some pastors are ordinary, and for continuance, but not such as are here spoken of; not such as are endowed with the strange and heavenly gifts, which Christ gave not only to the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, but to the inferior pastors and doctors of his church, at the first plantation of it. And therefore St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xii. 28. (to which place we are referred by the margin of the vulgar translation, for the explication of this) places this gift of teaching amongst, and prefers it before, many other miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. Pastors there are still in the church, but not such as Titus, and Timothy, and Apollos, and Barnabas; not such as can justly pretend to immediate inspiration and illumination of the Holy Ghost. And, therefore, seeing there neither are, nor have been, for many ages in the church, such apostles, and prophets, &c. as are here spoken of, it is certain he promised none; or otherwise we must blasphemously charge him with breach of his promise.

Secondly, I answer, That if by dedit, he gave, he meant, promisit, he promised, for ever; then all were promised, and all should have continued. If by dedit be not meant promisit, then he promised none such, nor may we expect any such by virtue of or warrant from this text that is here alleged. And thus much for the first assumpt, which was, That the place was no argument for an infallible succession in the church of Rome.

Now for the second, That it is a strong argument against it, thus I make it good.

The apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, which our Saviour gave upon his as

cension, were given by him, that they might consummate the saints, do the work of the ministry, edify the body of Christ, until we all come into the unity of faith, that we be not "like children, wavering and carried up and down with every wind of doctrine." The apostles, and prophets, &c. that then were, do not now in their own persons, and by oral instruction, do the work of the ministry, to the intent we may be kept from wavering, and being carried up and down with every wind of doctrine: therefore they do this some other way. Now there is no other way by which they can do it, but by their writings; and therefore by their writings they do it: therefore by their writings, and believing of them, we are to be kept from wavering in matters of faith: therefore the Scriptures of the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, are our guides: therefore not the church of Rome.

An Answer to some Passages in Rushworth's Dialogues, beginning at the Third Dialogue, §. XII. p. 181. Ed. Paris, 1654. about Traditions.

Uncle. Do you think there is such a city as Rome or Constantinople?

Nephew. That I do: I would I knew what, I ask as well.

Chillingworth.

First, I should have answered, that in propriety of speech I could not say that I knew it, but that I did as undoubtedly believe it, as those things which I did know. For though (as I conceive) we may be properly said to believe that which we know, yet we cannot say truly, that we know that which we only believe upon report and hearsay, be it never so constant, never so general: for seeing the generality of men is made up of particulars, and every particular man may deceive and be deceived, it is not impossible, though exceedingly improbable, that all men should conspire to do so. Yet I deny not that the popular phrase of speech will very well bear, that we may say we know that, which in truth we only believe, provided the grounds of our belief be morally certain.

Neither do I take any exception to the nephew's answers made to his uncle's 2, 3, 4, and 5 interrogatories. But grant willingly as to the first, that it is not much material, whether I remember or not any particular author of such a general and constant report. Then, that the testimony of one or two witnesses, though never so credible,

could add nothing to that belief which is already at the height; nay, perhaps, that my own seeing these cities would make no accession, add no degree to the strength and firmness of my faith concerning this matter, only it would change the kind of my assent, and make me know that which formerly I did but believe.

To the fourth, that seeming reasons are not much to be regarded against sense or experience, and moral certainties (but withal I should have told my uncle, that I fear his supposition is hardly. possible, and that the nature of the thing will not admit, that there should be any great, nay, any probable reasons invented, to persuade me that there was never such a city as London); and therefore, if any man should go about to persuade me that there was never such a city as London; that there were no such men as called themselves, or were called by others, protestants, in England, in the days of Queen Elizabeth; perhaps such a man's wit delights me, but his reasons sure would never persuade me.

Hitherto we should have gone hand in hand together: but whereas in the next place he says, in like manner then you do not doubt, but a catholic, living in a catholic country, may undoubtedly know what was the public religion of his country in his father's days, and that so assuredly, that it were a mere madness for him to doubt thereof; I should have craved leave to tell my uncle, that he presumed too far upon his nephew's yielding disposition. For that as it is a far more easy thing to know, and more authentically testified, that there were some men called protestants by themselves and others, than what opinions these pro

testants held, divers men hold divers things, which yet were all called by this name; so is it far more easy for a Roman catholic to know, that in his father's days there were some men, for their outward communion with, and subordination to, the Bishop of Rome, called Roman catholics, than to know what was the religion of those men who went under this name: for they might be as different one from another in their belief, as some protestants are from others.

As for example, had I lived before the Lateran council, which condemned Berengarius, possibly I might have known, that the belief of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament was part of the public doctrine of my country; but whether the real absence of the bread and wine after consecration, and their transubstantiation into Christ's body, were likewise catholic doctrines at that time, that I could not have known, seeing that all men were at liberty to hold it was so, or it was not so.

Moreover, I should have told my uncle, that living now, I know it is catholic doctrine, that the souls of the blessed enjoy the vision of God: but if I had lived in the reign of Pope John XXII. I should not have known that then it was so, considering that many good catholics before that time had believed, and then even the pope himself did believe the contrary: and he is warranted by Bellarmine for doing so, because the church had not then defined it.

I should have told him further, that either catholics of the present time do so differ in their belief, that what some hold lawful and pious, others condemn as unlawful and impious; or else, that