call Poperie And truly in his Dialogues which are sett out in English there 's more then enough to show that the Religion of his time was the same which we now professe And we that haue our cōuersion from him according to venerable Bede wee I saie who are descended from the Saxons neuer haue had anie Religiō but that which the Protestants call Poperie And therefore to vs English men it is most cleere that we neuer had anie Religiō since Gregorie the great 's time but Poperie And therefore if the Religion that then raigned was the faith of the Apostles it will euidently follow that Poperie was their faith Vncle. Surely not only writers but euen Records and Monuments are so thicke since the conuersion of those nations which ouer runne the Romā world that no peruerse man cā requite more euidēce And surely it was God's prouidence who setled as it were a new world and purged the old whilest Religion could yet looke backe and see hir head as it were with one vewe But I hoped you would haue induced a farther consequence and applyed the argument to later ages Nephew I am affraid these calculations may ouer reach me for I fee the father and the sonne 's age doe concurre in some part and therefore by counting them seuerally the number of yeares will be greater then in deede ought to be allowed Vncle. You saie well and therefore we will only take that number of yeares which the father ordinarily liueth before the birth of his sonne As if the sonne be supposed to be 20. yeares of age when the father testifieth and the father 60. Which you see is verie cōmon and so the number of yeares of one descent will be 40. Which is the number we put But if the father be 80. when the sonne is 20. then the number of one descent wil be 60. Which though it be some what great because it is rare that a man hath a child at 60. yet t' is not so rare but a thousand may bee found in a competent extent as in the Kingdome of England and this number is amply sufficient for the effect we desire for fiue descents of 60. yeares make 300. yeares And hauing tould you how a generall practize of anie countrie is knowne by a kind of self seeing for fiue descents which include's at least 200. yeares it will follow that coūting downe frō Christ time to ours by two ages at a time we may frame our discourse thus As those who liued in the beginning of the third age could certainely know they held the Apostles doctrine so those who liued in the beginning of the fift age could certainely know they held the doctrine of those of the beginning of the third age that is the doctrine of the Apostles And by the like cōsequēce those of the 7. age will be certaine they are in the same faith of those of the fift and those of the 9. in the faith of those of the 7. And so to our verie selues And all are certaine that they are in the faith of the Apostles The reason of this consequence is because two ages is not so great a space but that certaine knowledge of publicke and generall chāges through a kingdome much more through manie may be easily had nor yet are two ages so litle as that a great errour could lurke vnseene and lye smoothered for so long a time We therefore who now liue in communion with the Roman church know certainely that our forefathers of the 16. and 15 ages did conceiue that this faith and doctrine which we hold did I saie conceiue and thinke it to haue descended vnto them from the Apostles And we know likewise that they could not conceiue and thinke so but that they knew the 14. and 13. ages did belieue the same Nor those of the 14. and 13. ages could not haue the same beliefe vnlesse they had seene and receiued it in and from the 12. and the 11. age And putting all these together the certaintie whereof is immediatly founded in this our age you see they comprehēde six ages if we put 40. yeares to a descent and will comprehende 8. or 9. ages if we put 60. to a descent So that two or at must three such cōpositiōs will reach beyond Christ's birth And therefore we doe not nor cannot want euidence but eyes to see it Nephew Your discourse will be good supposing the pointe in cōtrouersie be some publicke and great matter or a notorious change in the face of God's church But why might not some speculatiue pointe creepe in without being taken notice of such as was the pointe of the Arrians or Pelagians if there had not happened with all so great an opposition and quarelling as shaked almost the whole church why no neW point cā creepe into the church without a great change Vncle. There be two reasons why no pointe of Christian doctrine can be so smale as to creepe in without a great change The one is because Christian doctrine is a discipline whose parts are so knit together as that one thred cānot be broken but it will rauell through manie stiches As frō th' Arriā heresie denying Christ to be God it would follow no Trinitie and so Christians would easily become naturall philosophers and Pagans no Incarnation that is no God and man in one person All the payeres and adorations which the church had vsed hitherto were to be changed The forme of baptisme were to be altered And thus we might goe through the most part of Christian doctrine if we looke into the sequels of Arrianisme And such like consequences may be deduced out of Pelagianisme and out of almost all othet heresies which haue not runne beyōd all face of Christianitie because they were quickly opposed and so hindered from shewing the serpent's taile which lurked behinde The other reason is because no new doctrine can preuaile in the church of God without impeaching tradition the rule of faith for that being once broken and reiected by the same right and principle by which they professe one errour they may professe anie And you see the disciples of Heresiarckes neuer faile to grow worse thē their Masters Luther broke the Ice by appealing to scripture Suinglius went farther then he th' Anabaptists exceeded the Swinglians the Adamistes passed th' Anabaptists the Socinians the Adamistes and some went beyond Christianitie others euen beyond common sense wherefore it is impossible anie breach should be made in the church without a maine and notorious chāge in the whole face of Christianitie Nephew I see now vncle it was not without cause you asked me what time the Apostles imployed in teaching Christiā doctrine to some one Prouince or Countrie your whole discourse seeme's to depende vpō this that the Apostles did not barely tell the faithfull what Christ had donne and taught bud did inculcate and beat it into thē both by words and actions invring thē to the practize of their beliefe their
in iudging white froÌ„ blacke because for sooth some weake eyes are now aÌ„d theÌ„ mistaken or as to saie no bodie can walke because some haue the palsey which were in deede to destroye nature and it's constancie in vniuersalls because of it's defectibilitie in it's particulars which is against common sense and reason Vncle. Well then doe you thinke their immediate forefathers could teach theÌ„ anie thing as of this qualitie but what themselues belieued and had receiued in the same manner Nephew No surely their immediate forefathers could not deliuer anie thing as of this nature to their successors against the doctrine which they had receiued from their predecessours euer standing in this principle that nothing is to be belieued as of necessitie in this degree but what came by hand to hand froÌ„ Christ or his Apostles Vncle. Tell me then I pray whether in the two last pointes that is whether ether we can be deceiued in what was deliuered by our immediate forefathers vnto vs as of this kinde or they deliuer vs anie doctrine as of this qualitie but what them selues receiued in the like sort whether I saie in ether of these two points there be anie differeÌ„ce betwixt anie former age and this our presentage or that what you haue granted of this age the same must not necessarily hold in all other ages euer since Christ Nephew I confesse I see noe difference Vncle. Reflect then vpon what you haue granted and considere whether anie error against a receiued doctrine aÌ„d practize of this nature could so creepe in as that there shoud be no determinate age of it's beginning in which it first tooke roote and flourished Nephew T' is not possible that anie thing should beginne and yet beginne in no time For I conceiue that an age is no smale time aÌ„d giue 's no litle growth to anie thing that beginne's so that to saie anie point of doctrine is a whole age in growing aÌ„d to saie with all it is imperceptible and after a whole age vnsensible is without doubt senslesse Yet if anie should saie that an error had beene begun by a priuate man and taught to some in one age which being neglected grew into practize in some one countrie and froÌ„ theÌ„ce by the like neglect grew likewise to be customarie in the next adioyning and so spredd it self vntill it had possessed the hart of Christendome and this for manie yeares so that now all memorie that euer the contrarie had beene in credit and practize were lost if this I saie one should tell me I doubt whether I should be able to giue him a conuincing answere and demonstratiue satisfaction Vncle. Cosen this question trencheth vpon what we haue alreadie talked of therefore I will only giue you such a hint as your self may worke vpon First it is as manifest an impossibilitie that a change of Religion should be introduced insensibly into anie one Countrie as that a burning feauer should for as long time consume the same whole couÌ„trie without being taken notice of or sought to be preuented sithence as we saide nature permit's vs not generally to be sleepie in Religion Secondly to saie it shall passe imperceptible from country to countrie and so get possession of the whole Christian world is farr more impossible men's natures and dispositioÌ„s being so diuers that if they were put to we are cappes or shoes a like it could not be effected but by some publicke force or commande Thirdly that this should be for so long a terme that the coÌ„trarie practize should be quit forgotteÌ„ to haue beene formerly in vse and request is yet beyoÌ„d both So that who soeuer is troubled with this doubt doth not rightly vnderstand the nature of Christian Religion which is a truth of the qualitie of science hanging all together Wherevnto a truth may be added and yet remaine whole but if anie falsitie or crosse position be admitted it will not only destroy the positioÌ„ immediatly opposite but also what soeuer dependeth of it that is all in deede but cheefely tradition And so we see by experience that none euer moued anie point of faith but if their reuolt dured loÌ„g they proceeded so farr as to take a waie tradition the rule of all we are to belieue But can you tell me haue we reached to the resolution of your demande aÌ„d are you fully satisfied Nephew This you haue concluded that if our church rely vpon traditioÌ„ now it euer did so And if it euer did rely vpon tradition it must needes haue maintained the same doctrine from Christ's time to ours for nether could anie former age deliuer anie thing contrarie to what they had receiued vpon this principle nor we mistake what they deliuered so that nothing contrarie to the first receiued doctrine can be admitted This yet me thinke's waÌ„teth To shew that the present Roman church rely's vpon tradition which I confesse to me is euident at least that what soeuer we haue receiued froÌ„ our forefathers as comming by-hand to hand from Christ that we reuerence and receiue all such pointes as being necessarie to be belieued Only I haue one scruple wherein I must craue your helpe And it is Whether this rule of traditioÌ„ which you giue to be so constantly held to be the rule of faith whether I saie it be so admitted of by all Catholikes or no for I feare the varietie of contrarie opinions which I heare are amoÌ„gst our learned men will preiudice your argumeÌ„s Wherefore I could wish you woud shew me §. 9 That the dissention of Catholike Doctor concerning the rule of faith doth not hurt the certaintie of Tradition FOr I am tould how true I know not that some of our Deuines mantaine that in the person of the Pope reside's the rule of faith by a singular guift and priuiledge bestowed vpon S. Peeter and his successors And this so rigorously that no Generall Councell no not although the Pope's Legats be present and confirme it is of force to oblige â—â— of faiht vntill the personall confirmation of his Holinesse be obtained Others they saie esteeme the Councell aboue the Pope and so doe not hold the Pope's approbation of a Councell to be necessarie but that this rule of faith reside's in the Councell Others I heare to make all safe ioyne both in one and nether admit the Councell without the Pope not the Pope without the Councell to breede anie obligation of faith And farther I heare that amongst these Deuines of what opinion soeuer they be touching the subiect in which this rule or highest authoritie doth reside there be some which thinke that not anie new doctrine or position can be broached or proposed as certaine and as an article of faith by what authoritie soeuer vnlesse that doctrine was esteemed certaine before and euer belieued as such Yet I am tould there be manie who mantaine and â—ouch that this highest authoritie of the church wheresoeuer it be may and can define points of doctrine not
present church as before they did Nephew Nay if you goe that waie to worke I feare you will fall short of your intent For the child belieue's father and mother the parishoner his Pastor without reflection of the present church T' is like therefore these Deuines rely vpoÌ„ the motiues which they mantaine what soeuer they did when they were yong Vncle. Not so nether for as the water of the new riuer which is brought to London come's to a particular house by a smale pipe yet t' is continuate to the whole bodie of the riuer so the instruction of faith though it come to a child by his parents and to a parishoner by his Pastor yet the dependence of the doctrine is from the whole church whose members and instruments these parents and Pastors are if they be in the church to which you know I tould you what is required And t' is the like when parents teach their children what is to be done or auoided according to the lawes of the couÌ„try for though the father speake yet t' is the common wealth which preuaileth and bindeth Nephew At least me thinke's vncle such great Doctors should not be ignorant of a point agreed vpon by the whole church and therefore since they disagree about the motiue of faith I doe not see how you can saie t' is generally agreed on in the Catholike church Vncle. Had this agreemeÌ„t beene made in a Generall Councell or in some vniuersall meeting of faithfull ChristiaÌ„s and so recorded I doubt not but these learned Clarkes would haue knowne it but it was not so agreed on Yet as by the vniuersall blessing of crescite multiplicamini Gen. 1. all men and beasts agreed vpon feeding and filling the world euerie one in his kinde by the directioÌ„ of their maker knocking at their stomackes when they were hungrie and at their pharisie when they were full to set on worke those instruments by which the se coÌ„mands of Almightie God were to be fullfilled Marc 16 Euen so by the like blessing of Euntes in mundam vniuersum praedicate omni creaturae the Apostles being dispersed into all natioÌ„s by the vertue of doeing miracles found credulitie or rather forced faith out of the flintie harts of the corrupted world and hauing setled Christs doctrine dying left in their successors soules and mindes this agreement To belieue what was deliuered from them and to trust those who had heard them speake and afterwards to trust those who had heard it from them who had their instruction from the Apostles and lastly to trust the publike consent which affirmed that they held their faith by entaile from them though manie ages after This agreement being written in harts and not in bookes t' is easie for learned men who seeke their learning in bookes and not in harts to mistake As in Philosophie whilest great Clarkes seeke nature not in it self but in other men's sayings they are deuided and few in the right the truth being but one Nephew You haue beene as good as you word For I see it importe's not that our Deuines be of different opinions in this point so that in their liues and practize they agree And truly I neuer heard of anie Catholike that ether doubted but that Christian doctrine was descended by Tradition or thought that what was so descended could be false nay I thinke euerie moderate and wise Protestant will make no question of that which he conceiues to haue descended from the Apostles by succession For Catholikes wee all rely vpon the censure of the present church nor can or â—are anie man appeale froÌ„ it and call him self a Catholike for we all account them infidels and publicans who are refractorie to this tenet Wherfore t' is euident that what soeuer the church speake's and deliuer's for Tradition is agreed vpon by all Catholikes to be certaine and vnrefusable and sithence all other motiues or rules of faith are not vniuersally receiued t' is euident likewise that this is the rule which can oblige vs to certaintiem matters of beliefe But I haue an other great difficultie to wit that I see our Catechists and preachers wheÌ„ they teach vs Christian doctrine tell vs this you are to belieue this you are to practize without expressing the differences which are betwixt the points of doctrine whereof perhapps some are but only the answeres of learned men some definitioÌ„s of the church and some matters of traditioÌ„ And the like I belieue of former ages Christian doctrine descending vnto vs in a heape or confusion and therefore t is hard to distinguish what is of Tradition what the generall consent of the church and what only learned men's opinions Why then may not some position of this last rancke passe for a tradition by the adoption of some ages in which it will be forgotten that euer it had it's beginning froÌ„ the wit and industrie of priuate men And to satisfie me in this point you must let me see how that The teaching of Christian doctrine without determining what is of necessitie to be belieued what not hurte's not the progresse of tradition VNcle If I should answere you that former ages haue beene more exact in distinguishing things certaine from vncertaine it would not be without ground as you may see by the framing of antient creedes aÌ„d other professions of faith as occasions required but this were to send you to antiquitie whereas in this discourse you know we both desire that common sense and reason without farther enquiry should be our iudge Wherefore the point you speake of which you feare might deceiue vs by the likenesse of tradition is ether true or false if true then I pray what incoÌ„uenience is there if it surprise vs in the qualitie of it's certaintie Nephew This I feare and thinke that it would breake the rule and certaintie of Tradition Where vpon relye's the whole building and frame of our faith according to your discourse For if once truth not deliuered by traditioÌ„ may passe for so deliuered what securitie can we haue that a falsitie may not likewise passe in the same maÌ„ner and so bring an errour amongst vs Vncle. I put you only that part of the question if the point were true which you draw into the contrarie if it were false wherefore if it doe not follow that an vntruth can deceiue vs in that kinde then there is no incoÌ„uenieÌ„ce in the consequeÌ„ce of the former part to wit that truth may be taken as deliuered by traditioÌ„ which truly is not so deliuered And the reason is cleare for seeing the truths of ReligioÌ„ are knowne for the framing of our liues conformably vnto them it importe's litle in respect of vertue vpon what grounds they are held in particular so they be vniuersally and coÌ„stantly held for an action done in consequence of such belieued truths is neuer the worse for the qualitie of the certaintie of it's obiect Yet for your farther satisfaction this I will adde
litle fade's and dye's For the second subsisting and cōtinuing multitude we see in all communities or common wealths there is a head common Councell or highest authoritie wherevnto all the members repaire in necessitie and by their connection therewith they receiue securitie life and motion in that morall kinde of being euerie man doing his dutie according to the lawes of that communitie and the head or supreme authoritie prouiding for the obseruance of the lawes in generall and particularly for the direction of such cases as the lawes reach not vnto So that if you take awaie this head or common wisdome the multitude must of necessitie be short liued and quickly come to ruine Hence it is euident to common sense and naturall reason that the church of Christ being a multitude ordained to subsiste and continew must not only haue the vnitie of similitude and be one by the similitude of actions which Christ hath prescribed and all Christians practize but also by the vnitie of connection to some common head and supreme Councell whereby it may conserue it selfe and keepe it's subiects in the continuance of the law of Christ and in the practize of those actions which he hath commanded And here you may note that were this law naturall there needed no more to be of the church then to be a member of this communitie The Want of the true rule of faith exclude's from the church and he would be out of it who should not participate of the two vnities But our Christian law being aboue nature and cōsequētly not to be learned by man's iudgmēt but by authoritie that is by receiuing it from Christ those who doe not receiue it by that meanes and rule by which Christ hath ordained it shall be receiued are not truly of this communitie whatsoeuer be their materiall beliefe and opinion Wherefore you are to considere farther that this Receipte of Christ's law and doctrine may haue beene ordained by Christ himself to be effected two seuerall waies First by word of mouth that is that this law and doctrine should be vocally taught and deliuered from hand to hand from father to sonne to the world's end secondly by writing Now therefore if Christ haue ordained both these waies who should not accept of them both is not truly and properly a Christiā nor consequently of the Christian communitie If Christ haue only instituted tradition to be the meanes and rule of the receite of his law and doctrine and hath giuen scripture only for superabundant instruction and consolation then who should reiect tradition and flye to the scripture making it his only rule and meanes of receiuing Christ's law and doctrine were not truly and properly a Christian nor of the Christian communitie Lastly if Christ haue ordained scripture alone to be this rule and meanes then who cleaueth to Tradition is not truly a Christian The resolution of this question doth properly belong to the Gouernors of the church who if they haue the true rule their subiects are safe if not their subiects soules will be required at their hands by whom they perish But I will take an other time to giue you a full resolution of this maine difficultie Three things are required to make a legitimate Christiā In the interim you may inferre out of this discourse to our present pourpose that three things are required to make one a legitimate Christian and such an one as euerie Christian ought to bee if he will be truly one of the communitie and church of Christ Though perhaps one may be in some sorte a Christiā and goe to heauen too by an exttaordinarie meanes without hauing all these three subsequent dispositions and qualities The first is that he belieue and practize the law of God which in respect of a particular man is but short and t' is in a word to loue God aboue all things The second is that he be vnited to the multitude of true Christians that is that he depende of the Gouerment left and instituted by Christ here vpon earth And for this pointe or qualitie as I doubt not but some one or few may be saued without it yea peraduenture with an opposition to it in fact through ignorance so his hart be true and without passion yet to thinke this a common ordinarie and high waie to saluation and that t' is as indifferent to liue from vnder this Gouerment setled by Christ as vnder it were ridiculous and absurde in common sense and reasō and in deede it were to annultate Christ's coming and make his law voide and fruitlesse And if you desire to conceiue the necessitie of this pointe more fully doe but reflect and considere the nature of all ciuill and politicall commonwealths wherein if anie member doe not liue vnder the Gouernors and depende of the Magistrats established by the highest power and authoritie thereof he cannot be truly and properly said to be a part and member of that communitie nor can he assuredly know ordinarily speaking nor constantly performe the law and orders of it The third pointe is that this communitie whereof euerie particular Christiā is to be a share and member hath the true rule and meanes to know and obserue the law of Christ And it is necessarie that this pointe be more exactly knowne by those who liue amongst diuersitie of opinions in this matter For where there appeares learned and morally good mē taking parts in this question a priuat man seeme's to haue iust reasō to doubt whether side he shall take for his guide and therefore this pointe well dicussed amōgst such giue 's a man full and generall satisfaction for his whole beliefe and practize And these two last pointes cleere one the other for that communitie which hath the true meanes of the receipte of Christ's law and doctrine that is the true rule of faith must of necessitie be it of and in which we are to seeke and shall finde Christ's law And contrariewise if we finde the true communitie we are sure it hath the true rule of knowing Christ's law and doctrine Hence it is that the Catholike church euer pressed hir Aduersaries with two speciall arguments 1. with the noueltie of their church shewing that none of them euer had a continuall visible succession 2. that they receiue not their opinions from their Ancestors and by them from Christ but that they were inuented at such a time against the receiued tenet of the church in that time that is traditiō for the church and noueltie of doctrine in hir Aduersaries And now I thinke you see the resolution of our first question Nephew I thinke I doe and t' is if I be not deceaued that such as professe to keepe the law of Christ though in effect they doe not performe it are to be accounted of the church and consequently sinners are not to be excluded so long as they submitte them selues to the churche's Gouerment established by Christ And on the other side though diuers
cōpanie of learned and indifferent men haue doubted of yea vse this for a maxime that such pointes must of necessitie be doubted of as being not with in the reach of euident conuiction Let but I saie these men come to write against Catholikes and you shall haue them pretende whole listes of demonstrations and whole pages will not suffice to recken vp the absurdities which they imagine doe follow out of some one Catholike pointe so necessarie it is that these men contradict them selues who contradict the truth of Christ and his church Nephew Why the Protestants ought to returne to the church of Rome Your argument me thinke's is good against the first beginners of the breach from the Catholike church but will not suffice against mē that nowe liue who seeme to be a framed and setled church and haue receiued this doctrine from their fathers For we see that possession though at the first vnlawfully gotten doth in time preuaille and quarells cease euen where Princes are pretenders If the welch men should now pretende to haue beene vnjustly put out of England by the Saxons The Romans out of France by the french The Greekes out of Italie by the Goths who would thinke their quarells iust So likewise why should the Protestants though their time be not so long nor their possession so quiet rather yeild to the church of Rome then the church of Rome to them or to the church of England for example vnlesse the church of Rome can demonstrate hir positiōs against the Protestāts which I haue not heard anie of our learned mē saie she cā Vncle. Although it be both reasonable in all liklyhood and peraduenture may be cōuinced that who first parted and made the diuision ought in law of good gouerment to returne And although I could likewise pretende that the church of England compared to that church which liueth in communitie with the church of Rome is but a smale part and therefore bound to yeild to the greater for to saie that the Protestāts of England liue in communitie with all other churches but the Roman is manifestly false since all other churches will Anathematize diuers of their tenets and they also the tenets of other churches nor is there anie rule of vnitie and cōmunion amongst them Although I saie I could vrge these and other reasons to this effect yet I will only propose you two The Catholike church cannot come to the Protestants The former shall plainely shew that the Catholike church cānot yeild vnto Protestants without essentially ruining hir self and therefore no possible vnion betwixt the churches vnlesse the Protestants will bend For if the Catholike church doth essentially subsiste and mantaine hir selfe vpon this principle and grounde that she hath receiued hir doctrine frō Iesus Christ by word of mouth and succession from hand to hand which cannot faile put the case she yeilde's to the church of Englād in anie pointe which she holdeth vpō this principle is it not euident that she must of necessitie forgoe hir hold and for sake hir only principle where vpon is built all hir faith and beliefe is it not manifest that she may as well forsake all as anie one pointe which she holdeth vpō this tennor and motiue sure it is But the Protestants holding their doctrine and positions vpon no such tye but only vpon their owne at most probable interpretation of the scripture which they may change vpon better consideration are vpon farr easier termes to yeild and that without preiudice to their Religion or iudgment Because tenets only holdē vpon probabilitie may be changed vpon anie good occasion or new knowne motiue without disparregment to the Authour And certainely what church soeuer doth not thinke hir selfe vnerrable in anie pointe what she holdeth may be false and therefore it were temeritie for such a church to hold anie pointe certainely true And if she hold not anie pointe certainely true why should not the verie reasons of state and interest seeke to haue them changed and setled secure and infalible sithēce humane nature is euer inclined to belieue what 's for hir owne profit The second reason doth proue that the Protestant is bound in nature and by the light of reason to yeild to the Catholike communion For if nature teach vs that a Protestant's practize ought not to contradict his principles and iudgment of his reason And that the necessitie and force of Experience doth conuince most euidētly that there is no Gouerment in a church without prescribing of some tenets and forbidding of others restraining or punishing if neede be such as wil not complie with those prescribed Canōs or articles And that t' is likewise euident that this is contrarie to the libertie of opinion which the Protestāt putte's for his first and cheefe maxime to approue his separation frō the Roman church will it not follow with out contradiction that ether the Protestants must breake with reason and the nature of man in holding libertie in their iudgments and vnderstandings and obliging to obedience in their will and practize Or els they must close with the Catholike church in their iudgments and professe the inerrabilitie of the church at least so farr as obligeth hir subiects not to withstand or oppose but to submitte and obey hir Canons and commādes And for your exāples of politicke states which by possessiō and prescription haue at length obtained right you must remember that all their beginnings and groundes are vpon humane nature and consent of men and therefore by the same law by which they were made they may be likewise altered But the church of God was made by Christ and his Ministers and therefore reasō tell 's vs that hir institution is to be inuiolably cōserued nor ought or can anie prescription of time preuaile against hir Wherefore sithēce that church which the Protestants parted from held an holdeth still that the church of God nether is nor can be but one in all ages and places which position she professeth to haue teceiued in the same manner and vpō the same grounde as she hath receiued the rest of hir doctrine they Protestants must of necessitie first shew that they are the true church of Christ before they can pleade possessiō or prescription For if there can be but one church no prescription can make them that one sithence at their verie begining and euer since an other both was and is in more quiet possession then they and pleade's the same title more strongly Nephew Why then vncle I see there remaineth no other question but whether the Protestants can conuince their positions or noe Which I belieue would be a hard taske Wherefore vncle I thāke you hartily for this good lesson It growe's late I feare I shall hold you vp to long t' is time for you to take your reste Vncle. T' is true nephew they ought in deede to conuince and demonstrate their tenents and I know of no other waie they haue to doe
decision of controuersies it is not to bee expected that it should bee of it selfe without the churche's authoritie much profitable for that pourpose but to informe our liues by an ordinarie reading of it or by preaching singing and such like vses things recommended in the verie letter it self whereas wee are neuer seÌ„t to the word for the deciding of controuersies And now I hope you are fully satisfied Nephew I am so in deede and giue you manie thankes for I see that how few pointes soeuer the Protestants pretende to be necessarie yet caÌ„ there not anie thing be conuinced out of bare words inuoluing soe manie vncertainties as you haue tould me of Vncle. It is to litle pourpose for them to saie that some few substaÌ„tiall and necessarie pointes may bee proued out of scripture it were fitter they would first proue that the scripture is an instrument made to determine controuersies or anie other of those principles which I shewd you must of necessitie be true if scripture bee our rule But this they can neuer proue And therefore they seeke first to withdraw vs from a secure and naturall meanes of relying vpon our forefathers Which neuerthelesse in all ciuill and oeconomicall conuersation they them selues can not liue without and then to leaue vs to a labyrinth of voluntary and vnendable disputations Reflect then I pray cozen vpon what wee haue said and compare our yesternight's and this our morning's discourse together considering first how manie things are of necessitie to bee conserued in the church for the preseruation of faith and good life in hir subiects Then see how manie pointes haue beene and are quarelled and if anie haue escaped how all the rest may be caled in question with as much probabilitie and apparence as these are Then looke vpon the qualities of that Decider of controuersies where vnto all the Aduersaries of the Catholike church doe seeke to draw vs by which there can be no other end of controuersies but to leaue euerie man to his owne will And then conclude that these positions being put there will nether remaine gouerment in the church nor certaintie or constancie in beliefe nor anie thing to be taught and practized worthie God Allmightie's sending of a lawgiuer muchlesse of sending his owne sonne vpon those hard conditioÌ„s which wee appreheÌ„de of Iesus Christ and reade in the Ghospell Nephew It is verie true but if your leaue mee thus I shall bee like him who had fargot his Pater noster but not learned his Our father For you haue taught mee what I cannot rely vpon but not what I ought to rely vpon And there is so much said against the authoritie of the church by all hir Aduersaries that a man who hath beene euer beaten to those obiections cannot easily leaue them without some scrupule Vncle. You are in the right the most necessarie part is yet behinde for a litle building is better then a great deale of pulling downe Therefore when your leisure serueth you I will bee readie to giue you satisfaction to the best of my power But now this morning is too farr spent to beginne so large a discourse as that question doth require Take an other time and the sooner the more welcome But for the present God be with you I haue some prayers to save THE THIRD DIALOGVE By what meanes Controuersies in Religion may be ended This Dialogue containeth 15. parts or paragraphes 1. THe Preface or Introduction 2. What force the arguments of Protestants against Catholikes ought to haue 3. That standing in likelyhood the Catholike partie is greater more learned and more vertuous 4. Of what efficacitie is this argumeÌ„t 5. That it is no hard matter that Christ's law should haue desceÌ„ded entire vnto vs. 6. That if Christ's law could haue beene conserued it hath beene conserued 7. That no great errour could creepe in to the church of God 8. That the truth of the Catholike doctrine hath continued in the church 9. That the dissention of Catholike Doctours coÌ„cerning the rule of faith doth not hurt the certaintie of tradition 10. That the teaching of Christian doctrine without determining what of necessitie is to be belieued and what not hurte's not the progresse of tradition 11. That no errour can passe vniuersally through the church of God 12. That these precedente discourses beare an absolute certaintie 13. Some obiections are solued 14. The Examples of traditions which seeme to haue failed are examined 15. The conclusion of the whole discourse §. 1 The Introduction NEPHEW I am come vncle to challenge you of your promise for I cannot be quiet vntill you haue setled me in this so weightie a matter If the pointes which are in coÌ„trouersie be as you saie and as you haue clearly shewd me of great consequence and that by scripture we cannot decide them against contentious meÌ„ I see that ether wee must seeke some other meanes or els all Religion wil bee confounded and the truth of Christ's law vnknowne and neglected Wherefore I pray if you can giue mee a strong resolution in this point Vncle. Why nephew if this feruour continue you will not neede be a scholler but for a yeare aÌ„d a day I pray you coÌ„sidere it is a faire daie and you neuer want imployment for the afternoones when the wether 's faire if I should staie you now you would perhapps so repent it that I should not I feare see you againe this month be not so greedie as to take a surfeite Nephew I feare my owne inconstancie and therefore I pray refuse me not discontinuance may breede coaldnesse specially if what you haue alreadie taught me should bee sullyed with worse thoughts and then I should not be so capable of your instructions as I hope I am at this present Which I haue good reason to make great esteeme of Vncle. Well if you will haue it so you must giue me leaue to trench vpon a good part of your Afternoone for I may bee long in this point and I would be loath to breake of in the midle Yet I will bee as short as possibly I can Tell me then had Iesus Christ euer a church or no And I would haue you answere me what you thinke a iudicious Protestant would saie to the same demande Nephew I doubt not but anie Protestant of them all would answere you that at least in the Apostles time Christ had a visible church coÌ„sisting of the faithfull which adhered to the Apostles and such Bishopps as were made by them but that since that time it is fallen into great errours and ether mainely Apostated from the true doctrine of Christ or at least â—o deformed it that a reformation was necessarie euen in pointes of beliefe And this reforme their forefathers vndertooke Vncle. You are likewise persuaded I suppose cozen by the same euidence that in the Apostles time this church was a communion with the particular church of Rome and therefore I will goe a litle further and aske you
certainely knowne hitherto nor euer expressy belieued before Which how they may be reconciled amongst them selues or stand with this that tradition is our rule of faith I confesse I know not Vncle. Truly cozen your obiection is strong yet I hope to content you For the first part of it I see no great matter in the varietie of opinions amongst our Deuines for you see they seeke out the Decider of pointes of doctrine that is by whose mouth we are to know vpon occasions of dispute what and which be our pointes and articles of faith to wit whether the Pope or the Councell or both Which is not much materiall to our pourpose what euer the truth be supposing we acknowledge no articles of faith but such as haue descended vnto vs by tradition from Christ and his Apostles The second part of your obiection seeme's to be of greater force because some Deuines seeme to acknowledge an authoritie in the church which hath power not only to determine ether speculatiue or practicall points of doctrine new or ould in such manner as that the whole church is obliged to accepte or not oppose it's definition which euerie Catholike grante's and the reasons I tould you in our first conference doe euidently conuince But also that this authoritie can so determine euen a speculatiue pointe of doctrine which hitherto was euer vncertaine nor euer acknowledge as reueiled or esteemed as an article of faith that here after the vhole church shal be obliged to receiue acknowledge and belieue it as a reuealed and necessarie point of Christian doctrine and as an article of faith Which opinion you must knowe is but an opinion nor doe the authours of it oblige anie man to belieue it as certaine nor doe they condemne those who nether doe nor euer will acknowledge anie such positiō ād therefore this ought not to trouble you Nay contrariwise all Deuines will generally tell you that no new articles of faith can be made that there 's now no reuelations for new points of doctrine and that Christ Iesus was our only law maker in this kinde hauing suggested to his Apostles all that is necessarie of this nature and qualitie and the Apostles likewise taught their churches all that was necessarie to be knowne of this degree Wherefore you see all agree vpon tradition nor anie one ether denie it or doubt of it Whereas it appeare's by the diuersitie of their opinions that they doe not vniuersally and generally agree in anie other meanes or rule of faith though some admitte of another in waie of opinion Yet to giue you farther satisfaction in this busines I will teach you a point of philosophie which perhapps you neuer fully vnderstood I am sure you will not denie but t' is a differēt questiō to aske how an herbe or tree growe's and to aske how Aristole or Theophrastus saies it growe's for in the same growing there can be no varietie but in their opiniōs there may So in man t' is a differēt thing what he doth or is done in him and what he thinkes he doth or is done in him as in sicknesse disgestion and other naturall workes t' is euident yea and in voluntary actions too Which depende of corporall instruments as to goe runne turne our eyes speake cough spit or the like which we doe freely and voluntarily yet were we examined by what instruments and motiōs we doe thē peraduēture who seeme's to know most would be found short at least amongst manie there would be diuers opinions But doe you thinke the same happen's in our thoughts and iudgmēts which be purely spirituall Nephew I cannot tell yet me thinke's the soule should be so wel acquainted with hir owne actiōs as that she should not neede anie helpe to know them And all men agree that only man vpon earth can see his owne minde and therefore if it be not cleere to man what himself thinke's nothing is cleere Vncle. You are deceiued cosen for as long as we are in this world we cannot know anie thing of our owne thoughts and affections but as we reflect vpon the corporall motions which accompanie them and which because none feele but our selues none can knowe bur our selues though sometimes it happene's quite contrarie when these motiōs breake forth into outward apparence for thē others discrye our mindes and we our selues through the violēce of passiō are not so wel able ro iudge of them as others who see vs. But to speake of men free from passion and who vse to reflect much vpon their owne thoughts euen in them their internall actions proceede frō a principle directed by a superior guide then their owne reason as appeare's by this that they know nothing of their owne thoughts but by reflection and the reflection is a distinct act from the former vpon which the reflectiō is made so that nether the reflectiō it self is alwaise made by voluntarie designe nor anie act which is made without reflection Besides considere I pray how few know by what verue their vnderstandings are made certaine of those principles and positiōs which they cannot doubt of or by what vertue they adhere so strongly to the conclusion of a sylogisme not one of a thousand who doe these things euerie day Wherefore t' is euidēt that euen in our spirituall actions not all that we doe is done by our proper vnderstāding that is with knowing reflection and designe and therefore the same man may euē in these intellectuall acts doe one thing and thinke he doth an other and diuers men may agree in what they doe and yet disagree in their opinions of what it is they doe And now to close with your difficultie seeing faith is a persuasion or an agreeing in some points by reason af authoritie All the Doctors of the Catholike church may agree in beleeuing that is in acting and practizing their faith in the same manner and yet be deuided in their speculations by which they seeke to determine what it is they doe And it is their doeings which make's them Christians and not their sayings for they liue and beleeue as Christians but speake and deliuer their opinions as Doctors which be qualities farr different from being a Christian And doe you not see that these Doctors belieue after their speculations and framing of their opinions as they did before they thought of or studied this difficultie Nephew I doe not doubt but they doe for the faith of all Christians must needes be the same and consequently all must goe vpon the same motiue though one may vnderstand better and apprehende deeper that motiue then an other doth Vncle. You saie well Considere then that when these Doctors were yong men and had not yet studied Diuinitie and you shall finde that they had no other motiue of their belife but the authoritie of the present church and therefore how soeuer they discourse learnedly in their bookes the conclusion must be in their liues to rest vpon the authoritie of the
it but by the scripture which we doe not hold to be sufficient to determrne controuersies without tradition So that I haue no more to saye to you but wish you may begine this new yeare with a good night's rest which God send vs both Whether scripture alone is fit and able to decide controuersies in Religion THis Dialogue containeth 15. parts or paragraphes 1. The Preface or introduction 2. That tradition for scripture is not of as great force as for pointes of Doctrine 3. That tradition for scripture is not more vniuersall then tradition for doctrine 4. That it is impossible the text of scripture should haue remained incorrupted 5. What vncertaintie the errors of writers and copists hath bredd in scriptures 6. What vncertaintie the multiplicitie of translations hath bredd in scripture 7. That the verie repeating and reciting of an others words breedeth a varietie and vncertaintie 8. The vncertaintie of EquiuocatioÌ„ which of necessitie is incident in all writings 9. That there riseth an vncertaintie out of this that the scripture was written in languages now ceased 10. The vncertaintie which followeth the particular languages of Hebrew and Greeke wherein the scripture was vritten 11. That the nature of the bookes of scripture is not fitting for deciding of controuersies 12. Two manners of iudging of Religion out of scripture 13. How scripture doth determine controuersies 14. what laws are requisite for disputation out of scripture 15. Of an other manner of disputing out of scripture §. 1 The Introduction VNCLE How now cozen what make's you so early this morning could you not sleepe this last night Nephew Yes indifferent well I thanke God but t' is not verie early Howsoeuer if I be trublesome I will expect your better leasure for I am come only to tell you a scrupule that I had yesternight which hath tormeÌ„ted me euer since And it is that we Catholikes who beare so great reuerence and veneration to the holy scripture receiue more of it then others write infinite volumes of commentaries vpon it as Paul's church yard can witnesse and are so exact to improue our selues I meane our learned men in the knowledge of it should neuerthelesse when wee come to ioyne in the maine point that is to the decision of controuersies in Religion seeme to fly of and recurre to other iudges though we acknowledge it to be Christ owne word and law And now I haue tould you my difficultie I will leaue you to your better imployments knowing how much you esteeme and how precious you accompt your mornings and therefore I will make bould to call for your answere an other time Vncle. Nay stay cozen God forbid I should thinke I could better imploy my time then in giuing you satisfaction in question of such importance or that you should be importune vnto me by desiring the knowledge of a thing so necessarie and so be seeming you I were to blame if I would not leaue euen my prayers to assist you in this point and perhaps an other time you will not be so earnest on it Although I must coÌ„fesse I am some what vnwilling to diue into this questioÌ„ for I see by experieÌ„ce that the one part seeketh by all meanes to destroy the authoritie of God's church and the other seemeth to lessen the power of scripture for the deciding of controuersies so that indifferent men and as yet vnsetled be left as it were without all meanes of coming to the truth How soeuer necessitie excuseth vs for were our Aduersaries able to performe what they promise that is to resolue pointes of controuersies by scripture we were worse theÌ„ beasts if we should refuse to be iudged thereby But if to stand to scripture only as they doe be but a plausible way to Atheisme and so the question will only be whether we must rely vpon a church or be Athiests for we thinke by scripture alone lefâ—t without the guard of the church nothing or at least not enough for the saluation of mankinde can be sufficiently prouued then euerie man wil see that we are forced by reasoÌ„ and Religion to make euident and knowne as farr as we caÌ„ the necessitie of relying vpon a church and to vse all our power to persuade men therevnto And if you remember we said yesternight that Christian Religion or the law of Iesus Christ cannot be learned by witt and studie but by authoritie and by receiuing it from Iesus Christ And that wee said likewise that he is no true Christian nor truly of the communitie of Christians what so euer be his materiall beliefe who doth not accept of that rule and meanes which Iesus Christ hath left and ordained for the receipt of his law and the like of him who should follow anie other rule which must needes be ether scripture or tradition or both it will therefore euiâ—â—ntly follow that ether we must be no Christians or accept and acknowledge tradition to be this rule if wee can shew that the scripture is not fitt nor hath the conditions requisite for the deciding of controuersies nor was made or left to the church for this end Nephew The greater is the necessitie of this question the more gladd am I that I haue moued it though me thinke's I my self might well see it is not fitt to make the scripture iudge of coÌ„trouersies because we finde by experience that after so manie disputations and so manie bookes written on ether side there is nothing resolued nor are we the nearer an end and therefore t' is euident that scripture alone will neuer decide and determine our quarells and disputes Vncle. Well cozen since you will haue it so our first question shall bee §. 2 Whether tradition for scripture be of as great force as it is for pointes of doctrine ANd first I pray you tell mee doe you thinke that the Apostles when they weÌ„t about the world to preach Christ Iesus carried with theÌ„ all the bookes of the ould and new Testament ether readie translated into the languages of the people whom they preached vnto or else caused them to be translated by the first Christians Nephew I neuer thought of this question before but I see well enough that they could not carie all with them for some parts certainely were not made before they went to to preach nay I a'm not assured whether anie part of the new testament was made before their dispersion from Hierusalem so that well may they haue caried the ould Testament with theÌ„ if they thought it sitting but for the new they could not if I be not mistakeÌ„ Vncle. It is verie true I will tell you therefore cozen how the authoritie of the scripture that is Now the neW Testament Was pro aga ted of the new Testament came into the church An Apostle or Disciple writing a booke or Epistle coÌ„municated it to that church or Countrie wherein he preached or to which he writte it that church coÌ„municated it to their neighbours as the worke
of such an Apostle so by litle and litle it grew froÌ„ one countrie to an other vntill it was spredd ouer the whole Christian world So that some countries had not the new Testament complete that is all the bookes of it for a long time Wherefore no wonder that some haue doubted of seuerall parts thereof being not able to auerre as not assured by reason of some accident that such bookes were truly the workes of such an Apostle or Disciple which not withstaÌ„ding Why the canon of scripture is cheefely to be had from Rome better intelligeÌ„ce being gotten might be afterwards receiued for scripture And here you may note by the way that the Roman church is that church to which in reason wee ought to giue most credit touching the canon of the scripture For Rome being at that time â—that is at least for the first 300 yeares to the Christian world or rather to all the Christians dispersed in diuers parts of the world as London is to England And that wee see the collection of things estimable dispersed in seuerall Prouinces of our Kingdome is sooner and better made in London then in anie other part of our Countrie it must needes follow that the collection of the Holy scripture or new Testament was more exactly faisable at Rome then at anie other place But this by the way For my ayme is to make you iudge whether anie one substantiall point The state of the questioÌ„ which the Apostles whith common conseÌ„t preached through the whole world compared to anie one booke of the new Testament which soeuer you thinke first or best receiued whether I say of these two haue descended vnto vs with more certaintie the one to be the Apostles doctrine the other to be such an Apostle's booke Nephew I should distinguish your question for ether it may be compared to that particular Prouince or church where the Apostle him selfe deliuered it both in word and writing or to the whole church And I confesse that in respect of the whole church that point of doctrine which is euerie where preached must needes haue more certaintie but where both are equaly deliuered by the same Apostle to the same church I should thinke the worke should haue more authoritie theÌ„ the word For t' is an easie matter to let slipp a word some times Whereas writing requireth a more setled consideration Vncle. If the question be but of a particular church or Prouince I doubt it will not be sufficient to giue vs a firme authoritie for ether one or the other vnlesse we add more circumstances then we haue declared And the reason is because one Prouince maye haue had Religion so ruinated in it by the incursion of infidells that recouering theÌ„ selues after a long time they may as well mistake one booke for an other as one doctrine for an other and so this point is not much to our pourpose Although euen in this case the doctrine taught by word of mouth hath these aduantages That it is deliuered to manie the booke to few or in some one place The doctrine heard and vnderstood by manie the booke only to such as can reade nor to all them nether but to such as are carefull The booke belonge's not much to the practize of the multitude the doctrine gouernes their whole liues The booke brought often times by some one maÌ„ as some messeÌ„ger if it be an Epistl or other wise sent from some other place or froÌ„ some one person as from Titus of Timotheus to whom it was first written and vpon whose authoritie only the whole veritie must originally rely But to returne to our case Doe you not see that the whole church trusteth some one particular man at the first vpon whom she buildeth hir beliefe tht this is such an Apostles worke that is scripture But for anie materiall point of doctrine she relyeth vpoÌ„ the vniuersall knowledge of theÌ„ who heard it preached in diuers parts of the world So that as I doe not intende to say the one is certaine the other not for a particular churche's authoritie may be certaine in some circonstances yet I must needes say that betwixt these two certainties there is such a differeÌ„ce that if the one were to bring in verdict vpon the other it would be much more forcible and euident to conclude that this booke is scripture because it is according and conformable to the doctrine taught and preached then that this doctrine is the Apostle's because it is conformable to this booke For if it be true that the whole church once relyed vpon some one particular church for this veritie it can neuer come to passe that the certaintie of this booke proue greater then was the authoritie of that particular church at that time And consequently the same comparison which is to be made betwixt the authoritie of this particular church and of the vniuersall church the same I say is to be made betwixt the certaintie of this booke 's being scripture and of this point of doctrine's being catholike and Apostolike And for the inconuenience you were jealous of it falleth out quitt contrarie For whether we considere the inspiration and assistance of the holy ghost or the industrie aed carefullnesse of man you shall euer finde that the end is more principally aymed at then the meanes to compasse the end and likewise amongst diuers meanes the most immediate to the end is still most aymed at wherefore in our case the end both of writing and speaking being the deliuerie of this doctrine for the good of the people no doubt I say but that both the AssistaÌ„ce of the holy ghost and the care of man tendeth more principally to the deliuerie of this doctrine then to other things that came in by chance in which only there might be a slipp as you immagine Wherefore sithence tradition containeth not all the words the Apostles spoke but meerely what belong's to ChristiaÌ„ doctrine which was principally deliuered and the cheefe errand of the Apostles and that in the scriptute manie things are written vpon occasion and as it were by the bye no doubt but in both these respects to wit of the assistance of the holy ghost and of the care of man the certaintie will be greater of the doctrine deliuered by word of mouth theÌ„ of the holy writt Besides the slipps you speake of are when things are only once deliuered or spoken without great premeditation whereas this doctrine was a thing perpetually beaten on so as there can be no feare of such slipping HoW the old Testament came to Christians hands For the ould TestameÌ„t as I confesse t' is possible that the Apostles might haue deliuered it in all Countries where they preached so likewise I thinke t' is euident that they neuer did it being that the church hath no such memorie And that the Canon hath beene doubted of by some and the Iewish Canon alleadged whereof there had beene no vse nor neede if the
Apostles had left to all churches the booke it self It is likely therefore that the ould Testament was brought in by the first Christians ' of the CircuÌ„cision who accepted of those bookes which they saw the Apostles honnor and make vse of and from them it came to the Gentill Christians and so by litle and litle was accepted of by all the Christian church with the same veneration that the Apostles and Iewish Christians gaue vnto it But how soeuer shall wee not thinke at least §. 3 That tradition for scripture is more vniuersall then traditioÌ„ for doctrine NEphew Surely vncle for my part I caÌ„not thinke but that the scripture hath a more vniuersall tradition theÌ„ anie point of Christian doctrine or at least then anie of those which are disputed betwixt vs and the Protestants seeing that all Christians doe agree in the acceptation of the scripture and farr fewer in diuers pointes of doctrine For such churches as are in communion with the church of Rome are no such extraordinarie part of christendome if they were compared to all the rest Vncle. For the Extent of the churches I cannot certainely tell you the truth because I feare manie are caled ChristiaÌ„s who haue litle ether in their beliefe or liues to verifie that name But you know in witnesses the qualitie is to be respected as well and more theÌ„ the quantitie So that such couÌ„tries in which Christianitie is vigorous are to be preferred before a greater Extent of such as are where litle remaines more then the name But to come neerer to your difficultie suppose that in a suite in law one side had seuen lawfull witnesses the other had as manie and twentie knights of the post knowne periured knaues or vnlawfull witnesses more would you cast the other side for this wicked rable Nephew No truly for seing the law doth inualidate their testimonie I should wrong the partie to make anie accompt of them and therefore I should judge the parties equall Vncle. Why then you see that who will challenge a more vniuersall Tradition for scripture then for doctrine must first be certaine that there is no lawfull exception against those Christians whom he calleth to witnesse to witt against the Armans NestoriaÌ„s Eutychians and the like Now the Catholike church accounteth these men wicked in the highest degree that is guiltie of Heresie and schisme And therefore the partie which esteemeth of their witnesse must by taking of them for honnest men beare him self for their fellow and account the Roman church wicked and not fitt for testimonie from whom neuerthelesse he hath receiued what soeuer he hath of Christ Besides the witnesse and testimonie which these men giue is only that they receiued scripture from that church which excluded them from communion at their beginnings and euer continued in opposition against them to witt the Catholike Wherefore it is euident that their testimonie addeth nothing to the testimonie of the Catholike church but only declareth what the testifieth nor consequently maketh anie traditioÌ„ more vniuersal Let vs therefore now see whether §. 4 The text of scripture can haue remained incorrupted or no. FOr hitherto we haue only compare the and 〈◊〉 of scripture in itselfe to tradition now we will come a litle closser and compared it as we haue it to the same doctrine deliuered once 〈…〉 tradition I meane that hitherto we haue spoken as if we had those verie bookes which the canonicall writer made with their owne hande and of what authoritie they would be But now we will considere their since we haue but copies of them of what authoritie these copies ought to be Can you resolue this question Nâ—phew I doubt not sir but for that end which wee seeke that is to make a iudge of controuersies euerie word euerie letter and euerie title must be admitted of absolute and vncontrolable certainâ—ie And so I heare the vulgar edition in latine is commaÌ„ded to be held amongst vs. For I easily see that if anie one sentence may be quarrelled euerie one will incurre the same hazard all being equaly deliuered and equaly warranted with reason and authoritie Vncle. You saie verie well for where there is no lesse theÌ„ the soules of the whole world at the stake I see not what aduantage can giue sufficient securitie if there remaine anie notable vncertaintie Our sauiour saith what can all the world auaile anie man if he loose his soule So that where the question is soule or no soule saluation or damnation nothing lesse then certaintie can serue to proceede vpon And therefore no doubt but if the Apostles had intended to leaue the holy writt for the decider of controuersies in Religion they would also haue prouided that infalible copies should haue beene kept and come downe to the church to the end of the world For such care wee see that priuat men haue of conseruing their bargaines and couuenants by making their Indentures vncounterfeitable and enrolling them in publicke offices were they are to remaine vncorrupted the like care hath common wealths to conserue their recordes specially their laws keeping the verie originalls or authenticall copies with verie great care But what neede wee tooke into the examples of â—â—â—en seeing all mightie God in his owne person hath giuen vs a paterne commanding the Deuteronomie to be kept in the Arke which he would haue to be the authenâ—icall copie to iudge betwixt him and his people and this with the greatest veneratioÌ„ that could be imagined or that euer was giuen to anie thing But this was impossible for the Apostles to doe otherwise surely the would haue done it if they had intended that Christs written law should haue beene our iudge by reason of the multitudes of nations and languages which hindered that not anie one booke could be conserued with such securitie and incorruptibilitie as would be requisite in that case both because of the language and of the mutabilitie of the world euer subiect to a thousand accidents whereby such bookes might fall into the hands of those who would not only neglect them but ether willfully corrupt or seeke vtterly to destroy that which was to be the rule and paterne of Christian faith And for that which you saie is commaÌ„ded vs you conceiue amisse For no wise man thinketh that the vulgar edition is so well corrected that much may not be mended How the vulgar edition is to be receiued but t' is that the church hath secured vs that there is nothing against Christian faith or behauiour contained in those bookes which haue so long passed for scripture and are so in deede for the substance of the bookes and therefore hath commanded vs not to refuse this râ—â—â— in anie controuersie on disputation And this wee and wee only caÌ„ doe for the churche's securitie â—â—seth out of this that she hath an other more forcible ground of hir faith to witt tradition by which being assured what the truth is she can confidently pronunce that in
a perfect beleeuer that is a Catholike Which is as much as to aske §. 13 How scripture doth determine controuersies NPEHEW How should I know that vnlesse I were able to prooue my Religiō out of scripture or at least that I were able to giue a iudgement of all that is in scripture Which is beyond my capacitie Vncle. Then I will tell you cozē there are two meanes to make one a Catholike or a true and perfect belieuer The one by shewing euerie point of our faith in particular And this I dare not saie that our common and ordinarie manner of reading or hearing scripture is able to doe for we see those who write of controuersies doe alledge but few places nor those vnauoidable nether for some pointes of Catholike doctrine Nor is it to be expected Because man's nature being euer to add to what is alreadie learned And seeing likewise that long practise maketh men perfect in all arts There being no prohibitiō to perfect in some sort the instruction of the faithfull the oeconomie of the church and some such other things which the oppressed Primitiue church could not bring to perfectiō no maruelle I saie if these and the like things can not in particular be shewd in the scripture but shall therefore I know not who rise vp and exclame these things be superstitious hurtfull to the faithfull ād make a schisme to destroy them Who doth not see that this were plaine faction and Rebellion The other meanes or waye to make one a Catholike is by some common principle as if by reading of scripture wee finde nothing contrarie to the Catholike tenet or practize which our Aduersarie call's in question or also if wee finde it commēded there in generall or the authours and obseruers of it praised and extolled And in this waye I doubt not but a sensible and discreete reading of scripture at large may and will make anie true student of it a perfect beleeuing Catholike so he proceede with indifferēcie ād with a minde rather to know scripture then to looke for this or that point in it But now can you tell me cozē how it cometh to passe that sithence by an exact and particular examinatiō of the words of scripture these truths cānot be conuinced and beaten out of it how I saie is it possible that by a common and ordinarie reading of it these truths should appeare for that cānot be in the summe which is not in the particulars Nephew I can tell you that there is the same difficultie in the diuers sights of the walle which you made me experiēce but euen now but to yeild you a good reason ether of the one or the other that passeth my vnderstanding Vncle. Haue you not seene an inuētion of the Architects who can so dispose pillars in a gallerie that setting your eye in a certaine position you shall see the figure of a mā or a beast and walking a long the gallerie to goe to it it vanisheth awaie and you shall see nothing but pillars Or haue not seene a silinder or pillar of glasse before which if you laie certaine papers full of scrawolles and scrables and looking into the pillar you shall see the picture of a man or the like As these are dōne so it happeneth in our case both in the eye and in the vnderstanding For the art of these things is that certaine parts may so come together to the eye as that other parts ether by situation or by some other accident remaine hidden and that those parts which appeare being seene without the others will make this or that shape In our case likewise the quantitie of the seene parts exceeding the vnseene keepes the whole possession of the eye in the sight and of the vnderstanding in reading not letting the reste appeare And hence it is also that this common manner of vsing scripture is more secure then the exact ballancing of it For nether the varietie of translations nor the errours of copies nor the difficulties of languages nor the mutabilitie of words nor the multiplicitie of the occasions and intentions of the writers nor the abundance of the things written nor the different framinges of the bookes which be the causes of vncertaintie in a rigorous examinatiō haue anie such power as to breake the common and ordinarie sense or intention of the writer in generall as all bookes testifie vnto vs. And hence it is likewise that the holy fathers pressed scripture against the Heretickes of their times partly forced therevnto because the Heretickes generally will admitte of no proofe but out of the scripture but cheefly by reason their workes are diffuse and oratoricall befitting people vsed to orations and sermons as the Greekes and Romans were diuers of the fathers them selues bredd in that sort of learning Wherefore you shall haue them cite manie places some proper some Allegoricall some common all some times auoidable if they be taken seperatly but the whole discours more or lesse forcible according to the naturall parts or heauenly light more or lesse communicated to one then to an other yet still in the proportion of oratours who speake to the multitude and not to Socrates or Crysippus Wherefore the scripture in this kinde was a fitting weapon for them and the churche's continuing and reremaining in their doctrine sheweth that they vsed it dexterously and as it ougth to be vsed with relation and dependance of tradition Nephew Why then sir must all disputatiō of Religiō out of scripture be abolished For if there can bee no certaintie gathered out of it in a decisiue ād definitiue waie to what pourpose should a man ether alledge it or admitte it in disputes of Religion at least tell me I pray §. 14 What laws are requisite for disputation out of scripture VNCLE I am farr frō disliking disputation out of scripture so it be donne with those conditions which are fitting and which may bring the matter to some vpsh ott The first rule I would haue a Catholike obserue is not to dispute with a Protestāt vnlesse he promise to proue his position euidently and manifestly For since the Catholike knowes there may be certaine wittie probabilities and hard places of scripture brought against him it were madnesse in him to leaue his tenet custome optima legum interpres stāding for him and the practize of the church being on his side which is the greatest argument that can be brought to shew how and in what sēse the scriptures which that church hir self deliuereth are to be vnderstood it were I saie meere follie in a Catholike to leaue his tenent and accept of an other only for a probable and likely interpretation his owne being confirmed by that practize which maketh it more then probable And it is cleere the Protestant must needes pleade against possession for at the first breaking when the Protestants pretended to reforme the church she was surely in possession of those things which they pretended to take awaie and in
disciples and the people vnderstand perfectly and fully comprehende all pointes of Christian doctrine to resolue all doubts and difficulties to make the apprehension of the doctrine sincke into the verie soules of the people and to setle a forme of Gouerment and Conuersatiō and to invre the first Christiās to the practize of this doctrine whereby it might subsist and continue as long as possibly it could For this I see is the dictamē of prudence and wisdome in such a case and the course all those who foūd new institutions Vncle. You saie well And surely such a time for a litle Prouince of about two or three dayes iournay's semidiameter was verie sufficient for the instructing of their disciples in all materiall pointes and setling of instructers to succeede them But in case immediately after the decease or departure of the Apostle there should arise according to our sauiours forewarning false Prophets or Rauenous wolues vnder pretence of sainctitie endeauoring to deuoure the flocke nay that euen some amongst them selues out of vanitie should beginne some new doctrine How controuersies were decided immediatly after the Apostles drawing disciples after them and so making them selues head of a partie and of a doctrine contrarie to that which the Apostle had taught vrging reasons out of nature and texts out of that Apostles owne writings by whom they were taught or out of his follow Apostles and strengthen his partie by the adherence of manie of the weaker sort what I saie would the Gouernors and teachers of the faithfull doe in this case How would they behaue thē selues to hinder the ruine of their weaker breetheren Nephew I doe imagine that meeting together they would examine this new Doctrine taking sor their rule that doctrine which the Apostle deliuered vnto them And knowing that he could nether contradict him self nor anie of his Breetheren being all inspired by the Holy Ghost they would conclude that the Innouators reasons were captious his texts wrong vnderstood if they were obscure or corrupted if they were plaine For nothing could be so euident vnto them as that which for three yeares together had beene perpetually beaten into them where in they had beene continually examined and cleered and which had beene so long the fundation of their new manner of life and practize so that this must needes be the most euident vnto them of all things and therefore they would surely forgoe all other rules to gouerne them selues by this as being most frie from errour Vncle. Your conclusion follow 's plainely For they hauing no other stay of their beliefe then that S. Paul for example had taught them so t is cleere that to them these two questions were but one whether the opiniō proposed was true and whether it was accordimg to what S. Paul had taught them And therefore to be against that which they had beene taught to them was to be false So that there nether was nor could be anie other question in the church at that time in matters of faith but whether the Apostles had taught such a doctrine or no For the Apostles hauing spēt so much time in teaching Christian doctrine in so litle a Prouince what they had not taught must needes be presumed not to be necessarie and consequently not deseruing to make a schisme and breach amongst Christiās and what they had taught to be without all controuersie true and certaine Wherefore if such an Innouator would not stand to this iudgment he was to be expelled the church as disagreeing from the Christians in the principall rule and soueragne Tribunal of Christianitie by which and only which they could at that time decerne and decide what was Christian doctrine what not Happie that age in which it was so easie to resolue anie difficultie arisning for it was no more then to meete together and aske one an other How haue you beene taught And all was ended and who should haue resisted this decision was to be cast out with common consent as a reprobate But tell me cosen how long doe you thinke this Happinesse cōtinued in the church Nephew For the time of the Apostles and of their disciples who are commonly caled Apostolicall men ther 's no question to be made no nor of the age of the disciples of these Apostolicall men To whom I see not why I may not add yet an other age for doubtlesse those Apostolicall men must needes haue beene of that reputation as that what soeuer was constantly remembred to haue beene their doctrine was likewise to be esteemed the doctrine of the Apostles their Masters supposing it was knowne to bee vniuersally and generally theirs and not the opinion of some one or two of them only Vncle. And will it be a stumbling blocke vnto you if we add yet an other descent to wit of the Grandchildren of these Apostolicall mē for the memorie of publicke and generally practized things is fresh from Grandfathers vnto their Grandchildren So that this degree or goldē age may well consist of fiue descents that is of some 200 yeares allowing 40. yeares to a descēt which is not much seing that witneses of 60. yeares are ordinarily found in euerie busines in the same Prouince and therefore where the question is of a publicke and vniuersall practize which concernes manie countries and nations who haue intercourse and communication together such witneses may be much more easily found But what shall we saie of the next ensuing age Nephew I conceiue that these descents you speake of may easily haue reached to Constātine's time when Christian Religiō being publicke the multitudes of fathers and writers would supplie the deiect of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or self seeing into the well spring of Christianitie But whether you driue that waie or no I know not Vncle. It is not needfull for sithence the last age doth directly know what was the Apostles doctrine All such ages as can reach to knowe the doctrine and practize of that last age are able certainely to resolue though in a lower degree anie arising difficultie not because they cā immediately tell that such a pointe is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostles but because they can tell that t' is against the doctrine of the fist descēt which doctrine they know to be the dokrine of the Apostles Wherefore vpon the like ground we may add fiue descēts more which according to our former computation will make vp 400. yeares und peraduenture by extēt may reach to fiue or 600 yeares after Christ that is to the second conuersion of nations I meane to the conuersion of those barberous people which ouerunne the Roman Empire and brought almost all the world backe vnto the formerly extirpated paganisme Nephew Why then wee neede no more for the Protestāts confesse that Poperie hath raigned since Phocas his time nay they sticke not to saie that Gregorie the Great was the last good and first bad Pope seeming to thinke that frō him beganne that which they
guifts But this point concerne's not our present discourse Nephew I confesse I now cleerely see that the Christian church hath conserued it self from error supposing that the Pastors and Gouernors of it haue carefully taken notice from time to time of their forefather's doctrine and I am beholden to you for this lesson But may not the church haue beene neglected herein Though I scarsely haue courrage enough to aske you this question for I see you will answere me that nature must needes haue it's recourse and that howsoeuer at some times or places it may haue defects yet must it of necessitie at other times and in other places haue it's returnes and freshly renew it's care and be sollicitous of so great a good which cannot but fall out once within 5. or 600. yeares that is within the terme prefixed wherein she may discouer the doctrine of hir forefathers cōstantly held and generally deliuered to be the doctrine of Christ ād his Apostles Neuerthelesse if you could shew me that the church had in effect so conserued it selfe I should be more able to conuince a peruerse opponent and demonstrate §. 8 That the truth of Christian doctrine hath actually continued in the church VNcle Is it possible you should be so vnreasonable as to aske me to proue a thing which depede's of ma's will yet that you may see how great the workes of Almightie God are and how nothing is so variable but that he can fixe and make it constant I will endeauour to let you vnderstād as much as my self in this point so you will be attentiue and raise a litle your vnderstāding to answere me in the waie of rigorous discourse which you haue some experience in by the mathematickes you haue tasted Tell me then doe you thinke that if anie great congregation of men now liuing hold this maxime for their faith and Religion that nothing is to be held for certaine and as a reuealed truth but what they haue receiued frō their forefathers as a thing deliuered by hand to hand from the Apostles And that what soeuer is not so receiued is not immutable but may be altered if reason commande doe you thinke I saie that this Congregation could in this our age haue begunne to hold this maxime or that as they receiued the rest of their doctrine from their forefathers they must not also haue receiued this tenet Nephew Truly I cannot tell you for me thinke's it were absurde to receiue all the rest from their forefathers ād take this of new which is the rule of all the rest yet I doe not see it so cleerely as that I am able to conuince that t' is so Vncle. Why cosen let vs put the case that there were a Generall Coūcell of all Christendome sitting for example in the yeare 1600. And aftermuch disputation about finding a rule to setle matters of Religion they should agree that to receiue nothing but what had beene deliuered vnto them by hand to hand frō Christ and his Apostles were the best waie to end all disputations of Religion and there vpon decree that hereafter nothing should be held for certaine and immutable but what were so receiued And that amongst these Bishops one should rise vp and make this difficultie we cannot know that anie thing is receiued by hand to hand from Christ vnlesse our forefathers who liued in the last age 1500. haue deliuered it vnto vs as such which they cannot haue deliuered vnto vs but by one of these two waies ether because we knowe they had this same principle which we seeke here ro setle to wit that they tooke nothing for immutably certaine and of faith but what was so deliuered vnto them And then we know what soeuer they haue deliuered vnto vs for a matter of faith was like wise receiued by them or atleast they thought it to be receiued in the same māner and therefore we may be confident of it Or else they must haue declared vnto vs what is so receiued what not that the one part may be accepted by vs and established as matters of faith the other held in lesse esteeme and as no points of faith This secōd we know hath not beene done And therefore if our forefathers had not this principle how should we haue it For if they had it not and haue deliuered our doctrine and Religiō vnto vs without distinctiō we must of necessitie accept much for Religion faith and as receiued frō Christ which we know not whether it was so or no And therefore wee must ether willfully deceiue our selues and our successors accounting and esteeming things which were neuer receiued from Christ to haue beene receiued from him and so falsly deliuer them for such to our successors and consequētly ground both our faith and theirs vpon this vntruth that our tenets were receiued from Christ Or else we must content our selues as our forefathers haue done and setle no new ground of ending cōtrouersies in Religion If one I saie should make this difficultie in that graue Assemblie would it not puzzell them all and put them of from their resolution Nephew Truly vncle it could not chuse vnlesse they were obstinately resolued to damne thē selues and all their posteritie and that impudently in the sight of the whole world which would reproach them with so notorious an imposture Nor can I imagine how such a position though once begunne should take roote The whole world being able to see ād deteste the indignitie of it And because I foresee your drift I will grāt you may frame the same argument for anie age ād cōsequētly there is no age in which this resolutiō could haue beene first taken vp but only in such an one in which it was cleerely knowne what the Apostles taught and what they did not by witnesse from thē who had their doctrine from their owne mouths that is the verie next age after the Apostles So that we may euidently conclude that a church which now holdeth with vniuersall consent this principle which you speake of must of necessitie haue held the same from the next age after the Apostles Vncle. But can you now tell me cosen whether this cōgregatiō as long as it adhere's to this principle can receiue anie thing of this nature and qualitie cōtrarie to what their forefathers deliuered vnto thē vpon this same principle And note I pray I doe not aske whether they can receiue anie thing but what they apprehēd to be so but I aske whether they can receiue anie thing as such but that which truly is so deliuered that is whether they can be cosened in this questiō Whether their forefathers deliuered it vnto them so or no. Nephew T' is euident they cannot For although one mā may be deceiued in what is tould him specially at one time yet to saie whole nations are deceiued in what is tould thē not once or twice but what they are bredd and beatē to is as much as to saie all men are deceiued
that how soeuer the common people doe not distinguish what is of Tradition and what is but of some learned men's opinioÌ„s neuerthelesse those whom we call Deuines if truly they be such as the name require's may aÌ„d doe distinguish positions of such different natures For Christian doctrine is not a bundle of loose positions as those who negligently looke on it may thinke but a true discipline hanging together by consequences and order tending to one end And of this doctrine and discipline some parts be such as cannot be knowne but by immediate reuelation others such as no sensible man can doubt of if he beleeue the former And learned meÌ„ know that of both these two the one is expresly deliuered by tradition the other is as firme as if it were so deliuered For as it was reueiled that our sauiour is truly God and man so euerie man of coÌ„mon sense knowes that he had two wills Deuine and human against the Monothelites Other points there may be which neede art and studie to deduce and fetch them out of the two former And of these likewise a true Deuine cannot be ignoraÌ„t being they are be fruits of learning and studie and consequently haue euer beene in the soules and writings of learned Masters And these points euerie one knowes who is conuersant in Logike and in iudging the qualities of such propositions as belong to scieÌ„ce And your self I am sure by the litle skill you haue therein and by the smale light of this discourse will eastly iudge that this is reasonable Nephew I conceiue your meaning but whereas you saie that the points of the second order are as firme as those which are deliuered by Tradition me thinke's that 's not reasonable sithence Tradition relye's wholy on God and his word but the other only vpoÌ„ man's discourse which is falible and easily mistaken and therefore must of necessitie be much inferior Vncle. I would not haue you take my words so precisely not in so rigorous a degree of comparison for so euen of demonstrations the precedent will be esteemed more certaine then that which is deduced out of it though in a morall eâ—tiâ—ation the certainties be equall And so it is in those two degrees for truly that litle discourse which is required for the second degree is infalible certaine and euident and therefore the knowledge proceeding froÌ„ it may well be rancked with the former degree But I suppose you expect to heare why it doth not follow that if a truth not deliuered by Tradition may neuerthelesse passe for such why I saie an errour may not haue the same progresse and surprise the church that is §. 11 Why no errour can passe vniuersally through the church of God ANd this I will shew you in a word because it falleth into the repetitioÌ„ of what we haue alreadie discoursed on The impossibilities are three First it trencheth vpon the resolution wee formerly made that one man's authoritie could not preuaile against and ouer the whole church for this is the difference betwixt a truth and a false hood that a truth though it beginne from one yet may it be accepted of by all by reason of it's euidence Which when one hath laid opeÌ„ others may follow not for the man's authoritie but for the loue of the seene truth Whereas falsehood which cannot bring euidence with it must be bolstered vp by the man's credit aÌ„d reputation which you know is insufficient Secondly it is impossible an errour should generally preuaille by reason of the immutabilitie which is in the vniuersalitie of contingent causes whose particulars may be defectiue but the vniuersalls cannot So that as it is impossible in nature that all children should be borne with one eye all coltes with three leggs or the like so were it a monstrous accident and that in a higher and more immutable nature if an errour should generally preuaile and passe through all mankinde or through so great a part of it as we make accounte the Catholike church is and will euer be The third impossibilitie is because it trencheth vpon the stabilitie of Religion for sithence we agreed that t' is impossible for anie nation to haue no Religion and as impossible to change a true into a false And likewise that Christian doctrine hath the nature of science so farre as that no errour can fall into it but must bring contradiction and opposition against the principles and receiued practize of the church and so make a breach against the antient possession it doth therefore plainely appeare that as it is impossible for such a breach to become vniuersall in time and place so likewise must it needes be impossible that an vntruth should be vniuersally receiued for tradition hauing not beene deliuered as such Nephew I must confesse your reasons seeme good yet might one saie all your reasoÌ„s are but morall persuasions which may faile as if one should saie it is reasonable to thinke an honest man will not lye yet I doubt not but some times the coÌ„trarie happene's Wherefore I pray you tell me §. 12 Of what qualitie you thinke these your reasons and discourses be and whether you conceiue them to beare an absolute certaintie VNcle I feare it will be to farr on the night before I can satisfie your difficultie yet I will shew you breefly and familiarly what may suffice Tell me then doe you thinke there is such a towne as Rome or Constantinople Nephew That I doe I would I knew what I aske as well Vncle. Why who tould you there were anie such townes Nephew Truly I doe not remember who tould me so in particular but I haue heard so manie talke of them without doubting that it were follie to doubt of it Vncle. But if I or some other of whose honestie you doe not doubt should tell you we haue beene there and haue seene those townes with our owne eyes would you belieue it more certainely then you doe Nephew No in deede vncle for although I should in that case make no doubt of it yet their authorities vpon which I doe alreadie belieue it are no lesse nay farr greater seeing that if it were not fo manie more of no lesse credit and reputation must be lyars whoÌ„ though I cannot name yet nature tell 's me that if thousands had not reported it of their owne knowledge it could not passe so constaÌ„tly and vncontrowlably as is doth Vncle. But if a man should come with manie great reasoÌ„s and motiues to persuade you that there is not euer was anie such cities a we speake of Nay let vs suppose that if you liued but 20 myles from London where euerie day you fawe hundreth's come from theÌ„ce and your self had neuer beene there And there should come vnto you a man who should labour to shew by reason that it were a follie to thinke there were anie such towne as LondoÌ„ Or to make our supposition more strong suppose you had liued diuers yeares in London and had neuer seene
the firmenesse of Tradition Nephew You tould me the Tradition of Christian faith was a great while a planting in the harts of men by the force of miracles and that not only in their vnderstandings but also in their wills and affectiōs and so cultiuated vntill the maine of the people were constantly persuaded there was no saluation without it This was done at the same time in manie Countries not knowing one of an other nor being able to correspōde and frame anie draught of beliefe together but euerie one receiuing what was deliuered him from his preacher Vncle. Why now then cosen rerurne to your obiectiōs ād looke how they vrge ād what force they haue against this your declaration of tradition Nephew As for Adam's children I see that one man and one woman were the only witneses of such a thing as the partys to whom they tould it could hardly belieue it was so strange Nay them selues had so litle experience of those strange things which they tould that for anie thing we know they neuer as much as tasted of anie fruit in Paradise but of the forbidden tree And what care they had of anie Religion more thē to recōmēde God's seruice to their children and that only as lōg as they liued with them we know not so that it seeme's what they taught tooke no strong roote nor in manie For Noth the same answere may be giuen two of his sonnes parting shortly from him ether into farr countries or at least into such a distance as that they seldome came to see him Wherefore I perceiue there is a great difference betwixt the deliuerie of Christ's Gospell and of the law of God to those fathers of the old Testament Vncle. Your remarkes are good ones And in deede seeing we haue required that Tradition should haue the continuance of nature We must see that it be plāted accordingly which you haue well noted to haue beene performed in Christ's law but not in the tradition of the ould law the fathers and people of that time being much hindered by the great busines of the world's plantation Euerie mā seeking to plant countries build cities finde out commodities for the cōseruation of man's life Which were occupations farr different from the thoughts of heauen and things of the next world To this you may add that there was not then anie setled orders of Priests and men whose fūctiō should be to inculcate the necessitie of Religion into men's eares and harts which we knowe the Apostles had care to performe euerie where Againe there was no such correspondēce betwixt countrie and countrie in those times as hath euer beene amongst Christians specially by the mediation of a cheefe Bishop which Christ hath set amongst vs. And no doubt but these two last points be two maine and cheefe causes of the propagation and conseruation of Christiā faith You may yet add that euē the points of faith were not then able to worke vpon man's nature so powerfully as since Christ's comming according to our yesternight's discourse So that the roote and strēgth of Tradition being grounded vpon this that such a beliefe is fixed in peoples harts of seuerall natiōs the examples faile in three things First that the multitude was not capable of it it being so spirituall and abstract Secondly that it was not inculcated with that feruour of spirit assistance of the holy Ghost and abundance of continuall miracles as Christ's law was Thirdly that there was not a set forme and institution of Priests and Gouernors to ioyne all nations in communion for the conseruation of their beliefe Wherefore it neuer had the roote and nature of an vniuersall Traditiō And by these examples you may easily answere all other obiections of this nature And now I will leaue you least I should ouer wearie both you and my self Nephew You saie well vncle yet that I may be sure to haue fully cōceiued the maine drift of your instructions I pray let me see if I can make §. 15 The cōclusion of all our discourse IT was first your intention to giue me a rule how to gouerne my self in the choise of Religion Then you concluded that scripture could not be this rule Where vpon you laid me downe two waies how to resolue my self The first was that standing vpon the ground of prepossession there was no likelyhood or probabilitie that the Protestants arguments could be sufficient to ouer ballance the Catholikes because they must be conuincing cleerely or else were to be reiected And that the Protestants should bring anie cōuincing and demōstratiue arguments against the Catholikes there is no apparence Catholikes being more in number in qualitie greater schollers ād in life more vertuous And on the contrarie side Protestants hauing no principles or commāde which may make them agree amongst themselues And you shewd me that though this persuasiō did not euidently conuince the Catholike faith to be true yet did it manifestly proue that the Catholike was to be chosen by an vnlearned man Your second waye was by giuing a direct proofe that the Catholike doctrine is true which you did in threeseuerall manners First by shewing that it was no hard matter for the Catholike church to conserue the truth of hir doctrine if she were carefull which histories plainely shew she was Secondly shewing that nature doth force men to haue care of Religiō and therefore that it was impossible anie error should so creepe into the church as that it should be vniuersally receiued the verie nature of man and human affaires contradicting it's progresse Thirdly shewing how the church now relying vpon Tradition must of necessitie haue euer done so and that if it hath euer done so it could not let anie falsehood creepe in nor suffer anie error to be generally admitted This is all I remember sauing the soluing of some obiections and the discouering of some of my impertinent answeres which I hope you will excuse and forget If I haue missed I pray direct me Vncle. Yo haue taken good notice and I thinke my paines well bestowed only I would intreate you to make a litle reflection and comparison betwixt the knowledge which we haue by these meanes and that which scripture afforde's vs if we handle it in a litigious waye as in cōtrouersies we necessarily must And you shall finde that Tradition is grounded vpon that which all men agree in and vpon that which is common to all ages all nations all conditiōs But the knowledge which we haue by scripture is grounded vpon that which is different in euerie nation Hence spring's an other differēce to wit that the one is planted in nature and in what God created in man the other in what men them selues framed and that not by designe or art but by custome and chance Out of which againe ensueth that the one is capable of necessitie and consequently of a perfect demonstration as all naturall things are the other not The one is fixed vpon vniuersalls the other vagabonde in particulars As for example who is able to demonstrate that a word in controuersie hath no other sense then that which is necessarie for his pourpose Or where the constructiō may be made diuers waies that the true one is that which he pleadeth Who can demonstrate amōgst varieties of texts which was in the Autograph Or that the copies we haue are not defectiue And the like which ordinarily are necessarie if we will euindently conuince our intent out of the place we choose On the other side To shew that whole multitudes of seuerall nations cannot misse in what hath beene a thousand times ouer ād ouer inculcated vnto them That a world cannot conspire to cosen their posteritie That mankinde cannot accepte of a doctrine against an euident principle which they likewise hold and mātaine these being the maximes Tradition depende's on to shew I saie these things there needes no deepe learning being both knowne of them selues and also as necessarily conioint and dependant of man's nature as his other naturall actions be and therefore may beare as good a demonstratiō as they which if we haue not it is not through anie defect or incapacitie of the subiect but through the want of our looking into it and that ether because we doe not take the right waie or that we doe not bestow sufficient paines in the prosecution of it So that in fine although the Roman church had fallen which is impossible into those errors which the Protestants pretēde yet were it better for a man to content him self with the Good that remaines in it then to cast him self into an endlesse and fruitlesse maze of disputations with trouble to all the world ād that to no other effect then to make people vnsetled and by their vnnsetlednesse to neglect Religion But God's wisdome as you see hath prouided an Euidence for those that will take paines to seeke it 1. that the pointes in controuersie are of importance and necessarie to be knowne 2. that they cānot be so knowne by scripture as is requisite for decisions against contentious men and 3. that they may be certainely knowne by resting quiet in the bosome of the Catholike church which God of his mercie giue you and me grace to doe both liuing and dying