Uncle. And this no other but the Roman church did or could ever pretend to, which being in truth undeniable, and they cannot choose but grant the thing, their last refuge is to laugh, and say, that both fathers and councils did err, because they were men, as if protestants themselves were more. Is it not so as I tell you?

Nephew. No indeed it is not, by your leave, good uncle. For first the Greek church, as every body knows, pretends to perpetual succession of doctrine, and undertakes to derive it from Christ and his apostles, as confidently as we do ours. Neither is there any word in all this discourse, but might have been urged as fairly and as probably for the Greek church, as for the Roman. And, therefore, seeing your arguments fight for both alike, they must either conclude for both, which is a direct impossibility, for then contradictions should be both true; or else, which is most certain, they conclude for neither, and are not demonstrations, as you pretend (for never any demonstration could prove both parts of a contradiction) but mere sophisms and captions, as the progress of our answer shall justify.

Secondly, It is so far from protestants to grant the thing you speak of, to wit, that the controverted doctrines of the Roman church came from apostolic tradition, that they verily believe, should the apostles now live again, they would hardly be able to find amongst you the doctrine, which they taught, by reason of abundance of trash and rubbish which you have laid upon it.

And, lastly, They pretend not, that fathers and councils may err, and they cannot; nor that they were men, and themselves are not; but that you

do most unjustly and vainly to father your inventions of yesterday upon the fathers and councils. Uncle. I know that we catholics do reverence traditions as much as Scripture itself; neither do I see why we should be blamed for it; for the words, which Christ and his apostles spake, must needs be as infallible as those which were written.

Nephew. True. But still the question depends, whether Christ and his apostles did indeed speak those words you pretend they did. We say with Irenæus, Præconiaverunt primum, scripserunt postea; what they preached first they wrote afterwards. We say with Tertullian (ecclesias) apostoli condiderunt, ipsi eis prædicando, tam viva, quod aiunt, voce, quam per epistolas postea: the apostles founded the churches by their preaching to them, first by word of mouth, then after by their writings. If you can prove the contrary, do so, and we yield; but hitherto you do nothing.

Uncle. And as for the keeping of it, I see the Scripture itself is beholden to tradition (God's providence presupposed) for the integrity both of the letter and the sense. Of the letter it is confessed; of the sense manifest. For the sense being a distinct thing from the naked letter, and rather fetched out by force of consequence, than in express and formal terms contained (which is most true, whether we speak of protestant sense or the catholic) it belongeth rather to tradition than express texts of Scripture

Nephew. That which you desire to conclude, is, that we must be beholden to tradition for the sense of Scripture; and your reason to conclude this, is, because the sense is fetched out by force of consequence. This of some places of Scripture

is not true, especially those which belong to faith and good manners, which carry their meaning in their foreheads. Of others it is true, but nothing to the purpose in hand, but rather directly against it. For who will not say, If I collect the sense of Scripture by reason, then I have it not from authority? That is, unless I am mistaken, if I fetch it out by force of consequence, then I am not beholden to tradition for it. But the letter of Scripture hath been preserved by tradition, and therefore why should we not receive other things upon tradition as well as Scripture? I answer, The Jew's tradition preserved the books of the Old Testament, and why then doth our Saviour receive these upon their tradition, and yet condemn other things, which they suggested as matters of tradition? If you say, It was because these traditions came not from Moses, as they were pretended; I say, also, that yours are only pretended, and not proved to come from the apostles. Prove your tradition of these additions as well as you prove the tradition of Scripture, and assure yourselves, we then, according to the injunction of the council of Trent, shall receive both with equal

reverence.

Uncle. As it may appear by the sense of these few words, Hoc est corpus meum, whether you take the protestant or the catholic sense for the same text cannot have two contrary senses of itself, but as they are fetched out by force of argument; and therefore, what sense hath best tradition to shew for itself, that's the truth.

Nephew. This is neither protestant nor catholic sense; but if we may speak the truth, direct nonsense, For what if the same text cannot have

contrary senses, is there therefore no means but tradition to determine which is the true sense? What connexion, or what relation, is there between this antecedent and this consequent? Certainly they are mere strangers to one another, and until they met by chance in this argument, never saw each other before. He that can find a third proposition to join them together in a good syllogism, I profess unto you, erit mihi magnus Apollo. But what if of these two contrary senses, the one, that is the literal, draw after it a long train of absurdities; the other, that is the figurative, do not so, have we not reason enough, without advising with tradition about the matter, to reject the literal sense, and embrace the spiritual? St. Augustine certainly thought we had; for he gives us this direction in his book, De Doctrina Christiana; and the first and fittest text that he could choose to exemplify his rule, what think you is it? Even the cousin-german to that which you have made choice of: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man," &c. Here, saith he, the letter seems to command impiety: figura est ergo; therefore it is a figure, commanding to feed devoutly upon the passion of our Lord, and to lay up in our memory, that Christ was crucified for us.

Uncle. These particulars, peradventure, would require a farther discussion; and now I will take nothing but what is undeniable. As this is, to wit, that what points are in controversy betwixt us and protestants, we believe to have been delivered by Christ and his apostles to our forefathers, and by them delivered from hand to hand to our fathers, whom we know to have delivered them

for such to us, and to have received and believed them for such themselves.

Chillingworth.

Certainly, though ink and paper cannot blush, yet I dare say you were fain to rub your forehead over and over before you committed this to writing. Say what you list; for my part, I am so far from believing you, that I verily believe you do not believe yourselves, when you pretend that you believe those points of your doctrine, which are in controversy, to have been delivered to your forefathers by Christ and his apostles. Is it possible, that any sober man, who has read the New Testament, should believe, that Christ and his apostles taught Christians, that it was fit and lawful to deny the laity the sacramental cup? that it was expedient, and for the edification of the church, that the Scripture should be read, and the public worship of God perpetually celebrated in a language which they understand not, and to which, for want of understanding (unless St. Paul deceive us) they cannot say Amen? or is it reasonable you should desire us to believe you, when your own men, your own champions, your own councils, confess the contrary.

Does not the council of Constance acknowledge plainly, that the custom, which they ratified, was contrary to Christ's institution, and the custom of the primitive church? And how then was it taught by Christ and his apostles?

Do not Cajetan and Lyranus confess ingenuously, that it follows evidently from St. Paul, that it is more for edification, that the liturgy of the