A DISCOURSE OF INFALLIBILITY, With Mr. Thomas White's Answer to it, and a Reply to him; By Sr. Lucius Cary, late Lord Viscount of Falkland.  
Also Mr. Walter Montague (Abbot of Nanteul) his Letter against Protestantism; and his Lordship's answer thereunto, with Mr John Pearson's Preface.  
The Second Edition.  
To which are now added two discourses of Episcopacy by the said Viscount Falkland, and his Friend Mr. William Chillingworth  
Published according to the Original Copies.  
LONDON, Printed for William Nealand, Bookseller in Cambridge and are to be sold there, and at the Crown in Duck-lane 1660.   

  

A SPEECH CONCERNING EPISCOPACY.  
Mr. Speaker,  
WHosoever desires this total change of our present Government, desires it either out of a conceit that is unlawful, or inconvenient. To both these, I shall say something. To the first, being able to make no such arguments to prove it so myself, as I conceive likely to be made within the walls of so wise a House, I can make no answer to them, till I hear them from some other; which then (if they persuade me not) by the liberty of a Committee, I shall do. But this in general. In the mean time, I shall say, that the ground of this government of Episcopacy, being so ancient, and so general, so uncontradicted in the first and best times, that our most laborious Antiquaries can find no Nation, no City, no Church, nor Houses under any other; that our first Ecclesiastical Authors tell us, that the Apostles not only allowed but founded Bishops (so that the tradition for some Books of Scripture, which we receive as Canonical, is both less ancient, less general, and less uncontradicted,) I must ask leave to say, that though the Mystery of iniquity began suddenly to work, yet it did not instantly prevail; it could not aim at the end of the race, as soon as it was started; nor could Antichristianism in so short a time have become so Catholic.  
To the second, this I say, that in this Government there is no inconvenience which might not be sufficiently remedied without destroying the whole; and though we had not pared their Nails, or rather their Tongues, (I mean the High-Commission,) though we should neither give them the direction of strict rules, nor the addition of choice Assisters (both which we may do, and suddenly I hope we shall;) yet the fear sunk into them of this Parliament, and the expectation of a Triennial one, would be such banks to these rivers, that we need fear their inundations no more.  
Next I say, that if some inconvenience did appear in this, yet since it may also appear, that the change will breed greater, I desire those who are led to change by inconveniences only, that they will suspend their opinions, till they see what is to be laid in the other balance, which I will endeavour.  
The inconveniences of the change are double, some that it should be yet done, others, that it should be at all done. The first again, double, 1. Because we have not done what we should do first; and 2. Because others have not done what they should do first; That which we should do first, is, to agree of a succeeding Form of Government, that every man, when he gives his Vote to the destruction of this, may be sure that he destroys not that, which he likes better than that which shall succeed it. I conceive no man will at this time give this Vote, who doth not believe this Government to be the worst that can possibly be devised; and for mypart, if this be thus proposterously done, and we left in this blind uncertainty (what shall become of us!) I shall not only doubt all the inconveniences, which any Government meant hath, but which any Government may have. This I insist on the rather, because if we should find cause to wish for this back again, we could not have it, the means being dispersed. To restore it again would be a miracle in State, like that of the resurrection to Nature.  
That which others should do first, is, to be gone. For if you will do this, yet things standing as they do, no great cause appearing for so great a change, I fear a great Army may be thought to be the cause. And I therefore desire (to be sure that Newcastle may not be suspected to have any influence upon London,) that this may not be done, till our Brethren be returned to their Patrimony.  
We are now past the inconveniences in point of Time; I now proceed. And my first inconvenience of this change, is, the inconvenience of change itself, which is so great an inconvenience, when the Change is great and sudden, that in such cases, when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. To a person formerly intemperate, I have known the first prescription of an excellent Physician, to forbear too good a diet for a good while. We have lived long happily, and gloriously, under this Form of Government; Episcopacy hath very well agreed with the constitution of our Laws, with the disposition of our People: how any other will do, I the less know, because I know not of any other, of which so much as any other Monarchy hath had any experience; they all having (as I conceive) at least Superintendents for life: and the mere word Bishop, I suppose, is no man's aim to destroy, nor no man's aim to defend.  
Next, Sir, I am of opinion, that most men desire 
* See the Collection of Petitions for Episcopacy; printed for Will. Shears.  not this change, or else I am certain there hath been very suddenly a great change in men. Several Petitions indeed desire it, but knowing how concerned and how united that party is, how few would be wanting to so good a work, even those hands which value their number to others, are an argument of their paucity to me. The numberless number of those of a different sense, appear not so publiquekly and cry not so loud, being persons more quiet, as secure in the goodness of their Laws, and the wisdom of their Lawmakers; And because men petition for what they have not, and not for what they have, perhaps that the Bishops may not know how many friends their Order hath, lest they be encouraged to abuse their authority, if they knew it to be so generally approved. Now, Sir, though we are trusted by those that sent us, in cases wherein their opinions were unknown; yet truly if I knew the opinion of the major part of my Town, I doubt whether it were the intention of those that trusted me, that I should follow my own opinion against theirs. At least, let us stay till the next Session, and consult more particularly with them about it.  
Next, Sir, it will be the destruction of many estates, in which many, who may be very innocent persons, are legally vested, and of many persons who undoubtedly are innocent, whose dependences are upon those estates. The Apostle faith, he that provides not for his family, is worse than an Infidel, This belongs in some analogy to us; and truly, Sir, we provide ill for our Family (the Commonwealth) if we suffer a considerable part of it to be turned out of doors. So that, for any care is taken by this Bill for new dwelling, (and I will never consent they shall play an aftergame, for all they have) either we must see them starve in the streets before us, or (to avoid that) we must ship them some-whither away, like the Moors out of Spain.  
From the hurt of the Learned I come to that of Learning; and desire you to consider, whether, when all considerable maintenance shall be reduced to cure of Souls, all studies, will not be reduced to those which are in order to Preaching; the Arts and Languages, and even eminent skill in Controversies (to which great leisure and great means is required) much neglected, and (to the joy and gain of our common Adversary,) Syntagms, postils, Catechisms, Commentators, and Concordances, almost only bought, and the rest of Libraries remain rather as of ornament, then as of use. I do not deny but for all this want, the wit of some hath attempted both, and the parts of some few have served to discharge both, as those of Calvin, to advise about, and dispatch more Temporal business into the bargain, than all our privy-councel; yet such abilities are extremely rare, and very few will ever p each mice a Sunday, and be any match for Bellarmine. Nay I fear, Sir, that this will make us to have fewer able even in Preaching itself, as it is separated from general Learning, for I fear many whose parts, friends, and means, might make them hope for better advancements in other courses, when these shall be taken away from this, will be less ready to embrace it; and though it were to be wished, that all men should only undertake those Embassages, with reference to His Honour Whose Ambassadors they are; yet I doubt not but many, who have entered into the Church by the Door, (or rather by the Window,) have done it (after) great and sincere service; and better reasons have made them labour in the vineyard, than brought them thither at first: and though the mere love of God ought to make us good, though there were no reward or punishment, yet it would be very inconvenient to piety, that hope of Heaven and fear of Hell were taken away.  
The next inconvenience, I fear, is this; that if we should take away a Government which hath as much testimony of the first antiquity to have been founded by the Apostles, as can be brought for some parts of Scripture to have been written by them, lest this may avert some of our Church from us, and rivet some of the Roman Church to her; and (as I remember) the Apostle commands us to be careful, not to give scandal even to those that are without. Sir, It hath been said, that we have a better way to know Scripture than by Tradition; I dispute not this, Sir, but I know that Tradition is the only argument to prove Scripture to another, and the first to every man's self, being compared to the Samaritan Woman's report, which made many first believe in Christ, though they after believed him for himself. And I therefore would not have this so far weakened to us, as to take away Episcopacy as unlawful, which is so far by Tradition proved to be lawful.  
The next inconvenience that I fear, is this: having observed those generally who are against Bishops (I will not now speak of such as are among us, who by being selected from the rest, are to be hoped to be freer than ordinary, from vulgar passions) to have somewhat more animosity against those who are for them, than vice versâ; lest when they shall have prevailed against the Bishops, they be so far encouraged against their partakers, and will so have discouraged their adversaries, as in time to induce a necessity upon others, at least of the Clergy, to believe them as unlawful as they themselves do, and to assent to other of their opinions yet left at large. Which will be a way to deprive us, I think, of not our worst, I am sure of our most learned Ministers; and to send a greater Colony to New England, than it hath been said this Bill will recall from thence.  
I come now from the incoveniences of taking away this Government, to the inconveniences of that which shall succeed it: and to this I can speak but by guess, and groping, because I have no light given me what that shall be; only I hope I shall be excused for shooting at random, since you will set me up no Butt to shoot at. The first, I fear the Scotch Government will either presently be taken; or if any other succeed for a while, yet the unity and industry of those of that opinion in this Nation, assisted by the counsel and friendship of that, will shortly bring it in, if any less opposite Government to it be here placed than that of Episcopacy. And indeed Sir, since any other Government than theirs will by no means give any satisfaction to their desire of uniformity; since all they who see not the dishonour and ill consequences of it, will be unwilling to deny their Brethren what they esteem indifferent; since our own Government being destroyed, we shall in all I kelyhood be aptest to receive that which is both next at hand and ready made: For these reasons I look upon it as probable; and for the following ones, as inconvenient.  
When some Bishops pretended to Jure divino (though nothing so likely to be believed by the People, as those would be, nor consequently to hurt us by that pretence) this was cried out upon as destructive to His majesty's Supremacy, who was to be confessed to be the Fountain of Jurisdiction in this Kingdom. Yet to Jure divino the Scotch Ecclesiastical government pretends, To meet when they please, to treat of what they please, to excommunicate whom they please, even Parliaments themselves; so far are they from receiving either rules or punishments from them. And for us to bring in any unlimited, any Independent authority, the first is against the Liberty of the Subject, the second against the Right and Privilege of Parliament; and both against the Protestation.  
If it be said, that this unlimitedness and independence is only in Spiritual things; I answer first, that arbitrary Government being the worst of Governments, and our Bodies being worse than our Souls, it will be strange to set up that over the second, of which we were so impatient over the first. Secondly, that M. Solicitor speaking about the Power of the Clergy, to make Canons to bind, did excellently inform us, what a mighty influence Spiritual power hath upon Temporal affairs. So that if our Clergy had the one, they had inclusively almost all the other. And to this I may add, (what all men may see,) the vast Temporal power of the Pope allowed him by such who allow it him only in ordine ad Spiritualia: for the Fable will tell you, if you make the Lion (and the Clergy, assisted by the people, is Lion enough) it was a wise fear of the Foxe's, lest he might call a knubb a horn. And sure, Sir, they will in this case be Judges, not only of that which is Spiritual, but of what it is that is so: and the people receiving instruction from no other, will take the most Temporal matter to be Spiritual, if they tell them it is so.   

The Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy; demonstrated by Mr. William Chillingworth.  
SECT. 1. IF we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals, and consider only what is essential and necessary to it; we shall find in it no more but this. An appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the Churches, within a certain Precinct or Diocese; and furnishing him with authority (not absolute or arbitrary, but regulated and bounded by Laws, and moderated by joining to him a convenient number of assistants) to the intent that all the Churches under him may be provided of good and able Pastors: and that both of Pastors and people, conformity to Laws, and performance of their duties may be required, under penalties, not left to discretion, but by Law appointed.  
SECT. 2. To this kind of Government I am not by any particular interest so devoted, as to think it ought to be maintained, either in opposition to Apostolic Institution; or to the much desired reformation of men's lives, and restauration of Primitive discipline; or to any Law or Precept of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: for that were to maintain a means contrary to the end; for obedience to our Saviour, is the end for which Church-Government is appointed. But if it may be demonstrated (or made much more probable than the contrary) as I verily think it may: I. That it is not repugnant to the government settled in and for the Church by the Apostles. II. That it is as complyable with the reformation of any evil which we desire to reform either in Church or State, or the introduction of any good. which we desire to introduce, as any other kind of Government: And III. That there is no Law, no Record of our Saviour against it: then I hope it will not be thought an unreasonable motion, if we humbly desire those that are in authority, especially the High Court of Parliament, that in may not be sacrificed to clamour, or over-borne by violence: and though (which God forbid) the greater part of the multitude should cry, Crucify, Crucify; yet our Governors would be so full of Justice and courage, as not to give it up, until they perfectly understand concerning Episcopacy itself, Quid mali fecit.  
SECT. 3. I shall speak at this time only of the first of these three points: That Episcopacy is not repugnant to the government settled in the Church for perpetuity by the Apostles. Whereof I conceive this which follows is as clear a demonstration, as any thing of this nature is capable of.  
That this Government was received universally in the Church, either in the Apostles time, or presently after, is so evident and unquestionable, that the most learned adversaries of this Government do themselves confess it.  
SECT. 4. Petrus Molinaeus in his Book De munere pastorali, purposely written in defence of the Presbyterial-government, acknowledgeth: That presently after the Apostles times, or even in their time (as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth) it was ordained, That in every City one of the presbytery should be called a Bishop, who should have per-eminence over his Colleagues; to avoid confusion which oft times ariseth out of equality. And truly, this form of Government all Chuches every where received.  
SECT. 5. Theodorus Beza in his Tract, De triplici Episcopatus genere, confesseth in effect the same thing. For having distinguished Episcopacy into three kinds, Divine, Humane, and Satanical, and attributing to the second (which he calls Humane, but we maintain and conceive to be Apostolical) not only a priority of order, but a superiority of power, and authority over other Presbyters, bounded yet by Laws and Canons provided against Tyranny: he clearly professeth that of this kind of Episcopacy, is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the authority of Bishops (or Precedents, as Justin Martyr callsthem) in Ignatius, and other more ancient Writers.  
SECT. 6. Certainly from 
* To whom two others also from Geneva may be added: Daniel Chamierus (in Panstratia, tom. 2. lib. 10. cap. 6. §. 24.) and Nicol. Vedelius (Exercitat. 3. in epist. Ignatii ad Philadelph. cap. 14. & Exercit. 8. in epist. ad Mariam, cap. 3.) which is fully also demonstated in D. Hammonds dissertations against Blondel (which never were answered, & never will) by the testimonies of those who wrote in the very next Age after the Apo stle.  these two great defenders of the Presbytery, we should never have had this free acknowledgement, (so prejudicial to their own pretence, and so advantageous to their adversaries purpose) had not the evidence of clear and undeniable truth enforced them to it. It will not therefore be necessary, to spend any time in confuting that uningenuous assertion of the anonymous Author of the Catalogue of Testimonies, for the equality of Bishops and Presbyters, who affirms, That their disparity began long after the Apostles times: But we may safely take for granted that which these two learned Adversaries have confessed; and see, whether upon this foundation laid by them, we may not by unanswerable reason raise this superstructure;  
That seeing Episcopal Government is confessedly so Ancient and so Catholic, it cannot with reason be denied to be Apostolic.  
SECT. 7. For so great a change, as between Presbyterial Government and Episcopal, could not possibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time. Had Episcopal Government been an aberration from (or a corruption of) the Government left in the Churches by the Apostles, it had been very strange, that it should have been received in any one Church so suddenly, or that it should have prevailed in all for many Ages after. Variâsse debuer at error Ecclesiarum: quod autem apud omnes unum est, non est erratum, sed traditum. Had the Churches erred, they would have varied: What therefore is one and the same amongst all, came not sure by error, but tradition. Thus Tertullian argues very probably, from the consent of the Churches of his time, not long after the Apostles, and that in matter of opinion much more subject to unobserved alteration. But that in the frame and substance of the necessary Government of the Church, a thing always in use and practice, there should be so sudden a change as presently after the Apostles times; and so universal, as received in all the Churches; this is clearly impossible.  
SECT. 8. For what universal cause can be assigned or feigned of this universal Apostasy? you will not imagine that the Apostles, all or any of them, made any decree for this change, when they were living; or left order for it in any Will or Testament, when they were dying. This were to grant the question; To wit, that the Apostles, being to leave the Government of the Churches themselves, and either seeing by experience, or foreseeing by the Spirit of God, the distractions and disorders, which would arise from a multitude of equals, substituted Episcopal Government instead of their own. General Counsels to make a Law for a general change, for many ages there was none. There was no Christian Emperor, no coercive power over the Church to enforce it. Or if there had been any, we know no force was equal to the courage of the Christians of those times. Their lives were then at command (for they had not then learned to fight for Christ) but their obedience to any thing against his Law was not to be commanded (for they had perfectly learned to die for him.) Therefore there was no power then to command this change; or if there had been any, it had been in vain.  
SECT. 9 What device then shall we study, or to what fountain shall we reduce this strange pretended alteration? Can it enter into our hearts to think, that all the Presbyters and other Christians then, being the Apostles Scholars, could be generally ignorant of the Will of Christ, touching the necessity of a Presbyterial Government? Or, dare we adventure to think them so strangely wicked all the World over, as against knowledge and conscience to conspire against it? Imagine the spirit of Diotrephes had entered into some, or a great many of the Presbyters, and possessed them with an ambitious desire of a forbiddden superiority, was it possible they should attempt and achieve it once without any opposition or contradiction? and besides that, the contagion of this ambition, should spread itself and prevail without stop or control, nay, without any noise or notice taken of it, through all the Churches in the World; all the watchmen in the mean time being so fast asleep, and all the dogs so dumb, that not so much as one should open his mouth against it?  
SECT. 10. But let us suppose (though it be a horrible untruth) that the Presbyters and people then, were not so good Christians as the Presbyterians are now; that they were generally so negligent to retain the government of Christ's Church commanded by Christ, which we now are so zealous to restore: yet certainly we must not forget nor deny that they were men as we are. And if we look upon them but as mere natural men, yet knowing by experience how hard a thing it is, even for policy armed with power by many attempts and contrivances, and in a long time, to gain upon the liberty of any one people; undoubtedly we shall never entertain so wild an imagination, as that among all the Christian Presbyteries in the World, neither conscience of duty, nor love of liberty, nor averseness from pride and usurpation of others over them, should prevail so much with any one, as to oppose this pretended universal invasion of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the liberty of Christians.  
SECT. 11. When I shall see therefore all the Fables in the Metamorphosis acted and prove stories; when I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the World lie down and sleep, and awake into Monarchies: then will I begin to believe that Presbyterial Government, having continued in the Church during the Apostles times, should presently after (against the Apostles doctrine and the will of Christ) be whirl'dabout like a scene in a mask, and transformed into Episcopacy. In the mean time, while these things remain thus incredible, and in humane reason impossible; I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus:  
Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church, presently after the Apostles times.  
Between the Apostles times and this presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration.  
And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended. And therefore Episcopacy, being confessed to be so Ancient and Catholic, must be granted also to be Apostolic, Quod erat demonstrandum.  
FINIS.   

The Preface to the READER.  
THe eminent abilities in the most noble Author of the ensuing learned Discourse, and learneder Reply, can scarcely be imagined unknown to any whom this language can reach: But if any such there be, I shall desire them to learn the perfections of that most excellent Person, rather from the Dedication, than this Preface; the design of which, is only to give the Reader some satisfaction concerning the nature of this Controversy in itself, and of these Dissertations in particular.  
The Romish Doctrine of their own Infallibility, as it is the most general Controversy between them, and all other Churches excluded by them from their Communion: So it is of such a comprehensive nature, that being proved and clearly demonstrated, it would without question draw all other Churches so excluded, to a most humble submission and acknowledgement, nay, to an earnest desire of a sudden Reconciliation upon any Terms whatsoever. For howsoever they please to speak and write of our Heretical and obstinate persistance in manifest Errors, yet I hope they cannot seriously think we would be so irrational, as to contradict him whom we ourselves think beyond a possibility of erring, and to dispute perpetually with them, whom only to hear were to be satisfied.  
But when they have propounded their Decisions to be believed, and embraced by us as Infallibly true, and that because they propound them, who in their own opinion are Infallible; if notwithstanding some of those Decisions seem to us to be evidently false, because clearly contradictory to that which they themselves propound as infallibly true, that is the Word of God: surely we cannot be blamed, if we have desired their Infallibility to be most clearly demonstrated, at least to a higher degree of evidence than we have of the contradiction of their Decisions to the infallible Rule. Wherefore, The great Defenders of the Doctrine of the Church of England, have with more than ordinary diligence endeavoured to view the grounds of this Controversy, and have written by the advantage either of their learning accurately, or of their parts most strongly, or of the cause itself most convincingly, against that darling Infallibility. How clearly this Controversy hath been managed, with what evidence of truth discussed, what success so much of reason hath had, cannot more plainly appear then in this, that the very name of Infallibility before so much exalted, begins now to be very burdensome, even to the maintainers of it: Insomuch as one of their latest and ablest Proselytes, Hugh Paulin de Cressy, lately Dean of Laghlin, etc. in Ireland, and Prebendary of Windsor in England, in his Exomologesis, or faithful Narration of the occasion and motives of his Conversion, hath dealt very clearly with the World, and told us, that this Infallibility is an unfortunate Word. That Mr. Chillingworth hath cumbated against it with too too great success, so great, that he could wish the Word were forgotten, or at least laid by. That not only Mr. Chillingworth, whom he still worthily admires; but we the rest of the poor Protestants have in very deed, very much to say for ourselves, when we are pressed unnecessarily with it. And therefore Mr. Cressy's advice to all the Romanists is this, that we may never be invited to combat the authority of the Church under that notion. Oh the strength of Reason rightly managed! O the power of Truth clearly declared! that it should force an emnient member of the Church of Rome (whose great Principle is none = retractation) to retract so necessary, so fundamental a Doctrine, to desert all their Schools, and contradict all their Controvertists. But indeed not without very good cause: For he professes withal, that no such word as Infallibility is to be found in any Council: Neither did ever the Church enlarge her Authority to so vast a wideness: But doth rather deliver the victory into our hands when we urge her Decisions. In all which Confessions, although he may seem only to speak of the Word, yet that cannot be it which he is so weary of, because we except not against the word at all, but confess it rightly to signify that which we impugn, neither do we ever bring any nominal Argument against it. But as when Cardinal Bellarmine sets down the Doctrine of the Church in their positive terms. Summus Pontifex, cum totam Ecclesiam docet, in his, quae ad Fidem pertinent, nullo casu errare potest. We conceive he hath sufficiently expressed the sense of the word Infallibility, so that, Infallibilis est, & nullo casu errare potest, are to us the same thing. It cannot therefore be the Word alone, but the whole importance and sense of that word Infallibility, which Mr. Cressy so earnestly desires all his Catholics ever hereafter to forsake, because the former Church did never acknowledge it, and the present Church will never be able to maintain it. This is the great success which the Reason, Parts, and Learning of the late Defendors of our Church have had in this main Architectonicall Controversy.  
And yet though the Church never maintained it, though the Protestants have had such advantage against it, though Mr. Cressy confessing both, hath wished all Catholics to forsake it, yet will he not wholly forsake it himself, but undertakes most irrationally to answer for it. If the Church never asserted it, if the Catholics be not at all concerned in it, to what end will Mr. Cressy the great mitigator of the rigour, and defender of the latitude of the Church's Decisions, maintain it? If Mr. Chillingworth have had such good success against it, why will his old Friend Mr. Cressy endeavour to answer his arguments? especially, considering when he hath answered them all, he can only from thence conclude that, Mr. Chillingworth was a very bad Disputant, who could bring no argument able to confute that, which in itself is not to be maintained.  
So unreasonable it is and inconsistent with his Concessions, that he should give an answer at all, but the manner of his answer, which he gives, is far more irrational. For deserting the Infallibility, he answers only the authority of the Church, and so makes this authority answer for that Infallibility: from whence these three manifest absurdities must necessarily follow.  
First, When he hath answered all M. Chillingworth's arguments, in the same manner as he pretends to answer them, he must still acknowledge them unanswerable, as they were intended by him that made them. And no argument need to be thought good for any thing else, if he which made it knew what he said, as Mr. Chillingworth certainly did.  
Secondly, He only pretends to answer those arguments, as against the authority of the Church, simply considered without relation to such an Infallibility, which were never made against an authority so qualified. And therefore whether the argument of his dear friend were to any purpose or no, his answer manifestly must be to none.  
Thirdly, If he intent to refute all opposition made to their Infallibility by an assertion of their bare authority, then must he assert that authority to be as great and convincing, which is fallible, as that which is infallible: that Guide to be as good, which may lead me out of my way, as that which cannot. That judge to be as fit to determine any doubt, who is capable of a mistake, as he which is not. And then I make no question, but some of his own Church amongst the rest of their dislikes, will put him in mind of that handsome sentence of Cardinal Belarmine, Iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos, ut non appellent ab eo Judicio, quod erroneum esse potuit.  
I once thought to have replied to those answers, which he hath given to Mr. Chillingworth's arguments: but his antecedent Concession hath made them so inconsiderable to me, that upon a second thought, I fear I should be as guilty in replying after my Objections, as he hath been in answering after his Confessions. Wherefore I shall conclude with an asseveration of mine own, which shall be therefore short because mine: That the Reply of this most excellent Person, Sola operarum summa praesertim in Graecis incuria excepta, is the most accurate Refutation of all, which can be said in this Controversy, that ever yet appeared, and if what hath already been delivered have had such success upon so eminent an adversary, then may we very rationally expect at least the same effect upon all, who shall be so happy as to read these Discourses.  
Which is the earnest desire of I. P.   

To the Right Honourable, Henry Lord Viscount of Falkland, my Honourable Lord.  
My Lord,  
NOt long before the death of that incomparable person, your Lordship's Mother, that great example of piety and humility, the Lady Viscountesse of Falkland, she was pleased to commit to my hand that, which she believed, next her Children, the dearest pledge of her dead Lord; some excellent Monuments of his Reason, Wit, and Industry, in the search of that, which he would have as gladly found, as he hath rationally rejected, an Infallible judge here on Earth in all our Controversies in point of Religion, of which the labouring world seemeth at present to stand in so much need. I have considered often of that singular trust and friendship, in making me the depositary of so rich a Jewel: And since she, from whose hands I received it, is gone thither, where she stands in no need of these discourses, I know no person living that hath more right to it then your Lordship, or indeed to whom I would more willingly offer it. For though your Lordship be now out of my immediate charge and Tuition, yet as long as it shall please God to make me able to do, or point at any thing that may, though never so little, help forward to perfect a good work in you, I shall never account myself disobliged. I must profess to all the World, that there is no Family now in being, to which I owe more true service, then to your Lordships: And shall to the utmost of my power, upon all occasions make it good. I have nothing left me but a poor thankful heart, which hath been my only sure Companion, when all things else have forsaken me: That still remains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being neither in the power of time nor persons to spoil me of that, which like a good Conscience to myself, must to my friends be the best feast I can make them.  
My Lord, my design is not by this to engage your Lordship in this polemical discourse, nor myself neither, having neither ability nor leisure for a business of that concern, and by reason of my busy employment, I had not been able to have presented it thus to your Lordship, without the assistance of Judicious Friends, that honour the work for the Author's sake, and the Author for his own.  
But, My Lord, I hope I shall have my end in it however, an end which no good man will envy me, namely, an occasion hereby to remind your Lordship of the Gallant Author, your Noble Father, that by proposing Him to you as your constant Copy, you may do Him an honour beyond all his Friends: For while they praise, you may imitate him.  
Indeed, it is one of the greatest comforts I have in this calamitous life, to remember, that I had the honour to be so near Him: And a reproach, which I cannot clear myself of, to have been at the same time so near, and so far off; so near in Conversation, and yet so far removed from him in those Excellencies, whereby he was the envy of this Age, and will be the wonder of the next.  
His Religion, (for that I should begin with) was the more Eminent, because the more Early, at that age, when young Gallants think least on it: When they, young Candidates of Atheism begin to dispute themselves out of a belief of a Deity, urging hard against that, which indeed is best for them that it should never be, a judgement to come; then, I say, that salvation which these mention with a scoff or a Jeer, he began to work out with fear and trembling, and effectually to remember, that is, to honour and serve his Creator in the days of his youth.  
In the next place, I may not forget his vast natural parts: Dixit ex tempore saith Pliny of Isoeus, sed tanquam diu scripserit, and I may truly apply it to him, his Answers were quick and sudden, but such, as might very well seem to have been meditated. In short, his abilities were such, as though he needed no supplies of industry, yet his industry such as though he had had no parts at all. How often have I heard him pity those Hawking and Hunting Gentlemen, who if unseasonable weather for their sports had betrayed them to keep home, without a worse excercise within doors, could not have told how to have spent their time: And all because they were such strangers to such good Companions, with whom he was so familiar, such as neither cloy nor weary any, with whom they converse, such company as Erasmus, a person much esteemed by my Lord your Father, so much extols in his 31, and 35, Epistle of his fourth Book: Not friends of the Cellar, or the Kitchen; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed their own friends rather than his who entertaineth them: But such, as being bidden, are ready, uninvited intrude not, that by't no man's meat or reputation, silent, not spoken to, spoken to, speak as we please, what we please, how long and how much we please: Candidly communicating themselves to us without betraying our secrets committed to them; that still tell us somewhat that may delight us for its Antiquity, please us for its Novelty, or some way or other enrich our knowledge. While others studied the Heraldry of Horses, of Dogs, or at the best their own: He, though not inferior to his Neighbours in Descent, and Honour, knowing well how much more glorious it is to be the first than the last of a Noble Family, (Blood without Virtue making Vice but more conspicuous) was so far from relying upon that empty Title, that He seemed Ipse suos genuisse Parents, to have begotten his Ancestors, and to have given them a more Illustrious life, than he received from them.  
Though there were as much true worth closely treasured up in him, as well divided, had been able to have set up a hundred Pretenders, yet so much Modesty withal, that the hearing of any thing was more pleasing to him then one tittle of his own praise.  
This Virtue was indeed in a high degree in him, and showed itself upon all occasions. If any thing, though never so little unhandsomely, had been spoken or done where he was, he was the greatest sufferer in the company, and much more out of countenance than he that made the offence. And surely he that was so tender of another man's Civility, may very justly be presumed to have had a great regard to his own. And so he had indeed. For though his Courage were as great as his Wit and his Learning, (and that is expression high enough) his Valour so undaunted and dreadless, as his great fall witnessed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that fatal Hail that made more Orphans than his Children: Yet to do an ill or an uncivil thing, he was an arrant Coward: Though he was of David's Stature, of his Courage too, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in this most like him, afraid of nothing but to ofsend.  
But what needs any body plead for his Civility more than this present Discourse, where he excels his Antagonist in that, as well as in reason, and shows that a Gentleman. writ with a Scholars Pen.  
Before I shut up all, my Lord, one Virtue there is yet to be mentioned, which of all that ever had relation to his Lordship, I may not, I must not ever forget, and that was his Friendship. That is a Virtue, which by the unintermitted affliction of my life, I have had more than ordinary occasion to make use of. And that must needs say was it, which made all his other Graces and Excellencies relish to me, He being the dearest and the truest Friend, that through the whole course of my unhappy life I ever had the happiness to meet with.  
If it be a kind of pleasure to read discourses of Friends and Friendship, What is it to enjoy such a Friend in whom really was, what Excellency either History can record, or almost Poetry fain?  
Nothing so hard in Lucian's Toxaris, that he durst not do, and nothing so handsome in all Seneca's Laws of Benefits, that he knew not how to do, and to outdo for his Friend.  
Let your Virtuous and dear Grandmother, my Lord, and all your Kindred yet alive, speak to this: And your blessed Mother were she now alive, would say, she had the best of Friends before the best of Husbands. This was it that made Tew so valued a Mansion to us: For as when we went from Oxford thither, we found ourselves never out of the University: So we thought ourselves never absent from our own beloved home. But I dare say no more of this, it being now a melancholy thing, I am sure to me, to call back into my memory happiness never to be recalled, and to afflict myself anew with the consideration of what felicity I have outlived.  
Your Lordship is now the only surviving pledge of that admired Father, of whom-when we his poor servants have said all we can, the Character will be far too short. It is in you, and only you, my Lord to set him out truly, and to resemble him to the life, and that will be by taking that Evangelicall Counsel, Tu autem fac similiter: Do like him, live like him, and pardon me if I add one thing more, like him, Love  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most humble and affectionately devoted Servant, TRIPLET.   

OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. A discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND.  
TO him that doubteth whether the Church of Rome hath any errors, they answer, that she hath none, for she never can have any; this being so much harder to believe then the first, had need be proved by some certainer Arguments, if they expect that the belief of this one should draw on whatsoever they please to propose; yet this, if offered to be proved by no better ways, than we offer to prove by, that she hath erred; which are arguments from Scripture, and ancient Writers, all which they say are fallible, for nothing is not so but the Church: Which if it be the only infallible determination, and that can never be believed upon its own authority, we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible, for these other ways of proof may deceive both them and us, and so neither side is bound to believe them; If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine Faith, why are they offended with the Protestants for believing every part of their Religion upon that ground, upon which they build all theirs at once. And if following the same Rule, with equal desire of finding the Truth by it, (having neither of those qualities which Isid. Pelus, saith are the cause of all Heresy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride and Prejudication) why should God be more offended with the one, then with the other, though they chance to err.  
They say, the Church is therefore made infallible by God, that all men may have some certain Guide; yet, though it be infallible, unless it both plainly appear to be so, (for it is not certain to whom it doth not appear certain) and unless it be manifest which is the Church, God hath not attained his end; and it were to set a ladder to Heaven, and seem to have a great care of my going up, whereas unless there be care taken that I may know this ladder is here to that purpose, it were as good for me it never had been set.  
If they say we may know, for that general Tradition instructs us in it.  
I answer, that ignorant people cannot know this, and so it can be no Rule for them; and if learned people mistake in this, there can be no condemnation for them.  
For suppose, to know whether the Church of Rome may err, (as a way which will conclude against her, but not for her) I seek whether she have erred; and conceiving she hath contradicted herself, conclude necessarily she hath erred, I suppose it not damnable, (though false) because I try the Church by one of the touchstones which herself appoints me (Conformity with the Ancients.) For to say, I am to believe the present Church, that it differs not from the former, though it seem to me to do so, is to send me to a witness, and bid me not believe it; now to say the Church is provided for a guide of Faith, but must be known by such marks as the ignorant cannot seek it by, and the learned may chance not find it by, can no way satisfy me.  
If they say God will reveal the Truth to whomsoever seeks it these ways sincerely, this saying both sides will (without means of being confuted) make use of, therefore it would be as good that neither did.  
When they have proved the Church to be Infallible, yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther, unless we can be sure which is it. For it signifies only that God will have a Church always which shall not err, but not that such, or such a succession shall be in the right, so that if they say, the Greek Church is not the Church, because by its own confession it is not Infallible: I answer, That it may be now the Church, and may hereafter err, (and so not be now infallible) and yet the Church never err, because before their fall from Truth, others may arise to maintain it, who then will be the Church, and so the Church may still be infallible, though not in respect of any set persons, whom we may know at all times for our Guide.  
Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church, and not the Greek Church, because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquity, they run into a Circle, proving their Tenets to be true. First, because the Church holds them: And then theirs to be the Church, because the Church holds the Truth: Which last, though it appears to me the only way, yet it takes away its being a Guide, which we may follow without examination, without which all they say besides, is nothing.  
Nay, suppose that they had evinced, that some succession were Infallible, and so had proved to a learned man, that the Roman Church must be this, because none else pretends to it, yet this can be no sufficient ground to the ignorant, who cannot have any infallible foundation for their belief, that the Church of Greece pretends not to the same; and even to the Learned it is but an accidental Argument, because if any other Company had likewise claimed to be Infallible, it had overthrown all.  
The chiefest reason why they disallow of Scripture for Judge, is, because when differences arise about the interpretation, there is no way to end them: And that it will not stand with the goodness of God, to damn men for not following his Will, if he had assigned no infallible way to find it.  
I confess this to be wonderful true, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and let them excuse themselves that think otherwise; yet this will be no Argument against him that believes, that to them who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures, God will either give his Grace for assistance to find the Truth, or his pardon if they miss it: And then this supposed necessity of an infallible Guide, (with the supposed damnation for want of it) fall together to the ground.  
If they command us to believe infallibly the contrary to this, they are to prove it false by some infallible way (for the conclusion must be of the same nature, and not conclude more than the premises set down.) Now such a way Scripture, and Reason, and infused Faith cannot be, (for they use to object the fallibility of these, to those that build their Religion upon them) nor the authority of the Church, (for this is part of the Question, and must itself be first proved, and that by none of the former ways, for the former reasons.)  
The Pope's Infallibility can be no infallible ground of Faith, being itself no necessary part of Faith, and we can be no surer of any thing proved, than we are of that which proves it:) and if he be fallible, no part is the more infallible for his siding with them; So if the Church be divided, I have no way to know the true Church, but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquity, and so judging accordingly: (but this is not to submit myself to her opinions, as my Guide, which they tell us is necessary) which course, if they approve not of as fit for a learned man, they are in a worse case for the ignorant, who can take no course at all, nor is he the better at all for his Guide the Church, whilst two parts dispute which is it, and that by arguments he understands not.  
If I grant the Pope, or a Council by him called, to be infallible, yet I conceive their decrees can be no sufficient grounds, (by their own axioms) of divine Faith.  
For first of all, no Council is valid, not approved by the Pope, (for thus they overthrew that held at Ariminum) and a Pope chosen by Simony, is (ipso facto) no Pope.  
I can have then no certainer grounds for the infallibility of those decrees, and consequently for my belief of them, than I have, that the choice of him is neither directly, nor indirectly Simoniacal.  
Secondly, suppose him Pope, and to have confirmed their decrees; yet, that these are the decrees of a Council, or that he hath confirmed them, I can have but an uncontradicted confession of many men; (for if another Council should declare these to have been the Acts of another former Council, I should need again some certain way of knowing how this declaration is a Council) which is no ground, say they, of Faith, I am sure not so good and general a one, as we have that the Scripture is Scripture, which yet they will not allow any to be certain of, but from them.  
Thirdly, For the sense of their decrees, I can have no better expounder than reason; which if (though I mistake) I shall not be damned for following, why shall I for mistaking the sense of the Scripture? or why am I a less fit Interpreter of the one, then of the other? and when both seem equally clear, and yet contradictory, shall not I affoon believe Scripture which is without doubt of as great authority?  
But I doubt whether Counsels are fit deciders of Questions; for such they cannot be if they beget more, and men are in greater doubts afterwards (none of the former being diminished) than they were at ffrst.  
Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way, that the learned cannot end all, nor the ignorant know all. As (besides the forenamed considerations) who is to call them? the Pope or Kings? who are to have voices in them, Bishops only, or Priests also? whether the Pope, or Council be superior: and the last need the approbation of the first (debated amongst themselves?) Whether any Countries, not being called, or not being there, (as the Abyssines, so great a part of Christianity, and not resolvedly condemned by them for Heretics, were absent at the Council of Trent) make it not general? Whether if it be one not every where received, (as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission, as in the Council of Florence) it be yet of necessity to be subscribed unto? Whether there were any surreption or force used, and whether those disannul the Acts? Whether the most voices are to be held the Act of the Council, or those of all required (which never yet agreed?) Or whether two parts will serve, as in the Tridentine Synod? A considerable doubt; because Nicephorus Callistus, relalating the resolution of a Council at Rome, against that of Ariminum, makes him give three reasons.  
One, That the Pope of Rome was not present.  
The Second, That most did not agree to it.  
The third, That others thither gathered, were displeased at their resolutions.  
Which proves, that (in their opinions) if either most not present, agree not to it, or all present be not pleased with it, a Council hath no power to bind.  
All these doubts I say persuade me, that whatsoever brings with it so many new Questions, can be no fit end of the old.  
Then, if before a general Council have defined a Question, it be lawful to hold either way, and damnable to do so after; I desire to know why it is so. Scripture and Tradition seem to me not to say so? but if they did so, I suppose you will grant they do this Doctrine, That the Souls of the blessed shall see God before the day of Judgement: (and not be kept in secret Receptacles) for without this, the Doctrine of Prayers to Saints, cannot stand; and yet, for denying this, Bellarmine excuseth Pope John the 22th because the Church (he means, I doubt not, a general Council) had not then condemned it.  
I desire to know, why he should not be condemned as well without one, as many Heretics, that are held so by their Church, yet condemned by none: (which if he make to be the Rule of Heresy, it had been happy to have lived before the Council of Nice, when no opinion had been damnable, but some against the Apostles Council at Jerusalem, because there had yet been no other general Council;) at least, why should not I be excused by the same reason, though I believe not a Council to be infallible? since I never heard that any Council hath decreed that they are so, neither if it hath, can we be bound by that decree, unless first made certain some other way, that itself is so.  
If you say, we must believe it because of Tradition, I answer, Sometimes you will have the not believing any thing not declared by a Council, to have power enough to damn (that is when against any of us:) at other times the Church hath not decreed unless a Council have, and their error is pardonable, and they good Catholics.  
Next, (as I have asked before) how shall an ignorant man know it? For he in likelihood can speak but with a few, from whom he cannot know, that all of the Church of Rome's part do now, and in past ages have believed it to be Tradition, so certain as to make it a ground of Faith, (unless he have some revelation that those deceived him not) neither indeed can those that should inform him of the opinions of former times be certainly informed themselves: For truly, if the relation of Pappias could cozen so far all the prime Doctors of the Christian Church into a belief of the celebration of a thousand years after the resurrection, so as that no one of those two first ages oppose it, (which appears plainly enough, because those that after rise up against this, never quoated any thing for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus, who lived at least two hundred and fifty years after Christ;) nay, if those first men did not only believe it as probable, but Justine Martyr saith, he holds it, and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition, and relates the very words that Christ used, when he taught this, which is plainner than any other Tradition, is proved or said to be out of antiquity by them) if I say these could be so deceived, why might not other of the ancients as well be deceived in other points, and then what certainty shall the learned have (when after much labour, they think they can make it appear, that the ancients thought any thing Tradition) that indeed it was so, and that either the folly or the knavery of some pappias deceived them not? I confess it makes me think of some that Tully speaks of, who arcem amittunt, dum propugnacula defendunt, lose the Fort, whilst they defend the outworks; For whilst they answer this way the Arguments of Tradition for the opinions of the Chiliasts, they make unuseful to themselves the force of Tradition, to prove any else by.  
For which cause it was rather wisely then honestly done of them, who (before Fevardentius set him forth) left out that part of Irenaeus which we allege, (though we need it not much; for many of the Fathers take notice of this belief of his) yet he justifies himself for doing it, by saying, that if they leave out all errors in the books they publish, (that is, I suppose, all opinions contrary to the Church of Rome) bona pars scriptorum, Patrum Orthodoxorum evanesceret, a great part of the writings of the Orthodox Fathers must vanish away.  
But the Tradition that can be found out of Ancients (since their witnessing may dceeive us) hath much less strength, when they argue only thus, sure so many would not say this is true, if there were no Tradition for them,  
I would have you remember, they can deliver their opinions possibly, but either before the controversy arise in the Church, (upon some chance) or after; If before, it is confessed that they writ not often cautiously enough, and so they answer all they seem to say for Arrius, and Pelagius his Faith, before themselves, and so consequently, their controversy (though it may be not their opinion) arose.  
If after, Then they answer often, (if any thing be by them at that time spoken against them) that the heat of disputation brought it from them, and their resolution to oppose heretics enough; I desire, it may be lawful for us to answer so too, (either one of these former ways, or that it was (as often they say too) some Hyperbole) when they press us with the opinions of Fathers.  
At least I am sure, if they may deceive us with saying a thing is Tradition, when it is not, we may be sooner deceived if we will conclude it for a Tradition, when they speak it only as a Truth, and (for aught appears) their particular opinion.  
Besides, If Salvian comparing the Arrians with evil livers, (and that after they were condemned by a Council) extenuates (by reason of their believing themselves in the right) with much instance, the fault of the Arrians, and saith, how they shall be punished in the day of Judgement, none can know but the Judge.  
If I say, They confess it to be his opinion, they must also confess the Doctrine of the Church to differ from that of Salvians time, because he was allowed a member of that, for all this saying, whereas he of the Church of Rome, that should now say so of us, would be counted sesqui-haereticus, ̄ Heretic and half, or else they must say (which they can only say, and not prove) that he was so earnest against ill men, that for the aggravation of their crime, he lessened that of the Heretics, and said, what at another time he would not have said; which if they do, will it not overthrow wholly the authority of the Fathers? Since we can never infallibly know, what they thought at all times, from what they were moved to say at some one time, by some Collatericall considerations.  
Next, To this certain and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome, which averteth me from it, comes their putting all to death that are so, where they have power (which is an effect, though not a necessary one of the first opinion) and that averteth me yet more, for I do not believe all to be damned that they damn, but I conceive all to be killed that they kill; I am sure if you look upon Constantine's Epistle; written to persuade concord upon their first disagreement between Alexander, and Arrius, you will find, that he thought, and if the Bishops about him had then thought otherwise, he would have been sure better informed) that neither side deserved either death, or damnation, (and yet sure you will say, this Question was as great as ever rose since) for having spoken of the opinions, as things so indifferent, that the Reader might almost think that they had been fallen out at spurn-point, or kittlepins, he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is necessary is one thing, that all agree, and keep the same Faith, about divine Providence. I am sure, in the same Author, Moses (a man praised by him) refusing to be made Bishop by Lucius, because he was an Arrian, and he answering that he did ill to refuse it, because he knew not what his Faith was, answered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The banishing of Bishops show enough thy Faith. So that it is plain, that he thought punishing for opinions to be a mark, which might serve to know false opinions by. And I believe throughout Antiquity, you will find no putting any to death, unless it be such as begin to kill first, as the Circumcellians, or such like: I am sure Christian Religions chiefest glory being, that it increaseth by being persecuted; and having that advantage of the Mahometan, which came in by force, me thinks (especially since Synesius had told us, and Reason told men so before Synesius, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every thing is destroyed by the contrary to what settled and composed it;) It should be to take ill care of Christianity, to hold it up by Turkish means, at least it must breed doubts, that if the Religion had always remained the same, it would not be now defended by ways so contrary to those, by which at first it was propagated.  
I desire recrimination may not be used; for though it be true, that Calvin had done it, and the Church of England, a little (which is a little too much) for negare manifesta non audeo, & excusare immodica non possum, yet she (confessing she may err) is not so chargeable with any fault, as those which pretend they cannot, and so will be sure never to mend it; and besides I will be bound to defend no more than I have undertaken, which is to give reason why the Church of Rome is infallible.  
I confess this opinion of damning so many, and this custom of burning so many, this breeding up those, who knew nothing else in any point of Religion, yet to be in a readiness to cry, To the fire with him, to Hell with him, (as Polybius saith in a certain furious faction of an army of several nations, and consequently of several languages, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They all joined only in understanding this word, [throw at him.] These I say, in my opinion were chiefly the causes which made so many, so suddenly leave the Church of Rome, that indeed to borrow the same Author's Phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They needed no persuasion to do it, but only news that others had done it: For as this alone if believed, makes all the rest to be so too, so one thing alone disliked, (where infallibility is claimed) overthrows all the rest.  
If it were granted, that it agreeth not with the goodness of God, to let men want an infallible Guide, and therefore there must be one, and that the Church of Rome were it, yet if that teach any thing to my understanding contrary to God's goodness, I am not to receive her Doctrine, for the same cause for which they would have me receive it, (it being as good an argument this guide teacheth things contrary to God's goodness, therefore this is not appointed by God, as to say, it is agreeable to his goodness there should be one, therefore there is one) and sure it is lawful to examine particular Doctrines, whether they agree with that Principle, which is their foundation; and for that (me thinks) to damn him, that neither with negligence, nor prejudication, searches what is God's will, (though he miss of it) is as contrary, as the first can be supposed.  
Next, I would know, whether he, that hath never heard of the Church of Rome, shall yet be damned for not believing her infallible?  
I have so good an opinion of them, as to assure myself, they will answer he shall not.  
I will then ask, whether he that hath searched what Religions there are, and finds hers to be one, and her infallibility to be a part of it, (if his reason will not assent to that) shall be damned for being inquisitive after Truth, (for he hath committed no other fault, greater than the other) and whether such an ignorance, (I mean after impartial search) be not of all other the most invincible?  
Nay, grant the Church to be infallible, yet me thinks, he that denies it, and imploys his reason to seek, if it be true, should be in as good case, as he that believeth it, and searcheth not at all the truth of the Proposition he receives; For I cannot see why he should be saved, because by reason of his parent's belief, or the Religion of the Country, or some such accident, the Truth was offered to his understanding, when, had the contrary been offered, he would have received that. And the other damned, that believes falsehood upon as good ground, as the other doth truth, unless the Church be like a Conjurer's Circle, that will keep a man from the Devil, though he came unto it by chance.  
They grant no man is an Heretic, that believes not his Heresy obstinately, and if he be no Heretic, he may sure be saved; It is not then certain damnation for any man to deny the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, but for him only that denies it obstinately; And then I am safe, for I am sure I do not; Neither can they say, I shall be damned for Schism, though not for Heresy, for he is as well no Shcismatick, though in Schism, that is willing to join in Communion with the true Church, when it appears to be so to him, as he is no Heretic, though he holds Heretical opinions, who holds them not obstinately, that is (as I suppose) with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong.  
Next, Why if it be not necessary always to believe the Truth, so one believe in general what the Church would have believed, (for so they excuse great men that have held contrary opinions to theirs now, before they were defined, or knew them to be so) why I say, shall not the same implicit assent serve to whatsoever God would have assented unto? (though I mistake what that is:) when indeed to believe implicitly what God would have believed, is to believe implicitly likewise what the Church teacheth, if this Doctrine be within the number of those, which God commands to be believed.  
I have the less doubt of this opinion, that I shall have no harm for not believing the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, because of my being so far from leaning to the contrary, and so suffering my will to have power over my understanding, that if God would leave it to me, which Tenet should be true, I would rather choose, that that should, than the contrary.  
For they may well believe me, that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant Books, and making myself giddy with disputing obscure Questions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I should believe, there should always be, whom I might always know, a society of men, whose opinions must be certainly true, and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labour to discuss and define all arising doubts, so that I might be excusably at ease, and have no part left for me but that of obedience, which must needs be a less difficult, and so a more agreeable way, then to endure endless Volumes of Commenters, the harsh Greek of Epiphanius, and the harder Latin of Irenaeus, and be pained by distinguishing between different senses, and various Lections, and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlam, that would prefer these studies before so many, so more pleasant; that would rather employ his understanding then submit it, and if he could think God imposed upon him only the resisting temptations, would by way of addition require from himself, the resolving of doubts; yet I say not, that all these Books are to be read by those that understand not the languages, (for them I conceive their seeking into the Scripture may suffice) but he who hath by God's grace skill to look into them, cannot better use it then in the searching of his will, where they say it is to be found, that he may assent to them, if there he find reason for it, or if not, they may have no excuse for not excusing him.  
For whereas they say it is pride makes us doubt of their Infallibility.  
I answer, That their too much laziness and impatience of examining is the cause, that many of them do not doubt.  
Next, what pride is it never to assent, before I find reason (since they, when they follow their Church as infallible, pretend reason for it, and will not say they would, if they thought they found none) and if they say, we do find reason, but will not eonfesse it, than pride hinders not our assent, but our declaration of it, which if it do in any one, he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 con demned by himself, and it must be a very partial Advocate, that would strive to acquit him.  
One much prevailing argument, which they make, is this, That whosoever leaves them, shall into dissension between themselves, whereas they in the mean while are always at Unity.  
I answer,  
First, In this whereof the Question is now, they all assent.  
Secondly, When there is fire for them that disagree, they need not brag of their Uniformity who consent.  
Thirdly, they have many differences among them, as whether the Pope be Infallible? whether God predeterminate every action? whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight? Which seems to me as great as any between their Adversaries, and in the latter, the Jesuits have ancienter, and generaller Tradition on their side, than the Church of Rome hath in any other Question, and as much ground from Reason for the defence of God's goodness, as they can think they have for the necessity of an infallible guide.  
Yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Heretics, and must us: If they say the Church hath not resolved it, (which signifies only that they are not agreed about it, which is that we object) I answer, It ought to have done so, if uniformity to the Ancient Church be required, in which all that ever I could hear of, before Saint Austin (who is ever various I confess in it) delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtful; and to say it is lawful for them to disagree, wheresoever they do not agree, is ridiculous, (for they cannot do both at once about the same point) and if they say they mean by the Churches not having concluded it, that a Council hath not: I Answer,  
First, That they condemn some without any Council, and why not these?  
Next, I say the opinion of the diffused Church is of more force, than the conclusion of the representative (which hath its authority from the other) and therefore if all extant for the first four hundred years taught any Cannon it is more Heresy to deny that, than any Cannon of a Council; But may not howsoever any other Company of People (that would maintain themselves to be infallible) say as much, that all other Sects differ from one another, and therefore should all agree with them, would not those (think they) ascribe all other men's dissensions, and learned men's falling into divers heresies to their not allowing their Infallibility, to their not assenting to their Decrees, and not suffering them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit as teachers of those things that come in Question, and to have all others in the place of Disciples obedient to them, which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professed, that (because the Greeks would not allow the Romans) was the chief cause of separation between them.  
Next, They use much to object, how could errors come into the Church without opposition, and mention both of them, and the opposition to them in History.  
I answer,  
They might come not at once, but by degrees, as in the growth of a Child, or motion of a Clock, we see neither in the present, but know there was a present when we find it past.  
Next, I say there are two sorts of errors; To hold a thing necessary that is unlawful, and false; or that is but profitable, and probable. Of the second sort, that errors should come in, it appears not hard to me, (especially in those ages where want of Printing, made Books, and consequently Learning, not so common as now it is, where the few that did study, busied themselves in School speculations only, when the authority of a man of chief note, had a more general influence than now it hath, and so as Thucydides saith the Plague did in his time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the disease that first settled in the head EASILY passed through all the body, considering how apt men are to desire that all men should think as they do, and consequently to lay a necessity upon the receiving that opinion, if they conceive that a way to have it received. And then if it were believed generally, profitable (as confession) who would be apt to oppose their calling it necessary, for the same cause for which they called it so.  
Besides, If this error were delivered by some Father in the hot opposition of some Heretic, it may be none would oppose it, lest the adversaries might take advantage by their dissension, and he that disputed for the Orthodox side, might lose by it much of his authority.  
The word necessary itself, is also often used for very convenient, and then from necessary in that sense, to absolutely necessary is no difficult change, though it be a great one.  
Then the Fathers use the word Heretics, sometimes in a larger sense, and sometimes in a stricter, and so differ in the reckoning them up, some leaving out those that others put in, (though they had seen the precedent Catalogue) and so the doubtfulness of the sense of these words might bring in error: Names also, as Altar, Sacrifice, Mass, may have been used.  
First, in one sense, and the name retained though the thing signified received change; as it was once of an Emperor of Rome, cui proprium fuit 
Tacitus.  nuper reperta, (I leave out scelera) priscis verbis obtegere, whose property it was to cover things newly found with ancient terms, And the same Author tells us, that the same state, was as it were, cheated out of her liberty, because there did remain eadem Magistratuum vocabula, the same titles of Magistrates: And I believe, that if the Protestants beyond the Seas would have thought Bishops as good a word as Superintendents, (and so in other such things) many, who understand nothing but names, would have miss the scandal they have now taken. These ways I think these things may have come, without much opposition from being thought profitable to be done, and probable to be believed, to be thought necessary to be both; and how things may have been by little and little received under old names, which would not have been so at once under new ones, it is not hard to conceive.  
The first of these being no such small fault, but that part of the Montanists Heresies was, thinking uncommanded fasting days necessary to be observed, which without doubt might lawfully have been kept, so that no necessity had been imposed.  
But my main answer is, that if to be in the Church without known precedent opposition, be a certain note of being derived from the beginning, let them answer how came in the opinion of the Chiliasts, not contradicted till two hundred years after it came in.  
To conclude, If they can prove that the Scripture may be a certainer teacher of truth to them, then to us, so that they may conclude the Infallibility of the Church out of it, and we nothing; If they can prove the Church's Infallibility to be a sufficient Guide for him, that doubts which is the Church, and cannot examine that (for want of learning) by her chief mark, which is conformity with the Ancients: If they can prove, that the consent of Father's long together, is a stronger Argument against us, then against the Dominicans; If they can prove (though it be affirmed by the first of them, that such a thing is Tradition, and believed by all Christians, and this assertion till a great while after, uncontradicted) yet they are not bound to receive it, and upon less grounds we are; If indeed any can prove by any infallible way, the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, and the necessity under pain of damnation for all men to believe it, (which were the more strange, because Justin Martyr, and Clements Alexandrinus among the Ancients, and Erasmus, and Ludovicus Vives among the Moderns, believe some Pagans to be saved) I will subscribe to it, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
If any man vouchsafe to think, either this, or the Author of it, of value enough to confute the one, and inform the other, I shall desire him to do it with proceeding to the business, and not standing upon any small slip of mine, (of which this may be full) and with that temper, which is fit to be used by men that are not so passionate, as to have the definition of reasonable Creatures in vain, remembering that Truth in likelihood is, where her Author God was, in the still voice, and not the loud wind; and that Epiphanius excuseth himself, if he have called any Heretics in his anger, Deceivers, or Wretches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I request him also; to help to bring me to the Truth, (if I be out of it) not only by his arguments, but also by his Prayers; which way if he use, and I still continue on the part I am of, and yet do neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither am wilfully blind, nor deny impudently, what I see, than I am confident, that he will neither have reason to be offended with me in this world, nor God (for that) to punish me in the next.   

AN ANSWER TO THE Lord faulkland's DISCOURSE OF INFALLIBILITY.  

CHAP. I.  
NAture being not able to perfect the work of humane kind, which she had begun, and bursting at those throws and springings, which her timely child gave, to see the light of eternal life, (whereof the distaste of all things experienced in this world, and certain sparklings sowed in our soul had given it a dim notice) expected from her merciful Creator, the aid (whereof how much greater the wonder was to be, and the necessity, now divers thousand years by lamentable experience was more deer, so much the readier was he) and it was to send from his eternal breast, his only wisdom to recount us wonders, and aver them under the seal of his immutable truth. He knew all secrets, and could not be touched with suspicion of ignorance; he was all goodness, and free from all calumny of jealousy or envy: who knew him, could not mistrust him, for beside those great Verdicts already expressed in his favour, his works gave assurance of his words, he fulfilling in deeds, whatsoever he persuaded in words, and working to himself, what he wished unto others. Lo here, the high, and sage Master of our faith, whose Oracles we cannot misdoubt, so we be assured they are his; and who hath in vain spent so much sweat, and pains, if after he passed from hence, he hath left no means to assure mankind, what it was he taught and practised, and for the teaching and practising of it, eschewed not the stormy passage betwixt Bethlehem and Mount Calvarie: but as in Bethlehem he multiplied the three drops of his Circumcision into the thousands of innocent Brooks; so upon the Mount Calvarie he opened the great Source, which hath now through 16. Ages irrigated the world with an infinity of streams of proportional examples of Blood and sufferance. Now was his Legacy performed, and he from Mount Olivet triumphantly returned, from whence he was come, and the world left to be saved by faith, that is, by a constant persuasion of those things which he had taught.  
The Conditions of this Faith were three. First, That it should be a means fitting for humane kind, that is, for learned, and unlearned, for young, and old, for wise, and fools, for Princes and peasants, Rabbis, and Idiots. Secondly, That it should be a tenant, constant, undoubted, undisputable, uncontrollable. Thirdly, That it should be a rule of our life and actions, making but a passage of this present life, to the following, and teaching us to contemn the present and seen substance, in hope of an unseen and absent fortune. Certes, a hard task, and which needeth to be well grounded and founded by God himself. For who well considereth it, cannot doubt it, to be as great a miracle (to make the whole Mass of mankind, to forsake what it seeth, and take to obscure hopes or things, it does not so much apprehend what they are) as to force the strongest works of nature, to hang the sea in the air, to alter the course of Moon, and Stars, and whatsoever else is strange and incredible in nature. Besides that, to make a way of knowledge common, and indifferent to learned, and unlearned, to make the ignorant understand, what the learned cannot reach unto, and the learned die in defence of the truth he hath no other warrant for; then because he hath learned it from an ignorant person, was the work of him alone who framed them both, and understood in what veins so different bloods do run.  
But done it was to be, and how? Those to whom during his life, he had most fully declared his mind, went, and told it to others, and all was done. We cannot deny the way to have been fitting, and expedient, so it be found efficacious and powerful to effect, what the Author intended. For if Faith must believe what Christ hath taught, what better instrument to breed faith, than who heard him speak? If Faith must be common to learned, and unlearned, what better means, then by hearing? From which no unlearnedness can excuse, nor learnedness be exempt. Every man may have from whom to hear and learn, if not a wiser than himself, yet one who may have properties to be a better witness. Children naturally believe what their parents tell them, unlearned men what Doctors teach them, absent men, what those who were present do report. All this goeth very well, so that this Expedient prove efficacious to the end intended.  
But it hath the prejudice of humane fallibility, for 
Object.  who, for weakness that he doth not carry away what he hath heard, who, for vanity to seem to know more than his fellows, who, to make some lucre of it, or for some emulation to some other; but seldom it happeneth that a multitude can carry away a thing all in the same manner; and 1600 years are passed since, so that it is not credible, a Doctrine so delivered can persever incorrupted until this day.  
Yet if we look into the immediate progress and 
Answ.  joints of the descent, we cannot find where it can miss, for the doctrine being supernatural, and not delivered by man's skill or wit, the first and main principle of it can be no other, then to know what was delivered them by their Teachers, a thing not surpassing the understanding of any sensible wise man; so that put but twenty wise understanding men to agree, that the Preacher, to their certain knowledge, said such a thing, there remaineth no probable nor possible doubt, but that it was so.  
Now then suppose, that one of those (who having been taught by Christ's own mouth, had received by the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, that he could neither forget nor forgo this received doctrine) should have preached over and over again the same doctrine not long, nor hard to be carried away in all the Cities, Towns, and Boroughs of some great Country, so that whilst he stayed there, they were throughly understanding and endoctrinated in that way. Now let him be gone, and after him all dead, who had heard him speak; and then some question arise concerning this doctrine (as we may say in the second age) let us see whether error can creep in or no, if the Christians keep unto their hold. Their hold is what they were taught by Christ's Apostles. Let therefore the wisest and best men of those Cities and Towns meet together about the controversy, and discuss it out of this principle (what was delivered unto them as taught by the Apostles) will not there be a quick end of their dispute? For every man can say, My father heard the Apostle speak, he understood him to have said this, so he himself believed, so he taught me, that this was that which the Apostle taught us. And when out of divers Cities and Towns, shall come a multitude of witnesses, all agreeing in one point, how can it be doubted, but that this is Christ's doctrine, and that which his Apostle taught? And to disagree how is it possible? Since all their fathers heard the same things, and things not above their capacity, and often told them, and well apprehended by them when they were taught, and by consequence could not tell their children otherwise than what they had heard and understood, in a matter of such moment, and of which they apprehended no less, then that it concerned their own, and their children's salvation, happiness, or misery for all eternity. And what here is most evidently certain, in the children of those who heard the Apostles, may be derived with as much evidence again in the grandchildren, and so in every age even to our present; for if in any age any question begin, and it be reduced unto this principle; what did our forefathers teach us? neither can there be any pretended ignorance (for who can be ignorant of what was taught him when he was a child, and in what he was bred, as in the grounds and substance of his hopes, for all eternity?) True it is, that if men leave this principle, and seek to judge the controversy by learned discourse, then may the Church be divided, one part following the authority of their Ancestors; the other the subtle Arguments, and the great opinion they conceive, of the learning of their present Teachers: so that one side will claimesuccession, and to have received it from hand to hand; the other the glory of great learning, and to have come by great industry to discover the errors of their forefathers. But it is evident, that if what the Apostles preached be the touchstone of what is true, and what they preached to be seen in what those believe who have heard them, and they who received it from them that heard them; It is most evident, I say, that the one part, who seek for Christian truth in learned discourse, must needs forgo the most certain and easy way, of attaining unto what they aim at: And likewise evident, that who keep themselves duly and carefully unto this principle cannot possibly in any continuance of time, swerve from the truth which Christ hath left unto his Church. So that the whole difficulty is reduced unto this, whether the Church for so many ages be perpetually preserved in this principle, that what she received from her forefathers is, that she must believe, and deliver unto her posterity; A thing so grafted in nature; which maketh us receive our being, our breeding, our learning, our goods, our estates, our arts, and all things we have, from our fathers, that it is a wonder of our mutability, that without forcible Engines we can be drawn from it.   

CHAP. II.  
NOw let us turn our discourse, and as we have seen, that if our Saviour ordered his Apostles in the manner explicated, there was no way for his Church to swerve from his truth, but by swerving from the most plain, the most natural, and most evident, and concluding rule of his doctrine, and that but one, and most easy; so let us see whether from the present Church we can draw the like forcible train, which may lead us up to Christ and his Apostles. Be therefore supposed or imagined, what no judicious man can deny to see with his eyes, if he hath never so little cast them upon this present religion of Christendom, to wit; that there is one Congregation or Church which layeth claim to Christ his doctrine, as upon this title, that she hath received it from his Apostles without in eruption, delivered ever from Father to Son, from Master to Scholar, from time to time, from hand to hand, even unto this day; and that she does not admit any other doctrine for good and legitimate, which she does not receive in this manner. Again, that whosoever pretendeth Christ his truth against her, saith, that true it is, that once she had the true way, but that by length of time she is fallen into gross errors which they will reform, not by any truth they have received from hand to hand, from those who by both parts are acknowledged to have received their lesson from Christ and his Apostles, but by study and learned Arguments, either out of ancient Writers, or out of the secrets of nature and reason. This being supposed, either this principle hath remained unto her since the beginning, or she took it up in some one age of the 16 she hath endured; if she took it up in some latter age, she then thought she had nothing in her what she had not received from her fore fathers in this sort: And if she thought so, she knew it. For as it is impossible now any country should think it was generally taught, such a thing if it were not so; so also was there the like necessity, and impossibility to be otherwise, if all men were not run mad. Therefore clear it is, she took it not up first then, but was in former possession, and so clear it is, that she could not have it now, if she had it not from the very beginning. Now if she had it, and hath conserved it from the beginning, no new opinion could take root in her, unless it came unto her under this Maxim, as received from hand, to hand; and to say, that any opinion which was not truly received from hand to hand, should by such a community be accepted, as received from hand to hand, is to make it believe, what it seeth clearly to be false, to lie unto its own soul, against its own soul, and the soul of its posterity. Let us add to this, that the multitude of this Church is so dispersed through so many Countries and languages of so divers governments, that it is totally impossible they should agree together, or meet upon a false determination, to affirm with one consent a falsity for truth, no interest being able to be common unto them all to produce such an effect. Wherefore as an understanding man cannot choose but laugh at the self-weening Hampshire Clown, who thinks in his heart there was no such Country as France, and that all that was told of it were but Travellers tales, because himself being upon the Sea shore, had seen nothing but water beyond England; so I think no wise man will account him less than frantic, that understandeth so little in humane ways, as to think whole Nations by design, or by hazard, can agree together to profess, and protest a thing, which they know of their own knowledge to be a mere lie, and a well known falsehood to themselves, and all their neighbours.   

CHAP. III.  
THe force of the declared link of succession, is so manifest to a capable understanding, that being compared with any objection made against it, it will of itself maintain its evidence, and bear down the greatest oppositors and opposition, if the understanding be left unto itself, and not wrested by the prejudice of a some ways interessed will. Nevertheless, there is a deeper root, which greatly strengthens and reduceth into action, the former efficacity of the tradition. And this is, that Christian doctrine is not a speculative knowledge, instituted for delight of man to entertain his un derstanding, and hath no further end than the delectation which ariseth out of contemplation; but it is an art of living, a rule of attaining unto eternal bliss, a practical doctrine whose end is to inform our action, that our life and actions squared by her directions, may lead us to that great good, the which God Almighty esteemed so highly of; that he thought it reason enough for him to shade his Divinity under the misery of man, to make us partakers of so great a bliss. Hence it followeth, that no error can fall, even in a point which seemeth wholly speculative in Christian faith, but soon it breedeth a practical effect, or rather defection in Christian behaviour. What could seem more speculative, then whether the second, or third Persons of the Trinity were truly or participately God? Yet no sooner was an error broached in these questions, but there followed a great alteration in Christian action; in their Baptisms, in their manner of Prayer, in the motives of Love and Charity toward Almighty God, the very groundwork and foundation of all Christian life. Whether man hath freewill or no, seemeth a question, belonging to the nature of man, fit for a curious Philosopher; but upon the preaching of the negative part, presently followed an unknowen Libertinage, men yielding themselves over to all concupiscence, since they were persuaded they had no power to resist, freewill being denied. I need not instance in prayer to Saints, worshipping Images, prayer for the dead, and the like; which is evident, could not be changed without an apparent change in Christian Churches. So that a doctrine contrary to faith, is like a disease, which although the cause be internal, yet cannot the effects and symptoms be kept from the outward parts and view of the world. The consequence which this note draweth, is, that it is not possible, that any material point of Christian faith can be changed, as it were by obreption, whilst men are on sleep, but it must needs raise a great scandal and tumult in the Christian Commonweal. For suppose the Apostles had taught the world it were Idolatry to pray to Saints, or use reverence towards their Pictures: How can we imagine this honour brought in, without a vehement conflict and tumult, in a people which did so greatly abhor Idolatry, as the Apostles, Disciples did? I might make the like instance in other points, if the whole History of the Church did not consist of the invasions made by Heretics, and the great and most violent waving of the Church to and fro upon those occasions. We remember in a manner as yet, how change came into Germany, France, Scotland, and our own Country: Let those be a sign to us, what we may think can be the creeping in of false doctrine; specially, that there is no point of doctrine, contrary to the Catholic Church, rooted in any Christian Nation, that the Ecclesiastical History does not mention the times and combats by which it entered, and tore the Church in pieces.  
Let it therefore remain for most evidently constant, that into the Christian Church can come no error, but it must be seen and noted, and raise scandal and opposition to show itself (as truly it is) contrary to the nature of Piety and Religion. And when it does come, it cannot draw after it any others, than such as first desert the root of Faith, and Anchor of Salvation, that is to be judged by what their forefathers taught them, and affirmed to have received from their Ancestors, as the Faith which Christ and his Apostles delivered to the whole world of their time, and to such as ever claim and maintain the right of succession, as rule of what they believe. Yet may this also be worthy of consideration, that as in our natural body, the principal parts are defended by Bones, Flesh, Skins, and such like defences, in such sort, that no outward Agent can come to offend them, before having annoyed some of these; so in the Catholic faith, there are in speculation those we call Theological conclusions, and other pious opinions; and in practise many Rites and Ceremonies, which stop the passage unto the main principal parts of Christian belief and action. And about these we see daily such great motions in the Catholic Church, that he must be very ignorant of the Spirit of God, which quickeneth his Church, that can imagine any vital part of his faith can be wounded while it lies asleep, and is insensible of the harm befalleth it; for as in any Science a principle cannot be mistaken, but it must needs draw a great shoal of false consequence upon it, and lame the whole Science, so never so little an error in faith can be admitted, but in other Tenets and Ceremonies it must needs make a great change, and innovation.   

CHAP. IU.  
NOw let any discreet man consider, what further evidence he can desire, or peradventure, what greater assurance nature can afford, and not be of an awkward wilfulness to ask, that which is not conformable to the laws of nature? Much like unto him, who being sat in a chair far from the chimney, could not think of applying himself to the fire, but was angry the fire and chimney were made so far from him. The Philosophers say, it is indisciplinati ingenii to expect in any Art or Science more exactness than the nature of it affordeth. As if a man would bind a Seaman, to go so far every day, whether wind and weather served or no: So in moral matters, and such as are subject to humane action, we must expect such assurance as humane actions bear. If for the government of your spiritual life, you have as much as for the managing of your natural and civil life, what can you expect more? Two or three witnesses of men, beyond exception, will cast a man out of, not only his lands, but life and all. He that amongst Merchants will not adventure, when there is a hundred to one of gaining well, will be accounted a silly Factor. And amongst Soldiers, he that will fear danger where but one of a hundred is slain, shall not escape the stain of Cowardice. What then shall we expect in Religion, but to see a main advantage on the one side, we may cast ourselves on? and for the rest remem ber we are men, creatures subject to chance and mutability, and thank God he hath given us that assurance in a supernatural way, which we are content withal, in our natural and civil ventures and possessions, which nevertheless God knoweth we often love better, and would less hazard then the unknown good of the life to come. Yet peradventure, God hath provided better for his Church then for Nature, since he loved her more, and in his own Person did more for her. Let us therefore examine the assurance he hath left her particularly. It was found in the second Chapter, upon this principle, that so great a multitude of men as cleave to this ground (to have received their faith by tradition) could not conspire by lying, to deceive their posterity. And if I be not deceived, this principle being granted, the conclusion (that this present Church is the true) followeth in as severe a way of discourse, as in Aristotle's Organ is taught, and exemplified in Mathematical Writers; whose use and art it is to put the like suppositions, whence to induce something out against their principle. As in the said Chapter you are bidden, to put what year, or age such an error entered, and it is evidently true, that if it be true, than that year or age conspired to tell ally to deceive their posterity. And as for the strength of their principle itself (although no moral man can be so absurd as to doubt of it) yet may we consider, that the understanding being the part, which maketh man to be a man, and truth being the perfection of our understanding, and true speech the effect, natural to true knowledge, or understanding: It is clear, that to speak truth is as natural a fruit of man's nature, as Pears of a Pear tree, Grapes of a Vine, Hony of the Bee: and that it can be no less grafted in nature, for men to speak truly, than it is in any other natural cause to yield the fruit, for whose sake nature bred the cause. Wherefore as the constancy of the effect showeth, that it holdeth upon eternal principles, that no one species of perfect creatures can perish, although we are not so skilful of nature, as handsomely to wove the demonstration; so cannot it be doubted, but that if one had all the principles of man's nature well digested, he might demonstratively deduce the impossibility, of (that such multitudes of men should conspire to a lie) the variety of particulars, ever holding their being from a constancy and uniformity in the universal. Add to this the notoriousness of the lie, such as he is rarely found, that is, so wicked as to venture upon; besides the greatness of the subject, and of the danger ensuing upon himself, and his dearest pledges. The ground therefore assumed, is a demonstrative principle, and peradventure in a higher degree than most physical principles be: For who knoweth not the nature of the soul, to be the highest thing Physics can reach unto? Who knoweth not, that immaterial things are less subject to mutability then those which are grounded in matter? Then as more noble, and as more immaterial, it hath greater exemption from mutability, than any other natural cause whatsoever. One addition more, may chance to clear the whole business more fully. Nothing more clear than that, no natural cause faileth of his effect, without there be some impediment from a stronger. Now the impediments which hinder a man from speaking truth, experience teacheth us, to be no other than hopes and fears. The same experience giveth us to know, that it is a rare thing, that hopes and fears should comprehend so great multitudes, as are in the union of the Catholic Church, specially during an age, which is the least time necessary for the effect we speak of, that what peradventure might at one time be ill admitted, should not be rejected at another. But if there were; can any man be so mad as to think, it could be a secret hope or fear, which should not break out amongst the posterity, and be known, that what was done was not true, but counterfeited upon fear or interest, which if it were, a whole ages counterfeiting would not be sufficient to make the posterity believe, they had received such a point of doctrine by tradition. Wherefore I do not see, how this principle of tradition, and the doctrine received by it, can be accounted of less certainty, than any Physical demonstration whatsoever; or Faith upon this ground not as sure as any natural cause, as the course of Sun and Moon, as the flowing and ebbing of the Sea, as the Summer and Winter, Sowing and Harvest, and whatsoever we undoubtedly presume upon the like nature, and kind.  
The principle which is taken in the following Chapter, is of no less force (if not of far better) to who rightly understandeth the nature of God his works, whose course it is deeplier to root and strengthen those things which he would have most to flourish, or whereof he hath most care. Now Christians well know, that God Almighty hath made mankind for his elect, as the world which is about us for mankind. And therefore he hath rooted those things which more immediately belong to the Elect (as is his Church, his Faith, and Holy Spirit in it) more strongly than the principles either of man's nature, or of the world which was made for it: himself assuring us of it, when he told us, One title should not miss of the holy Writ, though Heaven and Earth should be dissolved. And so seeing the latter principle, relied upon the not failing of God's Holy Spirit to his Church, which should ever watch upon their actions, that nothing should creep into Christian life, which persently the zeal of his faithful should not startle at. I think it needless to seek to further qualify the strength of that part, which receiveth it from the quality of so good a workman as was the Holy Ghost.   

CHAP. V.  
I Doubt not but whosoever shall have received satisfaction in the discourse passed, will also have received in that point we seek after; that is in being assured both that Christ hath left a Director in the world, and where to find him, there being left no doubt, but it is his holy Church upon earth. Nor can there be any question, which is this Church, sithence there is but one that doth and can lay claim, to have received from hand to hand his holy doctrine in writings and hearts. Others may cry loud, they have found it, but they must first confess it was lost: and so if they have, it was not received by hands, I mean, as far as it disagreeth with Catholic doctrine; so that where there is not so much as claim, there can be no dispute. And that this Church is a lawful directress, that is, hath the conditions requisite, I think can no ways be doubted. Let us consider in her, presence, or visibility, authority, power. As for the first, her multitude and succession, makes the Church if she is ever accessible, ever known. The Arrians seemed to chase her out of the world in their flourish, but the persecution moved against her, made her even then well known and admired. In our own Country we have seen no Bishop, no form of Church for many years; yet never so, but that the course of justice did proclaim her through England, and who was curious could never want means to come to know her confession of faith what it is, and upon what it is grounded. Wheresoever she is, if in peace, her Majesty and Ceremonies in all her actions, make her spectable and admired. If in war, she never wanteth Champions to maintain her, and the very heat of her adversaries, makes her known to such as are desirous to understand the truth of a matter so important, as is the eternal welfare of our soul.  
For Authority: her very claim of antiquity and succession (to have been that Church which received her beginning from Christ and his Apostles, and never forwent it, but hath ever maintained it) giveth a great reverence unto her amongst those, who believe her, and amongst those, who with indifferency and love of truth, seek to inform themselves; a great prejudice above others: For it draweth a greater likelihood of truth, than others have. And if it be true, it carrieth an infinite authority with it, of Bishops, Doctors, Martyrs, Saints, miracles, learning, wisdom, venerable antiquity, and the like: that if a prudent man should sit with himself and consider, that if he were to choose what kind of one he would have it, to carry away the hearts of men towards the admiration and love of God Almighty, he could find nothing wanting in this, that could be maintained with the fluxibility of nature. For to say, he would have no wicked men in it, were to say, he would have it made of Angels and not of Men.  
There remaineth Power: the which no man can doubt but Christ hath given it most ample, who considereth his words so often repeated to his Apostles. But (abstracting from that) who doth not see, that the Church hath the nature and proportion of ones Country, unto every one? As in a man's Country, he hath Father, and Mother, Brothers, Sisters, Kinsfolks, Allies, Neighbours, and Countrymen, which anciently were called Cives, or Concives, and of these are made his Country; so in the Church findeth he in way of spiritual instruction and education, all these degrees nearer and farther off, until he come unto that furthermost of being, of all united under the universal Government of Christ his Vicar: And as he in his Country findeth bearing, breeding, settling in estates and fortunes, and lastly protection and security; so likewise in the way of Christianity doth he find this more fully in the Church: so that if it be true, that a man oweth more unto his Master then unto his Father, because bene esse is better then esse: certainly a man also (as far as Church and Country can be separated) must owe more to the Church then to his very Country; wherefore likewise the power which the Church hath to command and instruct, is greater than the power of the temporal Country, and community, whereof he is part; Again, this Church can satisfy learned and unlearned. For in matters above the reach of reason, whose source and spring is from what Christ and his Apostles taught, what learned man, that understands the nature of science and method, can refuse in his inmost soul to bow to that which is testified by so great a multitude, to have come from Christ? And what unlearned man can require more for his faith, then to be taught by a Mistress of so many prerogatives and advantages above all others? Or how can he think to be quieted in conscience, if he be not content to far as she doth, who hath this prerogative, evident that none is so likely by thousands of degrees.   

CHAP. VI  
THe stem and body of our position thus raised, will of itself shoot out the branches of divers Questions, or rather the solution thereof.  
And first, How it happened that divers Heretics have pretended tradition (the Millenarians, Carpocratians, Gnostiaks, and divers others) yet they with their traditions have been rejected, and the holy Church left only in claim of tradition?  
For if we look into, what Catholic tradition is, and what the said Heretics pretended, under the name of Tradition, the question will remain voided. For the Catholic Church calleth Tradition, that doctrine which was publicly preached in the Churches, ordered and planted in the manners and customs of the Church. The Heretics called Tradition a kind of secret doctrine, either gathered out of private conversation with the Apostles, or rather they pretended that the Apostles, besides what they publicly taught the world, had another private or mystical way proper to Scholars, more endeared than the rest, which came not to public view, but was in huggermugger delivered from those secret Disciples unto others, and so unto them; where it is easily seen, what difference there is betwixt this Catholic Tradition and this pretended. For (the force and energy of tradition residing in the multitudes of hearers, and being planted in the perpetual action, and life of Christians, so that it must have such a publicity that it cannot be unknown amongst them.) Those the Heretics pretend both manifestly, want the life and being of traditions, and by the very great report of them lose all authority and name. For, suppose some private doctrine of an Apostle to some Disciple, should be published and recorded by that Disciple, and some others, this might well be a truth, but would never obtain the force of a Catholic position, that is, such as it should be damnation to reject, because the descent from the Apostle is not notorious, and fitting to sway the body of the whole Church.  
The Second Question may be, How it cometh to pass, that something which at first bindeth not the Church's belief, afterward cometh to bind it? For if it were ever a Tradition it must ever be public, and bind the Church: And if once it were not, it appeareth not how ever it could come to be; for if this age, (for example) hath it not, how can it deliver it over to the next age that followeth?  
But if we consider, that the hope of Christian doctrine being great, and the Apostles preaching in so great variety of Countries, it might happen some point in one Country to have been less understood, or peradventure not preached at all, which in another was often preached, and well both understood and retained; we may easily free ourselves from these brambles. For the Spirit of Tradition residing in this, that the testimony of that, the  
Apostles delivered this Doctrine be exceptione majus, and beyond all danger of deceit; It is not necessary to the efficaciousness of Tradition, that the whole universal Church be witness to such a truth, but so great a part as could be a Warrant against mistaking and deceit; so that if all the Churches of Asia, or Greece, or Aphrique, or Egypt, should constantly affirm such a Doctrine to have been delivered unto them by the Apostles, it were enough to make a Doctrine exceptione majorem: Whence it ensueth that if in a meeting of the Universal Church it were found that such a part had such a Tradition, concerning some matter, whereof the rest either had no knowledge or no certainty, such a Doctrine would pass into a necessary bond in the whole Church, which before was either unknown or doubted of in some part thereof. A likely example thereof might be in the Canonical books, the which being written some to one Church, and some to another, by little and little were spread from those Churches unto others, and so some sooner, some later, received into the constant belief of the Catholic world.  
The Third question may be, How (Christian religion, consisting in so many points) it is possible to be kept incorrupted by tradition, the which depending on memory, and our memory being so frail, and subject to variation, it seemeth, cannot without manifest miracle, conserve so great diversity of points unchanged, for so many ages?  
But if we consider, that Faith is a Science, and Science a thing whose parts are so connexed, that if one be false, all must needs be false, we shall easily see that contrarily; the multitude of divers points is a conservation the one to the other. For, if one be certain, it of itself is able to bring us to the right in another, whereof we doubt. And as in a man's body, if he wanteth one member, or the operation of it, he must needs find the want of it in another: And as a Commonwealth that is well ordained, cannot miss any office or part, without the redounding of the dessect upon the whole, or some other part; so a Christian, being an essence instituted by God, as specially as any natural creature, hath not the parts of his faith and action by accident and chance knitted together, but all parts by a natural order, and will of the Maker, ordered for the conservation of the most inward essence, which is the charity we owe to God, and our Neighbour. Wherefore Christian life and action consisteth but upon one main tradition, whose parts be those particulars, which men specify, either in matter of Belief or Action: So that this connextion of its parts amongst themselves, added to the Spirit of God, ever conserving zeal in the heart of his Church, with those helps also of nature (wherewith we see wonders in this kind done) will show this conservation to be so far from impossibility, that it will appear a most con-naturall and fitting thing. Let us but consider, in constant nations, their language, their habits, their manners of sacrificing, eating, generally living; how long it doth continne amongst them. See that forlorn nation of Jews, how constantly it maintaineth the Scripture? how obstinately their errors? The Arabians of the desert, from Ishmael his time unto this day, live in families, wand'ring about the desert. Where Christians labour to convert Idolaters, they find the main and only argument for their errors, that they received them from their forefathers, and will not quit them. The King of Socotora, thinking to please the Portugals by reducing a nation, that had the name of Christians, to true Christianity, he found them obstinately protest unto him, that they would sooner lose their lives, than part with the religion their Ancestors had left them. The Maronites, a small handful of people, amongst Turks and Heretics, to this day have maintained their religion in Syria. And certainly thousands of examples of this kind may be collected in all Nations and Countries; especially, if they be either rude, and such as mingle not with others, or such as be wise, and out of wisdom seek to maintain their ancient belief. And Catholics are of both natures: For they have strict commands, not to come to the Ceremonies and Rites of other religions, and in their own, they have all means imaginable to affect them to it, and conserve a reverence and zeal towards it.   

CHAP. VII.  
TO come at length to the principal aim of this Treatise, that is, to give an answer to him that demandeth a guide at my hands. I remit him to the modern present visible Church of Rome, that is, her, who is in an extern sensible communion with the extern sensible Clergy of Rome, and the extern sensible Head and Pastor of the Church. If he ask me now, how he shall know her? (I suppose he meaneth, how he should know her to be the true) I must contreinterrogate him, who he is? that is, in whose name he speaketh? Is he an ignorant man? Is he unlearned? yet of good understanding in the world? Is he a Scholar? and what Scholar? A Grammarian, whose understanding hath no other help then of languages? Is he a Philosopher? Is he a Divine? (I mean an Academical one, for a true Divine is to teach, not to ask this question:) Is he a Statesman? For he who can think one answer, can or ought be made to all these; may likewise expect, that a round bowl may stop a square hole, or one cause produce all effects, and hang lead at his heels to fly withal. Yet I deny not, but all these must have the same guide, though they are to be assured of, that in divers sorts and manners. If therefore the ignorant man speaketh, I will show him in the Church of God an excellency in decency, Majesty of Ceremonies above all other Sects and Religions, whereby dull capacities are sweetly ensnared, to believe the truth they hear, from whom they see to have the outward Signs of virtue and devotion. If the unlearned ask; I show him the claim of Antiquity, the multitude, the advantages of sanctity and learning, the justifiableness of the cause, how the world was once in this accord, and those who opposed, when they first parted, first began the Schism; how the points of difference be such as on the Catholic side help devotion, and on the contrary diminish the same, and such like sensible differences which will clearly show a main advantage on the Catholic side, which is the proportional motive to his understanding: To the Grammarian I will give two Memorandums.  
First, that seeing Catholics were first in possession both of the Scriptures and the interpretations, the adverse part is bound to bring such places as can receive no probable Exposition by the Catholics. It is not sufficient that their Expositions seem good or better; that is, more conformable unto the Text, but they must be evincent, to which no so sound answer, even with some impropriety can be given. For who knoweth not, that is conversant in Critics, how many obscure, and difficult places occur in most plain Authors: and the Scripture of all Books (the greater part of the men who wrote them, specially the new Testament, being not eloquent, and writing not in their native tongue) for the most part are subject to many Improprieties.  
The other Memorandum is, That to prove a Catholic point by Scripture, it is sufficient that the place brought, do bear the Explication the Catholic beareth, and if it be more probable by the very letter, it is an evincent place. The reason is, Because the Question being about a Christian Law, the Axioms of the Jurists taketh place that Consuetudo optima interpres Legis. So that if it be manifest that Christian practice (which was before the controversy) be for the one sense, and the words be tolerable, no force of Grammar can prevail to equalise this advantage. The Grammarian therefore who will observe these rules, I turn him lose to the Scriptures, and Fathers to seek in them what is the faith of Christ, and properties of his Church to know her by. Of the the Philosopher I exact to go like a Philosopher, and to search out the specifical differences of every Sect, and when he hath found them, if any one but the Catholic hath any rule of Faith and good life: which I remit to him to inquire? But at least when he hath found the Catholics to be this claim of Tradition before declared, then, if this do not bring him as demonstratively, as he knoweth any conclusion in Philosophy, and Mathematics, to the notice that this is the only true Church of Christ, for my part I shall quit him before, God and man. The Divine if he hath truly understood the principles of his Faith in the nature of a Divine (I mean, Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, Eucharist, Beatitude, the Creation and Dissolution of the World) and hath seen the exact conformity with the deepest principles of nature, with an unspeakable wisdom of the contriver: If he does not plainly confess it was above the nature of man to frame the Catholic Religion, and seeth not that only, that is conformable to nature and itself; I say, he hath no ground sufficient to be of it. At last, the Statesman who is truly informed of the Church, (how far it is really of Christ's Institution, and what either pious men have added, or peradventure, ambitious men encroached,) If he does not find a government of so high and Exotic strain, that neither man's wit would dare to have attempted it, neither man's power could possibly have effected it. If he findeth not eminent helps, and no disadvantage to the temporal government, I shall think there wanteth one Star in the Heaven of the Church, to direct these Sages to Bethlehem. But if God Almighty hath in all sorts and manners provided his Church, that she may enlighten every man in his way, which goeth the way of a man; then let every man consider, which is the fit way for himself, and what in other matters of that way he accomptech evidence. And, if there be no interest in his soul, to make him loath to believe, what in another matter of the like nature he would not stick at, or heavy to practise what he seeth clearly enough, I fear not his choice; but if God send him time and means to prosecute his search any indifferent while, it is long ago known of what religion he is to be of   

After this followeth no order of Chapters, because it is applied to the discourse which was occasion of it.  
Although if what is already be not satisfaction unto the writing, and the Author thereof, (for whose sake and contentment, all that hath been discoursed hitherto, hath been set down:) I confess, that I have not ability to give him satisfaction: yet lest it should be interpreted neglect, If I did not make an application of it unto the writing, I shall as briefly as I can, for avoiding tediousness, run over the discourse. And true it is, speaking of the Church of Rome, as this day it is the true Church of God: I answer the doubter, she neither hath, nor can have any error, which he need to fear, and be shy of. The which two limitations I add, for avoiding questions, impertinent to our discourse. The first, for those which are concerning the connection of the Sea of Rome to the universal Church. The latter, to avoid such questions as touch that point, whether the Church may err, in any Philosophical or other such like matter? which questi on's are not so pertinent to our matter.  
Neither do I remit the Questioner unto Scripture for his satisfaction, although I hold Scripture a very sufficient means, to satisfy the man, who goeth to it with that preparation of understanding and will, which is meet and required. Howsoever this I may answer, for them who prove it out of Scripture, that because they dispute against them who admit of Scripture, and deny the authority of the Church, if they can convince it, they do well; though they will not themselves admit generally of a proof out of Scripture, as not able to prove every thing in foro contentioso.  
That they say, the Church is made infallible, that we may have some guide, I think it very rational. For nature hath given ever some strong and uncontrollable principle in all natures to guide the rest. The Commonwealth hath a Governor not questionable, our understanding hath some principles, which she cannot judge, but by them judgeth of all other verities. If there should not be some such principle in the Church, it were the only maimed thing God had created; and maimed in its principal part, in the very head. And if there be such a principle, the whole Church is infallible by that, as the whole man seeth by his eyes, toucheth by his hands. Neither can I deny, but that the Author well excepteth, or assumeth, that there is no less necessity, the Church should be known to be infallible, or which is this Church, then that there is one. For if I should admit absolutely, that it is necessary for every man to know the Church is Infallible, precedently to the knowledge of which is the true Church, I should forget what I had before said, that satisfaction is to be given to every one, according to his capacity. It is sufficient for a Child to believe his Parents, for a Clown to believe his Preacher, about the Church's Infallibility. For Faith is given to mankind, to be a means to him of believing, and living like a Christian: and so he hath this second, it is not much matter in what terms he be with the first. The good women and Clowns in Italy, and Spain, trouble not themselves to seek the grounds of their faith, but with a Christian simplicity, seek to live according unto that their Preachers tell them; and without question, by perseverance, come to the happiness, great Clerks by too much speculation may fail of. Such therefore know no otherwise the Infallibility of the Church, then because she telleth it them, to whom they give credit, as innocently as any child to his Mother.  
The Church therefore was made infallible, because so it was fitting for her Maker, so it was fitting for herself, so it was fit for that part of mankind, that had more refined wits; not because it was necessary for every one which was to come to her, or live in her, whereof the greatest part first cometh to her, drawn by some of the means before delivered, and believeth her about her infallibility.  
Neither do I remit him to a general and constant tradition, as if himself should climb up every age by learned Writers, and find it in every one. I take it to be impossible. Testimonies one may find in many ages, but such as will demonstrate and convince, a full tradition, I much doubt. Neither do I find by experience, that who will draw a man by a rope or chain, giveth him the whole rope or chain into his hands, but only one end of it, unto which if he cleave hard, he shall be drawn which way the rope is carried. Tradition is a long chain, every generation or delivery from father to son, being a link in it. I send him therefore no further then to this present age, where he shall (beyond all doubtfulness) find that this doctrine was delivered unto this age, by the care of their Ancestors. And if we seek upon what terms, we find, that upon a fixed opinion of damnation in failing; and so, that they had received it so from their forefathers upon the same terms, with opinion that it had continued ever since Christ his time by this means. And he who is able to look into the means, how this can remain constantly so many ages, may find it not only the far securer, but an evidently infallible succession of doctrine, inviolable as long as there is a Church. And this doth not only show that there is one, but which she is, and that there can be no other. For I suppose, no man will be so senseless as to say, the Apostles preached one thing in one part, and the contrary in another: wherefore it will be agreed, that once the Church agreed in her faith. This supposed, let us set the time when one part changed, and will it not be evident, that the changing Church being challenged cannot plead, she received it from her Ancestors, because it is manifestly false to both parties? Then must needs one only Church remain with that claim. And although we did not know what the Greek Church doth by her History, yet the force of consequence would tell us, they cannot do this which the Western Church doth, because the doing of one is incompatible with the doing of the same by the other.  
As for the two places concerning the Popes and Counsels infallibility, it is not to my purpose to meddle of them, because on the one side, the way I have begun, there is no need of those discourses; and on the other, I should engage myself in quarrels betwixt Catholic, and Catholic, obscure the matter I have taken in hand, and profit nothing in my hearers, more than to be judged, peradventure to have more learning than wisdom to govern it withal Wherefore I shall omit those Paragraphes, if I only note concerning the tradition imposed upon Papius, that the very narration of it, sheweth that it is no tradition, in the sense we speak of tradition, but in the sense some Heretics have pretended tradition; as it were a doctrine secretly delivered, and gathered out of private conference with the Apostles, and not their public preaching delivered to the Churches, which is the way we exalt tradition in. The witnesses also of ancient Fathers are no parts of tradition, but signs and marks where it hath passed, whereas the body of tradition is in the life and belief of the whole Church. For the Church (as I have said) is an essence composed, as it were, of intern and extern parts; the intern being faith, the extern, the outward action, which must needs be conformable to the internal faith, nor can there be a material change in the action, but it must argue the internal change of faith, nor internal change in faith, but it must draw with it an Iliad of altered actions.  
As for the place of Fevardentius, which alloweth many Fathers to have fallen into errors, I think it will not trouble him, who is acquainted with the course of the present Church, wherein divers, who be thought great Divines, fall into errors, for which their books sometimes are hindered from the print, sometimes recalled, or some leaves commanded to be pasted up. The reason is, the multiplicity of Catholic doctrine, which doth not oblige a man to the knowledge of every part, but to the prompt subjection, to the instruction of the Church, wherefore many men may hold false doctrine inculpably, not knowing it to be such, even now after the learned labours of so many, that have strived to open and facilitate by method, what is true and what is false; much more in the Father's times, when there was great want of so many compilers, as theso latter ages have produced.  
As for the two points, he saith, avert him from Catholic doctrine, I am mistaken, if he be not mistaken in both. The first is, that Catholic doctrine damns all, who are not in the union of their Church. He thinketh the sentence hard, yet, I think he will not deny me this, that if any Church does not say so, it cannot be the true Church: For call the Church what you will, the Congregation of the Elect, the Congregation of the Faithful, the Congregation of Saints, or Just; call it, I say, or define it what you will, doth it not clearly follow, that whosoever is out of that Church cannot be saved; for he shall not be Elect, Just, Faithful, etc. without which there is no Salvation. How then can any Church maintain these two propositions? I am the true Church, and yet one may be saved, without being in me. But peradventure he is scandalised, that the Catholic Church requireth actual communion, external with her, which he thinketh in some case may be wanting, without detriment of Salvation. But how would he have the Church speak, which speaketh in common, but abstracting from such particular cases, as may change wholly the nature of the question. For example sake; hath not the Church reason to say, he that denyeth the blessed Trinity is an Heretic? It happeneth, one who hath conversed among the Tritheites, hearing them use the word Trinity for three Gods, meaning to speak against them, denyeth there is any Trinity; shall this man be comprehended in the foresaid condemnation? Or was the sentence ill pronounced? Neither, as I think. For both was it well done by the Church, to condemn deniers of the Trinity, because per se loquendo (as the Philosophers speak) that is, according to the ordinary course, and nature of things, who denyeth a thing in words, denyeth it in heart; yet the man forespoken, did not so, and was not condemned in that sentence. In like manner, when the Church condemneth all such as are not in actual union, and communion with her, she doth well: because according to the ordinary course, this doth not fall out, without either presumption, and damnable pride, or else culpable, eitherignorance, or fear, and love of private interest, before God and his Church. But it followeth not thence, that by accident no man may sometime be excused. The words of our Saviour concerning Baptism and Eucharist their necessity, are very precise, yet the Church doubteth not to excuse those who have it in voto.  
But to proceed unto the point. The corrent of Catholic Doctors holdeth, that no man shall be damned for infidelity, but he who wilfully doth misbeleeve, and that to do so, it is required that faith be sufficiently proposed unto him. And what is to be sufficiently proposed, is not determined amongst them. There wanteth not Divines, that teach, that even ignorantia affectata, doth excuse from Heresy.  
On the other side it is most certain, that no man is damned for not professing, what he is not damned for not believing. Wherefore profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church of God, according unto the ordinary opinions of Catholics; it followeth, that no man is condemned for not being of the Church, who is not for infidelity, for which it is a very uncertain case, who be damned and who not. So that the Catholic position is not so crude, as peradventure the Author understood it to be, though the words be rough, and aught to be so, as being of what is according to the course of nature, not what chance and accideuts may invent.  
The other point was of putting Heretics to death, which I think he understandeth to be done Vindicatively; not Medicinally. I mean imposed as a punishment, and not in way to prevent mischief, or oppress it in the head. If the Circumcellians were the first, that is ancient enough for the justification of the fact, although for banishment (which also he seemeth to reprehend) we know the first that could suffer it, did suffer it. Arrius, I mean, by the hand of Constantine, whom he praiseth for a speech he uttered, before he knew the consequence of the danger, and seemeth to reprehend for his after and better wits. Saint Augustine justifieth such proceeding against Here tiques. Saint Gregory advised the like against Pagans, (if I remember) and the Church laterly, hath rather increased then decreased in the practice of it. Mores' speech, I believe is mistaken, the force of it being, that the banishment of Bishops showed his faith, because the banished were Catholics, which showed Lucius to be none. But what can be said, if the Church useth that for the prevention of a greater, and more dangerous evil, which all politic Estates use for the remedies of less, and less dangerous evils, and are commended for it? For if Faith be the way of Salvation and hereby the bane of Faith; if Salvation be the greatest good, than the danger of a Countries being over run with Heresy, is the greatest of dangers, greater than the multiplying of Thiefs, greater than the unsurety of the ways, greater than a Plague, or Invasion. Why then doth not reason force us to use the means to prevent it, which the same reason and experience, teacheth us to be most efficacious in this, and all other contagious and gangrening maladies of the Commonwealth. I hope reason itself, and the zeal of the Author to his own and Country's Salvation, will supply my shortness in this point. For supposing a Church be assured she is in the right, and that the doctrine preached by another, leadeth to damnation, I know not why Caipha's words should not be prophetical in this case, and that truly it doth not expedire, that unus moriatur pro populo, & non tota gens pereat.  
He urgeth afterwards against the unity of the Church, that it is none such as we brag off. And I confess we brag of it, and think we have reason too. And if it please him to look into the difference of our Country of England, and some Land of Barbarians, as Brasile, or such other, where they live without Law or Government. I think he will find, that our bragging is not without ground. For wherein is the difference betwixt a civil Government, and a barbarous Anarchy? Is it either, that in a civil Estate there be no quarrels, or amongst Barbarians there is no quiet. The former would prejudice our Courts and Justice, the latter is impossible, even in nature. What is then the goodness of Government, but that in a well governed Country, there is a means to end quarrels, and in an Anarchy there can be no assured peace? This therefore is that we brag of, that amongst us, if any controversy rise, there is a way to end it, which is not amongst them who part from us. And secondly, that there is no assured agreement amongst those who are parted from us; for although to day they agree, there is no bond, nor tie, why to morrow they may not disagree. These two things we brag of, and I think the Author will not deny it. For he confesseth we all agree, in that the Church is an infallible Mistress. Then it is evident, that if in any controversy she interposeth her judgement, the controversy is ended. He likewise confesseth, that who part from us, have no such definitive authority amongst them, and that Scripture whereon they rely, hath not this virtue, to take up controversies clearly. Again, I do confess, most English men confess a Trinity, the Incarnation, and Passion of our Saviour, but if to morrow, any one or more of them, light upon some book of an Arrian, Trinitarian, or other Sect, so wittily written, that he putteth probable solutions for the places of Scriptures, showeth slight ways, how our well-meaning forefathers may have slipped into such an error; what is there to retain these men, from disagreeing with the rest of their brothers, and betake themselves to the Arrians: And when the heat is passed, light upon some Rabbi, who shall cunningly exaggerate the absurdities (as he shall term them) of the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion; say our Saviour did strange things in virtue of some constellation, and delivering these things so oratorically, that for a new heat these things shall seem more conformable, than his Arrianisme; what then shall hinder this to become a Jew, and at last to prove himself so great a Clerk, as to write De Tribus Impostoribus. Take away the power of the Church (which every man doth, who taketh away the Infallibility) what can retain any man, why he should not yield to that discourse, which seemeth fairest, seeing nothing is certain? But peradventure, some may attribute power unto the Church without Infallibility, whom I would have consider, but what himself saith. For his Church, by the power it hath, must either say, I command you to believe me, or I command you to profess this, whether you believe me or no. The second I think, no enemy of equivocation will admit, as the former is as much, as if it should say, I know not whether I say true or no, yet you must think I say true. So that if I understand any thing, where there is no Infallibility, there is no Power, where no Power, no Unity, where no Unity, no Entity, no Church. Now for the controversies mentioned (besides that, there is a means to terminate them) they be such, as bring no breach of the ancient life, and action of Christians, which all those Opinions do, which for the most part are reputed to make Heretics; That some controversies amongst us are not resolved, is a thing necessary amongst humane affairs, where things must have a time to be borne, to increase, to fall; and the greater things are, the greater is their period. Wherefore I do not see, why this may hurt the Church, more than the Suits which hang in our Courts, prejudice the Government of the Land. Neither can any other Church assume Infallibility to itself; because it cannot lay hold of this principle, that it receiveth its doctrine by hands; and so must first profess the Church of Christ to be fallible, or else it cannot part from it.  
The last point of the Author's discourse, is, to show how errors might have crept in. Wherein I shall have no opposition with him, for I do not think the question is, how they should creep in, but how they should be kept out? For the fluxibility of humane nature is so great, that it is no wonder if errors should have crept in, the ways being so many, but it is a great wonder of God, that none should have crept in. This nevertheless I may say, (if the Author will confess, (as I think) he will not deny, but that it is disputable, whether any error in sixteen ages hath crept in) this very thing is above nature. For if there were not an excellency beyond the nature of corruptible things, it would be undeniably evident, that not one or two, but hundreds of errors had quite changed the shape of the Church in so many years, tempests, divisions, want of commerce in the body of the Church. But this one maxim, that she receiveth her Faith by Tradition, and not from Doctors, hath ever kept her entire. And he that will show the contrary, must show how it could come to pass, that those who lived in such an age, could say unto their children, this we received from our forefathers, as taught them by their forefathers, to have been received from Christ and his Apostles, from hand to hand; which if it could not be, the question is resolved, that no error is in the Church of God, which holdeth her faith upon that tenure.  
And truly, if the Author desire to examine many Religions, let him look their main ground wherein they rely, and see whether that be good or no. And I think amongst Christians he shall find but two, Tradition, and Scripture. And the Catholic only to rely upon Tradition, and all the rest upon Scripture. And also shall he see, that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an unity, those who rely upon it; and that more than one cannot rely upon Tradition, which when I have considered, I have no further to seek, for if I will be a Christian, I must belong to one side. By falling on the one side, I see my fortune in thousands who have gone before me, to wit, that I shall be to seek all my life time, as I see they are, and how greatly they magnify very weak pieces. On the other side, I see every man who followeth it, as far as he follow it, is at quiet; and therefore cannot choose, but think there to be the stone to rest my head upon, against which Jacob his Ladder is reared unto Heaven.  
The Author hath through his whole discourse, inserted divers things, which seem particularly to the justification of himself, in the way of his search. The which, as I think, on one side I should be too blame to exaimine (for who am I, to judge the Servant of another man) so, because I cannot think, but that they were inserted for love of truth, and to hear what might be said against them (craving pardon, if on presumption of that, it is his will, I any way offend) I shall touch the matter, wholly abstracting from the personal disposition of any man. And to begin a far of, it is confessed amongst Catholics, that all sin must be wilful, and so as far as any man's doubt in Religion is not by will, but by force and necessity, so far it is not culpable, but may be laudable before God and man. As was without doubt the anxious search of Saint Augustine for the truth, which he relateth in his confessions, for who is assured of being out of the truth, must have time to seek it, and so long this doubt is rational, and laudable. That which must justify this search, is in common, that which justifieth all actions, that a man be sure in the aim he aimeth at, and in the means he taketh, not to be governed by any passion, interest, or wilfulness, but that he sincerely aimeth, and carefully pursueth in the search of the truth itself, for the love of it; and of those goods which depend of the knowledge of it. This is a thing, in which a rational man can have no other judge then himself; for no man knoweth what is within a man, but the Spirit, or conscience of man. But he himself must be a rigorous Judge unto himself, for it is very hard to know the truth: when I say rigorous, I mean exact, and fearful mis-deeming: As holy Job was, who said, He was fearful of all his actions. Holy David, but amongst all, Saint Augustine doth more sweetly complain of the misery of man, not knowing his own dispositions, and yet he was then forty years of age, when passions and heats of youth which make this discussion harder, are generally settled. Besides this, he must have this care, that he seek what the nature of the subject can yield, and not as those Physicians, who when they have promised no less than immortality, can at last only reach to some conservation of health, or youth, in some small degree. So I could wish the Author, to well assure himself first, that there is possible, an Infallibility, before he be too earnest, to be contented with nothing less. For what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good, would he therefore think fitting to live without any Religion, because he could not get such a one as himself desired, though with more than a man's wish. Were it not rational to see, whether amongst Religions, some one hath not such notable advantages over the rest, as in reason it might seem, humane nature might be contented withal Let him cast his accounts with the dearest things he hath, his own, or friends lives, his estate, his hope of posterity, and see upon what terms of advantage he is ready to venture all these, and then return to Religion, and see whether, if he do not venture his soul upon the like, it be truly reason, or some other not confessed motive, which withdraweth him. For my own part, as I doubt not of an Infallibility, so I doubt not, but setting that aside, there be those excellencies found on the Catholic party, which may force a man to prefer it, and venture all he hath upon it, before all other Religions, and Sects in the world: Why then may not one, who after long searching findeth no Infallibility, rest himself on the like, supposing man's nature affordeth no better?  
Another thing may make a man's search faulty, and is carefully to be looked-unto, I mean, that it is easy for a man to mistake himself, by too much confidence in himself or others. He that will make a judgement in an Art he is not Master in, if he be deceived, is to impute it unto himself. The Phrase commandeth us to believe every man in his Art; he who knoweth and understandeth himself, believeth not. Therefore when we see Masters in an Art, we are not skilled in, oppose us, we may believe we are in the wrong: which will bred this resolution in the Author of the discourse, that if himself be not skilled all those ways in which he pursueth his search, he must find himself obliged to seek Masters, who be both well skilled, and (the matter being subject to faction) also very honest and upright men, or else he doth not quit himself before God and man.  
I cannot part without one note more, which is, that it is not all one to incur damnation for infidelity and to be in state of Salvation. For the man to whom infidelity is not imputed, may be in state of damnation, for other faults, as those were who having known God by his works, did not glorify him as they ought: nay, they may be damned through want of Faith, and yet not be condemned for incredulity. As for example sake, if when they have sinned, they know not what means to take to have them forgiven, though they be without fault in not believing, nevertheless dying without remission of sin, they are not in state to come to life everlasting. As the man, who should venture into a Wood without a guide, although he did his best to have a guide, nothing less might fall out of his way, as well as he, who neglected the taking of one; so if God sent his Son to show us the way of Salvation, and that be but one; as well is he like not to be saved, who never heard of such a way, as he that heard of it, and neglected it; for neither of the two goeth that way; and who goes not on the way, is not like to come to the end. I know God is good and merciful; but I know his works, as far as we know, are dispensed by the order of second causes; and where we see no second causes, we cannot presume of the effects. God is good and merciful I know, and feedeth the Birds of the air, and much more men; yet we see in dearths and hard winters, both men and Birds to perish, do they what they could to get victuals. And how am I assured he will send Angels to illuminate such men as do their endeavours, that their souls may not perish? But far more do I doubt, whether ever man, who had not the way of Christ, or even of those, who walked in it, did ever do his best (except some few, and very few, perhaps not two of Christ his greatest favourites) and was not so culpable, that his perdition would not have been imputed unto himselse. God of his mercy put us in the score of those, of whom he saith, He will take pity upon whom he pleaseth, and compassion of them he pleaseth.  
FINIS.    

THE LORD OF faulkland's REPLY.  
SIR,  

I Receive your intention to instruct me for a great Obligation, but I should have esteemed it a greater; if you would have pleased to let me know to whom I owe the Favour, and should pay my thanks; and if you had not translated the command of secrecy from proper to metaphorical Alms.  
I am also to thank you (for in this Age we are beholding to them who do what is fit) for not mixing Gall with your Ink; since I have ever thought that there should be as little bitterness in a Treatise of Controversy, as in a Love-letter, and that the contrary way was both void of Christian charity, and humane wisdom, as serving only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fright away the 
Synesius.  game, and make their Adversary unwilling to receive Instruction from him, from whom they have received Injuries; and making themselves unabler to discover Truth (which Saint Austin says is hard for him to find who is calm, but impossible for him that is angry:) raising besides a great suspicion of ignorance in him that useth it; since it is a very true Rule which we have received from Hierocles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confidence of knowledge conduceth much to meekness: Now in this I intent to take you for my pattern, and the same Author for my Counsellor; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being able to overthrow what is false (for so must I think I can, and such I must take your reasons to be, as long as they persuade me not) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resisting Errors without Anger, and pursuing Truth with mildness.  
Now this I must profess for myself, that since I considered any thing in Religion, and knew that there were several of them in the world, I never avoided to hear (at least) any man that was willing to persuade me by reason, that any of them was the true, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay rather I have laid wait to meet with such of all sorts, as were most likely to say most on their side (as S. chrysostom says of Abraham, that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lay nets for Guests) and though almost all that undertake the search of so important a Truth, do it better, provided, with sharpness of wit, and solidity of judgement, yet I verily believe that few do with that indifference and equality which is fit for a Judge, and with which I both began and continue it.  
Yet (lest there might some un-marked prejudice lie lurking in me, and lest I might harbour some secret inclination to those Tenets which I had first been reached) I have ever leaned, and set my Bias to the other side, and have both more discoursed of matters of Religion with those of the Church of Rome then with their Adversaries, and read more of their writings; though none either so often or so carefully, as this which I am now answering, both because it was intended for my Instruction and confutation; as also because the beauty of the stile and language, in which you have apparelled your conceptions (although 
Ovid. Metamorph.   
— Non haec  
Auxilio tibi sunt Decor est quaesitus ab istis,  
yet) shows the Author a considerable Person, and I may say of the splendour and outside of what you have said (for my opinion (that it wants solidity, and that the Logic of it is inferior to the Rhetoric) is seen by my writing against it) what Tacitus says of Vitellius his Army, Phalerae torquesque splendebant, & non Vitellio principe dignus exercitus; for as he would have had that glorious Army been employed in the defence of a better 
Xenophon Hist. 3.  and braver Prince, so I wish your eloquence had guilded the better cause; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And (having learned moreover from the Pagan Divinity of Hierocles (which in this is conformable to that of most Christians) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all our search is but the stretching forth of our hands, and that our finding proceeds from Gods delivering the Truth unto us, and that prayer is the best means to join the latter to the former:) I have not only with my utmost endeavours done my part; but also besought God with my most earnest fervency to do his; and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joining Prayer to search, like form to Matter; I doubt not but God who hath given me a will, to seek his Will, also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if I have not the truth 
Euseb. Orat. de Laud. Const.  already, I shall be taught the truth by him, and by you as his Instrument, or shall be excused, if I find it not; assuring you that I was never more ready to part with my clothes when they were torn, then with my opinions when they were confuted, and appeared to me to be so.  
To begin then with your Treatise, you can say nothing for Tradition, which I will not willingly allow, Scripture itself being a Traditum, and by that way coming to our knowledge, (for I am confident that those who would know it by the Spirit, run themselves into the same Circle between Scripture and Spirit, out of which some of your side have but unsuccessefully laboured to get out between Scripture and Church) but that this way which you propound should be convenient to know what was Tradition at first, I can by no means agree. Which to consider the better, I will comprehend all the strength of what you have said in a little room, and shut up your Oration into the compass of some 3. Sillogismes; thus you argue,  
What company soever of Christians alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers, as received from theirs, as so come down from the Apostles, that company alone must hold the truth.  
But that company of Christians which are in communion with the Church of Rome only pretend this, Therefore they alone hold the truth, and the Church.  
The Major you prove thus:  
If such a company of Christians could teach falsehoods, than (since it is granted that what was at first delivered was true) some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors, or have joined to deceive their posterity.  
But neither of these are beleevable,  
Therefore neither is it beleevable, that such a company of Christians should teach falsehoods:  
The Minor you prove thus; (I mean that they alone pretend it, for that they, I mean all they, pretend it, you take for granted.)  
If it be incompatible with the Church of Rome's doing it, that any else should do it, than she does it alone.  
But it is incompatible, (which is denied, and not yet proved.)  
Therefore she doth it alone.  
The several parts of this Argument, I mean first to Answer; and secondly, Whatsoever lies scattered in your discourse any thing to this purpose, or any other unanswered in the first part: and thirdly, I will reply to those Answers which you have been pleased to make, to part of that Nothing which I writ, wishing that this last work might have been longer, I mean that by answering it all, and in order, you had given me occasion to have dwelled more upon my Reply.  
Now if I do not show that all of the Church of Rome do not, nor cannot pretend this, that for two to pretend it is not incompatible (as having been so heretofore) that those who alone pretend this may pretend it falsely, that some men, and in time all may mistake their Ancestors, and have a mind in some cases to deceive their posterity, and that it is not necessary for a whole age at once to join in doing it, though it be done (if I say) I show not this, then let me not be believed, and if you can show me that I have not showed it, I will promise to believe you.  
First, That the Church of Rome doth not, nor cannot pretend, that all their doctrine was received by them from their fathers as come down from the Apostles, it appears, because when questions have risen about such things, whereof there was before no speech, yet if a Council have determined them, they are received with the same assent, as if they had come from the Apostles; and they profess now the same readiness to receive always any such definition, though about a question now unknown; and it is likely, they have done what they profess they are ready to do; at least, they show, that yours is not the ground upon which they build. And I pray ask yourself, whether those that teach the common people (who are the greatest part of your Church) use to be asked about it by them, or use to tell them, that this they received from their Fathers, as descended from the Apostles, by a continual verbal Tradition. For suppose they told them, that [this Tradition tells us] yet they are not able to distinguish between such as is but Ecclesiastical, and Apostolical, or whether this be known to them only by deductions, or from ancient books, and no such uncontinued line of teaching, and not rather persuade them in general to believe it, what by Arguments drawn from Scripture, what from reason, what from Fathers, Counsels, or Decretals? I am not certain what is their course, but I am sure, the most ordinary amongst the Ancients (whom they pretend to follow) was, that when they had told the people, that such a proposition was true, they added [neither is it I that say so, but the Apostle, the Prophet, or the Evangelist] and mentioned the place, where they thought such a doctrine was included, seldom speak of any verbal Tradition (less of such a one, upon which you wholly rely) except urged to it, when that was impudently claimed by some Heretic; and when they did (as the Asian Bishops about Easter, Justin Martyr about the age of Christ, Saint Austin about communicating Infants, Papius and Iraeneus about the doctrine of the Chiliasts) then (as Lucian tells us, that when that Juggler Alexander sent to a City a Verse to be set upon their doors to keep away the Plague, those houses which used the remedy, were more visited than those that did not so) those doctrines which the Fathers did grace by writing verbal Tradition in their foreheads, were not less (perhaps more) apt to be after disbeleeved, than the other which were not in that kind taught.  
Now if the Ignorant be not expressly instructed, that upon this ground they are to think that true, which they are bid to believe (especially where their religion is easily enough received, only for being that of their Country) you must allow, that the greatest part of your Church cannot, nor does not pretend, to have received all they believe under that Notion; and to know they did, you must have spoke with them all, or have heard them all instructed; for what is in some places so taught, may be delivered upon other grounds in the very next Parishes.  
From the Ignorant let us come to the learned, and see whether they do not both believe more, and require more to be believed, then hath had any such pedigree as you imagine. First, than the great, eloquent, and judicious Cardinal Perron, (whom I prefer so much before all those of his side that have been Authors, that [if a Pigmy may be allowed to measure Giants] I should think that the vast learning and industry of Bellarmine, and Baronius, might with most advantage to their party, and no disgrace to them, have been employed in seeking quotations for his large and monstrous understanding to have employed them) he, I say, tells us, (and not from himself, but from Saint Austin) that the Trinity, Pennance, freewill, and the Church, were never exactly disputed of, before the Arrians, the Novatians, the Pelagians, and the Donatists. Now (since without doubt the former ages disputed as well as they could, and so could not instruct their Proselytes, better than they confuted their Adversaries) I think it evident, that more hath since been concluded, then came from Tradition, and that the way you speak of, appeared not sufficient, either to Cardinal Perron, or Saint Austin. But because Bellarmine (being written in a more general language) is more generally (though, I think unjustly) esteemed then Perron, I will ask you a question of him, when he excuseth Pope John the 22th for denying, that Saints enjoy the beatifical vision before the day of judgement (in which he was lead by a Troop of Fathers) because the Church had not then defined the contrary; did Bellarmine believe, that then Christians had received from their Fathers, as from the Apostles, a direct contrary Tradition to his doctrine? If he did, how could he think the Pope, either possibly to be ignorant of it, or excusable, if he stood against it? If not, than he thought our Age beholding to our Fathers, for finding out some truths, which had no such line to come down by; nay, which the Apostles either taught not, or but obscurely, and so as needs Arguments to deduce it out of their writings; at least, not so generally, but that a Pope, and many more chief Doctors of the Church, knew not they had done so, (although you often put us in mind, that Tertullian tells us, how in that Church which he governed, the Apostles poured out all their doctrines with their blood) and in his time, Fathers taught not their children so: And this objectionlyes against you, as often as any of your side confess any of the Ancients (accounted Orthodox) to have delivered any doctrine, contrary to that of the now Church of Rome, which many of them often confess, and yourself do not deny: for that they could not have done, if an uninterrupted verbal Tradition had been then the only rule of true doctrine, and they had known it to be so (for then they had a way of information, which you must confess easy, since they might soon have known, whether generally, Christians had been taught the contrary, under such a Notion, and in such a degree, as you speak of) or the Church of Rome had not since, either deviated from the tradition of one part, or introduced on the other.  
But because you knew, that the claim of Tradition could not serve your Churches turn, if any other different from yours made the same; you therefore affirm, that none doth, and prove it, because two cannot do it; and in this you must give me leave to say, that you imitate the Philosopher, who made Arguments against Motion, though one walked before him; for though we see that the Greek Church does it as much as the Roman, (though apt to be deceived in the doing it, by the same ways) yet you hope to persuade us beyond our eyes, by a reason, which indeed ends in an assertion: for, I pray, why may not two companies of Christians, both pretend to such a Tradition, (though opposing each other) as well as the Asian Churches and the Roman did long together, about the celebration of Easter? But not only that it may be so, but that it is so, you may find by Hieremy, Nilus, and Barlaam (who profess to stand to the Scriptures, the ancient Tradition of their Fathers, and the seven first general Counsels, and they can be disproven no way, but by the same you may be so too) over and above the confessions of your own men.  
But suppose you did pretend, and alone pretend to such a Tradition, yet you might falsely do it: for I desire you to remember, that the Apostles delivered, as well Writings as verbal Doctrine; and whatsoever the first ages thought to be contained there, that they might as well deliver to their posterity, as taught them by the Apostles, as what they received by word of mouth; since we use to say, I learned this of such a man, when we mean from his book, and though you strive to join verbal Tradition in commission with Scripture, yet sure none of you can desire to thrust Scripture out quite from being at least a part of the Rule. Now that they might err in interpreting their writings (and an error in the chiefest then, might easily cause a general one since) I think you will not deny, especially since to say, that they left by Tradition every place of Scripture interpreted, would be an evidently false assertion: for how could the Fathers than have written upon it such differently-expounding Comments.  
Secondly, How shall it appear, that there were not once two contrary Traditions claimed by two Parts (as the Asian Church, and the Roman, whereof, both it seems claimed a direct verbal Tradition, because one pretended to have received theirs from Saint John, and the other, from Saint Peter, whereof there is no word in their works) and that the erring Part did not prevail? We know, out of the fifth of Eusebius History, that the forerunners laid claim to Tradition, and named the very Pope, that had changed the doctrine at Rome; which claim (how impudently soever) yet shows, that men might join to deceive their Posterity, as pretending to a Tradition, when there was no such; for, if you say those were but few, I answer, both that you are not certain of their number, and since so many may join, I pray, what number is it cannot?  
Thirdly, Since you must and do confess, that some Doctrines, which were not once generally witnessed to have been delivered by the Apostles, are now Doctrines of Faith (as the Epistle to the Hebrews was rejected by the Roman Church in Saint Hierom's time, though to her ye use to say, that Iraeneus would have every Church agree, and though Saint Hierom, whom you would prove to have thought Damafus infallible, when it is known, that he thought Libertius a Heretic, received it for all that) because you say, that these doctrines had so much Tradition as was exceptione major, beyond exception, (though the Church of Rome thought not so then;) doth not this rest upon the Logic of those Ages, to conclude what Testimony is so? which might easily deceive them, especially since you confess also, that particular Traditions may be false (as you instance in the Chiliasts) and yet the same reason, which persuaded some to receive them, may persuade more and more in several times (and so no age need to join, as you suppose) and so a false Tradition may grow a general one; as it seems that of the Chiliasts (if it be one) did, so general, that Justin Martyr says, in his time all Orthodox Christians held it.  
Besides, in those things which were believed very convenient, and which yet it was feared, that unless men thought them necessary, they would be backward to practise, in respect of the contrariety of them to their dispositions, (as confession) how easy was it for them to be after taught, under pain of more danger, then at first they were delivered with? as Physicians often tell their Patients, unless they take such a Potion, from which they are very averse, they must unavoidably die, though the not taking of it (even in their own opinions) would but make them less likely to recover. Some of great authority (moved by a good meaning) might thus deceive others; these, thus deceived, might deceive others; till, being generally spread, other good men, being loath to oppose them for the same reason, for which others desired to spread them, (as we saw Erasmus, who believed your confession, not to have been instituted by the Apostles, yet would not reprehend them that said so, thinking it an error, that would increase Piety) they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles, without contradiction.  
Indeed all the ways, by which I showed in that paper, which you vouchsafed to answer (which I desire not to repeat, to avoid both your being wearied, and my own, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that errors might come to be general; all those are ways, by which the same errors might come to be thought to have proceeded from Tradition. Saint Austin, and Tertullian, agreeing in the sense of the sentence, which we read in the latter, 
* De Coroná.  Si legem nusquam reperio, sequitur ut Traditio consuetudini morem hunc dederit, habiturum quandoque apostoli authoritatem ex interpretatione rationis; and it is the more strange, that Tertullian should allow any custom the authority of coming from the Apostles, since in the same place, he gives any man leave to begin a custom, so it be good (which depends upon his reason, as the reception of it does upon theirs that follow him) and so make it a custom, in these words. Anon putas licere omni fideli concipere, & constituere, duntaxat, quod Deo congruat, quod disciplinae conducat, quod saluti proficiat, dicente Domino cur non & vobis ipsis quod justum est judicatis? By which it seems, he was willing, more should be believed then was first taught, and when that way had brought in any thing (for there is the same reason of opinion, as of actions) and made it common, than the former Rule serves to rivet it in, under the false Notion of coming from the Apostles, or having at least equal authority; neither can you except against this, as said by him when he was a Montanist, since your side useth to brag of this, and the like places, as making for them.  
To explain my meaning the fuller, give me leave to consider one question, which shall be, the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin: In the first ages it is a thing granted, that many Fathers believed her, not only not free from Original sin, but not even from Actual; after 
Wadd. Pag. 271.  this second question came to be more considered, and this first to be defined; but yet those of the Affirmative opinion, cannot but grant to those of the Negative, that many Fathers sided with them (or else they were impudent Quoters, who claim three hundred) nay, even in Saint Thomas 
Wadding p. 124.  his time, they confess, that the Negative opinion was the more common doctrine; and yet see I pray, how things are altered? We have now a History of some Treaties, of two Kings of Spain with two Popes, by two Ambassadors to persuade them to define the Affirmative. The History is written by one Wadding an Irishman, his Secretary, there I find, that the Bishop of Carthage, (having Order from the Ambassador his Master to desire to press, nay almost to tear a Definition from his Holiness about it) tells him (and not falsely) that those who hold the Negative are, Inter Catholicos soli & pauci unius instituti viri, & unus & alter ab illis edocti, but a few 
Page 97.  of one only Order, and one or two of their Disciples. His Master bids him urge for the contrary: The opinion and subscription of so many 
Page 90.  Prelate's Orders, and Universities, the universal acclamation of the People, the weighty necessity of 
Page 400.  cutting off scandals; nay, saith he, many Universities suffer none to take Degrees without making a Vow for the Defence of the Immaculate conception; and for the Oppugners, Constat eos sentire aliter, 
Page 57  quam universa docet Ecclesia, they differ from the Doctrine of the Universal Church: If then an opinion for which nothing is to be said out of Antiquity, and much against it, which was even lately, the less common opinion, could grow to be held by so great a multitude in so high a degree, in so short a time, that the much greater part of the Church should now press to have it defined, and that so earnestly, that to remove the opposing Fathers out of the way, they make a confession very advantageous to us Heretics, that many 
Page 127.  things have been defined by their Church against many Fathers, you may easily see that Opinions may grow very general, nay grow to claim Tradition in one Age that were unknown in another; for that they claim and prove only because of the the general reception in all Apostolical Churches, 
Page 275.  not of any such uninterrupted testimony of Fathers to their Children, that so it hath been taught in all Ages.  
You may see then that all your Church goes not upon your grounds, since if they did so, many of it that stand for the Affirmative must pretend to them, and if they do, then sure the Pope must have confessed them to be witnesses beyond exception, and would accordingly have defined, if they do not, than this certain way of yours, cannot keep false opinions out of a Church, which makes not that their Rule.  
You may also see that opinions first unknown, after but particular, may come not only to be general, and to have Tradition claimed for them, but even to be defined; since if a General Council should now meet about this point, it is plain (without God's immediate working to the contrary, of which you speak not) which would be defined, nay, I am confident, that as it is observed of the Romans that they were twice as long in first conquering Italy, as (after) all the world; and as my Lord Bacon tells us of one, who was wont to say, That he had first with much pains gotten a little estate, and after with little a great one; so it is a much more short, and easy work to bring this to a Definition, than it was before to bring it thus far on the way towards one.  
Which if it were brought (it being already almost defined, and ready to topple into a Doctrine necessary to salvation, the contrary being forbidden to be either printed or publicly taught) then (if you forsake not your Religion) you must forsake the Principle, and join with Turnball, who tells us, That the Churches supreme definition of matters of Faith is the infallible word of God, and together. with the ancient Revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles makes up one Object, which is to be held by the Catholic Faith: By which it is plain, he thinks more may be revealed (and then must be held) then was to the Apostles and (by consequence) could be delivered by them, which is contrary to what you now say.  
And indeed the current of Writers of your own side either knew not this opinion and Argument of yours, or consideringly balk it; else they might save themselves and their Readers the labour of writing, and reading such infinite Quotations: for though they speak often of Tradition, yet they think themselves bound to prove it better than by the pretence of your present Church; they pretend to receive it from the Ancient Writers (not, say they, that Verbal Tradition hath in all Ages been taught to all men, to teach it their children, and that it never slept,) and you are the first whom I have met with, who build upon this; Indeed they know the Greeks have as much claim to such a one (in truth to any) as they, and if they should say with you, that it is incompatible for two to have it, the Greeks may as well argue upon those grounds, that the Romans claim it not, because they do, as the Romans can, that the Greeks lay no claim to it, because their Church does. And indeed direct experience shows that this is not, nor hath always been the ground of Christians, that it is not (even amongst you) we see by those multitudes who cry out to have a Doctrine defined; which is so far from having any Tradition, (much less your kind of one for it,) that they labour with little success to show that there is none against them, and make it plainly appear, that upon your grounds they build not, but prove out of Metaphorical places of Scripture, some at most but probable reasons, and the Revelations of S. Bridget, which are contradicted by those of Saint Katherine, (so ill do your Saints agree in 
Wadding p. 334.  heaven, that me thinks, we may be forgiven, if we have some differences upon earth:) That this hath not been always the way, we see by the exam-of Origen, who having been esteemed by all Christians, as almost a Prophet, no man in his time discovering that he taught contrary to what their Fathers had taught them, was yet condemned many 
Vincent Lir.  years after his decease, and his followers counted Heretics, by the name of Originistae, which had been impossible, if the following Ages had thought Tradition the only fit Rule to judge by, and accounted nothing Tradition, but what they received from their Fathers in express terms: But if the opinions of Doctors, counted the Gnomon and Canons of Truth (for to that purpose speaks Nazianzen of Athanasius, and 
Wadd. Pag. 282  Saint Austin of Nazianzen, and Pope Pius the fifth of Saint Thomas, call his do ctrine, the certainest rule of Christian religion, a title denied to Scripture) the definitions of Counsels counted the highest Tribunals upon earth, assisted by the power of Emperors, which might do much, when almost all were under one (as may be seen by the multitude which followed Constantine, to Christianity, and Julian from it, and by Constantius (as is complained) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the twinkling of an eye, transforming an Orthodox world into an Arrian) if these ways, I say, might make a Tenet general, though no Tradition had come down at all concerning it; and after it please to claim by a Tenure, by which it came not in at first, encouraged by some Rule of some Fathers to that purpose (as some Frenchmen say of Cardinal Richelieu, that since he had that title, he claims to have come from better Ancestors than he aimed at, being an ordinary Person; and Harry the seventh, though he came to the Crown by his Wives right, yet would hold it by his own) and none after oppose that claim, some not doing it, because they think the opinion true, and then care not though it be believed upon false inducements, some as being ignorant that ever it was less general (which before the late and happy resurrection of learning, the best read Persons of their time might. often be) how deceiving a way is yours, to discover what all ages have thought, by what now a part of the present teacheth, upon what pretence soever, which when you have considered, and not only that, what I have said may be, but by several examples (whereof I will touch some) that so it is, and hath been, than I hope you will be so far from expecting that I should be moved by your Arguments, that yourself will wonder that ever you were.  
First then, that the Chiliasts are Heretics, or your Church not infallible, which counts them so, is most certain, and most plain; and if you be in the right, and that she teacheth nothing, but what she hath received uninterruptedly down from the Apostles, than they must always have been esteemed so by Christians; whereas their doctrine is so far from having any Tradition against it, that if any opinion, whether controverted, or uncontroverted (except that Scripture which never was doubted) may without blushing pretend to have that for it, it must be this of theirs. My Reasons are these:  
The Fathers of the purest Ages (who were the Apostles Disciples but once removed) did teach this, as received from them, who professed to have received it from the Apostles, and who seemed to them witnesses beyond exception, that they had done so, they being better Judges what credit they deserved, then after comers could possibly be.  
All other opinions, witnessed by any other Ancients to have Tradition, may have been by them mistaken to have been, so, out of Saint Austin's and Tertullian's rules: whereas for this, and for this alone, are delivered the very words, which Christ used when he taught it.  
Of the most glorious and least infirm building, which ever in my opinion was erected to the honour of the Church of Rome, Cardinal Perron was the Architect (I mean his book against King James) and that relies upon these two pillars, that whatsoever all the Fathers (he means, sure, that are extant) witness to be Tradition, and the doctrine of the Church, that must be received for the doctrine of those ages, and so rested upon: If these rules be not concluding, than the whole book being built upon them, necessarily becomes as unconsiderable for what he intended it, as Bevis or Tom Thumb: If they be, than this doctrine, which is now heretical in your Church's belief was the opinion of the Ancient Church. For if being taught by the Fathers of any Age, none contradicting it, be sufficient, this all for above two Ages (and those the first) teach, not any Father opposing it before Dionysius Alexandrinus (250. years after Christ at least) that we know, or Saint Hierome, or Saint Austin knew and quoted: wherein I note, besides, that both these Fathers, either thought that no sign of the opinion of the Church, or cared not though it were.  
And if Father's speaking as witnesses will serve, let Pappias and Irenaeus be heard, and believed, who tells us it came to them from Christ by Verbal Tradition, and Justine Martyr, who witnesseth that in his time all Orthodox Christians held it, and joins the opposers with them who denied the Resurrection, and esteems them among the Christians like the Sadduces among the Jews: which proves that you have the same reason expallescere audito Ecclesiae nomine, to grow pale at the 
Camp.  mention of the Ancient Church, (the nearest to the Apostles) as we have to start at that of two hundred years ago, and to be ashamed of your Dionysius Alexandrinus, as we of Luther: Thus that great Atlas of your Church hath helped us to pull it down the samewaies, by which he intended to support it, and though he have best of any undergone the burden of proving that to be infallible, which is false, yet he must have confessed, that either these are not proofs, or they prove against himself. And this advantage we have, that unless you prove your own infallibility (which you will never be able to do) in what point soever you confute us, that falls like a Pinnacle without carrying all after it; whereas if we disprove any one of your Religion, we disprove consequently that infallibility, which is the foundation of it all: so that (like them who use poisoned weapons) wheresoever we wound, we kill, but we are like those creatures, which must be killed all over, or else their other parts will remain alive.  
Neither must you think that you have answered the Chillasts by tying them to the Carpocratians and the Gnostics, (which is but like Mezentius his joining Mortua corpora vivis, dead bodies to the living) since the opinions of the two latter, assoon as they were taught, made the teachers accounted Heretics and were opposed by almost all, whereas that of the first, found in above two ages, no resistance by any one known and esteemed Person, and the teachers of it were not only parts, but principal ones of the Catholic Church, and such as ever have been, and are reputed Saints; though, by I know not what subtlety you dispense with yourselves for departing from what doctrine was received from them as come down from the Apostles, and yet threaten us with damnation if we will not believe more improbable Tenets to be Tradition upon less Certificate. For as Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Ethics.  Wine measures to buy with are great, and to sell by are small; so when you are to put a doctrine to us, how small a measure of Tradition would you have us take? one place of one Father, speaking but as a Doctor, seems enough: but when you are to receive any from us, how large and mighty a measure will yet give you no satisfaction? Neither can I find out what it is by which you conclude, that their Tradition was gathered the Heretical way from private discourse with the Apostles: Irenaeus indeed tells us, that Presbyteri meminerunt, one of which Pappias was, but not a word that it was delivered in secret, or the auditors but few, nor that others had not heard other disciples teaching the same doctrine; and me thinks that if you had evinced what you desire (as you seem to me not to do, unless to affirm be to prove) it would make more against you; sure if from so small a ground as the word of one only disciple, that he in private discourse was taught this by the Apostles, a false doctrine could so generally be received by all the first Doctors of the Christian Church, and that so long after Dionysius Alexandrinus had used his great Authority to destroy it: Saint Hierome was yet half afraid to write against it, as seeing how many Catholics he should enrage against himself by it, as he testifies in his Proem to the eighteenth Book of his Comment upon Ifaiah; what suspicions must this raife in the minds of those of your own party, lest what they esteemed Tradition, had at first no greater a beginning, and no firmer foundation, but only better fortune; for why might not the same disciple have cozened them from whom their belief is descended in twenty other things, as well as in this? and why not twenty as well as he? especially since you confess some of your doctrine not to have had Universal Tradition, but only Tradition enough; which if those Fathers did not think they had had, for this, they would never have received it, but have excepted against the Heretical way of their delivery, if they had known that to be a private one, and a private one to be such, and if they were so deceived in this way, might not they, and more have been so too in other points, and in time all?  
If you say (as it hath been said to me by one whose judgement I value, as much as any one of your Party) that if this opinion had indeed had Tradition, it could never have been so totally extinguished. I answer, that I affirm not, that it had, but only that if the rules of your part be good and valid, than it had; I am sure it hath better colour to plead upon, than any of those other doctrines, which you impose upon us: Besides although it had, yet when Doctors of great authority with the people, had won upon many, first not to think it Tradition, and then not true, and lastly their courage increasing with their multitude, (for Saint Hierome durst not call it) had made it accounted an Heresy, it is not strange that none should rise to oppose it; for by that time burning was come in fashion, which was a ready way to answer all objections, and end all controversies, especial Piety being grown more cold, and so men less apt to suffer for opinions, and the times more ignorant, and so men less able to examine what had believed before them. But you who affirm, that your Church receives nothing, but what hath come to her by Verbal Tradition down from the Apostles, must not only destroy the Arguments, which prove this to have had Tradition, (which you, or any else will be never able to do) but must affirm, that the contrary hath such, which yet their most ancient opposers never pretended too, but scoffed at the opinion as ridiculous and savouring of Judaisme, which as wise men, and as good Christians, as they, before them believed to be Orthodox.  
Let us next consider that controversy which more afflicted the Church, and for a longer time than any other, that between the Arrians and their Adversaries, and let us see, whether even against those there were any such Tradition as you speak of. First then I pray mark what Cardinal Perron 
Lib. Con. R. Jac. Pag. 633.  confesseth, that an Arrian will be desirous to have his cause tried by those Authors we now have, which lived before the Question arose; for there, saith he, will be found the Son is the instrument of his Father, The Father commanded the Son, when things were to be made; the Father and the Son are aliud & aliud, which who should at this day say, now the language of the Church is better examined, would be accounted an Arrian. Now though there be no reason for you to disbelieve so learned a Prelate in a matter of Fact (especially since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) yet if you please to reconsider those Authors seriously, if you have not marked it before (as Praejudication blinds extremely) you will then confess it; Sure then if Fathers in the first ages taught their Children, that so they had received from theirs, as the doctrine of the Apostles, how could the chief Pillars of Christianity have been ignorant of it? or if they knew it, how would they ever have written so directly against their knowledge. For that answer which Saint Hierome gives (as Saint Austin to the Pelagians gians) that before Arrius arose, the Ecclesiastical Writers spoke minus caute, with less circumspection, though it brings some salve to the present objection, yet it is a weapon against Tradition in general, for if through want of care the best and wisest men used to contradict Tradition, (as you must grant they did) then sure much more likely, when they taught by word of mouth, when less care is always used, then in Books, and how then can any age be sure, that by this reason (of minus caute locuti sunt) their Ancestors have not mistaken their Fathers, and misled their Posterity. Look but into Athanasius, and see but what he answers to what is brought against him out of Dionysius Alexandrinus, truly in my opinion when he strives to make it Catholic Doctrine, he doth it with no less pulling, and haling, then Sancta Clara useth to agree the articles of the English Church with the Tenets of the Roman. Consider what eighty Bishops, and those Orthodox, decreed against Paulus Samosatenus, and if you make it consent with Athanasius his Creed, I shall believe that you have discovered a way how to reconcile both Parts of a Contradiction: This I say, not as intending by it to prove the Arrian opinion to be true, but that the contrary Party insisted not upon your grounds, but drew their belief out of Scripture, for if there had been such a common and constant Verbal Tradition, the chief Christians would not through want of Caution have contradicted it, neither could Constantine, if it had been then as known a Part of the Christian Religion, as Christ's Resurrection, have ever so slightly esteemed the Question, when it first arose, neither would Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria have remained any while in suspense, as Zozomen saith he did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this being then a Question newly started and spoken of before but by Accidents, and so peradventure minus caute, (for the same Author says, that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) they were therefore fain to try it by Scripture, (esteeming Written Tradition, as sufficient a Rule, as Verbal) as you may see by Constantine's own words at the Council of Nice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Theodoret.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Books of the Evangelists, and the Apostles, and the Oracles of the Ancient Prophets teach us clearly what we are to think of the Divinity. Let us therefore out of these Divinity-inspired discourses, seek the solutions of our Questions, which being the Emperor's Proposition, and passing uncontradicted (which the Bishops would not have suffered it to do, if they had known yours to be so much the best, and most certain way, and this so hazardous as you suppose) we have reason to believe that they for want of your direction made the Scripture their Rule, and sought out for Truth by the same way, that we damnable Heretics do, and by that condemned the Arrians, as not having such a Tradition as you speak of, (or if they had, which is very unlikely) counting it so insufficient, as that they were not to conclude by that. Neither did only that ancient, (and not yours) Council, but even your own Modern ones show, that they went upon other grounds, since to have had every Bishop asked what he received from his Teachers, as received from theirs, as come down from the Apostles, would sure have been the shortest way to find Truth, and if they had thought it the best too, it would have saved the Friars at Trent many a long dispute out of Scripture, Fathers, and Reason, and the Bishops many a weary sessron before any thing could be determined, or the Parties brought to agree. Besides there is another reason (if I may be pardoned a little insisting upon my digression) which persuades me that your own Counsels define not upon your grounds (that is) because suppose a thousand Catholic Bishops meet and define any thing, yet we know it is not among you believed de Fide, without it be confirmed by the Pope; which shows plainly enough, that you think not they went by such a Tradition, since of that eighty, so many persons from so many several Parts are witnesses beyond exception, according to your own grounds, and that their Infallibility is not thought to depend upon an Impossibility; that (in the matter of Fact what hath been taught under that Notion) they should either deceive, or be deceived, but upon an infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, which may be wanting to any company, whereof the Pope is no part, or of whose decrees he is no confirmer. Now to return to my proofs, that against the Arrians there was no such Tradition as you speak of, (at least, that was the ground upon which they were condemned) consider, if you please, that in that Epistle which Eusebius of Caesarea writ to some Arrians after the Council of Nice, he saith, First, that they assented to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial, because also they knew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some eloquent and illustrious Bishops and Writers had used the Term: In which I note, thatneither claim'dhe any such Verbal Tradition for this as you speak of, and of that sort which he claimed, he names only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some, as knowing too many had writ otherwise to give such a Tradition leave to be general.  
Secondly, He saith, they consented to Anathematise the Contradictors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hinder men from using unwritten words, by which he saith (and that truly) that all confusion hath come upon the Church. And if it be asked why the same reason made them not keep out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer, That I believe (or else he is not constant to his own reason) that he meant only those words to be unwritten, which were in Scripture, neither themselves, nor equivalently, whereas he took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in the Scripture in the latter sense: And that by written, he meant in the Scripture only, appears by what follows, that no divinely-inspired writing (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) using the Arrians Phrase, it was neither fitting to say nor teach them: Neither can you say that Eusebius being himself a secret Arrian prevaricated herein, for Theodoret makes this Epistle an Argument against them, which he would not have done, if either it had seemed to him to say any thing contrary to the Catholic doctrine, or not to have opposed the contrary by a Catholic way, at least without giving his leader some Caution concerning it.  
All which reasons move me to think, that the generality of Christians had not been always taught the contrary to Arrius' doctrine, but some one way, others the other, most neither, as having been only spoken of upon occasions, and therefore me thinks you had better either say with the Protestants, that the Truth was concluded (as Constantine said it should be) by Arguments from Scripture, or (as some of your own say of other points) that before the Council it lay in Archivis Ecclesiae, in the Desks of the Church, then claim such a Tradition for it, as appears it can never be defended that it had.  
Let us consider but two opinions more:  
That Infants are not to receive the Eucharist, is now both the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church, but six hundred years the Church used it; Saint Austin accounted it necessary at least in some sense of the word, if not absolutely (which last is most likely, because from the necessity of that, which could not be received but by them who had received Baptism, he, and Innocentius a Pope, prove the necessity of Baptism) and an Apostolical Tradition. If therefore both these Ages had gone by your Rule, how comes this difference between their opinions, the Sacrament being the same it was, and the Children the same they were?  
This I may consider, and see if the same way that this Doctrine hath been altered, whether any other might not have received change?  
Next, that Saints are invocable, you must say, is Tradition taught from Father to Son, as derived from the Apostles, if you will be constant to your own principle, now though I might disprove this, first by the many Fathers that believed, the Just not to be admitted to the Beatifical vision before the day of judgement (for upon this your side now grounds that) but to be kept in secretreceptacles, and by the long time which passed before this doctrine was condemned: Secondly, by the beginning of it, which was particular Doctors Hipotheticall prayers, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such conditional clauses: And thirdly, by Nicephorus Calistus his Relation (who in this is a believable witness, because he allows of your opinion) that prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the public Liturgy by one Petrus Gnapheus a Heretic, about five hundred years after Christ, yet I will rather choose 
Lib. 15. C. 28  to confute this by the confession of Sancta Clara out of Horantius, who to this objection, that sub Evangelio (which must mean when the Gospel was preached) no such precept is extant, not 
Pag. 271.  only denies it not, but gives this reason for it, lest the Pagans should-think themselves brought again to the worshipping of Men instead of Gods: If upon this or any other reason this were not then taught, then have not all your Doctrines such a Pedigree as you suppose, but allow it were, yet, howsoever it follows, that, some, at least, of the learned of your Church have not been taught that they have, or consequently that it is necessary they should have: Though it seems to me little less than Montanisme to believe that any since (as it were a Paraclet) should perfect the doctrine which then was delivered by the Apostles: Neither can you answer that they speak only of such a Precept, and of being extant, whereas they might teach it lawful without giving any Precept, and they might have given such a Precept although not extant; for I should readily reply, that the reason they give why there is none such extant, shows, that they mean there was none at all, neither Precept, nor allowance, since the Pagans would have been scandalised at its being accounted lawful to worship men instead of Gods, although it were not commanded, and not a whit the less, whether that in after times were extant or not, which they could not foresee.  
The only answer which I am able to invent in your behalf, is this, that though some of your particular doctrines have not such a Tradition, yet there being a Tradition that the Church's definitions are infallible, whatsoever she at any time defines, is then to be believed upon the strength of such a Tradition, and before did latere in causis as Flowers do in Winter.  
Yet to this I may reply by desiring you to enter with me into some few considerations.  
First, If this were so, and that so much of Christian Religion depends upon the definitions of the Church, and our Reception of them, upon knowing always which is she, and that such is her authority, can you persuade yourself, that Christ sending his Apostles and Disciples to Preach the Gospel, and after four of them writing his Gospel, (which shows if the Books be true to the title, that they writ all they preached, at least that was necessary; for else they were not Gospels, but Parts of it) that they should not rather leave out any thing else, how important soever, than not have employed themselves about teaching us, that the Church's Definitions are a Rule of our Faith, and instructing us in Marks so proper to her, that we might never need to doubt, whether it be she that defines or no, and whether their not having done this, evince not in Reason that this your Doctrine is false?  
Secondly, I pray consider whether if there were any such continued Tradition about the Definitions of the Church, whether that must not also have taught, (or else have been to small purpose) when it is that the Church hath defined: but yet that is a case not fully judged among you, For some hold, that the Church hath defined when a Council hath, although unapproved by the Pope, which is denied by others.  
Thirdly, Consider whether (supposing as was before supposed) it must not also have taught certain Notes to know the Church by: but yet 
Tom. 13. Pag. 193.  about those you are not agreed, Salmeron putting Miracles among the false Signs of the Church, and Bellarmine and many more among the True ones.  
Fourthly, Consider whether the Church have an eternal spring of Doctrines within her, or but a finite number, and only those which the Apostles preached: and I believe you will pitch upon the latter. Not then to ask how they come to know them, nor, if you answer by Tradition, to ask you again how come men then not to know (before a Definition) what it is they Preached? for if the Bishops (of which a Council is compounded) know it not now, how will they know it when they meet? I will desire to know why the Church will not at once teach us all she knows, and not keep us in doubts, which she may resolve? and did the, Apostles teach their Doctrines to be locked up, or taught to us? And then having considered this, you will find I believe, that the Church do with Doctrines, as Fathers with Estates, never give their Children all, that they may still have something to keep them in awe with; because if she should, she could never have after pretended a Power to end any new emergent controversy, keeping in secret what she knows, any that ariseth, she may still pretend is endable by her.  
Fiftly, Consider that it will appear but a shift, if you say that there is a Tradition that all the Church's Definitions be true, and so excuse the particular Doctrines, for otherwise having none, and yet avoid giving us any Rules to know the Church by at all times, and answering those Questions, which must be ended before we can know at any time when she hath defined.  
Now I confess if you had said Tradition teacheth, that the particular Church of Rome is so the Admiral ship, that we may know any other if it be of God's Fleet, because than it must follow her, that is, be subject to her decrees, & theirs which join with her, this would have been plainly to let me know your mind, and we might quickly have examined, whether there were any Tradition for the Church in this sense to be always obeyed when she Teaches, and without you say this, you say nothing, and will never be able to give any such Note of the Church, as the ignorant may without blushing pretend to know it by: Because therefore I guess, that when not I, but your Adversaries reasons (for I am but one of the worst transcribers of them) have driven you from your own Fort, you must retire to that of your friends, or like them which are drowning, you will rather catch at a Twigg, then sink: I will consider this Assertion, which I suppose you must lay hold of so far forth as to show it to be indeed but an Assertion. That there hath no such Verbal Tradition (nor indeed any) come down, seems to me for these reasons.  
Saint Cyprian by opposing the Church of Rome, and that with many Bishops about the Rebaptisation, shows sufficiently, that he and they knew of no such Tradition; and then in what Cave must it have lain hid, if the chief Doctor of that age was ignorant of it, and even his Adversaries claimed it not? And that he knew no such, appears not only by his Actions, but also by his words; for to them who claimed Tradition for the particular point proposed, (though none for the Authority of the Church proposing) he answers, if it be contained in the Gospels, Epistles, or Acts, let it be observed, at one blow cutting off not only that (for sure this authority of the Church of Rome is no way taught in the Scriptures) but all other unwritten Traditions, which Cardinal Perron, thought most skilful in that kind of Fence, was not able to ward, but Du Plesis objecting it received no other answer, then that the opinion of Cyprian was condemned, and that Tradition, although unwritten, maintained. Which answer though it be as far from befitting the Cardinal, as from answering the objection (since it is plain, that this opinion was once held by such as were of chief estimation among the Orthodox, and consequently the contrary was not then the general and necessary doctrine of Christians, and the prevailing of the one since proves not the other false, but rather unfortunate, or the spreaders faulty) yet I confess I excuse him, for as I have learned from Aristotle, that it is ridiculous to expect a Demonstration where the matter will bear but a probability, so would it be in me to expect even a probable solution of an Argument, the evidence of which will suffer none at all.  
Neither was he (I mean Cyprian) the first, that without blot of Heresy opposed the Tradition of the Church of Rome, but that courage which he left to others after him, when they saw the Christian World join in counting him a Saint, and a Martyr, whom the Bishop of Rome had styled a false Christ, and a false Apostle, the same had he received by seeing that the Asian Bishop had also rejected, and opposed her Tradition; and yet Polycrates ever had in great honour, and the rest never branded with the crime of Heresy; nay, even the more neighbouring Bishops, and who joined with the Pope in the time of celebrating Easter (as Iraeneus) yet thought the difference not worth excommunication, and for want of skill in the Canon Law, transgressed so far as to reprehend for it, whereas if to that Church all else had been to conform themselves, than Iraeneus ought therefore to have thought the matter of weight enough, because she thought it so, who were to small purpose made a Judge, if she were not as well enabled to distinguish between slight and material, as between False and Truth, though that it seems she was not: for the Church of Rome never refused their Communion before, though she knew them to hold the same opinion, and so (as plainly appears) counted that material in one Age, which she had not so esteemed in others, and therefore (in the degree at least of holding what she held) contradicted herself, and followed Traditions.  
And as Cyprian imitated them, so did the African Bishop him, for a Question happening between them and the Bishops of Rome about Appeals, though they absolutely opposed him, and (in vain I confess) desired him that he would not bring into the Church Typhum hujus Saeculi, the swelling pride of this World, and though he laboured infinitely in the business 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might bring it to pass, yet he, and two of his successors were either so unready, or so unskiled in the present Roman Doctrine, that Feed my sheep, and thou art Peter, were either out of their knowledge, or out of their memory, and they alleged, not any power jure divino, but only pretended to a Cannon of the Council of Nice, which when the Africans found not in their copies, (for they would not believe the Church of Rome so far as to trust to hers, though now you generally think the Scripture itself to have its authority quoad nos, only for her definitions) they sent to the East to inquire there, and finding their copies agreeing with theirs, they then more resolutely withstood the Pretence, which brought at that time nothing to the Popes, but repulse and shame.  
And indeed, not to object that it is not numbered among any of the ancient Heresies, that they differed from the particular Roman Church, nor is this Rule, of being sure at all times to join with her, ever given by those Fathers who set us ways and Antidotes how to secure ourselves against Heresy, (which could not have been left undone if they had known any such Tradition) nor to speak of the Cannon of the Council of Chalcedon, which attributes the power of the Popes to the gift of their Fathers, and that again to Rome's being the head City; setting all this aside, I will ask yourself if it be not plain that those Fathers, who (upon the impudent pretence of some Heretics) send men to several places to inquire after Tradition, either send them to all the Apostolical churches, or (to save their labour) to that to which they were nearest, as esteeming them all of equal authority (though not jurisdiction) for I may say of Rome, and them, as Tacitus doth of Caelius and the other Commanders (Mutato nomine) the name only changed) Pares jure, Roma audendo potentior, for what by watching all occasions to greaten herself, 
Pag. 208. and 687.  whereof Cardinal D' Ossat is my witness, what by abusing the respect all men had ever given her, in respect of the chief Apostles which founded her, of the Empire which was long seated in her, and of her ancient Bishops, whereof about thirty together were martyred there, what by interpreting what was given to her Authority, as given to her Power, and taking civilities and compliments (of which no Court is now so full as the ancient Bishops were) made to Popes for allegiance sworn to them, what by forging false decretal Epistles (which the Termed Authors of them would not forgive them for, if they knew it, if it were only for the barbarous language) what by these, and such other ways, she is come at length to that pass, that what Auitus a Roman General said to the Ansibarians, who gave him reasons why he ought not in justice to disturb their possessions, 
Tacitus.  Id Diis placitum, ut Arbitrium penes Romanos maneret quid darent, quidve adimerent, neque alios Judices quam seipsos paterentur. It is the will of Heaven, that it be left to the Romans what they will please to give or take away, and suffer not any Judges but themselves, appears now not so much a History of the Pride of the Roman Empire, as a Prophecy of the general doctrine of the Roman Church.  
Having ever marked Error and Confidence to keep so much company, that I seldom find the first, but I mistrust the second, makes me loath to affirm any thing over-dogmatically out of these objections, or say that they cannot be answered; Only (because I must not offend against Truth, for fear of offending against Modesty) I will take leave to say, that if I could have answered them myself, I would not have put you to the trouble of doing it, which you might also have saved, if by letting me know your name, you would have enabled me to have found you out, and so in a short discourse have tried whether I could have obtained that satisfaction from your words, which I must now expect from your Pen. But supposing I had none of these objections, yet two things besides would have kept me from assenting to what you say: The first is, that your men, when they ask us how we know Scripture to be Scripture, and this to be the sense of it, tell us withal, that unless we know it by some more infallible way then our own Reason (they mean their Church) it will not serve for a belief of those things which are to be believed by a divine Faith; Now this Argument of yours upon which you build all, (allowing that it appeared good reason) yet at most it is but reason, and liable to the same exceptions, unless the same thing be a wall when you lean upon it, and a bulrush when we do. The second is, that all you say (for as yet you speak not of the Authority of the Particnlar Church of Rome, though you must at length come to it, though by that too little is to be gotten) if it were granted, would but prove those who adhere now to the Church of Rome to be now in the right, but I asked for a guide, which might without new search serve me the next year, as well as this; For (for all that you have proved) she may leave the way you say she now pretends to walk in, and attempt to reform too, (which I wish were as probable as it is possible) or there may arise a schism between two parts of those Churches which now adhere to the Roman, and both may claim Tradition, (for what hath been may be again) and how shall I know then which side to take, since both will seem equally good by that Touchstone which you appoint me to try with. And if I be then sent to try by Ancient Writers, it is certain, that (besides the fallibility of that way for the learned) this cannot be done at all by the ignorant, and it is probable that both Parties will fall into that absurdity, into which the Church of Rome daily runs, which is, that although the evidence which she claims by cannot well be exactly read over in thirty years' time, yet she requires us under pain of Damnation to give our Verdicts for her by twenty years old.   

The Second Part.  
THe high and Sage Master of our Faith hath in 
Object.  vain spent so much sweat, and pains, if after he passed from hence, he hath left no means to assure mankind, what it was he taught and practised.  
I suppose this speech is directed at me who (as you 
Resp.  conceive) take away all means, because I have no Judge; but I would fain know of you, whether Plato, and Aristotle have not left us means to know what they taught, although they have not left us any living infallible Judge to deliver us their doctrine verbally, or to expound their works: Or if you intended your Accent upon the word Asture, and if you mean by that some in fallible knowledge, I desire you (out of your own words) to consider whether humane nature be capable of it. For my part supposing as I do, that his Faith is in a sufficient degree, which brings forth obedience, I require not any motives more, assuring (except form them who claim, that they cannot err) then such as any man unpraepossest with passion or prejudice will believe sufficiently to obey; and such in my opinion are mine: For though I know, you count any way without a guide but groping in the dark, yet if God had not given us so much light as we desired, we must not therefore set up false lights, and because we would be sure to have a guide, make one ourselves: But he seems to me, to have dealt with us in Religion not very un-analogically, to what he hath in the world, giving us two lights, Scripture, and Universal Tradition, whereof one gives light to the other, and both to us: Universal Tradition is our Guide to Scripture (as whatsoever else that guided us to we would receive, if there were any such thing) and Scripture is our way to God; By Universal Tradition we know much better, that these Books were written by Christ's Disciples (who are sufficient witnesses of what he taught) then the Aristotelians know that these were Aristotle's works, or the Academics knew Plato's, since Christians have both kept them with more care, and in the acceptance of them used more caution, as thinking them so much more important: In the Scripture I conceive, that (according to that rule, which I am sure I have either read in chrysostom, or very often quoted out of him) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that is necessary is clear, or if any man that strives to square both his actions and opinions by that Rule, chance to fall into any error (for which his understanding is only in fault and not his will) it shall not hinder his rising to heaven: Such an infallible way excludes, if not all use, at least all necessity of an infallible guide, and is as good as a Judge to keep Unity in Charity (which is only needful) though not in opinions; and indeed since you must grant, that if any man misinterpret the Council of Trent, it shall not damn him, so he doubt not of its truth, desire to discover what it meant, and be in a Propension of believing, that when he knows it, me thinks (as Cineas told Pyrrhus) you had as good do that at first, which you must do at last, that is, say the same with us at first concerning Scripture, which after much trouble, you are forced to say concerning Counsels, and in hard matters let the same implicit Faith in God serve, which serves in them, who can claim no authority but from, and under him: And (which is more than I affirm) that no man, but by his own, being wicked, can come into any error by false interpretation of Scripture, see I pray, what Saint Austin says in his forty ninth Sermon de Verbis Domini, that God hath so hedged in all-his own sayings, that whosoever would interpret any place of Scripture false, he that hath a: circumcised heart by reading what is before and after, may find that sense which the other would pervert.  
Yet if you can show me reason to believe that there is any standing guide upon earth (and without reason it were unreasonable to hope to persuade me to believe it) I will never be proud so much to my own cost, as rather to venture losing my way by choosing it myself, then be beholding to him for directing me in it.  
Those to whom during his life, he had most fully 
Object.  declared his mind, went and told it to others, and all was done; But this way hath the prejudice of humane Fallibility, for seldom it happeneth, that a multitude can carry away all in the same manner, and one thousand six hundred years are passed since, ynt if we look into the immediate joints of the descent, we cannot find where it can miss: for the doctrine being supernatural, and not delivered by any man's skill, or wit, the main principle of it can be no other, then to know what was delivered them by their Teachers: when therefore an Apostle had preached over and over again the same Doctrine, not long, nor hard to be carried away in all the Towns of a Country, and let him be gone, and all dead who heard him speak, and some questions arise concerning his doctrine, let us see whether error can creep in if Christians keep to their hold, that is, what they were taught by Christ's Apostles. Let therefore the wisest and best of those Towns meet and discuss the controversy out of this principle, will not there be a quick end of their dispute? For every man can say, Thus my Father heard the Apostle speak, and what is here certain of the Children of those who heard them, may with as much evidence be derived again in the grandchildren, and so in every age.  
Those writings, whose business is to prove, 
Resp.  should be like the houses in the Low Countries, for as there they take such care of their foundations, that what is under ground costs them more than all above it, so in these, the greatest labour ought to be in settling surely the Principles, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one absurdity granted, how fertile error is after, what a heard or swarm of strange conclusions follow, not only yourself have observed, but Aristotle also hath told all that have read him, and experience daily tells mankind; since therefore a small mistake increaseth as much, and as speedily as a grain of mustardseed, I must the earnestlier contradict this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this first error of yours, as being the Parent of so many more already, and being likely in time (if by being confuted it be not used as Saturn used his Father) to have yet a more large and numerous Issue.  
1 Then you leave out one thing out of your History of the Gospel, which alone considered, would have much weakened what you say, For you speak of the Apostles, but forget utterly their Writings, a misinterpretation of which might soon spread an error. And certainly out of them, if Christians had been to receive no Instructions, but only to remember what was tanght them by word of mouth, both they would have saved themselves the labour of writing them, and Traditors, who delivered them to be burnt, would have been thought to have committed no greater fault, then if they had done the same to any ordinary writing: But if the first Christians, 
〈◊〉  and generally their successors since, have even carefully and assiduously stucked (what by comparing places, what by all other ways) to understand them, and thought themselves bound to believe, and obey whatsoever they found, or thought they found there contained, and esteemed that they were taught by themselves, what they learned from their writings (as they must have thought it the same thing, unless the Apostles authority had vanished, by having their instructions put into paper, which were as if the King's verbal Commands bound us, but not his Proclamations.) Then here appears a gate at which errors might enter, which you (at least I am sure this part of your Treatise) did not consider.  
2 But even their verbal might either be misinterpreted, or knowinglie misalleged, even by those who are counted Archi-Catholicks 
Socrat. lib. 5.,  for I pray, must not one of those two have been done, or by the Church of Rome, or by those of Asia (which example I would not so often speak of, but that I hope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as good an excuse, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) For since it is impossible, that Saint John and Sain Peter both inspired by the Holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of Truth, should teach contradictory doctrines, whereof one must necessarily be false, what else can follow, but that one part (if not both) intended to deceive, or were themselves deceived in it (and what makes it impossible, that such a mistake by men of authority may not generally spread) and after a plain example your reason will be no more able to overthrow experience, than the earthen Pitcher, in the Fable, was to break the Brazen one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
3 One of the Arguments you make for the infallibility of the way which you propound, is, That the Doctrine, which the Apostles taught was neither long nor hard to be carried away, Out of which me thinks I can evidently deduce that the Church of Rome is not that, since both it appears how long that is, and since you tell us yourself, That the cause of many errors among you is the multiplicity of Catholic Doctrines, which doth not oblige a man o the knowledge of every Part, but to a prompt subjection to the Church. Truly if there be no contradiction between these two Propositions, I will confess that I have hitherto mistaken what the word signifies, unless you mean, that the Apostle by teaching subjection to the Church indusively, taught all that she teaches, and so what they delivered was short, but what implicitly, much; If this were so, certainly the Apostles, when they included almost all their doctrine in the subjection enjoined to the Church, taught some certain marks by which men might at all times know her, though you pretend to none but such as the Greek Church as much claim (which is enough to scruple the ignorant) and rightly too, as the Roman (as Antiquity, Succession, Miracles, etc.) excepting only communion with the Pope, and splendour, whereof neither are proper marks of the true Church, that is such as can never be absent from her, since the Heresy of a Pope (which hath been, and is not by your own whole Church held impossible) may take away the one way, and a general Persecution the other.  
4 It appears also by what you speak of the immediate joins of the descent, that you suppose if any error come in, some one Age must join to teach it, which by no means follows, no more than one Age of them at Rome joined to teach their Posterity Italian instead of Latin, but some may have taught a Doctrine to be probable in one Age, more than in the second, and all in the third, according to Seneca's observation. The error of few (especially when Notable Persons) begetting the error of a multitude; and again the authority of a multitude deceiving Particular men, and so by degrees it may be thought from Probable, True, from true fere de Fide, from that absolutely a part of Faith, and consequently to have come from Tradition, whilst the contrary opinion being first believed the more improbable, next false, from false Temerary, from temerary, Haeresi proximum, and from that absolutely Heretical, hath by almost insensible degrees met with a mighty change, and is arrived at Hell before it almost misdoubted it. And that these progresse-Doctrines have travelled, it is easy for any man to see who hath been but a little conversant in your own Books, and whosoever denies it, may as well deny that their is any green in Summer, when there is hardly any thing else.  
5 And for the Case you put, that the wisest, and best of the Towns where Doctrines were delivered should have met etc. I both suppose, that the controversy of who were best and wisest, would not it self have been easily ended, but allowing that it might have been easily done, and would have been most usefully done, yet it never was; and so suppose the way never so good, it was yet like a Medicine, which be it never so Sovereign, can never cure if it be never taken; Counsels there have been called Ancient, because less Modern, and general, because less particular (for the first was not till more than three hundred years after Christ, nor to the largest appears it, that ever any were summoned from beyond the bounds of the Ancient Roman Empire, though Christianity were much farther extended: Some less meetings or Conciliabula there were indeed before, but none of these accounted infallible by yourselves (though me thinks they should by your grounds) and in deed it would go ill with your own infallibility if you should, for of the two most notable, the one defended Rebaptisation, and the other condemned Samosatenus, and in doing so taught as plain Arrianisme, (if we might know men's meaning by their words, which if we cannot, all arguing, especially from what any Authors say, is ended) as even Arrius himself was condemned for at Nice; If these intended to discuss the Comroversie out of the Principle you speak of, and yet missed Tradition when they meant to have followed it, than so might your best and wisest men have done too; if they did not intend it, than it seems it hath not been held needful always by Catholics to try Doctrines by that Criterium, which you now prescribe.  
Who can be ignorant what he was taught when he 
Object.  was a child, as the ground and substance of his hopes for all Eternity?  
Truly the ordinary fort more than most easily: 
Resp.  For because either their mind wanders, or their Teachers descend not to their capacities, they commonly go away both from public Sermons and private Catcchismes, as if they had received instructions in a language as strange to them, as that wherein they say their prayers: Besides their own Fathers teach them little or nothing, because that is as much as they have learned themselves, (especially in ignorant places and times) their Ghostly Fathers teach them most, but that much more concerning life then opinions; so that though they were not ignorant of all they were taught, yet they are absolute strangers to the greatest part of what your Church teaches; And if now no more of their Religion be delivered by Verbal Tradition, what was then, when many points, which are now often taught (though not constantly and in all places but upon occasions) were not thought of in many years? Suppose that about the Question of what makes a Priest; a convocation of men had met (I mean of such who knew not what was taught in Books) before Luther's time (and what I say would be true in somewhat a less degree of this more instructed Age) what account could they have given what they had been taught when they were Children? Truly they could have said, we know it to be the custom for our Bishops to make Priests, and some of us have heard he only is to make them, what is done and taught in other places we know not: Very far would they have been from all agreeing that they were taught when they were Children (as part of the ground of their hopes for all Eternity) by their Fathers, as received from their so as come down from the Apostles; that he is no Priest, to whom in express terms Commission is not given to offer for the living and the dead, which now being objected to the Clergy of England, persuades me, that your Church teacheih more than generally men are taught when Children, or indeed at any time by any Verbal Tradition; For not only the Ordinary sort, but even your most learned men knew not what is Tradition, if that be still your Rule of Faith; for they disagree among themselves, whether some things be of Faith or no; as for Example, 
Wadd. Pag. 30.  Whether the Pope can err in the Cannonization of a Saint, for if all Questions were that way to be ended, and such Traditions were evident, (as if they were such as you speak of they must be) all your side must be soon resolved both in this, and all other such Questions; And if you say that indeed all Particular Doctrines are not taught by such a Tradition, but that by so much as all are taught, they know their Judge and Director concerning them, and so are taught them implicitly, I answer, that the Vulgar, although they are generally told that the Church is infallible, yet I doubt whether they be either taught that this Doctrine hath had any such general and uninterrupted a delivery, or have heard much concerning those means, by which she herself is to be known, or those Circumstances, by which we are to know when she expresseth her opinion: That the Pope is the Head of the Church they know, but whether Tradition teach him to be so of Divine, or humane Right, from God, of Counsels, or tacit consent, and what Power is included in that Headship, a Mahometan is as much instructed as most of them, and even his head-ship is ordinarily proved to them but out of some place of Scripture, out of which they hear his Infallibility concluded too, without being told the different degree in which those two Doctrines are to be held. Secondly, For the learned, neither are they taught so well some of these things, but that they differ concerning them, and yourself fly wholly speaking of 
His Opusc.  them, leaving them to agree among themselves, and (as Cardinal Perron says in one place, he will do us Protestant's when we differ) suffering the dead to bury the dead; If then neither are you all agreed by what to know your Church, nor when she hath defined, so that even what is of faith is undermined among you, I find cause to believe, that Tradition is no excellent Director of you, even in your grounds, no not to teach you to know that which should teach you all the rest; And if you were, yet at the same wicket, and by the same degrees, by which I have showed that other errors both may, and have not only entered into your Church, but ascended also to high places there; this doctrine concerning your Director might have done the same.  
True it is, that very little is generally and constantly taught in all ages to the people, and that which is seldom, is told them to have been so received from hand to hand by the verbal Tradition you speak of; and if they be at any time taught so, and remember it, yet they know not whether the next Curate teach the same, at least, if under the same notion and degree of Necessity: Indeed it would not be so intricate a work (as now adays it is) to be a Christian, if your way had been only followed: but it is not this Tradition, but the writings of past Ages, which transmit to posterity the opinions of the Doctors of past times, many of them being erroneous, and more unnecessary; out of these works the learned learne, and teach again in their works, what the greater part (the unlearned) scarce ever hear of; out of these they settle the degrees your Doctrines are to be held in, some as probable, some true, some almost necessary, some altogether, and teach concerning others, that some are false, some dangerous, some damnable, whereas the vulgar have seldom their meat so curiously jointed to them, but are told in general for the most part (unless some public opposition, or other occasion persuade them at some time to descend to teach them more particularly) that this is so good, and this is not so: And indeed the degree in which the last Age held such an opnion, is both most hard to know (not only because the ignorant are seldom taught it by word of mouth, and the learned have seldom occasion, without some opposition, to explain themselves so far in their writings) but because also as many, and as considerable Persons not writing, as do write, we cannot know by the Authors, what the whole Age thought true (except the acceptation of that Doctrine were a condition of the Communoin) and most necessary to be known, because most of our controversies with your Church are as much, if not more, about the necessity of her opinions, as about the truth of them: For we seeing plainly, that in the purest ages many of the chiefest Doctors have contradicted some of her Tenets, without suspicion of Heresy, are not able to conceive how a doctrine should, from being indifferent in one age, become necessary in another, and the contrary from only false Heretical,  
— As time makes Botches Pox,  
Dr. D.  
And plodding on will make a Calf an Ox.  
especially if that way had always been walked in, which you now speak of.  
No judicious man can deny to see with his eyes, (if 
Object.  he have cast them never so little upon the present state of Christendom) that there is one Congregation of men which layeth claim to Christ his Doctrine, as upon this title, that she hath received it from his Apostles without interruption, delivered from Father to Son until this day, and admits not any Doctrine for good and legitimate which he doth not receive in this manner.  
What the Judicious (of whom I am no member) 
Resp.  can do, I know not, but I not only can, but do deny it, you meaning by that Congregation the Church of Rome, for by seeing, that not upon this, but other kind of claim certain Doctrines have arrived to the very brink of being defined; I have cause to think, that if they received none in upon other grounds, these would not be suffered to stand so near the door. And indeed there being between yourself such differences, that Erasmus tells us, that he who is a Heretic among 
Praefat. in Hillar.  the Dominicans, is Orthodox to the Scotists, sure one side hath admitted of a Doctrine for Legitimate, which hath not been so received, and then me thinks this being easily endable, which it is, by seeing which claims such a delivery, (for if both do it, than two Parts may, which you deny, if neither do, than your whole Church goes by some other Rule) that which doth, upon that which you call the Catholic Grounds, me thinks should have obtained a definition for her, and the other, which resists that Principle, upon which they ought only to build, should have been suddenly and absolutely condemned. This will appear plainer, if we consider the opinions of your Church by the Actions of her Head, in a notable and late Example. A great controversy being risen between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, it was heard before Pope Clement, let us see then what course he took to find which Part held the Truth, since he was not likely (especially in a time wherein, by being more opposed then usually, he had reasons to be consequently more cautious) to choose a new way, by which truth was not wont to be found out by your side upon like occasions; Did he send for the wisest and best men from all, nay from adjoining Parts, to inquire of them what they had been taught by their Fathers, to have been received by them uninterruptedly from the Apostles? did he examine with which of them the first and purest ages sided? did he consider which opinion would make us have the more excellent conceit of God, and work most towards the expelling of Vice? None of all these were his course, but he appointed both sides, to prove which of them followed Saint Austin, and according to them, he intended to give sentence, if the advice of Cardinal Perron had not prevailed to the contrary: But many days they spent in examining what he thought, who thought so variously concerning it, that he scarce knew himself which, whereas before him all the Ancients that I could ever meet with, were with the Jesuits with an unanimous consent, and by them (if they must be tried by men as fallible as themselves) it would have better agreed with their own Principles to have had both Parts judged.  
After the Pope, let us hear Bishop, and almost Cardinal Fisher, who being one of your own Authors and Martyrs, cannot be thought to prevaricate against that Church, for whose defence he employed not only his Ink, but his Blood.  
His words are these,  
There are many things of which was no enquiry in the Primitive Church, which yet upon doubts arising, are now become perspicuous, by the diligence of aftertimes. And that you may see, that he speaks of points of Faith, He adds,  
No Orthodox man now doubts, whether there be a 
Pag. 496.  Purgatory, of which yet among the Ancients there is no mention, or exceeding rarely: It is not believed by the Greeks to this day— Neither did the Latins conceive this Truth at once, but by little and little.  
And for an Epiphonema he closeth it thus, Considering that Purge atory was a good while unknown; after, partly by Revelations, partly by 
Pag. 497.  Scripture came little by little to be believed by some, and so at last the belief of it was generally received by the Catholic Churches— Who can wonder concerning Indulgencies, that in the Priinitive Church there was no use of them? Indulgences therefore began, after men had trembled a while at the Torments of Purgatory.  
See I pray how will you two agree? You say the Church of Rome receives, but what she claims to be come down to her from the Apostles without interruption: He saith some of her Doctrines were long unknown, and came in by Revelations and Scripture; you say new Doctrines cannot come into a Church that, holds this Principle: He saith, Doctrines have come in by little and little: So either she held not always this Principle, or for all that they might come in: To be short, all, which he hath said, seems to me, as if he had purposely intended to frame a Ram to batter down that fortification, which you have built about the Roman Church.  
Now though he be of so great an Authority that he needs no backing, yet I will desire you to look into Alphonsus de Castro, where he speaks of Indulgences, and see if he mend the matter. He confesseth, that the use of them seems to be late received into the Church, yet would not have them contemned, because many things are known to after-commers, of which those ancient Writers were wholly ignorant. Amongst whom there is rarely mention of Transubst antiation, more rarely of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, of Purgatory almost none; For though he speaks after as if he meant only that the names of these were unmentioned, and not the things, yet it is plain, that if he brought them in to any purpose, it was to prove, that some Doctrines are after of necessity to be believed, which once were not, and Doctrines consist in the Things, not in the Name.  
I could next tell you of Erasmus his saying, 
Epist. Pag. 1164.  Res deducta est ad Sophisticas contentiones, & Articulorum Miriades proruperunt. Religion is come down to Sophistry, and a Myriad of Articles are broken out. But knowing that his words will not find so much respect, (because he himself finds less favour) as those of others more allowed among you, let us mark these words of Sancta Clara, 
Pag. 296. 1 Edict.  The Church, when it is said to define any thing, she rests not upon any new Revelations, but upon the ancient, lying hid in writings and words of the Apostles, which he says not as his private opinion, but the constant belief of Doctors: By which it appears plainly, that there are at least interpretations of what the Apostles taught, drawn forth by Reason, not received by Tradition, which makes now a part of the present Roman Religion a sufficient Gap for Errors to enter at, when either mistake, or ends may become new opinions, and style them but interpretations of the old. Salmeron a Voluminous Jesuit, one, neither by his order, nor his inclination an enemy at all to the Roman Church, being pressed by the opinions of the Ancients, affirms, Doctores quò Juniores, eò perspicaciores esse, That the more modern Doctors 
Tom. 13. Pag. 467  are, the more prespicatious, that per incrementa Temporum nota facta sunt Divina mysteria, quae. tamen antea multos latuerunt: In process of time Divine Mysteries have been made known, which before lay hid from many; That it is infirm arguing from Authority, and answers to the multitude of them, who in times past had opposed him, with these words of Exodus, That the opinion of many is not to be followed, leading us out of the way, with some other very anabaptistical answers, and very contrary to your Tenets, (for sure it were a strange Tradition, which had so many Orthodox Opposers) and nothing inferior to that saying of Zuinglius, so much exaggerated, Quid mihi cum Patribus, potius quam cum Matribus?  
The same Author in same place says, that Saint Hierome durst not affirm the Assumption, but Saint Austin durst; and by that means, the Church persuaded by his reason believes it: Such a notable Tradition have all her opinions; for even this affirmation, which he confesseth, brought in this belief, is itself not now believed to be Saint Austin's, for I take it, he must mean his tract of the Assumption, counted not his, by your own Divinity-Criticks, the Louvain Doctors, which have set it forth at Cullen.  
And because I am willing to spend no more time in the proof of so apparent a Truth, I will not urge Posa, who, to persuade the defining of an opinion, which hath a great current of the Ancients against it, (so far it is from having any Tradition for it) reckons many other opinions condemned by your Church, and defended by the 
In Elucidar Deiparae Pag. 1113.  Ancients, unless you will believe his impudent Assertion, that they are all corrupted, and will pass to the Conclusion of this, which shall have for a Corollary, the Confession of a Spanish Archbishop, who is to be thought to speak with more authority than his own, because being employed to bring that to pass, which was desired by so great a Part of your Church, he can scarce be supposed not to have had the advice and consent of many of them in what he says. 
Wadd. Pag. 125.   
He then tell us, First, every Age either brings forth, or opens her Truth: Things are done in their times, and several Doctrines are unlocked in several Ages.  
Secondly, To show that though his opinion 
Pag. 270  had no such Tradition as you say your Church claims for all her Doctrines, yet it may, and aught to be defined; he desires to know who ever taught the Assumption of the Virgin, before Saint Austin's and Hieromes time, and by whom was that opinion deduct from the Apostles: Nay, he absolutely affirms, that before Nazianzen, no man ever taught any thing of her delivery without pain, yet many thought the contrary.  
Thirdly and lastly, For your absolute confutation, 
Pag. 202.  he confesseth, that we believe and hold in this Age many things for Mysteries of Faith, which in former Ages did waver under small or no Probability, and many Things are now defined for Articles of Faith, which have endured a hard repulse among the most and the weightiest of the Ancient Doctors, and no light contradiction among the Ancient Fathers; and having reckoned up five Particulars, 

The Validity of Heretics Baptism,  
The Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement,  
The spirituality of Angels,  
The Souls being immediately created, and not ex traduce,  
And, The Virgin's being free from all actual Sin:   He shuts it thus, Many of these kinds of 
Pag. 203.  Opinions there are, which sometimes declined to one Part, sometimes to the other, and had contrary Favourers, according to several times, until a diligent and long disquisition being praemitted, the Truth was manifested either by Pope, or Provincial, or general Counsels, nay, and says that the disquisition is made by conferring of Places of Scripture and Reason, which is the way which you mislike.  
These things considered, whosoever shall after 
Pag. 204.  say, that your Church claims all her Doctrines to have come by a Verbal and constant Tradition to her from the Apostles, I will not say that he is very impudent, but I cannot think that a small matter-will put him out of countenance, for your part, I esteem you so much, that I am confident you have not so little Nose as not to find the contrary, nor so little Forehead as not to confess it, having received the Affidavit of such a cloud of Witnesses.  
Whosoever pretend Christ his Truth against her, 
Object.  saith, that true it is, she had once had the true way, but by length of times she is fallen into gross Errors, which they will reform, not by any Truth which they have received from hand to hand from those, who by both Parts are acknowledged to have received their lesson from Christ, and his Apostles, but by Arguments, either out of Ancient Writers, or the secrets of Reason.  
This is no farther true then as it concerns the Protestants, 
Resp.  for the Greek Church will not suffer your proposition to be general, but forbid the Banes.  
They pretend not to have made any Reformation, but to have kept ever since the Apostles, what from them was received: Barlaam says, they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keep safe and whole the Tradition of the Catholic Church, nay, he proves his to be the sound Part, because by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing was ever more esteemed than her Tradition: And he objects it to your Church that she doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difanull the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and setting them at naught, bring in strange and undenizoned opinions: And that Greek, who is joined to Nilus, and Barlaam in Salmatius his Edition disputing against a Cardinal, chargeth you, that you do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sow Tares among the Tradition of the Apostles and Fathers: if when they make this claim they either say so, and think not so, or think so, and err, than this proves, that though the Roman Church did make that claim which you say she doth, yet she too might either claim it against her Conscience, or against Truth: For this claim of the last cannot be denied but by him, who will imitate that Hamshire Clown, of whom you give me warning, and believe no more than he sees himself, especially since your own Authors, when they dispute for Traditions, prove their authority from this profession of the greeks: but I cannot blame you to forget them, (if we would suffer you) since they cannot be remembered but by your Religion's disadvantage; For I verily believe, that if they had but one Addition which they want, (I mean Riches) not only most of them who leave the Protestants, would sooner go to them then to you, (unless they would take their Religion as we take Boats, for being the Next) but money among you, who (though they dislike your pretended Infallibility, that the Pope's usurpations upon the rights of other Bishops, his (not ancient) claim of power to deliver Souls out of Purgatory, &c, And yet are frighted from joining with the Protestants, by want of Succession, Vocation, and such like Bull-beggars) would go over to them (as I have heard Spalleto meant to do) if they were not kept, by an unwillingness to change the spiritual tyranny of the Pope, for the temporal of the Turk.  
But (although there were no such Churches, or they made no such claim, yet having showed out of your own Authors, that some opinions have not been constantly delivered by Tradition, but have entered into the Church upon the grounds (which might at least possibly deceive them) of Scripture, Reason, and Revelation, and others knocked apace to be let in) I hope we may be excused for making a reveiw of all, and examining what doctrines have been brought in, if not by Scripture (which we think reasonable) at least by comparing what this age teacheth and requires, with what the first Ages did; to which we are encouraged by yourselves, who make agreement with Antiquity, the chief mark of the Church, unless you mean yourselves to be only Judges, even of those things by which you bid us to judge you: For our examinations by reason, I cannot tell why you mislike it, since those who trust their own reason least, trust it yet to choose for them one whom they may trust, against which, all Arguments drawn from her fallibility without question lie. Your Religion is built upon your Church, her authority upon reasons, which we think slight and fallacious, and yourselves think but prudential and probable; ought we not then, nay, must we not examine them by Reason, or receive them upon your word: And allowing them probable reason, yet I have still cause to examine further, whether your superstructions be not more unreasonable than your foundations are reasonable, for than I cannot receive a more unprobable doctrine, then that is probable, which it is proved by: Yet (in respect of things appearing divers, at divers times) I do not like my own way so well, as to esteem it absolutely infallible, but though I keep it, because I account it the best, yet I will promise to leave it, when you can show me a better, which will be hard to do, because you cannot prove it to be better but by reason, against which proof (and consequently against whatsoever it proves) your own Objections remain; For to be persuaded by reason, that to such an authority I ought to submit it, is still to follow reason, and not to quit her. And by what else is it, that you examine what the Apostles taught, when you examine that by ancient Tradition, and ancient Tradition by a present Testimony? Yet when I speak thus of finding the Truth by Reason, I intent not to exclude the Grace of God, which I doubt not (for as much as is necessary to Salvation) is ready to concur to our Instruction; as the Sun is to our sight, if we by a wilful winking choose not to make, not it, but ourselves guilty of our blindness: Indeed if we love darkness better than light, and instead of esteeming it, shut it out, it were but just in God, if we so continue long hardened, not to suffer it to see after when we would, since so obstinately we would not when we might, like to that which happened to those Englishmen, of whom Froissard speaks, who having long bound up an eye, and made a foolish vow, never to see with that till they could see their Mistresses, when they returned, and unbound them, they saw nothing, but that they could not see.  
Yet when I speak of God's grace, I mean not, that it infuseth a knowledge without reason, but works by it, as by its Minister, and dispels those Mists of Passions, which do wrap up Truth from our Understandings. For if you speak of its instructing any other way, though I confess it is possible (as God may give us a sixth sense) yet it is not ordinary, and ought not to be brought to dispute, because so we leave visible Arguments to fly to invisible, and your Adversary, when he hath found your play, will be soon at the same lock, and I believe in this sense, infused Faith is but the same thing, otherwise apparelled, which you have so often laughed at in the Puritans, under the title of private Spirit.  
This being supposed, either this Principle hath 
Object.  remained unto her ever since her beginning, or she took it up in some one Age of the sixteen, if she took it up, she then thought, she bade nothing in her, but what she had received from her forefathers, and if she thought so she knew it.  
This Principle is not yet taken up by her, and 
Resp.  suppose it were, yet since some other opinions are confessed to have been received by her, not from a constant Tradition, but Scripture, and Revelations, and not at once, but by little and little, this very Principle of receiving nothing but from Tradition, might itself have been received not from Tradition: nor need it have been in any one Age of the sixteen, but some might have taught it in one Age, more in another, and all at last, and this so far from being an impossibility, that it were no wonder.  
Let us add, that the multitude of this Church 
Object.  is so dispersed through so many Countries, and Languages, that it is impossible they should agree together upon a false Determination, to affirm with one consent a Falsity for Truth, no Interest being able to be common to them all, to produce such an effect.  
Although so many Countries could not so 
Resp.  well agree upon it at once, yet some might so persuade others, that in time and by degrees the disease may be grown epidemical: And truly, considering in every Country how few there are, who think of Religion at all, or of them again, who walk in it by the directions of their own eyes, even of them who take upon them to show that way to others, but for the most part (which they did much more in more ignorant times, when Scriptura sacra cum vetustis authoribus frigebat) are lead by some few, whom they reverence for their Piety and learning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose words are accounted laws, and they again by a Thomas, or a Scot, or at best by Austin, or Hierome, and think it Tradition enough to have it from them (for else why think they to bear us down with the Authority of one or two Fathers, if they think that not ground enough to go upon themselves) it seems little stranger to me, that whole Countries should let in not ancient opinions, then that a few should, since a few in all places have ever governed all the rest; of this I will bring two very known examples out of the Ecclesiastical History.  
The first is of Valens the Emperor, who, being himself an Arrian, and making peace with a Nation which was not so, and supposing that they would never have firm concord with him, to whom in Faith he was so opposite, was advised to persuade their Bishop to change his belief, for which end having employed both words and money, and effected it, the Bishop, directly contrary 
Theodoret lib 4.  to Saint Peter, being himself weakened, weakened his brethren, who yielded to communicate with the Arrians (which before they abhorred from) and to esteem the Father greater than the Son.  
The second, is of that Macedonian Bishop, who, being persecuted by the Catholic Bishop of the same place (who was then gone to Constantinople to fetch Soldiers, by whose assistance he might afflict the Heretics the more) resolved to turn Catholic, and persuaded all his followers to join with him in that Act, and this in so short a time, that when the other returned, he found him chosen Bishop unanimously by both Parties, and himself (for his crulelty, not undeservedlie) excluded.  
There is besides another thing which helps to let in great errors, which is, that men naturally neglect small things, and small things in time naturally beget great; for which cause Aristotle showing to us several causes of the Changes of Government, one of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often a great change comes stealingly in, whenwhat is little is not considered.  
Yet besides the general carelessness; The Authority of the Teachers, the Flexibility of the Taught, and the smallness of the Things themselves at the beginning, even Interest itself (which consists of two Parts, Fears, and Hopes) is able to produce great effects: Of this me thinks yourselves may be witnesses, who use to call ours, a Parliamentary Religion, as thinking, that the Will of the Prince, and both Houses, only made it to be received: Whereas in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, of many thousaud Livings which were in England, the Incumbents of not a hundred, chose rather to lose their Benefices for your opinions, then to keep them by subscribing to ours; all who (for the greatest Part) of necessity must be supposed for private interest, to have dissembled their Religion, either then or immediately before.  
Secondly, In the Third Book of Evagrius we find, that above five hundred Bishops subscribed against the Council of Chalcedon, which we have reason to think most did unwillingly, (especially if the Infallibility of a general Council were so famous a Doctrine for Catholics as now it is) because we know it was upon Basiliscus his commands, and that a considerable Part of them (the Bishops of Asia) professed after they were forced to it, though before they had been very angry in another Epistle with those, who said that they had done by force, rather than freewill.  
And over, and above all this we may see by Erasmus his words, that many might not oppose a Doctrine brought in by great Power, in hope of a time to do it in, when there might be more likelihood of prevailing: For he saith in one place of his Epistles, that those who resist opinions, when there is no probable means of doing good by it, are like those, who out of season attempt to break Prison, who gains nothing by it, but to have their Irons doubled upon them: And the same cause which he thinks should move them to stay (outwardly) contentedly in Prison, may have made many others not resist, when they were first by violence and crowd carried thither, who might fear lest their opposal might not help their cause, but beget a definition against it. And there being thus many several motives which may work upon so many several kinds of men, it is no wonder, if an error may soon over-runne all men, or seem to do so.  
Next, Whereas you speak of several Countries, and Languages, I must desire you to remember, that the Clergy of your Church are as it were all of one Language, (Latin either being, or being supposed to be, as much theirs, as that of their own People) and being under the Dominion of one, that is the Pope, which makes them as it were one Country, and from them the Laity receive all their opinions: Nay in ancient times almost all considerable men spoke the Language of the governing Nation, (as all of the better sort of the Irish do English) and the greatest part of Christians were governed by one man, the Emperor, and so a new opinion may easily have been received generally, no such bars being set up to hinder it, as you allege.  
Christian Doctrine is not a speculative knowledge 
Object.  instituted for delight, but it is an Art of living, a Rule of attaining to eternal bliss; hence it followeth, that no error can fall, even in a point which secmeth wholly speculative in Christian Faith, but soon it breedeth a Practical effect; or rather defection in Christian behaviour.  
I wonder much to hear you say this, who certainly 
Resp.  have a Religion consisting of many points, which are no ways reduced into Practice: Especially from the degrees in which they are held, (which I conceive introduced) could arise no change in Christian behaviour; I confess that Christian Religion being a Covenant between God, and Man by the entermise of Christ, we Christians are properly concerned, but in the knowledge of what are the Conditions and Reward proposed and promised, what we are to observe, and what to hope for; and in so far forth understanding the Nature and Attributes of the Covenant-maker and bringer, as we may be made sure, that whatsoever God hath promised or threatened, that indeed he hath: But though this principally concerns us, yet the necessity of believing the veracity of God, obligeth us moreover to give our Assents to any thing, how little soever it have to do with practice (as Saint Paul's having Parchments) if it be once made to appear to us either by Scripture-reason, Tradition, or any way to have been said by God either immediately, or mediately by Christ and his Apostles: And do not yourselves count the greeks Heretics for denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, (though many Fathers deny it too) though, I pray, what hath that to do with Practice or Christian behaviour, and if you should now change your opinion in this point, what outward change would it breed, except only the blotting out of one clause in a Creed in your Liturgy, wherein it was not at first? And not so much outward change would there be, if you should turn to believe 
Cap. 6 Lib. 3 de Romano Pontifice.  Enoch and Elias, not bo be still alive, the contrary to which Belarmini says all Catholics hold now with a certain Faith: And many more are of this kind.  
Whether man have freewill or no, seemeth a 
Object.  Question belonging to some curious philosopher; but upon the Preaching of the Negative part, presently followed an unknown Libertinage, men yielding themselves over to all kind of Concupiscence, since they were persuaded they had no power to resist, freewill being taken away.  
At this time it is not my own cause which I plead, 
Resp.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since in this point I confess, I should rather be a Pelagian, than a Calvinist, since the first doth not wholly overthrow God's grace, (for whatever we have by Nature, His grace gives us) but the second wholly overthrows His justice, besides the direct contrariety of their Doctrine to Scripture, they saying in effect, that the Kingdom of Heaven is to take us by violence, whereas that teaches us, that we are to take it so: But yet give me leave to say thus much for them, that though it be true, that ill life follows very consequently from that Principle, and those who hold it, must be ill Logicians, if they be good men, yet it is plain, that very many of them live as good lives, as any who believe the contrary.  
Besides, this in my opinion concerns as nearly your Dominicans, as our Calvinists, since they use freewill, as Tully saith Epicurus did the Gods, verbis asserunt, re negant, assert it in words, but deny it in deed; yet I think you will not say that they are the more licentious, for (by direct consequence) denying Liberty; If therefore an opinion, which is so nearly tied to action, produce no more effects, how much fewer would those other so much more unconcerning. Tenets bring forth?  
I need not instance in Prayer to Saints, worshipping 
Object.  Images, Prayer for the Dead etc. which it is evident could not be changed without an apparent change in Christian Churches.  
Without change (which though it must be then 
Resp.  apparent, yet need it not be so to us) I confess they could not come in, but with little opposition they might: The doubtful estate of the dead after this life, before the day of Judgment-audit, being much better that they should have our Prayers, though they want them not, then miss of them if they want them, may not unlikely (and peradventure not unreasonably) have brought in that Custom without either giving scandal, or being received by Tradition; Though if it had, you would have gotten little by it, for unless such a Purgatory, out of which Indulgences may deliver, will follow out of it, the Pope will not care for the other, as being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing to profit: And though he did establish a Purgatory, yet it might be one after the Resurrection, for such a one, more than one Father speaks off: But it need establish none, (no not any third place, which is less) for the Prayers might be first intended for the increase of the happiness of the Blessed, and relaxation of the torment of the Cursed, which latter effect, that the Prayers for the dead have, is said by Prudentius, and confessed to have been said, 
Lib. Con. Reg. jac. Pag. 892.  both by him, and others, by your own Hero, Cardinal Perron.  
Of the worship of Images I shall speak hereafter.  
Praying to Saints may have come in upon consequences drawn out of mistaken places of Scriptures, or others, which inducing the opinion, that they enjoyed the beatifical vision before the day of judgement, some might conclude, that then they saw all in it, and at first pray to them but conditionally, till their number increased, and with it the degree in which they held the opinion, till now to deny it is accounted Heresy, though I know no Father which justifies our invocating of them (although they speak of their interceding for us) before Nazianzen, whose example alone being of so great authority might spread it much: though, I pray, remember, who (as says Nicephorus Calistus) it was that brought it first into the public Liturgy.  
It is not possible, that any material point of 
Object.  Christian Faith can be changed, as it were, by obreption, whilst men are on sleep, but it must needs raise a great scandal, and tumult: For suppose the Apostles had taught the world it were Idolatry to pray to Saints, or use reverence to their Pictures, how can we imagine this honour brought in but by a vehement conflict, and tumult in a people, which did so greatly abhor Idolatry, as the Apostles and Disciples did.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I spoke chiefly, 
Resp.  not of changing a point of Faith, but of creating one, not of contradicting a doctrine delivered from the Apostles, but of introducing one, of which they were wholly silent, either as theirs at first (as ye must say Pappias did) or only as True, till being rooted and spread, it be believed Apostolical upon Tertullian's Argument, that else how could so many Churches, errare in unam fidem, err into the same belief, which (because less time had then been allowed error to disperse itself in) was then, though no concluding proof, yet a better than it was the next Age, and so still grew the worse for the wearing, till now it is worth just nothing.  
But as Himerius saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say, 'tis most easy to answer that which is not imputed, for I am so far from saying that the Apostles taught these two things to be Idolatry (since on my Conscience they spoke not of them directly at all) that I myself will not say they are. For Prayer to Saints (set aside your Idolatrie-like Expressions, seeming to beg that of them, which you profess, you mean only to have them beg for you) I suppose the Question to be but this, whether they hear us or no (which Martyrs might possibly do, and yet no other, how holy and canonised soever, because many Fathers held that none else see God yet) If they do, I believe you may as well (or better, because you are more sure of their being in favour with God) desire them to intercede for you, as you may desire the Prayers of any living Friend, but if they do not, than I will not say in Chrysostom's phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Thunderbolts doth it not deserve, but how unreasonable is it to cast men out of the Church, and send them out of the world, for not assenting to an opinion, which you cannot prove.  
For reverence to the Pictures of Saints, if you mean only some outward civil respect, to testify the great honour and love which you bear the Prototypes, It is, I believe, no more Idolatry, then keeping off our hats in the Presence-Chamber to the Cloth of Estate.  
Yet this I am so far from esteeming necessary, that I think they had better never come in, then have occasioned so much un-christian turmoil about so indifferent a thing. The first and purest Ages did well enough without these Pictures (we hear only of a parabolical one of Christ 
Tertul.  in a Chalice) after they came to be made, after to be set in Churches, afterto be prayed before, nay, at last they are come to so great an excess, that not only against Scripture, but all Antiquity, they are now come to picture God the Father himself: Upon a Pope's Letter to an Emperor, wherein he defends the picturing of Saints and Christ, and speaks improbablie of the Antiquity of their Pictures, and adds the reason why they pictured not God the Father, Baronius says in the Margin. Yet it hath after happened, that they pictured him as he hath appeared; a way which the Church of that time could easily have found out, had they thought it lawful, as it is plain Saint Austin did not, unless Nefas est be 
De fide & Symb.  an Approbation: This alone may serve to show that beliefs may come in, even contrary to that of former time (and yet we not know when they entered) unless you will oppose a superficial reason, that a thing cannot be to a plain example that it is, and force me to answer with Barlaam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you tell me, it is impossible for him to die, whose Corpse I look upon.  
We remember in a manner as yet, how change 
Object.  came into Germany, France, Scotland, and our own Country, let these be a sign to us, what we may think can be the creeping in of false doctrine.  
This is but a continuance of the same Paralogism: 
Resp.  For at this time, in these places, a settled Religion being contradicted, the case is very different from an Opinions prevailing in the minds of men, when they were yet white Paper, and not filled with any doctrine to the contrary, either because though once the contrary had been taught, yet it had slept a good while, or because nothing had before been spoken concerning it: We know, that nothing makes Noise but Opposition and Resistance, and if that be not much, it will not last long, and the memory of it as little: Besides most of these points making for the power and wealth of the Clergy, you must not expect, that there should have been as great an outcry and hubbub when they were introduced at first, as when expelled after long prevailing, it being a work, both more short, easy, and secret to plant an acorn, then to cut down or remove an Oak (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) although those men which govern the rest, were not in this case so much interessed.  
There is no point of doctrine contrary to the Catholic 
Object.  Church rooted in any Christian Nation, that the Ecclesiastical History doth not mention, the times and combats, by which it entered, and tore the Church in pieces.  
The combats wherein it tore the Church, peradventure 
Resp.  it doth, but of the times wherein many entered, they are altogether silent. All take notice of Arrius his words, when by reason of Alexander's hot opposition there grew divisions, but of what the Orthodox-counted Authors (which we have) before the Council of Nice said (though ask Perron, and he will tell you, how like Arrianisme they look) no Ecclesiastical History makes any mention, because they made no bounce like the other, and so in likeliehood took no more notice of other opinions, which made none neither. And what is said of this point, may be said of Eutychianisme (see the same place of Perron) for we know how Dioscorus called upon the Fathers of the Pelagians, and others, whose opinions were certainly in the Church before them, who are now counted the Authors of them.  
Nay, even of opinions rooted (as you call it) are not the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the the Father only, the communicating Infants, the admitting none to the Beatifical Vision but Martyrs, and other such rooted in the Greek Church? or can yond tell when they entered? at least was it not long before any combat concerning them? But suppose this weretrue, it is but accidentally so, for some of those writings which deliver this to us, might as well have been lost, as many others which were, so that no man can conclude that, of whatsoever, no beginning can be showed in Ecclesiastical story, that hath not been introduced, (especially since I speak not so much of opinions opposing the Ancient Tradition, as of Superfetations, not only of points indeed Material, but of such as in continuance of time, have grown to be thought so) for how can I tell, many of them having been lost, but some of those would have given me notice of it, if I now had them.  
Let it therefore remain for evidently constant, that 
Object.  into the Christian Church can come no Errors, but it must be seen and noted, and raise scandal and opposition.  
Here Sir not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Resp.  you resolve upon a Truth of a conclusion before you have proved the Premises; but even that is such a one as follows not out of them, although they were granted: For how follows it, that because all heretofore have been noted, therefore all at all times must be so, nay, that though at the coming in they found scandal and opposition, we necessarily (many centuries after) must know they did so. For the knowledge, which we have of these things, is but Reliquiae Danaum, what was overseen by the zeal and negligence, and how much we want of what we might have known, had the rest scaped, no man can tell who pretends not to Revelation, and to the ability of knowing what was in Books, whereof he never saw any, and never heard of most: But though it follows not, such a thing hath been done, therefore it must ever be, yet it follows (in spite of the most severe exception) such a thing hath been done, therefore it may be; As for example, since Valentinian the Emperor bringing in so contrary to Christian Religion, as you will confess Polygamy to be, and establishing it with a law which allowed it, and yet those who tells us both of his actions and his Edict, speaking no tittle of any opposition which was made to it, but he ever accounted a very good and pious Emperor, and his Son by his second wife (his first still living, and undivorced from him) being esteemed Legitimate, and succeeding him in a part of his Empire; think you whether his authority could not have drawn the Principal men, (and inclusively the rest to subscribe almost any opinion, who could keep them from opposing such an Act, or such a Law: And if though this be now counted unlawful, yet we find not, that either any Bishop advised him against it, or excommunicated him for it, or indeed any man disliked it: If any false opinion backed by great Power, have been not only (like this) introduced, but spread and settled, how unlikely is it that we should now know what scandals it raised, supposing it raised any.  
As in our Natural Body, the Principal parts are 
Object.  defended by bones, flesh, skins, and other defences, that no outward Agent can come to offend there, before having annoyed some of these; so in the Catholic Faith, there are in speculations, those which we call Theological Conclusions, and other pious opinions, and in practice, many rights and ceremonies, which stop the Passage unto the main Principal Parts of Christian belief, and Actions.  
Either these Theological conclusions, and pious 
Resp.  opinions are derived from the same Tradition, or they are not; if they be, then sure they are equally matters of Faith, and so need some other course to defend them, and you must find Quis custodiet ipsos custodes: If they be not, but were only Deductions either of the first Age's Logic, (which was not always excellent) or of that of more Modern times, then may they so easily be false themselves, that I know not how they can serve to preserve the rest certainly from all corruption indeed to secure any Truth: But I believe many may be miscounted Heretics, for only opposing some of these, what through the over-caution, and too much ardour of some Primum mobile, and of the greater part lead by a few such, what through their being come (having been long) from pious opinions, to be matters of Faith, as in great Families Servants, who have waited long in meaner places, are rewarded with higher: Besides I verily believe, that many Doctrines, which you account necessary, have no such redoubts about them, or at least have not always had, and indeed you only affirming it by Tully's Rule, (who was no small Master of Reason) Sat erit verbo negare, It will be enough for me barely to deny it. And for Rites and Ceremonies which you suppose guard your Doctrines, (many used among the Ancients being not now in use amongst you) either some Tenets, which those did guard, and they did hold, ye hold not; or if you do still, at least they are now unguarded.  
But still, I speaking most of the easiness, that false and new Doctrines not contradicting the old, may be brought into the Church, what answer is it to tell me, how the Principal of Christian Religion are sure guarded, since so they may be, and yet such other may be brought in: As Christ's Promises, and chief injunctions may be retained, and yet praying to Saints, and Purgatory, and such like, be superinduct.  
Let any discreet man consider, what further evidence 
Object.  he can desire, or peradventure what greater assurance Nature can afford.  
Sir, I wish you so well that I cannot but give 
Resp.  you warning, that this saying of yours doth Sapere Haeresin, since it seems as if you disclaimed any absolute Infallibility, and pretend only to grounds of most possibility, which the Protestants doing too, use yet to be accused for making nothing certain, and having no firm foundation to build any thing upon: But as you claim less, then by your own Rules you should, so you claim still more, then either you are able to prove, or we likely to grant.  
The Philosophers say, it is indisciplinati ingenii, 
Object.  to expect in any Science more exactness than the Nature of it affords.  
I confess this to be true, but I desire you also 
Resp.  to remember, that as it is absurd to expect as exact a proof in the Politics, as in Geometry, so it is absurd to expect as high a degree of Assent to the first, as to the second of my objections, being intended against those, who will be infalliblly believed to be infallible upon probable grounds, for they themselves give them no higher a Title, and indeed that itself in my opinion, is more than they deserve.  
What shall we expect then in Religion, to see a main 
Object.  advantage on the one Party we cast ourselves upon.  
Truly such Advantage on your part I cannot 
Resp.  see: Neither if I did, could I in reason join with you. A main advantage it is to have more Truth than any other Society of Christians, but supposing you had so (which is but a supposition, for I verily believe, if the Question were but, who had most Title to so much, ye would appear to a dispassionate man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither third nor fourth, according to the answer of the Ancient Oracle) yet you withal require, not only that I should believe you err in nothing, but that you never can, and then I had rather remain in their communion, I say not, who themselves erred not, but whose conditions of Communion were less rigorous, and exacted not of me to profess they could not err, when I believe they do. And if you answer, that it would necessarily follow, that if they had fewest errors, they must have none, because some society of Christians must be always free from all this; I shall absolutely deny, and the more earnestly, because I know this is a trap, wherein many have been caught, who taking this for granted, have examined the Doctrines of the most known Churches of Protestants, and finding (as they thought, and peradventure truly) some errors in them, some Doctrines no way to be proved but upon Popish grounds, and by that justifying those, and some imputations imposed upon their Adversaries, wherein their Tenets, or the consequences from them were mistaken, they then by the Dog's Logic have run over, without smelling to the Church of Rome, as knowing no other Society but these, and being praepossest, that one of necessity must be free from all error: Whereas for my part, as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who bound not themselves to believe absolutely the whole Doctrines of any Sect, but picked out what they thought accorded with reason out of them all, were a wise sort of Philosophers, so they seem to me reasonable Divines, who speak Gods will as they did Truth, (for it is not to choose by reason, and Scripture or Tradition received by Reason, which makes a Heretic, but to choose an opinion which will make most either for the choosers Lust, or Power and Fame, and then seeking ways how to entitle God to it) For since it would be a Miracle, if the Errors of the Roman Church being long gathering could have been all discovered in a Day, or if it had been possible for the first Reformers, (who having their eyes but newly open, it is not strange if (like the man in the Gospel) they saw at first men walking like Trees, and had but an imperfect apprehension of Truth, especially being in Tully's state Quem fugio habeo, Quem sequar non habeo. I see whom to fly, but not whom to follow, not to have left some opinions untaxt, which yet were errors, nor to have expurged others, which yet were none; I cannot see why we may not in some points join with the one, and with others in other, and besides find some Truths which lie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well in the midway between the Parties, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay in some points differ wholly from both: Which Liberty, if it were generally allowed, and generally practised, if particular interests were trod wholly under foot, especially by the greatest, and if such spirits as those of Cassander and Melancton were more common, no considerable things would in a short time be left, but all would flow again in the same Channel, whereas this opinion, that always one part errs not, is both prejudicial to Truth, and the best Unity, which is, that of Charity, for it persuades them who have fewest errors, to believe those to be none, and to hate all opposers as Heretics; and of this your Church is most guilty, which not only affirms that there is such a one, but that she is it, and prophecies as much of herself always for the future, as she promiseth for the present, and upon this ground (like him who having won nineteen games at Tables, threw the Dice in the fire for not winning him the twentieth) though we should yield to her in all points but one, and that the least considerable, she would yet throw us into the fire as Heretics, for dissenting from her in that.  
You are bidden to put what year, or age, such an 
Object.  error entered, and it is evidently true, that then that year, or age, the Church conspired to tell a lie, and deceive their Posterity.  
You would never be loved, if you were a Poser, 
Resp.  and used to ask such hard questions, for either you must mean by [an opinion entering] when first any man pofessed it, or when first by all in communion with your Church it was assented unto: If you mean the first, it is impossiible to be answered, for if one should ask, who taught first that Christ was not begotten by God, before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, (through his power and the over-shadowing of the Holy Ghost) one who knew little of Antiquity, would answer Socinus, a more learned Person would say Photinus, another Paulus Samosatenus, another might find before him, Artemon and another yet before him, Theodorus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (with whom curious Logicians, and great Readers of Euclid, Aristotle, Galen, and Theophrastus were joined) and yet that he was the first we have no certainty, for if a little of Eusebius had been lost, Theodorus, and Artemon had not been now heard of, which may as well have happened to others before them, either by want of being taken notice of by an Historian, or by the loss of the History, and not only is this so in this, but in all other points.  
If you mean the second, (for so you must by your Inference, though the words of the Question will bear both senses) it is as impossible for you to receive an answer. For how shall I know when all it is granted? For suppose no Author to have been lost, and me to have read and remembered them all, yet (as in England when the Calvinists opinion prevailed most, as wise and learned men, as those who writ, though differing in opinion from the Authors, yet opposed them not so publicly, but that many might believe the more general Tenet to be received by all) how should I know that the opinions of the Authors of several Ages, did agree with that of all equally wise and learned in the same times, for if there be no greater certainty of the opinions of all of one Kingdom in our own Age, think what Infallibility can we have concerning an absolute general consent a thousand years ago. And of this, France may as well be an example as England, wherein many called Cassandrians, descent from the publicly received Doctrines, though with so little stir, that our Posterity will not know that there now are such; So that all which any man can answer to this Question, is, that such a one was the first that he knows of, who taught such a Doctrine, and such a time the first, wherein he knows not that any contradicted it, or that your Church defines it for a necessary opinion, and exacted assent to it, as a condition of their Communion; which answer will be nearer to Truth or Falsehood, according to the measure of the answerers' learning; And indeed if you please to remember, that when learning rose again, and the Reformation began, most Manuferipts of considerable Books, had long lain unreguarded by the generality in Popish Libraries, and out of them only had some few been Printed, you must confess, that it was in the power of your Church, what answer we should be able to make to that Question which you propose, which then it is no wonder if it were not answered, for your willingness to keep men in darkness concerning this, even in times of most light, is to be seen by your expurgatory Indices: For there, though you profess to meddle with none but Modern Authors, (whereas it is plain you go as high as Bertram) yet both that will serve to deceive our posterity concerning the general opinions of these times, and if your Church in former Ages used any course somewhat Analogical to this, upon those Authors who then were modern too, (as likely enough they did, or you have cause to hope they did for your more justification) then how can I know when any opinion entered, that is, either first was at all, or first by all taught: since in all times (how little mention soever be made of it) there may have been some Doctors of that opinion, though either no Authors, or although Authors, yet by this Stratagem may be kept from us.  
Neither indeed can you answer this Question yourself, for you know not in what Year, or Age, did either the giving the Eucharist to Infants begin, or end, at least Saint Austin knew not the first, who believed it an Apostolical Tradition: Neither was this a bare Custom, but employed an opinion of good which Children received, which the change shows plainly to have altered, and certainly either the first opinion was a Superstition, or the latter a Sacrilege.  
But howsoever your Consequence follows not, for though your Church conspired, and deceived their Posterity, yet it might not conspire to deceive their Posterity, but to instruct it, being themselves deceived. And therefore when you reckon up the Motives which men have to speak false, I wonder to see Hopes, and Fears put in, and error left out.  
It is God's course deeplier to root and strengthen 
Object.  those things which he would have most flourish. Now Christians know, that he made mankind for his Elect, the world for mankind, and therefore he hath rooted those things, which more immediately belong to his Elect (as his Church, Faith, and Holy Spirit in it) than the principles either of man's nature or of the world, which was made for it, himself assuring us of it, when he told us, That one tittle should not perish of the holy Writ, though Heaven and Earth should be dissolved, and so seeing the latter principle relieth upon the not failing of God to his Church, which should ever watch upon their actions, that nothing should creep into Christian life, which presently the Zeal of the faithful should not startle at. I think it needless, to seek further to qualify the strength of that part, which receiveth it from the quality of so good a workman as the Holy Ghost.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I must therefore 
Resp.  observe, that this word [Church] hath so many significations even among yourselves, that it seldom comes into the mouth of a Roman Arguer, but there comes withal, four Terms into his syllogism, I could wish therefore, that you would still set down your Definition of it, and put that (instead of the word Church) into what you say, lest what your late Grecian Defender Cariophilus says of Heretics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they delight in doubtful expressions, may seem more properly to belong to you: Certainly in some sense the Elect are God's Church, and in that sense, the Church belongs not to his Elect, but is it, neither indeed know I (define it as you please) how it doth, since you confess, that men may oppose any company of men, whomsoever you will call the Church, without being obstinate, or consequently by heresy excluded from Heaven, and so may, for all that, be elected. Neither indeed know I, how God hath made mankind for his Elect: It is true, that having elected those who shall persevere in Faith and Obedience, and given man freewill, which (joined with Grace universally offered) might bring him to the condition, and in that to election, and by that to Heaven; God may be said, to have made mankind for his elect, that is, to be his elect, if they shut not themselves out of the way to be so; And all men (especially Christians) I believe have, and always shall have means enough to perform these conditions, in such a measure (all things considered, I mean, either natural defects, as in Idiots, never having heard of Christ, as in many Pagans, not having Christ's will sufficiently proposed, as in many Christians, and whosoever is not by some fault in his will hindered from assenting, to him it is not proposed sufficiently) as shall by God be from them required.  
But this hinders not, but that all Christians may see what they should, if they stand not in their own light, or wilfully wink, and if they neglect Christ's Instructions or Commands, and make themselves deaf against his voice, charm he never so wisely, they then may fall from necessary Truths (much more from others) unto error, as well as from good life into wickedness, from which, without question, God's Spirit is as ready to keep men that will be kept, as from the other, and which is no less (if not more) part of the conditions required (for in that epitome, which Christ hath given us of the day of judgement, men are only mentioned to be punished for want of Charity, and not misinterpretations of doctrine) though I grieve to see so many of all parts (whereof I am too much one) live, as if God were so obliged to them for their Faith, that he were bound to wink upon their works, and not to be an Idolater, or not a Heretic, were enough not to be damned.  
And certainly to say, That one tittle of God's Word shall not pass away, is not to say, that God will keep here always a known company of men to teach us all Divine Truths, which from them, because of their authority, we may without more ado accept (for unless you mean the Church in this sense, it concerns not our differences) till you can prove that this word makes some such promise. For this seems to me only to show the veracity of God's Word, without speaking at all of any Churches continual obedience to it, or true interpretation of it, or the impossibility of her receiving the Traditions of men for the will of God.  
Besides in this Paragraph I observe three things:  
The first, That you now draw your Arguments from the steadfast Truth of Holy Writ, whereas you neither quote out of it any thing to prove your main Assertion, and in that way, which you laid before to find out Truth by, you took no notice at all of Scripture, but would have all differences decided, by only comparing what men had by verbal Tradition, like that Dominican, of whom Erasmus tells us in his Epistles, that when in the Schools any man refuted his conclusion, by showing it contrary to the words of Scripture, he would cry out, Ista est Argumentatio Lutherana, protestor me non responsurum; This is a Lutheran way of Arguing, I protest I will not answer to it.  
secondly, You now bring the proof of your certainty from God's Spirit never failing his Church (though you neither define what is there meant by Church, nor do you bring any proof, or ever can, that God's Spirit will stay with any unless they please it, or that this will not consist with the least error in divine matters) whereas before you made it a Physical, or rather superphysicall certainty, that Traditions must be delivered from Age to Age uncorrupted, and this, not because of any other assistance, but ex necessitate Rei.  
thirdly, You seem to think, that aptness to startle in the faithful, will serve to secure them from all error, whereas I must profess myself, of opinion, that in some times, and some cases, that may serve to induce it; for (it being truly said, that there is as much folly beyond wisdom, as on this side of it, and Nazianzen telling us truly, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mark is equally miss by over shooting, as by shooting short) I doubt whether over much caution may not have made some doctrines, and their Abetters condemned (especially when they appeared somewhat new) some Truths rejcted for fear, lest they did by consequence contradict some point of Faith, when indeed they did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Dogs often 
Arist. Ethick.  bark at a friend for an enemy, upon the first noise he makes, before having considered which he is: This made the Ancients so earnest against the now-certaintie of the Antipodes, this in after times, for the same opinion, cost a Bishop his Bishopric, and truth in all probability, would have then been defined a heresy, if a general Council had been called about it: Since then this aptness to startle hath inclined Orthodox Christians to condemn, not only those who had affirmed in terms the contrary to Tradition, but even those, from whose opinions they thought it would result, and consequently to exact an Assent, not only to direct Tradition, but also to whatsoever else seemed to them reasonable deductions from it; This seems to me a way by which Errors may have entered by shoals, the first Ages (I mean then, Cum Augustinus habebatur inexpugnabilis Dialecticus, quod legisset Categorias Aristotelis) not having been so careful and subtle in their Logic, as these more learned times both Arminians and Calvinists, Dominicans and Jesuits, Papists and Protestants, seeming to me to argue much more consequently to their own Principles, more close to their present business, and every way more rationally than the ancient Doctors used to do I mean those which I haveseen: And I am confident that if two or three Fathers should rise again unknown, and should return to their old Argument against the Arrians, from Cor meum eructavit verbum bonum, both Parties would be so far from receiving them for Judges, that neither would accept of them for Advocates, nor trust their Cause to their arguing, who opposed their common enemy no better.  
Now that this way of making Deductions out of Tradition, and those both very hasty, and false ones is very ancient, appears even by an example in the end of the Gospel of John, for there out of Christ's words falsely interpreted, a conclusion was drawn and spread among the brethren, that Saint John should not die, and what they did out of these words of Christ, other in other times may have done out of other words of his, and their Collection pass for his Doctrine; which shows the great advantage which we have by God's Word being written since, if it had not, we could not always have gone to a new examination of the very words, which Christ or his Apostles taught, and consequently a consequence of them spread in the place of them, would have been more incurable than now it is. I will also desire you to look in the five hundred eighty fourth Page of the Florentine Council, set out by Binius, and there you will find, that the Latins confess, that they added the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, to the Creed, because the contrary opinion seemed to them by consequence, contrary to a confessed Tradition of Christ's eternal Divinity, to which, yet it will appear out of what Cardinal Perron 
Con. Reg. jac. Pag. 708.  hath excellently shown, (though upon another occasion) that it doth not contradict, but that this consequence was ill drawn, which may have been in other points too, and have brought in no small multitude of Errors since, neither was their Logic certain to conclude better, nor were they less apt to add to their Creeds accordingly, at any other times than they were at that.  
I doubt not but whosoever shall have received satisfaction 
Object.  in the discourse past, will also have received in the point we seek after, that is, in being assured both that Christ hath left a Directory in the World, and where to find him, there being no doubt but it is his holy Church upon Earth: Nor can there be any doubt which is his Church, since there is but one that doth, and can lay claim to have received from hand to hand his holy Doctrine.  
That which makes you expect that your Reader 
Resp.  should have received satisfaction by what you have said, is, that since Christ hath a great care of his Elect, he must consequently (most strongly of any thing) have rooted his Church. Now I having showed, that by your own confession, men may be of his Elect, that are out of your Church, I seemed to myself to have likewise proved, that there is no necessity of any Churches being their Director. I know you generally think this the more convenient way, to have left such a guide, that because otherwise Dominus non fuisset Discretus, or in Epicttus his Phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Arrian.  you conclude that he hath: but we (though indeed in such cases where our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Notions concerning God, teach us that such a Thing were contrary to God's main Attributes to do, some of us conclude upon that ground, that this he hath not done) in these cases which only concern convenience, of which we have much less certainty, begin at the other end, and considering first what he hath done, conclude that to be sufficiently convenient, and so finding no infallible guide by him instituted, suppose it convenient that there should be none: Truly if convenience were the measure, and our Understandings the measurers, we should resolve that God hath made every Particular man, at least every Pious man Infallible, and so to need no outward guide, which yet it is plain that he hath not done. Though in my opinion, in some sense, he hath made every man (who pleaseth) Infallible, in respect of his journies end, though not of all Inns by the way, certain to find Heaven though he may miss many Truths in Divine matters: For the belief which God requires of being to be thought true of his word, and that man be ready to believe and obey what he says, as soon as it shall appear to him that he hath said it, and every man being able (according to his means) to examine what he hath said; It follows, unless God should damn a man for weakness of understanding, (which were as strange, as if he should damn him for a weak sight, or afeeble arm) that every man is Infallible in his way to Heaven, so he lay no blocks in it himself, (at least is undoubtedly secured of any danger of Hell) For if they neither desire to avoid the trouble of enquiry through unwillingness to find that to be true, which is contrary to what he now thinks, and so to hazard either the affection of dear Friends, or the favour of great Friends, or the fear of some other humane Inconvenience, as want of present means, Improbability to get more, or of that disparagement so terrible to flesh and blood, of descending to confess that they have so long erred, (like Frobenius, qui potuisset vivere, nisi puduisset aegrotare, 
Eras. Ep.  who might have lived, but that he was ashamed to confess himself sick) If I say none of these or the like things, either keep him from seeking what is God's will, or from daring to profess it when he hath found it, than such an Error having no reference to the will, which is the only fountain of sin, cannot by a just God be punished as a sin, and the proof of the necessity of an Infallible Director drawn from God's care of his Church, for his Elects sake, is easily avoided.  
But say you, if there be a director, it must be the Church, and again, because you know that all congregations of Christians, pretend to that Title in some sense, (as even the worst men call themselves by better Names than they deserve, as Aristotle saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and I 
Rhetor.  may mistake our enemy's Camp for our friends, and serve against Christ, whilst I think I fight under his Banner (though even then, I believe, I should have a share in that prayer of his, to whom none is denied, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do) unless you gave me some certain marks to know the Church by; you therefore say, what you have before said, that yours is it, because that alone pretends to Tradition, to which I answer, what I before answered, that the Greeks serve me to disprove the sufficiency of this Mark, who profess, that they hold the constant Tradition, and that under that Notion, they have both received what you deny, and not received what you propose.  
Let us consider in her Presence or Visibility, Authority, 
Object.  Power; As for the first, her multitude and succession make the one, that she is ever accessible, ever known.  
What you now say, is not to prove your 
Resp.  Church a Directress, but having (as you think, and I think not) proved that already, you now mean to show, that she hath the Conditions requisite in a Directress: But this I deny, for neither is her presence or Visibility, (for all her multitude and succession) such as were in a Directress required: For she (besides that she must bring notice and proofs with her, to prove that she is instituted by God to direct men, and those plain and evident, if she require merely but our assent, but if she require us to assent Infallibly, than those Infallible, which yours cannot do) must also be so visible, as to be known to all men, if not as a Directress, at least as a Company of men, which yours sure was not to those Nations, which were lately discovered by Columbus: But if you except and say, she need only be visible to all Christians, (though this exception need a proof) yet even this Condition your Church hath not always had, for I believe, to those Christians whom Xaverius found in the East-Indies, your Church had been as little visible, as to those Pagans whom Columbus discovered in the West: Besides beyond the Abissins', how far Christian Religion may be propagated, and yet your Church unknown, who can tell? Besides, even to most of them (for any credible Testimony that appears) she may not be very visible. But above all, that reason being answered, upon which you conclude, that there is some Director, and that ground being taken away upon which you build, that yours is that, me thinks it will be unnecessary to dispute long upon the Conditions required to that, which hath no entity at all.  
For Authority, her very claim of Antiquity and 
Object.  Succession, to have been that Church which received her beginning from Christ and his Apostles, and never being all united under the universal government of ver forwent it, giveth à great reverence to her among those who believe her, and amongst those who with indifferency seek to inform themselves, a great Prejudice above others. And if it be true, it carrieth an infinite Authority with it, of Bishops, Doctors, Martyrs, Saints, Miracles, Learning, Wisdom, Venerable Antiquity, and such like. 
Resp.   
There is no Question, but any Church, true or false, which claims to have ever kept the Apostles Doctrines uncorrupted, and is infallibly believed to have done so, must among those Christians who thus believe, have even equal Authority with the Apostles. But me thinks that this claim before proof, should to others be any prejudice for her, (especially to those who have great Arguments against her) is unreasonable, and if after consideration it appears otherwise, she hath then only helped to weaken her Testimony, and hath destroyed her Infallible Authority in any thing else.  
There remaineth Power, which no man can doubt 
Object.  but he hath given it most ample, who considereth his words so often repeated to his Apostles: But abstracting from that, who doth not see that the Church hath the nature and proportion of ones Country to everyone. As in a man's Country he hath Father and Mother, Brothers, Sisters, Kinsfolks, and Allies, Neighbours and Countrymen, (anciently called Cives and Concives) and of these are made his Country; So in the Church finds he in way to spiritual Instruction, and Education, all these degrees nearer and further off, till he come unto that furthermost of Christ his Vicar: and as he in his Country finds Bearing, Breeding, Settling in Estates and Fortunes, and lastly, Protection and Security; So likewise in the way of Christianity, doth he find this much more fully in the Church, So that if it be true, that a man oweth more to his Master then to his Father, Bene esse is better then esse; certainly a man also (as far as Church and Country can be separated) must owe more to the Church, then to his very Country; Wherefore the Power which the Church hath to Command and instruct, is greater than the Power of the Temporal Community, of which he is part.  
I wish you would have set down these words of Christ, so often repeated to his Apostles, in which 
Resp.  Power to the Church (I mean such a one as yours pretends) is undoubtedly given; For my Part, Truly I remember none; For I suppose not that the Power given to the Apostles can reasonably be claimed by any Society of men now, no not though you should extend the Definition as largely as Erasmus, (who says Ecclesiam voco totius Populi Christiani concensum, I call the Church, the Consent of the whole Christian People) unless that be meant too in all Ages, and so the Apostles would come in; They were so signed, and sealed to (as I may say) from Heaven, by having most conversed with Christ, and been most beloved by him, and chosen especially to teach the World his Will, that it is impossible any men could be indeed Christians, and not receive their Doctrine, as that of Christ, without any other Proof, but there is no other Church that hath such a Privilege, The Power of proposing she hath, and so have you, and without Question, if you can convince any Christian that what you said, Christ said first, he is bound both to believe and obey it, and again let all Churches join in proposal, yet till he be so convinced, (unless his own fault hinder it) it binds him not, neither is it sufficiently proposed, allowing it true, which it is not always necessary that it should be, although so attested. For as a Natural Fool is not bound to obey any Doctrine or Precept, taught or imposed by God himself, because his understanding cannot discover it to be so: so in my opinion, whose understanding soever is not convinced of the same, (how plain soever to others the thing be) he is for as much as concerns this point, in the state of a Natural Fool, and no more to be condemned.  
Neither see I what you prove out of the Proportion between the Church, and every man's Country, (for if any Church be intended by God to be so our Director, that her propositions are to be received, because they are hers, than indeed we owe her much more obedience then to our Country, which if it should require of us to believe an opinion true, because that hath defined it, I believe no man would obey, and he who should press us to it, would be accounted so mad, that we should send him, not to a Doctor of Divinity, but to a Doctor of Physic, to be confuted.  
And that any Church is so intended, appears not at all by this proposition, since the same is even amongst the Church of the Turks, which is Ecclesia malignantium, for there they find their Metaphorical Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, Kinsfolks, Allies, Neighbours, (which all Heretics do too among themselves) all these degrees nearer and further of, till at last they come to that furthermost, of being united under the Universal Government of Mahomet's Vicar, the Mufty. But to them you would say, that this proves not Truth, but at most Concord, and that is Factio inter Malos, which is Amicitia inter Bonos, therefore 
Sallust.  the same we answer you, since Pirates, and Thiefs, have as strict bonds among themselves, as the honestest persons, and often gerater conspiracies, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to destroy these, than they make to defend themselves. And whereas you say, that we owe more gratitude and obedience to the Church, then to our Country, I have told you, that this may be true without owing obedience to all she teaches; But yet even this in some sense is True; To the general Tradition of Christians of the first Ages who lived with the Apostles, and could not in any likelihood but know their writings; I owe the knowledge of the Scripture, and to that, the knowledge of God's will, and to that, Heaven, if I conform carefully to it both my Life and my Belief; and to the Church in this sense, I owe both as much gratitude as you please, and believe whatsoever this, as generally, witnesseth to have received from the Apostles: But this concerning any present Church, doth as little concern your present purpose: For let us mean by the Church, that company of men which hath kept Tradition wholly uncorrupted, (and suppose there is such a one) yet to know that she hath done so, I must examine her Doctrine; and compare it either with Scripture, or the first Antiquity, and so rather receive her for it, than it for her: Besides, that the whole Church teaches nothing, and if she did, yet by the same ways from any single learned Orthodox man, I may receive the same instruction, to whose commands nevertheless (except when he delivers God's) I owe no obedience.  
Thustoo, when the Orthodox company commands as they are Orthodox, that is something of the will of God, than they are to be obeyed, and so am I, and so again, when the chosen governor's for that purpose, command indifferent Things, but if they exceed their Commission in commanding, no man is longer bound to obey, no more than if a Mayor of a Town should command the People to make his Hay, they were bound to obedience, since commanding more than his Magistracy authorizeth him, he in that case is no Magisttate.  
This Church can satisfy both learned and unlearned. 
Object.  For in matters of Faith, above the reach of learning, whose spring is from what Christ and his Apostles taught, what learned man can refuse in his inmost soul, to bow to that which is testified by so great a multitude to have come from Christ? and what unlearned man can require more for his faith, then to be taught by a Mistress of so many prerogaives and advantages above all others.  
The learned cannot reasonably be satisfied with 
Resp.  this (especially so far forth as to believe it infallibly true.) First, because they see great multitudes have and do testify contrary things. secondly, because they must have observed with 
Tom. 13. Pag. 468.  Salmeron, that a multitude of some opinion may proceed from some one Doctor, especially, if he be Illustrious; and some again, taken with a pious and an humble fear, choose rather against their mind, to approve what hath come from others, then to bring forth any new thing out of their own understanding, lest they may seem to bring some thing unwonted into the Church. This they must needs see, may bring an undelivered opinion to be general, and then the generality may bring it to be thought to come from Tradition, according to Tertullia's rule, Quod apud multas ecclesias unum invenitur, non est erratum sed Traditum, and that of Saint Austin, that of whatsoever no beginning is known, and yet is general, is to be believed to have its original from the Apostles. By this way (supposing that all your Church did witness, all their doctrines to have had such a lineal succession, which they know to be false) they see, that opinions falsely and illogicallie deduct from true Traditions, may be equally believed to be such themselves, Vincentius Lirinensis allowing the following Church to give light to the former, which they might mistake in doing, at least, the certainty of her Illustrations cannot have their force from Tradition: By this way they see, that in time, such doctrines may come to have such a general attestation, which had their first spring from Scripture misinterpreted, either by public mistakes, or by Counsels misled, either by fear, error, or partiality, and what proceeded either from consent, or definition, may seem to have been deduct from Tradition: In this they will be confirmed, by seeing plainly, that more is now required to be believed by the Church of Rome, then in all times hath been, that now among you contrary parties urge for or, expect a general Council to end questions, concerning which, neither side claims any continued verbal Tradition, and that the greatest part are ready to receive such a definition, in as high a degree, as any Tradition whatsoever; They will be also confirmed by your denying Infallibility to a Council, how general soever, unapproved by the Pope, by seeing, that if (as you say) no man can be ignorant what he was taught when he was a child, as the ground and substance of his hopes for all eternity, and if in this, all your Religion were comprised (or else to what purpose say you this) than no man bred in the Orthodox Church could err, or ever have erred in matter of Faith, without knowing that he had departed from the very Basis of Christianity, and for Instructions in these points, not only all Authors, as Commenters upon Scripture, and the like, were wholly useless, but it were also a vain thing, to go for instruction even to Christ's Vicar, and S. Hierome might have resolved his own question, about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every whit as well as Damasus, or Saint Peter himself: And for the same reason, it were wholly impossible, that at the same time the Popes, and most notable, and most pious, and most learned Papists living, should have justified, and applauded Erasmus for the same works (the one by his printed Diplomas, and the rest by their Letters) for which, at the same instant, the greatest part of the Monks counted and proclaimed him a more pestilent Heretic than Luther, if they had all weighed heresy in the same balance, and more impossible if in yours; which the learned will yet less approve of, when they see how soon the worse opinion, and lesser authority may prevail, as how that of the Monks hath done against that of the Popes, and Bishops, and that so much, that Erasmus is now generally disavowed as no Catholic, and given to us (whom we accept as a great present) that Bellarmine will allow him to be but half a Christian, and Cardinal Perron (which I am sorry for) gives a censure upon him, which would better have become the pen of a Latomus, a Bedda, a Stunica, or an Egmundane, then of so learned and judicious a Prelate.  
Now for the Ignorant, I am sure you will never be able to prove infallibly to them, that your Church hath any prerogatives above others; the ordinary way cannot be taken with them, because they not understanding the languages, in which the Fathers and Counsels are written, cannot be pressed by what they cannot construe, and your way as little, because they are not more (though totally) ignorant of the Authors of past Ages, than they are of the state, opinions, and claims of the present time; so that I know not how you can attempt them, if they have but a moderate understanding to their no knowledge.  
The body of our Position shoots forth the branches 
Object.  of divers Questions, or rather the Solutions of them: And first, how it happened, that divers Heretics pretended to Tradition, as the Chiliasts, Gnostics, Carpocratians, and divers others, yet they with their Traditions have been rejected, and the Church only leftin claim of Tradition; For if we look into what Catholic Tradition is; and what the Herelicks pretended, the question will remain voided. For the Catholic Church calls Tradition, that Doctrine, which was publicly delivered, and the Heretics called Tradition, a kind of secret Doctrine, either gathered out of private conversation with the Apostles, or rather pretended, that the Apostles, besides what they publicly taught the world, had another mystical way, proper to Scholars, more endeared, which came not to public view, whereas the force and energy of a Tradition, residing in the multitude of hearers, and being planted in the perpetual life and actions of Christians, it must have such a publicity, that it cannot be unknown amongst them.  
Of the Carpocratians and Gnostics, I have spoke 
Resp  before, but sure for the Chiliasts this is only said and not proved: Howsoever this undeniably appears, that either Pappias and Irenaeus thought not this Tradition to have come such a way as you speak of, or else they thought it no heretical way, but such a one, as was (at least reasonably) to be assented to; and both what was the way by which Traditions ought to come, and by which this came they were more likely to know, than those of following ages; which proves, that this Objection (as much as concerns them especially) remains still so strong, that (in spite of Fevardentius) it will be better to answer it, Scalpello quam Calamo, with a Penknife then with a Pen, and no Confuter will serve for it, but an Expurgatory Index, no non si tuus afforet Hector, if Cardinally Perron were alive.  
I must by the way take notice of what yond say here, that Tradition must have such a Publicity as cannot be unknown among Christians, and desire you to agree this with what you say in the next Paragraph, that the Apostles may not have preached in some Countries some Doctrines, which we now are bound to receive as Traditions, for sure those Doctrines were then unknown among many Christians; and if they had been necessary, sure the Apostles would no where have forgot (which so good a Prompter as the Holy Ghost) to have taught them; If they were not then necessary, how have they grown to be so since? Besides, I appeal to your Conscience, whether it appeart that the doctrine of the Exchequer of Superabundant merits, of which the Pope is Lord Treasurer, and by virtue of which he dispenseth his pardons to all the Souls in Purgatory, appear to have been known evern to any of the best Christians, and whether if it had been known to them as a Tradition, (being a Doctrine which necessitates at least Wisdom and Charity, a continual practice of sueing for them, and of giving them) it were possible, that of what they knew, such infinite Volumes of Authors should make no mention.  
Suppose some private Doctrine of an Apostle to 
Object.  some Disciple should be published, and recorded by that Disciple, and some others, this might well be a Truth, but never obtain the force of a Catholic Position, that is, such as it would be a damnation to reject, because the descent from the Apostle is not notorious, and fit to sway the body of the whole Church.  
I confess, that to have been no more generally 
Resp.  delivered, will prove that the Apostles thought not such a Doctrine necessary, else their Charity would not have suffered them to have so much concealed it, but yet to any such Doctrine, it is impossible that any Christian, who believes the testimony, that it came from the Apostles, should deny his assent, because it were to deny the Authority, upon which all the rest is grounded; for the Church pretends to her Authority from them, and not they from her, and howsoever, such a Doctrine (although not necessary) could not be damnable as you make this: Besides here will first arise a Question not easy to be decided, how great a multitude of Witnesses will serve to be notorious, and fit to sway the body of the Church, especially so many having not for a long while been thought fit even by Catholics, though attesting doctrines since received by you all, and considering that multitude of your Church, which believe the immaculate Conception in as high a degree, as it is possible without excommunicating the deniers, who either walk not by that which you count the only Catholic Rule, or else claim such a Tradition, who yet are not thought fit to sway the rest.  
Secondly, I pray observe how easy it was for the two first Ages, at least the chief of them, and all that are extant, to have given assent to Traditions so unsufficiently testified, or to have mistaken Doctrines under that notion, (for so they did to this of the Chiliasts) and then after for it to spread till it were general, land last as long as men last upon their authority, and when once it is so spread, how shall we then discover how small an Original it had, when peradventure the head and spring of it will be as hard to find, as that of Nilus, so that the greatest part of what you receive, might possibly appear to be no certainer, nor better built, if we could dig to the foundation: Wherefore, since the delivery of a Tradition by subsequent Ages hath its validity only from the authority of the first, me thinks you should either think that they received none but upon better grounds, or else think these grounds good.  
Thirdly, I know not why you resolve this opinion of the Chiliasts, to have had only such a private Tradition, for though they name John the Disciple, and mention certain Priests who heard it from him, yet they deny not a moregeneraldelivery of it, but peradventure least men might think that the general opinion (that it came from the Apostles) might arise from places of Scripture, (which fallacy, their testimony when not so fully expressed, was still in danger of concerning any point, but that these books were written by these men) they therefore thought it fit to name to us their witnesses, that it came from Christ's own mouth, and in what words: And if they had done so much on your side, for the differences between us, I believe you would now have few Protestant adversaries left, for you would have converted the greater part, and by that have been enabled to burn the smaller.  
The second Question may be, How it cometh to 
Object.  pass, that some things, which at first binds not the Church's belief, afterwards cometh to bind it? For if it were ever a Tradition, it ever must needs be public, and ever bind the Church, and if once it were not, it appears not how ever it could come to be, for if this age for example have it not, how can it deliver it to the next that followeth? But if we consider that the scope of Christian Doctrine being great, and the Apostles preaching in so great varieties of Countries, it might happen some point in one Country might be less understood, or peradventure not preached, which in another was often preached, and well both understood and retained, we may easily free ourselves from these brambles: For the Spirit of Tradition residing in this, that the testimony be exceptione majus, and beyond all danger of deceit. It is not necessary to the efficaciousness of Tradition, that the whole universal Church should be witness to such a truth, but so great a part as could be a warrant against mistaking; so that if all the Churches of Asia, Greece, or Africa, or Egypt, should constantly affirm such a Tradition to have been delivered them from the Apostles, it were enough to make a Doctrine exceptione majorem: Whence it ensueth, that if in a meeting of the universal Church it were found, that such a part hath such a Tradition concerning some matter, whereof the rest had either no understanding, or no certainty, such a Doctrine would pass into a necessary bond of Faith in the whole Church.  
Your sword is so sharp, and your shield so weak, 
Resp.  that I can hardly believe they came out of the same forge, but when I observe how much you have a better right hand then a left, and that not only you have raised an objection which you cannot lay, but your answer to it multiplies more, I cannot 
Philos.  but compare you to him in Lucian, who travelling with a Magician that had no servant, and instead of one was daily wont to say to a Pestle, Pestle be thou a man, and it would be so, and when his occasions were served, would bid it return to be a Pestle, and was obeyed, thought one time to imitate the Magician, he being abroad, and made indeed the Pestle a man, and draw water, but could not make it return to the former state, but it continued still to draw, wherefore angry and afraid, he took up an axe and clove the Pestle-man in two, whereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of one water-drawer there leapt up two: For first I pray consider, what could you have found more certain to destroy all, which you had before laboured to settle, about the Infallibility of your Tradition, than this distincton of Exceptione Major, since, if not a general one, but one which seemed such, were required, how easy was it for false opinions to get in, under that colour, testified but by a few reputed honest men, and so received by, and transmitted from others of great and general authority. secondly, how could you have found a better way to answer your own Objection against the Chiliasts Tradition, for want of being sufficiently public, since if that had not seemed to them to have had this condition (I mean, if they had thought they should for this cause have excepted against it) it had been impossible these Saints should have received it, and concerning the publicitie of it, and the number and authority of the deliverers, they must of necessity have been the best Judges who then lived, and who were the more considerable Doctors of the most considerable Ages: so that you must either confess, that a Tradition binds not unless indeed general, or confess that this doth, supposing this not to have been general, which you cannot prove.  
A likely example of this may be drawn from the 
Object.  Canonical Books.  
I deny it to be now necessary to Salvation, to 
Resp.  admit of any Books for Canonical, which it was lawful for Christians in past ages to doubt of, and which had no general Tradition; and again, this answer helps against yourself: for it is plain by Saint Hieromes Testimony, that the Roman Church received not the Epistle to the Hebrews, which the Eastern Churches received (whose Testimony, according to your grounds, she then should have believed to be beyond exception) and it is plain by perron's Testimony, that the Eastern Churches received not the Macchabees, when he says, the Church of Rome did. Now it is plain, that the Receivers pretended to Tradition, because nothing else could make a book thought Canonical, whereas other opinions might be brought in by a false Interpretation of Scriptures, and after being spread, might be thought to come from Tradition: So that according to your grounds and these testimonies, not only the Western Church ought to have believed the Eastern about the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Eastern the Western about the Macchabees, but also they ought to have required this assent from each other, which they not doing (as they would have done, if they had thought their testimony so valid as you do) it follows, that you do differ from the Churches of the fifth and sixth age, about what is exceptione majus, you thinking that to be so, which they thought not, and again, from all the extant Doctors of the two first ages, you thinking that not so, which they thought was, as also those two times agreed about it, as little with each other, as you with them both.  
The third question may be, how Christian Religion 
Object.  (consisting of so many points) is possible to be kept uncorrupted by Tradition, which depending upon Memory, and our memory being so frail, it seemeth, cannot without manifest miracle conserve so great a diversity of points unchanged for so many ages. But if we consider, that Faith is a Science, a thing, whose parts are so connexed that if one be false, all must needs be false, we shall easily see, that contrarily, the multitude of divers points is a conservation, the one to the right, the other wherein we doubt.  
As in Judges, when a battle was to be fought 
Resp.  between the children of Israel and the Midianites, the Midianites destroyed each other, and left nothing to do for Israel, but only to pursue them: so truly, your Objections work so strongly upon your own Party, that I have nothing left me to press, and much to applaud: For for this very reason, I believe, that all necessary points were given in writing, and only the witnessing, that these were the Apostles writings, was left to Tradition, which was both much less subject to error (as being but one point, and that a matter of fact) and could no other way be done, because no writing could have witnessed for itself so sufficiently, that we should have had reason to have believed it upon no other certificates, and to this your answer seems to me no way satisfactory, since, first, I deny Faith to be a Science, it being nothing but an assent to God's Revelations, neither are those so connexed as you liberallic affirm, and sparingly prove, Nay, suppose they were, yet though errors would be the less likely to enter, yet when any one, by any means were got in ' then this connexion would be a ready way to help it to let in all its fellows. Besides, those opinions which may be superinduct as Traditions, which such a connexion could not hinder, if they were not contrary to the true ones; and of this sort is chiefly our question.  
That therefore you are no better able to wind yourself out of this inextricable Labyrinth, is no wonder to me, and no disgrace to you, since a man may as well be a good Logician, though he cannot solve an unsolvable question, as he may be exceedingly skilled in Physic, and yet not able to cure an incurable disease; Besides, that these Objections arose so at the first sight, out of what was to be considered, that it was as impossible for to avoid them, as to answer them.  
Let us consider in constant Nations, their language, 
Object.  their habits, etc. how long they continue among them.  
Truly there is no Nation that I know, whose 
Resp.  language hath not, and doth not daily palpably suffer change. Consider, that of these English hourly denizoning words of all kind of languages, these of the Spaniards, Italians, and French, almost made up out of Latin, and that of the ancient greeks, unknown to those of this Age, unless they learn it at School: Habits indeed some Nations alter less, but some daily, and none change not sometimes: But this is little to the purpose, since those Nations which have remained very constant in things, which no considerable cause appeared to them why they should alter, may yet have received new opinions (especially if not contradicting the old) taught them by such, in whom they wholly relied, (as most go more hoodwinked in these matters, then in those which are indifferent, out of a Vicious humility) or proved by Arguments which persuaded. For when the reasons are probable (as they may be for a falsehood) the Persons pressing them, in themselves of authority (as they may be and yet err) and the people to whom they are pressed, full of esteem of their Teachers, then meet the three ways of working persuasion which Aristotle mentions, whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Especially when besides all these, the rewards of belief danger are more than extraordinary, as also the danger of disbeliefe. Wherefore I count it by no means reasonable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like sheep (without more examination) to walk in the steps of those, who have gone before us.  
See that forlorn Nation of the Jews, how constantly 
Object.  it maintaineth the Scripture, and how obsti nately their Errors.  
Truly I thank you Sir for this example, since 
Resp.  it puts me in mind of an Objection, which else I had utterly forgot: Many of those errors which they hold, (as the Cabala and others) I pray, upon what other ground hold they them then this, that they have been taught. Mases delivered them to their Fathers, as unwritten Traditions, and that under that Notion they have descended: Now may not they defend themselves in them, by the very same Arguments which you use in this Treatise for the Church of Rome: May not they say that they have received them from their Fathers, who received them from theirs, who must either have joined in mistaking their Ancestors, or in intending to deceive their Posterity, whereof neither is credible: May not they say, what is said of these last Ages, may be said upwards and upwards, till they come to that, wherein their Fathers received these Doctrines from Moses, who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as worthy of credit in the delivery of these, as in that of the ten Commandments, and their Father's witnesses beyond exception, that these Doctrines be delivered: May they not ask you in what year or age, these errors entered among them, and say it is evidently true, that then their whole Church conspired to tell a lie. May they not bid you besides consider the notoriousness of the lie? such as he is very rarely found, who is so wicked as to venture upon, besides the greatness of the subject, and the damage ensuing to himself and his dearest Pledges: May they not add, that the multitude of their Church is so dispersed through so many Countries and Languages, that it is impossible they should agree together upon a false determination, to affirm a falsehood for a truth, no Interest being able to be common to them all to produce such an effect: This they may say, and if they do, and retort your own words upon yourself, I know not truly what new ones you will find to answer them in, unless you change the whole course you now steer, and come about the same way which I now use to you, that is, showing by what ways such an opinion may have spread among them, although not at first received, and proving out of their own Authors, that this hath not been always held a Tradition among them, though now so accounted, which is sometimes (as I remember) your own Galatinus his way, and the best that is: But if to that they should again reply out of your own words (the Names only changed) that if what Moses delivered were certainly true, and what he delivered be to be seen in what they believed who heard him, and so till now, it is evident, that they who seek for truth in learned discourses, must needs forego the most certain and easy way of attaining what they aim at: That Jew, who should retort this, and much more of this kind upon you, and keep you to Tradition, and make their present Tradition (upon your grounds) the Judge of that, I am of opinion, would make you as silent, as if (according to the Proverb) you had seen a Wolf first, or were a Pithagoricall-Freshman, and you would wish you had never put into an enemy's hand such a weapon against yourself, as this present discourse: So that in Anna Comnenas' Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you have digged a ditch on either side of yourself: For either you must grant these Arguments not to be sufficient for your Party, or you must allow them to be sufficient for a Jew.  
Wheresocver Christian's labour to convert Idolaters, 
Object.  they find the only Argument for their errors that they received them from their forefathers: The King of Socotora thinking to please the portugals by reducing a Nation that had the Names of Christians to true Christianity, he found them obstinately protest to him, that they would sooner lose their lives, than part with the Religion their Ancestors had left them.  
This is no news to me who lived seven years 
Resp.  in Ireland, where, this is all the reason the Vulgar either have or give for their Religion, and it is the less strange, when I remember Aristotle's Ethics, where he tells us of one, who defended the beating of his Father, thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it had been the lineal custom of his Family to do so. Yet for all this, that those who earnestly desire to keep the Religion of their Forefathers, and think they have done it, may yet be deceived, may appear to a Christian by the example of the Jews, and to any Romanist, by the example of the Grecians.  
To your example of the answer to the King of Socotora, I answer,  
That either those hererodox Christians had been at first converted by Heretics, or by Catholics; If by Catholics, (and your Church be that, and your grounds be hers) then it is plain, that men may grow into great error, who hold fast, as they think upon Tradition, and may swerve from that Rule, whilst they think they walk by it: If by Heretics, than it seems Catholics (as you call them) are not the only Religion that have converted Nations, and that note of the Church which isso daily and so eagerly pressed, appears common to more than it: And so you may take which horn of my Dilemma you please.  
To come at length to give an answer to him that 
Object.  demands a guide at my hands, I remit him to the modern Visibe Church of Rome, that is, her who is in an extern sensible communion with the extern sensible Clergy of Rome, and the extern sensible Head, and Pastor of that Church. If he ask me, how he shall know her, I must counter interrogate him, who he is. Is he an ignorant man? is he unlearned, yet of good understanding in the World? Is he a Scholar, and what Scholar? A Grammarian, whose undrstanding hath no other help then that of Languages? Is he a Philosopher? Is he a Divine? (I mean an Academical one, for a true Divine is to teach not to ask this Question) Is he a Statesman? For he that can think one answer can, or aught to be made to all these, may likewise expect, that one cause may produce all effects: Yet I deny not but all must have the same guide, though they are to be assured of that guide in divers manners.  
I confess Sir, you come to the Demander but 
Resp.  at length, for till I had read further, I had not known that your Treatise was intended for an answer to mine, if I had not been told so when it was given me. For hitherto, as Baash a King of Israel, in the Chronicles, when he came against Judah, assailed not their Cities, but built Ramoth against them, so you have not attempted to destroy what I had said, but raised another consideration, a City, a Ramoth of your own; against which I have brought such battery, as seems to me sufficient to demolish it.  
Now for your directions to a guide, I answer, supposing that there is one, and that this you speak of be now it, (for you will not say she always is) and not to quarrel with you for giving me an accidental and mutable guide, that being a thing which you suppose so necessary to be always known, I will join issue upon this with you, whether she be to be known to be a guide by any Infallible Notes, for such are required by reason to beget such an assent, as is required by you, all other being termed by yourselves, not Faith, but Opinion. To your Contra-interrogation therefore who I am, that is, in whose Name I speak, I answer and profess myself one of the notably ignorant, but though I act my own part only, when I speak in his person, yet for once I will adventure to answer you, in the name of the several persons you speak of, and will show, that none of them have sufficient cause to receive the guide which you propose upon the reasons which you allege.  
If the ignorant man speaketh, I will show him in 
Object.  the Church of God decency, and Majesty of ceremonies, above all other Sects and Religions, whereby dull capacities are sweetly ensnared to believe the truth they hear, from those whom they see to have the outward signs of Virtue and Devotion.  
To this I answer, in the ignorant man's person 
Resp.  (that is in my own) thus, I for my part, neither see what you say you show me, (for in all decency and Majesty of ceremonies, the King's Chapel seems to me to equal the Queens, and our Cathedral Churches, much to surpass your cock-lofts) and if I did, yet the decency of them would not prove your Church to be a good guide, so well as a good mistress of ceremonies, and if by their majesty you mean their Magnificence, then that would only prove her rich and not orthodox, since this is such a note, that (her doctrine remaining as true as it is) one persecution would serve to destroy it; and with it, all that means which you allow the Ignorant to find his guide by; And whereas you say, that dull capacities are by this sweetly ensnared to believe the Truth; I answer, that by the same means they may be as sweetly, and as easily ensnared to believe falsehoods, unless you could show that Majesty and Truth are inseparable Companions.  
If the unlearned ask, I show him the claim of 
Object.  Antiquity, the multitude, the advantages of Sanctity, and Learning, how the World was once of this accord, and those who opposed, when they first parted, first began the contrary Sects, how the points of difference be such, as on the Catholic side help devotion, and on the contrary side diminish the same, and such like sensible differences, which will clearly show an advantage on the Catholics side, which is the proportional motive to his understanding.  
I see indeed you claim Antiquity, but do you 
Resp.  think it reasonable that I should take your word. Our Divines (whom because I know more, I have more cause to trust than you, in a case of which I myself can take no cognizance) absolutely deny it, and to me you cannot disprove them, unless I had at least some learning to enable me to judge, who quotes that truly which now I cannot construe: For multitude, I find not what that proves, it may work upon my fear rather than upon my assent, yet I am told, that many more Christians disagree from your Church in this main Question of her being a guide, than she consists of; that the Turks are more then both, and the Pagans more than all three, so that if they relate the state of the world aright, multitude must rather seem an argument against truth then for it: And forasmuch as I can see myself, your Religion is the least in this Kingdom, and I know no other: For the advantages of sanctity and learning, to the first I answer, that since in a Country where the State is their adversary, and where for fear of scandal, and hope of gaining numbers to their Church, (to help both to the surety and ornament of it) by commending their Doctrine by their lives, in likelihood they are more vigilant against vice, then where they have no such thorns against their breasts to keep them awak, even here I can find no such advantage as you pretend, I have no cause to guess that I should find it where the incitement of emulation and such like, are absent, and the charms of greatness, wealth, power, and by consequence likelihood of impunity are present: For the advantage of learning, I answer, that speaking to me with the foreknowledge of my being unlearned, I wonder you should make use of such a motive, which (how true soever it were in itself) I am not capable of discerning to be so, any more than a blind man is likely to assent to an argument drawn from Colours, of which he could have no possible notion. Now whereas you say that the world was once of this accord, it is more than I know: we are told that wholeChurches in the East, had long denied this, when Luther first left you, and howsoever that it could not be brought in time by arts, propped by power to accord in an error, is more than you have proved. Whereas you say, that those, who opposed this, when they first parted, first began the contrary Sects: I answer, that our men pretend that they began no new Doctrine, but only scoured off the rust which time and worldly ends in some, and negligence in others, had suffered to grow on. Which Question again remains to be tried, (if you refuse Scripture, as your side useth to do) by a Jury of such who are for the most part untranslated, or those which are by Parties) and whose language I cannot spell, nor consequently determine by their evidence: Now whereas you say, that the points in controversy on your side help Devotion, and on ours diminish it, I wish you had instanced which, and wherein, for I for the most part see nothing towards it, they being mere speculative opinions, and not reduceable to life, as especially this whereof we most differ, which is your Churches being a general guide: Those, which most may seem such, are either Confession, (which yet we deny only to be necessary, not profitable, if well used, which is practised by some of us, and recommended to all, and which as you have tempered it, making contrition sufficient for his salvation, who hath till his hour of death lived in all sin, and making attrition with absolution of the same force as contrition, and requiring to attrition, (as I am told you do) only sorrow for sin, though arising from the fear of Hell, so some love of God being joined to it, which none can want but an Infidel) will not help Devotion much, but rather diminish it) or Monastic life, (which was grown into great excess and disorder, which yet many wise and modern Protestants think might as well have been reform as the other parts of the Church, without total obolition, and so upon this is left no Question) or Fasting, (which if you think Protestants are against, I pray read Bishop Andrews his Lent Sermons, and which if it be not so much used among us as it should, is not so much the fault of the Religion, as of the Men) and all these things considered, I find none of your motives to show a main advantage on your side, and therefore I have yet no cause to leave my own: And if in some of these things you should seem to have more Truth than we, yet that would not free you from having more error in other points then this comes to, much less from having any at all, without the belief of which, I should not be received among you, though I were willing to come: And this lieth upon you to prove, and that not by probable, but by infallible arguments, if you require (as they say your side useth to do) an assent of that Nature.  
To the Grammarian I will give two Memorandums; 
Object.  first, that seeing the Catholics were first in possession both of the Scriptures, and the Interpretations: The adverse part is bound to bring such places as can receive no probable Exposition by the Catholics. For who knoweth not, that is conversant in Critics, how many obscure and difficult places occur in most plain Authors, and the Scripture of all Books (the greater part of the men that wrote them, especially the New Testament, being not eloquent, and writing not in their native Tongue) for the most part, are subject to much impropriety: The other Memorandum is, that, to prove a Catholic point by Scripture, it is sufficient, that the place brought, bear the Exposition the Catholic giveth, and if it be the more probable by the very letter, it is an evincent place. The reason is, because the question being of a Christian law, the Axiom of the Jurists taketh place, that Consuetudo optima Interpres Legis, so that if it be manifest, that Christian practice (which was before the controversy) be for the one sense, and the words be tolerable, no force of Grammar can prevail to equalise this advantage: The Grammarian therefore, who will observe these Rules, I turn him lose to the Scriptures and Fathers, to seek there what is the Faith of Christ and proprieties of her Church to know her by.  
To your first Memorandum, I answer, that 
Resp.  you have grounded it wholly upon begging the question: for if those of your Religion had first been in possession of the Scriptures, than the Christians had been of it in the Apostles times, which if you could prove, you would need to prove no more, but all would easily follow: and then for your consequence, that is equally false, for though I confess, to make any Doctrine a point of Faith, it is required, that the place be as plain as you please, yet to the making it the more probable opinion (and consequently excluding the contrary from being necessary) so much is not required. The greatest cause of the obscurity of those books, in which Critics are conversant, is the negligence and ignorance of Transcribers, so that some Authors would scarce know their own Books, if they were revived, whereas the great care of Christians about so dear a pledge, hath much, if not wholly hindered, the same cause from perverting, and so obscuring Scripture: At least, if it have not, it seems your Church is not so faithful a Guardian of her deposit, as her dear friends (moved by partiality or ends) would make us believe: Besides, till now I ever thought, that Eloquence rather lead men to speak improperly, than the want of it, since ignorant persons keep themselves within the bounds of what precisely they mean, whereas the eloquent wander into figures, which are so many, and have gotten such footing in language (whilst in the search of significancy propriety is lost) that those, who use them, are obliged to those who will please to understand, because all they say may bear two senses, the one proper, the other improper: And though it be true, that they have overflown, even into the language of the ignorant, yet it is as true, that both they are much less used among these, and that they had not hence their beginning, but from Eloquence: And though the Apostles write not in their native Tongues, yet they write in an inspired language, so that they were not likely to commit, at least, any such soloecismes as should destroy the end of the Inspirer, which was, that they should be understood by it.  
To your second Memorandum I answer, that since every man is free till some thing binds him, you (who pretend, that we are bound to receive more doctrine as necessary, then appears to us to be so) are in all reason to give us plainly evincent proof, that what you thus require, God requires too, for till then (to return you to another Axiom, for yours) praesumitur pro libertate whereas we (the burden of the Negative proof not lying upon us) if we bring probable Arguments, we do it ex abundanti, and bring more than we need to bring; And whereas you stand upon Customs, having power in Law matters, I answer, that in all cases that is not of force, for we hold, that it must not prevail against a Statute, which shows, that they may be contradictory, and as Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, is thought to be a good civil topical Law, so me thinks, Nullum tempus occurrit veritati, is a good public divinity Law, your own Scripture too telling us, that Truth is stronger than the King; Besides, where it is of force, it is in such cases as the law hath appointed that it should be so, and if you can prove out of Christ's Law, that there it is so appointed to be in matters of Divinity, we shall willingly yield, but seeing that our law, which allows this force to custom, sets down also in how long time it is, before it become of force, and I have cause to think, that Christ would have been as careful as our law, and have set down this too, if he had had any such meaning, and if it were settled to be a custom of such a standing (as by Saint Austin sometimes is spoken of) as that in no time it be known that ever it was otherwise; in most of your affairs this would stead you a little, though one side have burnt the evidences of the other, to which in likeliehood you owe it, if this stead you in any; of questions, whereof Scripture and Antiquity are wholly silent, or merely speculative, and unreducible unto act (of which sort are the greatest between us) or not concerning the lawfulness, but the necessity of an Action, to the first kind no ancient custom can belong, nor other to the others than a custom of Interpretation of some text concerning it, not enough to conclude upon (besides, that it is not that which you speak of) since daily your men differ, and defend their differing from all that went before them, about more than many texts, as Cajetane, Salmeron, and Maldonate shall bear me witness, unless, like Samson, you may break those Ropes by which others must be bound: And adding to all this, that our custom may serve to show the meaning of the law, when ourselves were Authors of it, though not when God is, and that our general custom arguing our united consent (which only gives force to our laws) may be as fit to bind, as a law in civil cases, and yet not in divine, where the laws proceed from a higher fountain, that such a rule may be good in civil resolutions, which require but probable proofs, and yet not in divine ones, where (according to the grounds of your Party, which requires an undoubting assent to her doctrines as infallible) infallible proofs are necessary, especially this, like other Topycall arguments, having only force caeteris paribus, and again good where it is not so necessary, that the will of the Legislator be followed, as that peace and quiet be preserved, to which, all alterations, even to the better, are enemies, and yet not in these cases, where we are to prefer the will of our Lawmaker before any humane convenience, or good, if the custom past unquestioned, when the Law was first promulgated, but not, if crept in after by negligence, or plainly appearing to have been brought in by power, all this persuading me not to be so far swayed by your Rules as you would have me, I suppose you have small hope, that not being so, I should find either in Scripture, or the first Antiquity, either that Faith which your Church proposeth, or these properties of Christ's Church, by which your Church proves, or rather strives to prove, that she it is: Give me leave besides to ask you one Question, and that is, What we shall conclude when the Christian practice of several places have ever differed, as that of Greece from that of Rome, which it may also do in more places than we are acquainted with, the extent of Christianity being unknown to us, as are the customs of some remote Christian Countries which we know.  
Of the Philosopher, I exact to go like a Philosopher, 
Object.  and to search out the specifical differences of every Sect, and when he hath found them (if any one but the Catholic hath any rule of faith and good life, which I remit to him to inquire) but at least, when he hath found the Catholics to be this claim of Tradition before declared, then if this do not bring him as demonstratively as he knoweth any Conclusion in Philosophy, and Mathematics, to the notice of this, is the only true Church of Christ, for my part I shall quit him before God and Man.  
I have examined the differences between all parts 
Resp.  as you bid me, and find the Protestants to have a sufficient rule of Faith, and good life, yea such a one as by Master knots confession, (Quem honoris causa nomino) is as perfect as a writing can be: And since a writing may contain all Doctrines, and only cannot give testimony to itself, nor be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have no reason to think it inferior to that of their adversaries: Your claim of Tradition I see plainly enough, and as plainly, that it is but a claim, many of your side overthrowing it, and others not of your own, pretending to it: Bishop Fisher confesseth, that Scripture and Miracles brought in the Doctrine of Purgatory, and that again the doctrine of Indulgences.  
Erasmus, who though himself no Martyr, yet one who may pass for a Confessor, having suffered, and long by the Bigotts of both Parties, and a dear Friend both to Fisher, and his Colleague in Martyrdom, Sir Thomas Moor, (who were the Deucalion's of learning in this our Country) makes yet a larger confession. Non obscurum est quot opiniones invectae sunt in orbem per homines, ad suum Quaestum callidos, conflictorum Miraculorum praesidio: These reasons alone (allowing for brevity's sake that I had no more) would make me believe, not only that what you say concludes not geometrically, but persuades not probably, and consequently, you by your promise have quitted me, which without it I doubt not but God would have done.  
The Divine, if he hath truly understood the Principles 
Object.  of Faith in the nature of a Divine, I mean Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, Eucharist, Beatitude, the Creation and Dissolution of the World, and hath seen the exact conformity of the deepest Principles of Nature, with an unspeakable wisdom of the Contriver: If he doth not plainly confess it was above the naure of man to frame the Catholic Religion, and seeth not that only that is conformable to Nature, and itself, I say, he hath no ground sufficient to be of it.  
Supposing the greatest part of what you say 
Resp.  to be true, (for I see not how a bare consideration even of these Doctrines will serve to prove them to come from God's Revelation) it might prove the Christian Religion against Pagans, but for yours against Protestants, I can draw out of it no Argument, which if upon your explanation, it appears not to be through the default of the Lymbeck (which I expect) then the better I think of you, the worse I shall think of your cause, which would have ministered to so sharp an inquirer, better proofs, but that the old Axiom hindered it of, Nihil dat quod non habet: These Principles of Faith you speak of, are agreed on by both Parts, so out of their Truth, and the impossibility of their being forged, all the other points cannot be proved, which have upon them no necessary dependence: and that your Religion is conformable to the deepest Principles of Nature, I am so far from seeing, that I conceive your own opinion of Transubstantiation contradicts them almost all: Neither see I any such unspeakablenesse in the contriving, but that ordinary understandings by several degrees, in a long tract of many ignorant negligent ages, egged on by ambition, cloaked over by hypocrisy, assisted by false miracles, and maintained by tyranny, might easily both induce and establish them, so that though we have hitherto differed in our premises, yet we meet in the Conclusion, which is, that I have no sufficient ground to be of your Religion.  
The Statesman, who is truly informed of the 
Object.  Church, how far is really of Christ's institution, and what either pious men have added, or peradventure ambitious men encroacht, if he doth not find a government of so high and exotic strain, that neither man's wit dare to have attempted it, neither man's power would possibly have effected it; If he find no eminent helps, and no disadvantage to the temporal government, I shall think there wants one star in the heaven of the Church to direct these Sages to Bethlehem.  
I answer now in the person of a Statesman, (a 
Resp.  part which but for this occasion, I am sure never to have acted) Thus,  
I find so much policy in your Church, for most part really, and always in voto, aimed at, although missed, that of no body of men did ever Aristotl's saying appear to me truer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among some men it is the end of the Laws of their Commonwealth to be masters of their neighbours, but I find nothing in the government that should prove it, to proceed from a divine fountain: In Ecclesiastical Monarchy you have, so have also the Tunks, the Pope pretends to a power of ending all controversies, so doth also their Musty, and since man's wit attempted that, and man's power effected it, why it might not do the same in the West it did in the East, (having the aid of some Tinsell-reasons, and some not wholly averse places of Scripture) I cannot conceive: And what help is by your Church given to temporal government, I see not, unless giving the Pope power in temporals, even to depose Kings be the helps you mean: I know that some of your side are not concerned in this, but it is grown so general, that though it be as yet no necessary part of your Religion, it is like to be shortly; And truly throughout I find somethings which pious men have added, many, whic hambitious men have encroacht, (though of your Church I could not be informed in this, who hath not decided the Question) but nothing that you alone hold instituted by Christ, and so to your Bethlehem, for want of a star I am not likely to travel.  
Let every man consider which is the fit way for 
Object.  himself, and what in other matter of that way he accounteth evidence, and if there be no interest in his soul to make him loath to believe, what in another matter of the like nature he would not stick at, or heavy to practise what he seeth clearly enough; I fear not his choice; but if God send him time and means to prosecute his search any indifferent while, it is long ago known of what Religion he is to be of.  
I see yet no cause to think that your Religion 
Resp.  is that which will be chosen, though we agree about the state, in which every enquirers soul ought to be, and in which those of few are; I see all parents labour to fix opinions into their Children before they cometo an age fit to judge of any greater doubts, then what may happen at span-counter, or cherry pit, and they again seldom labour to set right what Education hath swared: Neither are they wrought upon only by prejudice, but some because of gain like Demetrius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because by this craft they have their Gods, some because of temporal honour, like the Pharisees, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest they be cast out of the Synagogue loving the praise of men more than the praise of God; some for fear like the High Priests, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Romans will come and take away both our Place and Nation; Some because of the contradiction in the true Doctrine to their vain or wicked desires, and so as some Disciples said, though somewhat upon another occasion, they account it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hard saying, (which made Epictetus say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed most Christians, who oppose any of Christ's Commands, either for some of these reasons, dare not inquire whether Christ hath commanded them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or enquiring find, but confess it not, like those I spoke of before, who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Epictetus therefore saith, that we should inquire of God, who is our guide, as Travellers do of them they meet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having no desire to turn rather to the right hand then to the left, or again, as we inquire of our eyes concerning what is to be seen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not persuading them to show us one thing rather than another, so say I, ought we to go to reason to find Gods will indifferent, which is Truth, or else we are likely very lazily to seek what we are unwilling to find, and a probable argument for what we desire, will seem a Demonstration, and a Demonstration against it scarce a probable Argument. This I insist upon the more, because I think we have more cause to put you in mind of this, than you us, being too little practised on both parts, but not most by yours, whereof the greatest part commonly arrives not so far, as at the fault of not seeking as they should, because commonly they have not leave given them to seek at all: for besides those who neglect to seek and may, no Bible being allowed by you to most, as no Smith was suffered by the Philistines in Israel, they fearing lest the Hebrews should make them swords and spears, and you lest they should make out of it, Arguments to persuade them to revolt from you. It is no wonder if your Church, be like the Congregation in the Acts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most part know not why they are come together. And truly if thus it were not, if all had liberty to seek Truth, and if all who sought it were indifferent in their seeking, and their judgements were absolutely unbridled by their affections, and unswaied by prejudice, I cannot persuade myself that so many could meet in thinking it fit to receive (for so they seem to me) such impossible Doctrines upon such improbable grounds, or to require a more than probable assent to but probable Doctrines, (allowing them to be such) and should not see what is grounded upon them, (if not impossible) is at least much more improbable, than the Motives are probable, which kind of Assent cannot be expected by God, who as he requires only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reasonable service, so also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reasonable Faith.   

Here followeth the Third Part of this Discourse, which is a Reply to such Answers as you have been pleased to make to a little of that little, which I at first opposed.  
SPeaking of the Church Rome, as this day it is the 
Resp.  true Church of God. I answer the doubter, she neither hath, nor can have any error which he need to fear, and be shy of.  
The which two limitations I add, for avoiding Questions impertinent unto our business.  
The first, for those which concerneth the connexion of the Sca of Rome to the Universal.  
The latter, to avoid such Questions as touch that point, whether the Church may err in any Philosophical or other such matter, which Questions are not so pertinent to our Matter.  
Meaning by the true Church a company of men, which hold all (and no more) that Christ taught (for other interpretation, I believe, you will not give it) then there is no question, but that not only it hath no dangerous error, but none at all; but that yours is such remains unproved, and I believe, manet aeternumque manebit. For upon examination, I doubt not, it will appear, that as I have read of a Cohort of Persians, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Immortal Cohort, which all died in one battle; so your infallibe Church will be found to abound in errors, and to belie equally hertitle, being troubled herself, with what she undertakes to secure others from, like the Apothecary in Lucian, who undertaking to cure all men of the Cough, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could himself scarce prescribe his Medicine for coughing the while. Besides, of what sort soever the error be, yet since the Condition of her Communion is to profess a belief that she hath none, such a one as to them, who indeed believe so, would not be dangerous, yet to me, who cannot profess this but against my Conscience, how slight a one soever, may be an occasion of damnation: Again, as to me your answer appears false, so to those of your own side it will appear heretical; to me it would give no satisfaction (though you had proved what you but affirm) because I desire to know an eternal, not a temporary Guide, whereas if in your Church there should happen any Schism, your answer then would give me no means to resolve myself which part were the guide (that is the true Church) without a new, and peradventure (by the way) an endless search. To them it will give scandal, because, first, you presuppose that we must know the Church by the Doctrine, and the Doctrine by the Church; and secondly, you imply a possibility, that the Church of Rome is now but by accident (and may come not to be) the true Church, and so all their confidence built upon her, as the Directress of all Churches, and the eternal Admiral of God's Fleet will appear to have a very fallible foundation: Besides, in the cause of your Limitation I find more reason to commend your Discretion, than your Ingenuity: for, for the first, if you had said, that the Universal Church of Christ must always be connected to the particular one of Rome, which were to allow her Infallibility, you knew Antiquity to have said much against you; and besides, that this being not yet the fide among yourselves (nor evident in itself) could not serve for a foundation to the whole body of our faith; if you had absolutely denied it, you knew, that you should incur the displeasure of the most prevailing part of your own men, and that then the main (and to the Ignorant the only, visible) sign would be taken away. For the second, if you had affirmed, that the Church could err in nothing, how slight soever, you would both have contradicted many of your own side, as Stapleton by name, and have asserted more than there were any coloun of proof for, and would have wanted this distinction to retire to: if you were confuted in any particular, if you had restrained her Infallibility to things necessary, or weighty, or the like, than the question would again have risen, which are those (for many errors, which we lay to her charge, concern not things indeed necessary, though she add to the error, that other of thinking, that whatsoever she holds becomes necessary by her holding it) and then for all you have said, the doctrine of Purgatory might be false, and yet she the Church, and that infallible, as far as by your Doctrine her Infallibility had need to be extended.  
Neither do I remit the questioner to Scripture for 
Resp.  his satisfaction, although I hold Scripture a very sufficient means to satisfy the man, who goeth to it with that preparation of understanding and will which is meet and required. Howsoever this I may answer for them who prove it out of Scripture, that because they dispute against them who admit of Scripture, and deny the authority of the Church, if they can convince it, they do well, though they will not themselves admit generally of a proof out of Scripture, as not able to prove every thing in foro contentioso.  
If you hold Scripture to be so sufficient a mean, 
Repl.  I wonder, Sir, why you think not fit to remit me to it, unless you think, that you have several sufficient ways to prove so evidenta Truth by, or think me not to come with meet preparation: Indeed if that be (as among you it is counted) to come resolved, not to judge of what the Roman Church holds, by what the Scriptures say, but to believe, that they say whatsoever she holds, than I confess, I come not with the Conditions required; but if it be to come desirous to find the Truth, and to follow and profess it when I have found it, in spite of all temporal respects, which might either fright or allure me from so doing, than I suppose, that Charity (which hopeth all things) will incline you to believe, that I come as I ought to come, until some evident reason persuade you to the contrary: That the Scripture cannot prove every thing in foro contentioso I believe, but all necessary Truths, I believe it can; for only those, which it can, are such: I deny not, but that a contentious person may deny a thing to be proved, when his own Conscience contradicts his words, but so he may Arguments drawn from any other ground as well as Scripture, so that if for that cause you refuse to admit of proofs from thence, you might as well for the same, refuse to admit of any by any other kind of Arguments: And certainly, if the Scriptures (I mean the plain places of it) cannot be a sufficient ground for such and such a point, surely it cannot be a sufficient ground to build a ground upon, as the Church's Infallibility, and therefore, though it it seems you desire so much that this be believed, that so it be, you care not upon what proof, yet a considering Protestant, who is not as hot to receive your Religion, as you are that he should, may presently say, when he is pressed by you with Scripture to this, since this is a way of proof which yourselves admit not of, an Argument from hence may bring me from my own Religion, but never to yours, because it is a beam which that relies much upon, that by any other way, than the authority of the Church, no man can be sufficiently sure of the meaning of Scripture.  
That they say, the Church is made infallible that 
Resp.  we may have some guide, I think it very rational; for Nature hath given ever some strong, and uncontrollable Principle in all Natures to guide the rest. The Commonwealth hath a Governor not questionable, our Understanding hath Principles which she cannot judge, but by them judgeth of all other verities. If there should not be some Principle in the Church, it were the only maimed thing God had created, and maimed in its Principal part, in the very head. Andif there be such a Principle, the whole Church is Infallible by that, as the whole man seeth by his eyes, toucheth by his hands.  
Christ is our unquestionable, and infallible 
Repl.  Governor, and his Will the Principle by which we are guided, and the Scripture the place where this Will is contained, which if we endeavour to find there, we shall be excused, though we chance to miss, and therefore want not your guide, (who either is not, or as hard to find as the way: and again, when he hath defined, the certain meaning of that definition, as hard to find as herfelf.) Neither is a company of men thus believing, maimed in the head, though having no other more uncontrollable Principle: If your guide were evident of herself, as those Principles are by which we judge all things else, than your Similitude would hold a little, whereas being neither knowable in herself, nor provable by aught else, what you have said only shows, what an ill match is made, when Wit is set against Truth.  
It is sufficient for a Child to believe his Parents, 
Resp.  for a Clown to believe his Preacher about the Church's Infallibility: For Faith is given to mankind, to be a means of believing, and living like a Christian, and so he hath this second, it is not much matter in what terms he be with the first.  
To what you say, I answer, that I confess 
Repl.  that it is not possible that without particular Revelations, or Inspirations, the ignorant, even of the Orthodox party, should receive their Religion upon very strong grounds, (which makes me wonder, that even from them you should exact an assent of a higher nature, and a much greater certainty, then can be ministered to them by any arguments which they are capable of) yet if they believe what they receive, with an intention of obedience to God, and supposal that their opinions are his Revelations, and use those means which they in their Conscience think best to examine whether they be or no, (though it be when they find themselves unable to search, by trusting others whom they count fittest to be trusted) I believe they are in a very saveable estate, though they be far from having of the truth of their Tenets any Infallible certainty; and the same I think of those which are in error, for since you cannot deny, but that a Child, or a Clown, with the same aptness to follow Gods will, may be taught by his Parents, or his Preacher, that what God forbids, he commands, that Christ's Vicar, is Antichrist, or the Church, Babylon, and scarce teacheth any truth, though it could not teach the least error; why should such a one be damned for the misfortune of having had Heretical Parents, or a deceiving Preacher: For no more it seems is required of such, then to give his belief to those; (And indeed the same reason extended, will excuse him, who though learned, impartially aimeth at God's will and misseth it) for though you seem to insinuate, by the cause you give of what you say, that so men believe and do what they hear God command, he careth not upon what grounds, yet I, who know that God hath no other gain by our so doing, then that in it we sacrifice to him our souls and affections, cannot believe, but that they shall be accepted who give him that which he most cares for, and obey him formally, though they disobey him materially, God more considering and valuing the Heart than the Head, the end then the actions, and the fountain than the streams; And truly else he who through stupidity or impotence abstained from any vice, or through negligence or prejudice missed some error, would be as well accepted of by God, as he that by a care of his ways and of obedience to him who should rule them, did avoid the first, and by a studious search, the second.  
I cannot part from this Theme without one consideration more, and that is, that if so Fallible a Director as you speak of, may be cause enough of assent to one Truth, why may they not be so to another, and why shall not the belief of our ignorants, upon their testimony, that the Scripture is the Word of God, be as well founded, as that of yours to the Infallibility of the Church upon the same? And yet it is daily objected to us, that this belief of ours is not surely enough founded, since not received from their Church, although the unlearned among us receive it from their Parents and Preachers, and the learned from Tradition; as from the first of those your unlearned do, and from the second of which your learned pretend they do receive the authority, and infallibility of the Church itself: Although we be so much more reasonable than you, that we require them not to be so sure upon it, as they are of what they know by sense, but only to give them so much credit, that they may give up their hearts to obedience.  
Neither do I remit him to a general and constant 
Resp.  Tradition, as if himself should climb up every age by learned Writers, and find it in every one I take it to be impossible testimonies one may find in many ages, but such as will demonstrate and convince a full Tradition I much doubt: Neither do I find by experience, that who will draw a man by a rope or chain, giveth him the whole rope or chain into his hands, but only one end of it, unto which if he cleave hard, he shall be drawn which way the rope is carried. Tradition is a long chain, every generation or delivery from Father to Son being a link in it, etc.  
Of this opinion I was wholly before, First upon 
Repl.  my own small observation, (which also persuaded me, that no controverted opinions had so much colour for such a Tradition out of antiquity, as some which now are by both parts condemned. And after, by consideration of what hath been so temperately learned, and judiciously written by our Protestant, Perron D'Aille; But though I think that nothing is wholly provable by sufficient testimonies of the first ages, to have had Primary and general Tradition, (except the undoubted books of Scripture, or what is so plainly there, that it is not controverted between you and us) yet I think the Negative is easy to be proved, because any one known person dessenting, and yet then accounted a learned and pious Catholic, shows the Tradition not to have been general, and that the Church of this Age differs from that of those times, if it Anathematise now, for what then was either approved of, or at least thought not so horrid but it might be borne with. And again, though we agree upon what will not serve to convince a full Tradition, yet we disagree about what will serve; for allowing there were any controverted opinions delivered, with equal Tradition to the Scripture (which I deny to have been, but would receive if it so appeared) yet sure you begin at the wrong end, in the examination of what those are, which ought to be done, by considering the testimonies of the first ages, and not of the last, for in your own similitude of a rope, though to help me to climb by if, you put but one end into my hands, yet you must show me, that the other end is somewhere fastened, or else, for aught I know, instead of getting up by it, I may only get a fall, and this fastening appears not to me, till I be showed some more certain connexion between the Opinions of this Age, and those of the Apostolic times, then yet you have done, or till you have answered those Arguments, by which, as I persuade myself, I have made it appear, that it cannot be done,  
As for the two places concerning the Popes and 
Resp.  Counsels Infallibillity, it is not to my purpose to meddle of them, because of one side the way I have begun, beareth no need of those discourses, and on the other, I should engage myself in Quarrels between Catholic and Catholic, obscure the matter I have taken in hand, and profit nothing in my hearers, more than to be judged, peradventure to have more learning, than wisdom to govern it withal.  
With your favour Sir, these places concern, 
Repl.  not only questions between yourselves, but between you and us; for I thought you had all agreed (though I knew you had not always done so, and though it seems by your declining to speak about it, that you do not yet) that general Counsels, confirmed by the Pope, are infallible, and the Doctrines defined by them, are to be believed de fide, which if you be not, than the Glue, which it is so bragged, you have to keep you still at Unity, is dissolved and if you be, than you should both have answered upon what grounds you are so, and have destroyed my Objections against the possibility of certainty, knowing when it is, that these (which used to be called the Church) have defined: finding therefore Altum Silentium, where there was so much cause of speaking, makes me believe, that the cause why you have not answered is, only because you could not, and then you have a ready Apology, that Nemo tenetur ad impossibilia, which I believe the rather, because I know, that to so clear a judgement as yours that place of Scripture, When two or three are gathered together, etc. which is so often pressed for the Infallibility of Counsels, must appear to make as much for the Synod of Dort, as for the Council of Trent, and to so great a learning as yours, it cannot be unknown how few (if any) of the Ancients have asserted their Infallibility, and how many, both of the Ancients, and your Moderns, have denied it; I am confirmed in this belief too, because you, I know, would never have accepted that as a sufficient excuse from me, if I had avoided to answer an Argument so, because Protestants are not agreed upon the point, if you had thought it such, as that they ought to have been agreed upon it, and truly this is as great and considerable a question, as any among us.  
As for the two places of Fevardentius, which 
Resp.  alloweth many Fathers to have fallen into errors, I think it will not trouble him who is acquainted with the course of this present Church, wherein divers, who be thought great Divines, fall into errors, for which their Books are sometimes hindered from the print, sometimes recalled, or some leaves commanded to be pasted up, the reason is, the multiplicity of Catholic Doctrine which doth not oblige a man to the knowledge of every part, but to the prompt subjection of the instruction of the Church, wherefore many men may hold false doctrine inculpably, not knowing it to be such, even now after the learned labours of so many that have strived to open and facilitate by Method, what is true, and what is false, much more in the Father's times, when there was great want of so many Compilers as these latter ages have produced.  
First, What Fevardentius confesseth, proves 
Repl.  plainly that, for which I intended it, which was, the ridiculousness of proving their Doctrine to be true, by being conformable to that of the Fathers, and yet making themselves Judges of those Judges they appeal too, and confessing, that many of them erred in many points, which if they did, they might as well do the same in those about which we differ, although they agreed with you, and dissented from us.  
secondly, What both he confesseth, and you confess with him, disproves that way of knowing divine Truths which you propose, for neither the Doctors of the ancient Church (who were sure more likely to know what was then taken for Tradition, than any late Compilers) nor of the Modern, who had a mind to deliver truth, and traced and followed your way of finding it, could err in points of faith, if Qui docet ut didicit, he that teacheth as he hath been taught, must still be in the right, for public Tradition, no learned man, at least can be ignorant, not any man (say you) of what he was taught when a Child, as the substance of his hopes for all eternity, and so cannot in reason have his books either forbidden or pasted up, for delivering any thing contrary to it.  
Secondly, Who are these Censors who forbid and passed up books, certainly not the Universal Church, nor yet the Representative, the latter is not always in being, nor when it is, at leisure to consider and judge all authors, and of the first these Authors are a part, if then they be fallible, (as they must be if they be not the Church) why may not they err, and the Martyr-books speak truth, which yet will easily by this means be kept from Posterity, if those in the Dictatory Office dissent from it as they will be sure to do, if the opinion contradict never so little the power or greatness of the Pope, upon whose favour these Ecumenical Correctors must depend, or they not longremaine in their places: and yet you expect that your adversary should produce succession of their opinions in all ages, though nothing be let pass but what a few please, and though when in time all of you are agreed (as you will soon be or appear to be, if one side appear to be gauged) then this consent, though thus brought about, becomes the consent of the Church, and a very notable Motive.  
And since you say, that what all are bound to, is only a prompt subjection to the Church, why leave you it so in doubt, what is the Church, as if men were tied to be subject, but must not know to what; you say indeed, that the adherers to the Church of Rome are now the Church, but what they may be, you will not plainly declare; So that if a Schism among them should happen, we are all as far to seek as if you had been wholly silent, for since the infallibility lies not in the particular Church of Rome, and consequently the adhering to her is not ever a sufficient note of the Church, (as you will not say) nor is it among yourselves de fide, since the Universal Church (whatsoever she be) can never define any thing, and of the authority of the definitions of the Representative, and of what constitutes both her and her decrees, you refuse to speak, what remains there, to which this prompt subjection is to be the only everlasting Note of the true Church, but only the Truth whensoever she appears; Thus as the Priests of Apollo (therefore peradventure called Loxias) used to spread lies, and secure his reputation, the first by the antiquity, and the second by the darkness of his Oracles, so doth your Religion gain upon many men, and secure her seflf rom many objections, by the manifold acceptions, and consequently difficulty of this term Church; For whatsoever is said in Scripture concerning her being free from all spot, or prevailing against the gates of Hell, or their danger who resist her, the first meant (as I believe, and the place denies not by any circumstance) of the Church Triumphant, the second of the Church of the Elect, and the third, of the Professors of Christianity in general, or at most of those who are in all necessary points Orthodox among them; That they without sufficient proof resolve to be spoken of the Church in their sense they have fancied; That is, some ever known body of Christians which must be still guide to the rest, and then claim to be that, because no other (all else being more ingenious) claims it besides themselves, whereas, if (considering that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Oraculous truth of my great Lord Bacon's observation, that unless men in the beginning of their disputes agree about the meaning of their terms, they must end about words, where they ought to have begun) they had marked what other sense these words were capable of, (for if it will here bear another, than this cannot hence be concluded but by leave) they would then soon have seen the weakness of their building, by the slightness of their foundation. Again, they prevail much by working upon men's assents, by the means of their modesties, and press it to be an intolerable pride to oppose their opinions to the consent of the Catholic Church; whereas, if it be weighed how small a part of it they mean by that word, and yet of them how many follow blindly the decrees of one, and how soon those prevail against that few not backed by any power who do not, it will then appear, that not only other Churches, but even a John or a Thomas have as much reason to be lead by their own understandings, as by the opinions and decrees of and urban or a Gregory, upon which that consent is so often founded; And as they make their advantage of this word in their offensive wars, so do they in their defensive, for when they are pressed unto the absurdity of their Tenets, than (though indeed they be general) yet they pretend, that they are the opinions but of private, though many men, and not of the Church; and again, when any Fathers (who yet sometimes they say are wholly theirs) are showed to contradict some of their Doctrines so plainly, that none of those subterfuges, which in one of their expurgatory Indices, they confess they often use, will serve to palliate it; then they strive to scape by answering, that the Church had not then defined it, whereas if it be examined, how far they consent about what is the Church, and what are her Definitions (whereof they are not yet agreed, for some say, she hath defined what, others say, she hath not) this only will be certainly found, that it never can be certainly found, what are her opinions of any point, or when she hath declared herself: As (besides many other Arguments, some pressed by myself, and others, by other Pens more fit to treat of so weighty a matter) appears by your refusing to leave your Latibula; and declare plainly your opinion concerning it, which if you saw defensible, and you were all agreed about it, you would quickly have done, and not incurred the reprehension of that Axiom, which teacheth, that Dolosus versatur in generalibus, which makes me think, that if this were generally enough marked, you would no longer be able to dazzle any man's eyes with the splendid title of Sums to the Catholic Church, as Alexander hoped to do those of the Barbarians, with styling himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Son of Jupiter, although indeed he was so much the more moderate than the second, as never to deny, that any other could be Son to the same Father, whereas you will not allow, that any may have interest in your Mother besides yourselves.  
To conclude this Paragraph, give me leave to ask one question, and that is, how your saying, that Truth is more easy to find now then in the Father's times, will agree, either with the way which you say, is the only Catholic one to find Truth by (for sure such a Tradition was always equally easy to find, and if the first ages had erred in it, we must of necessity, following your advice, have followed their error too) or with the saying of so many of your side, that if I should reckon them up, I should make a Catalogue of Authors, equal to those of Photius, or Gesner, or Possevine, who all join, that Truth was most likely to be most certainly known that time, which was, in Campians words, Christo propior, ab hac lite remotior, nearer to Christ, and consequently to Tradition, and to which, for that cause, all think fit to appeal against us, or with that custom of your Church, which suffers none to take Orders before they have vowed to interpret Scriptures according to the Fathers, which if men now adays be more likely to find the Truth, then at that time they were (as they must be, if truth in this age be more easy to be found, whether through greater abundance of Compilers, or what else soever) then this Vow is as much, as if they had vowed to leave the best way of Interpretation and teaching, to follow the worst.  
As for the two points, he saith, avert him 
Resp.  from Catholic doctrine, I am mistaken, if he be not mistaken in both. The first is, that the Catholics do damn all who are not in the Union of their Church. He thinks the sentence hard, yet I think he will not deny me this, that if any Church does not say so, it cannot be the true Church. For call the Church what you will; the Congregation of the Elect, the Congregation of the Faithful, the Congregation of Saints, or Just; call it, I say, or define it what you will, doth it not clearly follow, that whosoever is out of the Church cannot be saved, for he shall not be the Elect, Just, Faithful, etc. without which there is no salvation. How then can any Church maintain these two Propositious, I am the true Church, and yet one may be saved without being in me:  
This is, by your favour, a mere Paralogism; 
Repl.  for though those who define the Church by qualities, which both Parts agree, to be the conditional Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, must needs affirm, that none out of the Church can be saved, yet what is this to them, who mean by the Church, the Company of the Orthodox in all points, and by them yourselves, out of which (allowing that there be such a one, which I doubt of, and that to be yours) I shall believe, that some may be saved, till I see some more cause to think all error in Religion always damnable, which it is plain, by what after you say, that you think not yourself, and the Church taken in this sense, which is your sense, may maintain both Propositions; or to show you, how much, what you say, would make against yourself, thus I argue; The true Church must hold that none can be saved out of her, but your Church denies not, but that some out of her may be saved, therefore yours is not the Church: My Major is included in your own saying, that those two Propositions are not maintainable together: My Minor, though false, yet is also your confession (where you say, that the Church's Proposition is not so cruel as it seems, though the words be rough) and therefore so ought you to make my conclusion too: Besides, those who exclude all from Salvation, who are out of the Church in the other sense, meaning by it the Elect, as they are not like them in the wrong, so they are not occasion of much harm, like them, who styling the Church, a company of men of such a belief, and under such a government, affirm an impossibility of being saved out of it; for they giving no visible sign of who is in the Church (for who can know the Elect, but the Electer) cause no want of Charity, nor frequency of War, and persecutions by it, as the others do, who having made first a visible partition, lest those who are out of it may draw others out too, they send them out of the world by way of prevention.  
But per adventure he is scandalised, that the Catholic 
Resp.  Church requireth actual Communion external with her, which he thinketh may in some case be wanting without detriment of Salvation. But how would he have the Church speak, which speaketh in common, but abstracting from such particular eases as may change wholly the Nature of the Question.  
I am scandalised, not because you require to Salvation 
Repl.  joining with you in Communion, but because also you require joining with you in opinions, and if it were only this, yet am not I any whit satisfied with what you say for it, for with the true Church, that is the Commpany of true believers, in points any way material (or rather the truest) I conceive it not damnation sometimes not to communicate: For if they have any never so slight errors, and which appears so to me, which yet they will force me to subscribe to, if I Communicate with them, my assent would be damnable, or if they require the same subscription to some truths, which yet after my real endeavours in inquiry, appear errors to me, I doubt not but my refusal is no way damnable: Neither can I absolve your Church concerning this her saying for your reason, because she speaks in general, wholly abstracting from particulars, which change the nature of the Question, for why doth she so, why doth she not express her exceptions, or at least tell us, that the rule is not so general, but that it will bear some, and not make men (who know not that she intends to restrain at all, what she so absolutely pronounceth, and who will find no cause to take your bare word for her intentions) many times, at least to hate them as God's enemies, whom he loves as his friends, and believe them to fry in Hell, who shine in Heaven? Howsoever if she use to express herself in rougher words than her meaning is, how apt may she be to be mistaken in several of her resolutions, and consequently how easy is it for some age to have misunderstood the past, and deceive the following: Neither do I like your example, because that is not to differ from the Church, but to mistake her meaning, though even he, who should deny that there were three Gods, if he thought that by the Trinity your Church so meant, must consequently think her not infallible, and so by your grounds be consequently a Heretic.  
The current of Catholic Doctors, that no man shall be 
Resp.  damned for infidelity, but he who doth wilfully misbeleeve, and that to do so it is required that Faith be sufficiently proposed unto him, and what is to be sufficiently proposed, is not determined amongst them. There wanteth not Divines who teach, that even ignorantia affectata, doth excuse from Heresy. On the other side it is most certain, that no man is damned for not professing, what he is not damned for not believing. Wherefore, profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church, according unto the ordinary opinions of the Catholics, it followeth, that no man is condemned for not being of the Church, who is not for infidelity, for which it is a very uncertain Case who be damned, and who be not.  
As the King of Spain, after long calling the 
Repl.  Hollanders Rebels, at last for his own sake descended to treat with them as free States, so those of your Religion, when they hope to gain a Proselyte, thunder out to him crudelity, and without any of these Mollifications which you now use, that extra Ecclesiam Romanam nulla est salus, there is no salvation out of the Roman Church. And Master Knot peremptorily avers, that no Catholic of an entire fame ever taught, that a Protestant so dying could be saved, yet when they are pressed with the consequences, they can (as it seems) vouchsafe to give us better words, and find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enough to soften this opinion, though such as bring them more disadvantage in other considerations, then help in this. For first, as before it seemed that you are not fully agreed either about the authority of the counsels, or what constitutes the Church, (by your avoiding to speak concerning it) so now it seems, that neither are you resolved of what constitutes an Heretic, and then what remains there for you to know, if what you account infallible and what damnable, be yet both uncertain to you.  
Secondly, Since you confess none to be a Heretic, but he to whom the truth is sufficiently proposed, and when that is, you are not resolved: what a more than Sythian Barbarousness is it to make a coal of a Christian, only upon suspicion of Heresy? especially since the Pagan's themselves had Christian Charity enough to persuade them, that it was much better that a guilty person should escape, than an innocent be punished: much more should you rather suffer the tares to grow, then venture to pluck up the corn with it, and believe the best, when the truth lies hid in a place so hard to search into, as is the heart of man, into which (as none entered the Sanctum Sanctorum but the High Priest) God only can have admittance.  
The other point was of putting Heretics to death, 
Resp.  which I think he understandeth to be done vindicatively, not medicinally, I mean, imposed as a punishment, and not in way to prevent mischief, and oppress it in the head.  
I suppose it small satisfaction to a poor man, carried 
Repl.  to the stake for his Conscience, to know by which member of a distinction he is put to death, and that this as little excuseth you, as it satisfies them, I hope to show before we have ended the consideration of this present Paragraph.  
If the Circumcelians were the first, that is, ancient 
Resp.  enough for the justification of the fact; although for Banishment, which also he seemeth to reprehend, we know the first that could suffer it did suffer it, Arrius I mean, by the hand of Constantine, whom he praiseth for a speech he uttered before he knew the consequence of the danger, and seemeth to reprehend for his after and better wits.  
I wish to you what Erasmus wished to Augustinus 
Repl.  Steuckius, which is, that you were but equal in probando diligens, as you are in asseverando fortis: For how unlikely is it that we should give you credit without proof only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the antiquity of a thing, which began so long after Christ's Apostles, were all dead, is enough to prove it lawful: Howsoever it would at most but prove it lawful, to put such Heretics to death, as force men to do so in their own defence, for such were they: Besides I object not only against this custom the not being ancient, (for I conconfesse there might have been before a power to do so too, though not used to the uttermost, though in likelihood what persuaded you to use it, would have persuaded them to the same, if they had thought they had it) but as being also condemned by Hillary, and Athanasius, and other Orthodox: For though some punishment of a less degree were inflicted upon others too by their own side, (as you truly instance) when their power prevailed; yet Constantine says, not only in an Edict for liberty of opinions, (which he, who was then Pope never appeared to stomach, as his successor, undoubtedly would now do the like) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let no man trouble another, but let every one do as his own soul will: but also gives this concluding reason against you for it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is one thing willingly to take upon them this combat for immortality, and another to force them to it with punishment; and so in whatsoever he did contrary to this in any case, wherein this reason held his words, condemn his action: And whereas you say, that when Constantine made so slight of the question between Arrius and Alexander, it was, because he knew not the consequence of the danger: I shall desire to know of you whether you must not confess, that there is now no King of your Religion so ill instructed in it, (though none of them be never so learned or curious as Constantine was, who, if any man in his dominion should arise, denying Transubstantiation, would not presently know the danger of the consequence, and resolve him for an Heretic, and to the stake instantly, and not speak against his opinion only as impertinent, and de lana caprina, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if this had been as resolved a thing then among Christians, to have come from Tradition, as Transubstantiation is now amongst Papists, he would necessarily as soon have discovered it too: Howsoever I believe his after-witts to have been his worse wits, in punishing, though not in condemning of Arrius, and to me it yet seems (for to be sure, not to speak Heretically, I will not speak obstinately) that to have laboured in stopping of disputes on both parts, and tying them to Scripture Phrases, and to speak of God only in the Word of God, had been at least in respect of Unity, not a worse way, then to have given an example to what after followed, I mean, the frequent explication (with Anathema to boot) of inexplicable mysteries; Neither would then so many questions have so long troubled the Church, which for their slightness were unworthy ever to exercise the Schools; But for that or any other mere error, as it may be for aught any one knows, unlawful in any to punish at all, I by no means like not to put to death, for the same seems to me itself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sin above measure sinful, though even the act of it proceeded from an opinion of doing God some service, and that opinion from a mere error too, than I conceive but a material no formal sin for the same cause, and so, neither this material Murderer, nor that material Heretic, be guilty before God, who only can distinguish, and to whom it is fit to be left. Howsoever the long doubt of some, and opposal of other Orthodox to this course, and that arising not from their Policy or Compassion, but their Conscience, not as thinking it unprofitable or unfit, but unlawful, shows, that there was then no Tradition that the Apostles taught it to be lawful so to use Heretics, upon which only, all the Infallibility, which you claim for any belief or custom of your Church, is founded,  
Saint Austin justifieth such proceedings against 
Resp.  Heretics.  
Truly for putting them to death (unless when 
Repl.  they first assaulted) which makes a wide difference, for than it was not done as to Heretics, but as to Assassins, from whom Nature teaches us to defend ourselves, and consequently to re-offend them whensoever Religion bars it not, experience showing us the danger of merely defending, to be near to that too, of not doing it at all) I know not that ever he did, nor do I believe it: That some degree of punishment should be inflicted upon them, I confess he at last consented, but chiefly to force them to come and see what the Church did, (whose actions the Heretics impudently belied; as if they set pictures upon the altar, and did what you both do and defend, and they did not) i. e. denied it. Howsoever we have Saint Austin against Saint Austin, and not only his authority, but his reasons more valid by much, then that when he saith, that such oppressions would make them think themselves vi victos, non veritate convictos, overcome by force, not convicted by Truth, and consequently dislikes it, ne fictos Catholicos habeamus, quos apertos Hereticos novimus, lest they become from open Heretics, but feigned Catholics: Reasons, which (though these be not all we have) in my opinion it was as impossible for him reasonably to answer when he was living, as it would be now for him to do it when he was dead. Besides, as he useth these strong arguments against it, so he is himself a strong example against it, for the Church had lost this her so notable Champion, if they than had been as severe to the Manichees as you are to us.  
Saint Gregory useth the like against Pagans, 
Resp.  (if I remember) and the Church laterly hath rather increased, then decreased in the practice of it.  
I believe your memory deceives you in this, 
Repl.  which you have cause to hope it doth, for else the Church of Rome differs from that of Saint Gregory's times, it being now with her a judged case, that Infidels may not be compelled to the Faith, as I am told is showed by Vaelentia, Saint Thomas, Hartado, and others, the Church having no power over those who are out of it, and therefore they please to say, that (like them who among the Romans were only Cives ad onera, liable to the taxes of Citizens, without Interest in their Privileges) Baptism hath made us of the Church enough to be liable to her Punishments, though not to be benefitted by her Communion: Though indeed the same cause why you would have Heretics put to death, for fear of harming others with their opinions, me thinks should extend to their punishment too, unless you believe us to be as bad as Malefactors, and not them, or that their opinions are so irrational as not likely to spread, and ours so reasonable, that against them the sword is the best shield, and therefore (as Brennus did his) you put that into the scales for want of weight, it being of giving Reasons as the Poet saith it is of giving requitals, Irasci quam donari vilius constat.  
Another reason which persuades me that you are mistaken in what you say of Gregory, (as this mistake facilitates my belief, that you are so about Austin's too) is that Bede tells, that some Romanists, having converted the King of Kent, that King did not yet force any to become Christians, for (saith he) he had learned of these his Masters, that the service of Christ (WHICH REASON EXTENDS FARTHER THAN TO PAGANS) must be voluntary, and not forced; Now if these received what they taught from Gregory, (as you often tell us) then either he did not as you often say, or thought that unlawful which himself did; And howsoever this Custom hath increased since is very unconsiderable, for unless it have its authority explicitly or implicitly from the Apostles, it can give none since, and unless it be proved to be well done at first, no continuance can give this, or any other action more justification then at first it had.  
Moses speech I believe is mistaken, the force of 
Resp.  it being, that the banishment of Bishops showed his faith, because the banished were Catholics, which showed Lucius to be none.  
If Moses had meant as you would have him, 
Repl.  he should not have said, only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not indefinitely the banishing of Bishops, but the banishing of Orthodox Bishops, the leaving therefore of that out, wherein, according to you, the whole sense of his Argument lay, seems to me plainly enough to show, that he meant what they and you deny: especially he adding (as you may see in Zozomon) their being punished by labour, as well as punishment, and then saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which things are wholly abhorring from Christ, and all right Believers concerning God, and in Socrates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for God's servant ought not to fight, for so he counted to punish.  
But what can be said, if the Church useth that for 
Resp.  the prevention of a greater and more dangerous evil, which all politic Estates use for the remedies of less, and less dangerous evils, and are commended for it. For if Faith he the way to Salvation, and Heresy be the bane of Faith; if Salvation the greatest good, than the danger of a Countries being over-runne with Heresy, is the greatest of dangers, greater than the multiplicity of Thiefs, greater than the unsurety of the ways, greater than a Plague, or Invasion; why then doth not reason force us to use means to prevent it, which the same reason-and experience teacheth us to be most efficacious in this, and all other contagious and gangrening maladies of the Commonwealth. I hope reason itself, and the Zeal of the Author to his own, and Country's salvation, will supply my shortness in this point, for supposing a Church be assured she is in the right, and that the doctrine preached, as then leadeth to damnation; I know not why Caiphas his words should not be prophetical in this case, and that truly it doth expedire, that Unus moriatur pro populo, & non tota gens pereat.  
I wish heartily, you were as good a Caterer as 
Repl.  a Cook, I mean, that you brought as good reasons as you dress artificially what you bring; For I find there is in your words a very notable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to steal a man into your opinion, before he hath asked himself why; but if he stay to do so, than all your excellent embroidery will not keep him from discerning many bracks in your stuff: To prove which, I will bring many reasons (besides what I have taught already) by which it shall, I hope, appear, why those, whom you call Heretics, should not be put to death, although Malefactors may, although even the lawfulness of that (since other punishments, which would not shorten their time of repentance, might peradventure serve to repress them) is not absolutely certain.  
First, Malefactors plainly offend against their Consciences, at least, think not themselves bound by them to commit their villainies (neither pretend they otherwise) which they, whom you call Heretics, either bona fide follow, or do for aught at least you can know.  
secondly, What are Malefices, must be known before Malefactors, and Heresies before Heretics; now of the first Mankind agrees, but of the second but you only, a small part of Christians, and yet you differ too about the ways of knowing-them, and consequently, whether some things be Heresies or no (as for example, whether the Oath of Allegiance contain any) wherein since some of you are deceived, me thinks it should incline you to think it not impossible for you all to do so, in what you all agree to be such.  
thirdly, Malefactors are not, or should not be punished for such, without a plain knowledge that such they are; but although there were an impossibility of mistaking what is Heresy, yet there is no possibility of knowing who are Heretics, the form of which is obstinacy, a secret, and (to man) an undiscoverable quality, whom he only should punish who only knows.  
fourthly, Malefactors are certain to hurt others, whereas neither are Heretics sure to persuade any, and if they do, yet they may hurt none, since who receives their belief bona fide, and through mere error, is unharmed by it.  
fifthly, Whom they do harm, it must be through their own fault, and by their own consent, whereas without either, the Malefactors are cause of much mischief, even to the most guiltless.  
Sixthlie, Malefactors passing wholly unpunished, peradventure not put to death, would bring a certain destruction to the state, which temporal Magistrates are appointed to watch over, which yet in speculative opinions is not concerned.  
Seventhly, The punishment even by death, of Malefactors brings not any temptation of sinning, upon them, the same to others is in all probability a cause to keep many from a careful search of God's Truth, (lest they might find the punishable belief to be the true one) and from professing it, when they think they have found it; both which are sins of the first magnitude.  
Eigthly, This course with Malefactors was not, for aught appears, ever thought unlawful in the purest times of Christianity, and was then in use, whereas towards errors in belief, it was disallowed of them by the chief, and long before death was at all inflicted upon them, though then understood as well the danger of Heresy, and were as careful to preserve their flocks from all danger by all lawful ways, as any since.  
Ninthly, It no way redounds to Christ's Glory, that Malefactors be unpunished, but it makes much for it that his Army appears to consist of Volunteers, and not of Pressed men, that his Truth should prevail by no humane force, but only by the power of the first teacher, and the light of the Doctrine, which for us unbidden so to assist, is to think the Ark must fall, if we hold not forth our hands to hold it up, and takes from it the honour of subsisting by the way, by which it took root, when (to borrow Saint Chysostomes' words) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The weak were to hard for the strong, and twelve for the World, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They being naked, and their adversaries armed.  
Tenthly, That death is the most effectual way to suppress Malefactors, you say reason and experience shows, and it is generally agreed of; but in this case it seems even to your best men the worst course, as appears by Iburranes' resolution concerning the Hyper-Ephanians, by the 267 Page of grave and judicious Cardinal D' Ossat his Letters, by the Epistle of Cardinal Richelieu to his King before a Book of Controversy, and by Erasmus his Testimony, who tells us, that a Carmelite having then this power in his hands, Ubicunque saevitiam exercuit Carmelita, ibi diceres fuisse factum Haerese●● sementum, wheresoever he exercised his cruelty, he seemed to have sowed Heresy. All which reasons make me believe, that there is much difference between the striving to destroy these two sorts of men, and if there were not, yet for fore-touched reasons, and others which I will touch at, I should as soon think it unlawful to put Malefactors to death, as lawfully to kill Heretics. For indeed since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it disadvantageth what you would aid; to seem to believe that truth, without other assistance, would not sooner root out falsehood, then that it, that the Orthodox are not more likely to cure the seduced, then to be infected by them; and that there is no way to end the Heresies, but by ending the Heretics: And thus you run into three inconveniencies.  
First, You put reasonable scruples into considering men's minds, lest as a Greek Orator saith against Ulysses for striking Thersites, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was a sign he could not confute him, that he struck him; so that it be want of arguments, which makes you fall to blows, and cause them to suspect, that if you were not (peradventure for some better reasons than appear to them) diffident of your cause, you would give your adversaries leave to speak as loud as them pleased, and not seek so suspiciously to stop their mouths, whilst they dispute with you at as much odds, and upon terms of as much disadvantage as Saint Paul did with the Grecian Jews, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he disputed against them, but they went about to stay him.  
Secondly, It destroys those plausible Arguments so often used of Unity, and Tradition, and Multitude, for, first Uniformity may be induced by power, but Unity and Impunity can never be parted; all other agreement being but as a thief and a rob person agreed, the one to take his purse, and the other to give it again. Again Tradition it lames as much, for how can any man tell, but that two parts claiming contraty Traditions, or one part claiming it upon false grounds, and the other denying it, the truth may not by this force have been overborn, when we receive not what men would have delivered Posterity, but what Power would suffer them.  
Again, how shall we know but that the greater part of your multitude believes not as they profess; no man knowing his Neighbour to be of his mind; when it is so probable, that many may not think as they speak, when it is not lawful for all to speak as they think.  
Thirdly, By this way you are causes, that you suffer often where you have not the State on your side, as much as you inflict when you have; for though you will say that none should punish but the Church, yet every divided company of Christians, thinking themselves to be that, (that is to be the orthodox) will use your own custom to your harm, and you will be short like the Eagle in Esope, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with your own feathers; and so Truth weresoever she be (if all follow this way) will by force by many parties be opposed, and but by one propagated and defended; so that not only in consideration of Christianity, but even of Policy I mislike this course, as being always wicked, and often hurtful, and more often uneffectuall: And for my part, I desire so much that good be done for evil, that (though you be most fit of any to be so used, who use us so where your power extends, and whose cruelty will extend with your acquisition, if you make any, and you hold yourselves, that impendens periculum is cause enough for a war) yet I heartily wish all laws against you repealed, and trust, that disarmed Truth would serve to expel Falsehood, whereas now they being in force against you, give you the honour of a persecution, and not being executed, give you not the fear of one: It is truly said, Militia Christiana est Haereses expellere, but it needs this limitation, sed armis Christianis, that Christian warfare employ only Christian arms, which are good arguments, and good life; else if they use such a course, as is more properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and go to force that part of man, which is liable to no power but that of persuasion, (which if it do not beget a true and pious assent, in likelihood it will a damnable dissimulation, and which, if Christ had meant for a prop for his Doctrine, he would as soon have at first made it a part of the foundation, and have charged his Apostles not to shake the dust off their feet, but to draw their swords out of the scabbard at those, who rejected what they taught) than it often (though sometimes by reason of the different dispositions which reign at several times among men, and may happen otherwise) misseth of the intended end, and works not often so much as upon men's tongues, and never upon their Heads and Hearts: A great example of which happened not long since, Calvin with all his works since the time they were written, having scarce made so many Protestants in France, as I have credibly heard it reported, that the Massacre made in a Night, which act though I impute not to all those of your Religion, for many of them I know did, and do mislike it, yet it both had its fountain from the Pope's Legate, (and consequently in all likelihood from the Pope, who gave God public thanks for it) as one of his successors confessed to Cardinal D' Ossat, Page 432, and it may be justified as well as any judicial proceeding, upon that reason which you give, why Heresy may be stopped with the sword, lest they who are wrought upon by it, may work upon others.  
To conclude, I should be better contented with this course, if the opinions were infallibly errors, and infallibly damnable, and this were always an effectual way, (and no other could be found more merciful) to stop their spreading, but since you have no infallible way of knowing the Church to be infallible in her definitions, and consequently, that the contrary opinions are false, since you know not infallibly which is she, (for you pretend but prudential Motives) since your knowledge having defined, is likewise fallible, as depending upon many uncertain circumstances, since not only the matter of Heresy is thus uncertain, but the form too: for you confess you doubt whether Ignorantia affectata be it or no, and since though the form were certain, yet in whom, it is by no means plain, but rather impossible to be known, (as who is obstinate, and consequently to whom it is damnable) since this course often gives growth, and strength to that, from which it would take even Being and Subsistance: I cannot but think you have cause to change your proceedings, lest not only you expel not, but lest you increase Heresy, and again lest you oppose it not, but mistake the Truth for it, and applaud yourself for cutting off a Gangrened member, when you destroy a sound one, and instead of ending a Heretic make a Martyr, and again lest (allowing this to be the Truth) yet you put to death innocent persons instead of guilty; especially since if the opinions were damnable in whomsoever they were, yet some better way might be found, (as close imprisonment or the like) to keep them from harming with them, rather than (as you do by putting them to death, when else they might live to be converted) to damn them certainly, lest they may possibly damn some others; Again for Protestants, who join with me in believing that there is no way to know the true Church, but by true Doctrine, nor to know that but by the Scripture, (for Universal Tradition seems to us to deliver nothing but what is so plainly contained there, that it is agreed upon) in them I believe it must be intolerable Pride, and rashness, (and the same in Papists concerning those places out of which they would prove the Church's infallibility) To conclude, this seems to me the sense of this place of Scripture, therefore this infallibility it is, and no man can deny it, who either gainsays not his Conscience, or hath it not misled by some sinful passion or affection, and therefore the deniers must be damned, and therefore lest they damn others, we will send them through one fire to another. And this, though it be an equal fault in both Protestants and Papists to say and do, yet it is more Illogicall in the former, as contradicting at first sight all their Principles, and destroying the whole Platform upon which the Reformation was built.  
He urgeth afterwards against the Unity of the 
Resp.  Church, that it is none such as we brag of, And I confess we brag of it, and think we have Reason. And if it please him to look into the difference of our Country of England, and some land of Barbarians, as Brasile, or such other, where they live without Law or Government, I think he will find our bragging is not without ground. For wherein is the difference betwixt a Civil Government and a Barbarous Anarchy? Is it either that in a Civil Estate there be no Quarrels, or amongst Barbarians there is no Quiet? The former would prejudice our Courts and Justice; the latter is impossible even in Nature. What is then the goodness of a government, but in a well Governed Country there is a means to end Quarrels, and in Anarchy there can be no assured peace? This therefore is it we brag of, that amongst us if any controversy arise, there is a way to end it, which is not amongst them who parted from us. And Secondly, That there is no assured agreement amongst those who parted from us, for although to day they agree, there is no bond or tie why to morrow they may not disagree. These two things we brag of, and I think the Author will not deny it. For he confesseth that we all agree, in that the Church is an infallible Mistress. Then it is evident, that if in any controversy she interposeth her judgement, the controversy is ended. He likewise confesseth, that who part from us have no such definitive authority amongst them, and that Scripture, whereon they rely, hath no such virtue to take up Controversies clearly.  
Supposing that we agreed much less than you, yet a little, all in earnest, that is unforced, is more considerable, then much constrained, and so peradventure much of that much but in appearance; Besides, that you all agree in those points, wherein if any disagree, he becomes none of you, is no more than is so common to all Religions, that even the very Anabaptists may say as much for themselves; For either all the Parts of them remain of assent, insomuch that they are all still of the same Religion, and so agree as well as your, Dominicans and Jesuits, or else their differences are such, as to make them of several Religions, and then, why is want of Unity objected to them any more than it is to Christians in general, among whom are so many divisions, and yet not the whole, but the faulty party taxed? And truly in my opinion some Questions among yourselves are as great, not only as any among your adversaries, but as any between you and them. I but you answer, we have a way of being agreed, we reply, is it a way sure to lead to Truth as well as to Unity, or else so might we have by going to most at three throws, and resolving to stand to that. Besides, if you have, and make no more use of it, it seems there is no such need that Questions be ended, as for that purpose to introduce a necessity of an Ender. But say you, neither are all suits in the Commonwealth ended; We reply, that yet truly those Judges, who should make no more haste to end them, than your Judge doth these, would deserve to lose his place, but this they do as fast as the nature of the thing will permit; which being or depending upon matter of Fact, cannot be known erough to be judged before examination of witnesses, and the like, be ended, and if they willingly defer the ending, they are confessed to be in fault by all men, but those who hold Perjury to be none. But you seem to conceive our grounds faulty, as not leading even to a possible Unity, whereas to a possible one I am sure they do, (since what is concluded out of them by many, may be by all) nay indeed am confident, that all who receive the Scripture for the only rule, and believe what is there plain to be only necessary, would if they truly believed what they profess, and were not lead aside either by prejudice, or private ends, or some Popish relics of holding what they have long been taught, or following the authority of some by them much esteemed, persons either alive or dead) soon agree in as much as is necessary, and in concluding no necessity of agreeing in more, there being no doubt, but it would soon appear plainly what is plain.  
Besides if no grounds be sufficient for Unity, which produce not the effect, than it seems, the grounds of your grounds, those Arguments, by which you prove, that there is a Judge, and a general Council is it, are insufficient, since they are not able to make all Christians about this question: Again, although a Judge, and this Judge be received, yet this is still an insufficient ground for Unity, since the Greek Church agree thus far with you (which is as far as you agree with one another) and yet are not so bound by it to any universal Unity with them, but that they esteem you Heretics, and are esteemed so by you: and if you say, that it is not, because the grounds, upon which the Infallibility of the Church are built, lead not sufficiently to Unity, that we join not with you in believing them to be infallible, not because the determination of general Counsels is not a sufficient means of Unity, that the Greek Church admitting their authority, admits not of your opinions, but it is the fault of us (and of them) hardening our hearts against the truth; then we may as well say, that some of those, who agree in our grounds, yet disagree from our doctrine, not that the grounds lead not to Unity, but that our Adversaries will not be lead; or if (as you do, and some others of you sometimes) you confess, that they through an innocent error descent from you, and do this without any imputation in this respect to your grounds, I hope it will be lawful for us to allow the same possibility, without any disadvantage or prejudice to ours: Besides, say you, though we agree to day, yet we may not to morrow, which to prove, were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pains wholly lost, we confess: For though Tully make it an expression of his contempt to Piso, in an Epistle to Atticus, Ita nihil est, ut plane quid erit, nesciat, yet I take it to be a true saying of man in general, who knows little of present things, and nothing of future; but this is common to us both, for if we change not our opinions, we shall agree as we do, and if you change yours you shall not, which is possible, for not only that opinion of the Infallibility of your judges decrees may itself be altered, which holdeth together all the rest, but some of you may holding that ground (like the Greek, either change their opinions concerning the authority of such or such a Council, as believing it unduelie called, factiouslie carried, or not general as is pretended, or not so consenting as is requisite) or differ from the rest, concerning the sense of the decrees: for whereas, you say, you agree that the Church is an infallible Mistress, and when she interposeth her judgement, the controversy is ended.  
I answer, that, first, some of you, with whom I have spoken myself, hold, that the Church's authority in defining, extends no further than to such points, whereof Tradition is of one part (as in many controverted there is, I believe, no such) and that this rule she may transgress, and so err.  
secondly, Neither the Dominicans nor their Adversaries, are very ready to remain in suspense to await her decision, but define all ready concerning her definitions, Cum utraque pars tenax contendat suam non aliam posse definiri sententiam, either part tenaciouslie urging, that the contrary opinion cannot be defined, which if they did to fright the Pope from defining, lest the condemned party being even before, should after make a Schism, they obtained their end.  
thirdly, What are you the nearer to Unity for your Infallible Mistress the Church, when you neither agree of any certain and proper marks to know her by, nor when it is that she interposeth her judgement; some take it to be the particular Church of Rome, others (of which number you are) all which communicate with her, supposing the first to be true, yet not being the fide, it will serve but ill by your rules to build our faith upon, and even when she delivers her opinion is not certainly agreed, whether the people of Rome be to have Votes, or only the Clergy, or of them, only the Pope with the Cardinals, or the Pope only without them, if the Pope, whether only in his Chair, and what circumstances are required to his decreeing in Cathedra, would beget more questions: If all that communicate with her (as you say, it is as things now stand.)  
First, I would know whether they be sure to be at all times the Church, to that you refuse to determine, and so inclusivelie deny.  
secondly, It is not possible, that such a multitude should ever give any sentence explicitelie, nor can we ever know, that it hath even tacitelic done so, if they be to decree only by representation, then how large a company represents them with all their power, of whom that company is to consist, how many of them are to agree to make it a binding sentence, etc. are things yet undefined, and like to be, and if any go about to determine them, their power being itself still a question, could not end these: Therefore, whereas you say, that we have no definitive sentence (besides that truly to have one, and not to know when we have one, is much alike;) I answer, that whensoever the Scripture shall seem to us to have defined, we are according to our doctrine ready to yield, and so the controversy is ended (and sure the Scripture may be said to be a definitive sentence, as well as the written Council of Trent) and till then, though we differ about interpretations of not plain places, we have as much Unity as you, who are not resolved upon the sense of many decrees of that and other Counsels: and if a desire and diligence to find the true meaning of them, and an aptness to assent when it is found, be thought to secure among you, those who mistake the true sense of these Counsels, why should not the same disposition in us towards the Scripture, be thought every whit as sufficient, not only to keep us in unity, but to secure us from danger.  
To conclude, though unity be a thing much spoken of by you, yet I find it chiefly only in your discourse; your differences are many and great, only you say, you agree in what is necessary, and make the measure of things necessary what you agree in, so the sum is, you agree in what you do agree (which it is impossible you should not, though you had carried away the bays from Bibrias his Tomb) eager against us, and yet divided among yourselves, like the state of an Army in Tacitus, Manente Legionum auxiliorumque, ubi adversus Paganos certandum foret, consensu, and if your Church brag of such an Unity, I perceive a small matter will make her brag.  
Again, I do confess most English- men confess 
Resp.  a Trinity, the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour, but if to morrow, any one or more of them light upon some Book of an Arrian, Trinitarian, or other Sect, so wittily written that he putteth probable solutions for the places of Scriptures, shows slight ways how our well meaning forefathers may have slipped into such an Error, what is there to retain those men from disagreeing with the rest of their brethren, and betake themselves to the Arrians? And when the heat is past light upon some Rabbi, who shall cunningly exaggerate the absurdities, (as he shall term them) of the Trinity, Incarnation; Say our Saviour did strange things in virtue of some Constellation, and delivering these things so Oratorically, that for a new heat, some of these things shall seem more conformable than his Arrianisine, what then shall hinder this man to become a Jew, and at last to prove himself so great a Clerk as to write de tribus Impostoribus: Take away the power of the Church, which every man doth who taketh away the Infallibility, what can retain any man why he should not yield to that discourse which seemeth fairest, seeing nothing is certain?  
And if you should meet with a book which 
Repl.  should give probable solutions to the places of Scripture, and reasons which you now think prove the authority of the Church, and bring other (though suppose but slight, yet such as may seem strong) Arguments to prove it not infallible, and show ways of the same kind, how your ancestors may have slipped in that, and by that into other errors, what is there to retain you with the rest of your brethren, and betaking yourself to us? If you say this is impossible to be done, so think the Protestants, that the Arrians can give them no probable answer to their places of Scripture, and such as will seem so to some, is no imputation to their grounds, since so may, and do our Answers and Objections to some of you, who thereupon leave you, and yet you count not your grounds disparaged. For my part, I profess myself not only to be an Anti-Trinitarian, but a Turk, whensoever more reason appears to me for that, then for the Contrary, and so sure would you be too; for the pretended infallibility of your Church could no longer hold you, if you thought you saw reason to believe it fallible, as you must do, if all weighed, more reason appeared of her adversaries side, either your proofs of her authority not to be probable, or else your Doctrinestaught by her, more contrary to reason, than her authority (though probably founded, yet not upon demonstrations) is sufficient to caution, and answer for; It is true, so long as you stick to this hold upon the Roman Church, you are sure to receive no error, but which she offers you, (and indeed you need not, for those are enough) but that destroyed (which is apt to be destroyed then most of the Protestants, as weaklier supported by reason) than no error that a Protestant may fall into, but so may you too, and the other is but such a Privilege, as I may have by sticking to the English Church, as well as you to the Roman; And though this following your guide, may be able, as long as she keep herself, to keep you from some Ditches, into which you might otherwise fall, yet it may lead you unto others, and indeed there is no error but by this way you are liable too, yea, even of those which she now condemns, since though she changed her opinion, which is neither impossible, nor unlawful, yet you are by your blind obedience to believe that she had not, and to submit your understanding in this Question to some distinction, though without a difference. These things than I dislike in what you say.  
First, Your saying, as though there is nothing to retain a Protestant from being of any error, when it shall appear more probable to him then Truth, therefore there were nothing to keep him from those errors, whereas you should have considered, that the greater probabilities may serve reasonably to hold him without a demonstration, and the evidence of the thing, without a guide, and that if those be not ground enough for a man to fix upon, in how ill estate are those of your Church, in the Question concerning the Church, in which they follow no guide, nor have any demonstration, but profess they yield to her authority, but upon prudential motives, which kind of arguments sure may as well, and as fixedly preserve a Protestant in `n Orthodox opinion against a Heretic, as the authority of the Church no surelier founded, can you against us: That every man should yield to that discourse which seemeeth fairest to him, I confess, it is always, not only safe and fit, but also necessary, even for them who receive the Infallibility of the Church, since those who believe that, believe it, because that appears fairest to them, and as you object to us, the possibility of being persuaded from the truth by some witty Author, why think you not the same Author may possibly too, appear to you to destroy your prudential Motives, and so consequently your whole Faith, which is built upon the Church, which is built upon them.  
secondly, I diflike your seeming to believe, that any grounds, which are not demonstrative, are too slippery to rest upon, as not only being contrary to reason, but to yourself, who told me before, that no more was required, than a main advantage on one side, and that we had reason to be satisfied with Probabilities to guide our Actions in Religion, or since by them we were content to regulate all the other Actions of our life.  
thirdly, I dislike in your own party's behalf your saying, that a Protestant is in good likelihood to turn Arrian (for if you mean only that it is possible, it concerns you as much as them) since this seems to infer, that the Scriptures do make more probably for them (which if they did, it is not Heresy) and to contradict all those, whom both parts call Fathers, who think enough plain in Scripture, not only to keep, but also to convert men from Arrianisme, as it appears, by their employing so solely those Arms against them, that they needed the admonition of a Heretic, to counsel them to the use of another.  
fourthly, I dislike your saying, that after being made an Arrian, he is not unlikely to turn Jew, especially, that he is likely to be persuaded by any exaggeration of the Absurdities in the Trinity, since both Grotius and other Authors, seem to say, that the Jews have their Trinity too in the same Notion, and howsoever the Arrian is so fully persuaded already, that those are absurdities (that persuasion being almost the form of that opinion which constitutes him an Arrian) yet the exaggeration of them can never work upon him; And for the Constellation you speak of, it were so irrational, and so unprovable a Crotchet, that no Oratory could ever make it seem to a reasonable man, to have any inclination to sense (and a fool may be made believe any thing, how contrary soever to his grounds) unless he be of those, who are given over to vain imaginations, because they love darkness better than the light, and the fault of no particular men's understanding or will, is to lead any man to condemn his grounds, for they are to be accused, not of whatsoever he concludes who holds (or rather in this case hath held) them, but only of what he concludes reasonably according to them. Besides, for this cause it appears strange to me, that trusting to Scripture alone, and without, meaning the Church, for my certain guide, should bring a man into danger of parting with his Christianity, since nothing can hold a man longer than he believes it, and as long as our ground, the Scripture, is by him believed, no man can possibly turn either Atheist, or Jew; and he who leaves to believe your ground, the Church, cannot by that be any more withheld from either: Besides that, I think it is impossible (I am sure it is irrational) that any of you should believe in Christ, upon the authority of Christ's Church, since believing the latter (which claims no authority but from Christ) praesupposeth the belief of him, and so Christianity is not the apt to be overthrown through the absence of that, upon which it is not built: I fear rather, lest your doctrine known to be grounded itself upon Tradition by such a way, according to which, a Jew would have much advantage of a Christian, may incline a man to Judaisme, and your sides general slighting all ways of knowing Gods will, but only by the Church, and then neither proving her power stronglier, nor teaching how to know her plainer, may make men sink into Atheism, by being persuaded by you, in letting go other strong holds upon Truth, and receiving such weak ones from you. Not to speak of your loading Christianity with such impossibilities as the Pillars of it, which are not absolute Demonstrations (of which it may be scarce any thing is in nature capable but lines and numbers) are able to bear, and using all your Wits and Industries to persuade men, that it is equally unsafe to refuse any part of your Religion, as to receive none; and so instead of making these your beliefs admitted for the sake of Christianity, causing Christianity to be rejected because of them.  
But peradventure some may attribute Power to the 
Resp.  Church without infallibility, whom I would have consider but what himself saith. For his Church by the Power it hath must either say I command you to believe, or I command you to profess this, whether you believe me or no. The second, I think no enemy of equivocation will admit, and the former it is as much as if it should say, I know not whether I say true or no, yet you must think I say true.  
We having received a command, that all things 
Repl.  be done decently, and in order, and this being to be appointed by them, whom either the Law of the Land, (if that consist of faithful) or the consent or custom of Christians hath appointed, for Ecclesiastical Rulers in this matter, in every place the Church (thus restrained to the Governors of the Church) may have in some cases (though not to your purpose) power without the least Infallibility. And for instruction (which you aim at) no Church can give it, yours especially being too large a body ever to meet or join in doing it, and if you restrain the Church to the Clergy, (whereof yet many teach not, and they too are too many for any man to be sure what they all agree in teaching, and when they differ, how shall I know which to follow, otherwise then by your Rule which I have answered) their duty indeed, but not theirs only, (though Principally) is to instruct us in the way to Heaven, which they doing in the Persons of Ambassadors between God and us, and having no absolute Letters of Credence to bid us to believe that God says, whatsoever they say, he says, (as much as can be wrested out of Scriptures for any present Church, being said of the Scribes and Pharisees, who yet proved themselves not infallible) our best way is in my mind to examine their Commission, and if they can show that they treat according to that, to submit to them, (as in the same case we must to any of the laiety) or rather to God, of whose commands they are but Organs, and if not, to beware of their Leaven. Yet it may be that some man may hold that such an opinion is to be believed only, because such a Church proposeth it, and yet not believe her Infallible, since he may think her authority (by reason of her Learning, Multitude, Sanctity, Unity and Liberty) to be more probable than any contradicting argument, and that men are to assent to what is most probable, and truly if he could prove to me his Major, I am already so much of the opinion of his Minor, that I should join with him in his Conclusion.  
So that if I understand any thing, where there is 
Resp.  no Infallibility, there is no Power; where no Power, no Unity; where no Unity, no Entity; where no Entity, no Church.  
How you tie Power to Infallibility I guess, 
Repl.  but cannot how you tie Unity to Power: For how many things are all men even at Unity about, though one have no Power over another in them, only cemented together by their clear evidence: And how many more do whole Bodies, and Sects of men agree about without any such power, though they differ in other points, as so do you too; Do not Protestants agree with you about many, and the chiefest credenda, and about almost all the merely facienda? Though not persuaded to this agreement by the Power of any Judge which they do acknowledge; Nay if men could be at Unity about no thing, which were not proposed by some Guide, or defined by some Judge endued with such a power, how came all you to agree, that there is some such Guide and Judge required, since sure you receive not that upon its own authority, and if men may find the necessity of a Guide and Judge, without any Guide or Judge, and remain in Unity about that, why may they not also about whatsoever is clearly taught by God, which reason assures us to be all that is necessary, and if you say that all things necessary are not clearly taught, because we do not (though it proves not that we might not) agree upon them, than I reply, that I may as well say, that neither is it clear that there is a Guide, because we descent from you in it, although receiving the authority of the Scripture (out of which Cardinal Perron confesseth, that Saint Austin saith, that both the necessity of your guide, the Church, and she herself, are to be known) and reason, which as they may be plain in this point for you, and yet persuade us not, so may they be in all necessary points, and yet we who make theirs our ground, not persuade one another.  
As little see I why there can be no Entity nor Church, where there is no Unity.  
For the first, though there be small Unity among Christians, yet certainly Christians and their Religion have some Entity, indeed if what you say were true, there were no Entity in yours.  
For the second, I know not why two parties over-valuing their differences may not conceive each other to be none of the Church, and so declare even by excommunications, and yet remain both Parts of it, (for if a Husband misse-suspecting his Wife of Adultery, declare her to be no longer his Wife, this cannot make her give over being so, if the bond be indeed not broken) as well as chrysostom and Epiphanius, both excommunicated by each other, and yet both Saints, or as particular men may by your own confession be interiorly in the Church, although seeming out of it, even to the Church herself, and so those be both of the Church between whom there is no Unity: For not only in your own Cariophilus his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also though the persons have power, yet if the cause have not sufficiency, I take you to agree, that an excommunication is but a brutum fulmen, as Victors of the Asian Bishops: The best therefore and strictest definition (and which I think you will not refute) which I can give for the Church, is (especially in that sense, as out of it there can be no salvation) those who are desirous to know God's Will, (or Christ's at the strictest, for I am not certain, nor I believe is it defined among you, whether an explicit knowledge of Christ be absolutely necessary to Salvation, though I know no guiltless ignorance of him, can bring unavoidably upon any man eternal torments) and ready, when known, to believe and follow it; and sure many of these may eternally disagree even in points which are necessary, abstracting from particular cases, and yet their differences not exclude them from the Church, and consequently a Church may be without Unity, Quod erat demonstrandum.  
Now for the Controversies mentioned, besides that 
Resp.  there is a means to terminate them, they be such as bring no breach of the ancient life and action of Christians, which all those opinions do, which for the most part are reputed to make Heretics.  
You saw very well, that if [no Unity, no Church] were a true Proposition, yours hath in 
Repl.  it differences enough to destroy its being a Church, and therefore are fain to apply what salves you can, but all in vain: For your means to terminate them, doth not make them not to be before they are terminated, and consequently by your Rule yours is no Church till then. Besides, their bringing to breach of the ancient life and action of Christians proves not but one of them may be a Heresy, since you say not yourself, that all Heresies are such; but only for the most part; and indeed to prove that, you must be able to set down what those opinions are, which before a definition may make a Heretic, which I believe you will not venture to do in haste, though we much desire it at your hands, that we may know if none of them be such.  
That some controversies amongst us are not resolved, 
Resp.  is a thing necessary amongst humane affairs, where things must have a time to be born, to increase, to fall, and the greater things are, the greater is their Period.  
It is true, that some time to be taken notice of 
Repl.  must pass between an opinions rising, and being condemned; but that so long they should run on, and many of your Counsels having since been held, is sure not necessary, and shows, that you esteem not Unity so necessary as you pretend: some opinions I am sure you can soon enough quash, as that not long since risen in Spain concerning Fornication being but a Venial Sin: And whereas you say, the greater things are, the greater their period, though this be true in some things, yet not in this, for sure the greater a difference is, the greater necessity is there that it be soon decided, and so if your decision have power to effect it, as you pretend among you it hath, it must fall as soon as it is born, like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creatures that live but a day.  
Wherefore I do not see why this may hurt the Church, 
Resp.  more than the suits, which hang in our Courts, prejudice the government of the Land.  
If any of these opinions be of that importance, 
Repl.  as that though uncondemned the Holder's are Heretics, as some may be, and my definition being concluded of such among you, some of these may be some of them, then sure they hurt the Church much, and more than the Suits hurt the Government, which their hanging hurts not at all, though it hurts (sometimes unavoidablie) the Parties. But if where there is no Unity, there were no Commonwealth, as you say, where there is no Uuitie, there can be no Church, than the Government were much prejudiced by the Suits, as your Church by this rule, is made no Church by the differences; And indeed if men were not agreed about the power of the Governors (as you are not about some of your questions) it must be a maim to the government of any Commonwealth, as consequently these are to the government of your Church.  
The last point of the Author's discourse is, to show 
Resp.  how errors might have crept in, wherein I shall have no opposition with him, for I do not think the question is, how they should creep in, but how they should be kept out.  
Here Sir, I cannot but believe, that you intended 
Repl.  to refresh yourself with some Mirth, as with Music between the Acts; for though both our ends be, that errors should not creep in, yet the question was, whether it were possible that they might creep in, and to my affirmative part it conduced to show those ways, by which either they have entered, or easily might do so, this showing how they may steal in, teacheth how to keep them out, as it is an aid to the saving of a Town, to discover the breaches, which cannot be guarded without they be first known.  
For the Fluxibility of humane Nature is so great, 
Resp.  that it is no wonder if errors should have crept in, the ways being so many; but it is a great wonder of God that none should have crept in. This nevertheless I may say, if the Author will confess, as I think he will not deny, but that it is disputable, whether any error in sixteen Ages hath crept in, this very thing is above Nature. For if there were not an excellency beyond the nature of corruptible things, it would be undeniably evident, that not one or two, but thousands of errors had quite changed the shape of the Church in so many years, tempests, dis-unions, want of Commerce in the body of the Church.  
The greater wonder it were, if your Church 
Repl.  had no error, the greater it is to me, that upon one, at most but probable, Reason, you should require all men to believe she hath none; Neither doth it appear to me disputable, whether she have or no, but evident, that she hath, not by Demonstrations, yet by Probabilities of that multitude, and weight upon which you say (and say truly) that in all other cases we rely, and venture that we most esteem: whereas indeed you, as you are of the imposing Party, aught to bring at least such proofs, that you are fallen into none, and as you are of the Infallibilitie-pretending-partie, your proofs are likewise to rise from probable to Infallible: Neither do I conceive it to be probably argued, it is disputable, whether this body of men have ever let in any error, therefore it can never let in any, since it is at least as disputable, whether the Grecians have let in any, yet you will not allow, that upon this we should adjudge to her Infallibility: Nay if it were demonstrative, that your Church had yet never erred, yet it would but unwillinglie follow, that she never could, since all things necessary are so plain (without the confession of which you seem to tax God) and it is naturally so plain what is plain, that I cannot but think it a miracle, that some one body of Christians among so many, should be free from any such dogmaticallie-defended error, especiallic if Truth were so indifferently sought after as it ought to be, and Passion were not often called to counsel, and Reason shut out of doors.  
But this one Maxim, that she receiveth her Faith 
Resp.  by Tradition, and not from Doctors hath ever kept her entire: And he that will show the contrary, must show how it should come to pass, that those, who lived in such an Age, would say unto our Children, this we received from our forefathers, as taught them by our forefathers, to have been received from Christ and his Apostles from hand to hand, which if it could not be, the question is resolved, that no error is in the Church of God, which holdeth her faith upon that Tenure.  
Not to repeat, usque ad nauseam, what I have 
Repl.  heretofore answered, as that others differing from you, hold upon the same Tenure that yourselves have not always held, nor hold not upon it, etc. I will only tell you what Cardinal Perron tells me of the Jews out of Isidore, and that is, that they seeing in the book of Wisdom so clear proofs of Christ, plotted together to put it out of the Canon, which serves not so much his turn, if it were so, as it makes against yours, and shows how that might come to pass, which you judge impossible, the Posterity of the Jews having been deceived by this Complot; although pretending at least, and for aught appears, believing that the Tradition of their Church is still uncorrupted.  
And truly if the Author desires to examine divers 
Resp.  Religions, let him look their main ground wherein they rely, and see whether that be good or no: And I think amongst Christians he shall find but two, Tradition, and Scripture,  
First, I allow not of your division, for not to 
Repl.  say now that you rely not only upon Tradition, these Protestants, whose part in this I take, depend not only upon Scripture, but upon Universal Tradition too, from which they receive that, and would more, if more seemed as clearly to them so to be delivered.  
Secondly, I think it reasonable not only to examine what their Principles are, but whether they do constantly follow them, for a man may write awry, that hath a straight Ruler, if he observe it not carefully.  
And the Catholics only to rely upon Tradition, 
Resp.  and all the rest upon Scripture; and he shall see, that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an Unity those who rely upon it, and more than one cannot rely upon Tradition.  
If all that rely upon Tradition be Catholics, 
Repl.  you must admit the Eastern Churches into your Communion, although you now account them both schismatics and Heretics: If all Catholics do rely upon Tradition as their only grounds, and Tradition be so sure and infallible, and unmistakable a deliverer, as you would persuade us, how come so many differences between you, some ever counting those things matter of Faith which others do not; which differences show, if they all rely on these Questions, upon the ground you say they do, that more than one may rely upon Tradition, and neither can Tradition, any more than Scripture, draw to an Unity, those who rely upon it; if either neither part do, or either do not, than Tradition is not the Common Tenure of Catholics, (not only in different opinions, but even in such as are most de fide, and as both parts think nothing but a definition (and some scarce that) to make the Holder's of the contrary to them Heretics) since if it were, neither could one part of Catholics rely upon any other than the Catholic ground, neither is it to be doubted, but that side which builds their opinion upon an Heretical foundation against another, believed upon a Catholic ground, would long agone have been among you exploded, and the Pope have been not only with so much pains persuaded, but even of himself ready to have past his censure upon them; if not for their superstructions, yet for their foundation.  
If I will be a Christian, I must be of one side. 
Resp.   
If you mean I must be of one side, that is take 
Repl.  one of these grounds, I answer, That I take both one from the other, Scripture from Tradition, though not from the present Tradition of a Part, but from the Universal one of the first Christians opposed by none, but by them, who were instantly counted by the generality heterodox, and as soon opposed as known. If you mean that I must be of one side in points, I wholly deny any such necessity.  
By falling on the one side, I see my fortune in 
Resp.  thousands who have gone before me, to wit, that I shall be to seek all my life time, as I see they are, and how greatly they magnify very weak pieces. On the other side, I see every man who followeth, as far as he followeth it, is at quiet.  
I see not but the greatest part of those who take 
Repl.  the ground which you mislike, are yet settled and confident enough in their opinion, and if they continued always seeking Truth for the love of it, I know not why they should be the less likely to find Heaven: Neither think I that you will say (nay it is plain by your own words, that you will not say) that Saint Austin had been damned if he had died in his search, nor consequently any other in his case. And whereas you say, that all who follow the other, are at quiet as far as they follow it, I answer, So are all who fixedly believe themselves to follow an infallible (although indeed a false) Guide, as the mahometans, being led by their Mufty,: Which proves Quiet, no sufficient caution for Truth, nor Security for Safety, and that, supposing yours the more easy and satisfying way, it follows not that it is the more reasonable: And for what you say of a man's duty to judge himself rigorously, whether he seek as he ought, I subscribe to that opinion, and approve of your Council.  
Besides this, he must have this care, that he seek 
Resp.  what the Nature of the subject can yield, and not as these Physicians, who when they have promised no less than immortality, can at last only reach to some conservation of health, or youth in some small degree; So I could wish the Author well to assure himself, First, that there is possible an infallibility, before he be to earnest to be contented with nothing less. For, what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good, would he therefore think fitting to live without any Religion, because he could not get such a one as himself desired, though with more than a man's wish.  
What you now say, I confess is very rational, 
Repl.  (as indeed all you say, is as much as your cause will suffer) and I require you not therefore to prove your opinions to be infallible by infallible arguments, as necessary to be done in itself, but as necessary to be done by them, of whose opinions their Church's infallibility is not only a part, but a ground, and that the chief, if not the only one, and of which an infallible certainty is the first and main condition of their Communion, and our want of it, one of their main Objections against us.  
He that will make a judgement in an Art he is not 
Resp.  Master in, if he be deceived, it is to be imputed to himself. The Phrase commandeth us to believe every man in his Art, he who knoweth and understandeth himself believeth not. Therefore when we see Masters in an Art, we are not skilled in, oppose us, we may believe we are in the wrong, which will breed this Resolution in the Author of the discourse, that if himself be not skilled in all those ways in which he pursues his search, he must find himself obleiged to seek Masters, who be both well skilled, and the matter being subject to faction also, very honest, and upright men, or else he doth not quit himself before God.  
Truly I am far from being Master either in 
Repl.  this or any other Art, but if for this cause I ought to doubt, and because much learneder persons oppose me, I ought to believe myself in the wrong, then so ought those of your part to do; who are as Ignorant as I, we having many much more learned than they who oppose them, and take our part, though therefore I think not of myself (what Tully in a Compliment would persuade one of his Friends, that Nemo est qui sapientius mihi possit suadere meipso, yet I dare not choose (as you would have me) some Master to search for me, and believe him blindfold, (though if I would, I see no cause why to choose any from among you, who have so many able Teachers at home (for you confessing that the matters are subject to Faction, and it being certain, that not only who are honest is impossible to be known, but that eagerness and desire to have, what they think Truth, prevail, makes even the honest men sometimes deviate from the line of exact honesty, and lie for God, which he not only needs not, but forbids, (as is to be seen too frequently in the Quotations of both sides) I conceive it the best way to follow my own Reason, since I know I have no will to cozen myself, as they may have to cozen me: Especially since neither could I build upon such a way, an assent of such a degree, as your Church requires, since such Masters, although learned, which I being unlearned may be deceived in, and honest, which all men might be deceived in, yet not infallible, could not in reason make me infallibly certain of the orthodoxness of that side, which they should choose for me: So that what was said by the Pagan Solomon Socrates, (who yet was no confident man of his knowledge) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is my resolution too, and indeed in effect if not wholly, yet almost every man's, for those who trust their Reason least, yet trust it in this, that some other instead of it is to be trusted, and so choose who they are to trust, against which the Arguments either from the fallibility of Reason in general, or in this particular remain equally, an ignorant man being as likely to be deceived in the choice of his Guide, as in that of his Way, and that course being rather the shorter than the better, as venturing in the same, and no stronger a Bark, only venturing all his wealth at once.  
It is not all one not to incur damnation for infidelity, 
Resp.  and to be in state of damnation; for the man to whom infidelity is not imputed, may be in state of damnation for other faults; as those were, who having known God by his works, did not glorify him as they ought.  
That men may be damned for other faults concerns 
Repl.  not our Question, nor indeed is any.  
Nay, they may be damned for want of Faith, and 
Resp.  yet not be damned for incredulity, As for example sake, if when they have sinned, they know not what means to have them forgiven, though they be without fault in not believing, nevertheless dying without Remission of sin, they are not in state to come to life everlasting.  
This concerns no Christians, none of which 
Repl.  that I know differs from you in the necessary means of obtaining forgiveness for sins, for though you require Confession, yet you allow that Contrition will save without it: Neither do I believe, but an imperfect Repentance caused through faultless Ignorance, of what it is for it to be perfect, will still be accepted by him who regards the Heart more than the Action; indeed only the Action, because of the Heart, and knows, that if he use not the appointed means, it is only because he knows it not, else considering the many impositions from above the great frailty within, and the great and many temptations without, so that to fall into no sin, were morally impossible, he who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generally observed what he counted himself bound to observe, if for some faults which he was after heartily sorry for, and had sincerely reform, he should be damned for want of knowing more, how to purge himself from them than he could possibly know, God would not be desirous of the Salvation of all men, and it would seem agreeable to no Mercy, nor to any Justice, except that Summum jus, which ever hath been thought condemnable in man, and consequently incompatible in God.  
As the man who should venture into a wood without 
Resp.  a Guide, although he did his best to have a guide, nothing less might fall out of his way as well as he who neglected the taking of one; so if God sent us his Son to show us the way of Salvation, as well is he like not to be saved who never heard of such a way, as he that heard of it and neglected it, for neither of the two goeth that way: And who goeth not on the way, is not like to come to the end.  
The way is believing and obeying Christ, for 
Repl.  them to whom He and his Commands are sufficiently proposed, I mean so, that it is their fault if they know them not: In general then, it is seeking the Truth impartially, and obeying diligently what is found sincerely, and who treads this way, though he miss of Truth, shall not miss of his favour who is the Father of it, and if he be excluded Heaven, sure God meant that he should never come thither, and desires not that he and all else should, else he would not have proposed only such a way, which if it were possible for any to miss without his own fault, and which he knew that many would. Truly, that no opinion, that no error is a sin without the cause of it be one; and that God is not displeased with any man for not seeing what it is not his fault that he doth not see, is agreeable to the common Notions of Justice, and God, and it is a very good Negative way to try superstructions by, to see whether they agree with these grounds of all Religion, whereof, rather than believe such men should be damned, I would believe they should be annihilated, or keep your Children company, and have poenam damni, though not sensus.  
I know God is good and merciful: But I know his 
Resp.  decrees as far as we know are dispensed by the order of second Causes, and where we see no second Causes, we cannot presume of the effects; and how am I assured he will send Angels to illuminate such men as do their endeavonrs, that their Souls may not perish.  
A careful search of Gods, and inclusively 
Repl.  Christ's will, and readiness to obey it, is second Cause enough; For, for want of that second cause, we must not suppose any thing to the dishonour of of the First. As to believe, that they should be so punished who do their endeavours, is to lay their damnation to God's charge: One of the chief ways with which the Ancients opposed the Pagans, was showing them that their Religion taught such things of their Gods, as no Reason would allow not to be dishonourable to the Deity. Now truly, if when by this Argument we have rooted out the Pagan Gods, we lay as strange imputations upon the God of the Christians, what effect is it likely to produce, but only to make men call for their old Gods again, and think that we had as good kept those, who delighted in the Sacrifices of men, who deposed their Fathers, and eat their Children, as have changed hardly for the better. It is reported in the Ecclesiastical Historythat a Painter for drawing Christ in the likeness of Jupiter, had his hand dried up, and certainly they who figure him to themselves, and others with Attributes so contrary to his, and more fit for a Jupiter, do him much more wrong, then if they had drawn him Tela trisulca tenentem, with a thunder bolt in his hand. What Master, Father, or King, would not be esteemed a Tyrant, who should inflict not only an infinite, and an eternal, but a slight and a short punishment upon a Servant, Child, or Subject, for not doing when commanded, what the Commanders saw with all his endeavours, which he had diligently applied, he could not do; and shall we lay such an aspersion upon that God, (who though he be Justice itself, is more Merciful than Just, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father of Mercies) as that like a Pharaoh, he should exact Brick, when there is no possibility of getting Straw. You may believe what you think fit, but rather than I will believe that any man's Soul that hath done his endeavours, not only shall, but that it is possible it should perish, (although not illuminated by Angels, which yet, if Illumination were necessary, I know some way or other he should have) rather than I will believe, either that any be damned for what is no sin, or that sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somewhat out of our power, (which if we thought, it would be soon out of our care) rather then when God hath so often told us, That he desires not the death of a sinner, I will give him the lie; and say, that he desires his damnation, even as a Creature without any reference to his sin, by chalking out only such a way from Hell, which it-was impossible for his search to lead him into, and so make him as much a worse Father than Satan, as to damn is worse than to devour; rather I say then this, I will make yours, or the Pagan Legend, Ovid's Metamorphosis, my Creed; nor would I be a member of the Christian Church, if this belief were a necessary part of Christian Religion, but should cry out with Averro, (whom Transubstantiation kept a Pagan) Sat anima mea cum Philosophis, for the excellency, and purity of the doctrine in all other points tending wholly to the honour of God, and the common happiness of man, the sanctified life, constant sufferings, and wonderful Miracles of the Divulgers of it, the wonderful progress of it, (not a much less Miracle than they) the weak things of the World confounding the strong, and Fishermen confuting Philosothers, that a Doctrine so strict and contrary to humane desires, and not only barring from so much pleasure and glory, but also making the Sectators liable to such cruelty and contempt, should persuade so many, and so wise persons to leave present things in hope of future, all this and whatsoever else, any Raimond, Seband, Vives, Plesiis, Charron, or Grotius, could either more sharply design, or more eloquently express, would not reasonably prevail, if such a block as such a Doctrine were laid in the way, (of which sort your Religion hath yet more) and that one dead fly would corrupt the whole ointment; the excellency of the rest of the Doctrine of Christianity would be thought the Art, and the great and and many miracles would be thought the Act of some evil Genius, such as befriended Apollonius, to ensnare men by those means into the belief of that opinion, which so much derogates from the Maker of things, and the prevailing of it, though a very probable argument, would not serve for a Passport to such an impossibility.  
But far more do I doubt, whether ever man, who 
Resp.  had not the way of Christ, or even of those who walked in it, did ever do his best (except some few, and very few, perhaps not two of Christ his greatest Favourites) and was not so culpable, that his Perdition would not have been imputed unto himself. God of his mercy put us in the score of those of whom he saith, He will take pity upon whom he pleaseth, and Compassion of them he pitieth.  
How few their number is we will not dispute, 
Repl.  since God's justice is in them vindicated, and they, not He, the Author of their damnation. But neither believe I, that God is so rigorously just, as to stand ready to catch at a slip, (like an Usurer for the forfeiture of a bond) but is of long suffering and Patience, and will as well accept our Repentance, (joined with amendment for this neglect in our search, as for other sins: Howsoever I am so far from thinking your prayer needless, that I both thank you for it humbly, and join with you in it heartily; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
To conclude, I am to make two very contrary excuses; The one that my Paper hath left some things in yours unanswered: The other, that I have answered others too often.  
Of the first, I protest (which the Reader will believe me in) nothing is left out, in which I conceived any weight of Argument lay, but only such things, as though they were superfluous for the Logic, yet conduced to the Rhetoric of your work, an eloquent Treatise, being always like a hopeful young Man, in quo aliquid amputandum.  
Of the Second, My Method, or rather my no Method was one, and your own Repetitions another Reason, so that you may the better pardon me that fault, of which yourself are a partie-cause.  
But to seal up all, I desire you, that how little assent soever you give to my Arguments, you will be pleased to give credit to my Assertions, when I seriously profess myself,  
Your very much obliged and thankful Servant.    

Mr. Walter Montague his Letter to the Lord of Faulkland.  
My Lord,  
AFter much debate concerning the fittest expression of my duty to your Lordship, whether I ought by silence, seek to suspend your belief of the declaration of myself, I have made here, or by a clear profession of it, assure you of what I may only fear to present you with, as apprehensive of a misinterpreted affection; I conclude, what was most satisfactory to my first, and immediate duty to God, was most justifiable to my second, and derivative to Nature. Therefore I resolved so soon, to give you this ingenious account of myself: The greatest part of my life capable of distinction of Religions, hath been employed in places, and conversant with persons, opposite to the Faith I was bred in, therefore it had been strange, if Natural curiosity, without any spiritual provocation, had not invited to the desire of looking with mine own eyes upon the foundation I stood upon, rather there holding fast blindfold by my education, to agree to be carried away always after it, insensible of all shocks I met to unfasten me, and besides, I was solicited with the reproaches Protestants press upon Catholics, that they blindly believe all the Impostures of the Church, without any illumination of the Judgements, this my thoughts enjoined, the clearest information of myself of the differences between us I could propose to my capacity.  
So at my last journey into Italy, I did employ all my leisure to a more justifiable settlement of my belief, as I then imagined, by a confirmation of my judgement, in what had been introduced by my birth and education. I began with this consideration, that there were two sorts of questions between the Catholics and Protestants, the one of Right or Doctrine, the other of Fact or Story; As this, whether Luther were the first Erector of the Protestants Faith, whether it had a visible appearance of Pastors and Teachers before his time, I resolved to begin my enquiry with the Question of Fact, for these Reasons.  
First, Because they were so few, and so comprehensible by all capacities, and the controversies of doctrine so intricate, and so many, as they required much time and learning for their disquisition, only I found myself unprovided for both those requisitions for this undertaking, and for the decision of the other, I needed not much presumption to believe myself a competent Judge, when it consisteth only in the perusal of authentic Testimonies.  
Secondly, I considered, that there was no one point of controverted doctrine whereon all the rest depended, but that this one Question of Fact was such, as the dicision of it determined all the rest, for if Luther could be proved to be the Innovatour of the Protestants faith, it was necessary evicted, of not being the true ancient Apostolical Religion. Therefore I began with this enquiry, which Protestants are bound to make to answer to this Objection, to find out an existence of some Professors of the reformed Doctrines before Luther's time: for finding the Catholics were not obligedto prove the Negative, it was my part, to prove to myself the Affirmative, that our Religion was no innovation by some pre-existence before that, but in the perusal of all the Stories or Records, Ecclesiastical, or Civil, as I could choose, I could find no ancienter a dissension from the Roman Church then Waldo, Wickliff, or hus, whose cause had relation to the now-professed Protestancy, so as I found an interval of about eight hundred years from the time, that all the Protestants confess a Unity with the Church of Rome down to those persons, without any apparent profession of different Faith. To answer myself in this point, I read many of our Protestant Authors who treated of it, and I found most of them reply to this sense, in which I cite here one of the most authentic, Doctor Whitaker in his Controversy 2. 3. pag. 479. where they ask of us, where our Church was heretofore for so many Ages? We answer, that it was in secret solitude, that is to say, it was concealed, and lay hid from the sight of men, and further, the same Doctor, Chap. 4. pag. 502. our Church always was; but you say it was not visible, doth that prove that it was not? No, for it lay hid in a solitary concealment; to this direct sense, were all the answers that ever I could meet to this Objection; I repeat no more, these places being so positive to our point. This confession of invisibility in our Church for so many ages did much perplex me, it seemed to me, even to offend Natural reason, such a derogation from God's power or providence, as the sufferance of so great an Eclipse of the light of this true Church, and such a Church as this is described to be, seeming to me repugnant to the main reason, why God hath a Church on Earth, which is to be conserver of the Doctrine, Christ's precepts, and to convey it from age to age, until the end of the world. Therefore I applied my study, to peruse such arguments as the Catholics brought for the proof of a continual visibility of the true Church down from the Apostles time in all Ages, and appearance of Doctors teaching and administering the Sacrament, in proof of this I found they brought many provisoes of the Scripture, but this text most literal, of the fourth of the Ephesians, Christ hath placed in his Church, Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the saints, till we meet in the Unity of the Faith, and next the discourse, upon which they infer this necessary visible succession of the Church, seemed to me, to be a most rational and convincing one, which is to this effect, Natural Reason not being able to proportion to a man a cause that might certainly bring him to a state of supernatural happiness, and that such a cause being necessary to mankind, which otherwise would totally fail of the end it was created for, there remained no other way, but that it must be proposed unto us by one, whose authority we could not of, and that in so plain a manner, as the simplest may be capable of it as well as the learned. This work was performed by our Saviour, from whose mouth all our Faith is originally derived, but this succeeding age not being able to receive it immediate from thence, it was necessary it should be conveyed unto them that lived in it, by those that did receive it from Christ's own Mouth, and so from Age to Age until the end of the world; and in what Age soever this thread of doctrine should be broken it must needs be acknowledged for the reason above mentioned, that the light, which should convey mankind through the darkness of this world, was extinguished, and mankind is left without a Guide to infallible ruin, which cannot stand with God's providence and goodness, which Saint Austin affirms for his opinion, directly in his book de Util. Cred. Cap. 16. saying, If divine providence do preside over humane affairs, it is not to be doubted, but that there is some authority constituted by the same God, upon which going, as upon certain steps, we are carried to God; nor can it be said he meant the Scriptures only by these steps, sinoe experience shows us the continual alteration about the right sense of several of the most important places of it, that what is contained there, cannot be a competent rule to mankind, which consisteth more of simple then leanned men; and besides, the Scriptures must have been supposed to have been kept in some hands, whose authority must beget our acceptance of it, which being no other thing then the Church in all Ages, we have no more reason to believe, that it hath preserved the Scriptures free from all corruption, then that it hath maintained itself in a continual visibility, which Saint Augustine concludeth to be a mark of the true Church, in these words, in his book Cont. Cecil. 104. The true Church hath this certain sign, that it cannot be hid, therefore it must be known to all Nations; but that part of the Protestants is unknown to many, therefore cannot be the true; no inference can be stronger than from hence, that the concealment of a Church disproves the truth of it. Lastly, not to insist upon the allegation of the sense of all the Fathers of the Church in every several Age, which seemed to me most clear; that which in this cause weighed much with me, was the confession and testimony of the approved Doctors themselves of the Protestant Church, as Hooker in his Book of Eccles. Pol. pag. 126. God always had, and must have some visible Church upon Earth: and Doctor Field, the first of Eccles. cap. 10. It cannot be, but those that are the true Church must be known by the profession of truth; and further, the same Doctor says, How should the Church be in the world, and nobody profess openly the saving truth of God; and Doctor White in his defence of the Way, chap. 4. pag. 790. The providence of God hath left Monuments and Stories for the confirmation of our faith; and I confess truly, that our Religion is false, if a continual descent of it cannot be demonstrated by these monuments down from Christ's time; this appeareth unto me a direct submission of themselves, to produce these apparent testimonies of the public profession of their faith, as the Catholics demand; but this I could never read, nor know of any that performed; for Doctor White himself, for want of proof of this, is fain to say in another place in his Way to the Church, pag. 510. The Doctors of our faith, hath had a continual succession, though not visible to the world, so that he flies from his undertaking of a conspicuous demonstration of the monuments of his faith, to an invisible subterfuge, or a belief without appearance; for he saith, in the same book in another place, pag. 84. All the eternal government of the Church may fail, so as a local and personal succession of Pastors may be interrupted; and pag. 403. We do not contest for an external succession, it sufficeth that they succeed in the doctrine of the Apostles and Faithful, which in all ages did embrace the same Faith; so as here he removeth absolutely all external proof of succession, which before he consented to be guided by. I cannot say, I have verbally cited these Authors, because I have translated these places, though the Original be in English, yet I am sure, their sense is no way injured; and I have chosen to allege Doctor Whites authority, because he is an Orthodox Professor of the Protestant Church; the reflection of the state of this question, where I found the Protestants defend themselves, only by flying out of sight, by confessing a long invisibility in their Church in appearance of Pastors and Doctors; the same interpretation left me much loosened from the fastness of my professed Religion, but had not yet transported me to the Catholic Church, for I had an opinion, that our Divines might yet fill up this vacancy with some more substantial than I could meet with, so I came back into England, with a purpose of seeking nothing so intentively as this satisfaction, and to this purpose I did covertly (under another man's name) send this my scruple to one, whose learning and sufficiency I had much affiance in, in these terms, whether there was no visible succession to be provedin the Protestant Church, since the Apostles time down to Luther, and what was to be answered to that Objection, besides the Confession of invisibility for so many ages, to this I could get no other answer, but that the point had been largely and learnedly handled by Doctor White, and many other of our Church: upon this I resolved to inform myself in some other points, which seemed to me unwarrantable and suspicious in the Ceremonies of the Roman Church, since I had such aninducement as so little satisfaction in a point that seemed to me so essential; andin all these scruples, I found mine own mistake in the belief of the Tenants of the Roman Church, gave me the only occasion of scandal, not the practice of their doctrines, and to confirm me in the satisfaction of all them, I found the practice and authority of most of the ancient Fathers, and in the Protestant refutations of these doctrines, the recasations of their authorities, as men that might err, so that the question seemed then to me, whether I would rather hazard the erring with them, then with the latter Reformers, which consequently might err also in dissenting from them: I will not undertake to dispute the several Tenants controverted, nor doubt that your Lordship will suspect, that I omitted any satisfaction in any of them, since my resolution, of reconciling myself to the Roman Church, is not liable to any suspicion of too forward or precipitate resignation of myself, my judgement perchance may be censured of seducement, my affection cannot be of corruption.  
Upon these reasons I did, soon after my return last into England, reconcile myself to the Roman Catholic Church, in the belief and convincement of it, to be the true ancient and Apostolical by her external marks, and her internal objects of faith and doctrine; and in her I resolve to live and die, as the best way to Salvation: When I was in England I did not study dissimulation so dexterously, as if my fortune had read it to me, nor do I now Legacy, for I do not believe it so dangerous, but it may recover, for I know the King's wisdom is rightly informed, that the Catholic Faith doth not tend to the alienation of the Subject, it rather super-infuseth a Reverence and Obedience to Monarchy, and strengthens the bands of our obedience to our Natural Prince, and his Grace and vertion of them from the natural usual exercise of themselves, upon those that have the honour to have been bred with approbation of fidelity in his service, nor can I fear, that your Lordship should apprehend any change in my duty, even your displeasure (which I may apprehend upon the misinterpreted occasion) shall never give me any of the least recession from my duty, in which profession I humbly ask your blessing; as  
Your Lordship's obedient Son Paris 21. Novemb. 1635.   

The Lord of faulkland's Answer to a Letter of Mr. Montague, justifying his change of Religion, being dispersed in many Copies.  
I was desired to give my opinions of the Reasons, and my Reason if I misliked them; having read and considered it, I was brought to be persuaded.  
First, because having been sometimes in some degrees movedwith the same Inducements, I thought that what satisfied me, might possibly have the same effect upon him.  
Secondly, because I being a Lay man, a young man, and an Ignorant man, I thought a little Reason might in liklyhood work more from my Pen, then more from theirs, whose Profession, Age, and Studies might make him suspect, that it is they are too hard for him, and not their Cause for his.  
Thirdly, Because I was very desirous to do him service, not only as a man, and a Christian, but as one, whom all that know him inwardly, esteem of great parts, (and I am desirous somewhat to make up my great want of them, by my respect to those that have them) and as an impartial secker of Truth, which I trust he is, and I profess myself to be, and so much for the cause of this paper: I come now to that which it opposeth.  
FIrst then, whereas he defends his search, I suppose he is rather for that to receive praise, then to make Apologies, all men having cause to suspect that gold which were given with this condition, that the Receiver should not try it by any Touchstone.  
Secondly, He saith, that there being two sorts of Questions, the one of Right, or Doctrine, the other of Fact, or Story; As whether the Protestants Faith had a visible appearance before Luther, he resolved to begin his enquiry with the matter of Fact, as being sooner to be found, (because but one) and easier to be comprehended: To this I answer, by saying, that if they would not appeal from the Right Tribunal, or rather Rule, which is the Scripture, those many might casier be ended then this one, (we building our Faith only upon plain places, and all reasonable men, being sufficient of what is plain) but if they appeal to a consent of Fathers, and Counsels, where of many are lost, many not lost not to be gotten, many uncertain whether Fathers or no Fathers, and these, which we have, and know, being too many for almost any industry to read over, and absolutely for any memory to remember, (which yet is necessary, because anyone clause of any one Father, destroys a consent) and being besides liable to all the exceptions which can be brought against the Scriptures, being the Rule, as difficulty, want of an infallible Interpreter, and such like, and being denied to have any infallibility, (especially when they speak not as witnesses, which a consent of them never doth against us) by one party, which the Scripture is allowed to have by both, than I wonder not if he think such a way so uncertain, and so long, that he was willing to choose any shorter cut, rather than travel it: Neither do I believe this other to be so short, or so concluding as he imagines, for if he consider the large extent of Christian Religion, so that we know little from any indifferent Relator of the opinions of the Abissins', so great a part of Christendom, if he consider the great industry of his Church in extinguishing those whom they have called Heretics, and also their Books, so that we know scarce any thing of them, but from themselves, (who are too partial to make good Historians) if he consider how carefully they stop men's mouths, (even those of their own) with their Indices expurgatorii, it will then appear to him both a long work to seek, and a hard one to find, whether any thought like Luther in all Ages, and that he concludes very rashly, who resolves that there was none, because he cannot find any, since they might have been visible in their times, and yet not so to us, (for men are not the less visible when they are so, for not being after remembered) as a man may be a Gentleman, though he know not his pedigree: So that as I will not affirm that there were always such, because I cannot prove it, so neither ought they to make themselves sure there were none, without they could prove that which is impossible, and therefore no Argument can be drawn from thence; and if it could be proved, that such a no-waies-erring Church must at all times be, I had rather believe that there were still such, though we know them not, which may be true, then that theirs is it, which in my opinion cannot.  
Thirdly, He says that he could find no one point of controverted Doctrine, whereupon all the rest depended, but that this one Question of Fact was such, as the decision of it determined all the rest.  
To this I answer, That the Question of the Infallibility of the Pope, at least of those who adhere to him, which they call the Church, is such a one, as if determined, must determine all the rest, and not only to us, but to all men, whereas this (though granted necessary, and determined to his wish) would indeed conclude against us, but not for them, since the Greek Church would put in as good a Plea upon the Title of Visibility, as that of Rome, and he would be to begin anew with them when he had ended with us.  
Fourthly, He gives his reason, If Luther could be evicted to be the Innovator, his Religio is then evicted of not being the true ancient an and Apostolical.  
To this I answer, by confessing the consequence; but he might be the Renovator, and not the Innovator, and then no such consequence follows.  
Fifthly, He says we are bound to find an existence of some Professors of the reformed Religion before Luther, which requiry is bound upon his supposition of the necessity of a continual succession of a visible, and no-ways erroneous Church.  
Now I will first examine the sense of his terms. By the first, I conceive [by a place he citys out of Saint Austin, that he means visible to all Nations, but I pray, hath his been always so, I mean at least (for many Centuries) to those Nations, which Columbus hath not long since discovered.  
By the second term Church, I suppose he means a Company of Christians holding neither more, or less than Christ taught, (for in a more large sense, no man denies the Church to have been always in some degrees visible) and in this sense, I not only deny it necessary, that it should be always visible, but that it should always be, for I doubt whether there be, or for a long while, have been any such.  
Next, That such a one he means, appears, because when Catalogues have been brought of some, who in all Ages have differed from them in things which we hold, his side would not accept of them, because they agreed not with us in all things, and yet when Campian intends to prove all the Fathers to be his, he useth only this course of instancing, in some things wherein they agree with him, (though sometimes not so much, but rather the contrary aught to be inferred, as in the instance of Polycarpus, for comparing his words with the History, it will appear, that he concluded him a Papist for not being persuaded by the Pope) though they differed from them in many other, as indeed all the notable Fathers did in more than one point. I will therefore say, that if this be required to showing that a Church hath been ever visible, it is more than either part can do, and therefore I hope they will come upon better consideration to confess that not necessary for us to do, which is impossible for themselves. For let any man look into Antiquity, I will not say without all prejudice, but without an absolute Resolution of seeing nothing in it that contradicts his present belief, and if he find not some opinions of the Church of Rome as unknown unto Antiquity, as either he, or I; as the Pope's Indulgences having power to deliver out of Purgatory, confessed by Bishop Fisher, and Alphonsus de Castro, where they treat of Indulgences, if he find not others at first unknown, after known, but not held de fide, which are so at Rome, as Prayer to Saints, their enjoying the Beatifical Vision before the day 
Tom. 9 An. 726. de fide & Simbol.  of Judgement, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and her being free from all actual sin, if he find not some wholly unknown, and absolutely condemned, which we condemn, as the lawfulness of Picturing God the Father, whereof the first is confessed by Barronius in the Margin to an Epistle 
2 Lib. C. 2.  of a Pope, which says the same, and the latter to be found in many places of Saint Austin, Lactantius, and others, nay if he find not that all the Doctors, Saints, Martyrs of the two first Ages (I mean as many as are now extant, and speak of it) held something, which both parts condemn, as the opinions of the Chiliasts; If I say, he find not this, or I show him not that he might have found it, I profess I will be ready to spend my life for that Church, against which I now employ my Pen: So that this will be the end, neither of your Churches have been always visible, only the difference is this, that we are most troubled to show our Church in the Latter, and more corrupt Ages, and they theirs in the first and purest, that we can least find ours at night, and they theirs at Noon. And whereas he expects that Doctor White should stand to this, to confess his Religion false, if a continual descent of it cannot be demonstrated, if he himself will please to grant as much as he exacts, if he but continue in this resolution, and in this search, I doubt no more but that he will soon leave to be a Papist, than I should doubt if I saw him now receiving the Communion in the King's Chapel, that he had done it already.  
Sixtly, His Reasons for the necessity of the Visibility follow, because the contrary were a derogation from God's Power or Providence.  
I answer, To say he could not keep the Truth exactly in men's belief, were to derogate from God's Power, to say he had not given sufficient means to find the Truth, and yet damned men for error, the first would be a derogation from his Providence, the second from his Justice, but to say he suffers men to err, who neglect the means of not erring, and that he damns none for a mere error, in which the will hath no part, and consequently the man no fault, derogates from none of the three, but says he, this is repugnant to the main reason why God hath a Church upon Earth, to be the conserver of the Doctrine of Christ, and to convey it from Age to Age.  
I answer, To conserve it is every man's duty, but such as they may all fail in, and indeed is rather the the form of the Church, than the end of the Church, an exact conservation making an exact Church, and a less perfect conserving, a less perfect Church. As for conveyance of Doctrine, the whole Church conveys none, whereof many (if his be it) have had but little conveyed to them. Particular Christians (especially Pastors) teach others, which it is every man's duty to do when he meets with them who want instruction, which he can give, and they are likely to receive, yet is not the instruction of others every man's main end.  
But Mr. Montague I know persuades him, that some body of men are appointed to convey this Doctrine which men are to receive, only because they deliver it, and this I absolutely deny, for we receive no Doctrine from the Church upon the Church's authority, because we know her not to be the Church, till we have examined her Doctrine, and so rather receive her for it, than it for her. Neither for the conveyance of the Truth, is it necessary that any company of men in all times hold it all, because some may convey some Truths, and others another, out of which, by comparing their Doctrine with the Scripture, men may draw forth a whole and perfect body of Truth, and though they deliver few other Truths, yet in delivering Scripture (wherein all necessary Truth is contained) they deliver all, and by that Rule, whosoever regulates his life and Doctrine, I am confident, that though he may mistake Error for Truth in the way, he shall never mistake Hell for Heaven in the end.  
Seventhly, His next reason is their common Achilles, the fourth of the Ephesians, which he chooseth only to employ like his Triarios, his main Battle, leaving his Velites, his light-armed Soldiers, some places too allegorical, even in his own opinion to stand examination.  
The words are these,  
He hath given some Prophets, some Apostles, some 
Vers. 11.  Evangelists, some Pastors, and some Doctors. For 
12  the instauration of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the Edification of the body of Christ, till we all meet in the Unity of Faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, and unto the measure of the Age of the fullness of Christ. That we may be no more Children tossed and 
13  carried about with every wind of Doctrine, etc.  
Now out of this place I see not how a Succession may be evinced, rather I think it may, if that Apostle meant none.  
For first, He saith not I will give, but he hath given, and who could suppose that the Apostles could say, that Christ had given, than the present Pope and the Doctors who now adhere to him.  
Secondly, Allow that by what he hath given, were meant he hath promised, (which would be a gloss not much unlike to that which one of the most witty, and most eloquent of our Modern Divines, Doctor Donne, notes of Statuimus (i) abrogamus) yet since these several Nouns are governed by the same Verb, and no distinction put, it would prove as well a necessity of a continual Succession of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, as of Pastors, and Doctors, which is more then either they can show, or pretend they can, so that it seems to me to follow, that these were then given to do this till then, and not a Succession of them promised, till then to do this, and so we receiving and retaining the Scriptures, wherein what they taught is contained, (as we would any thing else that had as general and ancient a Tradition, if there were any such) need no more, for if he say that men are tossed for all the Scripture, I answer, so are they for all their Doctors, nay, if these keep any from being tossed, it is the Scripture which does it, upon which their authority is by them founded upon their own Interpretation and Reason, who yet will not give us leave to build any thing upon ours out of plainer places, and though they tell us, that we cannot know the Scriptures but from the Church, they are yet fain (as appears) to prove the authority of the Church out of Scripture, which makes me ask them in the words of their own Campian, and with much more cause Nihilne pudet Labyrinthi?  
Eighthly, There follows another reason to this sense, that reason not being able to show man a way to eternal happiness, and without such a one man would fail of the end to which he was ordained, it must be proposed by an infallible authority in so plain a manner, as even the simple might be capable of it, which being performed by our Saviour, it must be conveyed to succeeding Ages by those, who heard it from him, and whensoever this thread failed, mankind was left without a Guide to inevitable ruin.  
I answer, That though all this granted, it proves not against us, for we have the Scripture come down to us, relating Christ's Doctrine, and written by those that heard it, which the simple are capable of understanding, (I mean as much as is plain, and more is not necessary, since other Questions may as well be suffered without harm, as those between the Jesuits and the Dominicans about Praedetermination, and between the Dominicans and almost all the rest about the Immaculate Conception) and those who are not, neither are they capable out of Scripture to discern the true Church, much less by any of those Noteswhich require much understanding and learning, as Conformity with the Ancients, and such like.  
Ninethly, The same answer I give to this, serves also to the following words of Saint Austin, for whereas Mr. Montague concludeth, that he could not mean the Scriptures as a competent Rule to mankind, which consisteth most of simple Persons, because there hath been continual alterations about the sense of important places.  
I answer, That I may as well conclude by the same Logic, that neither is the Church a competent Guide, because in all Ages there have also been disputes, not only about her authority, but even which was she, and to whatsoever reason he imputes this, to the same may we the other, as to Negligence, Pride, Praejudication, and the like, and if he please to search, I verily believe he will find, that the Scriptures are both easier to be known then the Church, and that it is as easy to know what these teach, as when that hath defined; since they hold no decrees of hers binding de Fide, without a confirmation of the Popes, who cannot never be known infalliblly to be a Pope, because a secret Simony makes him none; no not to be a Christian, because want of due intention in the Baptizer makes him none, whereof the latter is always possible, and the first in some ages likely; and in hard Questions a readiness to yield when they shall be explained, me thinks should serve as well as a readiness to assent to the decrees of the Church, when those shall be pronounced.  
Tenthly, He saith that the Scripture must be kept safe in some hands, whose authority must beget our acceptance of it, which being no other than the Church of all ages, we have no more reason to believe that it hath preserved that free from Corruption, than itself in a continual visibility.  
I answer, That neither to giving authority to Scriptures, nor to the keeping of them, is required a continual visibility of a no-ways erring body of Christians; the Writers of them give them their authority among Christians, nor can the Church move any other, and that they were the Writers, we receive from the general Tradition and Testimony of the first Christians, not from any following Church, who could know nothing of it but from them, (for for those parts, which were then doubted of by such as were not condemned for it by the rest, why may not we remain in the same suspense of them that they did) and for their being kept and conveyed, this was not done only by their Church, but by others, as by the Greeks, and there is no reason to say, that to the keeping and transmitting of records safely, it is required to understand them perfectly, since the old Testament was kept and transmitted by the Jews, who yet were so capable of erring, that out of it they looked for a Temporal King, when it spoke of a Spiritual; and me thinks the Testimony is greater of a Church which contradicts the Scripture, then of one which doth not, since no man's witnessing is so soon to be taken, as when against himself, and so their Testimony is more receiveable, which is given to the Scriptures by which themselves are condemned. Besides the general reverence which ever hath been given to these Books, and the continual use of them (together with several parties, having always their eyes upon each other each desirous to have somewhat to accuse in their adversaries) give us a greater certainty, that these are the same writings than we have, that any other ancient book is any other ancient Author, and we need not to have any erring Company preserved to make us surer of it: Yet the Church of Rome, as infallible a depositary as she is, hath suffered some variety to creep into the Copies in some less material things, nay, and some whole Books (as they themselves say) to be lost, and if they say, how then can that be rule whereof part is lost? I reply, That we are excused if we walk by all the Rule that we have, and that this maketh as much against Traditions being the Rule, since the Church hath not looked better to God's unwritten Word, then to his written, and if she pretend she hath, let her tell us the cause why Antichrists coming was deferred, which was a Tradition of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, and which without impudence she cannot pretend to have lost? And if again they say, God hath preserved all necessary Tradition. I reply, so hath he all necessary Scripture, for by not being preserved, it became to us not necessary, since we cannot be bound to believe and follow that we cannot find.  
But besides, I believe that which was ever necessary is contained in what remains, for Pappias saith of Saint Mark, that he writ all that Saint Peter preached, as Irenaeus doth, that Luke writ all that Saint Paul preached, nay, Vincentius Lirinensis, though he would have the Scripture expounded by ancient Tradition, yet confesseth that all is there which is necessary, (and yet then there was no more Scripture than we now have) as indeed by such a Tradition as he speaks of, no more can be proved then is plainly there, and almost all Christians consent in; and truly I wonder, that they should brag so much of that Author, since both in this and other things, he makes much against them, as especially in not sending men to the present Roman Church for a Guide, a much readier way, (if he had known it) than such a long and doubtful Rule, as he prescribes, which indeed it is impossible that almost any Question should be ended by.  
Eleventhly, He brings Saint Austin's authority to prove, that the true Church must be always visible; but if he understood Church in Mr Mountagues sense, I think he was deceived, neither is this impudent for me to say, since I have cause to think it but his particular opinion, by his saying (which Cardinal Perron quoted) that before the Donatists, the Question of the Church had never been exactly disputed of, and by this, being one of his main grounds against them, and yet claiming no Tradition, but only places of Scripture, most of them allegorical, and if it were no more, I may better descent from it, than he from all the first Fathers, (for Dionysius Areopagita was not then hatched) in the point of the Chiliasts, though some of them (Pappias and Irenaeus) claimed a direct Tradition, and Christ's own words.  
Secondly, As useth this kind of liberty, so he professeth it in his nineteenth Epistle, where he saith, that to Canonical Scriptures he had learned to give the reverence, as not to doubt of what they said, because they said it, from all others he expected proof from Scripture or Reason.  
Thirdly, The Church of Rome condemns several opinions of his, and therefore she ought not to find fault with them who imitate her example.  
Twelfthly, He adds two reasons more, The consent of the Fathers of all ages, And the confession of Protestants.  
To the Frst I answer, That I know not of any such, and am the more unapt to believe it, because Mr. Montague vouchsafes not to insist upon it, nor to quote any, which I guess he would have done, but that he misdoubted their strength.  
Secondly, Suppose that all the Fathers which speak of this, did say so, yet if they say it but as private Doctors, and claim no Tradition, I know not why they should weigh more than so many of the now learned, who having more helps from Arts, and no fewer from Nature, are not worse searchers into what is Truth, though less capable of being Witnesses to what was Tradition.  
Thirdly, They themselves often profess they expect not to be read as Judges, but as to be judged by their and our Rule, the Canonical Scriptures.  
Fourthly, Let him please to read about the Immaculate Conception Rosa Salmeron, and Wadding, and he will find me as submissive to Antiquity, even whilst I reject it, as those of their own Party; for they to prefer new opinions before old, are fain to prefer new Doctors before old, and to confess the latter more perspicatious, and to differ from those of former times, with as little scruple 
6 Cap. St. Johan.  as he would from Calvin, (whom Maldonat, on purpose to oppose, confesseth he chooseth a new Interpretation, before that of all the Ancients, which no witness but my eyes could have made me believe) nay, and produce other points wherein their Church hath decreed against the Fathers, to persuade her to do so again, although Campian with an eloquent brag, would persuade us, that they are all as much for him, as Gregory the thirteenth who was then Pope.  
To the Second I answer, That Infallibility is not by us denied to the Church of Rome, with an intention of allowing it to particular Protestants, how wise and learned soever.  
Thirteenthly, He says next, that he after resolved to inform himself in other points which seemed to him unwarrantable, and superstitious, and found only his own mistakes gave him occasion of Scandal.  
To this I answer, That I cannot well answer any thing, unless he had specified the points, but I can say that there are many, as picturing God the Father, (which is generally thought lawful, and as generally practised) their offerings to the Virgin Mary, (which only differs from the Heresy of the Colltridians', in that a Candle is not a Cake) their praying to Saints, and believing the fide that they hear us, though no way made certain that they do so, and many more, which without any mistake of his might have given him occasion to be still scandalised: For whereas he saith that those points were grounded upon the authority of the ancient Fathers, which was refused as insufficient by Protestants.  
I answer, That none of these I name have any ground in the Ancientest, nay, the first is by them disallowed, and if any other superstition of theirs have from them any ground, yet they who depart from so many of the Ancients in several opinions, cannot by any reason be excused for retaining any error, because therein they consent, nor have the Protestants cause to receive it from them as a sufficient Apology, neither hath he to follow the Fathers rather than Protestants, in a cause, in which not the Persons, but the Reasons, were to have been considered. For when Saint Hierome was by this way both brought into, and held in a strange error, though he speaks something like Mr. Montague, Patiaris me errare cum talibus, Suffer me to err with such men, yet he could not obtain Saint Austin's leave, who would not suffer him, but answered their Reasons, and neglected their Authorities.  
Fourteen, He speaks of his Religion super-infusing Loyalty, and if he had only said it destroyed or weakened it not, I (who wish that no doubt of his allegiance may once enter his mind, to whom we all owe it, but profess myself his humble Servant, and no ways his enemy, though his adversary) would then made no answer, but since he speaks as if Popery were the way to obedience, I cannot but say, that though no Tenet of their whole Church (which I know) make at all against it, yet there are prevailing opinions on that side, which are not fit to make good subjects, when their King and they are of different persuasions. For besides that Cardinal D' Ossat (an Author which Mr. Montague, I know, hath read, because whosoever hath but considered State matters, must be as well skilled in him, as any Priest in his Breviary) tell us, that it is the Spaniards Maxim, That Faith is not to be kept amongst Heretics, and more, that the Pope intimated as much in a discourse, intended to persuade the King of France to forsake the Queen of England; he saith moreover, speaking in another place, speaking about the Marquizat of Saluces, that they hold at Rome, that the Pope, to avoid a probable danger of the increasing of Heresy, may take a Territory from the true Owner, and dispose of it to another, and many also defend, that he hath power to depose an Heretical Prince, and of Heresy he makes himself the Judge; So that though I had rather my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth, then that I should deny that a Papist may be a good Subject, even to a King whom he accounts an Heretic, since I veriy believe, that I myself know very many, very good: yet Popely is like to an ill air, wherein though many keep their healths, yet many are infected, (so that at most they are good Subjects but during the Pope's pleasure) and the rest are in more danger, then if they were out of it.  
To conclude, I believe that what I have said may at least serve (if he will descend to consider it) to move Mr. Montague to a further search, and for Memorandums in it, which if it do, he will be soon able to give as much better Reasons for my conclusion, (that such a Visible Church neither need, nor can be showed) as his understanding is degrees above mine. I hope also by comparing the body of their belief, and the ground of their authority, the little that can be drawn out of the fourth of the Ephesians, with the Miriads of contradiction in Transubstantiation, he will come to see, that their Pillars are too weak to hold up any building, be it never so light, and their building is too heavy to be held up by any Pillars, be they never so strong, and trust he will return to us, whom he will find that he hath causelessely left, if he be (which I doubt not) so ingenuous, as not to hold an opinion, because he hath turned to it, nor to stay, only because he went.  
FINIS.