sense they were to be taken, cutting of all superfluous words which might any way confound or prolong the sentences without necessity. In fine I would labour to make it the most ordinary, the most plain, and the most short that my wits could reach unto, and then according as I should have followed these rules I should think to have performed my raske.  uncle. 
I see you would make a good states man, And if reason teach you this, will not the same reason tell you likewise, that if the Author of reason himself were to give a law, would he not do the same, in a more perfect degree? And if in any book he hath not done it, doth not the same reason tell you, that his intention was not, that that book should be a judging law? Let us therefore see whether these conditions be observed in the scripture or no, And if it be manifest that the scripture hath them not, this controversy must needs be at an end, since it will evidently follow that God never ordained the scripture for any such purpose, but for some thing else, and consequently that it were as ridiculous to seek the decision of controversies out of scripture, as to cut with beetle or knoke with a straw. Deuiding therefore th' holy scripture you shall find, 
The division of the ●ookes of the old Testament.  that the books of the old Testament (saving Deuteronomie, which is, or containeth the old law, with much admixtion of history) are either Historical, oratorical, poetical, or Philosophical, Whereof the three first are excluded by their very names from the qualities and conditions of a law instituted for the deciding of quarrels, though some commands may be therein contained upon occasion. The philosophical books are such as touch little upon our controversies, because they are but either moral instructions for the life and conversation of men amongst their neighbours, or else they treat and speak only of such points as we and all our Adversaries agree in. But in deed there is a main reason against the whole text of the old law, which is, that the commands were given, as we say, personally to one people and did no farther belong to the rest of the world then in that they were natural commands, that is in the virtue of nature obliging to obedience. So that who soever will argue out of the old Testament must first prove the command to be natural, which if he do, he needeth not produce the text for it. The new Testament is Historical, Epistolar, 
The division of the books of the new Testament.  or Mystical, which by their very names and natures exclude all such exactness as of necessity is required to a judging law, they being all written vpon special occasions, and for particular ends, many things repeated, many things left out in one which are found in an other, scarcely any one knowing of an others writings. Those things which are in the History and in the Epistles, are expressed as was fitting for the understanding of them to whom they were written, or to whom the recited speech was made, circumstances far different to what is convenient and accommodated to our understandings now. And as an able man saith of history, that because it must needs lean and rely upon all circumstances even of small moment, he that should govern himself by it, must of necessity be misled: so in our case the want of knowing circumstances, and not comprehending the true meaning of what was written in a particular occasion, must of necessity make us apt and subject to take our aim and rule amiss. The mystical book which we call the Apocalips, being a pure Allegory is the most unfitting of all. This in my judgement is so evident that if any man of common sense would but reflect and really considere what is requisite to determine a litigious controversy betwixt two men passionate of their own opinions he would never say that scripture is a book either intended by almighty God, or any way fit for such a purpose. Besides a prudent and experienced man will tell you, that who looketh in to the various dispositions of men's understandings, but especially of men's wills, and seethe the variety and miltiplicitie of men's interests and passions, (Which for the most part are publicly noted in every man, or at least so inwardly hidden and secretly covered, that some times even he who would and doth swear and protest himself free from all such preoccupations, is nevertheless the most dangerously entangled) that such an one, I say, will never think to find two in two thousand who, left to their own liberty, will agree in the interpretation of any law, how plane soever, where both are oppositly interressed. But if we put this law to be supernatural and Divine, full of mystical and sublime commands, whereunto nature hath not the least inkling whereby to raise herself to the knowledge thereof, but must of necessity wholly and precisely rely upon authority and captivated her understanding in obsequium fidei, and this to the most obscure and dark points and articles that can be imagined, shall we say, that in this case; every one is to gather this law, and come to the knowledge of it, as well as he can out of the scripture alone, so full of infinite ambiguity as you have seen? Were it not first to be proved that scripture was made and intended for this end▪ which how possible it is to perform, let any indifferent man judge. Whereas to remit the judgement of all quarrels, disputes and controversies of Religion unto living men, is more efficacious, more suitable to nature and discretion, and in a word conformable to the practice of our forefathers, and to the principles of common sense and reason.  Nephew. 
I must confess I shall never think scripture was given for a judge of controversies. For to make so large a book, and to mingle in it so many things which either appertain not at all to the substance of our belief, or be very remotely connexed unto it, And then to leave it to our guessing what may be the meaning of the words, doth plainly argue some other intention in the writer then to set down a standing and authentical text to decide quarrels. And although, I hear, the Protestants say, that a plain passage cleareth an obscure, so may it be said, that an obscure passage darkeneth a clear, so that's all one. Wherefore I long to know for what use the scripture was made.  uncle. 
Have yet a little patience, cousin, 
divers substantial points have been opposed by ancient Heretics.  and make a reflection upon some chief points which have been controverted in the church of God, As by the Arrians how a spiritual and indivisible essence, such as God is, could have a natural son. By the Trinitarians and Sabellians how the same indivisible thing could be three persons. By the Nestorians and Eutychians how one person could subsiste in two natures. By the Pelagians how God's foreknowledge and predestination could stand with merits and freewill. By the Iconoclasts how the adoration of Images tended and ended in the Archetype. By the Berangarians how a natural body can have corporal presence otherwise then by its quantity. By our Wicklefists how all things be not governed by a fatal necessity, And all these renewed by the liberty and confusion of our last ages. Considere the subtility of these questions, how they are above nature and above our comprehension, how the truths of these disputes are like the passage betwixt Scylla and Charybdis, limited betwixt two errors so narrowly as that when they are spoken of at large and not dogmatically, (specially before they be examined and before the speaker by mistrust of opposition is made wary) it is almost impossible the speaker should be so just and strait in his language, as not to give occasion to one who comes after him, to pretend his favour for the one or the other error. Considere farther that wrangling wits (such as for the most part they are who first begin a new faction in the church) have this property, that they reduce their questions by little and little to logical and abstracted notions, and force the Catholics to follow them, if they will not desert their ancient truths, so that after a while one knoweth not where the controversy lieth. For example Simon Magus, and the first authors of our last Breaches, preached that faith did so justify as that good works were not necessary, now their followers draw the question to this whether faith or charity be the form of justification, which is all most pure Logic. Now if an Arrian come and tell you that the scripture saith, Pater maior me est, and therefore that Christ jesus was not truly God, nor consubstantial to his father (And the like may be said of the rest of these heresies; and even of all the most substantial and fundamental points of Christian faith) The Catholic maintaines the contrarie, now, I say, is it possible that any rational man should think that these and the like questions can be diffinitively resolved by a critical libration of dead and uncertain words full of equivocal ambiguity, their sense and meaning lying in the breast and mind of him who is not to be found, but deceased many ages ago? And if they cannot (as it is more than evident they cannot) shall we think that Christ jesus hath left and established no means or authority upon earth to take up these quarrels and decide these controversies? shall matters of such main importance and great consequence ever remain a perpetual subject of endless dissension and division? shall the Catholic church and Christian Religion be torn and rent in pieces euen in what is most substantial and essential in her (for still, I say the like may be said of what point soever) at the will and pleasure of some private mē's fancies, and no power ordained to prevent such essential and eternal disorders? If this be not to ruin and overthrew all government and Religion, and to introduce confusion both common sense and reason faileth. Put this liberty, (of believing only what he thinks he finds in the scripture) but in to one man's hands, to wit, the first beginner and broacher of a new dogme, and let him be a man to whom the sharpness of wit, and some times a seeming good life, hath given authority (though truly his spirit is governed either by a secret pride, or by some other interest or indignation) and see if such an one be not able to draw a great multitude, even the third part of the stars after him, especially if he preach liberty either of mind or body, and have with all the hand of some Prince full of rewards and punishments to second his intentions, Calculate what the industry of such a form party heartily cleaving together is not able to invente. Some have been able to cast mists even upon mathematics, and vpon the most certain principles of nature, and laying then those qualities of scripture, which I have told you of, to the disposition of those factious persons, what evidence think you can be expected from the conflicts of such men disputing upon such grounds?  Nephew. 
Truble yourself no farther in this point, for I cannot but confess that the evidence you have brought is greater than I could expect or desire. Wherefore I pray hold me no longer in suspense, but tell me   

§. 12 Which be the ways or manners of judging points of Religion out of the scripture.  Uncle. 
Why, cousin, tell me first, do you see the wall before you, some fover or five yards from you? and how much of if do you see?  Nephew. 
I see it perfectly well, God be thanked, and it is white, there is four pictures hangs on it, and half a dozen chairs stand against it, To tell you precisely how much of it I see together, that I perhaps cannot, but in a short turning of mine eye I can see it all, or very near, if I will.  uncle. 
I pray go within a span of it and then tell me what difference you find in the sight of the wall.  Nephew. 
Marry I find now that I see much less of it, but that which I do see, and which lieth directly before me, I see far better and can distinguish every little part in it, and of what colour it is.  uncle. 
Did you not tell me, cousin, the wall was white? how cometh it to pass that you tell me now you see what colour every part of it is?  Nephew. 
It seemed all white before whilst I was a good wale from it, but when I came near it, I could perceive some little parts done, others brown, and the like, but sure the white parts were much more.  uncle. 
Why then, cousin, you may think that you did not perfectly see the colour of the wall before, for the colour of the wall must needs be the colour of the parts, and you say the colour of the parts is not one but many, and therefore you only saw the colour of those parts which did exceed the rest. And if you took any of those little parts and put it in a multiplying glass, you would see as great difference of parts, and peradventure of colours to, in it, as you saw in the wall when you were within a span of it; so that if one should ask you what you have seen you would hardly quit yourself handsomely of the question. Notwithstanding you perceive well enough that the first sight of the wall serveth you for all the uses of your life, as not to run against it, and generally to know how to comporte yourself or use any thing else which were requisite to be set towards the wall or in any manner to be done about it. The second sight serveth you only to know the nature of the wall, and to distinguish what is mixed in it, or of what ingredients it is composed, or the like. So that you see the easier and more common knowledge of any thing serveth for the direction of our lives, the more particular and exact knowledge is only required either for the content of the knower, or for some special practice upon the thing known.  Nephew. 
I believe I understand already which way you intend to carry me, for you will tell me that there are two manners of vnderstanding scripture, the one a Kind of large manner, taking it in gross and a great deal together, as we take a discourse or play which pleasingly passeth away without any great demur, or particular weighing of every word; The other more curious and exact looknig into every little propriety which may breed any diversity. And I suppose you would tell me that this second belongeth only to scholars, but that the former guideth our life and governeth our actions. And 'tis true I see the people is ordinarily carried a way by their preachers, Ancient common wealths by their Orators, and in what matter soever an eloquent and elaborate discourse which passeth sweetly in this sort gain's presently the suffrages of the Auditory. Wherefore I must needs confess that what good effect soever is the end for which the scripture was ordained, if it be any thing belonging to man's life and conversation, it must be compassed by this gross, common, and ordinary course of reading and understanding it. Where as if a man should over examine every word he would not find ground to fix himself with advantage and utility. Is not this your meaning?  uncle. 
You are very right. And surely if we look into what is in the scripture necessary for our good life and virtuous conversation, we shall find plainly that 'tis to be had this way. As the direction of our lives and actions to God, acknowledging all things from him, Comfort in adversity, moderation in prosperity, compassion of the afflicted, helping of the needy, Rewards of virtue, punishments of vice, examples of both, and in a word the motives of the love of God and our neighbour, and of the contempt of the world. Who therefore is so blind as not to see that these things are to be found in the scripture by a sensible, common, and discreet reading of it; though perhaps by a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular word and syllable, any of these things would vanish away we know not how? but to come yet closer to our purpose, do you think this manner of reading scripture would make a man a perfect believer that is a Catholic? Which is as much as to ask   

§. 13 How scripture doth determine controversies?  NPEHEW. 
How should I know that, unless I were able to prove my Religion out of scripture, or at least that I were able to give a judgement of all that is in scripture? Which is beyond my capacity.  uncle. 
Then I will tell you, cousin, there are two means to make one a Catholic or a true and perfect believer. The one by showing every point of our faith in particular. And this I dare not say that our common and ordinary manner of reading or hearing scripture is able to do, for we see those who writ of controversies do allege but few places, nor those unavoidable nether, for some points of Catholic doctrine. Nor is it to be expected, Because man's nature being ever to add to what is already learned, And seeing likewise that long practice maketh men perfect in all arts, There being no prohibition to perfect in some sort the instruction of the faithful, the economy of the church, and some such other things, which the oppressed Primitive church could not bring to perfection, no maruelle I say if these and the like things can not in particular be showed in the scripture; but shall therefore I know not who rise up and exclaim these things be superstitious, hurtful to the faithful and make a schism to destroy them? Who doth not see that this were plain faction and Rebellion? The other means or way to make one a Catholic is by some common principle; as if by reading of scripture we find nothing contrary to the Catholic tenet or practice which our Adversary calls in question: or also if we find it commended there in general, or the authors and observers of it praised and extolled. And in this way I doubt not but a sensible and discreet reading of scripture at large, may and will make any true student of it, a perfect believing Catholic, so he proceed with indifferency, and with a mind rather to know scripture then to look for this or that point in it. But now can you tell me, cousin, how it cometh to pass that since by an exact and particular examination of the words of scripture these truths cannot be convinced and beaten out of it, how, I say, is it possible that by a common and ordinary reading of it these truths should appear, for that cannot be in the sum, which is not in the particulars.  Nephew. 
I can tell you that there is the same difficulty in the divers sights of the wall, which you made me experience but even now, but to yield you a good reason either of the one or the other, that passeth my understanding.  uncle. 
Have you not seen an invention of the Architects, who can so dispose pillars in a gallery that setting your eye in a certain position you shall see the figure of a man or a beast, and walking a long the gallery to go to it, it vanisheth away and you shall see nothing but pillars? Or have not seen a silinder or pillar of glass, before which if you lay certain papers full of scrawolles and scrables and looking into the pillar you shall see the picture of a man, or the like? As these are done so it happeneth in our case, both in the eye and in the understanding. For the art of these things is, that certain parts may so come together to the eye, as that other parts either by situation, or by some other accident, remain hidden, and that those parts which appear being seen without the others, will make this or that shape. In our case likewise the quantity of the seen parts exceeding the unseen keeps the whole possession of the eye, in the sight, and of the understanding, in reading, not letting the rest appear. And hence it is also that this common manner of using scripture is more secure than the exact balancing of it. For nether the variety of translations, nor the errors of copies, nor the difficulties of languages, nor the mutability of words, nor the multiplicity of the occasions and intentions of the writers, nor the abundance of the things written, nor the different framinge of the books, which be the causes of uncertainty in a rigorous examination, have any such power as to break the common and ordinary sense or intention of the writer in general, as all books testify unto us. And hence it is likewise, that the holy fathers pressed scripture against the Heretics of their times, partly forced thereunto because the Heretics generally will admit of no proof but out of the scripture; but chiefly by reason their works are diffuse and oratorical, befitting people used to orations and sermons, as the Greeks' and Romans were, divers of the fathers them selves bred in that sort of learning. Wherefore you shall have them cite many places, some proper, some Allegorical, some common, all, some times, avoidable if they be taken separately, but the whole discourse more or less forcible according to the natural parts or heavenly light more or less communicated to one then to an other, yet still in the proportion of orators who speak to the multitude and not to Socrates or Crysippus. Wherefore the scripture in this kind was a fitting weapon for them, and the church's continuing and reremaining in their doctrine showeth that they used it dexterously, and as it ougth to be used with relation and dependence of tradition.  Nephew. 
Why then, sir, must all disputation of Religion out of scripture be abolished? For if there can be no certainty gathered out of it in a decisive and definitive way, to what purpose should a man either allege it, or admit it in disputes of Religion? at least tell me I pray   

§. 14 What laws are requisite for disputation out of scripture?  UNCLE. 
I am far from disliking disputation out of scripture, so it be done with those conditions which are fitting, and which may bring the matter to some upsh ott. The first rule I would have a Catholic observe is, not to dispute with a Protestant, unless he promise to prove his position evidently and manifestly. For since the Catholic knows there may be certain witty probabilities and hard places of scripture brought against him, it were madness in him to leave his tenet, custom [optima legum interpres) standing for him, and the practice of the church being on his side, which is the greatest argument that can be brought to show how and in what sense the scriptures, which that church herself delivereth, are to be understood, it were, I say, mere folly in a Catholic to leave his tenant and accept of an other only for a probable and likely interpretation, his own being confirmed by that practice which maketh it more than probable. And it is clear, the Protestant must needs plead against possession, for at the first breaking when the Protestants pretended to reform the church, she was surely in possession of those things which they pretended to take away, and in possession of that sense of the scripture which they pretended to be false and wrong. And surely no man of common sense who is in possession, and hath the law in his own hands, will yield it up without evidence on the contrarie part. The second rule I desire a Catholic should observe is, not to think his cause lost because himself cannot answer the arguments proposed against him, nor to venture his cause and his possession upon his own wit. For the disputation being in a matter wherein, according to the Protestants grounds, there is no certainty, it followeth that who hath the better wit, or is more practised in this matter, may bring an argument a good scholar cannot solve at the first sight, though afterwards either he or some other may. And what a folly were it for a man to venture his soul and conscience upon a subtility or present flash of wit, whereof peradventure within an hour he himself will see the falsity, and condemn his own error. Wherefore a Catholic is not to venture the cause upon his own head, nor to confess it weak because he cannot defend it, for both may he improve him self, and some others perhaps may go far beyond him. The third rule is, that the Catholic should never undertake to convince his Adversary out of scripture, but content himself that these words may well bear this sense, which is in favour of the Catholic church, And this is both more easy to perform and sufficient for his purpose. For the Catholic hath an assured ground of his faith besides scripture, and which relieth not upon it, nay he holdeth that his Religion cannot be wholly convinced out of scripture, to what end therefore, (unless he would show his wit) should he undertake to prove his tenants, by scripture? For this were to strengthen his opponent in his own ground and principle, to wit, that all is to be proved out of scripture.  Nephew. 
You would bind Protestants to very unequal conditions, if you will oblige them to convince, and the Catholic not, nay that it shallbe sufficient for the Catholic to show this may be the meaning of this or that place of scripture, whereas the Protestant shallbe forced to prove clearly and evidently that this is the very sense of the text.  uncle. 
Not I, cousin, but the Protestants themselves oblige thē selues to this hard measure, for if a man should strongly maintain that a Beetle were the best instrument, to cut withal, and you say no, were not he bound to cut with a Beetle, and it were no sense, to say, that you should be forced to do it, since you maintain it to be impossible. So they who hold that the scripture is the true judge of controversies, and fit and able to decide all quarrels and dissensions about the Christian faith and law, bind themselves, by holding this, to convince their positions by scripture, which cannot be exacted at his hands, Who saith scripture was not made for this end, nor is sufficient for it. And look upon Luther and the Heretics of his timen, nay upon the Puritants of our days, and see if they do not all maintain, that they can convince their tenants by scripture, and say that our forefathers were wholly ignorant of scripture, and that we now living know nothing of it. But to go on with our rules of disputing out of scripture. The fourth condition shall be that the Catholic do not admit any negative proofs, as to say, this is an error because you can show no scripture for it. For this is no proof unless they will suppose that nothing is true but scripture, or that there is nothing to be done but what is ordained by scripture, which were absurd, for nether Catholic, nor, I think, any good Protestant will admit of that supposition, being it were not only to take away the power of the church, but even nature from nature, for nature teacheth us to help our selves where scripture doth not contradict, and as a Puritan seeketh a pulpit or high place to preach in, without looking whether he have a warrant for it in the scripture to command him, so rational and sensible men do seek a particular habit for a preacher or Clergy man whereby he may be more decent and comely, and his words and exhortations be received with more respect and authority, and this without any command of the scripture, which, where it commandeth, it maketh the thing commanded, to be necessary, where it is silent, there it maketh nothing unlawful.  Nephew. 
If the Protestants were to disput upon these conditions they would keep of I warrant you. Yet this I must tell you, that it were a great satisfaction for indifferent men, that have been brought up in this verbal and apparent respect of the scripture, to see that the positions you would induce them unto, can be and are maintained by scripture, and that they are grounded therein. This perhaps you can do by showing me some other way of dealing with them, and whether there be not   

§. 15 An other manner of disputing out of scripture.  Uncle. 
For their sakes, cousin, I will tell you of an other sort of disputation, wherein the Protestant shall have no other disadvantage but of his cause. For I think that the Catholic cause may not only be maintained by scripture, but also that it hath the better standing precisely to scripture alone. I confess this kind of disputation is not fit for many Auditors, but only for moderate and understanding men. And it is to make this, the question. Whether party is more probable if only scripture were to be alleged. This Question requireth divers suppositions where upon both sides are to be agreed, which I fear will be some what hard. As what texts are to prevaille, what commentaries or explications shall be allowed of, what is a proper and an improper speech, amongst improper speeches which must be preferred, what copies of every text shallbe held for good, what conjectures shall be accounted null against the natural sense, And many other such positions which would not be easily resolved. This done let both sides bring their places for the point in question, and so the disputation will only be of the qualification of the places, that is, to show whether are more apparent and likely of the two. And for this I see lekewise that so many logical principles are first to be resolved, which partly are found as yet amongst the critics disputations, as that all the Logic's hitherto invented would not afford sufficient light and instruction, to make an evident conclusion, whether side were more apparent in words and Tetxs'. And therefore you may guess how far these disputations out of scripture are from clearing doubts, what little good cometh of them, unless they be well governed, And how for the most part the best credit or the best tongue carrieth away the day by the Auditor's preiudicat opinion or weakness. In a word the scripture being not written for this end, to wit, for the decision of controversies, it is not to be expected that it should be, of itself, without the church's authority much profitable for that purpose, but to inform our lives by an ordinary reading of it, or by preaching, singing, and such like uses, things recommended in the very letter itself, whereas we are never sent to the word for the deciding of controversies. And now I hope you are fully satisfied.  Nephew. 
I am so in deed, and give you many thanks, for I see that how few points soever the Protestants pretend to be necessary, yet can there not any thing be convinced out of bare words inuoluing so many uncertainties as you have told me of.  uncle. 
It is to little purpose for them to say that some few substantial and necessary points may be proved out of scripture, it were fit they would first prove that the scripture is an instrument made to determine controversies, or any other of those principles, which I showed you must of necessity be true, if scripture be our rule. But this they can never prove, And therefore they seek first to withdraw, us from a secure and natural means of relying upon our forefathers, (Which nevertheless in all civil and economical conversation they themselves can not live without) and then to leave us to a labyrinth of voluntary and unendable disputations. Reflect than I pray, cousin, upon what we have said, and compare our yesternights and this our morning's discourse together, considering first how many things are of necessity to be conserved in the church for the preservation of faith and good life in her subjects; Then see how many points have been and are quarrelled, and if any have escaped, how all the rest may be called in question with as much probability and appearance as these are, Then look upon the qualities of that Decider of controversies where unto all the Adversaries of the Catholic church do seek to draw us, by which there can be no other end of controversies but to leave every man to his own will. And then conclude that these positions being put, there will nether remain government in the church, nor certainty or constancy in belief, nor any thing to be taught and practised worthy God Allmightie's sending of a lawgiver, muchless of sending his own son upon those hard conditions which we apprehend of jesus Christ and read in the Gospel.  Nephew. 
It is very true but if your leave me thus I shall be like him who had fargot his Pater noster but not learned his Our father. For you have taught me what I cannot rely upon, but not what I ought to rely upon, And there is so much said against the authority of the church by all her Adversaries, that a man who hath been ever beaten to those objections, cannot easily leave them without some scruple.  uncle. 
You are in the right, the most necessary part is yet behind, for a little building is better than a great deal of pulling down. Therefore when your leisure serveth you I will be ready to give you satisfaction to the best of my power. But now this morning is too far spent to begin so large a discourse as that question doth require, Take an other time, and the sooner the more welcome, But for the present God be with you, I have some prayers to save.    

THE THIRD DIALOGUE. By what means Controversies in Religion may be ended.  

This Dialogue containeth 15. parts or paragraphes.  
1. THe Preface or Introduction.  
2. What force the arguments of Protestants against Catholics ought to have?  
3. That standing in likelihood the Catholic party is greater, more learned, and more virtuous.  
4. Of what efficacity is this argument?  
5. That it is no hard matter that Christ's law should have descended entire unto us.  
6. That if Christ's law could have been conserved, it hath been conserved  
7. That no great error could creep in to the church of God.  
8. That the truth of the Catholic doctrine hath continued in the church.  
9 That the dissension of Catholic Doctors concerning the rule of faith doth not hurt the certainty of tradition.  
10. That the teaching of Christian doctrine without determining what of necessity is to be believed and what not, hurte's not the progress of tradition.  
11. That no error can pass universally through the church of God.  
12. That these precedente discourses bear an absolute certainty.  
13. Some objections are solued.  
14. The Examples of traditions which seem to have failed are examined.  
15. The conclusion of the whole discourse.   

§. 1 The Introduction.  NEPHEW. 
I am come, uncle, to challenge you of your promise, for I cannot be quiet until you have settled me in this so weighty a matter. If the points which are in controversy be as you say, and as you have clearly showed me, of great consequence, and that by scripture we cannot decide them against contentious men, I see that either we must seek some other means, or else all Religion willbe confounded, and the truth of Christ's law unknown and neglected. Wherefore I pray (if you can) give me a strong resolution in this point.  uncle. 
Why, nephew, if this fervour continue you will not need be a scholar but for a year, and a day, I pray you considere it is a fair day, and you never want employment for the afternoons when the weather's fair, if I should stay you now, you would perhaps so repent it, that I should not, I fear, see you again this month, be not so greedy as to take a surfeit.  Nephew. 
I fear my own inconstancy and therefore I pray refuse me not, discontinuance may breed coaldnesse, specially if what you have already taught me should be sullied with worse thoughts, and then I should not be so capable of your instructions as I hope I am at this present, Which I have good reason to make great esteem of.  uncle. 
Well if you will have it so, you must give me leave to trench upon a good part of your Afternoon, for I may be long in this point, and I would be loath to break of in the middle. Yet I will be as short as possibly I can. Tell me then, had jesus Christ ever a church or no? And I would have you answer me, what you think a judicious Protestant would say to the same demand.  Nephew. 
I doubt not but any Protestant of them all would answer you, that at least in the Apostles time Christ had a visible church, consisting of the faithful which adhered to the Apostles and such Bishopps as were made by them; but that since that time it is fallen into great errors, and either mainly Apostated from the true doctrine of Christ, or at least ●o deformed it, that a reformation was necessary even in points of belief, And this reform their forefathers undertook.  uncle. 
You are likewise persuaded, I suppose, cousin, by the same evidence, that in the Apostles time this church was a communion with the particular church of Rome and therefore I will go a little further and ask you, whether you do not think, that this church, Whereof the particular church of Rome was a part (and peradventure the principal) Was not to be obeyed by every particular man and every particular church, she being the whole they but members or parts? She having received Christ's doctrine, and therefore able to teach it, she having received the Keys of heaven, and therefore who refused to hear her should be esteemed as a heathen or Publican. And in a word she being the spouse of jesus Christ, and the mother of this faithful children.  Nephew. 
All this is so euident that I think nether Protestant nor Puritan will deny it. But what do you draw out of this?  uncle. 
Nay softly, cousin, I must ask you one question more before I conclude any thing, and it is. What became of this church when it fell from Christ? I mean, were the men and their governors suddenly extinct, and others raised in their places, or did there still continue a public face and successive government of the same church even in their errors, and so the external church remained and descended to our days, though with corrupt faith and doctrine?  Nephew. 
This I doubt not likewise but every one will grant you, for all the Protestants that ever I heard do acknowledge it, nor do I imagine that any will deny it.  uncle. 
Why then, cousin, we will draw this conclusion, that, That church which is now in communion with the particular church of Rome, was once the true church, or if you please to say, she was but a part of the true church, so let it be at least she had the true faith and doctrine, and every particular man or church with in her own compass was obliged to obey her, as having those worthy titles which you acknowledge even now to be then due unto her. But now if a Protestant telleth you, she hath since fallen and lost those goodly titles, How would you convince him? or at least can you tell me.   

§. 2 What force the arguments of Protestants against Catholics in this question ought to have?  NEphew. 
To convince a Protestant in this point I would have recourse to books and learned men, who should maintain and show that his position were false, for I am not so well learned as to be able to prove it of myself.  uncle. 
I hold you not for a wary gamester at this play, for why would you leave your best wa●d and put yourself upon the disadvantage? I mean why will you put yourself to prove the negative, your adversary being obliged to convince the positive? for if he confesse, as he doth, our church was once the true church, we have the presumption on our side, until he prove the contrary. Besides our church was once the spouse of Christ by their own verdict, though now the stile her the whore of Babylon, Erroneous, and Adulteress. And how I pray you, cousin, would yourself take it, if one should say the like imputation upon your bedfellow without sufficient proof to make it good? And imagine Christ jesus will be no less offended to see his dear spouse, whom he bought and washed with his own heart's blood, so shamefully traduced without a legitimate cause and just occasion. Do you think he will not brand such accusors for infamous and sacrilegious calumniators? Or if such an accusor should fail of his proof, doth he not convict himself of the most heinous crime that can be imagined? And likewise if this same church was erected and instituted by God himself for our lawful Lady and true Governess, can you think that who revolteth from the loyalty and obedience due unto her, without evident proof of her escheat from that throne and dignity, doth not declare himself a traitor and rebel to God and her? And in a word if she once were that church to whom Christ gave the rod of justice, and sent all professors of his name to hear her voice and sentence under penalty of being reputed heathens and publicans, doth not he incur those curses and deserve those ignominious titles, who doth leave her and divide himself from her without legal warrant of his separation? Doth not therefore common sense conclude, that who soever confesseth the Roman Catholic church to have been the true and lawful church of Christ, is by this very deed obliged to prove clearly and evidently her fall from that majesty, or else in his own conscience and judgement must needs be liable to those fall and unworthy taints of treason and rebellion against God and his church?  Nephew. 
I confess you speak no parables, nor is there any deep learning required to conceive the evidence of your discourse. Yet this I must tell you that I fear you might have spared your labour, for there's no protestant but will easily undertake to prove that the Roman church is gone astray, for if they cannot do this they can do nothing, their whole Religion being but, as they themselves confess, a taking away of abuses crept in, and their Divinity no other than to show this. And if you would show their proofs to be insufficient, I fear you would require a greater scholar than myself to comprehend your reasons.  uncle. 
Be not discouraged, nephew, but look into the case, and tell me what Kind of proofs you think the Protestants are bound to bring to 〈◊〉 themselves from those heavy censures I told you of▪ Do you think it were sufficient to bring such arguments as some philosophers brought to prove snow to be black? Or such as by man's wit, and the art of topickes, a good logician may frame vpon a subject given him? in which kind some great men have taken pleasure to commend baldness, blindness, and the like imperfections, others to contradicte manifest truths, as that there never was any war of Troy. Nay do you think, cousin, 'tis sufficient that their arguments be only as good as those which the Catholics bring against them? Or in a word ought not their arguments to be evident and unanswerable in every indifferent and understanding man's iudgment? That is, should they not be such, as that a man expert in controversies and of a sound and unpassionate judgement, having seen what the most learned Catholics can say against the protestants proofs, must nevertheless think in his hart that they neither have giuen nor can give any contenting and satisfactory answer thereunto?  Nephew. 
The plain truth is, if it were my case betwixt my wife and myself, I should not think to have corresponded with my loyalty towards her, nor with that care of her honour which I ought to have, until I had ventured my life to have his heart's blood who should have sought to wrong her reputation so highly without such proof as you require. Nether do I believe that any Prince or state would think him a loyal subject, who should conceal and foster that man that should disperse and so we in the hearts of their subjects the like suspicions against their government. 'tis true I should be willing to hear of my wiue's misdemainours before they come to that height and evidence, for mine own caveat, if (which God forbidden she should prove untrue. But there is a great difference betwixt giving warning of likelihoods and apparences of a mischief, whereby it may be prevented, and blemishing or staining my wiue's and mine own honour with the deepest disgrace that can fall upon such an individual couple. Besides I know the bond of love and duty betwixt man and wife to be so great, as that ordinary suspicious ought not to persuade 〈◊〉 ●rea●● in so strong a knot, the greater and harder effect must have a more powerful cause, and it were a folly to think all proofs sufficient and befitting all cases. And in my mind the reason is, because no amity nor fidelity can subsists, if such principles were suffered to be taught and mantained. For how is it possible human accidents of themselves being intricate and variable, and men now adays so witty to do harm and mischief) but that every false tongue shall set dissension betwixt the nearest and dearest couples, And mutiny and stir up to sedition the most faithful subjects against their Prince, if less than moral evidence be sufficient to prove matters of this nature and quality? Wherefore I do not think his Majesty would suffer his preachers to draw their PediGree from Rome, if he did not persuade himself they were able to bring satisfactory proofs of their relinquishing that authority, for this were to authorise a Rebellion against the court and state of conscience, Which hath a greater force and power then pure temporal Allegiance, this being grounded upon oath and duty, both which receive their strength and virtue from conscience. If therefore you intend to give me full satisfaction in this point, you must clearly show unto me that the Protestants proofs are insufficient. Which though I doubt not of it, seeing our men have ever been so ready to buckle with the Protestants even vpon most disaduantagious conditions, yet I conceive that this cannot be otherwise effected then by experience, bringing them to dispute together.  Uncle 
Dear cousin I am heartily glad to hear you discourse so strongly and solidly, it give's me great hopes of your future abilities. But if you will have patience, yourself shall be judge of my question, nor do I think it needful to have recours to any farther learning then common sense and natural reason, first therefore let us see whether   

§. 3 Standing in likelihood the 〈…〉 party be greater, more learned, and more virtuous.  
SVppose than you had a case in law of great difficulty, and that you should consult in Council a dozen or twenty lawyers reputed the best of the Prea●●●e, or at least the worst of them far beyond your skill to judge whether he were not as able as the best, And of these twenty seventeen or eighteen of them should say, you would infallibly lose your cause, if you took such or such a course in it, the other 2. or 3. should as constantly affirm you would win it, in so much that the question would be brought to this contestation, whether lawyers were more learned and skilful. To which side would you cleave in this case?  Nephew. 
If you suppose me unable to judge of their skill and learning, and that they be all equally reputed honest men (though in deed I cannot well see how they can come to such an obstinate contestation if they be all as they are reputed) I must needs choose the multitude, and either take with the seventeen or play the fool notoriously. I see well enough what you aim at, to wit, that because Catholic countries are greater than Protestants, judgement therefore is to be given on the Catholics side. But I pray, how shall I know that there be more learned men amongst Catholics then amongst Protestants? Or that the Catholic Doctors be more learned them ours at home? ti's true I know our learned men say that they Protestants of other countries are not of the same Religion with ours hear in England, yet I see they agree all together against us, what discords soever they have amongst themselves.  uncle. 
Your fresh wits run to fast, Remember you were supposed to be ignorant of the proportion of their learning in your lawyer's case, and therefore choosed the multitude. Wherefore as long as it is constantly confessed that there be far more learned men Catholics, then there be learned Protestants, so long the lay people ignorant and unable to judge of learnings must stand convinced by the multitude, of which this vulgar knows no more but that they are accounted learned by those amongst whom they live, as ours are hear with us. And to give you farther satisfaction in this point, 
There be more learned Catholics then Protestant's  you know that man for man, by all likelihood, Readers of Divinity are the greatest scholars, their exercise and profession (specially if they be of many years) enabling and improving them more than others who have not the like occasion. Of these compare the number which England afforde's to the multitudes which Catholic countries yields. You have been in Paris where you might have seen in some one house or College more than be in all England, whereof some have taught Divinity a dozen or twenty years, five or six actually reeding, and as many perhaps, who having spent a great part of their age in that profession, have now given over, I speak no secrets, the most ignorant man that is may see and prove what I say with his own eyes either in Italy, spain, Germany, France, or Low countries. And I may add that the time which one of them spende's in study is double to what one in our Universities hear in England doth employ. These being married men having care of their wives and Children, and are, saith S. Paul, divided, 
1. Cor. 7.  one half to their books, the other to their househould, And you know wives are no friends of books, learning and children spring both from the brain, and both require abundance of spirits, and therefore not well mached together. And sure amongst Catholics a learned resolution is rather to be looked for at a Priest's hands (ordinarily speaking) then from a married man, by reason his time, breeding, and employment are more proportioned thereunto. To these learned men now living you may add all that lived for many ages, not so unlearned as the Protestants persuade themselves, since the very first beginners of protestancy met with their matches, such as they either did not dare to meet face to face, or if they did, they still came of with dishonour. Wherefore every man that vnderstande's any thing more than his own home must needs grant that if number or likelihood of persons may carry the cause, the question in ended. Whereunto I could add that reason which you mentioned, how the Protestants in divers countries are not of our Religion, nether in respect of belief or Government. 
No two Protestants of one Religion  They Tiff●●i● so many points that they da●●● one the other for 〈◊〉 believers. Do but examine whether the positions wherein they disagree amongst themselves be not of as main importance as those wherein we differ from them all, and you shall find many of thento be the very same. Naythere be not two Doctors or persons bear in England of one Religion, no nor too lay men, who give themselves to expound scriptures, and make their private spirit judge of their belief and tenets. And this, not only because so many variable fancies, grounded every one vpon itself, cannot possibly agree (whereupon you shall hardly see two meet and confer of Religion, but they will disagree if they talk long) but also because all knowledge hath its unity from some settled and certain principles, which being not to be found out of the Catholic church in matters of Religion, there can be no unity or belief amongst Protestants. For althought our Parliament hath commanded divers articles to be ●●ght in the churches of England, yet doth not the Protestant Clergy acknowledge that the Parliament, who are the●●●●●ke and taught by the 〈…〉 any power to judge or determine points of doctrine. And in deed it were ridiculous for those, who think that an universal Congregation of Bishopps, and the body of the whole church may err in belief, should 〈◊〉 no attribute this unerrable power to their own scholars. Nether do they, that I know of, but still maintain constantly their chief ground that all when are fallible and subject to err. 
why Protestants ought not force any man to believe with them.  Where by the way you may note, how hardly they deal with Catholics in punishing them for professing a different faith from theirs, seeing that if we believe differently we must needs profess differently: and they, by their own confession, not having any authority whereby they can or ought force any man to believe as they do, 'tis evident that they must per force contradicte their own principles if they will persecute us. Now therefore seeing, that to be of one faith, is to be of one settled opinion, and settling cannot be without infalibility or necessity, the Protestants having no common principles which themselves esteem infallible (every man expounding scripture, (their only rule of faith) at his pleasure, nor any having power or authority to control an others interpretation of any passage what soever) 'tis impossible any two ministers should be of one faith and Religion. 'tis true, per chance they may be of one mind to day, but ear night if either of them light of a place of the scripture which after more consideration seemeth to have an other sense than he thought before, they may well be of different opinions; And this in what point how material or essential soever. These men therefore may be said to be some times of one mind or opinion, but never of one faith and Religion, faith being like marriage, not to be taken up for a year and a day, but for all Eternity. 
The learned Catholics be more learned than the learned Protestants.  And now to return to the discourse we aim at. As the number of our learned men doth far exceed the number of learned Prostants, so likewise by all likelihood doth their learning. The English Divinity, generally speaking, is nothing but controversies, which are but the fourth or fift part of Catholic Divinity. For besides controversies, we have scholastical Theologie, which explicate's the mysteries of our faith, and shows their conformity to nature and natural reason. We have moral Divinity, which searche's into the practice of the Sacraments and Precepts of good life. We have scripture lessons, which dive into the deep sense of the written word of God without farther application. We have mystical Theologie, which examine's the extraordinary ways of conversation with God. And lastly we have Ecclesiastical history, which shows the progress, increase, and practice of Christian faith through all ages and places. And of all these we have, I do not say books or volumes, but whole libraries written and extant amongst us. And for other eruditions, as languages, Poetry, Rhetoric, Logic, and Philosophy, if the Protestants have any, let them look into their samples, and they shall find the most eminent and worthy men to have been and to be Catholics, so that as of all Religions the Christian, so of all Christian's the Catholic is without question the most wise, and the most learned profession. And what I say is not to be sought out in old manuscripts or learned papers, your eyes and ears will tell it you in Catholic countries, and even in Paule's church yard, where you may find multitudes of volumes of all these sorts of learning written by Catholics, And if their shops were well shaked up, I doubt not but for books of worth (except some English pamphletts and a few controversies) one hundreth for one would be found to have been written by Catholics. What appearance then can there be, that the Protestants arguments should be so mighty and so clearly better than what Catholics can say for themselves, as to bear down the right of Antiquity and possession, whereof the Catholics are the sole claimers.  Nephew. 
I cannot deny but that your discourse is sound and grounded upon common sense, and upon such evidence as when I was in Paris I heard was there to be seen, but my mind was then more fixed upon the Tennis court then upon such inquiries. But why might not one reply that all this and more is necessary for the justifying of so evil a quarrel? If Catholics be not honest and virtuous men the more learned they are, the more dangerous and more able to maintain a false position. And 'tis like the Protestants would reply in this manner, for they tell us, that the Pope hath got so mighty a power over our very understandings that for many ages we have bend all our wits how to maintain his tiles and decrees without any care of truth or probability, wherefore the more wit and learning the more blindness of passion and interest. 
As the learned Catholics are more learned then the learned Protestants: so they are more virtuous than they.   uncle. 
I did not think that learning had deserved so ill at your hands as to censure it so severely. No, no, cousin, one man, or two, or three may be the more dangerous for their learning, but not whole multitudes. For of it's own nature it is a great instrument of virtue, being the Companion of truth, so that there can be no greater sign of truth in any Religion, then to see it bear the touch of reason, and that the professors of it be addicted to learning. Besides, I pray, remember I speak to one who professeth no schollershippe, and therefore do not inquire what is, or is not, but what is most likely and apparent. It must therefore be known that the Religion is false, before it can be presumed that men bent and strain their learning to maintain a falsity; For otherwise the very fame of learning bear's with it the credit and esteem of truth and honesty; And who delight's in learned labours is commonly free both from quarrellsome interest, and hurtful pleasures, out of which do spring all cunning fraud and circumvention, whereupon a mere scholar is quit, by this very name, from suspicion of guile and craftiness. But how soever our Religion hath, besides learning, manifest signs of honesty and virtue. For all the points wherein we differ from Protestants are of that nature, that they incite us to the practice of some virtue or other. As we say charity and the keeping of the commandments do justify, and deserve eternal reward. Confession bring's the remembrance and sorrow for our sins, satisfaction is performed by good deeds, Praying for the dead, praying to Saints, keeping and reverencing Pictures of Christ and his Saints, And above all the presence of God in the B. Sacrament, All which be matters of great moment and consideration continually provoking us to lift up our minds to God and heaven, to think of the life to come, and to practice virtuous actions. The most earnest Protestant, who hath but cast his eye beyond the sea, cannot deny but there's a main difference in exterior devotion amongst Catholics above Protestants. Our churches are open every day, service and Masses said all the fore noon, and in divers there is service a great part of the after noon. Our service is much longer than the Protestants. Our ceremonies and magnificence very spectable. Our Sacraments more in number, more frequented, and done with more state and reverence. The riches of our churches, Altars, Pictures inestimable. Our solemnities and Triumphs glorious, perpetual sermons on festifall days, and on every day in the lent and Aduent, the B. Sacrament often exposed with great concourse of devout people, as all Protestant travellers can witness. Add to these the multitudes of Religious men and women, whose profession is retired from businese and the world to have more time to converse with God. The often miracles, the frequent Saints and holy men, that cannot be denied but at least we think and say we have them. In a word the Protestant's faith seems like the piece of money buried in the ground, and the Catholike's like a burning torch which forceth all within its sphere to cast their eyes upon it. I know the ready answer is, that all is but hypocrisy, and that there is as great wickedness amongst Catholics as amongst Protestants. But I could wish that he who is thus rash and ready to say this, were as curious and careful to know how to prove it. For it were absurd to think that who strikes but one blow in twenty in a smith's shop should make as great a dint as he who strikes twenty. And surly no less foolish it were to think that whose hearts and hands are continually busied about God and godly things should make no greater impression in their souls then they who say not a prayer once a month, and whose chief deuotion is to hear a man make a pleasing discourse in a pulpit. I will not deny but that there be as fowl sinners and as many amongst Catholic as amongst Protestants, if not more and wickeder. For sacrilege cannot be so great where sanctity is less, and who best knows his Master's will must needs deserve most stripes for his trespass. No man could damn his posterity but who had original justice to lose, nor could any betray Christ but who had eat bread at his table. Wherefore Protestants cannot be so wicked as Catholics, having not such a saintly faith nor such a sacred church to disgrace and abuse. Yet do I not think but that a good argument may be made for our church by its saintitie, remembering well what an English Protestant Clergy man of note, who had been at Rome after his conversion, was wont to say when he heard any speak against the vices of the Court of Rome. I have known, quoth he, many and many of the Protestant clergy as honest men as ever I met withal in my life, in whose hands I durst venture my state and life, but I never knew any who had the reputation and esteem amongst wise men to be a saint, or of extraordinary holiness: Here in Rome I see in a small number of great Prelates two or three that have the fame of extraordinary virtue, and the like I find of all sorts both of church men and laity, some to be reputed exemplarly holy. As for the vices, whereof I hear the reports, and doubt not but they are to true, yet I see they are carried discreetly and break not forth into any public scandal. So that although Protestants have divers moral honest men and Catholics many wicked, yet doth it not follow that they are equal in behaviour. For Catholics have some Saints Protestants none, Catholics faults are in proportion fewer, Protestant's good works very defective in the like proportion, And this difference is such an one as worthily makes a mark of the Catholic church, and as in deed is befitting a church made of men who bear immortal souls in vessels of flesh and blood.  

The Pope's spiritual; poWer is no tyranny but Was ever the same.  But I had almost forgotten the difficulty you made of the Pope's tyrannising and forcing all men's wits to serve him. Do you think he tyranize's the bodies or the minds? If the minds, why then he hath persuaded them his pwer is lawful, given by jesus Christ and continued since his time. Wherefore these men who are thus persuaded being so many, so learned, and withal so upright, as that for conscience sake they will forgo the very liberty of their understandings, make a great argument that the truth is as they say. For otherwise how easy were it for a king of France, or spain, or Emperor to follow the example of England, Holland, and divers states of Germany who would aid and back them if they would renounce this pretended Tyranny, whereas these Revolters from the church of Rome did it without any present example, nay with the detestation of all their neighbours. Besides all the Pope's names and actions are registered if they did any thing of note, if they changed but their attire, consecrated a Bishop, sent a Cardinal's cap, or the like, all is upon record; Only this action of conquering the whole world in the way of an universal father, of setting this spiritual throne not only above Kings and Monarches Bishopps and Patriarches, but even above the wisdom of the sages, and above the valour of undaunted courages, this only, I say, by all Historians must have been accounted unworthy of mention. But remember, cousin, that common sense teaches us, That a thing so much against the general current of the public church of Christ for so many ages ought to be well proved according to the rule you granted me even now, before it pass without control.  Nephew. 
Truly, sir, me thinks you speak with reason and common sense. Yet this authority being so great, I see not, Why it may not of itself, and by its instruments work such an effect, as that learned men (upon whose number I am to rely) may not become partially affected in the judgement of Religion, and consequently the greater number be more corrupted than the lesser, and so the opinion of three were to be preferred before the opinion of the seventeen. Nay in my judgement experience tell's us that not every tenth person amongst learned Catholics do know the true value and force of our Adversary's arguments, but with a preoccupated disposition undervalue them when perhaps they cannot give a full and satisfactory answer unto them. And how should it be otherwise, since from our childhood we are taught to rely upon the church for matters of Religion, and to reject and hate any man who should seek to make a contrary impression in us. This being planted in us in our tender age, and growing with nature cannot choose but make a vehement preoccupation in us when we come to be able to judge of controversies in Religion. Nor is it to the purpose whether it be fit that we have such an impression or no, for I oppose not the thing, but the argument which vrge's for the greater number of learned men.  uncle. 
And have you not marked the like amongst Protestants, and much more amongst Puritants? And do you not find that those who slight Catholic arguments, are no less preoccupated than the Catholics▪ you speak of? Nay if you mark it, they greatest contemners of their Aduersarie's arguments, be they Catholics or Protestants, are commonly the most zealous, or rather the most ignorant of the zealous. So that in deed the true cause of this partiality is ignorance, and not any prohibition, which contrariwise is a great provoker to make men doubt of their Religion. For ever since our Grand mother Eve hearkened to the first why did God, all precepts (whose reason we understand not) have been suspicious unto us. Tell me then, I pray, if you were in a ship where there were a Pilot and his mate, and some Captane who had never been at sea before, and in a controversy about their journey they fall to variance, The Pilot and his Mate saying this is the way, the Captane by reports or guesses of his own, saies, that's not the way, And thereupon the Company in the ship takes parts, whether side in this case would you judge to be partial?  Nephew. 
'tis clear that those who join with the Captane are partial, for where the one side hath skill the other none, 'tis evident that if the question be of skill we ought adhere to the skilful. This I say is euident, if there be no particular circumstance or special reason to the contrary, As in our case if the Pilot had some interest to carry his ship out of the way, than it were an other matter, but standing precisely in the terms of your case, 'tis clear on which side the partiality is, for the Pilot having skill the captain none, the Pilot's advice were to be preferred in common sense, and to side with him were wisdom.  uncle. 
Why than who adhere's to unskilful judgers in matters of Religion are partial, and who adhere's to experts in those matters are wise and rational. Wherefore if the seventeen adhere to the Mistress and teacher of Religion, and the three fly from her, doth not these by this very act make themselves partial, and those impartial? You must first know whether side goes the right way before you can suppose either side to be partial, and consequently the number will still prevaille as long as 'tis in doubt whether side is partial, And if one side adhere to that part which was in prepossession, the other plead against possession, you are bound by the law of nature, by the institution of all communities, and by common sense to judge the pleaders against possession to be partial until they have proved their motion so reasonable, as will over balance the great authority of possession which is against them. Farther if you considere that Christian Religion is supernatural, that is, such an one as cannot be learned but from Almighty God, to wit, from the Apostles, or from them whom the Apostles or their Disciples have taught, you will see that there is no disputing about Religion, but only to ask what hath been taught us, which none can tell us but those whose life and profession it is to teach us that doctrine which themselves first learned, to wit, the Bishopps and Pastors of the church. So that who doubts of what these men have taught and do teach us, must needs be ignorant of the means and way of knowing Christian doctrine, and passionately refuse the true and certain rule thereof.  Nephew 
I see mine error, and it was the same as if one should condemn a man of partiality who keep's possession of his own, because he yeild's not up the state, whereof he is possessed before iudgment be giuen against him; whereas contrariwise in the Civil law (which I once studied a little) if one be put out of quiet possession, his Adversary may not plead until he be put in again. And sure of all cases the foulest is to doubt in matters of Religion before one hath reason, for where authority is plainly on the one side, there none can doubt without wronging that Authority unless he have a reason which doth over balance it. And so I am satisfied in this point.  uncle. 
Take this with you nephew, that generally no controversies of Religion fall out without some motives of interest on both sides, and so both sides may be suspected of partiality, but chiefly that which beginne's the change. Wherefore suppose men were forbidden to doubt, that would be of little force if once they saw their commanders were interessed, unless they saw withal that they could not mend themselves. Besides in our schools all things are called in question, which would not be suffered if it endangered the church's belief. Lastly being 'tis great scholars that govern men's judgements, if they did find by their learning any other sure ground of Religion. then standing to the church's authority and judgement, they would esteem as much of her Commands and Samson did of the Philistines shutting their gates upon him. And so we see by experience that all truly learned and unpassionat men on our side (besides the motife of the church's authority) adhere upon pure reason to the Catholic tenets, and will protest upon all that's holy that they would be of the same Religion though there were no command, finding it most conformable to reason and to the grounds of Christianity.  Nephew. 
The truth is I know not how to answer your discourse, yet perhaps a Protestant would say that all's but probability and likelihood, and therefore to hazard a man's estate upon peradventures were something hard and not very rationally done. Wherefore I should be glad to conceive more fully   

§. 4 The force and efficacity of these your discourses and persuasions.  UNCLE. 
Why, cousin, what security do your merchants, your states men, your soliers, those that go to law, nay even those that till their grounds and work for their live, what security, I say, do all these go upon? Is it greater then the security which these grounds do afford? Surely no. And yet no man esteeme's them foolish. All human affairs are hazardous, and have some adventure in them. And therefore who require's evident certainty only in matters of Religion discouer's in himself a less mind to the goods promised in the next life, then to these which he seeke's here in this world upon weaker assurance. Howsoever the greatest evidence that can be to him that is not capable of convincing demonstrations (which the greatest part of mankind fall shortof) is but conjectural, for men do not generally distinguish betwixt a  and a witty proof, and are as soon taken with a gloss or jesting speech as with a demonstration. Let but this very proof I have told you be put to some two men, the one more, the other less judicious, and the one perhaps will hold it for evident, the other only for apparent and likely. And certainly it is manifest that if our church was once the true church, they who made a breach from her must needs have evident proofs of her corruption, or else be culpable of faction and schism. And yet of these two men I propose, the one peradventure will take this argument only for plausible, and at the least check forgo it, the other looking into the nature of Government and seeing what a flaw the contrary position breede's in it, and how in effect it destroye's all Government will think it so strong that what soever is or can be said against it, is but the playing of wit against pure evidence. Farther if we Catholics hold the truth of scripture as conscientiously as any Protestant, and therefore that all controversies betwixt us and them are only concerning the sense of it, and not touching the truth of it, 'tis manifest that Catholics must either be such dull dunces as not to understand their arguments, or so wilful as not to acknowledge what they see and know, otherwise surely they would agree with Protestants in all points which they could convince and demonstrate. And again this man who pierceth deeper into the strength of this argument see's, that although some time's learning may fail, and that virtue may have a bridle for a while, yet would not learning be learning if it should not for the most part work its effect in men, and make them more capable of reason then others: And much less can it be true virtue which is seldom efficacious, since virtue's nature is to be operative. Wherefore this understanding man that see's there's a more constant poursuite of virtue and learning on the one side then on the other, concludes evidently that there can be no extraordinary weakness on the learneder and more virtuous side in comparison of the other. And where he see's more means, pains, and fruits of learning and virtue on the one side then on the other, he will no more doubt (supposing this be a constant and settled course on both sides) but that of necessity there must be more learning and virtue on that side where he see's these effects, no more, I say, then he can doubt whether necessary causes will have their effects, as whether fire and tow put together will burn, or whether effects can be without their causes, as houses, clocks, and the like without Carpenters, smiths, and other Artisans. Yet perhaps he that barely looks upon the superficies of this discourse takes it only for a pleasing and probable consequence. join to this, the multitudes of Antiquity (I mean those ages wherein the Protestants acknowledge the Reign of Popery) and surely then there will not remain to an understanding man any just cause to fear or complain of hazard, but rather a great occasion to admire and praise God's wisdom, who hath provided so short and secure a means for every man who is so happy and careful as to acknowledge and embrace this guide of eternal saluation; looking with an eye of commiseration vpon those, whose dispositions being not fitted to the sight of this truth, remain in doubt and ignorance by diving into questions wherein they are not able to find satisfaction, and so cast themselves away, not for want of means, but either through their own pride, or by the misleading of their Directors, Who not seeing what's convenient for the dispositions of their disciples, throw them upon the Rocks in stead of giving them a fit harbour to anchor in, for if they would rely upon this plane and open way of our discourse, common sense would tell them (if not what's true) at lest what they ought to follow, and that as clearly as that two and three are five.  Nephew. 
I confess the evidence you plead is great, yet me thinks one might object, that seeing we hear it so often and so strongly beaten into us that all men are fallible, and that nature itself seems to teach the same, therefore as on the one side your reasons force me to grant that 'tis the wiser course to venture this way; so on the other, I still remain with this disposition that it may peradventure be false, which is able to shake a man's resolution and cowl his affection.  uncle. 
Cousin, you desire great matters, and peradventure more than your age and wavering dtsposition is able to bear. Yet to comply with your good desires, I will put you in the way if you will have patience to follow the track, and you shall see   

§. 5 That it is no hard matter that Christ's law should have descended entire unto us.  
FIrst therefore tell me, I pray, what time think you Christ and his Apostles employed in preaching the Gospel in any one country?  Nephew. 
I know Christ employed some three years and a half or thereabouts, for I think the time is not precisely agreed upon by Cronologers, But for the Apostles that I know not, nor can I guess to what purpose you ask me this question.  uncle. 
Is it not like the Apostles bestowed near about as much time? S. Paul himself says so, telling the Clergy of Ephesus, that for three years he had not ceased day and night to exhort them with tears, and warn them to take heed of false teachers. And we may well think the like of the rest of the Apostles, wheresoever they could conveniently do it, but specially in the churches in which they made their Residence. But why think you took they so much time for so short a doctrine, as you see Christian doctrine is, being included in our Creed.  Nephew. 
No doubt but their employment was to make their disciples and the people understand perfectly, and fully comprehend all points of Christian doctrine, to resolve all doubts and difficulties, to make the apprehension of the doctrine sink into the very souls of the people, and to settle a form of Government and Conversation, and to invre the first Christians to the practice of this doctrine whereby it might subsist and continue as long as possibly it could. For this I see is the dictamen of prudence and wisdom in such a case, and the course all those who found new institutions.  uncle. 
You say well. And surely such a time for a little Province of about two or three days iournay's semidiameter was very sufficient for the instructing of their disciples in all material points and settling of instructers to succeed them. But in case immediately after the decease or departure of the Apostle there should arise (according to our saviours forewarning) false Prophets or Ravenous wolves under pretence of sanctity endeavouring to devour the flock, nay that even some amongst themselves out of vanity should begin some new doctrine, 
How controversies were decided immediately after the Apostles.  drawing disciples after them, and so making themselves head of a party and of a doctrine contrary to that which the Apostle had taught, urging reasons out of nature and texts out of that Apostles own writings by whom they were taught, or out of his follow Apostles, and strengthen his party by the adherence of many of the weaker sort, what I say would the Governors and teachers of the faithful do in this case? How would they behave thē selues to hinder the ruin of their weaker breetherens?  Nephew. 
I do imagine that meeting together they would examine this new Doctrine, taking sor their rule that doctrine which the Apostle delivered unto them, And knowing that he could neither contradict himself nor any of his Breetherens, being all inspired by the Holy Ghost, they would conclude, that the Innovators reasons were captious, his texts wrong understood if they were obscure, or corrupted if they were plain. For nothing could be so evident unto them as that, which for three years together had been perpetually beaten into them, where in they had been continually examined and cleared, and which had been so long the foundation of their new manner of life and practice; so that, this must needs be the most evident unto them of all things, and therefore they would surely forgo all other rules to govern themselves by this, as being most fry from error,  uncle. 
Your conclusion follow's plainly. For they having no other stay of their belief, than that S. Paul (for example) had taught them so, 'tis clear that to them these two questions were but one, whether the opinion proposed was true? and whether it was accordimg to what S. Paul had taught them? And therefore to be against that which they had been taught, to them, was to be false. So that there nether was nor could be any other question in the church at that time in matters of faith, but whether the Apostles had taught such a doctrine or no? For the Apostles having spent so much time in teaching Christian doctrine in so little a Province, what they had not taught must needs be presumed not to be necessary, and consequently not deserving to make a schism and breach amongst Christians, and what they had taught to be without all controversy true and certain. Wherefore if such an Innovator would not stand to this judgement, he was to be expelled the church, as disagreeing from the Christians in the principal rule and soveragne Tribunal of Christianity by which, and only which, they could at that time decern and decide what was Christian doctrine what not. Happy that age in which it was so easy to resolve any difficulty arisning, for it was no more than to meet together and ask one an other, How have you been taught? And all was ended, and who should have resisted this decision was to be cast out with common consent as a reprobate. But tell me, cousin, how long do you think this Happiness continued in the church?  Nephew. 
For the time of the Apostles and of their disciples (who are commonly called Apostolical men) there's no question to be made; no nor of the age of the disciples of these Apostolical men; To whom I see not why I may not add yet an other age, for doubtless those Apostolical men must needs have been of that reputation as that what soever was constantly remembered to have been their doctrine, was likewise to be esteemed the doctrine of the Apostles their Masters, supposing it was known to be universally and generally theirs, and not the opinion of some one or two of them only.  uncle. 
And will it be a stumbling block unto you if we add yet an other descent, to wit, of the Grandchilds of these Apostolical men, for the memory of public and generally practised things is fresh from Grandfathers unto their Grandchilds. So that this degree or golden age may well consist of five descents, that is, of some 200 years, allowing 40. years to a descent, which is not much, seeing that witnese of 60. years are ordinarily found in every business in the same Province, and therefore where the question is of a public and universal practice which concerns many countries and nations who have intercourse and communication together, such witnese may be much more easily found. But what shall we say of the next ensuing age?  Nephew. 
I conceive that these descents you speak of may easily have reached to Constātine's time, when Christian Religion being public, the multitudes of fathers and writers would supply the deject of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or self seeing into the well spring of Christianity. But whether you drive that way or no, I know not.  uncle. 
It is not needful, for since the last age doth directly know what was the Apostles doctrine, All such ages as can reach to know the doctrine and practice of that last age, are able certainly to resolve (though in a lower degree) any arising difficulty; not because they can immediately tell, that such a point is contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles, but because they can tell that 'tis against the doctrine of the fist descent, which doctrine they know to be the dokrine of the Apostles. Wherefore upon the like ground we may add five descents more, which according to our former computation will make up 400. years, und peradventure by extent may reach to five or 600 years after Christ that is; to the second conversion of nations, I mean to the conversion of those barbarous people which overunne the Roman Empire, and brought almost all the world bacl unto the formerly extirpated paganism.  Nephew. 
Why then we need no more, for the Protestants confess that Popery hath reigned since Phocas his time; nay they stick not to say that Gregory the Great was the last good and first bad Pope, seeming to think that from him began, that which they call Popery. And truly in his Dialogues which are set out in English there's more than enough to show that the Religion of his time was the same which we now profess And we that have our conversion from him (according to venerable Bede) we, I say, who are descended from the Saxons, never have had any Religion but that which the Protestants call Popery, And therefore to us English men, it is most clear, that we never had any Religion since Gregory the great's time, but Popery. And therefore if the Religion that then reigned was the faith of the Apostles, it will evidently follow that Popery was their faith.  uncle. 
Surely not only writers but even Records and Monuments are so thick since the conversion of those nations which over run the Roman world, that no perverse man can requite more evidence, And surely it was God's providence who settled as it were a new world, and purged the old, whilst Religion could yet look bacl and see her head, as it were, with one view. But I hoped you would have induced a farther consequence and applied the argument to later ages.  Nephew. 
I am afraid these calculations may over reach me, for I fee the father and the son's age do concur in some part, and therefore by counting them severally the number of years will be greater than in deed ought to be allowed.  uncle. 
You say well, and therefore we will only take that number of years which the father ordinarily liveth before the birth of his son, As if the son be supposed to be 20. years of age when the father testifieth, and the father 60. Which you see is very common, and so the number of years of one descent will be 40. Which is the number we put. But if the father be 80. when the son is 20. then the number of one descent willbe 60. Which though it be some what great, because it is rare that a man hath a child at 60. yet 'tis not so rare but a thousand may be found in a competent extent, as in the Kingdom of England, and this number is amply sufficient for the effect we desire, for five descents of 60. years make 300. years. And having told you how a general practice of any country is known by a kind of self seeing for five descents, which includes at least 200. years, it will follow that counting down from Christ time to ours by two ages at a time, we may frame our discourse thus. As those who lived in the beginning of the third age could certainly know they held the Apostles doctrine; so those who lived in the beginning of the fift age, could certainly know they held the doctrine of those of the beginning of the third age, that is, the doctrine of the Apostles. And by the like consequence those of the 7. age will be certain they are in the same faith of those of the fift, and those of the 9 in the faith of those of the 7. And so to our very selves, And all are certain that they are in the faith of the Apostles. The reason of this consequence is, because two ages is not so great a space, but that certain knowledge of public and general changes through a kingdom (much more through many) may be easily had; nor yet are two ages so little, as that a great error could lurk unseen and lie smothered for so long a time. We therefore who now live in communion with the Roman church know certainly, that our forefathers of the 16. and 15 ages did conceive that this faith and doctrine which we hold, did, I say, conceive and think it to have descended unto them from the Apostles, And we know likewise that they could not conceive and think so, but that they knew the 14. and 13. ages did believe the same; Nor those of the 14. and 13. ages could not have the same belief, unless they had seen and received it, in and from the 12. and the 11. age. And putting all these together, (the certainty whereof is immediately founded in this our age) you see they comprehend six ages, if we put 40. years to a descent, and will comprehend 8. or 9 ages if we put 60. to a descent. So that two or at must three such compositions will reach beyond Christ's birth, And therefore we do not, nor cannot, want evidence but eyes to see it.  Nephew. 
Your discourse will be good, supposing the point in controversy be some public and great matter, or a notorious change in the face of God's church. But why might not some speculative point creep in without being taken notice of, such as was the point of the Arrians or Pelagians, if there had not happened with all so great an opposition and quarrelling as shaked almost the whole church. 
why no neW point can creep into the church without a great change.   uncle. 
There be two reasons why no point of Christian doctrine can be so small as to creep in without a great change. The one is because Christian doctrine is a discipline whose parts are so knit together as that one thread cannot be broken but it will ravel through many stiches, As from th' Arrian heresy denying Christ to be God, it would follow, no Trinity, and so Christians would easily become natural philosophers and Pagans, no Incarnation, that is, no God and man in one person, All the payeres and adorations which the church had used hitherto were to be changed, The form of baptism were to be altered, And thus we might go through the most part of Christian doctrine, if we look into the sequels of Arrianisme. And such like consequences may be deduced out of Pelagianisme, and out of almost all othet heresies, which have not run beyond all face of Christianity, because they were quickly opposed, and so hindered from showing the serpent's tail which lurked behind. The other reason is, because no new doctrine can prevail in the church of God without impeaching tradition, the rule of faith, for that being once broken and rejected, by the same right and principle by which they profess one error, they may profess any, And you see the disciples of Heresiarckes never fail to grow worse then their Masters, Luther broke the Ice by appealing to scripture, Suinglius went farther than he, th' Anabaptists exceeded the Swinglians, the Adamistes, passed th' Anabaptists, the Socinians the Adamistes, and some went beyond Christianity, others even beyond common sense, wherefore it is impossible any breach should be made in the church without a main and notorious change in the whole face of Christianity.  Nephew. 
I see now, uncle, it was not without cause you asked me, what time the Apostles employed in teaching Christian doctrine to some one Province or Country, your whole discourse seems to depend vpon this, that the Apostles did not barely tell the faithful what Christ had done and taught, bud did inculcate and beat it into them both by words and actions, invring them to the practice of their belief, their belief being the ground of their actions, and their actions the effects of their belief, and therefore could not be altered without a main change both in their faith and practice, their belief maintaining their practice and their practice strengthening their belief. And truly I see this is a connaturall way to keep Religion uncorrupted, And that nature, and necessity, driven the first Christians upon occasion of any controversy, to seek what the Apostles had taught, which being once begun the ensuing Christians would follow the same course, as long as controversies could be resolved this way, which by your discourse may be done at this day. But I learned in Philosophy that a posse ad esse is no good argument, for if it were sufficient to prove a thing hath been done because it could have been done no man would be innocent, but who is impotent, And therefore I fear we are not much advanced, unless you can show me   

§. 6 That if Chrest's law could have been conserved it hath been conserved.  Uncle. 
Why so, nephew; you know if any man be accused, his denial cleere's him sufficiently until proof be brought against him▪ And when it is brought 'tis yet sufficient for his defence to show, it doth not convince, which if he can do, the law laye's no hold of him. And shall not the claim of so great a part of the world standing in possession and maintaining the innocenty of the church be heard and esteemed good until the adverse party hath made his proofs clear and evident against them? Certes you have forgotten your resolution concerning your wife's honour for whom you were so earnest but now. Again we must surely conceit the church to be a thing planted by Almighty God with no less blessing than that which he gave to men and beasts at their creation, whereby they have been conserved to this day, for since our Redemption cost him no less than our creation, we cannot esteem his Blessing of continuance to be of less worth and virtue in the one then in the other. And 'tis much more easy to conceive how the church is and may be continued, then how mankind hath been and willbe conserved, whereof I think no man doubts. And truly do but considere how unequal and unjust a condition it is, that the claim of the present church shall not be heard, unless she can confute all the peradventures that wit may invent, And solve all the arguments which the infinite variety of time, place, and occasions may have given way unto, And then you will see how unreasonable an Adversary he is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as man's nature scarcely afforde's. Yet to answer fully to you maxim, first I will oppose an other unto it, and by comparing them we shall better understand the meaning of them both. And 'tis that frustra est potentia quae nunquam reducitur ad actum, Whereunto we may add that God, the Author of nature, never made any thing in vain, so that when the same power or possibility is ordained for divers effects or ends, then if any of its effects be brought to pass it hath so far arleast got its end as that it cannot be said to have been made in vain, And therefore 'tis no good argument to argue from the power or possibility to any one of its effects in particular, because it's end may be sufficiently observed by an other effect. But if the power or possibility have but one effect then your first maxim failes, by reason of the second, for being the power hath but one effect, if that be not put, the power must needs be in vain. Wherefore putting such a possibility, lest it should be frustrate. you must needs put the effect, and consequently the argument is still good, there is a power or possibility therefore an effect. And this follow's most clearly in our case, for if Almighty God have set causes which may and can make his church eternal, that is, if he have put a power or possibility of eternal duration in his chureh, This effect, to wit, everlasting continuance being of such a nature that it can be but one, 'tis evident that either this effect will follow, or else the possibilie is frustrate and put to no end, which in a work of such a moment as that it is the very aim and end of all God's works, it were more than absurd in common sense to grant such a consequence. And to declare this more particularly let us considere that where there are many varieties, that which causeth defect in one causeth abundance in an other. As if in divers countries under several climates, 
Why Christian faith cannot be destroyed.  there be long drought or rain, the drought in spain will cause want of corn, here in England and in the low countries a main harvest: And contrariwise much wet here causeth dearth, in spain and Africa plenty. So likewise the Catholic faith being dispersed through many several countries, what in one country makes it fail, in an other will make it flourish. The hate betwixt France and spain made Luther's proceed to be favoured in Germany by the Princes which leaned to the french, and the same hatred made spain and Italy to oppose them more vehemently. The power and authority of some one man in one country may oppress the church, whereas in an other, even to discountenance that man, it shall be upheld. And as in place so in time, divers occasions make it now favoured now misliked, but 'tis impossible, it being truth and conformable to reason, that there should be any so general and universal occasion as to make it hated in all times and places, which would be necessary for a total ruin. And this is it, which mantaines all the progress of nature, to wit, because it hath roots and principles in being, for no one sort of living things, which have being in many far different Climates, can be exterminated, by reason the contraries which must destroy it, are nether universal in place nor time, and therefore those contraries being spent, the seeds of nature recover themselves, sprout out, and bud again new branches of the same kind. So it fareth with Christian belief and doctrine, which because it is so like and so connatural to nature, all its opposites must needs be against nature and violent, and consequently not durable; which being gone, then must of necessity those, in whose hearts Religion is rooted, blossom again and bring forth such delightful savours and fruits as will draw and attract mē's souls, and spread itself amongst the multitudes, from whom it had been violently banished. Wherefore that the church in this or that time, be oppressed, is a thing within the compass of natute's mutability; But that in all Countries and at all times it should be oppressed to death surpasseth the power of mutable causes, Which were not mutable if they should so long and in so different circumstances ever have the same effect; yea nature itself and its Author would be overcome if such long violence could so oppress it as to extinguish it, It being nature's chief flower and greatest treasure planted by the express handy work of the omnipotent and wise framer thereof.  Nephew. 
Your discourse seemee's good, for I see that men, who in a case of great importance will not be content with what is proportional to their capacity, but seek a certitude so great as them selves are not capable to judge of, being not beaten to thoses sciences in which such certainty is usual, those men, I say, must needs come short of what they desire, if truly they do desire it, for I believe the affection of wealth, pleasure, or some foremade judgement doth carry them against the simple and plain direction of free reason. How soever, uncle, seeing it was so easy for the church to have been conserved entire in faith, me thinks it should not be hard to show in effect and in particular from age to age that it hath been conserved.  uncle. 
If we could prove that Bishops either in General or Nationall Counsels had once in two or three hundreth years taken care that no corruptions should be introduced, this might be effected, but that depende's upon books 〈◊〉 and history; which you and will not now meddle withal.  Nephew. 
I believe those histories are not so doubtful but that generally Protestant's do and will acknowledge them. And by my poor skill I know that there never passed 300. years since Christ's time without a Council, and without condemning some heretic, so that 'tis clear the church hath had sufficient care in this kind. Yet because I have heard yourself complain of the sloth of men who seek not into the grounds of sciences, and often say, that fair more them is, might be known if the principles were rightly laid for it, and the way trodden, nay that all God's works hang so together by connection of causes and effects as that there's no effect whose cause by diligence might not be found. I must therefore entreat you to condescend a little even to the hardness of those men's hearts, who require more in this subject then in any other, and seek the cause why the church and faith of Christ cannot fail. For since we have found by experience these 1600. years that it hath not so failed as that it hath not ever been generally and universally visible, and hath both dured and flourished thus long, surely it hath some forcible cause, and in deed such an one, as can never fail, but will still work the same effect, And this were to show.   

That no great error could creep into the church of God.  Uncle. 
Cousin, you lay to●● what ask upon me. Who knows why the world hath dured thus long? Or why mankind was not extinct many years ago? And must I tell you why God's church hath not nor cannot fail? I am ashamed to answer every licentious brain, the negatives of a witty naturalist may pose the most learned Christian upon earth. Yet to content you I will endeavour above my strength; but you must ease me a little, and answer me to what yourself see's evident. First you know that the church being the Congregation of the faithful cannot fail but by the loss of faith, 
How faith is lost.  And faith may be lost two ways, by ignorance, or by error. For so we see a particular man who once had faith if he come to lose it, 'tis either by negligence and not cunning it, and so forgette's it; or else 〈◊〉 dissuaded from it, and induced to believe some differrent doctrine. So likewise to a multitude of men the one or the other must needs happen or else they cannot be deprived of the faith which they once had. And because pure ignorance is a mere negative, or not knowing, the first question I will ask you, is, Whether you think a people once instructed in any Religion can so forget it, as that they fall not into some other Religion ●● but live quite without any Religion at all?  Nephew 
Truly I think it impossible, both because I never heard of any nation that had no Religion at all, no not the Cannibals; as also because I have heard that absurd Religions have continued from father to son for many generations together, and never left until an other Religion was brought in, and then too with much ado, the people being loath to be drawn from their former belief. Yet if one should confidently say the contrary, 
why all people have some Religion.  I do not know how to convince him.  uncle. 
You must look into the causes which make men Religious, and if you find them to be universal and perpetual, you may be sure that all sorts of Peoples have some Religion in them, though more or less according as these causes are more or less in force amongst them. But let us know, can you tell me what is Religion in general, as it is common to both true and false?  Nephew. 
I imagine Religion to be a conceit or persuasion of the people concerning one, or more, 
what is Religion in general.  excellent natures which govern humane life, giving us those goods which of ourselves we cannot attain unto, and inflicting vpon us those pains whereof we do not know the causes; And this persuasion reacheth also to the manner and form of pleasing this or these Governors and commanders, Whereby to obtain goods and eschew evils. And the reason why I make this conceit of Religion is, because I see these things are in all sorts of Religion, and all authors which writ of the Religion of what nation soever touch chiefly these points.  uncle. 
Your remark is good, 
Which be the causes of Religion, and Why it cannot perish.  and if you look into your definition you shall find the causes of Religion. You say Religion is a conceit of the Governors of man's life in gifts and punishments, whose causes we do not know. Then you see Religion must needs be a faith, for when we do not know things, we cannot make any conceit of them but by believing and trusting others whom we think know the things that we know not, and therefore Religion in general is taken upon trust. Farther you say that Religion is a method of pleasing those Governors, whereby to get goods, and eschew evils, so that the desire of goods, and the fear of evils, are the authors and causes of Religion, we have then hopes and fears for the will ignorance and a conceit of an other man's knowledge for the understanding; which be the parents of Religion. Now think you, cousin, can these causes be defective and failing in any age?  Nephew. 
Surely they cannot. For it were no generation of men, but beasts, that were so donltish and sottish as to see so many goods and harms, which happen to all men we know not whence, and think that there were no cause thereof, And therefore it is the most easy and most natural conceit that man can have, to conceive that some thing is the cause of these goods and hurts. Now man's conversation being chiefly with one an other, men naturally apprehend all things to be done by some understanding thing, as they see their own actions are. So that if there were a compagnie of men sprung out of the earth, like Cadmus his people, or raised out of emitts, like the Myrmidons, yet would they (if they were truly men) within a little while frame themselves some Religion, according as by chance, or some one's apprehension or fancy they should conceit their goods and evils to proceed from some visible or invisible thing Wherefore I admire not that some people adored the sun, some the stars, others some rare men from whom they had received in their life time great benefits, imagining that even after death they were power full and beneficial. And surely it is much more impossible that a people which once hath had some Religion, should quit forget it, and come to have none at all, for these causes will be ever knocking at their hearts, putting them in mind, and driving them into the conceit of some God or Governor, if therefore the effects of perpetual causes must be everlasting, these causes of Religion (to wit, effects whose causes are hidden, and the good and evil which come unto us by them) being never wanting, 'tis impossible that Religion should ever cease.  uncle. 
And think you not, cousin, that these same causes do as well move those who are settled in a faith or Religion to continue without changing their once received belief, as well I say, as they do keep them, from forgetting that Religion which they are once possessed of?  Nephew. 
I confess it seems evident to me, that the change of Religion can not come by pure negligence and sleepiness, no more than the loss of it, being these warnings of nature which force us to Religion do also continually call upon us to keep our once practised faith and credulity, unless there be greater causes to countermande it, which I do not see but may be easily found some times.  uncle. 
Peradventure not so easily as you imagine, for an Error is a persuasion of the mind, And nothing can work upon our understanding but itself, and our will, who soever therefore will make such a persuasion must work upon one of these two. The will you know is moved and wielded by hopes and fears, the understanding by reason and authority. 
How error in bred in man.  Whence arise three ways by which such an opinion may creep into mē's minds, 1. by bringing more reason for it then can be brougth on the contrary side, 2. by the authority of some so great, as that their verdicts are held beyond examining, and 3. by the power of some whose hands are full of pains and pleasures, and who can thereby move the will, which being moved can make the understanding believe what she desire's. Do you know any other means?  Nephew. 
Not I, uncle, for I see that if I should bring any other, you would reduce it to some of these three. But me thinks such an opinion might steal upon the church at unawares, some obscure man broaching it at the first, and others accepting of it by a kind of negligence and indifferency to any opinion, or by too much credulity, not distinguishing right from wrong, though I see this touche's some what upon authority, and so will be reduced to that member of your division.  uncle. 
It importe's not to what member it be reduced so there be no fourth way. But I though you had learned sufficiently already to exclude this, for what makes more notice to be taken of any thing, then that, which changeth some public and universal practice? Look but if any one go through the streete's in some strange and new fashioned apparel, how all stair and gaze upon him, the very boys leave their play to follow him and look at him. And therefore to say such an Innovation can be brought in without being taken notice of, is as much as to say, the cause of admiration or taking notice can be set before our eyes without working its effect. Which is to say that fire and tow should lie together without burning, or a stone hang at liberty in the air without falling down; these be impossibilities in nature, and are in the rack of those things against which nature folliciteth by hi● continual causes of hopes and fears, which made you confess but now, that negligence was not a sufficient cause to produce the change of Religion. Wherefore let us see if by any of these three ways which I have proposed the change of Religion can happen.  Nephew. 
Nay, sir, I will do you the favour to exclude one of them, to wit, the way of persuasion, or by alleging more reason against the true Religion, then can be brought for it, for seeing truths bear witness to one another, and that the Religion we speak of is supposed to be true; 'tis impossible that more reason should be brought against it, then for it, Nor is the greatness of any man's wit, who should stand to maintain the error, to be feared, for this error being to pass through a great part of the world, 'tis not credible that one man should so far surpass in wit the rest of the world as to put them all from their standing without contradiction. Or that in so much time as is necessary for the spreading of such an error into the main of the church, no man should have wit enough, if not to bring more potent arguments for the truth, atleast to find out the weakness and fallacy of those which are brought against it, which would be sufficient to hinder the progress of such an error, for who is in possession of an opinion must have an insoluable reason to put him out of it, if he be wise and constant, Much more those who ground their tenets upon receiving them from their forefathers, and hold all reason insufficient to prove their faith, because of its supernaturalitie, and therefore ought more to hearken to what was delivered, then to any reason which may seem to urge the change of what is known to be delivered. Thus much I confess is clear, but why the authority of some one, or more, whose words are above examine, or the power of some who hould's the balance of good and bad, of pains and pleasures, may not work an error into the church, that I do not understand.  uncle. 
You have drawn the question from an universal to a particular, for we spoke of a change betwixt two Religions in common, and you speak of a change from a true one to a false one. Yet this being sufficient for our intent, I will add that if you had that conceit of the true Religion, which much thought hath bred in me, to wit, that 'tis the most high, wise, rationnall, conformable to man's nature, to government, to all things fitting for man's life, that can be imagined, of all disciplines and learn possible, that it leadeth into greater secrets of nature then otherwise we should ever reach unto 〈◊〉 and exceedeth all the knowledge which made ancient and modern sages so proud, If you had, I say, this conceit of the true Religion you would be much more confirmed and strengthened in this persuasion: But why do you not think it impossible that the authority of one man should overswaye all the wits of the world? Surely the Devil himself would rather help the church then permit so little pride amongst men, Never yet any great man wanted his Antagonist, who had he such a flaw in is credit as this our subject would give him, it would quiekly hinder the extent of his authority. Not any of our never so much esteemed fathers is received in all things; nor is any of their authoritie's received in such an eminent height, as is necessary for the effect we speak of. Who was greater than Origen? And yet was he condemned even when he was in greatest vogue. But I need not appeal to examples where nature by its own force strikes the stroke. For either this new doctrine is brought in openly by the strong and earnest endeavours of the author himself (whose authority must sway the world) and of his followers, And then by this very negotiation it will discover its newness; and being false the more it is handled the more it will show its weakness, and at length go out like a snuff of itself. Or else it comes in neglectedly, being written by the buy, and the Innouator's authority urged by others upon occasion; and then the very manner bear's with it so little likelihood and small efficacity as that it would be every where chechked by reason of its, newness, and therefore could never pass uncontrowled through any great extent. And if we put the case, as before, to be in the Catholic church, where the truth is not to be handled by learned reasons, as being above nature, but by what our forefathers have taught us, you see this great man's authority presently vanisheth into smoke, being there's no place for any man's authority, where the constant and universal verdict of the present world is against it, in respect whereof he is but a single man. Concerning force or power you must suppose, before you can make any apparent argument of it, 1. that this power is over the whole Christian world, 2. to be so strong that it feareth not to give distaste to the people, 3. to be vehemently desirous to quell the old faith and bring in a new one, 4. that it hath zealous ministers for the same end, And lastly that all these dure and continue until all the ancient faith be extinct. And when all is done yet will it remain upon record and be known when this new opinion began, and the violence being ended there's a root in men's hearts to reject this new opinion and return to the old supposing as we do, there's more reason for the old then for the new. So that in common sense and nature's principles the Pope had just cause to write to the Emperor in these terms.  
Niteris incassum navem sub●●ergere Petri,  
Fluctuat, at namquam mergitur illaratis.  
But to conclude this point, tell me, cousin, what time think you is necessary for the introducing of an error by little and little before it will pass for a thing delivered by hand to hand from Christ? For such an opinion we call a Tradition.  Nephew. 
I see it must gain this reputation you speak of by making it quit forgotten that the other opinion was ever either generally held or practised. For as long as 'tis known that the other opinion was ancienter, they strive in vain 〈…〉 this was delivered by 〈…〉 s●●● and so defecated 〈…〉 to hand. Wherefore 〈…〉 it can be 〈…〉 contrary was in vog●●, 〈…〉 ●east and some what more 〈◊〉 needs be the 〈…〉 broaching and 〈…〉 if I remember we 〈…〉 for 4. or 600. years the generally practised 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 church 〈…〉 certain 〈…〉 a● I see that at 〈…〉 ●e i● necessary, and as much more as is 〈…〉 by 〈…〉 yet will there still remain writings of that time in which such a point was in dispute, which will to s●●●●e, atleast in 〈◊〉 of the prevailing side, 〈◊〉 such a controversy 〈◊〉 hath 〈◊〉 and that the fallen side was ancienter and consequently 〈◊〉 will s●●ll be evidence 〈◊〉 there was an other faith 〈◊〉 doctrine delivered by the Apostles before this came up, which in deed ought to be 〈◊〉,  uncle. 
Then cousin, let us put 200. years to be sufficient for such an extinction, (which 〈◊〉 great a circuit, and for a 〈◊〉 rooted in men's hearts a●d practised in their actions is but a small time) and join th●● the 4. or 600 we speak of, And considere whether any violent mutation can continue against nature for 6, or 800. years, be it either of Tyranny, authority, or what other occasion soever, and this to oppress the true faith grounded in nature. Might we not as well say there would be perpetual fair wether for many years together through a great part of the world ● as that there should be such a perpetual disposition against reason and our natural inclination to the utter ruin and overthrew of our every where received faith?  Nephew. 
You have reason, uncle. For although when I considere the mutability of mankind alone, and contrive with myself how this might be effected, it seems plausible to say that an other opinion might come in and destroy a received tenet, yet when I deeply weigh what you say against it, and balance the one with the other, I see my frame is limited within a small compass and few years, but reacheth not to the universality and general Dominion or Government of nature. For I could make the like argument for not raining, blowing, shining and the like, that is in deed, for the destruction of nature. And I do not think you intend to make the church stronger than the pillars of nature, on which it stande's. We ought not therefore to esteem nature universally defectible, because we cannot reach to see fully how every particular encumbrance is avoided, for 'tis not that in either of these subjects they causes are not certain and infallible, but that my discourse comprehende's them not.  uncle. 
I do not in deed intend to make the strength of faith greater then the strength of nature, 
why faith is stronger than nature.  though perhaps I could, supposing (which is certain) that nature was created and built for the supernatural gifts and goods which God bestowe's upon it, they which being greater and better than nature, 'tis fitting they should have stronger mantenance and holds then nature itself; And therefore 'tis likely that nature is strengthened by principles and fundations above its pitch, to the end it may be a fit and sure prop of faith and supernatural gifts. But this point concerns not our present discourse.  Nephew. 
I confess I now clearly see that the Christian church hath conserved itself from error, supposing that the Pastors and Governors of it have carefully taken notice from time to time of their forefather's doctrine, and I am beholden to you for this lesson. But may not the church have been neglected herein? Though I scarcely have courage enough to ask you this question, for I see you will answer me that nature must needs have its recourse, and that howsoever at some times or places it may have defects, yet must it of necessity at other times and in other places have its returns, and freshly renew its care and be solicitous of so great a good, which cannot but fall out once within 5. or 600. years, that is within the term prefixed wherein she may discover the doctrine of her forefathers constantly held and generally delivered to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Nevertheless if you could show me that the church had in effect so conserved itself, I should be more able to convince a perverse opponent and demonstrate   

§. 8 That the truth of Christian doctrine hath actually continued in the church.  Uncle. 
Is it possible you should be so unreasonable as to ask me to prove a thing which depede's of mas will yet that you may see how great the works of Almighty God are, and how nothing is so variable but that he can fix and make it constant, I will endeavour to let you vnderstand as much as myself in this point, so you will be attentive and raise a little your vnderstanding to answer me in the way of rigorous discourse, which you have some experience in, by the mathematics you have tasted. Tell me then do you think, that if any great congregation of men now living hold this maxim for their faith and Religion, that nothing is to be held for certain and as a revealed truth, but what they have received from their forefathers as a thing delivered by hand to hand from the Apostles, And that what soever is not so received is not immutable but may be altered if reason command, do you think, I say, that this Congregation could in this our age have begun to hold this maxim? or that as they received the rest of their doctrine from their forefathers, they must not also have received this tenet?  Nephew. 
Truly I cannot tell you, for me thinks it were absurd to receive all the rest from their forefathers and take this of new, which is the rule of all the rest; yet I do not see it so clearly as that I am able to convince that 'tis so.  uncle. 
Why, cousin, let us put the case that there were a General Councell of all Christendom sitting for example in the year 1600. And aftermuch disputation about finding a rule to settle matters of Religion, they should agree, that to receive nothing but what had been delivered unto them by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles, were the best way to end all disputations of Religion, and there upon decree, that hereafter nothing should be held for certain and immutable, but what were so received; And that amongst these Bishops one should rise up and make this difficulty, we cannot know that any thing is received by hand to hand from Christ unless our forefathers who lived in the last age 1500. have delivered it unto us as such, which they cannot have delivered unto us but by one of these two ways, either because we know they had this same principle, which we seek here ro settle, (to wit, that they took nothing for immutably certain, and of faith but what was so delivered unto them) And then we know what soever they have delivered unto us for a matter of faith, was like wise received by them, or atleast they thought it to be received in the same manner, and therefore we may be confident of it: Or else they must have declared unto us what is so received, what not, that the one part may be accepted by us and established as matters of faith, the other held in less esteem and as no points of faith. This second we know hath not been done, And therefore if our forefathers had not this principle, how should we have it? For if they had it not and have delivered our doctrine and Religion unto us without distinction, we must of necessity accept much for Religion, faith, and as received from Christ, which we know not whether it was so or no; And therefore we must either wilfully deceive ourselves and our successors accounting and esteeming things which were never received from Christ to have been received from him, and so falsely deliver them for such to our successors, and consequently ground both our faith and theirs upon this untruth, that our tenets were received from Christ: Or else we must content ourselves as our forefathers have done, and settle no new ground of ending controversies in Religion. If one, I say, should make this difficulty in that grave Assembly, would it not puzzle them all and put them of from their resolution?  Nephew. 
Truly, uncle, it could not choose, unless they were obstinately resolved to damn thē selues and all their posterity, and that impudently in the sight of the whole world, which would reproach them with so notorious an imposture. Nor can I imagine how such a position though once begun should take root, The whole world being able to see and detest the indignity of it. And because I foresee your drift, I will grant you may frame the same argument for any age, and consequently there is no age in which this resolution could have been first taken up, but only in such an one, in which it was clearly known what the Apostles taught and what they did not by witness from them who had their doctrine from their own mouths, that is, the very next age after the Apostles. So that we may evidently conclude that a church which now holdeth with universal consent this principle, which you speak of, must of necessity have held the same from the next age after the Apostles.  uncle. 
But can you now tell me, cousin, whether this congregation as long as it adhere's to this principle can receive any thing of this nature and quality contrarie to what their forefathers delivered unto them upon this same principle? And note, I pray, I do not ask whether they can receive any thing but what they apprehended to be so; but I ask whether they can receive any thing as such but that which truly is so delivered, that is, whether they can be cozened in this question, Whether their forefathers delivered it unto them so or no.  Nephew. 
'tis evident they cannot. For although one man may be deceived in what is told him, specially at one time, yet to say whole nations are deceived in what is told them, not once or twice, but what they are bred and beaten to, is as much as to say all men are deceived in judging white from black, because, for sooth, some weak eyes are now and then mistaken, or as to say, no body can walk, because some have the palsy: which were in deed to destroy nature and its constancy in universals, because of its defectibility in its particulars, which is against common sense and reason.  uncle. 
Well then do you think their immediate forefathers could teach them any thing as of this quality but what themselves believed and had received in the same manner?  Nephew. 
No surely, their immediate forefathers could not deliver any thing as of this nature to their successors against the doctrine which they had received from their predecessors, ever standing in this principle, that nothing is to be believed as of necessity in this degree but what came by hand to hand from Christ or his Apostles.  uncle. 
Tell me then, I pray, whether in the two last points, that is, whether either we can be deceived in what was delivered by our immediate forefathers unto us as of this kind; or they deliver us any doctrine as of this quality but what themselves received in the like sort, whether I say in either of these two points there be any difference betwixt any former age and this our presentage, or that what you have granted of this age, the same must not necessarily hold in all other ages ever since Christ?  Nephew. 
I confess I see no difference.  uncle. 
Reflect then upon what you have granted, and considere whether any error against a received doctrine and practice of this nature could so creep in, as that there should be no determinate age of its beginning, in which it first took root and flourished?  Nephew. 
'tis not possible that any thing should begin and yet begin in no time. For I conceive that an age is no small time and give's not little growth to any thing that beginne's, so that to say any point of doctrine is a whole age in growing, and to say with all it is imperceptible, and after a whole age unsensible, is without doubt senseless. Yet if any should say that an error had been begun by a private man and taught to some in one age, which being neglected grew into practice in some one country, and from thence by the like neglect grew likewise to be customary in the next adjoining, and so spread itself until it had possessed the hart of Christendom, and this for many years, so that now all memory that ever the contrary had been in credit and practice were lost, if this, I say, one should tell me; I doubt whether I should be able to give him a convincing answer and demonstrative satisfaction.  uncle. 
Cousin, this question trencheth upon what we have already talked of, therefore I will only give you such a hint as yourself may work upon. First it is as manifest an impossibility that a change of Religion should be introduced insensibly into any one Country, as that a burning fever should for as long time consume the same whole country without being taken notice of, or sought to be prevented, since as we said nature permit's us not generally to be sleepy in Religion. Secondly to say it shall pass imperceptible from country to country and so get possession of the whole Christian world, is far more impossible, men's natures and dispositions being so divers that if they were put to we are caps or shoes a like it could not be effected but by some public force or command. Thirdly that this should be for so long a term that the contrarie practice should be quit forgotten to have been formerly in use and request is yet beyond both. So that who soever is troubled with this doubt doth not rightly understand the nature of Christian Religion, which is a truth of the quality of science hanging all together, Whereunto a truth may be added and yet remain whole, but if any falsity or cross position be admitted, it will not only destroy the position immediately opposite, but also what soever dependeth of it, that is, all in deed but chiefly tradition. And so we see by experience that none ever moved any point of faith, but if their revolt dured long, they proceeded so far, as to take a way tradition the rule of all we are to believe. But can you tell me, have we reached to the resolution of your demand and are you fully satisfied?  Nephew. 
This you have concluded that if our church rely upon tradition now, it ever did so; And if it ever did rely upon tradition it must needs have maintained the same doctrine from Christ's time to ours; for nether could any former age deliver any thing contrary to what they had received upon this principle, nor we mistake what they delivered; so that nothing contrary to the first received doctrine can be admitted. This yet, me thinks, wanteth, To show that the present Roman church relies upon tradition, which I confess to me is evident, at least that what soever we have received from our forefathers as coming by-hand to hand from Christ, that we reverence and receive all such points as being necessary to be believed. Only I have one scruple wherein I must crave your help, And it is Whether this rule of tradition which you, give to be so constantly held to be the rule of faith, whether I say, it be so admitted of by all Catholics or no, for I fear the variety of contrary opinions which I hear are amongst our learned, men will prejudice your argumen. Wherefore I could wish you would show me   

§. 9 That the dissension of Catholic Doctor concerning the rule of faith doth not hurt the certainty of Tradition.  
FOr I am told (how true I know not) that some of our Divines maintain that in the person of the Pope reside's the rule of faith, by a singular gift and privilege bestowed upon S. Peter and his successors; And this so rigorously that no General Council, no not although the Pope's Legates be present and confirm it, is of force to oblige ●● of faiht until the personal confirmation of his Holiness be obtained. Others, they say, esteem the Council above the Pope, and so do not hold the Pope's approbation of a Council to be necessary, but that this rule of faith resides in the Council: Others I hear, to make all safe, join both in one, and nether admit the Council without the Pope, not the Pope without the Council to breed any obligation of faith. And farther I hear that amongst these Divines, of what opinion soever they be touching the subject in which this rule or highest authority doth reside, there be some which think that not any new doctrine or position can be broached or proposed as certain and as an article of faith by what authority soever, unless that doctrine was esteemed certain before, and ever believed as such. Yet I am told there be many who maintain and ●ouch that this highest authority of the church (wheresoever it be) may and can define points of doctrine not certainly known hitherto, nor ever expressy believed before. Which how they may be reconciled amongst them selves or stand with this, that tradition is our rule of faith, I confess I know not.  uncle. 
Truly, cousin, your objection is strong, yet I hope to content you. For the first part of it, I see no great matter in the variety of opinions amongst our Divines, for you see they seek out the Decider of points of doctrine, that is by whose mouth we are to know, (upon occasions of dispute) what and which be our points and articles of faith, to wit, whether the Pope, or the Council, or both. Which is not much material to our purpose, what ever the truth be, supposing we acknowledge no articles of faith but such as have descended unto us by tradition from Christ and his Apostles. The second part of your objection seems to be of greater force, because some Divines seem to acknowledge an authority in the church which hath power, not only to determine either speculative or practical points of doctrine new, or old, in such manner as that the whole church is obliged to accept or not oppose its definition, (which every Catholic grantes, and the reasons I told you in our first conference do evidently convince) But also that this authority can so determine even a speculative point of doctrine, which hitherto was ever uncertain nor ever acknowledge as reueiled, or esteemed as an article of faith, that here after the uhole church shallbe obliged to receive, acknowledge, and believe it as a revealed and necessary point of Christian doctrine, and as an article of faith. Which opinion you must know, is but an opinion, nor do the authors of it oblige any man to believe it as certain, nor do they condemn those who nether do, nor ever, will acknowledge any such position, and therefore this ought not to trouble you. Nay contrariwise all Divines will generally tell you, that no new articles of faith can be made, that there's now no revelations for new points of doctrine, and that Christ jesus was our only law maker in this kind, having suggested to his Apostles all that is necessary of this nature and quality, and the Apostles likewise taught their churches all that was necessary to be known of this degree. Wherefore you see all agree upon tradition, nor any one either deny it, or doubt of it, Whereas it appears by the diversity of their opinions that they do not universally and generally agree in any other means or rule of faith, though some admit of another in way of opinion: Yet to give you farther satisfaction in this business; I will teach you a point of philosophy which perhaps you never fully understood. I am sure you will not deny but 'tis a different question to ask how an herb or tree grows, and to ask how Aristole or Theophrastus says it grows, for in the same growing there can be no variety but in their opinions there may So in man, 'tis a different thing, what he doth or is done in him, and what he thinks he doth or is done in him, as in sickness, digestion, and other natural works 'tis evident, yea and in voluntary actions too, Which depend of corporal instruments, as to go, run, turn our eyes, speak, cough, spit or the like, which we do freely and voluntarily, yet were we examined by what instruments and motions we do them, peradventure who seems to know most would be found short, at least amongst many there would be divers opinions. But do you think the same happens in our thoughts and judgments which be purely spiritual?  Nephew. 
I cannot tell, yet me thinks the soul should be so well acquainted with her own actions as that she should not need any help to know them. And all men agree that only man upon earth can see his own mind, and therefore if it be not clear to man what himself thinks, nothing is clear.  uncle. 
You are deceived cousin, for as long as we are in this world we cannot know any thing of our own thoughts and affections but as we reflect upon the corporal motions which accompany them, and which because none feel but ourselves, none can know burr ourselves, though sometimes it happene's quite contrary, when these motions break forth into outward appearance, for them others descry our minds, and we ourselves through the violence of passion are not so well able ro judge of them as others who see us. But to speak of men free from passion, and who use to reflect much upon their own thoughts, even in them their internal actions proceed from a principle directed by a superior guide then their own reason, as appears by this that they know nothing of their own thoughts but by reflection, and the reflection is a distinct act from the former upon which the reflection is made, so that nether the reflection itself is alwaise made by voluntary design, nor any act which is made without reflection. Besides considere, I pray, how few know by what verve their understandings are made certain of those principles and positions which they cannot doubt of, or by what virtue they adhere so strongly to the conclusion of a syllogism, not one of a thousand who do these things every day. Wherefore 'tis euident that even in our spiritual actions, not all that we do is done by our proper vnderstanding, that is, with knowing reflection and design, and therefore, the same man may euen in these intellectual acts do one thing and think he doth an other, and divers men may agree in what they do, and yet disagree in their opinions of what it is they do. And now to close with your difficulty, seeing faith is a persuasion or an agreeing in some points by reason of authority, All the Doctors of the Catholic church may agree in believing, that is, in acting and practising their faith in the same manner, and yet be divided in their speculations by which they seek to determine what it is they do, And it is their do which makes them christian's, and not their say, for they live and believe as Christians, but speak and deliver their opinions as Doctors, which be qualities far different from being a Christian. And do you not see that these Doctors believe after their speculations and framing of their opinions as they did before they thought of, or studied this difficulty?  Nephew. 
I do not doubt but they do, for the faith of all Christians must needs be the same, and consequently all must go upon the same motive, though one may understand better and apprehend deeper that motive than an other doth.  uncle. 
You say well, Considere then that when these Doctors were young men, and had not yet studied Divinity, and you shall find that they had no other motive of their belief but the authority of the present church, and therefore how soever they discourse learnedly in their books, the conclusion must be in their lives to rest upon the authority of the present church as before they did.  Nephew. 
Nay if you go that way to work I fear you will fall short of your intent. For the child belieue's father and mother, the parishoner his Pastor without reflection of the present church. 'tis like therefore these Divines rely vpon the motives which they maintain what soever they did when they were young.  uncle. 
Not so nether, for as the water of the new river which is brought to London comes to a particular house by a small pipe, yet 'tis continuate to the whole body of the river: so the instruction of faith though it come to a child by his parents and to a parishoner by his Pastor, yet the dependence of the doctrine is from the whole church, whose members and instruments these parents and Pastors are, if they be in the church, to which you know I told you what is required. And 'tis the like when parents teach their children, what is to be done or avoided according to the laws of the country, for though the father speak, yet 'tis the common wealth which prevaileth and bindeth.  Nephew. 
At least me thinks, uncle, such great Doctors should not be ignorant of a point agreed upon by the whole church, and therefore since they disagree about the motive of faith, I do not see how you can say 'tis generally agreed on in the Catholic church.  uncle. 
Had this agreement been made in a General Council, or in some universal meeting of faithful Christians, and so recorded, I doubt not but these learned Clerks would have known it; but it was not so agreed on. Yet as by the universal blessing of crescite & multiplicamini, 
Gen. 1.  all men and beasts agreed upon feeding and filling the world, every one in his kind, by the direction of their maker, knocking at their stomaches when they were hungry, and at their pharisee when they were full to set on work those instruments by which the se commands of Almighty God were to be fulfiled: 
Marc 16  Even so by the like blessing of Euntes in mundam universum praedicate omni creaturae, the Apostles being dispersed into all nations by the virtue of doing miracles found credulity, or rather forced faith out of the flinty hearts of the corrupted world, and having settled Christ's doctrine, dying left in their successors souls and minds this agreement, To believe what was delivered from them, and to trust those who had heard them speak, and afterwards to trust those who had heard it from them who had their instruction from the Apostles, and lastly to trust the public consent which affirmed that they held their faith by entail from them though many ages after. This agreement being written in hearts and not in books, 'tis easy for learned men who seek their learning in books and not in hearts to mistake. As in Philosophy, whilst great Clerks seek nature not in itself, but in other men's sayings, they are divided, and few in the right, the truth being but one.  Nephew. 
You have been as good as you word. For I see it importe's not that our Divines be of different opinions in this point, so that in their lives and practice they agree. And truly I never heard of any Catholic that either doubted, but that Christian doctrine was descended by Tradition, or thought that what was so descended could be false, nay I think every moderate and wise Protestant will make no question of that which he conceives to have descended from the Apostles by succession. For Catholics we all rely upon the censure of the present church, nor can or ●are any man appeal from it and call himself a Catholic, for we all account them infidels and publicans who are refractory to this tenet. Wherefore 'tis evident that what soever the church speaks and deliuer's for Tradition, is agreed upon by all Catholics to be certain and unrefusable, and since all other motives or rules of faith are not universally received, 'tis evident likewise that this is the rule which can oblige us to certaintiem matters of belief. But I have an other great difficulty, to wit, that I see our Catechists and preachers, when they teach us Christian doctrine, tell us, this you are to believe, this you are to practice, without expressing the differences which are betwixt the points of doctrine, whereof perhaps some are but only the answers of learned men, some, definitions of the church, and some, matters of tradition, And the like I believe of former ages, Christian doctrine descending unto us in a heap or confusion, and therefore 'tis hard to distinguish what is of Tradition, what the general consent of the church, and what only learned men's opinions. Why then may not some position of this last rank pass for a tradition by the adoption of some ages, in which it will be forgotten that ever it had its beginning from the wit and industry of private men? And to satisfy me in this point you must let me see how that   

The teaching of Christian doctrine without determining what is of necessity to be believed what not, hurte's not the progress of tradition.  Uncle. 
If I should answer you, that former ages have been more exact in distinguishing things certain from uncertain it would not be without ground, as you may see by the framing of ancient creeds and other professions of faith as occasions required, but this were to send you to antiquity, whereas in this discourse you know we both desire that common sense and reason without farther enquiry should be our judge. Wherefore the point you speak of, which you fear might deceive us by the likeness of tradition, is either true or false, if true, than I pray, what inconvenience is there, if it surprise us in the quality of its certainty?  Nephew. 
This I fear and think, that it would break the rule and certainty of Tradition, Where upon relye's the whole building and frame of our faith according to your discourse. For if once truth not delivered by tradition may pass for so delivered, what security can we have that a falsity may not likewise pass in the same manner, and so bring an error amongst us?  uncle. 
I put you only that part of the question, if the point were true, which you draw into the contrary, if it were false, wherefore if it do not follow that an untruth can deceive us in that kind, then there is no inconvenience in the consequence of the former part, to wit, that truth may be taken as delivered by tradition, which truly is not so delivered. And the reason is clear, for seeing the truths of Religion are known for the framing of our lives conformably unto them, it importe's little, in respect of virtue, upon what grounds they are held in particular, so they be universally and constantly held, for an action done in consequence of such believed truths is never the worse for the quality of the certainty of its object. Yet for your farther satisfaction this I will add, that how soever the common people do not distinguish what is of Tradition, and what is but of some learned men's opinions, nevertheless those whom we call Divines (if truly they be such as the name require's) may and do distinguish positions of such different natures. For Christian doctrine is not a bundle of lose positions (as those who negligently look on it may think) but a true discipline hanging together by consequences and order tending to one end. And of this doctrine and discipline some parts be such as cannot be known but by immediate revelation, others such as no sensible man can doubt of, if he believe the former. And learned men know that of both these two, the one is expressly delivered by tradition, the other is as firm as if it were so delivered. For as it was reueiled that our saviour is truly God and man, so every man of common sense knows that he had two wills, Divine and human, against the Monothelites. Other points there may be which need art and study to deduce and fetch them out of the two former. And of these likewise a true Divine cannot be ignorant, being they are be fruits of learning and study, and consequently have ever been in the souls and writings of learned Masters. And these points every one knows who is conversant in Logic, and in judging the qualities of such propositions as belong to science, And yourself I am sure by the little skill you have therein, and by the small light of this discourse, will eastly judge that this is reasonable.  Nephew. 
I conceive your meaning, but whereas you say that the points of the second order are as firm as those which are delivered by Tradition, me thinks that's not reasonable, since Tradition relye's wholly on God and his word, but the other only vpon man's discourse which is fallible and easily mistaken, and therefore must of necessity be much inferior.  uncle. 
I would not have you take my words so precisely, not in so rigorous a degree of comparison, for so even of demonstrations the precedent will be esteemed more certain than that which is deduced out of it, though in a moral e●ti●ation the certainties be equal. And so it is in those two degrees, for truly that little discourse which is required for the second degree is infallible, certain, and evident, and therefore the knowledge proceeding from it may well be ranked with the former degree. But I suppose you expect to hear why it doth not follow, that if a truth not delivered by Tradition may nevertheless pass for such, why, I say, an error may not have the same progress, and surprise the church that is,   

§. 11 Why no error can pass universally through the church of God.  
ANd this I will show you in a word, because it falleth into the repetition of what we have already discoursed on. The impossibilities are three. First it trencheth upon the resolution we formerly made that one man's authority could not prevail against, and over the whole church; for this is the difference betwixt a truth and a false hood, that a truth though it begin from one yet may it be accepted of by all, by reason of its evidence, Which when one hath laid open, others may follow, not for the man's authority, but for the love of the seen truth: Whereas falsehood, which cannot bring evidence with it, must be bolstered up by the man's credit and reputation, which you know is insufficient. Secondly it is impossible an error should generally prevaille by reason of the immutability which is in the universality of contingent causes, whose particulars may be defective, but the universals cannot. So that as it is impossible in nature that all children should be borne with one eye, all colts with three legs, or the like, so were it a monstrous accident, and that in a higher and more immutable nature, if an error should generally prevail and pass through all mankind, or through so great a part of it as we make account the Catholic church is, and will ever be. The third impossibility is, because it trencheth upon the stability of Religion, for since we agreed that 'tis impossible for any nation to have no Religion, and as impossible to change a true into a false, And likewise that Christian doctrine hath the nature of science, so fare as that no error can fall into it but must bring contradiction and opposition against the principles and received practice of the church, and so make a breach against the ancient possession, it doth therefore plainly appear, that as it is impossible for such a breach to become universal in time and place, so likewise must it needs be impossible that an untruth should be universally received for tradition, having not been delivered as such.  Nephew. 
I must confess your reasons seem good, yet might one say all your reasons are but moral persuasions, which may fail; as if one should say, it is reasonable to think an honest man will not lie, yet I doubt not but some times the contrarie happene's. Wherefore I pray you tell me   

§. 12 Of what quality you think these your reasons and discourses be, and whether you conceive them to bear an absolute certainty?  Uncle. 
I fear it will be to far on the night before I can satisfy your difficulty, yet I will show you briefly and familiarly what may suffice. Tell me then, do you think there is such a town as Rome or Constantinople?  Nephew. 
That I do, I would I knew what I ask as well.  uncle. 
Why, who told you there were any such towns?  Nephew. 
Truly I do not remember who told me so in particular, but I have heard so many talk of them without doubting that it were folly to doubt of it.  uncle. 
But if I or some other, of whose honesty you do not doubt, should tell you we have been there and have seen those towns with our own eyes, would you believe it more certainly than you do?  Nephew. 
No in deed, uncle, for although I should, in that case, make no doubt of it, yet their authorities upon which I do already believe it are no less, nay far greater, seeing that if it were not foe, many more of no less credit and reputation must be liars, whom though I cannot name yet nature tell's me that if thousands had not reported it of their own knowledge it could not pass so constantly and uncontrowlably as is doth.  uncle. 
But if a man should come with many great reasons and motives to persuade you, that there is, not ever was any such cities a we speak of. Nay let us suppose that if you lived but 20 miles from London where every day you fawe hundreth's come from thence, and yourself had never been there, And there should come unto you a man who should labour to show by reason that it were a folly to think there were any such town as London. Or to make our supposition more strong suppose you had lived divers years in London and had never seen London Brige which every day you might see if you would, And some man would persuade you there were no such thing, what would you do?  Nephew. 
I would give him hearing as I would do to a fool or a madman, and so much power should his fair reasons prevail with me. For although I never had been at London, yet could I not choose but know there were a London more certainly then any learned discourse could make me know any other thing. For it is as impossible that so many men should conspire in a lie concerning a thing which might be so easily discovered, and that no body should contradict so many who should daily say they had seen and felt it, as it is that men should be no men, And far more possible for me to be deceived in a reason never so evident then so many to swerve so far from human nature.  uncle. 
Why then if you think it madness in a man to doubt or not to believe such a thing, what strength do you conceive these our arguments must have? must you not needs think they have as much force vpon the mind, as colour conveniently disposed hath upon the eye? as the objects of smell and taste have upon the nose trill and palate? or in deed as a demonstration hath upon the understanding? And in fine, if any do not admit of these arguments as good is it not evident that 'tis not for want of force in the object but of disposition in the person?  Nephew. 
I confess it seems to me so, yet do I not see why it must he so, for there's so great difference betwixt natural things and moral, and the will of man is so much more murable than nature, that I cannot conceive how any certainty can be had in moral things.  uncle. 
I see you seek to engage me into a long discourse but I will cut you short. Do you think it is against nature to tell a lie, or that 'tis a natural action?  Nephew. 
I think 'tis a moral action nether with nor against nature, and I think the like of all virtues and vices, nor do I know why I should think otherwise.  uncle. 
You know we say that children and fools tell true, and that fools are called Naturals, as working by nature. And have you not marked in yourself that being asked a question, if you be heedless you presently answer the truth, but if you be upon your guard, you considere and resolve how far to answer, and what to conceal. Nay if you have marked it, 
HoW a lie is framed against nature.  you have never told a formal lie but you have been forced to from a new thing in your mind which before was not in it, so that what nature and the course of learning and speaking breedes would never lie. To lie therefore you must have arte and change some natural position of your fancy to make or frame it, as if a man would turn his hand or face backwards, And so we say in latin mentire est contra mentem ire, which is to cross that which is in our minds, Whereas words are by nature made conformable to our understandings. Whence 'tis manifest that a lie is against nature, and cannot be done but by a voluntary resolution to change the course of nature. For although a falsehood may be told naturally, if that which is false be in our mind, either by settled opinion or by the surprise of inconsideration, yet a lie, which is the putting by of that which is naturally in our mind, or at least the hindering of it to manifest itself and the subornation of an other thing to go out in its place, cannot choose but be voluntary, and done for some end or respect which we aim at. And the like may be said to prove all vices to be against nature. 
HoW all vice is against nature.  For if nature be the principle of action in us, and none who beareth the face of man from the boy that play's at push pin, to the Bishop that judgeth for heaven, but professeth to follow reason and exact's it of an other, no doubt but reason is the verse nature of man; Wherefore if vice be nothing else but the defect of our action from the rule of reason, 'tis evident that when we do any thing against reason, we must needs work against the nature of man, and consequently vice is against the nature of man. And so we see that man is generally ashamed of vice, and what he is not a shamed of, he will not repute to be vice, but will defend it as reasonable.  Nephew. 
Give me leave to interrupt you sir, For I fear I did not well declare myself. It was not my mind to say that reason is not the nature of man, But that there is a main difference betwixt the nature of man, which we call reason, compared to his moral actions; and betwixt the nature of other things (as of the elements) compared to their actions. And therefore although philosophers may show perhaps impossibilities in nature, yet will it be hard to the the like in the actions of reason, or rather of the will, whose ways seem to be uncertain.  uncle. 
No, cousin, I did not mistake your intention, but I make no difference betwixt the nature of man and of other things but in excellency, and I conceive this excellency of man's nature to consist in a greater constancy of working, and so think an impossibility as easily showed in man's actions as in the actions of any other nature. For cannot we say of many things before they be done, that no wise man will do them, and therefore that who doth them is not wise. For example, can you think that any wise man will take a ball to cut withal, or a pikestaffe to fetch water in? Be not such things as theses as easily known, as whether there be any place without a body, or stuffed with more than one? Wherefore we may besure that if a wise man go to fetch water, he will take some thing else then a pikestaffe to fetch it in, 
HoW reason comes to fail in any man,  or if he be to cut, he will not take a ball; so that 'tis manifest reason hath as firm principles as any other nature, And that as the nature of one thing will hold until a stronger contrary do cross it, so there must be in any particular man a contrary disposition stronger than reason in him, to make him go against reason. Now therefore if you can cast up the force of reason and of its contraries, you may certainly know what a man will do; which although perhaps you cannot exactly balance in a particular man, yet in a great number and in whole multitudes you may in some things know it as certainly, as you can do any thing by a demonstration. For example, suppose there were an Assembly of grave and wise men, as our Parliament or the like, which had had a very fair sun shine day to fit on, And one should tell you that in the next sessions following they would decree it had been a very fowl day, and would command under pain of death every man to believe and profess foe. Which though I think you will say it were impossible they should make any such decree, yet would I know how you would go about to prove it. Would your not considere what force of fears of hopes were necessary to induce one of these men to tell such a notorious lie, whereby he were to hazard his conscience and reputation for ever, and then increase and augment the difficulty by the multitude? And farther would you not urge that there were no such hopes or fears as were able to quell any one, or at least a were necessary to overswaye them all, considering that the same hopes or fears could not fall upon such variety of estates and humours as all these men were of, And knowing certainly any of these three you would assuredly pronunce the supposed assertion to be false. For say you, such a force is necessary to break reason in this Congregation, but such a force at this present cannot be had, and therefore reason at this present cannot be broken in them. In which discourse a Mathematician will tell you, his demonstrations hang vpon the very same gimalls. Wherefore as men cannot ordinarily demonstrate, that one body cannot be in two places, nor two in one, yet are we certain there is a natural demonstration for it, and we are by nature assured of it. So no doubt, but there is a demonstration to him that liveth in London, that there is a London bridge, and he is naturally certain of it, though he cannot frame the demonstration by articles and sylogismes as a true philosopher can do, for surely a philosopher, if he will take pains, may find a demonstration for both.  Nephew. 
I heartily thank you for this discourse, both for the present subject, wherein you have contented me beyond my expection, as also because me thinks I conceive by it, that there may be certain knowledge, not only in mathematics, but in all other sciences, since there is so clear and efficacious means of proceeding even in moral matters, which seem the most mutable and uncertain of all, and where I thought scarcely any reason was to be expected.  uncle. 
O! cousin, though he was a great man that said Ars longa, vita brevis, yet he must give me leave to be his interpreter, for 'tis not the length of art▪ but our not taking the right way, which makes it long, otherwise art would be but a convenient solace to our lives. Would you think that a private man following the wars without help of others writings by his own industry should surpass the greatest clerks that have pored double his time upon books? and, 
Monsieur des Cartes.  this, our age hath showed in a french gentleman, yet not only living but young.  Nephew. 
Me thinks, uncle, it were a good work and necessary for the Christian world, if yourself or some other would take the pains to set down the principles of our faith in form of demonstration. For that I conceive would take away all controversies, and make all Christians of one belief and Religion.  uncle. 
You are a young man, and conceiue's not the daintiness of the palates of this age, they would not taste such rugged and bitter stuff, nay they cannot digest any thing which is not sugared with acquaint and pleasont jests. Who would read such a work? Who would have the patience to study it to comprehend it and make it his own? This very discourse which hath passed betwixt you and me is so thorny and full of so many chained consequences, that were it public few would carry it away. Let us therefore content ourselves to make it known to our own acquaintance, to whom upon occasion you may deliver it by the way of familiar discourse, wherein peradventure it will savour better and profit more.  Nephew. 
I pray leave me not thus give me at least some special light to answer such objections, as without doubt will be proposed, when I shall deliver your discourse to those who are better red than myself. Wherefore least I should disgrace your learned lessons, I pray, tell me how   

§. 13 Some chief and short objections may be solued.  Uncle. 
I can not give you a better rule then to stick to the church's authority for Tradition, and not to be easily beaten of by great names and words, for if you considere that a Tradition, or a point of faith delivered by tradition, is a point universally preached and delivered by the Apostles and imprinted in the hearts of the Christian world; And by an universal belief and practise continued unto our days; whereof our warrant is no other than that we find the present church in quiet possession of it, and whereof no beginning is known, if this I say you considere and stick well to this apprehension, you need not fear any objection which can be made against you. For you rely upon the testimony of the whole Christian church, you rely upon the force of nature borne to continue from father to child, you rely upon the promises of jesus Christ of continuing his church unto the end of the world, And upon the efficacity of the Holy Ghost sent to perform it, by whom Christ's law was written in Christians hearts and so to be continued to the day of doom, So that you see no human authority, by which our Estates and lives are governed; No proofs of courts or law, which nevertheless are admitted as juges of those affairs which too many (God knows) esteem more weighty and important than Religion, No consent of history, And in fine (if what we have said be true) no demonstration better, nor greater, nor peradventure equal. On the other side you shall find all objections fall of their own weakness. As, some do object the millenary error for a tradition, whereof there is no certainty, nor consent of those who writ of it, whether it have been publicly preached by the Apostles or no, And even thence it is excluded from the nature of such tradition as we rely upon. Others finding divers fathers agreeing in one opinion, urge them presently for, or against, tradition, As if fathers in their days were not private Doctors, and might not be mistaken in some points as well as the Doctors of the present church, 'tis true we reverence the fathers in many titles above any living Doctors, yet every Catholic knows that divers fathers have some times light into the same error. Wherefore you must note, cousin, that the fathers speak some times as witnese of what the church held in their days, and some times as Doctors, and so 'tis often hard to distinguish how they deliver their opinions, because some times they press scripture or raisin as Doctors, and some times to confirm a known truth. So that who seeke's Tradition in the fathers and to convince it by their testimony, takes a hard task upon him, if he go rigorously to work and have a cunning Critic to his Adversary. How so ever 'tis not a thing fitting for ordinary and unlearned people but only for such as have time at will and great reading and understanding.  Nephew. 
You have many Adversaries in this opinion, for generally men seek tradition out of the fathers, and think they have found it, when in every age they find several fathers of the same opinion.  uncle. 
I intend not to detract from their labours who have taken pains in this kind, for they are profitable and necessary for the church of God, and excellent testimonies of Tradition, but I neither think it to be the body of Tradition, but only an effect and consequent of it, nor that the multitude of Christians, whose faith is to be regulated by Tradition, need to have recourse to those learned works. Wherefore although divers fathers in the same or different ages be found to contradict some point, whereof the present church is in quiet and immemorable possession, their authorities ought not to prevail; nor are they sufficient to prove there was not even in their days a contrary Tradion. For our faith being in some sort naturally grafted in the hearts of Christians, learned men may now and then mistake some points of it, as well as the causes and effects of their own nature itself, according as I told you but now, And as in other points so even in this, to wit, in the resolution of faith, wherein as our Doctors seem to differ now a days, so might the fathers also, And in particular S. Cyprian seems to think that the resolution of faith was to be made into scripture and not into Tradition, though in deed he opposed not scripture to Tradition, but to custom, which is a far different thing, the one relying upon the doctrine of the Apostles, the other upon the authority of private Doctors, And supposing he was mistaken, it were no more them what we now see to consist with the unity of the Church. There is one objection and but only one of moment, and 'tis that S. Augustin and Innocentius with their Counsels held that the communion of Children Was necessary for their saluation, and their words seem to be apparent. But who looketh into other passages of the same Authors will find that their words are metaphorical, and that their meaning is, that the effect of sacramental Communion, to wit, an incorporation into Christ's mystical body, which is done by Baptism, is of necessity for Child's salvation. I remember not at this present any other objection of monent which may not be easily solued out of these principles.  Nephew. 
I will suggest you one or two if you please, The one of Communion under both kinds, wherein our Adversaries say, we leave a known and practised tradition for many ages. The other concerning the books of scripture, where they say we accept of a new scripture, or rule of faith without tradition.  uncle. 
I did think, cousin, you could answer these yourself. For the first there is two parts of it, The one that the B. Sacrament was given under both kinds ordinarily, the other that some times it was given in one kind only, And Catholics being in possession of both parts by tradition, those that will prove that Catholics go against Tradition must prove that it was never administered under one kind only, which our Adversary's nether go about nor can perform, but ply only that part which is granted them, to wit, that ordinarily it was administered under both kinds. For the second 'tis not sufficient to show that some have doubted of this or that part of the Canon, unless they can prove that those who did not doubt, were not a sufficient party to make a Tradition from the Apostles time. And so you see it falls into the question we mentioned before, that some fathers or Doctors being of a contrary mind break not the force of tradition.  Nephew. 
I am loath to leave you, uncle, because me thinks I am not sufficiently armed to answer all objections, And yet what soever I call to mind falle's into some of these conditions you require.  uncle. 
Let me see how skilful you are, I will try how you can answer me to   

§. 14 The examples of Tradition which seem to have failed.  
FIrst therefore betwixt Adā's being cast out of Paradise and the Deluge there are accounted about two thousand years, which according to the long lives men enjoyed at that time made not fully three descents, and yet in Noy's time the forgetting of God's law was so great that a general flood was necessary for the cleansing of the world. Sem was Noy's son, and before his death both the Divisions of Nations happened, because of their pride against God, And (as most Historians think) the selecting of Abram's family into God's service, the rest of the world having abandoned it. Likewise what is become of all antien Religions, the most part of them delivered by Tradition, they are all gone and rooted out. So that plain experience is against those fine discourses you approved so higly, What answer would you make to this?  Nephew. 
Marry I would deny it to be true, I mean I would say that God's law was not forgotten, but neglected before the flood, And the like at the building of Babel; And for Abraham's time, we know that Abimelech, and Pharaoh, and Melchisedech, and others (as job when soever he lived) observed God's law. As for heathen Religions they were written in books, for any thing I know, and therefore prejudice tradition no more than a written law, and consequently belong not to this controversy. And thus I think I should quit myself well enough.  uncle. 
Soon enough at least, but let us see if it be with as good speed as much haste. For suppose they should reply that the neglect of God's law must of necessity breed oblivion, and therefore that either God's law was forgotten or shortly would have been, if the punishment of the Deluge had not prevented it. And for the men you cite of Abraham's time they were but few, and though in that time God's law had yet some little force, look but into Mose's time and you shall see all overrun with Idolatry. For Heathen Religions 'tis said of the Druids that their Ceremonies were not written, but delivered by memory in verse from the Elder to the younger and so conserved; And the Histories of the welsh and Irish seem to have been conserved in the like manner by the Bards, which how full of fables they were every man knows. So that these things seem sufficient to discredit Tradition.  Nephew. 
I must entreat your helping hand to fasten me vpon this shaking flore, otherwise I perceive I am to weak to stand of myself.  uncle. 
'tis not the flore you stand upon, but the want of confidence which makes you so unsteadfast. For tell me, I pray, if you remember whereon relies the firmness of Tradition?  Nephew. 
You told me, the Tradition of Christian faith was a great while a planting in the hearts of men by the force of miracles, and that not only in their understandings but also in their wills and affections, and so cultivated until the main of the people were constantly persuaded there was no salvation without it. This was done at the same time in many Countries, not knowing one of an other, nor being able to corresponde and frame any draught of belief together, but every one receiving what was delivered him from his preacher.  uncle. 
Why now then, cousin, rerurne to your objections and look how they urge and what force they have against this your declaration of tradition.  Nephew. 
As for Adam's children I see that one man and one woman were the only witnese of such a thing as the parties to whom they told it could hardly believe, it was so strange, Nay themselves had so little experience of those strange things which they told, that (for any thing we know) they never as much as tasted of any fruit in Paradise but of the forbidden tree, And what care they had of any Religion more them to recommend God's service to their children, and that only as long as they lived with them, we know not, so that it seems what they taught taken no strong root, nor in many. For Noth the same answer may be given, two of his sons parting shortly from him either into far countries, or at least into such a distance, as that they seldom came to see him, Wherefore I perceive there is a great difference betwixt the delivery of Christ's Gospel and of the law of God to those fathers of the old Testament.  uncle. 
Your remarkes are good ones; And in deed seeing we have required that Tradition should have the continuance of nature, We must see that it be planted accordingly, which you have well noted to have been performed in Christ's law, but not in the tradition of the old law, the fathers and people of that time being much hindered by the great business of the world's plantation, Every man seeking to plant countries, build cities, find out commodities for the conservation of man's life, Which were occupations far different from the thoughts of heaven, and things of the next world. To this you may add that there was not then any settled orders of Priests and men whose function should be to inculcate the necessity of Religion into men's ears and hearts, which we know the Apostles had care to perform euerie where. Again there was no such correspondence betwixt country and country in those times as hath ever been amongst Christians, specially by the mediation of a chief Bishop which Christ hath set amongst us. And no doubt but these two last points be two main and chief causes of the propagation and conservation of Christian faith. You may yet add that euen the points of faith were not then able to work upon man's nature so powerfully as since Christ's coming, according to our yesternight's discourse. So that the root and strength of Tradition being grounded upon this, that such a belief is fixed in people's hearts of several nations, the examples fail in three things. First that the multitude was not capable of it, it being so spiritual and abstract. Secondly that it was not inculcated with that fervour of spirit, assistance of the holy Ghost, and abundance of continual miracles, as Christ's law was. Thirdly that there was not a set form and institution of Priests and Governors to join all nations in communion for the conservation of their belief. Wherefore it never had the root and nature of an universal Tradition. And by these examples you may easily answer all other objections of this nature. And now I will leave you lest I should over weary both you and myself.  Nephew. 
You say well, uncle, yet that I may be sure to have fully conceived the main drift of your instructions, I pray let me see if I can make   

§. 15 The conclusion of all our discourse.  
IT was first your intention to give me a rule how to govern myself in the choice of Religion, Than you concluded that scripture could not be this rule, Where upon you laid me down two ways how to resolve myself. The first was that standing upon the ground of prepossession there was no likelihood or probability that the Protestants arguments could be sufficient to over balance the Catholics, because they must be convincing clearly or else were to be rejected, And that the Protestants should bring any convincing and demonstrative arguments against the Catholics there is no appearance, Catholics being more in number, in quality greater scholars, and in life more virtuous; And on the contrary side Protestants having no principles or command which may make them agree amongst themselves. And you showed me that though this persuasion did not evidently convince the Catholic faith to be true, yet did it manifestly prove that the Catholic was to be chosen by an unlearned man. Your second way was by giving a direct proof that the Catholic doctrine is true, which you did in threeseverall manners. First by showing that it was no hard matter for the Catholic church to conserve the truth of her doctrine, if she were careful, which histories plainly show she was. Secondly showing that nature doth force men to have care of Religion, and therefore that it was impossible any error should so creep into the church as that it should be universally received, the very nature of man and human affairs contradicting its progress. Thirdly, showing how the church now relying upon Tradition, must of necessity have ever done so, and that if it hath ever done so, it could not let any falsehood creep in, nor suffer any error to be generally admitted. This is all I remember, saving the soluing of some objections and the discovering of some of my impertinent answers, which I hope you will excuse and forget. If I have miss I pray direct me.  uncle. 
You have taken good notice, and I think my pains well bestowed, only I would entreat you to make a little reflection and comparison betwixt the knowledge which we have by these means, and that which scripture afforde's us if we handle it in a litigious way, as in controversies we necessarily must. And you shall find that Tradition is grounded upon that which all men agree in, and upon that which is common to all ages, all nations, all conditions. But the knowledge which we have by scripture is grounded upon that which is different in every nation. Hence spring's an other difference, to wit, that the one is planted in nature, and in what God created in man: the other in what men themselves framed, and that not by design or art, but by custom and chance. Out of which again ensueth that the one is capable of necessity, and consequently of a perfect demonstration, as all natural things are, the other not. The one is fixed upon universals, the other vagabond in particulars. As for example who is able to demonstrate that a word in controversy hath no other sense then that which is necessary for his purpose? Or where the construction may be made divers ways, that the true one is that which he pleadeth? Who can demonstrate amongst varieties of texts which was in the Autograph? Or that the copies we have are not defective? And the like, which ordinarily are necessary if we will evindently convince our intent out of the place we choose. On the other side, To show that whole multitudes of several nations cannot miss in what hath been a thousand times over and over inculcated unto them, That a world cannot conspire to cozen their posterity, That mankind cannot accept of a doctrine against an evident principle, which they likewise hold and maintain (these being the maxims Tradition depende's on) to show, I say, these things there needs no deep learning, being both known of themselves, and also as necessarily conioint and dependant of man's nature as his other natural actions be, and therefore may bear as good a demonstration as they; which if we have not, it is not through any defect or incapacity of the subject, but through the want of our looking into it, and that either because we do not take the right way, or that we do not bestow sufficient pains in the prosecution of it. So that in fine although the Roman church had fallen (which is impossible) into those errors which the Protestants pretend, yet were it better for a man to content himself with the Good that remains in it, then to cast himself into an endless and fruitless maze of disputations with trouble to all the world, and that to no other effect, then to make people unsettled, and by their unnsetlednesse to neglect Religion. But God's wisdom (as you see) hath provided an Evidence for those that will take pains to seek it, 1. that the points in controversy are of importance and necessary to be known, 2. that they cannot be so known by scripture as is requisite for decisions against contentious men, and 3. that they may be certainly known by resting quiet in the bosom of the Catholic church, which God of his mercy give you and me grace to do both living and dying.