The Occasion of this Conference was.

THe Occasion of this Third § 1 Conference you should know fufficiently. You were an Actor in it, as well as in two other. Whether you have related the two for­mer truly, appeares by D. White the late Reverend L. Bishop of Ely his Relation, or Exposition of them. I was present at none, but this Third; of which I here give the Church an Account. But of this Third, whether that were the Cause which you alledge, I cannot tell. You say,

It was observed, That in the second Confe­rence all the Speech was about particular mat­ters; little or none about a continuall, infallible, visible Church, which was the chiefe and onely Point, in which a certaine Lady required satis­faction; as having formerly setled in her minde, That it was not for her, or any other unlearned Persons, to take up on them to judge of Particu­lars, without depending upon the Iudgement of the true Church.

The Opinion of that Honourable Person in § 2 this, was never opened to mee. And it is very fit the people should looke to the Iudgement of the Church, before they bee too busie with Particulars. But yet neither 1 Cor. 10. 15. Scripture, nor any good Authority denies them some mo­derate use of their owne un­derstanding, and Iudgement, espe­cially in things familiar and evi­dent; which even Quis non sine ullo Magistro, aut interprete ex se facilè cognos­cat &c. Novat. de Trin. c. 23. Et loquitur de Mysterio Passion is Christi. Dijudicare est Mensurare &c. Unde & Mens dicitur a Metiendo. Tho. p. 1. q. 79. A. 9. ad 4. To what end then is a m nde, and an understanding given a Man, if he may not ap­ply it to measure Truth? Et [...]. i. ab eo quod confiderat, & discernit. Quiadecernit inter verum & falsum. Damasc. l. 2. Fid. Orth. c. 22. And A. C. himselfe, p. 41. denyes not all Iudgement to private men; but sayes they are not so to relie absolutely upon their private Iudgement, as to adventure salvation upon it alone, or chiefly, which no man will deny. ordinary Capacities may as easily understand, as reade. And therefore some Particulars a Christian may judge without depending.

This Lady therefore having heard it granted in the first Conference, That there must bee a continuall visible Company ever since Christ, teaching unchanged Doctrine in all Funda­mentall Points; that is, Poynts necessary to salvation, desired to heare this confirmed, and [Page 3] proofe brought, which was that continuall, infallible, visible Church, in which one may, and out of which one cannot attaine salvation. And therefore having appointed a time of Meeting betweene a B. and me, and thereupon hav­ing sent for the B. and me, before the B. came, the Lady and a friend of hers came first to the roome where I was, and debated before me the aforesaid Question, and not doubting of the first part, to wit, That there must be a con­tinuall visible Church, as they had heard gran­ted by D. White, and L. K. &c.

What D. White, and L. K. granted, I heard § 3 not. But I thinke, both granted a continuall, and a 1 visible Church; neither of them an infallible, at least in your sense. And your selfe in this Relation speake distractedly: For in these few lines from the begin­ning hither, twice you adde infallible betweene con­tinuall and visible, and twice you leave it out. But this concernes D. W. and he hath answered it.

Here A. C. steps in, and sayes, The Iesuite did 2 not speake distractedly, but most advisedly. For (saith he) A. C. p. 40. where he relates, what D. White, or L. K. granted, hee leaves out the word Infallible, because they granted it not; But where he speakes of the Lady, there he addes it, because the Iesuite knew, it was an infallible Church, which she sought to rely upon. How farre the Catholike Militant Church of Christ is infallible, is no Dispute for this Place, though you shall finde it after. But sure the Iesuite did not speake most advisedly, nor A. C. neither, nor the Lady her selfe, if she said she desired to relie upon an Infallible Church. For an Infallible Church denotes a Particular Church, in that it is set in opposition to some other Particular [Page 4] Church, that is not infallible. Now I for my part, doe not know what that Lady desired to relie upon. This I know, if she desired such a Particular Church, neither this Iesuite, nor any other is able to shew it her: No not Bellarmine himselfe, though of very great ability to make good any Truth, which he undertakes for the Church of Rome. Feritas vincat necesse est. sive Negantem, sive confitentem &c. S. Aug. Epist. 174. Oc [...]ultari potest ad tempus veritas, vinci non potest. S. Aug. in Psal. 61. But no strength can uphold an Error against Truth, where Truth hath an able Defendant. Now where Bellar­mine sets himselfe purposely to make Lib. 4. De Rom. Pont. Cap. 4. §. 1. Romana particularis Ecclesta non potest errare in Fide. this good, That the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in matter of Faith; Out of which it followes, That there may be found a Particular infallible Church, you shall see what he is able to performe.

1. First then, after he hath Distinguished, to ex­presse his meaning, in what sense the Particular 3 Church of Rome cannot erre in things which are de Fide of the Faith; he tells us, this Firmitude is, be­cause the Sea Apostolike is fixed there. And this he saith is most true. Ibid. §. 2. And for proofe of it, he brings three Fathers to justifie it.

1. The first S. Cyprian, Navigare audent ad Petri Ca­thodram, & Ecclesiam princi­palem &c. Nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, ad quos Perfidia habe­re non potest accessum. Cypr. l. 1. Ep. 3. whose words are, That the Romanes are such, as to whom Perfidia cannot have ac­cesse. Now Perfidia can hardly stand for Error in Faith, or for Misbeliefe: But it properly signifies malicious False­hood in matter of Trust, and Action: not error in faith, but in fact against the Discipline, and Govern­ment of the Church. And why may it not here have this meaning in S. Cyprian?

For the Story there it is this. Bin. Concil. To. 1. p. 152. Edit. Paris. 1636. Baron. Annal. an. 253. 254. 255. In the 4 Yeare 255. there was a Councell in [Page 5] Carthage in the cause of two Schismatiks Felicissimus, and Novatian, about restoring of them to the Communi­on of the Church, which had lapsed in time of danger from Christianity to Idolatry. Felicissimus would ad­mit all even without penance; and Novatian would admit none, no not after penance. The Fathers forty two in number went, as the Truth led them, between both Extreames. To this Councell came Privatus a knowne Heretick, but was not admitted, because he was formerly Excommunicated, and often con­demned. Hereupon he gathers his Complicies to­gether, and chooses one Fortunatus (who was for­merly condemned as well as himselfe) Bishop of Carthage, and set him up against S. Cyprian. This done, Felicissimus and his Fellowes haste to Rome with Letters Testimoniall from their owne party, and pretend that Twenty five Bishops concurred with them: and their desire was to be received into the Communion of the Romane Church, and to have their new Bishop acknowledged. Cornelius then Pope, though their hast had now prevented S. Cyprian's Letters, having formerly heard from him, both of them, and their Schisme in Africke, would neither heare them, nor receive their Letters. They grew in­solent and furious (the ordinary way that Schisma­ticks take.) Vpon this Cornelius writes to S. Cyprian; and S. Cyprian in this Epistle gives Cornelius thanks, for refusing these African fugitives, declares their Schisme and wickednesse at large, and encourages him, and all Bishops to maintaine the Ecclesiasticall Discipline, and Censures against any the boldest threatnings of wicked Schismaticks. This is the Story, and in this is the Passage here urged by Bel­larmine. Now I would faine know why Perfidia (all Circumstances considered) may not stand here in [Page 6] its proper sense for cunning and perfidious dealing, which these men, having practised at Carthage, thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also, but that he was warie enough not to be over­reach'd by Busie Schismaticks?

2. Secondly, let it be granted that Perfidia doth 5 signifie here Error in faith and doctrine. For I will not denie, but that among the African Writers (and espe­cially S. Cyprian) it is somtimes so us'd; and there­fore here perhaps. But then this Priviledge of not erring dangerously in the Faith, was not made over absolutely to the Romanes, that are such by birth, and dwelling onely; but to the Romanes, qua tales, as they were such as those first were, whose faith was famous through the world, and as long as they conti­nued such; which at that time it seemes they did. And so S. Cyprian's words seeme to import, eos esse Romanos, that the Romanes then under Pope Corne­lius, were such as the Rom. 1. 8. Apostle spake of, and there­fore to whom at that time (or any time, they still remaining such) perfidious Misbeliefe could not be welcome, Or rather indeed perfidious Misbelievers or Schismaticks could not be welcome. For this very phrase Perfidia non potest habere accessum, directs us to understand the word in a Concrete sense. Perfidiousnesse could not get accesse, that is, such perfidious persons, Excommunicated out of other Churches, were not likely to get accesse at Rome: Or to finde Admittance into their Com­munion. It is but a Metonymie of speech, the Adjunct for the Subject, A thing very usuall even in elegant Ego tibi istam scelestam, Scelus, [...]inguam abscindam: Plaut, Am­phit. Ex hac enim parte pudor pugnat illinc petulantia &c. Cic.— Látuit plebeio tectus amictu Omnis Honos. Nullos comit at a est purpura fasces. Lucan. l. 2. Authours, and much more in later times, as in S. Cyprian's, when the Latine Lan­guage was growne rougher. Now if it be thus [Page 7] understood (I say in the Concrete) then it is plaine, that S. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romanes from possibility of Errour, but to brand his Adversaries with a Title due to their Merit, cal­ling them perfidious, that is, such as had betrayed, or perverted the Faith. Neither can wee loose by this Construction, as will appeare at after.

3. But thirdly, when all is done, what if it bee no 6 more than a Rhetoricall Excesse of speech? Perfidia non potest, for non facilè potest, It cannot, that is, it cannot easily; Or what if S. Cyprian doe but Laudando praecipere, by commending Nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides A­postolo praedican­te, &c. them to be such, in­struct them, that such indeed they ought to bee, to whom Perfidiousnesse should not get accesse. Men are very bountifull of their Complements sometimes. Epist. 67. Synesius writing to Theophilus of Alexandria, begins thus. [...], &c. I both will, and a Divine Necessity lies upon mee, to esteeme it a Law, whatsoever that Throne (meaning his of Alex­andria) shall Determine. Nay the Word is [...] and that signifies to determine like an Oracle, or as in Gods stead. Now, I hope you will say, This is not to be taken Dogmatically, it is but the Epistolers Courtesie onely. And why not the like here? For the haste which these Schismaticks made to Rome, prevented Saint Cyprians Letters: yet Cornelius very carefull of both the Truth and Peace of the Church, would neither heare them, nor receive their Letters, till Eor so S. Cyprian begins his Epistle to Cornelius. Legi literas tuas frater, &c. And after: Sed enim lectâ aliâ Epistolâ tuâ frater, &c. S. Cypr. L. 1. Epist. 3. hee had written to S. Cyprian. Now this Epistle is S. Cyprian's answer to Cor­nelius, in which he informes him of the whole truth, and withall gives him thanks for refusing to heare these Afri­can Fugitives. In which faire way of returning his thanks, if hee make an honourable mention of the [Page 8] Romanes and their Faith, with a little dash of Rhe­torick, even to a Non potest, for a Non facilè potest, 'tis no great wonder.

But take which Answer you will of the three; 7 This is plaine, that S. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the unerring Infallibility of either Pope, or Church of Rome. For this is more then manifest, by the Contestation, which after happened betweene S. Cyprian, and Pope Stephen, about the Rebaptiza­tion of those, that were Baptized by Haereticks, For hee Stephanus Frater noster Haere­ticorum causam contra Christia­nos, & contra Ecclesiam Dei asse­rere conatur. Cypr. ad Pompei­um contra Epist, Stephani Edit. per Erasmum Basil. p. 327. saith expresly, that Pope Stephen did then not onely maintaine an error, but the very Cause of Haereticks, and that against Christians, and the very Church of God. Stephanus fratris nostri obstina­tio dura: Ibid: p. 329. And it would be marked by the Iesu­ite and his A. C. that still it is Stephani fratris nostri, and not Capitis, or summi Pastoris nostri. And after this he chargeth him with Obstinacy and Presumption. I hope this is plaine enough to shew, that S. Cyprian had no great Opinion of the Romane Infallibility. Or if he had it, when he writ to Cornelius; certainely hee had chang'd it, when he wrote against Stephen. But I think it was no change, and that when he wrote to Cornelius, it was Rhetoricke, and no more.

Now if any man shall say, that in this Poynt of Rebaptization, S. Cyprian himselfe was in the wrong Opinion, and Pope Stephen in the right, I easily grant that; But yet that Error of his takes not off his judgement, what he thought of the Papall or Ro­mane Infallibility in those times. For though after­wards Caranza in Concil. Carthag. sub Cornel. fine. S. Cyprian's Opinion was condemned in a Councell at Rome under Cornelius, and after that by Pope Stephen; and after both in the first Can. 1. Councell of Carthage: yet no one word is there in that Councell, which mentions this as an Error, That hee thought Pope Stephen might erre in the faith, while he pro­claimed [Page 9] he did so. In which, though the particular Censure, which he passed on Pope Stephen, was erroneous (for Stephen erred not in that) yet the Ge­nerall which results from it (namely, That for all his being in the Popedome, he might erre) is most true.

2. The second Father which Bellarmine cites, is 9 S. Ierome: Attamen scito Romanam sidem Apostolica vove laudatam ejus­modi praestigias non recipere, eti­amsi Angelus aliter annunciet, quàm semel praedicatum est, Pauli authoritate munitam non posse mutari. S. Hicron. L. 3. Apol. contra Ruffinum. Tom. 2. Edit. Paris. 1534. sol. 84. K. Perad­venture it is here to be read (& jam si) For so the place is more plaine, and more strong, but the Answer is the same. His words are: The Romane Faith commended by the Apostle, admits not such praestigia's, deceits, and delusions into it, though an Angell should preach it otherwise, than it was preach'd at first (and) being armed and fenced by S. Paul's authority, cannot be changed. Where first, I will not doubt, but that S. Ierome speakes here of the Faith; For the Prae­stigiae here mentioned, are afterwards more plainely expressed; For he tels us after, Deinde ut Epistolas contra te ad Orientem mitteret, & cauteri­um tibi Haereseós inureret. Di­ceret (que) libros Origenis [...], à te translatos, & simplici Eccle­siae Romanae plebi traditos, ut fi­dei veritatem quam ab Apostolo didicerant, per te perderent. S. Hicron. ibid. fol. 85. K. That the Bishop of Rome had sent Letters into the East, and charged Heresie upon Ruffi­nus: And farther, that Origen's Books [...] were translated by him, and delivered to the simple people of the Church of Rome, that by his meanes they might loose the verity of the Faith, which they had learned from the Apostle. There­fore the Praestigiae before mentioned were the Cun­ning Illusions of Ruffinus, putting Origen's Book un­der the Martyr Pamphilus his name, that so he might bring in Heresie the more cunningly under a name of Credit, and the more easily pervert the Peoples Faith. So, of the Faith he speakes. And secondly, I shall as easily confesse that S. Ierome's speech is most true, but I cannot admit the Cardinal's sense of it. For he im­poses upon the word Fides. For by Romana Fides, [Page 10] the Romane Faith, he will understand the Particular Church of Rome. Which is as much as to say, Roma­nos Fideles, the Faithfull of that Church: And that no wilie Delusions, or Cousenage in matter of Faith can be imposed upon them. Now hereupon I re­turne to that of S. Cyprian: If Fides Romana must signifie Fideles Romanos, why may not Perfidia be­fore signifie Perfidos? Especially since these two words are commonly used by these Writers, as Termes Qui cum Fidei dux esse non po­tuit, perfidiae existat. S. Cyprian. L. 1. Epist. 7. Fidem perfidi &c. Ibid. Facti sunt ex Ovibus Vulpes, ex fidelibus perfidi. Optatus. L. 7. Quomodo iis prosit quum bapti­zantur Parentum Fides, quorum iis non potest obesse perfidia. S. Aug. Epist. 23. Quantò po­tiùs Fides aliena potest consulere parvulo, cui sua perfidia, &c. S. Aug. L. 3. de lib. Arbit. c. 23. Opposite. And therefore by the Law of Opposition may interpret each other proportionably. So with these great Masters, with whom 'tis almost growne to be, Quod volumus, rectum est, what we please, shall be the Authours meaning: Perfidia must signifie abso­lutely Errour in Faith, or Misbeliefe: But Fides must relate to the Persons, and sig­nifie the Faithfull of the Romane Church. And now I conceive my Answer will proceed with a great deale of Reason. For Romana Fides, the Romane Faith, as it was commended by the Apostle (of which S. Ierome speakes) is one thing, and the Particular Romane Church, of which the Cardinall speakes, is another. The Faith indeed admits not Praestigias, wilie delusi­ons into it; if it did, it could not be the Whole and Vndefiled Faith of Christ, which they learned from the Apostle. And which is so fenced by Apostolicall Authority, as that it cannot be chan­ged, though an Angell should preach the contra­ry. But the Particular Church of Rome hath admit­ted Praestigias, diverse crafty Conveyances into the Faith, and is not fenced, as the Faith it selfe is. And therefore though an Angell cannot contrary [Page 11] that, yet the bad Angell hath sowed tares in this. By which meanes Romana Fides, though it be now the same it was for the words of the Creed; yet it is not the same for the sense of it: Nor for the super and praeter-structures built upon it, or joyned unto it. So the Romane Faith, that is, the Faith which S. Paul taught the Romanes, and after commended in them, was all one with the Catholike Faith of Christ. For S. Paul taught no other than that One. And this one can never be changed in, or from it selfe by Angell or Divell. But in mens hearts it may receive a change; And in particular Churches it may receive a change; And in the particular Church of Rome it hath received a change. And yee see S. Hierome himselfe con­fesses, that the Pope himselfe was afraid Ne fidei veri­tatem quam ab Apostolo didice­rant, per te per­derent, ut suprà. ne perde­rent, least by this Art of Ruffinus, the People might loose the verity of the Faith. Now that which can be lost, can be changed. For usually Habits begin to alter, before they be quite lost. And that which may be lost among the People, may be lost among the Bishops, and the rest of the Clergie too, if they looke not to it, as it seemes they after did not at Rome, though then they did Nay at this time the whole Romane Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen's Booke, and all the Errors in it com­ming under the Name of Pamphilus; and so S. Ierome himselfe expresly, and close upon the Place cited by Bellarmine. For he desires Muta titu­lum, & Roma­nam simplicita­tem tanto peri­culo libera. ibid. fol. 84. K. Ruffinus to change the Title of the Booke (that Error may not be spread under the specious Name of Pamphilus) and so to free from danger the Romane simplicity. Where, by the way, Romane unerring Power now challenged, and Romane simplicity then feared, agree not very well together.

[Page 12] 3. The third Father alledged by Bellarmine is Uetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam Fidem, & semper eam retinet, sicut decet Urbem, quae toti Orbt pr [...]sidet, semper de Deo integram fidem habere. Greg. Naz. in Carmine de vità suà. Ante medium. p. 9. Edit. Paris. 1609. S. Gre­gory 10 Nazianzen. And his words are, that Ancient Rome from of old hath the right Faith, and alwayes holds it, as becomes the City; which is Go­vernesse over the whole World to have an entire faith in, and concerning God. Now certainly it became that City very well, to keepe the Faith sound, and entire. And having the Government of a great part of the World then in her power, it became her so much the more, as her Example thereby was the greater. And in S. Gregory Nazianzen's time, Rome did certainly hold both rectam & integram fidem, the right, and the whole entire Faith of Christ. But there is nor Promise, nor Prophecy in S. Gregory, that Rome shall ever so doe. For his words are plaine semper decet, it alwayes be­comes that great City to have, and to hold too integram Fidem the en­tire Faith. But at the other semper, 'tis The words in the Greeke, are [...]. Haec quidem fuit diu, & nunc adhuc est recti grada. [...], Est; So S. Gregory sayes, but of an [...] or a retinebit, he sayes no­thing. retinet, that City from of old holds the right faith yet; but he saith not retinebit semper, that the City of Rome shall retaine it ever, no more then it shall ever retaine the Empire of the World. Now it must be assur'd, that it shall ever hold the entire faith of Christ, before we can be assured, That that Particular Church can never erre, or be Infallible.

Besides these, the Cardinall 11 names Cyrillus, and Ruffinus, but he neither tells us where, nor cites their words. Yet I thinke I have found the most pregnant place in S Petram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud, quàm inconcustam & fir­missimam Discipuli fidem vocavit. In quà, Ecclesia Christi ita fundata & firmata esset, ut non laberetur, & esset inexpugnabilis inferorum portis, in perpetuu [...] manens. S. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trin. l. 4. p. 278. Parisiis, An. 1604. Cyril, and that makes clearly against him. For I finde expresly [Page 13] these three things. First, that the Church is Inex­pugnable, and that the Gates of Hell shall never pre­vaile against it, but that it shall in perpetuum manere remaine for ever. And this all Protestants grant. But this, That it shall not fall away, doth not secure it fromall kinds oferror. Secondly, Bellarmine quotes S. Cyril for the Particular Romane Church; and S. Cyril speakes not of the Romane at all, but of the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholike Church. Thirdly, that the Foundation and firmenesse, which the Church of Christ hath, is placed not in, or upon the Et ego dico tibi) i. tuae Confessioni, quâ mihi di [...]isti, Tu es Christus &c. Dion. Carthus. in S. Mat. 16. 18. Et super hanc Petram) i. Fidei hujus sir­mitatem & fundamentum. Vel super hanc Petram quam confessus es, i. super Meipsum Lapidem An­gularem &c. Ibid. Person, much lesse the Successor of S. Peter; but upon the * faith, which by Gods Spirit in him he so firmely professed: which is the Common received Opinion both of the Anci­ent Fathers, and the Protestants. Vpon this Rocke, that is, upon this faith will I build my Church. S. Matth. 16. So here's all the Good he hath gotten S. Matt. 16. 18. by S. Cyril, unlesse he can cite some other place of S. Cyril, which I believe he cannot.

And for Ruffinus, the 12 Place which Bellarmine aimes at, is in his Exposi­tion upon the Creed: and is quoted in part the Bellar. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 3. §. penult. Chap­ter before. But when all his words shall be laid to­gether, they will make no more for Bellarmine and his Cause, then the former Places have done. Illud non importunè commonendum puto, quod in diversis Ecclesiis aliqua in his verbis inveniunt ur adjecta. In Ecclesiâ tamen Vrbis Romae hoc non de­prehenditur factum. Pro eo arbritror, quod neque Haeresis ulla illic sumpsit exordium, & mos ibi servatur antiquus, eos qui gratiam Baptismi sus­cepturi sunt, publicò, id est, Fidelium populo au­diente, Symbolum reddere: Et utique adjectionem unius saltem Sermonis, eorum qui praecesserunt in Fide, non admittit auditus. In caeteris autem Locis, quantum intelligi datur, propter nonnullos Haere­ticos addita quaedam videntur, per quae novellae Do­ctrinae sensus crederetur excludi. &c. Ruffin. in Exposit. Symbol. (ut habetur inter Opera S. Cy­priani) Praefat. Expos. Ruffi­nus his words then runne thus: Before I come to the [Page 14] Words of the Creed, this I thinke fit to warne you of. That in divers Churches some things are found added to the words (of the Creed.) But in the Church of the City of Rome, this is not found done. And as I thinke, it is, for that no Haeresie did take its rise or beginning there: And for that the old Custome is there observed, Namely, that they which are to receive the grace of Baptisme, doe publikely repeate the Creed in the hearing of the People, who would not admit such Additions. But in other places (as farre as I can understand) by reason of some Hereticks, some things were added, but such as were to exclude the sense of their Novell Doctrine. Now these words make little for Bellarmine who cites them, and much against Ruffinus that uttered them. They make little for Bellarmine. First, because suppose Ruffinus his speech to be true, yet this will never follow: In Ruffinus his time no Haeresie had taken its beginning at Rome: therefore no Haeresie hath had rooting there so ma­ny hundred yeares since. Secondly, Bellarmine takes upon him there to proove That the particular Church of Rome cannot erre. Now neither can this be concluded out of Ruffinus his words. First, because (as I said be­fore) to argue from Non sumpsit to Ergo sumere non po­test: No Haeresie hath yet begun there; therefore none can begin there, or spring thence, is an Argu­ment drawne Ab actu ad Potentiam negative, from the Act to the Power of Being, which every No­vice in Learning can tell proceeds not Negatively. And Common Reason telles every man, 'tis no Consequence to say, Such a thing is not, or hath not beene, Therefore it cannot be. Secondly, because though it were true, that no Haeresie at all did ever take its beginning at Rome, yet that can never proove that the particular Church of Rome can never erre (which is the thing in Question.) For suppose that no Hae­resie [Page 15] did ever beginne there, yet if any, that began els­where, were admitted into that Church, it is as full a proofe, That that Church can erre, as if the Haeresie had beene hatched in that Nest. For that Church erres, which admits an Haeresie into it, as well as that which broaches it. Now Ruffinus sayes no more of the Romane Church, then non sumpsit exordium no Heresie tooke its beginning there; but that denyes not, but that some Haereticall taint might get in there. And 'tis more then manifest, that the most famous Haeresies in their severall Times made their aboade even at Rome. And 'tis observable too, that Bellarmine cites nomore of Ruffinus his words then these (In Ecclesiâ urbis Romae neque Haeresis ulla sumpsit exordium, & mos ibi servatur antiquus) as if this were an entire speech, whereas it comes in but as a Reason given of the speech precedent, and as if Ruffinus made the Church of Rome the great observer of the Customes of the Church, whereas he speaks but of one Parti­cular Custome of Reciting the Creed before Baptisme. But after all this, I pray did no Heresie ever begin at Rome? where did Novatianisme begin? At Rome sure. For Baron. To. 2. An. 254. Num. 62. Baronius, Pamel. in Cy­prian. Epist. 41. & 73. Pamelius, and Petavius in Epiphan. Haeres 59. Petavius doe all dis­pute the Point, whether that sect was denominated from Novatianus the Romane Priest, or Novatus the African Bishop; And they Conclude for Novatian. He then that gave that Name, is in all right the Founder, and Rome the nest of that Heresie. And there it Continued with a succession Onuph. in No­tis ad Plat. in vita Cornelii. of Bishops from Cornelius to Caelestine, which is neare upon two hun­dred yeares. Nay could Ruffinus himselfe be igno­rant that some Haeresie began at Rome? No sure. For in this I must challenge him either for his weake me­mory, or his wilfull error. For Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius his History, but had beene at the paines [Page 16] to translate him. Now Haeretici alii in morem venena­torum serpentum in Asiam, & Phrygiam irrepserunt, [...], quorum Dux Florinus. Euseb. L. 5. cap. 14. And in Ruffi­nus his Translation, c. 15. And then afterwards c. 19. & 20. [...]. &c. Now this Blastus taught that God was the Author of sin. Eusebius sayes plainely, that some Hereticks spread their venome in Asia, some in Phrygia, and others grew at Rome, and Florinus was the Ring-leader of them. And more clearely after. Irenaeus (saith he) directed diverse Epistles against this Florinus, and his fellow Blastus, and condemnes them of such Heresies, as threw them and their Followers into great Impiety, &c. Those at Rome corrupting the sound Doctrine of the Church. Therefore most manifest it is, that some Heresie had its rise and beginning at Rome. But to leave this slip of Ruffinus, most evident it is, that Ruffinus neither did, nor could account the Par­ticular Church of Rome infallible. For if he had esteemed so of it, he would not have dissented from it in so maine a Point, as is the Canon of the Scripture, as he plainely doth. Ruff. in Expo­sit. Symb. p. 188. In which rec­koning heplain­ly agrees with the Church of England. Art. 6. For reckoning up the Canonicall Bookes, he most manifestly dissents from the Romane Church. Therefore either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was infallible, or els the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more Bookes within the Canon, than heretofore she did. If she do, then she is changed in a maine Point of Faith, the Canon of Scri­pture, and is absolutely convinced not to be infalli­ble; For if she were right in her reckoning then, she is wrong now; And if she be right now, she was wrong then; And if she do not reckon more now than she did, when Ruffinus lived, then he reckons fewer than she, and so dissents from her; which doubtlesse he durst not have done, had he thought her judgement infallible. Yea, and he sets this marke upon his Dissent besides, Novi, & Veteris Testamenti Vo­lumina &c. sicut ex Patrum Mo­numentis accepimus. Ruff. in Symb. p. 188. Et haec sunt quae Patres in­tra canonem concluserunt. Et ex quibus Fidei nostrae Assertiones constare voluerunt. Ib. p. 189. That he reckons up the Bookes of the Canon just so, and no other­wise, [Page 17] than as he received them out of the Monuments of the Forefathers; And out of which the Assertions of our Faith are to be taken. Last of all, had this place of Ruffinus any strength for the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, yet there is very little reason, that the Pope, and his Clergie should take any Benefit by it. For S. Si Episcopi Romani est, stultè facis ab eo Exemplar Epistolae pe­tere, cui missa non est, &c. Vade potiùs Romane, & praesens ap [...] eum expostula, cur tibi & absenti & innocenti fecerit injuriā. Pri­mum, ut non reciper [...]t Expositio­nem Fidei tuae, quam omnis (ut scribis) Italia comprobav [...], &c. Deinde, ut Cauterium tibi Haere­scôs, dum nescis, inureret. S. Hic­ron. Apol. 3. advers. Ruffin. fol. 85. K. Ierome tels us, That when Ruffi­nus was angry with him for an Epistle which he writ not, he plainly sent him to the Bishop of Rome, and bid him expostu­late with him for the Contumely put upon him, in that he received not his exposition of the Faith, which, said He, all Italy appro­ved: and in that he branded him also, dùm nesciret (behind his back) with Heresie. Now if the Pope which then was, re­jected this Exposition of the Creed made by Ruffi­nus, and branded him besides with Haeresie; his sentence against Ruffinus was Iust, or Vnjust. If Vn­just, then the Pope erred about a matter of Faith, and so neither He, nor the Church of Rome, infallible. If Iust, then the Church of Rome labours to defend her­self by his pen, which is judged Haereticall by her self. So whether it were Iust, or Vnjust, the Church of Rome is driven to a hard strait, when she must beg help of him, whom she branded with Haeresie, and out of that Tract, which she her self rejected; And so uphold her Infallibility by the Iudgement of a man, who in her Iudgement had erred so foully: Nor may she by any Quum quis se vell [...] persona [...] t [...]stium post publicationem repel­lere fuerit protestatus. Si quid pro ipso dixerint, iis non creditur. Ex­tra. Tex. & ibi Gloss. c. Praesen­tium 31. de Testibus. Law take benefit of a Testimony, which her self hath defamed, and protested against.

With these Bellarmine is pleased to name Sixe 13 Popes, which, he saith, are all of this Opinion. But he Bellar. L. 4. de Rō. Pont. c. 4. §. Addo etiam, Quae e [...]si ab Haereticis contem­nentur, &c. adds, That these Testimonies will be contemned by the [Page 18] Haereticks. Good words I pray. I know whom the Cardinall meanes by Hereticks very well. But the best is, His Call cannot make them so. Nor shall I easily contemne Sixe ancient Bishops of Rome con­curring in Opinion, if apparent verity in the thing it selfe do not force me to dissent. And in that Case I shall do it without Contempt too. This onely I will say, Nemini in sua causa ereden­dum, nisi conformitter ad Legem Divinam, Naturalem & Cano­uicam loquatur. So Io. Gerson, & the Doctors of Paris cited in Lib. Anon. de Ecclesiastica & Po­litica Potestate. c. 16. Ed. Paris. 1612. Now these Popes doe not speak here conformably to these Lawes. That Sixe Popes concurring in opinion shall have lesse waight with me in their own Cause, than any other Sixe of the more Ancient Fathers. Indeed could I swallow L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. Bellarmines Opinion, That the Popes Iudgement is Infallible, I would then submit without any more adoe. But that will never downe with me, unlesse I live till I doate, which I hope in God I shall not.

Other Proofes than these Bellarmine brings not 14 to prove, that the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in, or from the Faith. And of what force these are to sway any Iudgement, I submit to all indif­ferent Readers. And having thus examined Bellar­mines Proofes, That the Particular Church of Rome cannot erre in Faith; I now returne to A. C. and the A. C. p. 42. Iesuite, and tell them, that no Iesuite, or any other, is ever able to prove any Particular Church Infallible.

But for the Particular Church of Rome, and the 15 Pope with it, erred it hath. And therefore may erre. Erred I say it hath, in the Worship of Images, and in altering Christs Institution in the blessed Sacra­ment, by taking away the Cup from the Peo­ple, and diverse other particulars, as shall appeare at §. 33. Consid. 7. Num. 5. & 12 after. And as for the Ground, which is presu­med to secure this Church from Errour, 'tis very [Page 19] remarkable How the Romanae Ecclesia Particularis non potest errare, persistente Romae Apostolicá sede. Propositio haec est verissima, & fortasse tam vera quam illa prima de Pontifice. L. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. 2. And that first proposition is this: Sum­mus Pontifex cum totam Eccle­siam docet, in his quae ad fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest, Ibid. c. 3. §. 1. Learned Cardi­nall speakes in this Case. For he tells us, that this Proposition [So long as S. Pe­ter's Chaire is at Rome, that Particular Church cannot erre in the Faith] is verissi­ma, most true; and yet in the very next words, 'tis Fortasse tam vera, peradven­ture as true as the former (that is) That the Pope when he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the faith, cannot erre in any case, What? is that Proposition most true? And yet is it but at a per­adventure 'tis as true as this? Is it possible any thing should be absolutely most true; and yet under a Perad­venture that it is but as true as another truth? But here without all Peradventure neither Proposition is true. And then indeed Bellarmine may say without a For­tasse, That this proposition: The Particular Church of Rome cannot erre, so long as the Sea Apostolike is there, is as true as this: The Pope cannot erre, while he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the Faith. For neither of them is true. But he cannot say that either of them is verissima, most true, when neither of them hath Truth.

2. Secondly, if the Particular Church of Rome 16 be Infallible, and can neither erre in the Faith, nor fall from it, then it is because the Sea Apostolike can­not be transferred from Rome, but must ever to the consummation of the World, remaine there, and keepe that Particular Church from erring. Now to this what sayes Bellarmine? what? why he tells us, Pia & probabilissima Senten­tia est, Cathedram Petri non posse separari à Româ, & pro­inde Romanam Ecclesiam abso­lutè non posse errare, vel deficere. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. Quod nihilominus. That it is a pious, and most pro­bable Opinion to thinke so. And he reckons foure Probabilities, that it shall never be remov'd from Rome. And I will not deny, but some of them are [Page 20] faire Probabilities; But yet they are but Proba­bilities, and so unable to convince any man. Why but then, what if a man cannot thinke as Bel­larmine doth, but that enforced by the light of his understanding, he must thinke the quite contrary to this, which Bellarmine thinks pious, and so probable? What then? Why, then Contraria sen­tentia nee est Hae­retica, nee mani­festè erronea. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. At so­cundum. Bellarmine himselfe tells you, that the quite contrary Proposition to this, namely, That S. Peter's Chayre may be severed from Rome, and that the [...] that Particular Church may erre, is neither Hae­reticall, nor manifestly erroneous. So then, by Bellarmines owne Confession, I am no Haereticke, nor in any ma­nifest error, if I say (as indeed I doe, and thinke it too) that 'tis possible for S. Peter's Chaire to be carried from Rome, and that then at least, by his owne argu­ment, that Church may erre.

Now then upon the whole matter, and to re­turne 17 to A. C. If that Lady desired to rely upon a A. C. p. 42. particular infallible Church, 'tis not to be found on earth. Rome hath not that gift, nor her Bishop neither. And Bellarmine (who I thinke was as able as any Champion that Church hath) dares not say, tis either Haeresie, or a manifest error, to say, That the Apostolike Sea may be removed thence, and That Church not only erre in Faith, but also fall quite away from it. Now I for my part have not ignorance enough in me to be­lieve, That that Church which may Apostatize at some one time, may not erre at another. Especially since both her erring, and failing may arise from other Causes, besides that, which is mention'd by the Cardinall. And if it may erre, 'tis not Infallible.

The Question was, Which was that Church? A friend of the Ladies would needs defend, That not only the Romane; but also the Greek Church was right:

When that Honourable Personage answer­ed, § 4 I was not by to heare. But I presume, He was so farre from granting, that only the Romane Church was right, as that He did not grant it right: And that He tooke on him no other Defence of the poore Greeke Church, then was according to truth.

I told him, That the Greeke Church had plainly changed, and taught false in a Poynt of Do­ctrine concerning the Holy Ghost; and That I had hear'd say, that even His Majestie should say, That the Greeke Church having erred against the Holy Ghost, had lost the Holy Ghost.

You are very bold with His Majesty, to § 5 relate Him upon Heare-say. My Intelligence serves me not to tell you what His Majestie said: But if he said it not, you have beene too credulous to believe, and too suddaine to report it. Princes deserve, and were wont to have, more respect than so. If His Majestie did say it, there is Truth in the speech; The error is yours only, by mistaking what is meant by Loosing the Holy Ghost. For a Particular Church may be said to loose the Holy Ghost two wayes, or in two Degrees. 1. The one, when it looses such speciall as­sistance of that Blessed Spirit, as preserves it from all dangerous Errors, and sinnes, and the temporall pu­nishment, which is due unto them: And in this sense the Greeke Church did perhaps loose the Holy Ghost: for they erred against Him, they sinned against God, And for this, or other sinnes, they were delivered in­to another Babylonish Captivity under the Turke, in which they yet are; and from which, God in his mercy deliver them. But this is rather to be called an Error circa Spiritum Sanctum, about the Doctrine [Page 22] concerning the Holy Ghost, then an error against the Holy Ghost. 2. The other is, when it looses not only this assistance, but all assistance ad hoc, to this, that they may remaine any longer a true Church; and so, Corinth and Ephesus, and divers other Churches have lost the Holy Ghost. But in this sense the whole Greeke Church lost not the Holy Ghost. For they con­tinue a true Church in the maine substance, to and at this day, though erroneous in this Poynt, which you mention, and perhaps in some other too.

The Ladies friend, not knowing what to answer, called in the Bishop, who sitting downe first, ex­cused himselfe as one unprovided, and not much studied in Controversies; and desiring that in Case he should faile; yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of.

This is most true. For I did indeed excuse § 6 my selfe, and I had great reason so to doe. And my Reason being grounded upon Modestie for the most part, there I leave it. Yet this it may be fit, others should know, that I had no information where the other Conferences brake off; no instru­ction at all what should be the ground of this third Conference; nor the full time of foure and twenty hour [...]s to bethinke my selfe. And this I take upon my Credit is most true: whereas you make the sifting of these, and the like Questions to the very Branne your daily work, and came throughly furni­shed to the businesse, and might so leade on the Con­troversie to what your selfe pleased, and I was to fol­low as I could. De util. Cre­dendi c. 2. S. Augustine said once, Scio me in­validum esse, I know I am weake, and yet he made good his Cause. And so perhaps may I against you. [Page 23] And in that I prefer'd the Cause before my particular credit, that which I did, was with modesty, and ac­cording to Reason. For there is no Reason the waight of this whole Cause should rest upon any one par­ticular man. And great Reason, that the personall Defects of any man should presse himselfe, but not the Cause. Neither did I enter upon this Service, out of any forwardnesse of my owne, but commanded to it by Supreame Authority.

It having an hundred better Schollers to main­taine it than he. To which I said, there were a thousand better Schollers than I to maintaine the Catholike Cause.

In this I had never so poore a Conceit of the Protestants Cause, as to thinke, that they had § 7 but an hundred better than my selfe to maintaine it. That which hath an hundred, may have as many more, as it pleases God to give, and more than you. And I shall ever bee glad, that the Church of England (which, at this time, if my memory reflect not amisse, I named) may have farre more able Defendants, than my selfe. I shall never envie them, but rejoyce for Her. And I make no Question, but that if I had named a thousand, you would have multiplied yours into ten Thousand, for the Catholike Cause (as you call it.) And this Confidence of yours hath ever beene fuller of noyse than Proofe. But you pro­ceed.

Then the Question about the Greeke Church being proposed, I said as before, That it had erred.

Then I thinke the Question about the § 8 Greeke Church was proposed. But after you had with confidence enough not spared to say, That what I would not acknowledge in this Cause, you would wring, and extort from me; then indeed you said as before; that it had erred: And this no man denied. But every Errour de­nies not Christ, the Foundation; or makes Christ denie it, or thrust it from the Foundation.

The Bishop said, That the Errour was not in Point Fundamentall.

I was not so peremptory. My speech § 9 was, That diverse Learned men, and some of 1 your owne, were of opinion, That (as the Greeks expressed themselves) it was a Question not simply Fundamentall. I know, and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne, to be a grievous errour in Divini­ty. And sure, it would have grated the Foun­dation, if they had so denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne, as that they had made an inequality betweene the Persons. But since their forme of speech is, Non ex Filio, sed Spiritum Fi­lii esse di [...]imus. Damascon. L. 1. Fid. Orth. c. 11. Et Patris per filium. Ibid. That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne, and is the Spirit of the Sonne, without making any difference in the Consubstantiality of the Persons; I dare not denie them to bee a true Church for this; though I confesse them an Erroneous Church in this Par­ticular.

Now that diverse learned men were of Opini­on, 2 That à Filio, & per Filium, in the sense of the Greeke Church, was but a Question in modo loquendi, [Page 25] in manner of Pluralitas in Uoce, salvat â unitate in re, non repugnat uni [...]ati Fidei. Durand. Lib. 3. d. 25. q. 2. speech, and therefore not Fundamentall, is evident. Magist. 1. Sent. d. 11. D. Sane sciendum est, quòd licet in praesenti Articulo a nobis Graeci verbo discordent, tamen sensu non differunt, &c. Bandinus L. 1. de Trin. d. 11 & Bonavent. in 1 Sent. d. 11. A. 1. q. 1. §. 12. Licet Graecis infensissimus, quùm dixit Graeces objicere curi [...]sitatem Romanis, addendo (I ilio (que)) Quia sine hu­jus Articuli professione salus er at; non Respondet negando salutem esse, sed dicit tantùm opportunam fuisse Determinationem propter periculum. Et postea, §. 15. Sunt qui volunt sustinere opinionem Graecorum, & Latinorum, distinguendo duplicem modum Proce­dendi. Sed fortè si duo sapientes, unus Graecus, alter Latinus, uterque ve­rus amator Veritatis, & non propriae dictionis &c. de hac visa con­trarietate disquirerent, pateret utique tandem ips [...]m Contrarieta­tem non esse veraciter realem, sicut est Vocalis. Scotus in 1. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. Antiquorum Graecorum à Latinis diserepantia in voce potiùs est, & modo explicandi Emanationem Sp. S. quàm in ipsá re. &c. Iodocus Clictoveus in Damase. L 1. Fid Orth. c. 11. Et quidam ex Graecis concedunt, quòd sit á Filio, vel ab eo prostu­at. Thom. p. 1. q. 36. A. 2. C. Et Thomas ipse dicit, Sp. S. pro­cedere mediatè à Filio. ib. A. 3. ad 1. sal [...]em ratione Personarum Spirantium. Respondeo cum Bessarione, & Gennadio, Damascenum non negâsse Sp. S. procedere ex Filio, quod ad rem attinet, quùm dixerit Spi­ritum esse Imaginem Filii, & per Filium, sed existimásse tutiùs dici per Filium, quàm ex Filio, quantum ad modum loquendi, &c. Bellarm. L. 2. de. Christo c. 27. §. Respondeo igitur. Et Tollet. in S. Iohn 15. Ar. 25. & Lutheran. Resp. ad Resp. 2. Ieremiae Patriarchae. The Master, and his Schollers agree upon it. The Greeks (saith he) confesse the Holy Ghost to bee the Spirit of the Son, with the Apostle, Galath. 4. and the Spirit of truth, S. Iohn 16. And since Non est aliud, it is not an­other thing to say; The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father, and the Sonne, then that He is, or proceeds from the Father, and the Sonne, in this They seeme to agree with us in candem Fidei sententiam, upon the same Sentence of Faith, though they differ in words. Now in this cause, where the words differ, but the Sentence of Faith is the same, Eadem penitùs Sententia, ubi suprà, Clictov. penitùs eadem, even altogether the same, Can the Point be fundamentall? You may make them no Church (as Bellarm. 4. de Notis Eccl. cap. 8. §. Quod au­tem apud Graecos. Bellarmine doth) and so deny them salvation; which cannot be had out of the true Church; but I for my part dare not so do. And Rome in this Particular should be more moderate, if it be but because this Article (Filió (que)) was added to the Creed, by her selfe. And 'tis hard to adde, and Ana­thematize too.

[Page 26] It ought to be no easie thing, to condemne a 3 man of Heresie, in foundation of faith; much lesse, a Church; least of all, so ample and large a Churchas the Greeke, especially so, as to make them no Church. Heaven Gates were not so easily shut against multi­tudes, when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne gir­dle. And it is good counsell, which Lib. 3. cont. Hares. fol. 93. A. [...] vidcant ht, qui famile de haerest pronumiant, quā facile etiam ipsi errent: Et intel­ligant, non esse tam leviter de Haeresi censendū. &c. In verbo (Beatitudo.) Alphonsus à castro, one of your owne, gives; Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie, how easie it is for themselves to erre. Or if you will pronounce, consider what it is that separates from the Church simply, and not in part only. I must needs professe, that I wish heartily, (as well as Iunius Anim­ad. in Bellar. cont. 2. L. 3. c. 23. others,) that those distressed men, whose Crosse is heavie already, had beene more plainly, and moderately dealt withall, though they thinke a di­verse thing from us, then they have beene by the Church of Rome. But hereupon you say you were forc'd,

Whereupon I was forced to repeate what I had formerly brought against D. White, concern­ing Points Fundamentall.

Hereupon it is true, that you read a large § 10 Discourse out of a Booke printed, which, you said, 1 was yours, The Particulars (all of them at the least) I do not now remember, nor did I then approve. But if they be such, as were for­merly brought against Do­ctor White, they are by him formerly answered. The first thing you did, was the P. First righting the Sentence of S. Austine: Ferendus est Disputator errans. &c. Here A. C. p. 44. tells us very learnedly, that my corrupt Copy hath righting instead of reading the Sen­tence of S. Austine. Whereas I here use the word righting, not as it is opposed to reading (as any man may discerne A. C. palpably mistakes) but for doing right to S. Austine, And if I had meant it for writing, I should not have spelled it so. righting of S. Augustine: which Sentence I doe not at all remember was so [Page 27] much as named in the Conference, much lesse was it stood upon, and then righted by you. Another place of S. Augustine indeed was (which you omit;) But it comes after, about Tradition, to which I remit it. But now you tell us of a great Proofe made out of this By which is proved, That all poynts Defined by the Church are Fundament­all. Place: For these words of yours containe two Propositions. One, That all Poynts defined by the Church are Fundamentall; The other, That this is proved out of this Place of S. Augustine.

1. For the first, That all Poynts defined by the Church 2 are fundamentall: It was not the least meanes, by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse, to blast every Opposer she had with the name of Hereticke, or Schis­maticke; for this served to shrivel the credit of the Per­sons. And the Persons once brought into contempt, and ignominie, all the good they desired in the Church, fell to dust, for want of creditable Persons to backe, and support it. To make this Proceeding good in these later yeares, this Course (it seemes) was taken. The Schoole, that must maintaine (and so they doe) That all Points Defined by the Church, are thereby Your owne word. Funda­mentall Inconcussâ fide ab omnibus. Thom. 2. 2ae. q. 1. Art. 10. C. necessary to be believ­ed, Sco us 1. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. of the substance of the Faith, and that, though it be determined quite Ecclesiae Voces etiam extra Scripturam. Stap. Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. Quae maturo judicio definivit &c. Solidum est, & etiamsi nullo Scrip­turarum, aut evidenti, aut probabili testimonio confirmaretur, bid. Extra Scripturam. And then Et penes Cercopes Victoria sit, Greg. Naz. de Differen. vitae. Cercopes. 1. Astutos, & ve­teratoriae improbitat is Episcopos, qui artibus suis ac dolis omnia Concilia perturbabant. Schol. ib. leave the wise, and active Heads to take order, that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fit­test for them.

But since these men distinguish not, nor you, be­tweene 3 the Church in generall, and a Generall Councell, which is but her Representation, for Determinations [Page 28] of the Faith, though I be very slow in sifting, or op­posing what is concluded by Lawfull, Generall, and consenting Authority, though I give as much as can justly be given to the Definitions of Councels truly Generall: nay, suppose I should grant (which I doe not) That Generall Councells cannot erre; yet this can­not downe with me, That all Poynts even so defined are Fundamentall. For Deductions are not prime, and na­tive Principles; nor are Superstructures, Foundations. That which is a Foundation for all, cannot be one, and another, to different Christians in regard of it selfe; for then it could be no common Rule for any, nor could the soules of men rest upon a shaking foun­dation. No: If it be a true Foundation, it must be com­mon to all, and firme under all; in which sense the Ar­ticles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall. And Quum exim una & cadem si­des sit, ne (que) is qui multum de ipsà dicere potest, plus­quam oportet, di­cit; neque qui pa­rùm, ipsam im­minuit. Iren. L. 1. advers. haeres. c. 3. Irene­us layes this for a ground, That the whole Church (howsoever dispersed in place) speakes this with one mouth He, which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake, utters no more then this; and lesse then this, the most simple doth not utter. Therefore the Creed (of which he speaks) is a common, is a constant Founda­tion. And an Explicite faith must be of this, in them which have the use of Reason; for both Guides and simple people, All the Church utter this.

Now many things are defined by the Church, w^ch 4 are but Deductions out of this: which, (suppose them deduced right) move far from the Foundation; without which Deductions explicitly believed, many millions of Christians go to Heaven; and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the faith. True Deductions from the Ar­ticle may require necessary beliefe, in them which are able, and do go along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion. But I do not see, either that the Learned do make them necessary to all, or any reason, [Page 29] why they should. Therfore they cannot be Fundamē ­tall; & yet to some mens Salvation they are necessary.

Besides, that which is Fundamentall in the Faith 5 of Christ, is a Rocke immoveable, and can never be varied. Never Resolutio Occhami est, quòd n [...] tota Ecclesia, nec Concilium Ge­nerale, nec summus Pontifex potest facere Articulum, quod non suit Articulus. Sed in du­biis propositionibus potest Eccle­sia determinare, an sint Cathili­cae, &c. Tamen sic determinando non facit quod sint Catholicae, quum prius essent ante Ecclesiae Determinationem, &c. Almain. in 3. D. 25. Q. 1.. Therefore, if it be Fundamentall after the Church hath de­fined it, it was Fundamentall before the Definition; els it is mooveable; and then no Christian hath where to rest. And if it be immooveable, as Regula Fidei una omnino est, so­lailla immobilis, & irreforma­bilis. Tertul. de Virg. vel. cap. 1. In hac fide, &c. Nihil transmu­tare, &c. Athan. Epist. ad Io­vin. de side. indeed it is, no Decree of a Councell, be it never so Generall, can alter immooveable Verities, no more than it can change immooveable Natures. Therefore if the Church in a Councell define any thing, the thing de­fined is not Fundamentall, because the Church hath defined it; nor can be made so by the Definition of the Church, if it be not so in it selfe. For if the Church had this power, she might make a New Article of the Faith, Occham. Al­main. in 3. Sent. D. 25. q. 1. which the Learned among your selves deny: For the Articles of the Faith cannot increase in sub­stance, but onely in Explication Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. Ar. 7. C.. And for this, I'le be judg'd by Bellarmine, Fides Divina non ideo habet certitudinem, quia toti Ecclesiae communis est: sed quia nititur Authoritate Dei, qui nec falli, nec fallere potest, quum sit ipsa Veritas. L. 3. de Justif. c. 3. §. Quod verò Concilium. Probatio Ecclesiae facit ut omni­bus innotescat Objectum (Fidei Divinae) esse revelatum à Deo, & propter hoc certum & indubi­tatum; non autem tribuit firmi­tatem verbo Dei aliquid reve­lantis. Ibid. §. At inqust. who disputing against Amb. Catharinus about the cer­tainty of Faith, tels us, That Divine Faith hath not its certainty, because 'tis Ca­tholike, .i. common to the whole Church; but because it builds on the Authority of God, who is Truth it self, and can neither deceive, nor be deceived. And he addes, That the Probation of the Church can make it known to all, that the Object of Divine Faith is re­vealed from God, and therefore certaine, and not to be doubted; but the Church can adde no certainty, no firmenesse to the word of God revealing it.

[Page 30] Nor is this hard to be farther proved out of your 6 owne Schoole; For Scotus in 1. Sent. D. 11. q. 1. Scotus professeth it in this very particular of the Greeke Church: If there be (saith he) a true reall difference betweene the Greekes and the La­tines, about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, then either they, or we be verè Haeretici, truly and indeed Hereticks. And he speakes this of the old Greekes, long before any Decision of the Church in this Controversie: For his instance is in S. Basil, and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side, and S Ierome, Augu­stine, and Ambrose, on the other. And who dares call any of these Hereticks? is his challenge. I deny not, but that Scotus adds there, That howsoever this was before, yet ex quo, from the time that the Catholike Church declared it, it is to be held, as of the substance of Faith. But this cannot stand with his former Principle, if he intend by it, That whatsoever the Church defines, shall be ipso ficto, and for that De­termination's sake Fundamentall. For if before the De­termination (supposing the Difference reall) some of those Worthies were truly Hereticks, (as he confesses) then somewhat made them so. And that could not be the Decree of the Church, which then was not: Therefore it must be somwhat really false, that made them so, and fundamentally false, if it made them He­reticks against the Foundation. But Scotus was wiser, than to intend this. It may be, he saw the streame too strong for him to swim against, therfore he went on with the doctrine of the Time, That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith; But meant not to betray the truth: For he goes no further than Ecclesia de­claravit, since the Church hath declared it, which is the word that is used by di­verse Bellarm. L. 2. de Conc. Auth. c. 12. Concilia cùm definiunt, non faciunt aliquid esse infallibilis ve­ritatis sed declarant. Explicare, Bonavent. in 1. d. 11. A. 1. q. 1. ad sinem Explanare, declarare. Tho 1. q. 36. A. 2. ad. 2. & 2. 2. q. 1 A. 10. ad. 1. Quid unquam aliud (Ecclesia) C [...] ili rum Decretis enisa est, nisi ut quod anica simplicitèr cre­debatur hoc idem postea diligen­tiùs crederetur. Vin. Lyr. cont. [...]. c. 32.

[Page 31] Now the Sent. 1. D. 11 Master teaches, and the Alb. Mag. in 1. Sent. D. 11 Art. 7. Schollers too, 7 That every thing which belongs to the Exposition or Declaration of another, intùs est, is not another contrary thing, but is contained within the Bowels, and nature of that which is interpreted: from which, if the Declaration depart, it is faulty and erro­neous, because instead of Declaring, it gives another, and contrary Hoc semper, nec quicquam praete­rea. Vin. Lyr. c. 32. sense. Therefore, when the Church declares any thing in a Councell, either that which she declares, was intùs, or extrà, in the Nature and ve­rity of the thing, or out of it. If it were extrà, without the nature of the thing declared, then the Declaration of the thing is false, and so, farre from being Fundamentall in the Faith In novâ Haeresi Veritas prius erat de Fide, et si non ita de [...] rata. Scotus in 1. D. 11. q. [...] fine. Haeretici multa quae er [...] implicita sidei nostra, comp [...] runt explicare. Bonavent. in [...] D. 11. A. 1. Q. 1. ad finem Tho. 1. q. 36. A. 2. ad. 2. Quam­vis Apostolica Sedes, aut Gene­rale Concilium de Haeresi cen­sere possit, non tamen ideò As­sertio aliqua erit Haeresis, qui. Ecclesia definivit, sed quia [...] dei Catholica repugnat. Eccle­sia siquidèm suâ definitione [...] facit talem Assertionem esse Hae­resin, quùm etiamsi ipsa non defi­nivisset, esset Haeresis; sed id efficit ut paeteat, &c. Alphon à Castro L. 1. Advers. Haeres. c. 8. fol. 21. D.. If it were intùs, within the Compasse and nature of the thing, though not open and apparent to every eye; then the Declaration is true, but not otherwise Fundamentall, than the thing is, which is declared: for that which is intùs, cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is; if it were, it could not be intùs. Therefore nothing is simply Fundamentall, because the Church declares it, but because it is so in the nature of the thing, which the Church declares.

And it is a slight, and poore Evasion that is com­monly used, that the Declaration of the Church 8 makes it Fundamentall, quoad nos, in respect of us; for it doth not that neither: For no respect to us can varie the Foundation. The Churches Decla­ration can binde us to peace; and externall Obedi­ence, where there is not expresse Letter of Scrip­ture, and sense agreed on; but it cannot make any thing Fundamentall to us, that is not so in its owne [Page 32] nature. For if the Church can so adde, that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be Fundamentall in the faith, that was not, then it can take a thing away from the Foundation, and make it by Declaring, not to be Fundamentall; which all men grant, no power of the Church can doe. Ecclesia non amputat necessa­ria, non apponit super [...]ua. Vin. Lir. c. 32. Deut. 4. 2. For the power of ad­ding any thing contrary, and of detracting any thing ne­cessary, are alike forbidden, Thom. Supp. q. 6. A. 6. C. and alike denyed Now nothing is more apparent, then this, to the eye of all men, That the Church of Rome hath determined, or declared, or defined (call it what you will) very ma­ny things, that are not in their owne nature Funda­mentall; and therefore neither are, nor can be made so by her adjudging them. Now to all this Dis­course, That the Church hath not power to make any thing Fundamentall in the Faith, that intrinsecally, and in its owne nature is not such, A. C. is content to say nothing.

2. For the second, That it is prooved by this place of 9 S. Augustine, That all Poynts defined by the Church are Fundamentall. You might have given me that Place cited in the Margin, and eased my paines to seeke it; but it may be there was somewhat in con­cealing it. For you doe so extraordinarily right this Place, that you were loth (I thinke) any body should see, how you wrong it. The place of S. Augustine is this, against the Pelagians, about Remission of Ori­ginall sinne in Infants: August. Serm. 14. de verb. Apost. c. 12. Fundata res est. In aliis Quastioni­bus non diligentèr digestis, nondum plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate sirmatis ferendus est Disputator errans: ibi ferendus est error; non tantum progredi debet, ut eti­am Fundamentum ipsum Ecclesiae quate­re moli [...]. This is a thing founded; An erring Disputer is to be borne with in other Questions not diligently digested, not yet made firme by full Authority of the Church, there, error is to be borne with: but it ought not to goe so farre, that it should labour to shake the Foundation it selfe of the Church. This [Page 33] is the Place: but it can never follow out of this Place (I thinke) That every thing defined by the Church is Fundamentall.

For first, he speakes of a Foundation of Doctrine 10 in Scripture, not a Church definition. This appeares: for, few lines before, he tels us, Ibid. cap. 20. There was a Question moved to S. Cyprian, Whether Baptisme was concluded to the eight Day, as well as Circumcision? And no doubt was made then of the Origine Pec­cati. beginning of sin, and that Ex eâ re, unde nulla erat Quae­stio, soluta est ex­orta Quaestio. out of this thing, about which no Question was mooved, that Question that was made, was Answered. And Hoc de Funda­mento Ecclesiae sumpsit ad con­firmandum La­pidem nut antem. againe, That S. Cypryan tooke that which he gave in answer from the Foundation of the Church, to confirme a stone that was shaking. Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he gives, hath not one word of any Definiti­on of the Church: therefore ea res, That thing by which he answered, was a Foundation of prime, and setled Scripture-Doctrine, not any Definition of the Church: Therefore, that which he tooke out of the Foundation of the Church, to fasten the stone that shooke, was not a Definition of the Church, but the Foundation of the Church it selfe, the Scripture, upon which it is builded: as appeareth in the Concil. Mile­vit. c. 2. Milevitane Councell; where the Rule, by which Pelagius was condemned, is the Rule of Rom. 5. 15. Scripture; Therefore Saint Augustine goes on in the same sense, That the Dis­puter is not to be borne any longer, that shall Vt Fundamen­tum ipsum Ec­clesiae quatere moliatur. en­deavour to shake the Foundation it selfe, upon which the whole Church is grounded.

Secondly, if S. Augustine did meane by Founded, and Foundation, the definition of the Church, because of these 11 words, This thing is Founded, this is made firm by full Au­thority of the Church; and the words following these, to shake the foundation of the Church; yet it can never fol­low out of any, or all these Circumstances (and these [Page 34] are all) That all Poynts defined by the Church, are Fundamentall in the faith. For first, no man denies, but the Church is a 1 Tim. 3. 15. Foundation; That things defined by it, are founded upon it: And yet hence it cannot follow, That the thing, that is so founded, is Funda­mentall in the Faith: For things may be Mos fundatis­simus. S. Aug. Ep. 28. founded upon Humane Authority, and be very certaine, yet not Fundamentall in the Faith. Nor yet can it follow, This thing is founded, therefore every thing determined by the Church, is founded. Again that which followes, That those things are not to be opposed, which are made firme by full Authority of the Church, can­not conclude, they are therefore Fundamentall in the Faith. For full Church Authority (alwayes the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by, and not comprehended in it) is but Church Authori­ty; and Church Authority, when it is at full sea is not simply Staple. Rebect. cont. 4. q. 3. A. 1. Divine, therefore the Sentence of it not funda­mentall in the Faith. And yet no erring Disputer may be endured to shake the foundation, which the Church in Councell layes. But plaine Scripture with evident sense, or a full Demonstrative Argument must have Roome, where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it. And ther's Quae quidem, si tam manifesta monstratur, ut in dubium venire non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, quibus in Catholicâ te­neor. Ita si aliquid apertissimum in Evangelio. S. Aug. contra Fund. c. 4. neither of these, but may Convince the Definition of the Coun­cell, if it be ill founded. And the Articles of the faith may easily proove it is not Fundamentall, if indeed, and verily it be not so.

And I have read some body that sayes (is it not 12 you?) That things are fundamentall in the Faith two wayes: One, in their Matter, such as are all things which be so in themselves; The other, in the Manner, such as are all things, that the Church hath Defined, and determined to be of Faith: And that so, some [Page 35] things that are de modo, of the manner of being, arc of Faith. But in plaine truth, this is no more, then if you should say, some things are Fundamentall in the faith, and some are not. For wrangle while you will, you shall never be able to proove, that any thing, which is but de modo, a consideration of the manner of being only, can possibly be Fundamentall in the faith.

And since you make such a Foundation of this 13 Place, I will a little view the Mortar, with which it is laid by you. It is a venture, but I shall finde it Ezek. 13. 11. un­tempered. Your Assertion is: All poynts defined by the Church, are Fundamentall. Your proofe, this Place: Be­cause that is not to be shaken, which is setled by Plenâ Ecclesiae Authoritate. full Au­thority of the Church. Then (it seemes) your mean­ing is, that this poynt there spoken of, The remission of Originall sinne in Baptisme of Infants, was defined, when S. Augustine wrote this, by a full Sentence of a Generall Councell. First if you say it was; 1. 2. de Author. Concil. c. 5. §. A solis particula­ribus. Bellarmine will tell you, it is false; and that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenicall Councell, but only in Nationalls. But Bellarmine is deceived: For while the Pelagians stood out impudently against Nationall Councels, some of them defended Nestorius, which gave occasion to the first Can. 1. & 4. Ephesine Councell to Excommunicate, and depose them. And yet this will not serve your turne for this Place. For S. Augustine was then dead; and therefore could not meane the Sentence of that Councell in this place. Secondly, if you say, it was not then Defined in an Oecumenicall Synode, Plena authoritas Ecclesiae, the full Authority of the Church there mentioned, doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenicall Councell; but for some Nationall; as this was con­demned in a Concil. Mile­vit. Can. 2, Nationall Councell: And then the full Authority of the Church here, is no more then the full [Page 36] Authority of this Church of Nay, if your owne Capellus be true, De Ap­pell. Eccl, Afric. c. 2. n. 5. It was [...]ut a Provinci­all of Numidia, not a Plenary of Africk. Africk. And I hope that Authority doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamentall. You will say, yes: if that Coun­cell be confirmed by the Pope. And then I must ever wonder, why S. Augustine should say The full Authority of the Church, and not bestow one word upon the Pope, by whose Authority only that Councell, as all other, have their fulnesse of Au­thority in your Iudgement. An inexpiable Omis­sion; if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true.

But here A. C. steps in againe to helpe the Ie­suite, 14 and he tells us, over and over againe, That all A. C. p. 45. points made firme by full Authority of the Church, are Fundamentall, so, firme he will have them, and therefore fundamentall. But I must tell him: That first, 'tis one thing in Nature, and Religion too, to be firme; and another thing to be fundamentall. These two are not Convertible: Tis true, that eve­ry thing that is fundamentall, is firme: But it doth not follow, that every thing that is firme, is funda­mentall. For many a Superstructure is exceeding firme, being fast, and close joyned to a sure foundation, which, yet no man will grant, is fundamentall. Be­sides, what soever is fundamentall in the faith, is fun­damentall to the Church, which is one by the vnity Almain. in 3. Sent. Dis. 25. q. 2. A Fide enim unà Ecclesia di­citur una. of faith. Therefore if every thing Defined by the Church be fundamentall in the faith; then the Churches Definition is the Churches Foundation. And so, upon the matter, the Church can lay her owne foundation, and then, the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being, before so much as her Foundation is laide. Now this is so absurd for any man of learning to say, that by and by after, A. C. is content to affirm, not only, that the prima Credibilia, the Articles of Faith [Page 37] but all which so pertaines to Supernaturall, Divine, and Infallible Christian Faith, as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts, &c. is the Foundation of the Church under Christ the Prime Foundation. And here he's out againe. For first, all which pertaines to Supernaturall, Divine, and Infallible Christian Faith, is not by and by Aliquid pertinet ad Fidem du­pliciter. Uno modo directè, sicut ea quae nobis sunt principalitèr divinitùs tradita, ut Deum esse Trinum, &c. Et circa haec opi­nari falsum hoc ipso inducit Haere­sin, &c. Alio modo indirectè. Ex quibus consequitur aliquid con­trarium Fidei, &c. Et in his ali­quis potest falsum opinari absque periculo Haeresis, donec Sequela il­la ei innotescat, &c. Tho. p. 1. q. 32. A. 4. C. There are things Necessary to the Faith: and things which are but Accessory, &c. Hooker L. 3. Eccl. Pol. §. 3. Fun­damentall in the Faith to all men. And secondly, the whole Discourse here is concerning Faith, as it is taken Objectivè, for the Object of Faith, and thing to be Beleeved; but that Faith by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts, is taken Subjectivè, for the Habit and Act of Faith. Now to confound both these in one period of speech, can have no other ayme, than to confound the Rea­der. But to come closer both to the Iesuite, and his Defender A. C. If all Poynts made firme by full Au­thority of the Church be Fundamentall, then they must grant, that every thing determined by the Councell of Trent, is Fundamentall in the Faith. For with them 'tis firme and Catholike, which that Councell Decrees. Now that Coun­cell decrees; Si quis dixerit Ordines ab Epi­scopis collatos sine populi vel pote­statis saecularis consensu aut voca­tione irritos esse, Anathema sit. Con. Trid. Sess. 23. Can. 7. That Orders collated by the Bishop are not void, though they be given without the Consent or calling of the People, or of any secular Power. And yet they can produce no Authour that ever acknowledged this Definition of the Councell Fundamentall in the Faith. 'Tis true, I do not grant, that the Decrees of this Councell are made by full Authority of the Church: but they do both grant and maintaine it; And therefore 'tis Argumentum ad hominem, a good Argument against them, that a thing so defined may [Page 38] be sirme, for so this is; and yet not Fundamentall, for so this is not.

But A. C. tels us further, That if one may deny, or 15 doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the A. C. p. 45. Church, then he may against another, and another, and so against all; since all are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church; which being weakened in any one, cannot be firme in any other. First A. C. might have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this out of Cont. Haer. c. 31. Abdicatà enim qualibet parte Catholici Dogmatis, alia quo (que) at que item alia, &c. Quid aliud ad extre­mum sequetur, nisi ut totum pa­riter repudictur? Vin. Lir. And as that Learned Father uses it, I subscribe to it, but not as A. C. applies it. For Vincentius speaks there de Catho­lico Dogmate, of Catholike Maximes: and A. C. will force it to every Deter­mination of the Church. Now Catholike Maximes, §. 30. N. 21. which are properly Fundamentall, are certaine Prime Truths deposited with the Church, and not so much determined by the Church, as published and manife­sted, and so made firme by her to us. For so Ecclesia De [...]sitorum apud se Dogmatum Custos, &c. Deni (que) quid unquam Conciliorum De­cretis enisa est, nisi, ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentiùs crederetur, &c. Vin. Lir. cont. Harcs. c. 32. Vincentius expresly. Where, all that the Church doth, is but, ut hoc idem quod anteà, that the same thing may be believed, which was before Believed, but with more light, and cleerenesse, and (in that sense) with more firme­nesse, than before. Now in this sense, give way to a Disputator errans, every cavilling Disputer to deny, or quarrell at the Maximes of Christian Religion, any one, or any part of any one of them; and why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other, till he have shaken all? But this hin­ders not the Church her selfe, nor any appointed by the Church to examine her owne Decrees, and to [Page 39] see that she keepe Dogmata deposita, the Principles of Faith unblemished, and uncorrupted. For if she do not so, but that Vin. Lir. cont. haer. c. 31. Impi­orum & turpium Errorum Lu­panar: ubi erat antè castae & in­corrupt [...] Sacrarium Veritatis. Novitia veteribus; new Doctrines bee added to the old; the Church, which is Sacrarium, Verita­tis, the Repository of Verity, may be changed in lupanar errorum, I am loth to English it. By the Church then this may, nay it ought to be done, however, every wrangling Disputer may neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much lesse obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church, no not where they are not Dogmata Deposita, these deposited Principles. But if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the Determinations of the Church; yet that may be done without shaking the Foundation, where the De­terminations themselves belong but to the Fabricke, and not to the Foundation. For a whole Frame of Building may be shaken, and yet the Foundation, where it is well lay'd, remaine firme. And therefore after all, A. C. dares not say, the Foundation is shaken, but onely in a sort. And then 'tis as true, that in a sort A. C. p. 46. it is not shaken.

2. For the second part of his Argument, A. C. must pardon me, if I dissent from him. For first, all 16 Determinations of the Church are not made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation. For some Deter­minations of the Church are made firme to us, per Vin. Lir. cont. Haer. c. 32. chirographum Scripturae, by the Hand-writing of the Scripture, and that's Authenticall indeed. Some other Decisions, yea and of the Church too, are made, or may be (if Relect. cont. 4. q. 1. Art. 3. Etiamsi nullo Scripturarum, aut evidenti, aut probabili Testimo­nio, &c. Sta­pleton informe us right) without an evident, nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy-Writ. [Page 40] But Non potest aliquid certum esse certitudine fidei, nisi, aut immedi­atè contineatur in Uerbo Dei, aut ex Uerbo Dei per evidentem con­sequentiam deducatur. Bellar. L. 3. de Justifica: c. 8. §. 2. Bellarmine fals quite off in this, and confesses in expresse termes, That nothing can be certaine by Certainty of Faith, unlesse it be contained immediately in the Word of God: Or be deduced out of the Word of God by evident Consequence. And if nothing can be so certaine, then certainly no Determination of the Church it selfe, if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these: either expresse Word of God, or evident Consequence out of it. So here's little Agreement in this great Point betweene Stapleton and Bellarmine. Nor can this be shifted off, as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God written, and Bellarmine of the Word of God unwritten (as he cals Tradition.) For Bellarmine treats there of the know­ledge which a man hath of the Certainty of his owne Salvation. And I hope A. C. will not tell us, There's any Tradition extant unwritten, by which particular men may have assurance of their severall Salvations. Therefore Bellarmine's whole Disputa­tion there is quite beside the matter: Or els he must speake of the Written Word, and so lie crosse to Sta­pleton, as is mention'd. But to returne. If A. C. will, he may, but I cannot believe, That a Definition of the Church, which is made by the expresse Word of God, and another which is made without so much, as a probable Testimony of it, or a cleare Deduction from it, are made firme to us, by one and the same Divine Revelation. Nay I must say in this case, that the one Determination is firme by Divine Revelati­on, but the other hath no Divine Revelation at all, but the Churches Authority onely.

2. Secondly, I cannot believe neither, That all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church. For the [Page 41] Authority of the Church, though it be of the same fulnesse in regard of it self, and of the Power, which it commits to Generall Councels lawfully called: yet it is not alwayes of the same fulnesse of know­ledge, and sufficiency: nor of the same fulnesse of Conscience, and integrity to apply Dogmata Fidei, that which is Dogmaticall in the Faith. For instance, I thinke you dare not deny but the Councell of Trent was lawfully called, and yet I am of opinion, that few, even of your selves, believe that the Councell of Trent hath the same fulnesse with the Councell of Nice, in all the fore-named kinds, or degrees of ful­nesse. Thirdly, suppose That all Determinations of the Church are made firme to us by one and the same Divine Revelation, and sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority; yet it will not follow, that they are all alike Fundamentall in the Faith. For I hope A. C. himselfe will not say, that the Definitions of the Church are in better condition, than the Propo­sitions of Canonicall Scripture. Now all Propositi­ons of Canonicall Scripture are alike firme, because they all alike proceed from Divine Revelation: but they are not all alike Fundamentall in the Faith. For this Proposition of Christ to S. Peter, and S. Andrew, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men S. Matth. 4. 19, is as firm a Truth, as that which he delivered to his Disciples, That he must die, and rise againse the third day S. Matth. 16. 21. For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation, out of the mouth of our Saviour, and both are sufficiently ap­plied by one and the same full Authority of the Church, which receives the whole Gospell of S. Mat­thew to be Canonicall and infallible Scripture. And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike Funda­mentall in the Faith. For I dare say, No man shall be saved (in the ordinary way of salvation) that believes [Page 42] not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say, that No man shall be sa­ved, into whose Capacity it never came, that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men. And yet should he say it, nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris, no man will believe it, that hath not made shipwrack of his Common Notions. Now if it be thus betweene Proposition and Proposition issu­ing out of Christ's own Mouth; I hope it may well be so also betweene even Iust and True Determina­tions of the Church, that supposing them alike true and firme; yet they shall not be alike Fundamentall to all mens beliefe.

Secondly, I required to know, what Points the Bishop would account Fundamentall. He said, all the Points of the Creed were such.

Against this I hope you except not. For § 11 1 since the Tertull. Apol. contra Gentes, c. 47. de veland. virg. c. 1. S. Au­gust. Serm. 15. de Temp. cap. 2. Ruffin. in Symb. apud Cyprian. p. 357. Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith; Alb. Mag. in 1. Sent. D. 11. A. 7. since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts, by which a Divine is governed about the Faith; since your owne Councell of Concil. Tri­dent. Sess. 3. Trent decrees, That it is that Prin­ciple of Faith, in which all that professe Christ, doe necessarily agree, & Fundamentum firmum & unicum, not the firme alone, but the onely Foundation; since it is Excommunication Bonavent. ibid. Dub. 2. & 3. in literam. ipso jure, for any man to con­tradict the Articles contained in that Creed; since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed, as that the Thom. 2. 2ae. q. 1. Art. 7. c. substance of it was believ'd even before the comming of Christ, though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles, since Bellar. L. 4. de Verb. Dei non Script. c. 11. §. Primum est. Bellarmine con­fesses, That all things simply necessary for all mens salvation are in the Creed, and the Decalogue; what [Page 43] reason can you have to except? And yet for all this, everything Fundamentall is not of a like nearenesse to the Foundation, nor of equall Primenesse in the Faith. And my granting the Creed to be Fundamen­tall, doth not deny, but that there are Tho. 2. 2ae. q. 1. A. 7. C. quaedam prima Credibilia, certaine prime Principles of Faith, in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up: One of which since Christ, is that of S. 1. S. Iohn 4. 2. Iohn. Every spirit that confesseth Iesus Christ come in the flesh, is of God. And one, both before the comming of Christ, and since, is that of S. Paul, Heb. 11. 6. He that comes to God, must believe that God is, and that he is a re­warder of them that seeke him.

Here A. C. tels you, That either I must meane that 2 those Points are onely Fundamentall, which are expressed A. C. p. 46. in the Creed; or those also which are infolded. If I say, those onely which are expressed, then (saith he) to believe the Scriptures is not Fundamentall, because 'tis not ex­pressed. If I say, those which are infolded in the Articles, then some unwritten Church Traditions may be accounted Fundamentall. The truth is, I said, and say still, that all the Points of the Apostles Creed, as they are there expressed, are Fundamentall. And therein I say no more, than some of your best Learned have said be­fore me. But I never either said, or meant, That they onely are Fundamentall; That they are Conc. Trident. Sess. 3. Fundamentum unicum, the only Foundation, is the Councell of Trent's; 'tis not mine. Mine is, That the Beliefe of Scripture to be the Word of God, and infallible, is an equall, or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith, with, or to the whole Body of the Creed. And this agrees (as before I told the Iesuite) with one of your owne great Ma­sters, Albertus Magnus In 1. Sent. D. 11. A. 7. Regu­la Fidei est con­cors Scripturu­rum sensus cum Articulis Fidei: Quia illis duo­bus regularibus Praeceptis regi­tur Theologus., who is not farre from that Proposition in terminis. So here the very Foun­dation of A. C'^s. Dilemma fals off. For I say not, [Page 44] That onely the Points of the Creed are Fundamentall, whether expressed, or not expressed. That all of them are, that I say. And yet though the Foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away, I will take the boldnesse to tell A. C. That if I had said, That those Articles onely which are expressed in the Creed, are Fundamentall, it would have beene hard to have excluded the Scrip­ture, upon which the Creed it selfe in every Point is grounded. For nothing is supposed to shut out its owne Foundation. And if I should now say, that some Articles are Fundamentall which are infolded in the Creed, it would not follow, that therefore some unwritten Traditions were Fundamentall. Some Tra­ditions I deny not true and firme, and of great, both Authority, and Vse in the Church, as being Apostoli­call, but yet not Fundamentall in the Faith. And it would be a mighty large fold, which should lap up Traditions within the Creed. As for that Tradition, That the Bookes of holy Scriptures are Divine, and In­fallible in every part, I will handle that when I come to the proper place §. 16. N. 1. for it.

I asked how then it happened (as M. Rogers saith) that the English Church is not yet resolved, what is the right sense of the Article of Christs Descending into Hell.

The English Church never made doubt (that § 12 I know) what was the sense of that Article. The 1 words are so plaine, they beare their meaning before them. Shee was content to put that Art. 3. Ar­ticle among those, to which she requires Subscrip­tion, not as doubting of the sense, but to prevent the Cavils of some, who had beene too busie in Cru­cifying that Article, and in making it all one with [Page 45] the Article of the Crosse, or but an Exposition of it.

And surely for my part, I thinke the Church 2 of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article, then the Church of Rome, especially if shee must be tryed by her Writers, as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers. For, you cannot agree, whether this Article be a meere Tradition, or whe­ther it hath any Place of Scripture to vvarrant it. Scotus in 1. D. 11. q. 1. Scotus, and Stapleton Relect. Con. 5. q. 5. Art. 1. Stapleton allow it no foo­ting in Scripture, but Bellarm, 4. de Christo. c. 6. & 12. Scripturae passim hoc docent. Bellarmine is re­solute, that this Article is every where in Scripture, and Thom. 2. [...]ae. q. 1. A, 9, ad 1. Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed. The Church of England never doubted it, and S. S. Aug. Ep. 99. Au­gustine prooves it.

And yet againe, you are different for the sense. 3 For you agree not, Whether the Soule of Christ, in triduo mortis, in the time of his Death, did go downe into Hell really, and was present there; or vertually and by effects only. For Tho. p. 3. q. 52. A. 2. c. per suam essentiam. Thomas holds the first, and Dur in 3. d. 22. q. 3. Durand the later. Then you agree not, Whe­ther the Soule of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest pit of Hell, and Place of the Damned, as Bellar. L. 4. do Christo. c. 16. Bellarmine once held probable, and prooved it; or really only into that place, or Region of Hell, which you call Limbum Patrum, and then, but vertually from thence into the Lower Hell: to which Bellar. Recog. p. 11. Bellarmine reduces himselfe, and gives his reason, because it is the Sequuntur enim. Tho. p. 3. Q. 52. A. 2. common Opinion of the Schoole. Now, the Church of England takes the words, as they are in the Creed, and believes them without farther Dis­pute, and in that sense which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in. And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolved in the sense of this Article; Is it not as law­full [Page 46] for them to say (I conceive thus, or thus of it; yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer then this, I deny it not, but as yet I know no other) as it was for Non est pertinaciter asserendum, quin Anima Christi per alium modum nobis ignotum potuerit descendere ad Infer­num: Nec nos negamus alium modum esse for sit an veriorem; sed fatemur nos illum ignor arc. Durand. in 3. sent. Dist. 22. q. 3. Nu. 9. Durand to say it, and yet not impeach the Foun­dation of the Faith.

The Bishop said, That M. Rogers was but a private man. But (said I) if M. Rogers (writing as he did by publike Authority) be accounted only a private man, &c.

I said truth, when I said M. Rogers was a pri­vate § 13 man. And I take it, you will not allow every 1 speech of every man, though allowed by Authority to have his Bookes Printed, to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. And this was an Ancient fault too, for S. Augustine checks at it in his time. Noli colligere calumnias ex Episcoporum scriptis, sive Hillarii, sive Cypriani & Agrippini. Primò, quia hoc genus litera­rum ab Authoritate Canonis distinguen­dum est. Non enim sic leguntur tanquam it a ex iis testimonium proferatur, ut con­trà sentire non liceat, sicubi fortè aliter sentirent, quàm veritas postulat. S. Aug. Ep. 48. &c. And yet these were farre greater men in their generations, then M. Rogers was. This hath beene oft complained of on both sides: The imposing particular mens assertions upon the Church: yet I see you meane not to leave it. And surely as Controversies are now handled (by some of your party) at this day, I may not say, it is the sense of the Article in hand, but I have long thought it a kinde os descent into Hell, to be conversant in them. I would the Authors would take heed in time, and not seeke to blinde the People, or cast a mist before evident Truth, least it cause a finall descent to that place of Torment. But since you will hold this course, Stapleton was of greater note with you, then M. Rogers his exposition of Notes upon the Articles of the Church of England is with us. And as he, so his Relection. [Page 47] And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Stapleton affirmes, Stapl. Cont. 5. q. 5. A. 1. The Scripture is silent, that Christ descended into Hell, and that there is a Catholike, and an Apostolike Church? If it be, then what will be­come of the Popes Supremacie over the whole Church? Shall he have his Power over the Catho­like Church given him expresly in Scripture, in the S. Mat. 16. 19. Keyes, to enter, and in S. Ioh. 21. 15. Pasce, to feede when he is in, and when he had fed, to S. Luk. 22. 35. Confirme; and in all these not to erre and faile in his Ministration: And is the Catho­like Church, in and over which he is to do all these great things, quite left out of the Scripture? Belike the Holy Ghost was carefull to give him his power; Yes in any case; but left the assigning of his great Cure, the Catholike Church, to Tradition. And it were well for him, if he could so prescribe for what he now Claymes.

But what if after all this, M. Rogers there sayes 2 no such thing? As in truth, he doth not. His words are: Rogers in Art. Eccle. Angl. Art. 3. All Christians acknowledge, He descended; but in the interpretation of the Article, there is not that consent, that were to be wished. What is this to the Church of England, more then others? And againe Ibid. Till we know the na­tive and undoubted sense of this Article, is M. Rogers (We) the Church of England? or rather his, and some others Iudgement, in the Church of England?

Now here A. C. will have somewhat againe to 3 say, though God knowes; 'tis to little purpose 'Tis, A. C. p. 47. that the Iesuite urged M. Roger's Booke, because it was set out by Publike Authority: And because the Booke beares the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England. A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers, if he please; But he ought not to say, that his Opinion is the Doctrine of the Church of England for neither of the Reasons by him expressed. First, not because his [Page 48] Booke was publikely allowed. For many Bookes among them, as well as among us, have beene Printed by publike Authority, as containing nothing in them contrary to Faith and good manners, and yet contain­ing many things in them of Opinion only, or private Iudgement, which yet is farre from the avowed Po­sitive Doctrine of the Church, the Church having as yet determined neither way by open Declaration upon the words, or things controverted. And this is more frequent among their Schoolemen, then among any of our Controversers, as is well knowne. Nor, secondly, because his Booke beares the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England. For sup­pose the worst, and say, M. Rogers thought a little too well of his owne paines, and gave his Booke too high a Title, is his private Iudgement therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England? Surely no: No more then I should say, every thing said by Angelici D. S. Tho. Summa. Thomas, or Celebratissimi Patris Dom. Bonaventurae Doctoris Sera­phici in 3. L. Sent. Disputata. Bonaventure, is Angelicall, or Seraphicall Doctrine, because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome, Seraphicall, and the other, Angelicall Doctor. And yet their workes are Printed by Publike Authority, and that Title given them.

Yea but our private Authors (saith A. C.) are not al­lowed 4 (for ought I know) in such a like sorte to expresse A. C. p. 47. our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question. Here are two Limitations, which will goe farre to bring A. C. off, whatsoever I shall say against him: For first, let me instance in any private man, that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth, he will say, he knew it not, his Assertion here being no other, then for ought he knowes. Secondly, If he be unwil­ling to acknowledge so much, yet he will answer, 'tis not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it, that [Page 49] is, perhaps, it is not the very Title of his Booke. But well then: Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to expresse your Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to question? What? not in any matter? Were not Vega, and Soto two private men? Is it not a m [...]tter subject to Question, to great Question in these Dayes, Whether a man may be certaine of his Sal­vation, c [...]rtitudine fidei, by the certainty of Faith? Doth n [...]t Bellar. Lib. 3. de Justificat. c. 1. & 14. Bellarmine make it a Con­troversie? And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith, if it be determined in the Huic Concilio Catholici omnes ingenia sua, & judicia sponte sub­jiciunt. Bellar. 3. de Justif. c. 3. §. Sed Concilii Trid [...]i. Councell of Trent? And yet these two great Friers of their time, Dominicus Soto, and Andreas Vega Hist. Concil. Trident. Lib. 2. p. 245. Edit. Lat. Leidae. 1622. were of contrary Opinions; and both of them challeng­ed the Decree of the Councell; and so consequent­ly your Catholike Faith to be as each of them conclu­ded; and both of them wrote Bookes to maintaine their Opinions, and both of their Bookes were pub­lished by Authority. And therefore I think 'tis allow­ed in the Church of Rome to private men to expresse your Ca­tholike Doctrine, and in a matter subject to Question. And therefore also, if another man in the Church of Eng­land, should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers, and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England, this were no more then Soto, and Vega did in the Church of Rome. And I, for my part, cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it. A. C. p. 47. For he sayes, that for ought he knowes, Private men are not allowed so to expresse their Catholike Doctrine. And in the same Question both Catharinus, and Bel­larmine Bellar. L. 3. de Iustif. c. 3. take on them, to expresse your Catholike Faith, the one differing from the other, almost as much as Soto, and Vega, and perhaps in some respect more.

But if M. Rogers be only a private man; in what Book may we finde the Protestants pub­like Doctrine? The Bishop answered, That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne.

What? Was I so ignorant to say, The Articles § 14 of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all 1 the Protestants? Or, that all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England, as this speech seems to imply? Sure I was not. Was not the immediate speech before, of the Church of England? And how comes the Sub­ject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines? Nor yet speake I this, as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines, and in the maine Exceptions, which they joyntly take against the Romane Church, as appeares by their severall Confessions. But if A. C. will say (as he doth) that because there was speech before of the Church of A. C. p. 47. England, the Iesuite understood mee in a limited sense, and meant only the Protestants of the English Church; Bee it so; ther's no great harme done And therfore A. C. needs not make such a Noise about it, as he doth. p. 48 but this, that the Iesuite offers to enclose me too much. For I did not say, that the Booke of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands pub­like Doctrine: She is not so narrow, nor hath she pur­pose to exclude any thing, which she acknowledges hers, nor doth she wittingly permit any Crossing of her publike Declarations; yet she is not such a shrew to her Children, as to deny her Blessing, or De­nounce an Anathema against them, if some peacea­bly dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation, as your owne Schoole men differ. And if the Church of Rome, since she grew to her great­nesse, had not beene so fierce in this Course, and too particular in Determining too many things, [Page 51] and making them matters of Necessary Beliefe, which had gone for many hundreds of years before, only for things of Pious Opinion. Christendome (I per­swade my selfe) had beene in happier peace at this Day, then I doubt, we shall ever live to see it.

Well, but A. C. will proove the Church of England 2 a Shrew, and such a Shrew. For in her Booke Can. 5. of Canons A. C. p. 48. She Excommunicates every man, who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles. So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon, nor perhaps the sense. Not the Words; for they are: Whosoever shall affirme that the Articles are in any part superstitious, or erroneous, &c. And perhaps not the sense. For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himselfe; and ano­ther thing boldly and publikely to affirme it. And againe, 'tis one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article, which perhaps may bee but in the manner of Expression; and another thing positively to affirme, that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious, and erroneous. But this is not the Maine of the Businesse: For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication, as is Can. 5. before expressed; Yet She comes farre short of the Church of Rome's se­verity, whose Anathema's are not only for 39. Arti­cles, but for very many more, Concil. Trident. above one hundred in matter of Doctrine; and that in ma­ny Poynts as farre remote from the Foundation, though to the farre greater Rack of mens Consci­ences, they must be all made Fundamentall, if that Church have once Determined them: whereas the Church A. C. p. 45. of England never declared, That every one of her Articles are Fundamentall in the Faith. For 'tis one thing to say: No one of them is superstitious or erroneous: And quite another to say: Every one of them is fundamental [Page 52] and that in every part of it, to all mens Beliefe. Besides, the Church of England prescribes only to her owne Chil­dren, and by those Articles provides but for her owne peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth. But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under paine of Damnation.

And that the Scriptures only, not any unwritten Tradition, was the Foundation of their Faith.

The Church of England grounded her Positive § 15 Articles upon Scripture, and her Negative doe refute 1 there, where, the thing affirmed by you, is not affirm­ed by Scripture, nor directly to be concluded out of it. And here not the Church of England only, but all Protestants, agree most truly, and most strongly in this, That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation, and con­taines in it all things ne­cessary to it. The Fathers S. Basil. de verâ & piâ fide. Manifesta defectio Fidei est, importare quicquam eorum quae scripta non sunt. S. Hilar. L. 2. ad. Const. Aug. Fidem tantùm secun­dum ca quae scripta sunt desider autem, & hoc qui repudiat Antichristus est, & qui simulat, Anathema est. S. Aug. L. 2. de Doctr. Christian. c. 9. In iis quae apertè in Scrip­tura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent si­dem, m [...]res (que) vivendi. And to this place Bellarm L. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto. c. 11. saith, that S. Augustine speakes, de illis Dogmatibus quae necestaria sunt omnibus simpliciter, of those Points of faith, which are necessary simply for all men. So farre then he grants the question. And that you may know, it fell not from him on the suddaine, he had said as much before, in the begin­ning of the same Chapter, and here he confirmes it againe. are plaine, the S [...]tus Proleg. in sent. q. 2. Scriptura sufficienter con­tinet Doctrinam necessariam Uiatori. Thom. 2. 2ae. q. 1. A. 10. ad 1. In Doctrina Christi & Apostolorum, veritas fidei est suffi ientèr explicata. And he speakes there of the written Word. Schoole­men not strangers in it. And have not we rea­son then to account it, as it is, The Foundation of our Faith? And Scripturam Fundamentum esse, & columnam Fidei fatemur in suo genere, i. can genere Testimoniorum. & in materia Credendorum. Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. in fine. Sta­pleton himselfe, though an angry Opposite, confesses, That the Scrip­ture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith, that is, in the nature of Testi­mony, and in the matter, or thing to be believed. And if the Scripture be the Foundation, to which we are to goe for witnesse, if [Page 53] there be Doubt about the Faith; and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed, as necessary in the Faith; we never did, nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universall, and Apostolike, for the better Exposition of the Scripture; nor any De­finition of the Church, in which she goes to the Scrip­ture, for what she teaches, and thrusts nothing as Fundamentall in the Faith upon the world, but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendo­rum, the substance of that which is so to be believed, whether immediatly and expresly in words, or more remotely, till a cleare, and full Deduction draw it out.

Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts. And first he sayes; 'Tis true, that the Church 2 of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture: A. C. p. 48. That is, 'tis true, if themselves may be competent Iudges in their owne Cause. But this by the leave of A. C. is true, without making our selves Iudges in our owne Cause. For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of England are grounded upon Scripture, we are content to be judged by the joynt and con­stant Beliefe of the Fathers, which lived within the first foure or five hundred yeares after Christ, when the Church was at the best; and by the Councels held within those times; and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine. Therefore we desire not to be Iudges in our owne Cause. And if any whom A. C. cals a Novellist, can truly say, and maintaine this, he will quickly proove himselfe no Novellist. And for the Negative Articles, they refute, where the thing affirmed by you, is either not affirmed in Scripture, or not directly to be concluded out of it: Vpon this Negative ground A. C. inferres againe, That the Baptisme of Infants is not expresly (at least not evidently) affirmed in Scripture, nor directly (at least not A. C. p. 49. [Page 54] demonstratively) concluded out of it. In which case he professes, he would gladly know, what can be answered to defend this doctrine, to be a Point of Faith necessary for the salvation of Infants. And in Conclusion, professes he cannot easily guesse what Answer can be made, unlesse we will acknowledge, Authority of Church-Tradition ne­cessary in this Case.

And truly since A. C. is so desirous of an An­swer, 3 I will give it freely. And first in the Generall. I am no way satisfied with A. C. his Addition (not expresly, at least not evidently) what means he? If he speake of the Letter of the Scripture, then, whatsoe­ver is expresly, is evidently in the Scripture; and so his Addition is vaine. If he speake of the Meaning of the Scripture, then his Addition is cunning. For many things are Expresly in Scripture, which yet in their Meaning are not evidently there. And what e're hee meane, my words are, That our Negative Articles re­fute that which is not affirmed in Scripture, without any Addition of Expresly, or Evidently. And he should have taken my words, as I used them. I like nor change, nor Addition, nor am I bound to either of A. C^s. making. And I am as little satisfied with his next Addition (nor directly, at least not demonstratively concluded out of it.) For are there not many things in Good Logicke concluded, directly, which yet are not concluded Demonstratively? Surely there are. For to be directly or indirectly concluded flowes from the Moode or Forme of the Syllogisme: To be demonstra­tively concluded flowes from the Matter or Nature of the Propositions. If the Propositions be Prime and necessary Truths, the Syllogisme is demonstrative and scientificall, because the Propositions are such. If the Propositions be probable onely, though the Syllo­gisme be made in the clearest Moode, yet is the [Page 55] Conclusion no more. The Inference, or Consequence indeed is cleare and necessary, but the Consequent is but probable, or topicall, as the Propositions were. Now my words were onely for a Direct Conclusion, and no more: though in this case I might give A. C. his Caution. For Scripture here is the thing spoken of. And Scripture being a Principle, and every Text of Scripture confessedly a Principle among all Christi­ans, whereof no man Habitus enim Pi­d [...]i [...] se habet in ordine ad Theologi­am, si [...]ut se habit Habitus intelleclus ad Sc [...]s hum­nas. M. Canus. L, 2. de Loc. c. 8. desires any farther proofe: I would faine know, why that which is plainely and apparently, that is, by direct Consequence, proved out of Scripture, is not Demonstratively or Scientifically proved? If at least he think there can be any Demonstration in Divinity: and if there can be none, why did he add Demonstratively?

Next in Particular; I answer to the Instance 4 A. C. p. 49. which A. C. makes, con­cerning the Baptisme of In­fants, That it may be con­cluded directly (and let A. C. judge, whether not demon­stratively?) out of Scrip­ture; both that Infants ought to be baptized; and that Baptisme is necessary to their Salvation. And first, that Baptisme is necessary to the Salvation of Infants (in the ordinary way of the Church, without binding God to the use and meanes of that Sacrament, to which he hath bound us) S. Aug. expresly of the Baptisme of Infants. l. 1. de Pec­ [...]ato. Me [...]. & R [...]ss c. 30. Et [...]. 2. c 27. Et L. 3. de A [...] & ejus Origine. c 13. Nay they of the Romane Party which urge the Baptisme of Infants, as a matter of Faith, and yet not to be concluded out of Scripture; when they are not in eager pursuit of this controversie, but look upon truth with a more indifferent eye, confesse as much (even the Learned st of them) as we ask. Ad [...] [...]dum autem Salvato, em dum d [...]cit [Nisi quis renatus, &c.] ne [...]ssitatem [...] omnibus, at pr [...]de Parvulos debere renas [...]i ex aqu [...] & Spiritu. Iansen. Harm. in Euang. c. 20. So here's Baptismo Necessary for Infants, and that Necessity imposed by our Saviour, and not by the Church onely. H [...] n [...]llo alio quàm hoc Scripturae testimonio probare possunt, Infantes essé baptizandos. Mald. in S. Ioh. 3. 5. So Maldonat con­fesses that the Hereticks (we know whom he meanes) can prove the Baptisme of Infants by no Testimony of Scrip­ture but this: which speech implies, That by this Testi­mony of Scripture it is, and can be proved, and therefore not by Church-Tradition only. And I would faine know, why Bell [...]. L. 1. de Baptism. C. 8. §. 5. should bring three Arguments out of Scripture to prove the Baptisme of In­fants [Habemus in Scripturis tria argumenta, &c.] if Bap­tisme cannot be proved at all out of Scripture, but only by the Tradition of the Church. And yet, this is not Bellar­mine's way alone, but Sua [...] in Tho. p. 3 q 68. Disput. 25. Sect. 1. §. 2. Ex Scripturâ possunt va [...] Argumenta sumi ad consirmandum Paed [...]. Et fi [...], &c And G [...]g. de [...] L. de Bapt s. Par [...]um c. 2. §. 1. And the Pope himselfe, Innocent. 3. L. 3 D [...] [...] it. 42. Cap Majores. And they all jump with S. Amb. L. 10. Epist. 84. ad Dem [...]dem [...]nem: who expresly assirmes it, Paedobaptismum esse Con­stitutionem Salvator is: And proves it out of S. Joh. 3. 5. is ex­presse in S. Iohn 3. Except a man be borne againe of water, [Page 56] and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. So, no Baptisme, no Entrance. Nor can In­fants creepe in, any other ordinary way. And this is the received Opinion of all the Ancient Church of Christ Infan [...]s [...]os esse Originalis peccati, & i [...]o baptizandos esse, Antiquam Fidei Regulam vocat. S. Aug. Ser. 8. de ver. Apos. c. 8. Et n [...]mo vobis susurret doctrinas ali [...]nas, ho [...] Ecclesia semper ha­buit, semper t [...]nuit, hoc a majo­rum side recepit, &c. S. Aug. Ser. 10. de verb. Apost. c. 2. & S. Amb [...]os. L. 10. Ep. 84. cir [...]a medium. Et S. Chrysost. Hom. d [...] Adam & Eva. Hoc praedicat Ecclesia Catholica ubique dis­susa.. And secondly, That In­fants ought to bee baptized, is first plaine by evident and Direct Conse­quence out of Scripture. For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordi­nary way of the Church, but by Bap­tisme, and this appeare in Scripture, as it doth, then out of all Doubt, the Consequence is most evident out of that Scripture, That Infants are to be baptized, that their Salvation may be certaine. For they which cannot Egi causam corum qui pro se loqui non possunt, &c. S. Aug. Serm. 8. de verb. Apost. c. 8. help themselves, must not be left onely to Extraordinary Helpes, of which wee have no assurance, and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture, while wee in the meane time neglect the ordinary way, and meanes commanded by Christ. Secondly, 'tis very neare an Expression in Scripture it selfe. For when S. Pe­ter had ended that great Sermon of his, Act. 2. he Act. 2. 38, 39. applies two comforts unto them, Vers. 38. Amend your lives, and be baptized, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And then, Verse 39. hee in­ferres, For the promise is made to you, and to your chil­dren. The Promise; what Promise? What? Why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost. By what meanes? Why, by Baptisme. For 'tis ex­presly, Be baptized, and ye shall receive. And as ex­presly, This promise is made to you, and to your chil­dren. And therefore A. C. may finde it, if he will, That the Baptisme of Infants may be directly concluded [Page 57] out of Scripture. For some of his owne Party, Nullum excipit, non Iudaeum, non Gentilem, non Adultum, non Puerum &c. Ferus in Act. 2. 39. Ferus and Et ad Filios vestros: quare debent consentire, quum ad usum rationis perveniunt, ad implenda promissa in Baptismo, &c. Salm. Tract. 14. up­on the place. Salmeron, could both find it there. And so (if it will doe him any pleasure) he hath my Answer, which he saith, he would be glad to know.

'Tis true, Bellar. L. 4. de Verbo Dei c. 9. §. 5. Bellarmine presses a maine Place out of 5 S. Augustine, and he urges it hard. S. S. Aug. Gen. ad Lit. c. 23. Consue­tudo Matris Ecclesia in Baptizan­dis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, nec omninò credenda, nisi Aposto­lica esset Traditio. Augustine's words are, The Cu­stome of our Mother the Church in Bap­tizing Infants, is by no meanes to be contemned, or thought superfluous; nor yet at all to be believed, unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition. The Place is truly cited, but seemes a great deale stronger, than indeed it is. For first, 'tis not denyed, That this is an Apostolicall Tradition, and therefore to be believed. But se­condly, not therefore onely. Nor doth S. Augustine say so, nor doth Bellarmine presse it that way. The truth is, it would have beene somewhat difficult to finde the Collection out of Scripture onely for the Baptisme of Infants, since they do not actually believe. And therefore S. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi, that this Custome of the Church had not been to be believed, had it not been an Apostolicall Tra­dition. But the Tradition being Apostolicall, led on the Church easily to see the necessary Deduction out of Scripture. And this is not the least use of Tradition, to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture, though not ob­vious to every eye there. And that this is S. Augustine's meaning, is manifest by himself, who best knew it. For when he had said, Cur Antiquam fidei Regulam frangere cona­ris? S. Aug. Ser. 8. de ver. Apos. c. 8. Hoc Ecclesia semper tenuit. Ib. Ser. 10. c. 2. as he doth, That to baptize children, is Antiqua fidei Regula, the Ancient Rule of Faith, and the constant Tenet of the Church, yet he [Page 58] doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also. For when Pelagius urged, That Infants needed not to be baptized, because they had no Originall Sin: S. Augustine relies not upon the Tenet of the Church only, but argues from the Text thus. Quid necessarium habuit Infans Christum, si non aegrotat? S. Matth. 9. 12. Quid est quod dicis, nisi ut non acce­dant ad Iesum? Sed tibi clamat Ie­sus. Sine Parvulos venire ad me. S. Aug. in the fore-cited places. What need have Infants of Christ, if they be not sicke? For the sound need not the Physitian, S. Mat. 9. And againe, is not this said by Pelagius, ut non acce­dant ad Iesum? That Infants may not come to their Saviour? Sed clamat Iesus, but Iesus cries out, Suffer Little ones to come unto me, S. Marc. 10. 14. S. Mar. 10. And all this is fully acknowledged by Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolo­rum seculum pro certo referat. Calv. 4. Inst. c. 16 §. 8. Calvine, Namely, That all men acknowledge the Baptisme of Infants to descend from Apostolicall Tradition. Miserrimum alylum foret, si pro Defensione Paedubaptismi ad nudam Ecclesiae authoritatem fugere cogere­mur. Calv. 4. Inst. c. 8. §. 16. And yet that it doth not depend upon the bare and naked Authority of the Church. Which he speakes not in re­gard of Tradition, but in relation to such proofe, as is to be made by necessary Consequence out of Scrip­ture over and above Tradition.

As for Tradition, §. 15. Num. 1. A. C. p. 49. I have said enough for that, and 6 as much as A. C. where 'tis truly Apostolicall. And yet if any thing will please him, I will add this con­cerning this particular, The Bapti­zing of Infants. That the Church re­ceived this by Orig in Rom 6 6. tom. 2 p. 543. Pro hoc Ecclesia ab Ap [...]stolis Traditionem suscepit, etiā parvulis Baptismū dare. Et S. Aug. Ser. 10. de verb. Apos. c. 2. Hoc Ecclesia à Majorū side percepit. And it is to be observed, that nei­ther of these Fathers (nor i believe any other) say that the Church received it à Traditione solâ, or à Majorum side sola: as if Tradition [...] exclude collection of it out of Scripture. Tradition from the Apo­stles. By Tradition And what then? May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture, because it was delivered to the Church by way of Tradition? I hope A. C. will never say so. For certainly in Doctrinall things, nothing so likely to be a Tradition Apostolicall, [Page 59] as that which hath a Yea, and Bellarmine himself avers, Omnes Traditiones &c. contineri in Scripturis in universali. L. 4. de verb. Det non scripto. c. 10. §. Sic etiam. And S. Basil. Serm. de fide approves only those Agrapha, quae non sunt alie­na à piâ secundū Scripturā Sententid. root and a Foundation in Scripture. For Apostles cannot write, or deliver contrary, but subordinate, and subservient things.

I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture, and in particular, Genesis, Exodus, &c. These are believed to be Scripture, yet not proved out of any Place of Scripture. The Bishop said, That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved.

I did never love too curious a search into § 16 that which might put a man into a wheele, and cir­cle 1 him so long betweene proving Scripture by Tra­dition, and Tradition by Scripture, till the Divell finde a meanes to dispute him into Infidelity, and make him believe neither. I hope this is no part of your meaning. Yet I doubt this Qui conantur sidem destruere sub specie Questionis difficilis, aut fortè indissolubilis, &c. Orig. Q. 35. in S. Matth. Question, How doe you know Scripture to be Scripture? hath done more harme, than you will be ever able to helpe by Tradition. But I must follow that way which you draw me. And because it is so much insisted upon by you, and is in it self a To know that Scriptures are Di­vine, and infallible in every part, is a Foundation so necessary, as if it bee doubtfully question'd, all the Faith built upon Scripture fals to the ground. A. C. p. 47. Necesse est nôsse extare Libros aliquos vere Di­vinos. Bellarm. L. 4. de verb. Dei non scripto. c. 4. §. Quarto necesse. Et etiam libros qui sunt in manibus esse illos. Ibid. §. Sexto oportet. matter of such Consequence, I will sift it a little farther.

Many men labouring to settle this great Principle 2 in Divinity, have used diverse meanes to prove it. All have not gone the same way, nor all the right way. You cannot be right, that resolve Faith of the Scriptures, being the Word of God, into onely Traditi­on. For onely, and no other proofe are equall. To [Page 60] prove the Scripture therefore (so called by way of Excellence) to be the Word of God, there are seve­rall Offers at diverse proofes. For first, some flie to the Testimony and witnesse of the Church, and (1.) her Tradition, which constantly believes, and una­nimously delivers it. Secondly, some to the Light (2.) and the Testimony which the Scripture gives to it selfe; with other internall proofes which are observed in it, and to be found in no other Writing whatsoe­ver. Thirdly, some to the Testimony of the Holy (3.) Ghost, which cleares up the light that is in Scripture, and seales this Faith to the soules of men, that it is Gods Word. Fourthly, all that have not imbru­tished (4.) themselves, and sunke below their species, and order of Nature, give even Naturall Reason leave to come in, and make some proofe, and give some approbation upon the weighing, and the consideration of other Arguments. And this must be admitted, if it be but for Pagans and Infidels, who either consider not, or value not any one of the other three: yet must some way or other bee converted, or left without excuse, Rom. 1. and that is Rom. 1. 20. done by this very evidence.

1. For the first: The Tradition of the Church, 3 which is your way: That taken and considered alone, it is so farre from being the onely, that it cannot be a sufficient Proofe to believe by Divine Faith, that Scripture is the Word of God. For that which is a full and sufficient proofe, is able of it selfe to settle the soule of man concerning it. Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to doe this. For it may bee further asked, why wee should believe the Churches Tradition? And if it be answered, we may believe, Because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost; it may yet be [Page 61] demanded of you, How that may appeare? And if this be demanded, either you must say; you have it by speciall Revelation, which is the private Spi­rit you object to other men; or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture Esse aliquas ve­ras Traditiones demonstratur ex Scripturis. Bel­lar. L. 4 de ver­bo Dei non Scri­pto. c. 5. and A. C p. 50. proves Tradition out of 2 Thes. 2., as all of you doe. And that very offer, to prove it out of Scripture is a sufficient acknowledgement, that the Scripture, is a higher Proofe, then the Churches Tradition, w^ch (in your own Grounds) is, or may be Questionable, till you come thither. Besides, this is an Inviolable ground of Rea­son: Arist. 1. Post. c. 2. T. 16. Per Pacium. Quocirca si [...], propter prima scimus & cre­dimus, illa quoque scimus & cre­dimus [...] magis, quia per illa scimus, & credimus etiam po­steriora. That the Principles of any Conclusion must be of more credite, then the conclusion it self. Therefore if the Articles of Faith, The Trinity, the Resurrection, and the rest, be the Conclusions, and the Principles by which they are prooved, be only Eccle­siasticall Tradition, it must needs follow, That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Ar­ticles of the Faith, if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally Re­solved into the Veracity of the Churches Testimony. But this Eorum errorem dissimulare non possum, qui asserunt fidern No­stram, cò tanquàm in ultimam credendi causam reducendam esse. Vt Credamus Ecclesiam esse Ve­racem &c. M. Canus. L. 2. de Lo­cis. c. 8. §. Cui, & tertium, your Learned and wary men deny. And therefore I hope your selfe dare not affirme.

Againe, if the Voyce of the Church (saying the 4 Bookes of Scripture commonly received, are the Word of God) be the formall Object of Faith, upon which alone absolutely I may resolve my selfe, then every man not only may, but ought to resolve his Faith in­to the Voyce or Tradition of the Church: for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formall Ob­ject of the Faith. But nothing can bee more evident then this, That a man ought not to resolve his Faith of this Principle into the sole Testimony of the Church. Therefore neither is that Testimony, or Tradition alone [Page 62] the formall Object of Faith. Uox Ecclesiae non est formale Obiectum Fidei. Stapl. Relect. Cont: 4. q. 3. A. 2. Licet in Articulo Fidei [Credo Ecclesiam] fortè contineatur hoc totum, Cre­do ea, quae docet Ecclesia: tamen non intelligitur ne­cessariò, quod Credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam Testi in­sallibili. ibid. Vbi etiam rejicit Opinionem. Durandi & Gabr. Et Waldens. L. 2 Doctr. Fidei Art. 2. c. 21. Num. 4. Testimonium Ecclesiae Catholicae est Obje­ctum Fidei Christianae, & Legislatio Scripturae Cano­nica, subjicitur tamen ipsi sicut Testis Iudici, & Testi­monium Veritati &c. Canus Loc. Lib. 2. cap. 8. Nec, si Ecclesia aditum nobis prabet ad hujusmodi Libros Sa­cros cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquiescendum est, sed ultrà [...]portet progredi, & Solidà Dei veritate niti &c. The Learned of your owne part grant this: † Although in that Article of the Creed (I believe the Catholike Church) peradventure all this be contained (I believe those things which the Church teacheth) yet this is not necessarily understood, That I believe the Church teaching, as an Infallible Witnesse. And if they did not confesse this; it were no hard thing to prove.

But here's the cunning of this Devise All the 5 Authority's of Fathers, Councels, nay of Scripture too, Omnis ergo Ecclesiastica Authoritas, cùm sit ad Testificandum de Christo, & Legibus ejus: vilior est Christi legibus, & Scripturis Sanctis necessariò post­ponenda. Wald. L. 2. Doct. Fidei Art. 2. cap. 21. Numb. 1. (though this be con­trary to their owne Do­ctrine) must bee finally Resolved into the Au­thority of the Present Ro­mane Church, And though they would seeme to have us believe the Fathers, and the Church of old, yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their owne Writings, or the Decrees of Councels: because (as they say) wee cannot know by read­ing them, what their meaning was, but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Romane Church teaching by Tradition. Now by this, two things are evident. First, That they ascribe as great Au­thority (if not greater) to a part of the Catholike Church, as they doe to the whole, which wee believe in our Creede; and which is the Society of all Christians. And this is full of Absurdity in Nature, in Reason, in All things, That any [Page 63] Totum est majus suâ parte. Etiamsi Axioma sit apud Eucl [...]dem, non tamen ideò Geometricum put an­dum est, quia Geometres to utitur. Vtitur enim & tota Logica. Ram in Schol. Matth. And Aristotle vindicates such Propositions [...]. from being vsurped by Particular Sciences. [...] &c. Quia conveniunt omni E [...]ti; & non alicui Generi separatim. 4. Metapb. cap. 3. T. 7. Part should bee of equall worth, power, cre­dit, or authority with the Whole. Secondly, that in their Doctrine concern­ing the Infallibility of their Church, their pro­ceeding is most unreasonable. For if you aske them, Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith? Their Answer is, Because it is agreeable to the Word of God, and the Doctrine and Tra­dition of the Ancient Church. If you aske them, How they know that to be so? They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture, Councells, and Fathers, But if you aske a third time, By what meanes they are assured, that these Testimonies doe indeed make for them, and their Cause? They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture, or Exposition of Fathers, or phrase and propriety of Language, in which either of them were first written, or to the scope of the Author, or the Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicen­di, quia non Sermonires, sed Rei Sermo est subjectus. S. Hilar. L. 4. de Trin. Ex materiâ dicti dirigendus est sensus. Tert. L. de Resur. carnis. c. 37. Causes of the thing uttered, or the Conference with like Uidendo differentias Similium ad Similia. Orig. Tract. 19 in S Matth. Places, or the Ante­ceden's Recolendum est unde venerit ista Sententia. & qua illam superiora pepererint, quibúsque connexa depende­at. S. Aug. Ep. 29 Solet circumstantia Scriptura illumi­nare Sementiam. S. Aug. L. 83. Quaest. q. 69. and Conse­quents of the same Pla­ces: Quae ambiguè & obscurè in nonnullis Scripturae Sa­crae locis dicta videntur, per ea quae alibi certa, & indu­bitata habentur, d [...]clarantur. S Basil in Regulis con­tractis, Reg. 267. Manifestiora quaeque praevaleant, & de incertis certiora praescribant. Tert. L. de Resur. c. 19 & 21. S. Aug. L. 3. De Doct Christ. c. [...]6. Moris est Scripturarum obscuris Manifesta subnectere, & quod prius sub aenigmatibus dixerint, apertâ voce pro­ferre. S. Hieron. in Esa 19. princ. Uide. §. 26. Nu. 4. or the Ex [...]osition of the darke and doubt­full Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest. With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of [Page 64] Scripture, which do frequently occurre in S. Aug. L. 3. de Doctr. Christi­anâ. S. Augu­stine. No, none of these, or the like helpes: That, with them, were to Admit a Private Spirit, or to make way for it: But their finall Answer is; They know it to be so, because the present Romane Church wit­nessethit, according to Tradition. So arguing, à primo ad ultimum, from first to last, the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her owne Do­ctrine, and Tradition to bee true and Catholike, because she professes it to be such. And if this bee not to proove idem per idem, the same by the same, I know not what is: which, though it be most ab­surd in all kind of learning, yet out of this I see not how 'tis possible to winde themselves, so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest (as they teach) upon the Tradition of the present Church only.

It seemes therefore to mee very necessary And this is so necessary, that Bellarmine confesses, that if Tradition (which he relies upon) be not Di­vine: He and his can have no Faith. Non habemus fidem. Fides enim verbo Dei nititur. L. 4. de verbo Dei. c. 4. §. At si ita est. And A. C. tells us. p. 47. To know that Scripture is Divine and Infallible in every part, is a Founda­tion so necessary, as if it be doubtfully questioned, all the Faith built upon Scripture falls to the ground. And he gives the same reason for it, p. 50. which Bel­armine doth., that 6 we bee able to proove the Bookes of Scrip­ture to bee the Word of God, by some Authority that is absolutely Divine. For if they bee warranted unto us by any Autho­rity lesse then Divine, then all things contained in them (which have no greater assurance then the Scripture, in which they are read) are not Objects of Divine beliefe. And that once granted will enforce us to yeeld, That all the Articles of Christian Beliefe have no greater assurance then Humane, or Morall Faith, or Credulity can afford. An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility, at least in the last Reso­lution of our Faith in that Poynt. This Authority [Page 65] cannot bee any Testimony, or Voyce of the Ecclesiam spiritu afflatam esse, certè credo. Non ut veritat [...]m, authoritatemve Libris Canonicis tri [...]uat, sed ut doc eat illos, non alios esse Canoni­cos. Nec fi aditum nobis praebet ad hujusmodi sa­cros Libr [...]s cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquie­scendum est, sed ultra oportet progredi, & solidâ Dei veritate niti. Quâ ex re intelligitur quid sibi volucrit Augustinus, quam ait, Evangelio non crederem, nisi &c. M. Canus L. 2. de Locis, c. 8 fol. 34. b. Non docet fundatam esse Evange­lii fidem in Ecclesiae Authoritate, sed &c. Ibid. Church alone. For the Church consists of men subject to Error; And no one of them, fince the Apostles times, hath beene as­sisted with so plentifull a measure of the Blessed Spirit, as to secure him from being deceived; And all the Parts, being all liable to mistaking, and sallible, the VVhole cannot possibly bee Infallible, in, and of it self, and priviledged from being deceived in some Things, o [...] other. And even in those Fundamentall Things, in which the Whole Vniversall Church neither doth, nor can Erre; yet even there her Authority is not Divine, because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance, yet tyed to Meanes: And not by any speciall Immediate Revelation, which is necessa­rily required to the very least Degree of Divine Au­thority. And therefore our Hook. l. 3. §. 9 VVorthies do not only say, but prove, That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law. Stapl. Relect. Con. 4. q. 3. A. 1. & 2. And some among you, not unworthy for their Learning, prove it at large, That all the Churches Testimony, or voyce, or Sentence (call it what you will) is but suo modo, or aliquo modo, not simply, but in a manner Divine. Yea, and A. C. himselfe, A. C. p. 51. after all his debate comes to that, and no fur­ther. That the Tradition of the Church is, at least in some sort, Divine and Infallible. Now that which is Di­vine but in a sort or manner, bee it the Chur­ches manner, is aliquo modo non Divina, in a sort not Divine. But this Great Principle of Faith (the Ground and Proofe of whatsoever else is of Faith) cannot stand firme upon a Proofe that is, and is not; in a manner, and not in a manner Divine, [Page 66] As it must, if we have no other Anchor then the Ex­ternall Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon, and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves, which daily beate upon it.

Now here A. C. confesses expresly, That to prove 7 the Bookes of Scripture to bee Divine, we must bee A. C. p. 49. warranted by that which is Infallible. Hee confesses farther, that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proofe of A. C. p. 50. this, but Gods Word, written, or unwritten. And he gives his Reason for it. Because if the Proofe be meerely Humane, and Fallible, the Science or Faith which A. C. p. 51. is built upon it, can be no better. So then this is agreed on by mee, (yet leaving other men to travell by their owne way, so bee they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible) That Scrip­ture must bee knowne to bee Scripture by a suf­ficient, Infallible, Divine Proofe. And that such Proofe can be nothing but the Word of God, is agreed on also by me. Yea, and agreed on for me it shall be likewise, that Gods Word may be writ­ten, and unwritten. For Cardinall Verbum Dei non est tale, nec habet ullam Au­thoritatem, quia scriptum est in membranis, sed quia à Deo profectum est. Bellar. l. 4, de Verb. Dei. 2 §. Ecclesiasticae Traditiones. Bellarmine tells us truly, that it is not the writing, or printing, that makes Scripture the Word of God; but it is the Prime Vnerring Essentiall Truth, God himselfe ut­tering, and revealing it to his Church, that makes it Verbum Dei, the Word of God. And this Word of God is uttered to men, either immediately by God him­selfe, Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, and so 'twas to the Prophets and Apostles: Or mediately, either by Angels, to whom God had spoken first, and so the Law was given, Lex ordinata per Angelos in manu [...] Gal. 3 19. Gal. 3. and so also the Message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin, S. Luk. 1., 0. S. Luke 1. or by the Prophets The Holy Ghost &c. which spake by the Prophets, in Symb. Nicen. and Apostles, and so the Scriptures were delivered to the Church. But their being written, gave them no Authority at all, in regard of them­selves. [Page 67] VVritten or unwritten, the VVord was the same. But it was written, that it might bee the better Nam Psiudoprophetae etiam viventibus ad [...]c Apo­stolis multas fingebant corruptelas sub [...]oc praetextu & titulo, quasi ab Apostolis vivà veccessent traditae: & propter hanc ips [...]m causam Apostoli Doctrinam suam coeperunt Literis comprehendere, & Ecclesiis commen­dare. Chem. Exam. Concil Trid. de Traditionibus sub octavo genere Tradit. And so also Ians [...]n. Comment. in S. Ioh 5. 47. Sicut enim firmius est quod manda­tur Literis, ita est culpabili [...]s & majus non credere Scriptis, quam non credere Verbis. preserved, and conti­nued with the more in­tegrity to the use of the Church, and the more faithfully in our Labilis est memoria, & ideo indig [...]mus Scripturâ: Dicendum quod verum est, sed hoc non habet, nisi ex inundantia peccatorum. Hent. a Gand. Sum. p. 1, Ar. 8. q. 4. sine. Christus ipse de pectore morituro Te­stamentum transfert in tabulas diù duraturas. Optat. L 5. Christus ipse non transtulit, sed ex Optati sew en­tiâ, Ejus Inspiratione, si non Iuss [...], Apostoli transtu­lerunt. Me­mories. And you have been often enough told (were truth, and not the maintaining of a party, the thing you seek for) that if you will shew us any such unwritten word of God delivered by his Prophets and Apostles, we will acknowledge it to be Divine, and Infallible. So, written, or unwritten, that shall not stumble us. But then A. C. must not tell us, at least not thinke we shall swallow it into our Beliefe: that every thing which he sayes, is the unwritten VVord of God, is so indeed.

I know Bellarmine hath written a whole Booke 8 Bellar. L. 4. De Verbo Dei non script. De Verbo Dei non scripto, of the Word of God not written, in which he handles the Controver­sie concerning Traditions. And the Cunning is, to make his weaker Readers believe, that all that, which He, and his are pleased to call Traditions, are by and by no lesse to be received, and honoured, then the unwritten word of God ought to be. Whereas 'tis a thing of easie knowledge, That the unwritten VVord of God and Tradition, are not Convertible Termes, that is, are not all one. For there are ma­ny Vnwritten VVords of God, which were ne­ver delivered over to the Church, for ought ap­peares: And there are many Traditions (affirmed, [Page 68] at least to be such by the Church of Rome) which were never warranted by any unwritten Word of God.

First, That there are many unwritten words of God, 9 which were never delivered over to the Church, is manifest. For when, or where were the words, which Christ spake to his Apostles, during the Acts 1. 3. forty dayes of his Conversing with them after his Resurrection, first delivered over to the Church? or what were the unwritten Words He then spake? If neither He [...], nor His Apostles, or Evangelists have delivered them to the Church, the Church ought not to deliver them to her Children. Or if she doe Annunciare aliquid Christianis Catholicis, praeter id quod acceperunt, nunquam licuit, nusquam licet, nun­quam licebit. Vincen. Lir. c. 14. Et prae [...]ipit nihil ali­u [...]innovari, nisi quo [...] traditum est. S. Cypri. ad Pom­peium cont. Epist. Stephan. princ. tradere non traditum, make a Tra­dition of that, which was not delivered to her, and by some of Them, then She is unfaithful to God, and doth not servare depositum, faithfully keepe that which is committed to her Trust. 1 Tim. 6. 20. and, 2 Tim. 1. 14. 1 Tim. 6. And her Sonnes, which come to know it, are not bound to obey her Tradition against the Si ipsa (Ecclesia) contraria Scripturae diceret, (Fidelis) ipsi non crederet. &c. Hen. a Gand. Sum. p. 1. A. 10. q. 1. And Bellarmi [...]e himselfe, that he might the more safe­ly defend himselfe in the Cause of Traditions, sayes, (but how truly let other men Iudge,) Nullam Traditi­onem admittimus contra Scripturam. L. 4. [...] Verbo Dei. c. 3. §. Deindè commune. Word of their Father. For where­soever Christ holds his peace, or that his words a [...]e not Registred, I am of S. S. Aug. Tom. 96. in [...] Ioh. in ill [...] Ferba, Mul­ta habeo dicere, sed non potestis portare modò. Augustines Opinion, No man may dare without rashnesse say they were these, or these. So, there were many unwritten Words of God, which were never de­livered over to the Church; and there [...]ore never made Tradition And there are many Traditions, which cannot be said to be the unwritten word of God. For I believe, a Learned Romanist, that will weigh before he speakes, will not easily say, That to Annoint, or use Spittle in Baptisme: or to use three Dippings in [Page 69] the use of that Sacrament: or diverse other like Tra­ditions had their Rise from any Word of God unwrit­ten: Or if he be so hardy as to say so, 'tis gratis di­ctum, and he will have enough to doe to prove it. So, there may be an unwritten Word of God, which is no Tradition. And there are many Traditions, which are no unwritten Word of God. Therfore Tradition must be taken two wayes. Either, as it is the Churches Act delivering, or the Thing thereby delivered, and then 'tis Humane Authority, or from it, and unable infallibly to warrant Divine Faith, or to be the Ob­ject of it. Or els as it is the unwritten Word of God: and then where ever it can be made to appeare so, 'tis of divine and infallible Authority, no question. But then I would have A. C. consider where he is in A. C. p. 49. this Particular. He tels us, We must know infallibly, that the Bookes of Holy Scripture are Divine, and that this must be done by unwritten Tradition, but so, as that this Tradition is the Word of God unwritten: Now let him but prove that this, or any Tradition, which the Church of Rome stands upon, is the Word of God, though unwritten, and the businesse is ended. But A. C. must not thinke, that because the Tradition of the Church tels me these Bookes are Verbum Dei, Gods A. C. p. 50. Word; and that I do both honour and believe this Tradition; That therefore this Tradition it selfe is Gods Word too; and so absolutely sufficient and infalli­ble to worke this Beliefe in me. Therefore for ought A. C. hath yet added, we must on with our Inquiry after this great Businesse, and most necessary Truth.

2. For the second way of proving, That Scrip­ture 10 should be fully and sufficiently knowne, as by Divine and Infallible Testimony, Lumine proprio, by the resplendency of that Light, which it hath in it selfe onely, and by the witnesse that it can so [Page 70] give to it selfe, I could never yet see cause to allow. Hook. l. 2. §. 4 For as there is no place in Scripture that tels us, Such Books containing such, and such Particulars are the Canon, and infallible Will and Word of God: So if there were any such place, that were no suffi­cient proofe; For a man may justly aske another Booke to beare witnesse of that; and againe of that another; and where ever it were written in Scripture, that must be a part of the Whole. And no created thing can alone give witnesse to it selfe, and make it evident, nor one part testifie for ano­ther, and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest. Except those Principles onely of Naturall knowledge, which appeare manifest by intuitive light of understanding, without any Discourse. And yet they also to the weaker sort require Indu­ction preceding. Now this Inbred light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it selfe: and so, the Principles, and the Conclusion in this kind of proofe should be entirely the same, which cannot be. Besides, if this inward Light were so cleare, how could there have beene any variety among the Ancient Believers touching the Authori­ty of S. Euseb. L. 2. c. 27. fine. Edit. Basil. 1549. Iames, and S. Jude's Epistles, and the Euseb. L. 3. c. 25. Apo­calyps, with other Bookes which were not recei­ved for diverse yeares after the rest of the New Testament? For certainly, the Light which is in the Scripture, was the same then, which now it is. And how could the Gospell of S. Bartholomew, of S. Thomas, and other counterfeit peeces obtaine so much credit with some, as to be received into the Canon, if the evidence of this Light were either Uni­versall, or Infallible, of, and by it selfe? And this, though I cannot approve, yet, me thinks, you may, and upon probable grounds at least. For I hope [Page 71] no Except A. C. whose boldness herein I cannot but pitie. For he denies this light to the Scripture, and gives it to Tradition: His words are, p. 52. Tradition of the Church is of a company, which by its owne light shewes it selfe to bee infallibly assisted, &c. Romanist will deny, but that there is as much light in Scripture to manifest, and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God, as there is in any Tradition of the Church, that it is Divine, and in­fallibly the unwritten Word of God. And the Scriptures saying from the mouthes of the Prophets, Isa 44. & pas­sina. Thus saith the Lord, and from the mouthes of the Act. 28. 25. Apostles, that the Holy Ghost spake by them, are at least as able, and as fit to beare wit­nesse to their owne Verity; as the Church is to beare witnesse to her owne Traditions, by bare say­ing they come from the Apostles. And your selves would never go to the Scripture, to prove that there are Traditions, 2. Thess. 2. 15. Iude, vers. 3. as you do, if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discovered by inbred light in it­selfe, as Traditions by their light. And if this be so, then it is as probable at the least (which some of ours affirme) That Scripture may bee knowne to bee the Word of God, by the Light, and Lustre which it hath in it selfe, as it is (which you In your Arti­cles delivered to D. W. to be answered. And A. C. p. 52. affirme) That a Tradition may be knowne to be such, by the light which it hath in it selfe: which is an excellent Proposition to make sport withall, were this an Argument, to be hand­led merrily.

3. For the third Opinion, and way of proving; 11 either some thinke, that there is no sufficient warrant for this, unlesse they fetch it from the Testimony of the Holy Ghost, and so looke in vaine after speciall Revelations, and make themselves by this very Con­ceit, obnoxious, and easie to be led by all the whis­perings of a seducing private spirit; or els you would faine have them think so. For your side, both upon this, and other Occasions, do often challenge, That [Page 72] we resolve all our Faith into the Dictates of a A Iesuite, under the name of T S. set out a Booke, An. 1630. which he called, The Triall of the Prote­stant private Spirit. private Spirit; from which we shall ever prove our selves as free, if not freer than you. To the Question in hand then: Suppose it agreed up­on, that there must be a Ut Testimonia Scripturae certam & inaubitatam fidem praestent, necessa­rium videtur ostendere, quod ipsae Di­vinae Scripturae sint Dei Spiritu inspi­ratae. Orig. 4. [...] Divine Faith, cui subesse non potest falsum, under which can rest no possible errour, That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God: If they which goe to the testimony of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this, doe meane by Faith, Objectum Fidei, the Ob­ject of Faith that is to bee belie­ved, then, no question, they are out of the ordinary way. For God never sent us by any word or warrant of his, to looke for any such spe­ciall, and private Testimony to prove which that Booke is, that we must believe. But if by Faith they meane, the Habit, or Act of Divine infused Faith, by which vertue they doe believe the Credible Object, and thing to bee believed; then their speech is true, and confessed by all Divines of all sorts. For Faith is the gift 1. Cor. 12. 3. 4. Datur nobu a Deo, &c. S. Aug. in Psal. 87. of God, of God alone, and an infused Quia homo assentiendo eis quae sunt fid [...]i, clevatur supra Naturam suam, oportel quòd hoc in [...]t ei ex supernatu­rali p [...]incipio int [...]riùs movente. quod est Dens. Tho. 2 2 ae. q. 6. A. 1. c. And your owne Divines agree in this, That Fides acquisita is not suffi­cient for any Article, but there must be Fides infusa, before there can be Divine Certainty. Fides ac­quisita innititur conjecturis humanis. Ad quem modum & Saraceni suis Praeceptoribus, & Iudaei suis Rabi­nis, & Gent [...]s suis Philosophs, & omnes suis Maj ribus inharent: non sic Christians, sed per interius lumen infusum à Spiritu Sancto, quo fir­missimè & certissimè moventur ad creden [...]m, &c. Canus. L. 2. Locor. c. 8. §. I am si hac. Habit, in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipi­ent; And therefore the sole In­fuser, the Holy Ghost must not be [...] excluded from that worke, which none can doe, but Hee. For the Holy Ghost, as Symb. Nicen. The Holy Ghost spake by the Prophets, &c. Et 1. S. Pet. 2. 21. Quis modus est, quo doces animas ea quae futura sunt? Docuist [...] enim Prophetas tuos. S. Aug. L. 11. Confess. c. 19. Hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles: [Page 73]Nec enim Ecclesiae Testimonium, aut Judicium prae­dicamus, Dei Spiritum, vel ab Eccl [...]sia doce [...]te, vol à nobis audientibus, excludimus, sed utrobique disertè includimus, &c. Stapl. trip. contr. Whi­tak. c. 3.So did he not leave the Church in generall, nor the true members of it in particular, without Grace to believe, what himself had revealed, and made Credible. So that Faith, as it is taken for the vertue of Faith, whether it be of this, or any other Article, Fides quae caepit ab Ecclesia Testimonio, quatenus proponit & inducit ad Fidem, de [...]nit in Deo intùs revelante, & intùs docente quod forts Ecclesia pra­dicavit. Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 3. a. 2. When grave and learned men doe sometimes hold, that of this Principle there is no proofe, but by the Testi­mony of the Spirit, &c. I thinke it is not their meaning, to exclude all outward Proofes, &c but rather this, That all other meanes are uneffectuall of themselves to worke Faith, without the speci­all Grace of God. Hook &c. Lib. 3. §. 8. though it receive a kinde of prepa­ration, or Occasion of Be­ginning from the Testimo­ny of the Church, as it proposeth, and induceth to the Faith; yet it ends in God, revealing within, and teach­ing within, that which the Church preached without. For till the Spirit of God move the Heart of man, he cannot believe, be the Object never so Credible. The speech is true then, but quite De habitu Fidei quoad fieri ejus, & generationem, quùm à Deo immediatè solo Dono gratuito infusus est, Nihil ad Quastionem, nisi quoad hoc quod per Scriptura inspectionem, &c. Henr. à Gand. Sam. a. 10. q. 1. lit. D. out of the State of this Question: which in­quires onely after a suffi­cient meanes to make this Object Credible, and fit to be believed, against all im­peachment of folly and temerity in Beliefe, whether men do actually believe it or not. For which no man may expect inward private Revelation, without the externall means of the Church, unlesse perhaps the Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. Q. 3. A. 2. Doth not onely affirme it, but proves it too, à paritate ra­tionis, in case of necessity, where there is no Con­tempt of the externall meanes. case of Nece [...]ity be excep­ted, when a man lives in such a time & place as ex­cludes him from all ordi­nary means; in which I dare not offer to shut up God from the foules of men, nor to tie him to those ordina­ry waies and means, to which yet in great wisdome [Page 74] and providence He hath tied and bound all mankind.

Private Revelation then hath nothing ordinarily 12 to doe, to make the Object Credible in this, That Scripture is the Word of God, or in any other Article. For the Question is of such outward, and evi­dent meanes, as other men may take notice of, as well as our selves. By which if there arise any Doubting, or Infirmity in the Faith, others may strengthen us, or we affoord meanes to support them: Whereas the Quid cum singulis agitur, Deus scit qui agit, & ipsi cum quibus agitur, sciunt. Quid autem agatur cum genere Humano, per Historiam commendari vo­l [...]it, & per Prophetiam. S. Aug. de vera Relig. c. 25. Te­stimony of the Spirit, and all private Revelation is within, nor felt, nor seen of any, but him that hath it. So that hence can be drawn no proofe to others. And Miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it, unlesse both They, and the Revelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture; which is now an unalterable Rule by Gal. 1. 8. man, or Angell. To all this A. C. sayes nothing, save that I seeme not to admit of an infallible Impulsion of a private Spirit, ex parte subjecti, A. C. p. 52. without any infallible Reason, and that sufficiently ap­plied ex parte objecti, which if I did admit, would open a gap to all Enthusiasmes, and dreames of fanaticall men. Now for this yet I thank him. For I do not one­ly seeme not to admit, but I doe most clearely reject this phrensie in the words going before.

4. The last way, which gives Utitur tam [...] sacra Doctrina Ratione Humanâ, non quidem ad probandum Fidem ipsam, sed ad mani­fest andum aliqua alia, quae traduntur in hac Doctri­na. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad 2. Passibus rationis novus homo tendit in Deum. S. Aug. de vera Relig. c. 26. (Passibus, verū est, sed nec aequis, nec solis:) Nam Invisibilia Dei altiori modo quan­tum ad plura p [...]rcipitg Fides, quàm Ratio naturalis ex Creaturis in Deum procedens. Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 3. ad 3. Reason leave to 13 come in, and prove what it can, may not justly be denied by any reasona­ble man. For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heaven, nor believe this Booke, in which God hath written the way; yet [Page 75] Grace is never placed but in a reasonable creature, and proves by the very seat, which it hath taken up, that the end it hath, is to be spirituall eye-water, to make Reason see what by Animalis ho­mo non percipit. 1. Cor. 2. 14. Nature onely it cannot, but never to blemish Rea­son in that, which it can comprehend. Now the use of Reason is very generall; and man (do what he can) is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will believe, though after he once believes, his Faith growes Quia scientiae certitudinem habent ox naturali lumine Rationis humanae, quae potest errare: Theo­logia autem (quae docet & Objectum & Notitiam Fidei, sicut & Fidem ipsam) certitudinem habet ex lumine Divinae scientiae, quae decipi non potest. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. c. Vt ipsà fide valentiores fa­cti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur. S. Aug. cont. Ep. Manichaei, dictam, Fundamentum. c. 14. Hoc autem it a intelligendum est, ut scientia certior sit Certitudine Evidentiae; Fides verò certior Firmitate Adhaesionis. Majus lumen in Scien­tia, majus Robur in Fide. Et hoc, quia in Fide, & ad Fidem Actus imperatus Voluntatis concurrit. Credere enim est Actus Intellectus Vero assention­tis productus ex Voluntatis Imperio. Biel. in 3. Sent. d. 23. q. 2. A. 1. Unde Tho. Intellectus Credentis determinatur ad Unum, non per Ratio­nem, sed per Voluntatem; & ideo Assensus hic accipitur pro Actu Intellectus, secundum quod à Voluntate determinatur ad Vnum. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad 3. stronger, than ei­ther his Reason, or his Knowledge: and great rea­son for this, because it goes higher, and so upon a safer Principle, than either of the other can in this life.

In this Particular, the Bookes called the Scrip­ture, 14 are commonly and constantly reputed to bee the Word of God, and so infallible Verity, to the least point of them. Doth any man doubt this? The world cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason, whether it bee the Word of God, or not. To the same Weights hee brings the Tradition of the Church, the inward motives in Scripture it selfe, all Te­stimonies within, which seeme to beare wit­nesse to it; and in all this, there is no harme: the danger is, when a man will use no other Scale, but Reason, or preferre Reason before any other Scale. For the Word of God, and the Booke containing it, refuse not to bee weighed by [Page 76] Si vobis, rationi, & veritati con­sentanca videntur, in pretio habete, &c. de mysteriis Religionis, Iustin. Mart. Apol. 2. Igitur, si fuit dispo­sitio Rationis, &c. Tertull. L de Carne Christi. c. 18. Rationabile est credere Deum esse Autorem Scriptu­rae. Henr. a Gand. Sum, To. 1. Ar. 9. q. 3. Reason. But the Scale is not large enough to containe, nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue, and full force of either. Reason then can give no supernaturall ground, into which a man may resolve his Faith, That Scripture is the Word of God in­fallibly; yet Reason can go so high, as it can prove that Christian Religion, which rests upon the Authori­ty of this Booke, stands upon surer grounds of Na­ture, Reason, common Equity, and Iustice, than any thing in the World, which any Infidell, or meere Naturalist, hath done, doth, or can adhere unto, against it, in that which he makes, accounts, or assumes as Religion to himselfe.

The Ancient Fathers relied upon the Scriptures, no Christians more; and having to doe with Philo­sophers 15 (men very well seene in all the subtilties, which Naturall Reason could teach, or learne) They were often put to it, and did as often make it good, That they had sufficient warrant to relie, so much as They did, upon Scripture. In all which Dis­putes, because they were to deale with Infidels, they did labour to make good the Authority of the Booke of God by such Arguments, as unbelie­vers themselves could not but thinke reasonable, if they weighed them with indifferency. For though I set the Mysteries of Faith above Reason, which is their proper place; yet I would have no man thinke They contradict Reason, or the Principles thereof. No sure. For Reason by her own light can discover how firmely the Principles of Re­ligion are true: but all the Light shee hath will never bee able to finde them false. Nor may any man thinke that the Principles of Religion, [Page 77] even this, That Scriptures are the Word of God, are so indifferent to a Naturall eye, that it may with as just cause leane to one part of the Contradiction, as to the other. For though this Truth, That Scripture is the Word of God, is not so Demonstratively evident, a priori, as to enforce Assent: yet it is strengthen'd so abundantly with probable Arguments, both from the Light of Nature it selfe, and Humane Testimony, that he must be very wilfull, and selfe-conceited, that shall dare to suspect it.

Nay, yet farther, Hook. L. 3. §. 8. Si Plato ipse viveret, & me interrogantem non aspernaretur &c. S. Aug. de verá Relig. c. 3. Vide amus quatenus Ratio potest progredi á visibilibus ad invisibilia, &c. Ibid. c. 29. It is not altogether impossible to 16 proove it even by Reason, a Truth infallible, or else to make them deny some apparent Princi­ple of their own. For Example: It is an ap­parent Principle, and with them, That God, or the Absolute prime Agent, cannot be forced out of any Possession. For if He could be forced by another Greater, He were neither Prince, nor Absolute, nor Si vim spectes, Deus Valentissi­mus est, Arist. de Mundo. cap. 7. Domini & Mo­deratores omniū. Cic. 2. de Leg. God, in their owne Theologie. Now they must grant, That that God, and Christ, which the Scripture teaches, and we believe, is the only true God, and no other with him, and so deny the Deity, which they worshipped, or else deny their owne Principle about the Deity, That God cannot be commanded, and forced out of possession: For Ipse Saturnus, & Serapis, & Jupiter, & quicquid Daemonum colitis, victi dolore quòd sunt, clo­quuntur. Nec uti (que) in turpitudi­nem sui uonnullis praesertim ve­strorum assistentibus, mentiun­tur. Ipsis testibus esse eos Daemo­nes de se verum confitentibus credite. Adjurati enim per Deum verum, & solùm inviti &c. Ar­nob. 8. contra Gent, Or Mi­nutius Foelix, as is now thought, their Gods, Saturne, and Serapis, and Iupiter himselfe, have beene adjured by the Name of the true, and only God, and have beene forced out of the bodies they possessed, and confessed themselves to be foule and se­duceing Divels. And their Confession was to be supposed true, in poynt of Reason: For they that were adored as Gods, would never belie themselves into Divels, to their owne re­proach, especially in the presence of them that worshipped[Page 78] them, were they not forced. This, many of the Vnbe­lievers saw; therefore they could not (in very force of Reason) but they must either deny their God, or deny their Principle in Nature. Their long Custome would not forsake their God, and their Reason could not forget their Principle. If Reason therefore might judge among them, they could not worship any thing that was under Command. And if it be reason­able to doe, and believe this, then why not reasona­ble also to believe, That Scripture is his Word, gi­ven to teach himselfe, and Christ, since there they find Christ S. Mat. 12 22 doing that, and S. Mat. 16. 17 giving power to doe it after, which themselves saw executed upon their Divell-Gods?

Besides, whereas all other written Lawes have 17 scarce had the honour to be duly observed, or con­stantly allowed worthy approbation in the Parti­cular places, where they have beene established for Lawes; this Law of Christ, and this Canon of Scripture the container of it, is, or hath beene received in al­most Si Libri quoquo modo se habent sancti tamen Divinarum rernm ple­ni prope totius generis humani con­fessione diffamantur. &c. S. Aug. de Vtil. Cred c. 7. Scriptura summà dispositione Providentiae super omnes omnium Gentium Literas, omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum Di­vin [...] Excellens Authoritate subje­cit. S. Aug. 11. de Civit. Dei, c. 1. At in omni orbe torrarum, in omni Graciâ, & universis Nationibus, in­numerisunt. & immensi qui relictis Patriis Legibus. &c. ad observanti­am Mosis, & Christi. &c. Origen. 4. [...]. cap. 1. all Nations under Heaven: And wheresoevet it hath beene received, it hath been both approved for Vn­changeable good, and believed for Infallible verity. This perswasion could not have beene wrought in men of all sorts, but by working up­on their Reason, unlesse wee shall thinke all the VVorld unreasonable, that received it. And certainly God did not give this admirable faculty of Reasoning to the soule of man, for any cause more prime then this, to discover, or to Iudge and allow (within the Sphere of its owne Acti­vity, and not presuming farther) of the way to [Page 79] Himselfe, when and howsoever it should bee dis­covered.

One great thing that troubled Rationall men, was 18 that which stumbled the Manichee (an Heresie it was, but more then halfe Pagan) namely, That some­what must be believed, before much could be knowne. Wise men use not to believe, but what they know: And the Manichcee Ir [...]idere in Ca­tholicae Fidei di­sciplinâ, quod ju­berentur homi­nes credere, non autem, &c. S. Aug. 1. Re­trac. c. 14. scorned the Orthodox Christian: as light of Beliefe, promising to leade no Disciple after him, but upon evident knowledge. This stumbles many; but yet the Principle, That somewhat must be believed before much can be knowne, stands firme in Reason still. For if in all Sciences there be some Prin­ciples, which cannot be prooved; if Reason be able to see this, and confesse it; if almost all Artists have granted it, if in the Mathematicks, where are the Ex­actest Demonstrations, there be Quaedam postulata; some things to be first Demanded, and granted, be fore the Demonstration can proceed: Who can justly deny that to Divinity, A Science of the Highest Object, God Himselfe, which he easily and reasonably grants to inferiour Sciences, which are more within his reach? And as all Sciences suppose some Principles without prooving; so have they almost all, some Text, some Authority, upon which they rely in some measure: and it is Reason they should. For though these Sciences make not their Texts Infallible, as Divi­nity doth; yet full consent and prudent Examinati­on, and long continuance, have wonne reputation to them, and setled reputation upon them, very de­servedly. And were these Texts more void of Truth, then they are, yet it were fit, and reasonable to up­hold their credit, that Novices, and young Begin­ners in a Science, which are not able to worke strongly upon Reason, nor Reason upon them, may [Page 80] have Authority to believe, till they can learne to Con­clude from Principles, and so to know. Is this also reasonable in other Sciences, and shall it not be so in Theologie, to have a Text, a Scripture, a Rule, which Novices may be taught first to believe, that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things, which out of this rich Principle, and And therefore S. Aug. 2. de Doct. Christ. c. 8. would have men make themselves perfect in reading the Let­ter of the Scripture, even before they understood it. Eas not as habeat, etsi nondum intellectu, tamen lectione dun­taxat; No question but to make them ready against they understood it. And as Schoole-Masters make their Schol­lers conne their Grammer-rules by heart, that they may be ready for their use, when they better understand them, Trea­sure are Deduceable? I yet see not how right Reason can deny these Grounds; and if it cannot, then a meere Naturall man may be thus farre convinced, That the Text of God is a very Creditle Text.

Well, these are the foure wayes, by most of which, men offer to proove the Scripture to bee the 19 Word of God, as by a Divine and Infallible Warrant. And, it seemes, no one of these doth it alone. The Tradition of the present Church is too weake, be­cause that is not absolutely Divine. The Light which is in Scripture it selfe, is not bright enough, it cannot beare sufficient witnesseto itselfe. The Testimonie of the Holy Ghost, that is most infallible, but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question, which is not, how, or by what meanes we believe, but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Cre­dible Object, fit for Beliefe. And for Reason, no man expects, that that should proove it; it doth service enough, if it enable us to disproove that which mis­guided men conceive against it. If none of these then be an Absolute and sufficient meanes to prove it, either we must finde out another, or see what can b [...] more wrought out of these. And to all this again A. C. sayes nothing.

[Page 81] For the Tradition of the Church then, certaine 20 it is, wee must distinguish the Church, before wee can judge right of the Validity of the Tra­dition. For if the speech bee of the Prime Chri­stian Church, the Apostles, Disciples, and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven; no questi­on, but the Voyce and Tradition of this Church is Divine, not aliquo modo, in a sort, but simply; and the Word of God from them, is of like Validity, written, or delivered. And against this Tradition (of which kinde this, That the Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God, is the most generall and uni­forme) the Church of England never excepted. And when S. L. 1. cont. Epis. Fund. c. 5. Ego vero non crederem Evange­lio, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas. Augustine said, I would not believe the Gospell, unlesse the Autho­rity of the Catholike Church mooved mee (which Place you urged at the Confe­rence, though you are now content to slide by it) some of your owne will not endure should be understood, save Occham. Dial. p. 1. L. 1. c. 4. Intelligitur solum de Ecclesi [...] qua fuit tempore Apostolorum. of the Church in the time of the Apostles only: and Biel. lect, 2 [...]. in C. Miss [...]. A tempore Christi & Apostolorum, &c. And so doth S. August. take Eccles. Contra Fund. some of the Church in Generall, not excluding after-ages. But sure to include Christ, and his Apostles. And the certainety is there, abundance of certainety in it selfe: but how farre that is evident to us, shall after appeare.

But this will not serve your turne. The Tra­dition of the present Church must bee as Infal­lible, 21 as that of the Primitive. But the con­trary to this is prooved §. 16. Nu. 6. before, because this Voyce of the present Church, is not simply Di­vine. To what end then serves any Tradition of the present Church? To what? Why to a very [Page 82] good end. For first, it serves by a full consent to worke upon the mindes of unbelievers, to move them to reade, and to consider the Scripture, which (they heare by so many Wise, Learned, and Devoute men) is of no meaner esteeme then the Word of God. And secondly, It serves among Novices, Weaklings, and Doubters in the Faith, to instruct, and confirme them, till they may acquaint themselves with, and understand the Scripture, which the Church de­livers as the Word of God. And thus againe some of your owne understand the fore-cited Place of S. Au­gustine, I would not believe the Gospell, &c. Sive Inf [...]les, sive in Fide Novi­tii. Can. Loc. L. 2. c 8. Neganti, aut omnino nescient [...] Scripturam. Stapl. Relect. Cent. 4. q. 1. A 3. For he speakes it either of No­vices, or Doubters in the Faith, or else of such as were in part Infidels. You at the Conference (though you omit it here) would needs have it, that S. Augustine spake even of the Quid si fateamur Fideles etiam, Ecclesiae Authoritate commoveri, ut Scripturas recipiant: Non tamen in­de sequitur eos hoc modo penitus [...]: aut nullâ aliâ fortioreque ratione induci? Quis autem Chri­stianus est, quem Ecclesia Christi, comm [...]dans Scripturam Christi, non commoveat? Whitaker: Disp. de sacrâ Scripturá. Contro. 1. q 3. c. 8. vbt [...] locum hunc, S. Aug. faithfull, which I cannot yet thinke: For he speakes to the Manichees, and they had a great part of the Infidell in them. And the words immediately before these, are, If thou shouldest finde one, Qui Evangelio nondum credit, which did not yet believe the Gospell, what wouldest thou doe to make him believe? Et ibid. Quibus obtemperavi di­centibus Credite Evangelio. There­fore he speakes of himselfe, when he did not believe. Ego verò non, Truly I would not, &c. So to these two ends it serves, and there need be no Question between us. But then every thing, that is the first In­ducer to believe, is not by and by ei­ther the Principall Motive, or the chiefe, and last Object of Beliefe, upon which a man may rest his Faith. Vnlesse we shallbe of Certum est quod tenemur credere omnibus contentis in Sacro Canone, quia Ecclesia credit ex caratione so­lū. Ergo per prius & magis tenemur Credere Ecclesiae, quam Evangelio. Almain. in 3. Dist. 24 Conclus 6. Dub. 6. And to make a shew of proof for this, he falsifies S Aug. most noto­ [...]ously and reads that known place, not Nisi me commoveret (as all read it) but compelleret. Patet. quia dicit Augustinus, Evangelio non Crederē, nisi aa hoc me compelleret Ecclesiae Au. horitas. Ibid. And so also Gerson [...], In Declarat, veritatum, quae credendae sunt. &c. part. 1 p. 414. §. 3. But in a most ancient Manuscript in Corp. Ch. Colledge Library in Cambridge, the words are, Nisi me commoveret. &c. Lacobus Almain's Opinion; [Page 83] That we are per prius & magis, first and more bound, to believe the Church, then the Gospell. Which your own Learned men, as you may see by Canus L. 2. de Locis c. 8. fo. 34. b. §. 16. Num. 6. Mel. Canus, reject as Extreame foule, and so indeed it is. The first know­ledge then (after the Quid Nominis is knowne by Grammer) that helpes to open a mans understanding, and prepares him to bee able to Demonstrate a Truth, and make it evident, is his Logicke: But when he hath made a Demonstration, he resolves the know­ledge of his Conclusion, not into his Grammaticall, or Logicall Principles, but into the Immediate Principles out of which it is deduced: So in this Particular, a man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church, as by the first informing, induceing, perswading Meanes, to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God: but when he hath studied, considered, and compared this Word with it selfe, and with other Writings, with the helpe of Ordinary Grace, and a minde morally induced, and reasonably perswa­ded by the Voyce of the Church; the Scripture then gives greater, and higher reasons of Credibility to it selfe, then Tradition alone could give. And then he that Believes, resolves his last and full Assent, That Scripture is of Divine Authority, into internall Arguments found in the Letter it selfe, though found by the Helpe and Direction of Tradition without, and Grace within. And the resolution that is rightly grounded, may not endure to pitch, and restit selfe upon the Helpes, but upon that Divine Light, which the Scripture, no Question, hath in it selfe, but is not kindled, till these Helps come. Thy word is a Light Psal. 119. 105. Sanctarum Scri­pturarum Lumen, S. Aug. L. de ve­râ Relig. c. 7. Quid Lucem Scriptu­rarum vanis umbris? &c. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cathol. c. 35.: so David. A Light? Therefore it is as [Page 84] much manifestativum sui, as alterius, a manifestation to it selfe, as to other things which it shewes: but still, not till the Candle be Lighted; not till there hath beene a Preparing Instruction, What Light it is. Chil­dren call the Sunne, and Moone, Candles; Gods Candles: They see the light as well as men, but cannot distin­guish betweene them, till some Tradition, and Educa­tion, hath informed their Reason. And 1 Cor. 2. 14. animalis homo, the naturall man sees some Light of Morall counsell, and instruction in Scripture, as well as Believers; But he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-light, and can­not distinguish betweene the Sunne, and twelve to the Pound, till Tradition of the Church, and Gods Grace put to it, have cleared his understanding: So Traditi­on of the present Church, is the first Morall Motive to Beliefe. But the Beliefe it selfe, That the Scripture is the Word of God, rests Orig. 4. [...]. c. 1. went this way, yet was he a great deale nearer the prime Tradition, then we are. For being to proove that the Scriptures were inspired from God, he saith, De hoc assignabimus ex ip­sis Divinis Scripturis, quae nos com­petenter movcrint, &c. upon the Scri­pture, when a man findes it to answer, and exceed all that, which the Church gave in Testimony, as will after ap­peare. And as in the Voyce of the Pri­mitive, and Apostolicall Church, there was Principaliter tamen (etiam & hîc) credimus propter Deum, non Apo­ [...]olos, &c. Henr. à Gand. Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now, if where the Apostles themselves spake, ultimata resolutio Fidei was in Deum, not in ipsos per se, much more shall it be in Deum, then in praesentem Ecclesiam: and in­to the writings of the Apostles, then into the words of their Successors, made up into a Tradition. simply Divine Authority, delivering the Scripture, as Gods Word; so, after Tradition of the present Church hath taught, and in­formed the Soule, the Voyce of God is plainly heard in Scripture it selfe. And then here's double Authority, and both Divine, that confirmes Scri­pture to be the Word of God, Tra­dition of the Apostles delivering it; And the internall worth and argument in the Scripture, obvious to a soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition, and Gods Grace.

[Page 85] The Difficulties which are pretended against 22 this, are not many, and they will easily vanish. For first, you pretend, we go to Private Revelations for Light to know Scripture. No, we do not, you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question: and we go to the Tradition of the present Church, and by it, as well as you. Here we differ; we use the Tradi­tion of the present Church, as the first Motive, not as the Last Resolution of our Faith. We Resolve onely into Calv. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christi­ana Ecclesia Prophetarum scriptis, & Apostolorum praedicatione initio fun­data fuit, ubicunque reperietur ea Doctrina, &c. Prime Tradition Apostolicall, and Scripture it selfe.

Secondly, you pretend, we do not, nor cannot 23 know the prime Apostolicall Tradition, but by the Tra­dition of the present Church; and that therefore, if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods un­written Word, and Divine, we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture, by a Divine Authority. Well: Suppose I could not know the prime Traditi­on to be Divine, but by the present Church, yet it doth not follow, that therefore I cannot know Scripture to be the Word of God by a Divine Autho­rity; because Divine Tradition is not the sole, and one­ly meanes to prove it. For suppose, I had not, nor could have full assurance of Apostolicall Tradition Di­vine; yet the morall perswasion, reason, and force of the present Church, is ground enough to move any reasonable man, that it is fit he should read the Scripture, and esteeme very reverently and highly of it. And this once done, the Scripture hath then In, and Home-Arguments enough to put a Soule, that hath but ordinary Grace, out of Doubt, That Scrip­ture is the Word of God, Infallible and Divine.

Thirdly, you pretend, that we make the Scripture 24 absolutely, and fully to be knowne Lumine suo, by [Page 86] the Light and Testimony which it hath in, and gives to it selfe. Against this, you give reason for your selves, and proofe from us. Your Reason is, If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it selfe, then every man that can, and doth but read it, may know it presently to be the Divine Word of God; which we see by daily experience, men neither do, nor can. First it is not absolutely, nor universally true, There is And where Hooker uses this very Argument, as he doth, L. 3. §. 8. his words are not, If there bee sufficient Light. But, if that Light bee Evident. sufficient Light; therefore every man may see it. Blinde men are men, and cannot see it; and 1 Cor. 2. 14. sensuall men, in the Apostles judgement, are such: Nor may we deny, and put out this Light, as insufficient, because blinde eyes cannot, and perverse eyes will not see it; no more then we may deny meat to be sufficient for nourishment, though men that are heart-sicke, can­not eat it. Next, we do not say, That there is such a full light in Scripture, as that every man upon the first sight must yeeld to it; such Light as is found in Prime Principles; Every whole is greater than a Part of the same, and this, The same thing cannot be, and not be, at the same time, and in the same respect. These carrie a naturall Light with them, and evident: for the Termes are no sooner understood, then the Principles themselves are fully knowne, to the convincing of mans understanding, and so they are the beginning of knowledge; which, where it is perfect, dwels in full Light: but such a full Light we do neither say is, nor require to be in Scripture; and if any particular man doe, let him answer for himselfe. The Question is, onely of such a Light in Scripture, as is of force to breed faith, that it is the Word of God; not to make a perfect knowledge. Now Faith, of whatsoever it is, this or other Principle, is an Evidence, [...]. as well as Knowledge, and Heb. 11. 1. the Beliefe is firmer then any Knowledge can be, [Page 87] because it rests upon Divine Authority, which cannot deceive; whereas Knowledge (or at least he that thinks he knowes) is not ever certaine in Deductions from Principles? §. 16. [...]. 13. But the Evidence is not so deere: For it is Heb. 11. 1. of things not seene, in regard of the Object; and in regard of the Subject thatsees, it is in 1 Cor. 13. 12. And A. C. confesses. p. 52. That this very thing in Question may be known infallibly, when 'tis knowne but obscurely. Et Scotus in 3. Dist. 23 q. 1. fol. 41. B. Hoc modo sacile est videre quomodo [...]ides est cum aenigmate, & obscuritate: Quia Habitus Fidei non credit Articulum esse verum ex Evidentia Obj [...]cti, sed propter hoc, quod assentit veracitati inf [...]ndentis Habi­tum, & in hoc revelantis Credibilia. aenigmate, in a Glasse, or darke speaking. Now God doth not require a full Demon­strative Knowledge in us, that the Scripture is his Word, and there­fore in his Providence hath kindled in it no Light for that, but he requires our Faith of it, and such a certaine Demonstration, as may fit that. And for that, he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason, and Grace meeting, where the soule is morally prepa­red by the Tradition of the Church; unlesse you be of Bellarmine's Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 14. Credere [...] esse divina [...] Scri­pturas, non est omninò necessarium ad salutem. I will not breake my Discourse, to ris [...]e this speech of Bellarmine; it is bad enough in the best sense, that favour it selfe can give it, For if he meane by omninò, that it is not alto­gether, or simply necessary to believe there is Divine Scripture, and a written Word of God; that's false, that being granted, which is among all Christians, That there is a Scripture: And God would never have given a Supernaturall unnecessary thing. And if he meanes by omninò, that it is not in any wise necessary, then it is sensibly false. For the greatest upholders of Tradition that ever were, made the Scripture very ne­cessary in all the Ages of the Church. So it was neces­sary, because it was given; and given, because God thought it necessary. Besides, upon Romane Grounds, this I thinke will follow: That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers, as necessary to believe, is omninò necessary to salvation: But that there are Divine Scriptures, the Tradition of the present Church delivers, as necessary to believe: Therefore, to believe there are Divine Scriptures, is omninò (be the sense of the word what it can) necessary to Salvation. So Bellarmine is herein foule, and unable to stand upon his owne ground. And he is the more, partly, because he avouches this Proposition for truth after the New Testament written. And partly, because he might have seene the state of this Proposition carefully exa­mined by Gandavo, and distinguished by Times. Sum. p. 1. A. 8. q. 4. fine. O­pinion, That to believe there are any Divine Scriptures, is not omni­nò necessary to Salvation.

The Authority which you pretend against this, is 25 out of Lib. 1. §. 14. Hooker: Of things necessary, the very chiefest [Page 88] is to know, what Bookes we are bound to esteeme Holy; which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach. Of this Protest. Apol. Tract. 1. §. 10. N. 3. Brierly (the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle, and yet seeme well read) tels us, That L. 2. §. 4. Hooker gives a very sensible Demon­stration: It is not the Word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that wee doe well to thinke it is His Word: for if any one Booke of Scripture did give Testimony to all; yet still that Scripture, which giveth credit to the rest, would require another to give credit unto it. Nor could we ever come to any pause, to rest our assurance this way. so that un­lesse, beside Scripture, there were something that might assure, &c. And L. 2. §. 7. &. L. 3. §. 8. this he acknowledgeth (saith Brierly) is the Authority of Gods Church. Cer­tainely, Hooker gives a true, and a sensible De­monstration; but Brierly wants fidelity, and inte­grity, in citing him: For in the first place, Hoo­ker's speech is, Scripture it selfe cannot teach this; nor can the Truth say, that Scripture it selfe can. It must needs ordinarily have Tradition, to pre­pare the minde of a man to receive it. And in the next place, where he speaks so sensibly, That Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe, nor one part of it to another; that is grounded upon Nature, which admits no created thing to bee witnesse to it selfe; and is acknowledged by our Saviour, S. Ioh. 5. 31. He speakes of himselfe as man. If I beare witnesse to my selfe, my witnesse is not true, that is, is not of force to bee reasonably accepted for Truth. But then it is more then ma­nifest, S. Ioh. 8. 13. that Hooker delivers his Demonstration of Scripture alone. For if Scripture hath another proofe, nay many other proofes to usher it, and lead it in, then no question, it can both prove; and ap­prove it selfe. His words are, So that unlesse, besides [Page 89] Scripture, there be, &c. Besides Scripture; therefore he excludes not Scripture, though he call for ano­ther Proofe to lead it in, and help in assurance, name­ly, Tradition, which no man, that hath his braines about him, denies. In the two other Places Brierly falsifies shamefully; for folding up all that Hooker sayes, in these words, This (other meanes to assure us besides Scripture) is the Authority of Gods Church; he wrinkles that Worthy Authour desperately, and shrinkes up his meaning. For in the former place abused by Brierly, no man can set a better state of the Question betweene Scripture, and Tradition, then Hooker doth: L. 2. §. 7. His words are these, The Scripture is the ground of our Beliefe; The Authority of man (that is the Name he gives to Tradition) is the Key which opens the doore of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture. I aske now, when a man is entred, and hath viewed a house, and upon viewing likes it, and upon liking resolves unchange­ably to dwell there; doth he set up his Resolution upon the Key, that let him in? No sure; but upon the goodnesse and Commodiousnesse, which he sees in the House. And this is all the difference (that I know) betweene us in this Point; In which, do you grant (as you ought to do) that we resolve our Faith into Scripture, as the Ground; and we will never deny, that Tradition is the Key that lets us in. In the latter place, Hooker is as plaine, as constant to himselfe, and Truth: L. 3. §. 8. His words are, The first out­ward Motive, leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture, is the Authority of Gods Church &c. But afterwards, the more wee bestow our Labour in reading, or learn­ing the Mysteries thereof, the more wee finde that the thing it selfe doth answer our received opinion concerning it: so that the former inducement prevailing [Page 90] somewhat with us before, doth now much more pre­vaile, when the very thing hath ministred farther Reason. Here then againe, in his Iudgement, Tradition is the first Inducement; but the farther Reason, and Ground, is the Scripture. And Re­solution of Faith ever settles upon the Farthest Reason it can, not upon the First Inducement. So that the State of this Question is firme, and yet plaine enough, to him that will not shut his eyes.

Now here after a long silence A. C. thrusts 26 himselfe in againe, and tels me, That if I would A. C. p. 52. consider the Tradition of the Church, not onely as it is the Tradition of a Company of Fallible men, in which sense the Authority of it (as himselfe confesses) is but Humane, and Fallible, &c. But as the Tra­dition of a Company of men assisted by Christ, and his Holy Spirit; in that sense I might easily finde it more then an Introduction, indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive. Well, I have con­sidered The Tradition of the present Church both these wayes. And I finde that A. C. confesses, That in the first sense, the Tradition of the Church is meere humane Authority, and no more. And therefore in this sense, it may serve for an Intro­duction to this Beliefe, but no more. And in the second sense, as it is not the Tradition of a Com­pany of men onely, but of men assisted by Christ, and His Spirit: In this second sense I cannot finde, that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority, till A. C. can prove, That this Company of men (the Romane Prelates, and their Clergie he meanes) are so fully, so cleerely, so per­manently assisted by Christ, and his Spirit, as may reach to Infallibility, much lesse to a Divine Infallibility, [Page 91] in this, or any other Principle, which they teach. For every Assistance of Christ, and the Blessed Spirit, is not enough to make the Authority of any Com­pany of men Divine, and infallible; but such and so great an Assistance onely, as is purposely gi­ven to that effect. Such an Assistance the Pro­phets under the Old Testament, and the Apo­stles under the New had; but neither the High-Priest with his Clergie in the Old, nor any Com­pany of Prelates, or Priests in the New, since the Apostles ever had it. And therefore, though at the entreaty of A. C. I have considered this very A. C. p. 52. well; yet I cannot, no not in this Assisted sense, thinke the Tradition of the present Church, Divine, and Infallible, or such Company of men to be worthy of Divine, and infallible Credit, and sufficient to breed in us Divine, and Infallible Faith. Which I am sorrie A. C. should affirme so boldly as he doth. What? A. C. p. 52. That Company of men (the Romane Bishop, and his Clergie) of Divine and Infallible Credit, and suffici­ent to breed in us Divine, and Infallible Faith? Good God! Whither will these men goe? Surely they are wise in their generation, but that makes them never a whit the more the Children of light S. Luke 16. 8.: S. Luke 16. And could they put this home upon the world (as they are gone farre in it) what might they not effect? How might they, and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendome, con­trary to 1. S. Pet. 5. 3. S. Peter's Rule (whose Successours certain­ly in this they are not.) But I pray, if this Compa­ny of men be infallibly assisted, whence is it, that this very Company have erred so dangerously, as they have, not only in some other things, but even in this Particular, by equaling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God? Which is a Doctrine [Page 92] unknowne to the S. Basil goes as farre for Traditions as any. For he sayes: Parem vim habent ad pictatem. L. de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. But first, he speaks of Apostolicall Tradition, not of the Tradition of the Present Church. Secondly, the Learned take exceptions to this Booke of S. Basil, as corrupted. BP. Andr. Opusc. cont. Peron. p. 9. Thirdly, S. Basil himself, Ser. de Fide, professes that he uses somtimes Agrapha, sed ca solùm quae non sunt ali­ona à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiâ. So he makes the Scripture their Touch-stone, or tryall And therefore must of Necessity make Scripture superior, in as much as that which is able to try another, is of greater force, and superiour Dig­nity in that use, then the thing tried by it. And Stapleton himselfe confesses, Traditionem recentiorem & posteriorem, si­cut & particularem, nullo modo cum Scripturâ, vel cum Tra­ditionibus priùs à se explicatis comparandam esse. Stapleton. Relect. Controv. 5. q. 5. A. 2. Primitive Church, and which frets upon the very Foundation it selfe, by justling with it. So belike, he that hath but halfe an indifferent eye, may see this Assi­sted Company have erred, and yet we must wink in obedience, and think them Infallible.

But. A. C. would have me consider againe, That 27 A. C. p 52. it is as easie to take the Tradition of the present Church in the two fore-named senses, as the present Scriptures printed, and approved by men of this Age. For in the first sense, The very Scriptures (saith he) considered as prin­ted, and approved by men of this Age, can be no more then of Humane Credit. But in the second sense, as printed and approved by men assisted by God's Spirit for true Copies of that which was first written, then we may give Infallible Credit to them. Well. I have considered this too. And I can take the Printing, and Appro­ving the Copies of Holy-Writ in these two senses. And I can, and do make a difference betweene Copies printed and approved by meere morall men, and men assisted by Gods Spirit. And yet for the Printing one­ly, a skilfull, and an able morall man may doe better service to the Church, then an illiterate man, though assisted in other things by God's Spirit. But when I have considered all this, what then? The Scripture being put in writing, is a thing visibly existent; and if any errour be in the Print, 'tis easily corrigible by Ut §. 18. Nu. 4. E [...] S. Aug. L. 32. cont. Fau­stum. [...]. 1 [...]. former Copies. Tradition is not so easily observed, [Page 93] nor so safely kept. And howsoever, to come home to that which A. C. inferres upon it, namely, That the A. C. p. 53. Tradition of the present Church may be accepted in these two senses: And if this be all that he will inferre (for his penne here is troubled, and forsakes him, whe­ther by any checke of Conscience, or no, I know not) I will, and you see, have granted it already without more adoe, with this Caution, That every Company of men assisted by Gods Spirit, are not as­sisted to this height, to be Infallible by Divine Authority.

For all this A. C. will needes give a needlesse Proofe of the Businesse: Namely, That there is the Pro­mise of Christs, and his Holy Spirits continuall presence, and 28 A. C. p. 53. assistance, S. Luke 10. 16. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Ioh 14. 16. not only to the Apostles, but to their Successors also, the law­fully sent Pastors, and Doctors of the Church in all Ages. And that this Promise is no lesse, but rather more expresly to them in their Preaching by word of mouth, then in wri­ting, or reading, or printing, or approoving of Copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles. And to all this I shall briefly say, That there is a Promise of Christ's and the Holy Spirits continuall presence, and assi­stance. I do likewise grant most freely, that this Pro­mise is on the part of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, most really and fully performed. But then this Promise must not be extended further then 'twas made. It was made of Continuall presence, and assistance, That I grant; And it was made to the Apostles, and their Successors; That I grant too. But in a different Degree. For it was of Continuall, and Infallible Assistance to the Apostles; But to their Successors of Continuall, and fitting assistance, but not Infallible. And therefore the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all Ages, have had, and shall have Continuall Assistance; but by A. C'^s. leave, not Infallible, at least, not Divine and In­fallible, [Page 94] either in writing, reading, printing, or ap­proving Copies. And I believe A C is the first, that durst affirme this; I thought he would have kept the Popes Prerogative intire, that He only might have been Infallible; And not He neither, but in Cathedrâ sate down and well advised. And well Advised: Yes, that's right, Nam multa sunt Decretales haereticae, sicut dicit Ocham. Et firmiter hoc Credo, sed non licet dogmatizare Oppositum, quoniam sunt determi­natae, nisi manifestè constet &c. Ia. Almain. in 3. Sent. D. 24 q. unica. Conclus. 6. Dub. 6 fine. and Alphon. à Castro also both sayes and prooves, C [...]lestinum Papam errasse, non ut pri­vatam Personam, sed ut Papam. L. 1. advers. Har. c. 4. and the Glosse Confesses. Eum errare posse in C. 24. q. 1. C. A Recta ergo. But he may be sate, and not well Advised, even in Cathedrâ. And now, shall we have all the Lawfully sent Pa­stors, and Doctors of that Church in all ages Infallible too? Here's a deale of Infallibility indeed, and yet error store. The truth is, the Iesuites have a Moneths minde to this Infallibility. And though A. C. out of his bounty is content to extend it to all the law­fully sent Pastors of the Church: yet to his owne Society quostionlesse he meanes it chiefly. As did the Apolo­gist to whom Casaubon replyes, to Fronto Ducaeus. The words of the Nam in fide quidem Iesuitam errare non posse, at (que) adeo esse hoc unicum [...], cateris, qua solent à Poetis plurima commemorari, posthàc annumerandum, si nescis, mi Fronto, & puto ne­scire, docebo te, ab Apologist a doctus, hoc ipsum disertis verbis affirmante. Sic ille cap. 3. Ejus ex­emplaris quod ad Sereniss. Regem fuit missum pagina. 119. Iungantur in nnum, ait, dies cum necte, te [...]ebrae cum luce, calidum cum frigido, sanitas cum morbo, vita cum morte: & erit tum spes aliqua posse in caput Iesuitae haeresin cadere. Isa. Casaubon. Ep. ad Front. Ducaum. Lond. 1611. Apologist are. Let day and night—life and death be joyned together, and then there will be some hope, that He­resie may fall upon the person of a Iesuite. Yea marry, this is something indeed. Now we know where Infallibility is to be found But for my present Occasion, touching the Lawfully sent Pastors of the Church &c. I will give no other Confutation of it, then that M. Fisher and A. C. (if they be two men) are lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church; at least I am sure, they'll assume they are, and [Page 95] yet they are not Infallible; which, I thinke, appeares plaine enough in some of their errors manifested by this Discourse, and elsewhere. Or if they do hold themselves Infallible, let them speake it out, as the Apologist did.

As for the Three Places of Scripture, which 29 A. C. cites, they are of old alledged, and well knowne A. C. p. 53. in this Controversie. The First is in S. Luke 10. S. Luk. 10. 16. where Christ saith, He that heareth you, heareth me. This was absolutely true in the Per quod docet quicquid per Sanctos Apostolis dicitur, acceptandum esse, quia qui illos audit, Christum audit, &c. S. Cyrillus. Et Dominus de­dit Apostolis suis potestatem Evangelii, per quos & Veritatem, idest, Dei Filium cogno [...]imus &c. Quibus & dixit Dominus, Qui ves audit &c. Iraeneus praefat. in L. 3. advers. Haer. sine. Apostles, who kept them­selves to that, which was re­vealed by Christ. But it was to be but Conditionally true in their Dicit ad Apostolos, ac per hoc ad Omnes Prae­positos, qui Apostolis vicarià Ordinatione succe­dunt. S. Cyprian. L. 4. Epist. 9. But S. Cyprian doth not say, that this speech of our Saviours was equaliter dictum, alike and equally spo­ken and promised to the Apostles, and the suc­ceeding Bishops. And I believe A. C. will not dare to say in plaine and expresse Termes, That this speech, He that heareth you heareth me, doth as amply belong to every Romane Priest, as to S. Peter, and the Apostles. No, a great deale of Difference will become them well. Successors, He that hear­eth you, heareth me. That is so long, and so Bee yee followers of me, even as I am of Christ. 1 Cor. 11. 1. and 1 Thes. 1. 6. farre, as you And so Vener. Beda expresly both for hear­ing the word, and for contemning it. I or nei­ther of these (saith hee) belong only to them which saw our Saviour in the flesh; but to all hodiè quoque: but with this limitation; if they heare, or despise Evangelii verba: not the Preachers owne. Beda. in S. Luke 10. 15. 16. speak my words, and not your own. For S. Mat. 28. 20. where the Com­mand is for Preaching, the Restraint is added. Go (saith Christ) and teach all Nations. But you may not preach all things what you please; but althings which I have commanded you. The Publication is yours, the Doctrine is mine: And where the Doctrine is not mine, there your Publication is beyond, or short of your Com­mission. The Second Place is in S. Matth. 28. There Christ sayes againe S. Mat. 28. 19. 20. I am with you al­wayes unto the end of the world. Yes; most certaine it is, present by his Spirit; For else in bodily presence Hee continued not with his Apostles, but during his [Page 96] abodc on Earth. And this Promise of his spirituall presence was to their Successors; else, why to the end of the world? The Apostles did not, could not live so long. But then to the Rabanus Manr. goes no furrher. then that to the End some will alwayes bee in the world fit for Christ by his Spirit and Grace to inha­bit: Divina mansione & inhabitatione digni. Rab. in S. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Pergatis habentes Do­minum Protectorem, & Ducem. saith S. Cypr. L. 4. Epist. 1. But he doth not say, How farre sorth, And loquitur Fidelibus sicut uni Corpcri. S. Chrysost. Homil in S. Matth. And if S Chrysost. inlarge it so farre, I hope A. C. will not extend the Assistance given or pro­mised here to the whole Body of the Faith­full, to an Infallible, and Divine Assistance in every of them, as well as in the Pastors and Doctors. Successors, the Promise goes no further, then I am with you alwayes; which reach­es to continuall assistance, but not to Divine, and Infallible. Or if he think me mistaken, let him shew mee any One Father of the Church, that extends the sense of this Place to Divine and Infallible Assistance, granted hereby to all the Apostles Successors. Sure I am, Saint In illis don [...] quibus salus aliorum quaeritur (qualia sunt Pr [...]phetiae, & interpretationes Ser­manum &c. ) Spiritus Sanctus nequaquam sem­per in Pradicatorib us permanet. S. Greg. L. 2. Moral. c 29. prin. Edit. Basil. 1551. Gregory thought otherwise. For hee saies plainly, That in those Gifts of God which concern other mens salvation (of which Preaching of the Gospell is One) the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost doth not alwayes abide in the Preachers, bee they never so lawfully sent Pastors, or Doctors of the Church. And if the Holy Ghost doth not alwayes abide in the Preachers, then most certainly he doth not abide in them to a Divine Infallibility alwayes. The Third Place is in S. Iohn 14. where Christ sayes S. Iohn 14. 16. The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever, Most true againe. For the Holy Ghost did abide with the Apostles according to Christs Promise there made, and shall abide with their Successors for ever, to Iste Consolator non auferetur à Vobis, sicut sub­trahitur Humaint as mea per mortem, sed aterna­litèr erit Vobiscum, hic per Grasiam, in futuro per Gloriam. Lyra. in S. John 14. 16, You see there the Holy Ghost shal be present by Conso­lation and Grace, not by Infallible Assistance. com­fort and preserve them. But here's no Promise of Divine Infallibility made unto [Page 97] them. And for that Promise which is made, and expresly of Infallibility, Saint Iohn 16. (though not S. Ioh. 16. 13. cited by A. C.) That's confined to the Apostles onely, for the setling of th [...]m in all Truth. And yet not simply all: For there are some Truths (saith Omnem veritatem: Non arbitror in hac vita in cujusquam mente compleri: &c. S. Augustin. in S. Ioh Tract. 96. versus fin. Saint Augustine) which no mans Soule can comprehend in this life. Not simply all: But Spiritus Sanctus &c. qui eos doceret Omnem Veritatem, quam tunc, cum iis loquebatur, portare non poterant. S. Ioh. 16. 12 13. & S. Augustin. Tract. 97. in S. Ioh. prin. all those Truths, quae non poterant portare, which they were not able to beare, when Hee Conversed with them. Not simply all; but all that was necessary for the Founding, propagating, establishing, and Confirming the Christian Church. But if any man take the boldnesse to inlarge this Promise in the ful­nesse of it, beyond the persons of the Apostles them­selves, that will fall out which Saint Omnes vel insipientissimi Haeretici, qui se Christianos vocars volunt, audacias figmen­torum suorum, quas maximè exhorret sensus hu­manus, hac Occasione Evangelicae sententiae colorare comentur. &c. S. Augustin. T. 97. in S. Ioh. circamed. Augustine hath in a manner prophecyed: Eve­ry Heretick will shelter him­selfe, and his Vanities un­der this Colour of Infallible Veritie.

I told you a Num. 26. A. C. p. 52. little before, that A. C. his 30 Penne was troubled, and failed him: There­fore I will helpe to make out his Inference for him, that his Cause may have all the strength it can. And (as I conceive) this is that hee would have. The Tradition of the present Church is as able to worke in us Divine and Infallible Faith, That the Scripture is the VVord of God: As that the Bible (or Bookes of Scripture) now printed, and in use, is a true Copie of that, which was first writ­ten, by the Penne-men of the Holy Ghost, and de­livered [Page 98] to the Church. 'Tis most true, the Tra­dition of the present Church is a like operative, and powerfull in, and over both these workes: but nei­ther Divine, nor Infallible in either. But as it is the first morall Inducement to perswade, that Scripture is the Word of God; so is it also the first, but morall still, that the Bible wee now have, is a true Copie of that which was first written. But then as in the former, so in this latter for the true Copie, The last Resolution of our Faith cannot possibly rest up­on the naked Tradition of the present Church, but must by, and with it goe higher to other Helpes, and Assurances. Where I hope A. C. will confesse, wee have greater helpes to discover the truth, or falshood of a Copie, then wee have meanes to looke into a Tradition. Or especially to sift out this Truth, that it was a Divine and Infalli [...]le Revelation, by which the Originals of Scripture were first writ­ten: That being fatre more the Subject of this In­quiry, then the Copie, which according to Art, and Science may be examined by former preceding Co­pies close up to the very Apostles times.

But A. C. hath not done yet; For in the last 31 place hee tells us, That Tradition, and Scripture, A. C. p. 53. without any vicious Circle, doe mutually confirme the Au­thority either of other. And truly for my part, I shall easily grant him this, so hee will grant mee this other: Namely, That though they doe mu­tually, yet they doe not equally confirme the Au­thority either of other. For Scripture doth infallibly confirme the Authority of Church Traditions truly so called: But Tradition doth but morally and probably confirme the Authority of the Scripture. And this is manifest by A. C'^s. owne Similitude, For (saith he) 'tis as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth, and [Page 99] His Kings Letters beare mutuall witnesse to each other. Iust so indeed. For His Kings Letters of Credence under hand and seale, confirme the Embassadors Authority Infallibly to all that know Seale, and hand: But the Embassadors word of mouth con­firmes His Kings Letters but onely probably. For else, Why are they called Letters of Credence, if they give not him more Credit, then hee can give them? But that which followes I cannot ap­prove, to wit, That the Lawfully sent Preachers of the Gospell are Gods Legats, and the Scriptures Gods Letters, which hee hath appointed his Legates to de­liver, and expound. So farre 'tis well, but here's the sting. That these Letters doe warrant, that the People may heare, and give Credit to these Legats of Christ, as to Christ the King himselfe. Soft, this is too high a great deale. No Will A. C. maintaine, that any Legate à Latere, is of as great Credit, as the Pope himselfe? Legate was ever of so great Credit as the King Himselfe. Nor was any Priest, never so lawfully sent, ever of that Authority, that Christ himselfe; No sure, For yee call mee Master, and Lord, and yee doe well; for so I am, saith our Saviour, S. Iohn 13. And certainly, this did not sud­denly S. Iohn. 13. 13. drop out of A. C's. Penne. For hee tould us once before, That this Company of men which deliver the present Churches Tradition, (that is the lawfully sent A. C. p. 52. Preachers of the Church) are assisted by Gods Spirit to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority, and to bee worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit, sufficient to breed in us Divine, and Infallible Faith. Why, but is it possible these men should goe thus farre to defend an Error, bee it never so deare unto them? They as Christ? Divine, and Infallible Authority in them? Sufficient to breed in us Divine, and Infal­lible Faith? I have often heard some wise men say, [Page 100] That the Iesuite in the Church of Rome, and the Pre­cise party in the Reform [...]d Churches agree in many things, though they would seeme most to differ. And surely this is one: For both of them differ ex­treamely about Tradition. The one in magnifying it, and exalting it into Divine Authority; The other vi­lifying, and depressing it almost beneath Humane. And yet even in these different wayes, both agree in this consequent. That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth, of the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith; Nay are the For this A. C. sayes expresly of Tradition p. 52. And then he addes, that the Promise for this was no lesse, but rather more Expresly made to the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all ages in their teaching by word of mouth, then in writing, &c. p. 53. very word of God. So A. C. expresly. And no lesse then so, have some accounted of their owne fa­ctious words (to say no more) then as the For the freeing of factious and silenced Mi­nisters is termed, the Restoring of Gods Word to [...]s Liberty: In the Godly Author of the late Newes from Ipswich p. 5. Word of God. I ever tooke Sermons (and so doe still) to be most necessa­ry Expositions, and Applicati­ons of Holy Scripture, and a great ordinary meanes of saving knowledge. But I cannot thinke them, or the Preachers of them Divinely Infallible. The An­cient Fathers of the Church preached farre beyond any of these of either faction; And yet no one of them durst thinke himselfe Infallible, much lesse, that whatsoever hee preached was the VVord of God. And it may be Obserued too, That no men are more apt to say, That all the Fathers were but Men, and might Erre, then they that thinke their owne preachings are Infallible.

The next thing (after this large Interpretation of A C.) which I shall trouble you with, is, That 32 this method, and manner of proving Scripture to bee the VVord of God, which I here use, is the same, which [Page 101] the Ancient Church ever held, namely, Tradition, or Ecclesiasticall Authority first; and then all other Argu­ments, but especially internall, from the Scripture it selfe. This way the Church went in S. Augustine's And S. Aug. himselfe L. 13. contr. Faustum c. 5. proves by an Internall Argument the fulfilling of the Pro­phets. Scriptura (saith he) quae fi­dem suam rebus ipsis probat quae per temporum successiones hac impleri, &c. And Hen. a Gand. Par. 1. Sum. A. [...]. q. 3. cites S. Aug. Book de vera Religione. In which Book, though these Foure Arguments are not found i [...] Termes together, yet they fill up the scope of the whole Book. Time. He was no enemy to Church-Tradition; yet when hee would prove, that the Authour of the Scri­pture (and so of the whole know­ledge of Divinity, as it is superna­turall) is Deus in Christo, God in Christ; he takes this as the All-suf­ficient way, and gives foure proofes, all internall to the Scripture: First, The Miracles. Secondly, That there is nothing carnall in the Doctrine. Thirdly, That there hath been such performance of it. Fourthly, That by such a Doctrine of Humility, the whole world almost hath beene converted. And whereas ad muniendam Fidem, for the Defending of the Faith, and keeping it en­tire, there are two things requisite, Scripture, and Church-Tradition; Duplici modo muniri fidē &c. Primò Divinae Legis Authori­tate, tum deinde Ecclesia Catho­licae Traditione. cont. Har. c. 1. Vincent Lirinens. places Authority of Scriptures first; and then Tradition. And since it is apparent, that Tradition is first in order of time, it must necessarily follow, that Scripture is first in order of Nature, that is, the chiefe, upon which Faith rests, and resolves it selfe. And your owne Schoole confesses this was the way ever. The Woman of S. Ioh. 4. Samaria is a knowne Resemblance, but allowed by your selves. For Hen. à Gand. Sum. Par. 1. A. 10. q 1. Sic quotidie apudillos qui forts sunt, intrat Christus per mulierem, i. Ecclesiam, & credunt per istam famam, &c. Gloss. in S. Ioh. cap. 4. quotid [...]è, daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman, that is the Church, and they believe by that fame which she gives, &c But when they come to heare Christ himselfe, they believe his words, before the words of the Woman. For when [Page 102] they have once found Christ, Ibid. Plus verbis Christi in Scrip­turae credit, quam Ecclesiae testifican­ti. Quia propter illam jam credit Ecclesiae. Et si ipsa quidem contra­ria Scripturae diceret, ipsi non crede­ret, &c. Primam fidem tribuamus Scripturis Canonicis, secundam sub ista, Definitionibus & Consuctudi­nibus Ecclesiae. Catholicae, post ist as studiosis viris non sub poena perfidiae, sed proterviae, &c. Walden. Doct. Fid. To. 1. L. 2. Art. 2. c. 23. Nu. 9. they do more believe his words in Scripture, then they do the Church, which testifies of him; because then propter illam, for the Scripture they believe the Church: And if the Church should speake contra­ry to the Scripture, they would not be­lieve it. Thus the Schoole taught then; And thus the Glosse commented then; And when men have tyred themselves, hither they must come. The Key, that lets men in to the Scriptures, even to this knowledge of them, That they are the Word of God, is the Tra­dition of the Church: but when they are in, In sacrâ Scripturâ Ipse immediatè loquitur fidelibus. Ibid. They heare Christ him­selfe immediately speaking in Scrip­ture to the Faithfull: S. Iohn 10. 4. And his Sheepe doe not onely heare, but know his voice. And then here's no vicious Circle indeed of prooving the Scripture by the Church, and then round about, the Church by the Scripture. Onely distinguish the Times, and the Conditions of men, and all is safe. For a Beginner in the Faith, or a Weakling, or a Doubter about it, begins at Tradition, and proves Scripture by the Church: But a man strong and growne up in the Faith, and understandingly conversant in the Word of God, proves the Church by the Scripture; And then upon the matter, we have a double Divine Testimony, altogether Infallible, to confirme unto us, That Scripture is the Word of God. The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apo­stles themselves, who delivered immediately to the world, the Word of Christ. The other, the Scrip­ture it selfe, but after it hath received this Testimo­ny. And into these we doe, and may safely Resolve [Page 103] our Faith. Quod autem credimus posterioribus, cir­ca quos non apparent virtutes Divinae, hoc est, Quia non praedicant alia, quàm quae illi in Scriptis certissimis re [...]iquerunt. Qua constat per midios in nullo fuisse vi­tiata ex consensione concordi in eis omnium succedentium usque ad tempora nostra. Henr. à Gand. Sum. P. 1. A. 9. q. 3. As for the Tradi­tion of after Ages, in, and about which Miracles and Divine Pow­er were not so evident, we be­lieve them (by Gandavo's full Confession) because they doe not preach other things then those for­mer (the Apostles) left in scriptis certissimis, in most certaine Scripture. And it appeares by men in the mid­dle ages, that these writings were vitiated in nothing, by the concordant consent in them of all succeeders, to our owne time.

And now by this time it will be no hard thing 33 to reconcile the Fathers, which seeme to speake dif­ferently in no few places, both one from another, and the same from themselves, touching Scripture and Tradition; And that as well in this Point, to prove Scripture to be the Word of God, as for con­cordant exposition of Scripture in all things else. When therefore the Fathers say, Scripturas habemus ex Traditione. S. Cvril. Hier. Catech. 4. Multa quae non inveniuntur in Literis Apostolorum, &c. non nisi ab illis tradita & commendata creduntur. S. Aug. 2. de Baptism. contra Denat. c. 7. We have the Scripture by Tradition, or the like, either They meane the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it, and there, when it is knowne to be such, we may resolve our Faith. Or if they speake of the Present Church, then they meane, that the Tradition of it, is that by which we first receive the Scripture, as by an accor­ding Meanes to the Prime Tradition. But because it is not simply Divine, we cannot resolve our Faith into it, nor settle our Faith upon it, till it resolve it selfe into the Prime tradition of the Apostles, or the Scripture, or both; and there we rest with it. And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of Fathers: Nay can you, or any of your Quarter, shew any one Father of the [Page 104] Church, Greeke, or Latine, that ever said, We are to resolve our Faith, that Scripture is the Word of God, into the Tradition of the present Church? And againe, when the Fathers say, we are to relie upon Scrip­ture Non aliundè scientia Coelestium. S. Hi­lar. L. 4. dc Trinit. Si Angelus dc Coelo annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scrip­turis, &c. S. Aug. L. 3. cont. Petil. c. 6. onely, they are never to bee understood with Exclusi­on of Tradition, in what causes soever it may be had, Quùm sit perfectus Scripturarum Ca­non, sibi (que) ad omnia satis super (que) suffici­at, &c. Vin. Lir. contra Haeres. c. 2. And if it be sibi ad omnia, then to this, To prove it self, at least after Tradition hath prepared us to receive it. Not but that the Scripture is abundantly suf­ficient, in, and to it self for all things, but because it is deepe: and may be drawne into different senses, and so mistaken, if any man will pre­sume upon his owne strength, and go single with­out the Church.

To gather up whatsoever may seeme scattered 34 in this long Discourse to prove, That Scripture is the Word of God, I shall now in the Last Place put all together, that so the whole state of the Question may the better appeare.

First then I shall desire the Reader to consider, Pun. 1. that every Rationall Science requires some Principles quite without its owne Limits, which are not pro­ved in that Science, but presuppo­sed. Thus Rhetoricke presuppo­ses Grammar, and Musicke Arith­meticke. Therefore it is most rea­sonable that Omnis Scientia praesupponit fidem ali­quam. S. Prosper. in Psalm 123. And S. Cynl. Hierosol. Catechesi 5. shewes how all things in the world do side con­sistere. Therefore most unreasonable to deny that to Divinity, which all Scien­ces, nay all things challenge. Namely, somethings to be presupposed, and be­lieved. Theologie should be allowed to have some Principles also, which she proves not, but presupposes. And the chiefest of these, is, That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority.

Secondly, that there is a great deale of difference Pun. 2. in the Manner of confirming the Principles of Divinity, and those of any other Art, or Science whatsoever.

[Page 105] For the Principles of all other Sciences doe finally resolve, either into the Conclusions of some Higher Science; or into those Principles which are per se no­ta, known by their own light, and are the Grounds and Principles of all Science. And this is it, which properly makes them Sciences, because they proceed with such strength of Demonstration, as forces Reason to yeeld unto them. But the Principles of Divinity re­solve not into the Grounds of Naturall Reason (For then there would be no roome for Faith, but all would bee either Knowledge, or Vision) but into the Maximes of Divine Knowledge supernaturall. And of this we have just so much light, and no more, then God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture.

Thirdly, That though the Evidence of these Su­pernaturall Pun. 3. Truths, which Divinity teaches, appeares not so manifest as that of the Na­turall; Si vis credere manifestis, invisibilibus magis quàm visibilibus oportet credere. Licet dictum sit admirabile, verum est, &c. S. Chrysostom. Hom. 46. ad Pot. And there he proves it. Aliae Scientiae certitudinem habent ex Naturali Lumi­ne Rationis Humanae, quae decipi potest: Haec autem ex Luminc Divinae Scientiae, quae decipi non potest. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. c. yet they are in themselves much more sure and infallible then they. For they proceed im­mediately from God, that Heaven­ly Wisdome, which being the foun­taine of ours, must needs infinite­ly precede ours, both in Nature and excellence. He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? Psal. 94. 10. Our old English Transla­tion reads it, Shall not he punish? That is, shall not he know when, and why, and how to punish? Psal. 94. And therefore, though wee reach not the Order of their Deductions, nor can in this life come to the vision of them, yet wee yeeld as full, and firme Assent, not onely to the Articles, but to all the Things rightly deduced from them, as wee doe to the most evident Principles of Naturall Reason. This Assent is called Faith. And Faith being of things not seene, Heb. 11. Heb. 11. 1. [Page 106] S [...]t Ratio convincens, & propter cam [...]. alias non crediturus, tollitur [...] si [...]i. B [...]l. 3. D. 25. q. unic. sine. Non est dicendus credere, cujus judi­cium sulagitur, aut cogitur, &c. Stapl. T [...]at. contra Wintaker. cap. 6. p. 64. would quite loose its honour, nay it selfe, if it met with suffici­ent Grounds in Naturall Reason, whereon to stay it selfe. For Faith is a mixed Act of the Will and the Vnderstanding, and the Vides no [...] sit in nobis nisi volentibus. To­l [...]. in S. [...] 16. Annot. 33. Et qui vo­luerunt, [...]runt. S. Aug. Serm. 60. d [...]rb. Dom. [...]. 5. Fides Actus est, non schus [...]ctus, sed etiam Voluntatis, quae qinon potest. Imo magis Voluntatis quam Intelle us quatenus illa Operationis prin [...]ium est, & Assensum (qui p [...]oprie Actus fi [...]i est) sola clicit. Nec ab [...] Voluntas, sed à Voluntate [...]. Actu sidei determinatur. Sta [...] I. T [...]lic. cont. Whitak. c. 6. p. 64. C [...]e enim est Actus Intellectus de­t [...] [...]i [...]unum ex Imperio Volunta­tis [...]. 2. 2. q. 4. A [...]c. Non potest da­ri aliquis sidei, quinunque ille sit, non qui in suis Causis mediatè [...] med [...]e b actu Voluntatis Alm. in 3. S [...]t D. 24. [...]. 6. Dub. 4. A [...]. Aug. sayes. Fidei locum esse Cor. T [...]. 52. in S. Ioh. Where the Heart is put to the whole soule, which equally comprehends both the Will and the Vn­de [...] ing. And so doth Biel also, in 3. Sunt. D. 25. q unic. Art. 1. F. Will in­clines the Vnderstanding to yeeld full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proofe. Not but that there is most full proofe of them, but because the maine Grounds which prove them, are concealed from our view, and folded up in the unrevealed Counsell of God, God in Christ resolving to bring man­kinde to their last happinesse by Faith, and not by knowledge, that so the weakest among men may have their way to blessednesse open. And certaine it is, that many weak men believe themselves into Heaven, and many over-knowing Chri­stians loose their way thither, while they will be­lieve no more then they can clearely know. In which pride, and vanity of theirs they are left, and have these things hid from them, S. Matth. 11. S. Mat. 11. 25.

Fourthly, That the Credit of the Scripture, the Pun. 4. Booke in which the Principles of Faith are written, (as of other writings also) depends not upon the subservient Inducing Cause, that leads us to the first knowledge of the Authour, which leader here is the Church, but upon the Author himself, and the Opinion we have of his sufficiency, which here is the Holy Spirit of God, whose Pen-men the Prophets and Apostles were. And therfore the Mysteries of Divinity contained [Page 107] in this Booke; As the Incarnation of our Saviour; The Resurrection of the dead, and the like, cannot finally bee resolved into the sole Testimony of the Church, who is but a Subservient Cause, to lead to the knowledge of the Authour, but into the wisedome and Sufficiency of the Authour, who being Omnipotent, and Omniscient, must needs bee Infallible.

Fiftly, That the Assurance we have of the Pen­men of the Scriptures, the Holy Prophets, and Apo­stles, Pun. 5. is as great, as any can be had of any Humane Authours of like Antiquity. For it is morally as evi­dent to any Pagan, that S. Matthew and S. Paul writ the Gospell, and Epistles which beare their Names, as that Cicero, or Seneca wrote theirs. But that the Apostles were divinely inspired, whilst they writ them, and that they are the very Word of God expres­sed by them, this hath ever beene a matter of Faith in the Church, and was so, even while the Apostles themselves The Apostles indeed they knew, for they had cleare Re­velation: They to whom they preached, might believe, but they could not know without the like Revelation. So S. Ioh. 19 35. He that saw, knowes that he sayes true, that you, which saw not, might believe. Deus in Prophetis (& sic in Apostolis) quos immediatè illumina­bat, causabat evidentiam. Iaco Aimain. in 3. Sent. Dis. 24. q. unic á. Conclus. 6. But for the residue of men, 'tis no more, but as Thomas hath it. Oportet quod credatur Authoritati eorum, quibus Revelatio facta est. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad 8. lived, and was never a matter of Evidence and Know­ledge, at least as Know­ledge is opposed to Faith. Nor could it at any time then bee more Demonstratively prooved then now. I say, not scientificè, not Demonstratively. For, were the Apostles living, and should they tell us, that they spake, and writ the very Oracles of God: yet this were but their owne Testimony of themselves, and so not alone able to enforce Beliefe on others. And for their Miracles, though they were very Great Inducements of Beliefe, yet were neither they [Page 108] Evident and Con­vincing Proofes, A on est evidens vel ista esse vera miracula: vel ista fieri ad il­lam Veritatem comprobandam, I [...]. Almain. in 3. Sent. D. 24. q. uni [...] Concl. 6. Therefore the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles did, were fully sufficient to beget Faith to assent, but not Evidence to Convince. alone and of themselves. Both because, There may bee coun­terfeit Miracles: And because true ones are neither Cautos nos fecit Sponsus, quia & Miraculis decipi non debe­mus. S. Aug. T. 13. in S. [...]oh. And he that sayes we ought not to be deceived, acknowledges that we may be deceived even by Miracles. And Arguments which can deceive, are not sufficient to Convince. Though they be sometimes too full of efficacy to pervert. And so plainly Almain. out of Ocham. Nunquam acqui­ritur Evidentia per Medium quod de se generat falsum assensum, sunt verum. la. Alma. in 3 Sent. Di. 24. q unic. Conc. 6. And therfore that Learned Romane Catholik, who tels us, the Apostles Miracles made it evident, that their doctrine was true and Di­vine, went too farre. Credible they made it, but not Evident. And therefore he is after forced to confesse, That the soule som­times assents not to the Miracles, but in great timidity, which cannot stand with cleere Evidence. And after againe, That the soule may renounce the Doctrine formerly confirmed by Mira­cles. unlesse some inward, and supernaturall Light be given, &c. And neither can this possibly stand with Evidence. And there­fore Bellarmine goes no farther then this: Miracula esse suffi­cientia, & efficacia ad novam fidem persuadendam. L. 4. de Notis Eccles. c. 14. §. 1. To induce and perswade, but not to Convince. And Thomas will not grant so much, for he sayes expresly: Miraculum non est sufficiens Causa inducens Fidem. Quia videntium unum & idem Miracul [...], quidam credunt, & quidam non. Tho. 2. 2. q. 6. A. 1. c. And Ambros. Catharin. in Rom. 10. 15. is downe-right at Nulla fides est habenda sig­no. Examinanda sunt, &c. Anastasius Nicanus Episcopus, apud Baron. ad An. 360. num. 21, Non sunt necessaria sign [...] vera sidet, &c. Suarez, defens. Fidei Catho. L. 1. c. 7. Nu. 3. Infall [...]ble nor In­separable Markes of Truth in Do­ctrine. Not Infalli­ble: For they may be Marks of false Doctrine in the highest de­gree. Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. 2. Thess. 2. 9. S. Marc. 13. 22. Deut. 13. Not proper, and Inseparable: For Operatio Virtutum alteri datur. 1. Cor. 12. 10. (To one and ano­ther he saith, not to al.) Damonia fugare, Mortu [...]s suscitare, &c. dedit quibusdam Discipulis suis, quibusdam non dedit. (That is to doe Miracles.) S. Aug. Serm. 22. de Verbis Apost, [...]. 5. all which wrote by Inspiration, did not confirm their Doctrine by Mi­racles. For we do not finde that David, or Solo­mon, with some other of the Prophets, did any, neither were any wrought by S. Iohn the Baptist, S. Ioh. 10. 41. S. Ioh. 10. So, as Cre­dible Signes they were, and are still of as much forceto us, as 'tis possible for things on the credit of Relation to be: For the Witnesses are many, and such as spent their lives in making good the Truth, which they saw. But that the Workers of them were Divinely [Page 109] and Infallibilly inspired in that which they Preacht, and writ was still to the Here it may be observed how warily A. C. carries himselfe. For when hee hath said, That a cleare R [...]lation was made to the Apostles, which is most true; And so the Apostles knew that which they taught simpliciter à priori, most Demonstratively from the Prime Cause. God himselfe. Then hee addes p 51. I say cleare in attestante. That is the Revelation of this Truth was cleare in the Apostles that witnessed it. But to make it knowledge in the Auditors, the same, or like Revelation, and as cleare must be made to them. For they could have no other knowing Assurance; Credible they might, and had. So A. C. is wary there, but comes not home to the Businesse: And so might have held his peace. For the Question is not, what cleare Evidence the Apostles had? but what Evidence they had, which heard them? Hearers a matter of Faith, and no more evident by the light of Humane Reason to men that lived in those Dayes, then to us now. For had that beene Demonstrated, or beene cleare (as Prime Principles are) in its owne light, both they and we had apprehended all the Myste­ries of Divinity by Knowledge, not by Faith. But this is most appa­rent was not. For had the Pro­phets, or Apostles been ordered by God to make this Demonstrative­ly, or Intuitively by Discourse, or vision appeare as cleare to their Auditors, as to themselves it did, that Whatsoever they taught was Divine, and Infalli­ble Truth, all men which had the true use of Reason, must have beene forced to yeeld to their Doctrine. Esay 53. 1. Esay could never have beene at Domine quis? Lord who hath believed our Report? Esay 53. Nor Ier, 20. 7. Ieremy at Domine, factus sum, Lord I am in de­rision daily, Ier. 20. Nor could any of S. Pauls Auditors have mocked at him (as some of them did) Acts 17. 32. And had Zedcchiah and the people seene it as clearely as Ieremy himselfe did, that the word he spake was Gods word, and Infallible, Ierusa­lem, for ough [...] we know, had not beene layd desolate by the Chaldean. But be­cause they could not see this by the way of knowledge, and would not be­lieve it by way of Faith, they, and that City perished together. Jer. 38. 17. Act. 17. for Preaching the Resurrection, if they had had as full a view as S. Paul himselfe had in the Assure­ance, which God gave of it in, and by the Resurrection of Christ. vers. 31. But the way of Knowledge was not that which God thought fittest for mans Salvation. For Man having sinned by Pride, God thought fittest to humble him at the very root [Page 110] of the Tree of Knowledge, and make him deny his un­derstanding, and submit to Faith, or hazard his happinesse. The Cre­dible Object all the while, that is, the Mysteries of Religion, and the Scripture which containes them is Di­vine and Infallible, and so are the Pen-men of them by Revelation. But we, and all our Fore-Fathers, the Hearers, and Readers of them, have neither Nemo pius, nisi qui Scripturae credit. S. Aug. L. 26. cont. Faustum. c. 6. Now no Man believes the Scripture, that doth not believe that it is the Word of God. I say, which doth not believe, I doe not say, which doth not know opor­t [...]t quod Credatur Authoritati eorum quibus Revelatio facta est. Tho p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad secundum. [...] C c. Quod vero Animam habemus, unde manis st [...]m? Si enim Uisibilibus credere vel [...], & de Deo, & de Angelis, & de mente, & de Anima dubitabis: & sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata deperibunt. Et cer­tè si manifestis credere velis, Invisibilibus magis quam Uisibilibus credere oportet. Li [...]et enim admirabile sit dictum, verum tam [...]n, & apud mentem habentes valde certum, vel in confesso Ex homil. 13 S Chry [...]ost. in S. Mat. To. 1. Edit. Fronto: Paris. 1630. knowledge, nor vision of the Prime Principles in, or about them, but * Faith only. And the Revelation, which was cleare to them, is not so to us, nor there­fore the Prime Tradition it selfe de­livered by them.

Sixthly, That hence it may be gathered, that Pun. 6. the Assent, which we yeeld to this maine Principle of Divinity, That the Scripture is the Word of God, is grounded vpon no Compelling, or Demonstrative Rati­ocination, but relyes upon the strength of Faith, more then any other Principle whatso­ever. And this is the Ground of that which I said before, §. 15. Nu. 1. That the Scrip­ture only, and not any unwritten Tradi­tion was the [...]oundation of our Faith. Namely, when the Authority of Scri­pture is first yeelded unto. For all other necessary Poynts of Divinity, may by un­denyable Discourse bee inferred out of Scripture it selfe once ad­mitted; but this, concerning the Au­thority of Scripture not possibly: But must either be prooved by Revelation, which is not now to bee expected: Or presupposed and granted as manifest in it selfe, like the Principles of nat [...]rall knowledge, which Reasm alone will never Grant: Or by Tradition of the Church, both Prime, and Present, with all other Rati­nall Helpes, preceding, or accompanying the internall [Page 111] Light in Scripture it selfe; which though it give Light enough for Faith to believe, yet Light enough it gives not to bee a convincing Reason, and proofe for knowledge. And this is it, which makes the very entrance into Divinity, inaccessible to those men, who standing high in the Opinion of their owne wis­dome, will believe nothing, but that which is irre­fragably prooved from Rationall Principles. For as Christ requires a Deniall of a mans selfe, that he may be able to follow him. S. Luke 9: So as great a part as any of S. Luke 9. 23. this Denyall of his Whole-selfe (for so it must bee) is the denyall of his Vnderstanding, and the composing of the unquiet search of this Grand Inquisi­tor into the Secrets of Him that made it, and the over-ruleing the doubtfulnesse of it by the fervency of the Intellectus Credentis determinatur per Voluntatem, non per Rationem. Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad tertium. And what power the Will hath in Case of mens Believing, or not Believing, is manifest, Jer. 44. But this is spoken of the Will compared with the Vnderstandin [...] onely, leaving the Operations of Grace free over Both. Will.

Seventhly, That the knowledge of the Supreme Pun. 7. Cause of all (which is God) is most remote, and the most difficult thing Reason can have to do with. The Quod sit, That there is a God, Communis enim sententia est Patrum & Theologorum aliorum, demonstrari posse naturali ratione Deum esse; Sed à post [...]riori & per effectus. Sic Tho. p. 1. q. 2. A. 2. Et Damas [...]. L. 1. Orth. Fid. c. 3. & Almain. in 3. sent. D. 24 q. 1. But what may be demonstrated by na­turall reason, by natural light may the same be known. And so the Apostle himselfe, Rom. 1. 20. Invisibilia Dei à Creatur â mundi per ca quae facta sunt, intellecta con­spiciuntur. And so Calvin most clearely, L. 1. Inst c. 5. §. 1. Aperire Oculos nequeunt, quin aspicere cum co­guntur, though Bellarmine would needes be girding at him. L. 4. de Grat. & Lib. Arbit. c 2. Videtur autem & Ratio iis quae apparent attestari: Omnes enim homines de Diis (ut ille loquitur) habent existimationem, Arist. L. 1. de Coelo T. 22. bleare-eyed Reason can see. But the Damasc. L. 1. Ortho. Fid. c. 4. Quid sit, what that God is, is in­finitely beyond all the fathoms of Reason. He is a Light indeed, but such as no mans Rea­son can come at for the Brightnes. 1 Tim. 6. 16. Et ne V [...]stigium sic accedendi [...] S. Aug. nisi augeas imaginari ne cogitationis lucem soli [...] innumerabiliter vel quid aliud &c. L. 8, de T [...]in. c. 2, Solus modus accedendi, Preces sunt. Boet. de consol [...]. Philos. L. 5. prosa. 3. 1 Tim. 6. [Page 112] If any thing therefore bee attainable in this kinde, it must bee by Prater Scientias Philosophicas, necesse est ut ponatur alia Scientia [...] revelata de iis quae hominis cap­tum [...]. Tho. p. 1. q. 1 A. 1. Revelation; And that must bee from Him­selfe: for none can Reveale, but And therefore Bid is ex [...]sse, That God could not re­veale any thing that is to come, nisi illud esset a Deo prae­s [...]um s [...]u praevisum (i. e. unlesse God did fully compre­hend that which He doth reveale) Biel in 3. sent. D. 239. 2. A. 1. hee that Comprehends. And Nullus Intellectus Creatus videndo Deum, potest cogno [...] om [...]ia quae Deus sacit. vel potest saccre. Hoc enim esset Comprehendere ejus virtutem. &c. Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. C. Ad Argumentum: Quod Deus ut Speculum est: Et quod Omnia quae sieri possunt, in co resplendent. Respon­det Thom. Quod non est necessarium, quod videns specu­lum, omnia in speculo videat, nisi speculum visu suo com­pr [...]hendat. Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. a 12. (Now no man can comprehend this Glasse which is God Himselfe.) none doth, or can compre­hend God, but Himselfe. And when he doth Re­veale, yet He is no far­ther discernable, then Deus enim est Speculum voluntarium revelans quae & quod vult alicui beato: non est Speculum naturalitèr re­praesentans omnia. Biel. Suppl. in 4. Sent. D. 49. q. 3. propos. 3. Himself pleases. Now since For if Reason well put to its search did not finde this out, how came Arist. to assirme this by rationa l disqui­sition. [...] &c. Restat, ut mens sola extrinsecùs accedat, eaque sola divina sit, nibil enim cum ejus Actione communicat Actio corporalis. A [...]st. l. 2. de gen. Anim. c. 3. This cannot be spoken of the Soule, were it mortall. And therefore I must needs be of Paulus Benius his opinion, who sayes plainly, and proves it too, Turpi­ [...]r assixam à quib [...]sdam Aristoteli Mortalitatis Animae Opinionem. Benius in Timaeum Platonis Decad. 2ae. L. 3. Reason teaches, that the Soule of man is immortal, and For it Reason did not dictate this also, whence is it that Aristotle disputes of the way and meanes of attain­ing it. L. 1. Moral. c. 9. And takes on him to proove That Felicity is rather an Honourable then a Com­mendable thing. c. 12. And after all this, he addes, Deo [...] tota vita est, hominibus autem catenus, quatenus similitudo quaedam ejusmodi Operationis ipsis in est, Arist. l. 10. Moral. c. 8. cape­able of Felicity. And since that Felicity con­sists in the Contemplation of the highest Cause, w^ch againe is God himselfe. And since Christ ther­in Confirmes that Di­ctate, that mans eternal Happines is to know God, and Him whom he hath sent, S. S. Iohn 17. 3. Ultima Beatitudo hominis consistit in quadam supernaturali visione Dei. Ad hanc autem visi­ [...]m Homo pertingere non potest, nisi per modum Addis­ [...]is à Deo Doctore, Omnis qui audit a Patre & didicit. S. Iohn 6. 45. Thom. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 3. in c. Ioh. 17. And since nothing can put us into the way of attaining to that Con­templation, but some Re­velation of Himselfe, and of the way to himselfe. I say, since all this is so, It cannot reasonably be thought by any prudent man, that the All-wise God should [Page 113] create man with a Desire of Felicity; and then leave him utterly destitute of all Instrumentall Helps to make the Attainment possible: since Deus & natu­ra nihil frustrà faciunt. Arist. L. 1. de Coelo T. 32. frustra autem est quod non potest habere suum usū Thom. ibid. God and Nature do no­thing, but for an end. And Helpe there can bee none sufficient, but by Revelation And once grant mee that Revelation is necessary, and then I will appeale to Reason it selfe, and that shall prove abundantly one of these two. That either, there was never any such Re­velation of this kinde from the worlds beginning to this day: And that will put the frustrà upon God in point of mans Felicitie: Or, that the Scriptures which wee now embrace, as the Word of God, is that Revelation. And that's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheisme, Prophanenesse, and Infidelity.

Last of all, To prove that the Booke of God which Pun. 8. we honour as His Word, is this necessary Revelation of God and his Truth, which must, and is alone able, to leade us in the way to our eternall Blessednesse (or else the world hath none) comes in a Cloud of witnesses. Some for the Infidel, and some for the Beleever. Some for the VVeake in Faith, and some for the Strong. And some for all. For then first comes in the Tradition of the Church, the present Church; so 'tis no Hereticall, or Schismaticall Beliefe. Then the Testimony of former A­ges; so 'tis no New Beliefe. Then the consent of Times; so 'tis no Divided or partiall Beliefe. Then the Harmony of the Prophets, and them fulfilled; so 'tis not a 2 Pet. 1. 16. Devised, but a forespoken Beliefe. Then the suc­cesse of the Doctrine contained in this Booke; so 'tis not a Beliefe stisted in the Cradle; but it hath spread through the world in despite of what the world could doe against it; And increased from weake, and unlikely Beginnings, to incredible Greatnesse. Then the Constancy of this Truth; so 'tis no Moone-Be­liefe: For in the midst of the worlds Changes, it [Page 114] hath preserved it's Creede entire through many gene­rations. Then, that there is nothing Carnall in the Do­ctrine; so 'tis a Chast Beliefe. And all along it hath gained, kept, and exercised more power upon the minds of men, both learned, and unlearned, in the increase of vertue, and repression of vice, then any Morall Philosophie, or Legall Policy that ever was. Then comes the inward Light and Excellency of the Text it self; and so 'tis no darke, or dazling Beliefe. And 'tis an Excellent Text: For see the riches of Naturall knowledge, which are stored up there, as well as Supernaturall. Consider how things quite above Reason consent with things Reasonable. Weigh it well what Majesty lyes there hid under Humility: Quasi quidam fluvius est, planus, & Al­tus, in quo & Agnus ambulet, & Elephas na [...]et. S. Greg. Pr [...]fat. in Lib. Mora­lium. c. 4. What Depth ther is with a Perspicuity uni­mitable: What In Lege Domini voluntas ejus. Psa. 1. 2. Dulcior super mel & favum. Psa 18. 11. & passim. Delight it works in the Soule, that is devoutely excer­cised in it, how the Multa dicuntur submiss [...]s & humirepē ­tibus animis, ut accommodatiùs per huma­na in Divina consurgant. Multa etiam fi­guratè, ut studiosa mens, & quaesitis exer­ceatur utiliùs & uberiùs laetetur inventis. S. Aug. de Mor. Ec. Cat. c. 17. Sed nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur Fidei necessa­rium, quod Scriptura per Literalem sen­sum alicubi manifeste non tradat. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 10 ad 1. Sublimest wits finde in it enough to amaze them; while the ^c simplest want not enough to direct them. And then we shall not wonder, if (with the assistance of Credimus &c. sicut ob alia multa certi­ora Argumenta (quàm est Testimonium Ecclesia) tum propter hoe potissimum, quòd Spiritus Sanctus nobis intùs has esse Dei voces persuadeat. Whitaker, Di­sput. de Sa. Scrip. Controvers. 1. q. 3. c. 8. Gods Spirit, who alone workes Faith and Beliefe of the Scriptures, and their Divine Autho­rity, as well as other Articles) wee grow up into a most Infallible As­surance, such an Assurance, as hath made many lay downe their lives for this Truth: such, as that, * Though an Angell from Heaven should Preach unto us another Gospell, we would not be­lieve Gal. 1. 8. Him, or it. No; though wee should see as great, and as many Miracles done over againe to dis­swade us from it, as were at first to win the world [Page 115] to it. To which firmnesse of Assent by the Operati­on of Gods Spirit, the Will conferres as much, or more strength, then the Vnderstanding, Clearenesse, the whole Assent being an Act of Faith, and not of Knowledge. And therefore the Question should not have beene asked of mee by F. How I knew? But vpon what Motives I did believe Scripture to bee the VVord of God? And I would have him take heed, lest hunting too close after a way of Knowledge, hee loose the way of Faith, and teach other men to loose it too.

So then the Way lyes thus (as farre as it appeares Pun. 9. to me) The Credit of Scripture to bee Divine Resolves finally into that Faith, which wee have touching God Himselfe, and in the same order. For as that, so this hath Three maine Grounds, to which all other are Reducible. The First is, the Tradition of the Church: And this leades us to a Reverend perswasion of it. The Second is, The light of Nature: And this shewes us how necessary such a Revealed Learning is, and that no other way it can be had. Cum Fides infallibili veritati innita [...]: Et ideo cum impossibile sit de vero de­monstrari Contrarium: sequitur omnes Probationes qua contra fidem inducun­tur, non posse esse Demonstrationes sed so­lubilia Argumenta. Tho. p. 1. q. A. 1. 8. c. Nay more, that all Proofes brought against any Point of Faith, nei­ther are, nor can be Demonstra­tions, but soluble Arguments. The Third is, The light of the Text it selfe; in Conver­sing wherewith wee meet with the Fidei ultima Resolutio est in Deum illumi­nantem. S. Aug. cont. Fund. c. 14. Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealeing the full Assurance of the sufficiency of all Three unto us. And then, and not before, wee are certaine, That the Scripture is the VVord of God both by Di­vine, and by Infallible Proofe. But our Certainty is by Faith, and so voluntary, not by Knowledge of such Prin­ciples, as in the light of Nature can enforce Assent, whether we will or no.

[Page 116] I have said thus much upon this great Occasi­on, because this Argument is so much pressed, with­out due respect to Scripture. And I have proceeded in a Syntheticall way, to build up the Truth for the be­nefit of the Church, & the satisfaction of all men Chri­stianly disposed. Whereas had I desired only to rid my hands of these Captious Iesuites (for certainly this Question was Captiously asked:) it had beene suf­ficient to have restored the Question, thus, How doe you know the Testimony of the Church (by which, you say, you know Scripture to be the Word of God) to be Divine and Infallible? If they proove it by Scripture A. C. p. 53. Et vid. §. 16. N. 28. (as all of them doe, and as A. C. doth) how doe they know that Scripture to be Scripture? It is but a Cir­cular Assurance of theirs, by which they found the Churches Infallibility upon the Testimonie of the Scripture; And the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church: That is upon the Matter, the Churches In­fallibility upon the Churches Infallibility. But I labour for edification, not for destruction. And now, by what I have here said, I will weigh my Answer, and his Exception taken against it.

The Bishop said, That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be Supposed, and needed not to be Proved.

Why, but did I say, That this Principle (The § 17 Books of Scripture are the Word of God) is to be suppo­sed, as needing no Proof at al to a Naturall man? Or to a man newly entring upon the Faith? yea or perhaps to a Doubter, or Weakling in the Faith? Can you think me so weake? It seemes you doe. But sure I know, there is a great deale of difference betweene Ethnicks that deny, and deride the Scripture, and men that are Born in the Church. The first have a farther way [Page 117] about to this Principle; The other in their very Christian Education sucke it in, and are taught so soone as they are apt to learne it, That the Books, com­monly called The Bible, or Scripture, are the Word of God. And I dealt with you Dixi sicut [...]i congru [...], ad qu [...] [...]bam, &c. S Aug. l. 1. Retract. c. 13. as with a Christian, though in Errour, while you call Catholike. The Words before spoken by me were, That the Scrip­ture onely, not any unwritten Tradition, was the Foun­dation of Faith. The Question betweene us, and you, is, Whether the Scripture do containe all necessary things of Faith? Now in this Question, as in all Na­ture, and Art, the Subject, the Scripture is and must be Nor is it such a strange thing to heare that Scripture is such [...] suppose [...]d Principle among Chri [...]ians. Quod à Scriptura evidenter dedu [...]itur, est evidenter verum, suppositis Scripturis. Bellarm. L. 4. de Eccl. Milit. c. 3. §. 3. supposed. The Quaere be­tween the Romane-Catholikes and the Church of England, being one­ly of the Praedicate, the thing ut­tered of it, Namely, whether it containe all Fundamentals of Faith, all Necessaries for Salvation within it? Now since th [...] Question proposed in very forme of Art, proves not, but De Subjecto enim quaeritur semper; non Subjecti [...]n ip­sum. supposes the Subject, I thinke I gave a satisfying Answer, That to you, and me, and in this Question, Scripture was a Supposed Principle, and needed no Proofe. And I must tell you, that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect Continent, it is against all Art, yea and Equity too, in Reasoning to call for a Proofe of That here, which must go unavoydably supposed in this Question. And if any man will be so familiar with Impiety, to Question it, it must be tryed in a preceding Question, and Dispute by it self. Yet here not you onely, but L. 4. de verb. Dei. c. 4. §. Quar [...]ò necesse est. [...] the le­suite here apud A. C. p. 49. Bellarmine, and others run quite out of the way to snatch at Advantage.

Against this I read what I had formerly writ­ten in my Reply against M. Iohn White: [Page 118] Wherein I plainely shewed, that this Answer was not good, and that no other Answer could be made, but by admitting some Word of God un­written, to assure us of this Point.

Indeed here you read out of a Booke (which § 18 you called your owne) a large Discourse upon this 1 Argument. But surely I so untied the knot of the Ar­gument, that I set you to your Book againe. For your selfe con­fesse, that against this you read what you had formerly written. Well! what ere you read there, certaine it is you do a great deale of wrong to M. Hooker L. 3 §. 8., and my selfe, that because we call it a Sup­posed or Presumed Principle among Christians, you should fall by and by into such a Whereas Bellarm. sayes expresly, that in the Controversies betweene you and us: Non agitur de Metaphysicis subti­litatibus, quae sinc periculo ignorari, & interdum cum laude oppugnari possunt, &c. Bellarm. Praefat. Operibus praefix. §. 3. Metaphysicall Dis­course to prove, That that which is a His omnibus Questionibut praemitten­da est Controversia de Verbo Dei. Ne­que enim disputari potest, nisi priùs in aliquo Communi Principio cum Adversa­riis conveniamus. Convenit autem inter nos & omues omninò Haereticos, Verbum Dei esse Regulam fidei, ex quâ de Dog­matibus judicandum sit, esse Commune Principium ab omnibus concessum, unde Argumenta ducantur, &c. Bellarm. Praefat. Operib. prafix. §. ult. And if it be Commune Principium ab omnibus con­cessum, then I hope it must be taken as a thing supposed, or as a Praecognitum in this Dispute betweene us. Praecognitum, fore-knowne in Science, must be of such light, that it must be knowne of, and by it selfe alone; and that the Scripture cannot be so knowne to be the Word of God.

I will not now enter againe into that Discourse, 2 having said enough already, how farre the Beame, which is very glorious (especially in some parts of Scripture) gives light to prove it selfe. You see nei­ther Hooker, nor I, nor the Church of England (for ought I know) leave the Scripture alone to manifest it selfe, by the light, which it hath in it selfe No; but when the present Church hath prepared, and led the way, like a preparing Morning-Light to Sun­shine; [Page 119] then indeed we settle for our Direction, but not upon the first opening of the morning Light, but upon the Sun it selfe. Nor will I make needlesse enquiry, how farre, and in what manner a Praecog­nitum, or Supposed Principle in any Science, may be proved in a Higher, to which that is subordinate; or accepted in a Prime. Nor how it may in Divi­nity, where Prae, as well as Post-cognita, things fore, as well as after-knowne, are matters, and under the manner of Faith, and not of Science strictly. Nor whether a Praecognitum, a presupposed Principle in Faith, which rests upon Divine Authority, must needs have as much, and equall Light to Naturall Reason, as Prime Principles have in Nature, while they rest upon Reason. Nor whether it may justly bee denied to have sufficient Light, because not equall. Your owne Schoole Colligitur apertà ex Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 5. ad 1. Et Articulorum Fidei veritas non potest nobis esse evidens absolutè. Bellar. L. 4. de Eccles. Mil. c. 3. §. 3. grants, That in us, which are the Subjects both of Faith and Knowledge, and in regard of the Evidence given in unto us, there is lesse Light, lesse Evidence in the Principles of Faith, then in the Principles of Knowledge, upon which there can be no doubt. But I think the Schoole will ne­ver grant, That the Principles of Faith (even this in Question) have not sufficient Evidence. And you ought not to do, as you did, without any Distincti­on, or any Limitation, deny a Praecognitum, or Prime Principle in the Faith; because it answers not in all things to the Prime Principles in Science, in their Light, and Evidence; a thing in it self directly against Reason.

Well, though I do none of this, yet first I must 3 tell you, that A. C. here steps in againe, and tels me, That though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearely knowne, as a Praecognitum in Science, yet there must be this proportion betweene them, that, whether it be [Page 120] in Science, or in Faith, the Praecognitum, or thing sup­posed as knowne, must be priùs cognitum, first knowne, and not need another thing pertaining to that Faith, or Knowledge, to be knowne before it. But the Scripture (saith he) needs Tradition to goe before it, and introduce the knowledge of it. Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed, as a Praecognitum, and a thing fore-knowne. Tru'y I am sorrie to see in a man very learned such wilfull mistakes. For A. C. cannot but perceive, by that which I have clearely laid downe §. 17. & 18. Nu. 2. before, That I intended not to speake precisely of a Praecog­nitum in this Argument. But when I said, Scriptures were Principles to be supposed; I did not, I could not intend, They were priùs cognitae, knowne before Tradition; since I confesse every where, That Tradi­tion introduces the knowledge of them. But my meaning is plaine; That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed, before you can dispute this Question; And my immediate Words in the Conference, upon which the Iesuite ask­ed, How I knew Scripture to be Scrip­ture? were (as the [...]esuite himselfe re­lates it apud A. C. p. 48.) That the Scripture onely, not any unwritten Tradition, was the Foundation of our Faith. Now the Scripture cannot be the onely Foundation of Faith, if it containe not all things necessary to Salvation; Which the Church of Rome denying against all Antiquity, makes it now be­come a Question. And in regard of this, m [...] A [...]ver was, That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed, and prae­cognitae, before the handling of this Que­stion. Whether the Scriptures containe in them all things necessary to Salvation. Be­fore which Question it must ne­cessarily be supposed and granted on both sides, That the Scriptures are the Word of God. For if they be not, 'tis instantly out of all Question, that They cannot in­clude all Necessaries to Salvation. So 'tis a Praecognitum, not to Tradi­tion (as A C. would cunningly put upon the Cause) but to the whole Question of the Scriptures sufficiency. And yet if he could tie me to a Praecognitum in this very Question, and proveable in a Superiour Science; I thinke I shall go very neare to prove it in the next Paragraph and intreat A. C. to confesse it too.

[Page 121] And now having told A. C. this, I must second­ly 4 follow him a little farther. For I would faine make it appeare as plainly, as in such a difficulty it can be made, what wrong he doth Truth and himself in this Case. And it is the common fault of them all. For when the Protestants answer to this Argument (which, as I have shew'd, can properly have no place in the Question betweene us about Tradition) Hook, L. 3; §. 8. they which grant this as a Praecognitum, a thing fore­known (as also I do) were neither ignorant, nor forget­full, That things presupposed, as already known in a Science, are of two sorts. For either they are plaine and fully manifest in their owne Light: or they are proved, and granted already, some former knowledge having made them Evident. This Principle then, The Scriptures are the Oracles of God, we cannot say is cleare, and fully manifest to all men simply, and in self-Light, for the Reasons before given. Yet we say, after Tradition hath beene our Introduction, the Soule that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason, may discerne Light sufficient to resolve our Faith, that the Sun is there. This Principle then being not absolutely, and simply evident in it selfe, is presumed to be taught us otherwise. And if otherwise, then it must be taught in and by some superiour Science, to which The­ologie is subordinate. Now men may be apt to think out of Reverence, That Divinity can have no Science above it. But your owne Schoole teaches me that it hath. Hoc modo sacra Doctrina est Scientia; quia [...] ­dit ex Principiis notis Lumine superioris Scientia, quae scilicet est Scientia Dei & Beatorum. Tho. p. 1. q. 1. a. 2. And what sayes A. C. now to this of Aquinas? Is it not cleare in him, that this Princi­ple, The Scriptures are the Word of God, of Divine and most Infallible Credit, is a Praecognitum in the knowledge of Divinity, and proveable in a superiour Science, namely, the Knowledge of God, and the Blessed in Heaven? Yes; so cleare, that (as I told you he would) A. C. confesses it, p. 51. But he adds: That because no man ordinarily sees this Proofe, therefore we must go ei­ther to Christ, who saw it clearely: Or to the Apostles, to whom it was clearely revealed; or to them, wholy Succes­sion received it from the Prime Secrs. So now because Christ is ascended, and the Apostles gone into the num­ber of the Blessed, and made in a higher Degree partakers of their knowledge; therefore we must now onely goe unto then Successours, and borrow light from the Tradi­tion of the present Church. For that we must do; And 'tis so farre well. But that we must relie upon this Tradi­tion, as Divine, and Infallible, and able to breed in us Di­vine, and Insallible Faith, as A. C. adds, p. 51, 52. is a Proposition, which in the times of the Primitive Church would have beene accounted very dangerous, as indeed it is. For I would fame know, why leaning too much upon Tradition may not mislead Christians, as well as it di [...] the Iewes. But they, saith S. Hilarie, Traditionis sa­vore Legis praecepta transgressi sunt: Can. 14. in S. Mat. Yet to this height are They of Rome now growne, That the Traditions of the present Church are infallible: And by out-f [...]cing the Truth, lead many after them. And as it is Jer. 5. 31. The Prophets prophesie untruths, an [...] the Priests receive gifts, and my people delight therein, what will become of this in the end? The sacred Doctrine of Divi­nity in this sort is a Sci­ence, because it proceeds out of Principles that are knowne by the light of a [Page 122] Superiour Knowledge, which is the Knowledge of God, and the Blessed in Heaven. In this Superiour Science, this Principle, The Scriptures are the Ora­cles of God, is more then evident in full light. This Superiour Science delivered this Principle in full re­vealed Light to the Prophets, and Apostles. Non creditur Deus esse Author bujus Scientiae, quia Homines hoc testati sunt in quantum Homines nudo Testi­monio Humano; sed in quantum circa eos effulsit virtus Divina. [...]sa Deus iis, & sibi ipsi in eis Testimonium p [...]buit. Hen. à Gand. Sum. P. 1. A. 9. q. 3. This Infallible Light of this Principle made their Authority deriva­tively Divine. By the same Divine Authori [...]y they wrote, and deli­vered the Scripture to the Church. There­fore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture, and that uncorrupt, though not in the same clearenesse of Lig [...]t, which they had. And yet since no sufficient Reason hath, or can be given, that in any Substantiall thing it hath beene Corru [...]pi non possunt, quia in manibus sunt omnium Christianorum; Et quisquis hoc primitùs ausus esset, multorum Codicum vetustiorum collatione confutaretur. Maximè, quia non un [...] linguá, sea multis continetur Scriptura. Nonnullae autem Codicum mendositates, vel de Antiquioribus, vel de Linguá praecedente emendantur. S. Aug. L. 32. cont. Faustum. c. 16. Corrupted, it re­maines firme at this day, and that proved in the most Supreme Science; and therefore now to bee supposed (at least by all Christians) That the Scripture is the Word of God. So; my Answer is good, even in [Page 123] strictnesse, That this Principle is to be supposed in this Dispute.

Besides, the Iewes never had, nor can have any 5 other Proofe, That the Old Testament is the Word of God, then we have of the New. For theirs was de­livered by Moses, and the Prophets; and ours was de­livered by the Apostles, which were Prophets too. The Iewes did believe their Scripture by a Divine Authori­ty: For so the Iewes argue themselves: S. Iohn 9. 29. S. Ioh. 9. We know that God spake with Moses. Maldonat. in S. Ioh. 9. It aque non magis errare posse eum se­quentes, quàm si Deum ipsum se­querentur. And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses, then they could in following God himselfe. And our Saviour seemes to inferre as much, S. Ioh. 5. 47. S. Ioh. 5. where he expostulates with the Iewes thus: If you believe not Moses his Writings, how should you believe Me? Now how did the Iewes know that God spake to Moses? How? why apparently, the same way that is before set downe. First by Tradition. So S. Hom. 57. i [...] S. Ioh. 9. [...] Chrysostome: We know why? By whose witnesse do you know? By the Testimony of our Ancestors. But he speakes not of their immediate Ancestors, but their Prime, which were Prophets, and whose Testimony was Divine; into which (namely their Writings) the Iewes did Resolve their Faith. And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a 2. S. Pet. 1. 19. Light, and a shining Light too: And therefore could not but be sufficient, when Tra­dition had gone before. And yet though the Iewes entred this way to their Beliefe of the Scripture, they do not say, S. Chrys. ubi suprà. [...] Audivimus, We have heard that God sp [...]ke to Moses, but We know it. So they Resolved their Faith higher, and into a more inward Principle, then an Eare to their immediate Ancestors, and their Tradi­tion. And I would willingly learne of you, if you can shew it me, where ever any one Iew disputing with another about their Law, did put the other to [Page 124] prove, that the Old Testament was the Word of God. But they still supposed it. And when others put them to their Proofe, this way they went. And yet you say:

That no other Answer could be made, but by admitting some Word of God unwritten, to as­sure us of this Point.

I thinke, I have shewed, that my Answer is § 19 1 good, and that no other Answer need be made. If there were need, I make no Question, but another Answer might be made to assure us of this Point, though we did not admit of any Word of God unwritten. I say, to assure us; and you expresse no more. If you had said, to assure us by Divine Faith, your Argument had beene the stronger. But if you speake of Assu­rance onely in the generall, I must then tell you (and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels) a man may be assured, nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiasticall, and Humane Proofe. Men that never saw Rome, may be sure, and infallibly believe, That such a Citie there is, by Histo­ricall, and acquired Faith. And if Consent of Hu­mane Storie can assure me this, why should not Consent of Church-storie assure me the other, That Christ, and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God? For Iewes, Enemies to Christ, they beare witnesse to the Old Testament; and Christians through almost all Nations Tant a hominum, & temporum consen­sione firmatum. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Ec­cles. Cath. c. 29. Is Libri quoquo modo se habent, sancti tamen Divinarum Rerum pleni prope totius generis humani Con­fessione diffamantur, &c. S. Aug. de util. cred. c. 7. & L. 13. cont. Faust. c. 15. give in evidence to both Old and New. And no Pagan, or other Enemies of Christianity, can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testi­monie for any Authoritie upon [Page 125] which they rely, or almost for any Principle which they have, as the Scripture hath gained to it self. And as is the Testimony which it receives, above all Super omnes omnium Genti [...] Literas. S. Aug. 11. de Civit. Dei c. 1. Writings of all Nations; so here is assurance in a great measure, without any Divine Authority, in a Word written, or Vnwritten. A great assurance, and it is Infallible too; Only then we must distin­guish Infallibility. For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Beliefe, when it is true and re­maines so. For Truth quà talis, as it is Truth, can not deceive. Secondly, a thing is said to be Infallible, when it is not only true, and remains so, actually, but when it is of such invariable constancy, and upon such ground, as that no Degree of falshood at any time, in any respect can fall upon it. Certain it is, that by Humane Authority, Consent, and Proofe a man may be assured infallibly, that the Scripture is the Word of God, by an acquired Habit of Faith, cui non su'est falsum, under which nor Error, nor falshood is: But he cannot be assured infallibly, by Divine Faith, Incertum esso non potest hos es­se Libros Cano­nicos. Wal. Doct. fid. l. 2. a. 2. c. 20. cui subesse non potest falsum, into which no falshood can come, but by a Divine Testimony: This Testimo­ny is absolute in Scripture it selfe, delivered by the Apostles for the Word of God, and so sealed to our Soules by the operation of the Holy Ghost. That which makes way for this as an Canus. Loc. l. 2 c. 8. facit Eccle­siam Causam si­ne quanon. Introduction and out­ward motive, is the Tradition of the present Church; but that neither simply Divine, nor sufficient alone, into which we may resolve our Faith, but only as is §. 16. before expressed.

And now to come close to the Particular. The 2 time was, before this miserable Rent in the Church of Christ (which I thinke no true Christian can looke upon, but with a bleeding heart) that you and Wee were all of One Beliefe: That beliefe was tainted, in [Page 126] tract and corruption of times, very deepely. A Di­vision was made; yet so, that both Parts held the Creed, and other Common Principles of Beliefe. Of these, this was one of the greatest, Inter omnes penè constat, aut certè id quod satis est, inter me & illos, cum quibus nunc agitur, convenit hoc &c. Sic in aliâ Causá cont. Manichaos, S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cath. c. 4. That the Scrip­ture is the VVord of God; For our beliefe of all things contained in it, depends upon it. Since this Divisi­on, there hath beene nothing done by us to discre­dit this Principle. Nay, We have given it all honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiency, even to the con­taining of all things necessary to salvation, with Vin. Lir. cont. Hares. c. 2. Satis su­per que, enough and more then enough; which your selves have not done, do not. And for begetting and setling a Beliefe of this Principle, we goe the same way with you, and a better besides. The same way with you: Because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first induceing Motive to embrace this Principle; onely we cannot goe so farre in this way as you, to make the present Tradition al­wayes an Infallible VVord of God unwritten; For this is to goe so farre in, till you be out of the way. For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church; it hath an end, not only to receive us in, but another after, to let us out, into more open, and richer ground. And We go a better way then you: Because after we are mov­ed, and prepared, and induced by Tradition, we re­solve our Faith into that Written Word, and God delivering it; in which we finde materially, though not in Termes, the very Tradition, that led us thither. And so we are sure by Divine Authority that we are in the way, because at the end we find the way prov­ed. And doe what can be done, you can never settle the Faith of man about this great Principle, till you rise to greater assurance, then the Present Church alone can give. And therefore once againe to that known place of S. Augustine Contr. Epist. Fund. c. 5. The words of the [Page] Father are, Nisi commoveret, Vnlesse the Authority of the Church mooved me: but not alone, but with other Mo­tives; e [...]se it were not commovere, to move together. And the other Motives are Resolvers, though this be Lea­der. Now since we goe the same way with you, so farre as you goe right; and a better way then you, where you go wrong; we need not admit any other Word of God, then We doc. And this ought to re­maine, as a Presupposed Principle among all Christi­ans, and not so much as come into this Question, about the sufficiency of Scripture betweene you, and us. But you say that

From this the Lady called us, and desiring to heare, VVhether the Bishop would grant the Ro­mane Church to be the Right Church? The B. granted, That it was.

One occasion which mooved Tertullian to § 20 write his Booke de Praescript. adversùs Haereticos, was, 1 That he Pamel in Sum­mar. Lib—Ui­aens Disputatio­nibus [...]ihil ant parum profici. saw little or no Profit come by Disputati­ons. Sure the Ground was the same then, and now. It was not to deny, that Disputation is an Opening of the Vnderstanding, a sifting out of Truth; it was not to affirme, that any such Disquisition is in, and of it selfe unprofitable. If it had, S. Stephen Acts 6 9. would not have disputed with the Cyrenians, nor S. Paul with the Acts. 9. 29. Grecians first, and then with the Iewes, Acts 19. 17. and all Com­mers. No sure: it was some Abuse in the Disputants, that frustrated the good of the Disputation. And one Abuse in the Disputants, is a Resolution to hold their own, though it [...]e by unworthy means, and disparagement Debilitaetur generosa indoles conjecta in argu­tias. Sen. Aep. 48. of truth. And so I finde it here. For as it is true, that this Que­stion was asked; so it is altogether false, that it was [Page 128] asked in this Here A. C. hath nothing to say, but that the Iesuite did not affirme, That the La­dy ask [...]d this Question in this or any other precise forme. No? why, the words pre­ceding are the Iesuites own. Therefore, if these were not the Ladies words, he wrongs her, not I him. forme, or so Answ [...]r­ed. There is a great deale of Diffe­rence (especially as Romanists han­dle the Question of the Church) between The Church, and A Church; and there is some, betvveene a True Church and a Right Church: vvhich is the vvord you use, but no man else that I knovv; I am sure not I.

For The Church may import in our Language, 2 The only true Church; and perhaps (as some of you seeme to make it) the Root and the Ground of the Catho­like. And this I never did grant of the Romane Church, nor ever meane to doe. But A Church can imply no more, then that it is a member of the Whole. And this I never did, nor ever will deny, if it fall not abso­lutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I grant­ed also; but not a Right (as you impose upon me.) For Ens and Verum, Being and True, are convertible one with another; and every thing that hath a Be­ing, is truly that Being, which it is, in truth of Substance. But this word Right is not so used, but is referd more properly to perfection in Conditions: And in this sense, every thing that hath a true, and reall Being, is not by and by Right in the Con [...]itions of it. A man that is most dishonest, and unworthy the name, a ve­ry Thiefe (if you will) is a True man, in the verity of his Essence, as he is a Creature endued with Reason; for this none can steale from him, nor he from himselfe, but Death: But he is not therefore a Right, or an up­right man. And a Church that is exceeding corrupt, both in Manners and Doctrine, and so a dishonour to the Name, is yet a True Church in the verity of Es­sence, as a Church is a Company of men, which professe the Faith of Christ, and are Baptized into His [Page 129] Name: But yet it is not therefore a Right Church, either in Doctrine, or Manners. It may be you meant cun­ningly to slip in this word Right, that I might at un­wares grant it Orthodox. But I was not so to be caught; For I know well, that Orthodox Christians are keepers of integrity, and followers of right things (so Integritatis cu­stodes, & recta sectantes. De ve­ra Relig. c. 5. S Augu­stine) of which, the Church of Rome at this day is nei­ther. In this sense then no Right, that is, no Orthodox Church at Rome.

And yet no Newes it is, that I granted the Romane 3 Church to be a True Church. For so much ve­ry learned Protestants Hooker l. 3. §. 1. Iunius l. de Ec. c. 17. Falluntur qui Ecclesiam ne­gant, qui [...] Papatus in ea est. Rey­nold. Thes. 5. Negat tantum esse Catholicam, vel sanū [...]jus mem­brum. Nay the very Separatists grant it. Fr. Johnson in his Trea­tise called, A Christian Plea, Printed 1617. p. 123. &c. have acknowledg­ed before me; and the Truth cannot deny it. For that Church, which receives the Scripture as a Rule of Faith, though but as a partiall and imperfect Rule; and both the Sacraments as Instrumentall Causes, and Seales of Grace, though they adde more, and misuse these; yet cannot but be a True Church in es­sence. How it is in Manners and Doctrine, I would you would looke to it with a single eye, Si tamen bono ingenio Pictas & Pax quaeda men­tis accedat, sine quá de sanctis re­bus nihil prorsus intelligi potest. S. Aug. de V [...]. Cred. c. 18. For if Piety and a Peaceable mind be not joyned to a good understanding, nothing can be knowne in these great things.

Here AC. tells us, That the Iesuite doth not say, that 4 the Lady asked this Question in this, or any other precise forme A. C. p. 53. of words; But saith, the Iesuite is sure, her desire was to know of me, whether I would grant the Romane Church to be the right Church? And how was the Iesuite sure the Lady desired to heare this from me? Why, A. C. tells us that too. For he addes, That the Iesuite had particularly spoken with her be­fore, A. C. p. 54. and wished her to insist upon that Poynt. Where you may see, and 'tis fit the Clergie of England should consider with what cunning Adversaries they have to deale, who can finde a way to And after A. C. saith againe p. 54. that the Lady did not aske the Question, as if she meant to be satisfied with hearing what I said. So belike they take Ca [...] ­tion before hand for that too, That what ever we say (unlesse we grant what they would have) their Pro [...]elytes shall not be satisfied wi [...]hit. prepare their [Page 130] Disciples, and instruct them be­fore hand upon what Poynts to in­sist, that so they may with more ease slide that into their hearts and consciences, which should never come there. And this once known, I hope they will the better pro­vide against it. But A. C. goes on, and tells us, That cer­tainly A. C. p. 54. by my Answer, the Ladies desire must needs be to beare from me, not whether the Church of Rome were a right Church &c. but whether I would grant that there is but one holy Catholike Church, and whether the Romane Church (that is, not only that which is in the City, or Diocesse of Rome, but all that agreed with it) be not it. About A Church, and The Church, I have said enough §. 20. N. 1. before, and shall not repeat. Nor is there any need I should. For A. C. would have it The Church, The One, Holy, Catholike Church. But this can­not be granted, take the Roman Church, in what sense they please, in City, or Diocesse, or all that agree with it. Yet howsoever before I leave this, I must acquaint the Reader with a perfect Iesuitisme. In all the Primitive Times of the Church, a Man, or a Fa­mily, or a Nationall Church were ac­counted Right, and Orthodox, as they agreed w^th the Catholike Church; But the Catholike was never then measured, or judged by Man, Fami­ly, or Nation. But now in the Iesu­ites new schole, The One, Holy, And though Stapleton to magnifie the Church of Rome is p [...]eased to say: Apud veteres pro codem habit a fuit Ecclesia Ro­mana & Ecclesia Catholica: yet he is [...]o modest as to give this Reason of it: Quia ejus Communio erat evident èr & certissi­mè cum tota Catholicá. Relect. Con. 1. q. 5. A. 3. (Lo, The Com [...]union of the Romane was then with the Catholike Church, not of the Catholike with i [...].) An [...] S. Cyprian imployed his Legates Cal­donius and Fortunatus, not to bring the Catholike Church o the Communion of Rome, bu [...] Rome to the Catholike Church: Elaborar [...]nt, ut ad Cath licae Ec­clesiae unitat [...]m [...] Corporis membra [...], &c Now the Mem [...]ers of this R [...] and t [...]rne Body were they of Rome then in an open Schisme betweene Corn [...]ius and Novatian. S. Cypr. L. 2. Epist. 10. Ca­tholike Church must bee measured by that which is in the City or Di­ocesse of Rome, or of them which agreed with it, and not Rome by the Catholike. For so A. C. sayes expresly, The La [...]y would know of me, not whether that were [Page 131] the Catholike Church to which Rome agreed; but whether that were not the Holy Catholike Church, which agreed with Rome. So upon the matter, belike the Christian Faith was committed to the Custody of the Romane, not of the Catholike Church; And a man cannot agree with the Catholike Church of Christ (in this new Doctrine of A. C.) unless [...] he agree with the Church of Rome; but if he agree with that, all's safe, and he is as Orthodox, as he need be.

But A. C. is yet troubled about the forme of the Ladies Question. And he will not have it, That She de­sired 5 to know, whether I would grant the Romane Church to be the Right Church? Though these be her words, ac­cording to the Iesuites owne setting downe, but he thinkes the Question was, Whether the Church of Rome was not the Right Church? not Be not, but was not. Was not? That is, was not once or in time past the Right A. C. p. 54. Church before Luther and others made a breach from it? Why, truly A. C. needed not have troubled himselfe halfe so much about this. For let him take his Choise. It shall be all one to me, whether the Question were asked by Be, or by Was? For the Church of Rome nei­ther is, nor was the Right Church, as the Lady desired to heare. A Particular Church, it is, and was, and in some times right, and in some times wrong, and then in some things right, and in some things wrong: But The Right Church, or The Holy Catholike Church it never was, nor ever can be. And therefore was not such before Lu­ther, and Others either left it, or were thrust from it. A Particular Church it was; But then A. C. is not di­stinct enough here neither. For the Church of Rome both was and was not a Right, or Orthodox Church before Luther made a Breach from it. For the word Ante, Before, may looke upon Rome, and that Church a great way off, or long before; and then in the Prime [Page 132] times of it, it was a most Right and Orthodox Church. But it may looke also nearer home, and upon the im­mediate times before Luther, or some Ages before that; And then in those times C [...] infiniti Abusus, Schismata quo (que) & Haereses per totum nunc Christianum Orbem invalescant, Ecclesiam Dei legitimâ indigere Reformatione nemini non apertum erit. Pet. de Aliaco Card. Cameracensis L. de Refor. Ec­clesiae. And if Schisme [...] and Heresies did then invade the whole Christian world, let A. C. consider how Rome scaped free. And I thinke Cameracensis was in this Pro­pheticall. For sixty yeares and more before Luther was borne, and so before the great troubles which have since fallen upon all Christendome, he used these words in the Booke which himselfe delivered up in the Councell of Constance: Nisi celeriter fiat Reformatio, a [...]deo dicere quod licet magna sint, quae videmus, tamen in brevi in­comparabiliter majora videbimus. Et post ista tonitrua tam horrenda, majora alia audien [...]s &c. Cam. l. de Refor. Eccle. And it will hardly sinke into any mans judge­ment, that so great a man, as Pet. de Aliaco was in that Church, should speake thus, if he did not see some errors in the Doctrine of that Church, as well as in Manners. Nay Cassander though he lived and dyed in the Commu­nion of the Church of Rome, yet found fault with some of her Doctrines. Consulta. Artic. 21. &. 22. And Pope Iulius the third Professed at Bononia, in Sacramentorum Ecclesiae ministerium innumerabiles Abusus irrepsiss [...]. Espen [...]us in Tit. 1. and yet he was one of the Bishops nay the chiefe Legat in the Councell of Trent. Rome was a Corrupt and a tainted Church, farre from being Right. And yet both these times Before Luther made his Breach. So here A. C. should have beene more distinct. For the word Before includes the whole time before Luther, in part of which time that Church of Rome was Right, and in other part whereof it was wrong. But A. C. addes yet, That I suspect­ed the Lady would inferre, if once that Church were Right, what hindred it now to be? Since that did not depart A. C. p. 54. from the Protestant Church, but the Protestant Church from it. Truly, I neither suspected the Inference would be made, nor feare it, when it is made. For 'tis no Newes that any Particular Church, Romane, as well as another, may once have beene Right, and afterwards wrong and in farre worse case. And so it vvas in Rome after the enemy had sowed tares among the wheat. S. Mat. 13. 25. S Mat. 13 But whe­ther these Tares were sovven, vvhile their Bi­shops slept; or vvhether For A. C. knowes well, what strange Doctrines are charged upon some Popes. And all Bellarmines labour, though great and full of art, is not able to wash them cleane. Bellarm. L. 4. d [...]. Rom. Pont. c. 8. &c. Et Papas quosdam graves errores seminâsse in Ecclesia Christi lu­ [...]arius est. Et prob [...]ur à laco. Almain. Opusc. de Autho. Ecclesiae. c. 10. And Cassander speakes it out more pla [...]ly V [...]inam Illi (He speaks of the Bi [...]hops and Rectors in the Romane Church) à qu [...]bus [...] [...] [...] [...]sset, non Ipsi Superst [...] ­num Auctores [...] ­sent: [...]el [...] [...] in Animis hom [...]um simpli [...]um aliquan­do [...] [...] [...]. [...]. Co [...]sulta. Art. 21. [...] finem. They themselves did not helpe to sovv them, [Page 133] is too large a Disquisition for this Place. So though it were once Right; yet the Tares which grow thick in it, are the Cause why 'tis not so now. And then, though that Church did not depart from the Prote­stants Church; yet if it gave great and just Cause for the Protestant Church to depart from the Errours of it, while it in some Particulars departed from the Truth of Christ, it comes all to one for this Particular, That the Romane Church which was once right, is now become wrong, by embracing Superstition, and Errour.

Farther he confessed, That Protestants had made a Rent and Division from it.

I confesse I could here be heartily Grave omninò crimen, sed defensionem longinquam non requirit, satis est enim negare; sic [...]t pro Ecclesiâ olim. S. Aug. de Util. Cred. c. 5. angry, but § 21 1 that I have resolved in handling matters of Religion to leave all gall out of my Ink; For I never granted, that the Romane Church either is, or was the right Church. 'Tis too true indeed, that there is a miserable Rent in the Church, and I make no Question but the best men doe most bemoane it Hanc quae re­spectu hominum Ecclesia dicitur, observare, [...] Communionem colere debemus. Calv. Inst. 4. c. 1; nor is he a Christian, that would not have Vnity, might he have it with Truth. But I never said, nor thought §. 7. that the Protestants made this Rent. The Cause of the Schisme is yours; for you thrust us from you; because we called for Truth, and Redresse of Abuses. For a Rectè scias nos secisse recedendo à vobis, &c. Lucif. L. de Non conveniendo cum Haereticis. He speakes of the Ar­rians, and I shall not compare you with them, nor give any Offence that way. I shall onely draw the generall argument from it, thus: If the Orthodoxe did well in departing from the Arrians, then the Schisme was to be imputed to the Arrians; although the Orthodoxe did de­part from them. Otherwise if the Orthodoxe had beene guilty of the Schisme, he could not have said, Rectè scias nos fecisse recedendo. For it cannot be that a man should do well in making a Schisme. There may be therefore a necessary separation, which yet incurres not the blame of Schisme; And that is, when Doctrines are taught contra­ry to the Catholike Faith. Schisme must needs be theirs, whose the Cause of it is. The Woe runs [Page 134] full out of the mouth of S. Mat. 18. 7. Christ, ever against him, that gives the Offence; not against him that takes it, ever. But you have, by this carriage, given me just cause, ne­ver to treat with you, or your like, but before a Iudge, or a Iurie.

But here A. C. tels me, I had no cause to be angry, 2 either with the Jesuite, or my selfe. Not with the Iesuite, A. C. p. 55, 56. for he writ downe my words in fresh memory, and upon speciall notice taken of the Passage, and that I did say either I [...]dem, or aequipollentibus verbis, either in these, or equivalent words, That the Protestants did make the R [...]nt, or Division from the Romane Church. What, did the Iesuite set downe my words in fresh memory, and upon speciall notice taken, and were they so few as these, The Protestants did make the Schisme; and yet was his memory so short, that he cannot tell, whether I uttered this iisdem, or aequipollentibus verbis? Well, I would A. C. and his Fellowes would leave this Art of theirs, and in Conferences (which A. C. p. 57. they are so ready to call for) impose no more upon other men, then they utter. And you may observe too, that after all this full Assertion, that I spake this iisdem, or aequipollen­tibus verbis, A. C. concludes thus; The Iesuite tooke speciall notice in fresh memory, and is sure he related, at A. C. p. 55. least in sense, just as it was utt [...]red. What's this, At least in sense j [...]st as it was uttered? Do not these two Enter­feire, and shew the Iesuite to be upon his shuffling pace? For if it were just as it was uttered, then it was in the very forme of words too, not in sense onely. And if it were but At least in sense, then when A. C. hath made the most of it, it was not just as 'twas ut­tered. Besides, at least in sense, doth not tell us in whose sense it was. For if A. C. meane the Iesuite's sense of it, he may make what sense he pleases of his owne words; but he must impose no sense of his upon my [Page 135] words. But as he must leave my words to my selfe, so when my words are uttered, or written, he must leave their sense either to me, or to that genuine Constru­ction, which an Ingenuous Reader can make of them. And what my words of Grant were, I have before expressed, and their sense too.

Not with my selfe: That's the next. For A. C. 3 sayes, 'tis truth, and that the world knowes it, that the A. C. p. 56. Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome, and got the name of Protestants, by protesting against it. No, A. C. by your leave, this is not truth neither; and therefore I had reason to be angry with my selfe, had I granted it. For, first, the Protestants did not depart: For departure is voluntary, so was not theirs. I say, not theirs, taking their whole Body and Cause together. For that some among them were peevish, and some igno­rantly zealous, is neither to be doubted, nor is there Danger in confessing it. Your Body is not so perfect (I wot well) but that many amongst you are as pet­tish, and as ignorantly zealous, as any of Ours. You must not suffer for these; nor We for those; nor should the Church of Christ for either. Next, the Protestants did not get that Name by Protesting against the Church of Rome, but by Protesting (and that when nothing else would serve) Conventus suit Ordinum Imperii Spi­rae. Ibi Decretum factum est, ut Edictum Wormatiense observaretur contra Nova­tores (sic appellare placuit) & ut omnia in integrum restituantur (& sic nulla om­nino Reformatio.) Contra hoc Edictum solennis fuit Protestatio. Aprilis 16. An. Ch. 1529. Et hinc ortum pervulgatum illud Protestantium nomen. Se. Calvis. Chron. ad. An. 1529. Th [...]s Protestation therefore was not simply against the Ro­mane Church, but against the Edict, which was for the restoring of all things to their former estate, without any R [...] ­formation. against her Errours, & Superstitions. Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome, and our Protestation is ended, and the Separation too. Nor is Prote­station it selfe such an unheard of thing in the very heart of Religion. For the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament are called by your owne Schoole, Visible Signes protesting the Faith. Now if the [Page 136] Sacraments be Protestantia, Signes Protesting, why may not men also, and without all offence, be called Protestants, since by receiving the true Sacraments, and by refusing them which are corrupted, they doe but Protest the sincerity of their Faith against that Doctri­nall Corruption, which hath invaded the great Sacra­ment of the Eucharist, and other Parts of Religion? Es­pecially, since they are men Quibus homo fidem suam pro­testaretur. Tho. p. 3. q. 61. A. 3. 4. C. which must protest their Faith by these visible Signes and Sacraments.

But A. C. goes on, and will needs have it, that 4 the Protestants were the Cause of the Schisme. For A. C. p. 56. (saith he) though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by Excommunication, yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding, and teaching opinions con­trary to the Romane Faith, and Practice of the Church, which to do, S. Bernard thinks is Pride, and S. Augustine Madnesse. So then, in his Opinion; First, Excommu­nication on their Part was not the Prime Cause of this Division; but the holding and teaching of contrary Opini­ons. Why but then in my Opinion, That holding and teaching was not the Prime Cause neither, but the Cor­ruptions and Superstitions of Rome, which forced many men to hold, and teach the contrary. So, the Prime Cause was theirs still. Secondly, A. Cs. words are very considerable. For he charges the Protestants to be the Authours of the Schisme for obstinate holding and teaching Contrary Opinions. To what I pray? Why to the I know Bellarm. quotes S. Ierome: Sciro Romanam Fidem, &c. suprà §. 3. Nu. 9. But there S. Ierome doth not call it Fidem Romanam, as if Fides Romana and Fides Catholica were convertible; but he speakes of it in the Concrete. Ro­mana Fides, i. Romanorum Fides, qua lau­data suit ab Apostolo. &c. Ro. 1. 8. S. Hie­ron. Apol. 3. cont. Ruffin. That is that Faith which was then at Rome when S. Paul commended it. But the Apo­stles commending of it in the Romanes at one time passes no deed of Assurance, that it shall continue worthy of Com­mendations among the Romans through all t [...]mes. Romane Faith. To the Romane Faith? It was wont to be the Christian Faith, to which contrary Opinions were so dangerous to the Maintainers: But all's Romane now with A. C. and the Iesuite. And then to [Page 137] countenance the Businesse, S. Bernard and S. Augu­stine are brought in, whereas neither of them speak of the Romane, and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholike, nor the Romane, but of a Particular Church, or Congregation. Or if he speake of the Catho­like, of the Romane certainly he doth not. His words are, Quae major superbia, &c. What greater pride, then that one man should preferre his judgement before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world. So A. C. as out of Saint Bernard. Quae major su­perbia, quàm ut unus homo toti Congregationi judicium suum praeferat, tan­quam ipse solus Spiritum Dei habeat. S. Bern. Serm. 3. ae Re­surr. But Saint Bernard not so. For these last words (of all the Christian Churches in the world) are not in Saint Bernard. And whether Toti Congregationi implie more in that Place then a Particular Church, is not very manifest. Nay I thinke 'tis plaine, that hee speakes both of, and to that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching. And I believe A. C. will not easily finde where tota Congregatio, the whole Congregation is used in S. Bernard, or any other of the Fathers, for the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And howsoever the meaning of S. Bernard be, 'tis one thing for a private man, Iudicium suum praeferre, to preferre, and so follow his private Iudgement, before the Whole Congregation, which is indeed, Lepra proprii Consilii (as S. Bernard there cals it) the proud Lepro­sie of the Private Spirit. And quite another thing for an Intelligent man, and in some things unsatisfied, modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholike Church. And much more may a whole Nationall Church, nay the whole Body of the Protestants doe it. And for S Augustine, the Place alledged out of him is a knowne Place. And he speakes indeed of the Whole Catholike Church. And he Similiter eti­am siquid horum tota per Orbem frequentat Ec­clesia: Nam & hinc quin it a fa­ciendum fit dis­put are, Insolen­tissimae Insaniae est. S. Aug. Epist. 118. c. 5. sayes (and hee sayes it truly) 'Tis a part of most insolent mad­nesse for any Man to dispute, whether that bee to bee [Page 138] done, which is usually done in, and thorough the whole Catholike Church of Christ. Where first here's not a word of the Romane Church, but of that, which is tota per Orbem, all over the World, Catholike, which Rome never yet was. Secondly, A. C. applies this to A. C. p. 56. the Romane Faith, whereas S. Augustine speakes there expresly of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, and Quaeris quid per quintam Feriam ulti­me hebdom adis Quadragesimae fiers debet, An offerendum sit manè? &c. S. Aug. Ibid. particularly about the Manner of Offering upon Maundy-Thursday, whether it be in the Morning, or af­ter Supper, or both. Thirdly, 'tis manifest, by the words themselves, that S. Augustine speakes of no Matter of Faith there, Romane, nor Catho­like. For Frequentat, and And so Bellarmine most expresly. But then he adds, Universam Ecclesiam non posse errare, non solùm in Credendo, sed nec in Operando: & praesertim in Ritu & Cultu Divino. L 4. de Verb. Dei. c. 9. §. 4 And if this be true, what is it to Rome? Facien­dum are for Things done, and to be done, not for Things believed, or to be believed. So here's not One Word for the Romane Faith in ei­ther of these Places. And after this, I hope you will the lesse wonder at A. C^s. Boldnesse. Lastly, a right sober man may without the least Touch of Insolency or Madnesse, dispute a Businesse of Religion with the Romane either Church or Pre­late, (As all men know Euseb. L. 5. Hist. Eccl. c. 26, Et Socrat. L. 5. Hist. c. 22. Irenaeus did with Victor.) so it bee with Modesty, and for the finding out, or Confirming of Truth, free from Vanity, and pur­posed Opposition against even a Particular Church. But in any other way to dispute the Whole Catholike Church, is just that which S Augustine cals it, Insolent Madnesse.

But now were it so, that the Church of Rome were Or­thedoxe 5 in all things, yet the Faith, by the Jesuite's leave, is not simply to be called the Romane, but the Christian and the Catholike Faith. And yet A. C. will not under­stand A. C. p. 56. this, but Roman and Catholike, whether Church or [Page 139] Faith must be one and the same with him; and therefore inferres, That there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme or Division from the whole Church. For the whole Church cannot uni­versally erre in Doctrine of Faith. That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith, is most true, and 'tis granted by diverse Quaestio est, An Ecclesia totalis toteliter [...], 1. pro omnibus simul Electis, dum sunt Membra M [...] ­tis Ecclesiae, possint errare, vel in totâ fi [...]e, vel in gravi aliquo fidei puncto? Et respondemus simplicitèr, [...] esse impossibile. Keckerm. Syst. Theol. p. 387 Edit. Han­noviae. An. 1602. Calvinus & caeteri Haeretici conce­dunt Ecclesiam absolutè non posse deficcre; Sed dicunt in­telligi debere de Ecclesia Invi [...]. Bellarm. L. 3. de Ec­cles. Milit. c. 13. §. 1. But this Exception of Bellar­mine's, that the Protestants, whom, out of his Libera­lity, he cals Hereticks, speake of the In [...]isible Church, is meerely frivolous. For the Church of the Elect is in the Church of them that are Called, and the Invisible Church in the Visible. Therefore if the whole Church of the Elect cannot erre in Fundamentals, the whole Visible Church, in which the same Elect are, cannot erre. Now that the Invisible Church of the Elect is in the Vi­sible, is manifest out of S. Aug. Ipsa est Ecclesia quae in­tra sagenam Dominicam cum malis piscibus natat. S. Aug. Epist. 48. Grana sunt inter illam palcam, quan­do Area, cum videretur tota, palea putabatur. S. Aug. in Psal. 121. And this is proved at large by Hooker. L. 3. Eccles. Pol. §. 1. For els the Elect or Invisible Church is tyed to no duty of Christianity. For all such Duties are required of the Church, as 'tis Visible, and performed in the Church, as 'tis Visible. And D^r. Field speakes as plainly, we hold it impossible, that the Church should ever by Apostasie and Misbeliefe, wholly depart from God, &c. So we hold, that it never fals into Heresie. So that Bellarmine is as much to be blamed for idle and needlesse busying himselfe to prove, That the Visible Church never fals into Heresie, which we most willingly grant. Field. L. 4. de Eccles. c. 2. Taking the Church for all the Belee­vers now living, and in things necessary to be knowne expresly. Ibid. And Bellarmine himself adds; Calvinus dicit hanc Propositionem [Ecclesia non potest errare] ve­ram esse si intelligatur cum duplici restrictione. Prima est, si non proponat Dogmata extra Scripturam, &c. (And indeed Calvin doth say so, L. 4 Instit. c. 8. §. 13.) Secunda est, si intelligatur de solâ Ecclesiâ Universali, non autem de Representativâ. Bellar. L. 3. de Eccl. Mi­lit. c. 14. §. 2. And I hope it is as good and a better Re­striction in Calvin: To say the Catholike Church can­not erre, if it keepe to the Scripture: then for Bellarmine to say: The particular Church of Rome cannot erre, be­cause of the Pope's residing there, or the Pope cannot erre, if he keepe his chaire, which yet he affirmes. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. §. 2. Protestants (so you will but understand its not erring, in Ab­solute Fundamentall Do­ctrines.) And therefore 'tis true also, that there can bee no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church. But here's the Iesuite's Cunning. The whole Church, with him, is the Romane, and those parts of Christendome, which subject them­selves to the Romane Bishop. All other parts of Christendome are in Heresie, and Schisme, and what A. C. pleases. Nay soft. For another Church [Page 140] may separate from Rome, if Rome will separate from Christ. And so farre as it separates from Him and the Faith, so farre may another Church sever from it. And th [...]s is all that the Learned Protestants doe or can say: And I am sure all that ever the Church of England hath either said, or done. And that the whole Church can­not erre in Doctrines absolutely Fundamentall, and Ne­cessary to all mens Sa [...]vation (besides the Authority of these Protestants, most of them being of prime ranke) seemes to me to be cleare by the Promise of Christ, S. Matth. 16 [...]hat the gates of Hell shall not prevaile S. Matth. 16. 18. against it. Whereas most certaine it is, that the Gates of Hell prevaile very farre against it, if the Whole Mi­litant Church universally taken, can Erre, from, or in the Foundation, But then this Power of not Erring is not to be conceived, as if it were in the Church primò & per se, Originally, or by any power it hath of it selfe. For the Church is constituted of Men, and Humanum est errare, all men can erre. But this Power is in it, partly by the vertue of this Promise of Christ: and partly by the Matter which it teacheth, which is the uner­ring Word of God, so plainely and manifestly deli­vered to her, as that it is not possible she should uni­versally fall from it, or teach against it in things abso­lutely necessary to Salvation. Besides, it would be well waighed, whether to believe or teach otherwise, will not impeach the Article of the Creed concerning the Holy Catholike Church, which we professe we believe. For the Holy Catholike Church there spoken of, containes not onely the whole Militant Church on earth, but the whole Triumphant also in Heaven. For so Ecclesia hic tota accipi [...]da est, non solum ex par [...]e quà p [...]rinatur [...]terris, &c. v [...]tiam ex illa parte quae in coe­l [...] &c. S. Aug. E [...]hir. c 56. S. Augustine hath long since taught me. Now if the whole Ca­tholike Church in this large extent be Holy, then certainly the whole Militant Church is Holy, [Page 141] as well as the Triumphant, though in a far lower degree, in as much as all Nemo ex toto Sanctus. Optat. L 7 contra, Par­men. Sanctification, all Holinesse is imperfect in this life, as well in Churches, as in Men. Ho­ly then the whole Militant Church is. For that which the Apostle speakes of Abraham, is true of the Church, which is a Body Collective made up of the spirituall seed of Abraham. Rom. 11. If the root be holy so are the branches. Well then the whole Militant Church is Holy, Rom. 11. 16. and so we believe. Why but, will it not follow then Tha [...] the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in the Foundations of the Faith, That she may erre in Super­structures and Deductions and other by, and unneces­sary Truths, if her Curiosity, or other weaknesse carry her beyond, or cause her to fall short of her Rule, no doubt need be made. But if She can erre ei­ther from the Foundation, or in it, She can be no lon­ger Holy, and that Article of the Creed is gone For if She can erre quite from the Foundation, then She is nor Holy, nor Church, but becomes an Infidell. Now this cannot be. For Dum Christus or at in Excelso, Návi­cula (id est E [...]clesia) [...]tur fluctibus in profundo &c sed quia Christus orat, non potest mergi S. Aug. Serm 14 de Verb. Domi. c 2. Et B [...]llar L. 3 ac Ec­cle. Milit c. 13. Praesidi [...] Christi ful [...]i­tur Eccl [...]siae perpetuitas ut inter turbu­lentas a [...]itationes, & formi [...]abiles m [...]tus. &c. salva tam [...]n maneat. C [...]. L. 2. In­stit. c. 15. §. 3. Ipsa Symboli [...] admonemur perpetuam resid [...]re in Eccle­sia Christi remission m Peccatorum. Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 1. §. 17. Now remission of sins cannot be perpetuall in the Church, if the Church it selfe be [...] perpetuall. But the Church it selfe cannot be perpetuall, if it fall away. all Divine Ancient, and Moderne, Romanists, and Reformers, agree in this, That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostacy. And if She Erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamentall Poynts of Faith, then Shee may bee a Church of Christ still, but not Holy, but be­comes Hereticall; And most certain it is that, no Spiritus Sanctificationis non p [...]ost in­veniri in Haereticorum mentibus. S. Hi­erom. in Ierom. 10. Assem [...]ly (be it never so generall) of such Hereticks, is, or can be Holy. Other Errors that are of a meaner alay take not Holinesse from the Church; but these that are dyed in graine cannot consist with Holinesse, of [Page 142] which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation. And therefore if we will keepe up our Creed, the whole Militant Church must be still Holy. For if it be not so still, then there may be a time, that Falsum may subesse Fidei Catholicae, that falshood, and that in a high degree, in the very Article, may be the Subject of the Catholike Faith, which were no lesse then Blas­phemy to affirme. For we must still believe the Holy Catholike Church. And if She be not still Holy, then at that time when She is not so, we believe a Falshood under the Article of the Catholike Faith. Therefore a very dangerous thing it is to cry out in generall termes, That the whole Catholike Militant Church can Erre, and not limit nor distinguish in time, that it can erre indeed, for Ignorance it hath, and Ignorance can Erre. But Erre it cannot, either by falling totally from the Foundation, or by Hereticall Error in it. For the Ho­linesse of the Church consists as much, if not more, in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners taught and Commanded in the Doctrine of Faith.

Now in this Discourse A. C. thinkes he hath met 6 with me. For he tells me, that I may not only safely grant, A. C. p. 56. that Protestants made the Division that is n [...]w in the Church; but further also, and that with a safe Confidence, as one did, was it not you? saith he, That it was ill done of those, who did first made the Separation, Truly I doe not now remem­ber, whether I said it or no. But because A. C. shall have full satisfaction from me, and without any Ter­giversation, if I did not say it then, I do say it now, and most true it is, That it was ill done of those, who e're they were, that first made the separation. But then A. C must not understand me of Actuall only, but of Causall separa­tion. For (as I said §. 21. Nu. 1. before) the Schisme is theirs, whose the Cause of it is: And he makes the Separation, that gives the first just Cause of it; not he that makes an [Page 143] Actuall Separation upon a just Cause preceding. And this is so evident a Truth, that A, C. cannot deny it; for he sayes 'tis most true. Neither can he deny it in this A. C. p. 56. sense, in which I have expressed it; For his very Asser­tion against us (though false) is in these Termes, That we gave the first Cause; Therefore he must meane it of Causall, not of Actuall Separation only.

But then A. C. goes on and tells us, That after this 7 Breach was made, yet the Church of Rome was so kinde A. C. p. 57. and carefull to seeke the Protestants; that She invited them publikely with safe conduct to Rome, to a Ge­nerall Councell, freely to speak what they could for themselves. Indeed I thinke the Church of Rome did carefully seeke the Protestants; But I doubt it was to bring them with­in their Net. And she invited them to Rome; A very safe place if you marke it, for them to come to, Iust as the Lion (in the Olim quod vulpes aegroto cauta Leoni Respondit, referam, Quia me vestigia terrent Omnia te adversum spectantia, nulla retrorsùm. Apo­logue) invited the Fox to his own Den. Horat. L. 1. Ep. 1. ex Aesop. Yea but there was safe Conduct offered too? Yes, Conduct perhaps, but not safe, or safe perhaps for going thither, but none for cōming thence. Vestigia nulla retrorsùm. Yea, but it should have been to a Generall Councell? Perhaps so. But was the Con­duct safe, that was given for com­ming to a Councell, which they cal Ge­nerall, to some o­thers before them? No sure, Though I cannot justifie all which these two men said, yet safe Conduct being given, that Publike Faith ought not to have beene violated. Iohn Hus, and Jerome of Prage burnt for all their safe conduct. And so long as Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici, debere Haereticis servari fidem, sive salvus conductus concedatur Iure communi sive speciali. Bec. Dis. Theol. de Fide Haereticis servandâ. c. 12. §. 5. But for al this Brag of (Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici) Becanus shuffles pitifully, to defend the Councell of Constance. For thus he argues: Fides non est violata Hussio. Non à Patri­bus. Illi enim fidem non dederunt. Non ab Imperatore Sigismun­do. Ille enim dedit fidem, sed non violavit. Ibid. §. 7. But all men know that the Emperor was used by the Fathers at Constance to bring Husse thither. Sigismundus Hussum Constantiam vocat, & missis Literis publicâ fide cavet, mense Octob. Ann. 1414. &c. Edit. in 160. Et etiamsi Primò graviter tulit Hussi in carceratio­nem, tamen cum dicerent Fidem Haereticis non esse servandam, non modo remisit Offensionem, sed & primus accrbè in eum pro­nunciav it Ibid. This is a mockery. And Becanus his Argument is easily returned upon himselfe. For if the Fathers did it in cunning, that the Emperor should give safe conduct, which themselves meant not to keepe, then they broke faith And if the Emperor knew, they would not keepe it, then he himselfe broke faith, in giving a safe conduct, which he knew to be invalid. And as easie it is to answer what Becanus addes to save that Coun­cels Act could I stay upon it. Fides Haereticis data servanda non est, sicut nec Tyrannis, Piratis & c [...]teris publicis praedonibus. &c. Simanca. Jnstit. Tit. 46. §. 51. And although Becanus in the place above cited §. 13. confident­ly denyes, that the Fathers at Constance decreed, No faith to be kept with Hereticks, and cites the words of the Councell Sess. 19. yet there the very words themselves have it thus: Posse Con­cilium cos punire &c. etiamsi de salvo conductu consisi ad locum ven [...]rint Judicii &c. And much more plainly Simanca, Just. Tit. 46. §. 52. Iureigitur Haeretici quidam gravissimo Concilii Con­stantiensis Judicio legitimâ flammâ concremati sunt, quamvis pro­mi [...]sa illis securitas fuisset. So they are not onely Protestants which charge the Councell of Constance with this. Nor can Be­canus say as [...]e doth, Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catholici, sidem Hareticis servandam esse. For Simanca denyes it. And hee quotes others for it which A. C. would be loth should not be accounted Catholikes. But how faithfully Simanca sayes the one, or Becanus the other, let them take it betweene them, and the Reader be judge. In the meane time the very Title of the Ca­non of the Councell of Constance Sess. 19. is this. Quodnon ob­stantibus salvis conductibus Jmperatoris, Regum. &c. possit per Indicem competentem de Haeretica p [...]te inquiri. the Ie­Iesuites [Page 144] write and maintaine, That Faith given is not to be kept with Here­tickes: And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensur­ed (as it hath hi­therto done, and no exception put in of force and vi­olence.) A. C shall pardon us, that we come not to Rome, nor within the reach of Romane Power, what free­dome of Speech so­ever bee promis­ed us. For to what end Freedome of Speech on their part, For so much. A. C. confesses p. 45. For if they should give way to the altering of one, then why not of another, and ano­ther, and so of al? And the Trent Fathers in a great point of Do­ctrine being amazed, and not knowing what to answer to a Bi­shop of their owne, yet were resolved not to part with their common error. Certum tamen er at Doctrinam eam non probare, sed quam antea didicissent firmitèr tenere &c. Hist. Con. Trid. L. 2. p. 277. Edit. Leyd. 1612. since they are resolved to al­ter nothing? And to what end Free­dome of speech on our part, if after speech hath beene free, life shall not?

And yet for all this, A. C. makes no doubt, but that the 8 Romane Church is so farre from being Cause of the continu­ance A. C. p. 57. of the Schisme, or hinderance of the Re-union, that it would yet give a free hearing with most ample safe Conduct, if any hope might be given, that the Protestants would sincerely seeke nothing but Truth, and Peace. Truly A. C. is very [Page 145] Resolute for the Romane Church, yet how far he may undertake for it, I cannot tell. But for my part, I am of the same Opinion for the continuing of the Schisme, that I was for the making of it. That is, that it is ill, ve­ry ill done of those, whoever they be, Papists, or Pro­testants, that give just Cause to continue a Separation. But for free-hearings, or safe Conducts, I have said enough till that Church doe not only say, bnt doe otherwise. And as for Truth and Peace, they are in every mans mouth with you, and with us; But lay they but halfe so close to the hearts of men, as they are common on their tongues, it would soone be better with Christen­dome, then at this day it is, or is like to be. And for the Protestants in generall, I hope they seeke both Truth and Peace, sincerely. The Church of England, I am sure doth, and hath taught me to Beseeching God to inspire conti­nually the Vni­versall Church with the Spirit of truth, unity, and concord. &c. In the Prayer for the Militant Church. And in the third Collect on Good-friday. pray for both, as I most heartily doe. But what Rome doth in this, if the world will not see, I will not Censure.

And for that, which A. C. addes, That such a free 9 hearing is more then ever the English Catholikes could obtaine, A. C. p. 57. though they have often offered, and desired it, and that but un­der the Princes word: And that no Answer hath, nor no good Answer can be given. And he cites Campian for it. How farre, or how often this hath beene asked by the Eng­lish Rommists, I cannot tell, nor what Answer hath beene given them. But surely Campian was too bold, and so is A. C. too, to say Campian. prae­fat. Rationsbut praefixà. Honestum responsum nullum, no good Answer can be given. For this, I thinke is a very good Answer; That the Kings and the Church of England had no Reason to admit of a Publike Dispute with the English Romish Clergie, till they shall be able to shew it under the Seale, or Powers of Rome, That that Church will submit to a Third, who may be an Indifferent Iudge betweene us and them; or to such a Generall Councell as is after §. 26. Nu. 1. mentioned. And this is an Honest, [Page 146] and I thinke a full Answer. And without this all Dis­putation must end in Clamour; And therefore the more publike, the worse. Because as the Clamour is the grea­ter, so perhaps will be the Schisme too.

Moreover he said, he would ingenuously acknow­ledge, That the Corruption of Manners in the Ro­mish Church, was not a sufficient Cause to justi­fie their Departing from it.

I would I could say, you did as ingenuously re­peat, § 22 as I did Confesse For I never said, That Corrupti­on of Manners was, or was not a sufficient Cause to ju­stifie their Departure. How could I say this, since I did not grant, that they did Depart, otherwise then is §. 21. N. 6. be­fore expressed?) There is difference between Departure, and causel [...]sse Thrusting from you; For out of the Church is not in your Power (God bee thanked) to thrust us: Think on that. And so much I said expresly then, That which I did ingenuously confesse, was this, That Corruption in Manners only, is no sufficient Cause to make a Separation in the Church; Modò ea qùae ad Cathedrā per­tinent recta prae­cipiant S. Hier. Ep. 236. Nor is it. It is a Truth agreed on by the Fathers, and received by Divines of all sorts, save by the Cathari, to whom the Donatist, and the Ana­baptist after accorded. And against whom L. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 13. &c. Ep. 48. A ma­lis piscibus corde semper & mori­bus se [...]arantur. &c. Corporalem separationem in [...]tore maris, hoc est, in fine saculi expectant. Calvin di­sputes it strongly. And S. Augustine is plaine: There are bad fish in the Net of the Lord, from which there must be ever a Separation in heart, and in manners; but a corporali [...] must be expected at the Sea shore, that is, the end of the world. And the best fish that are, must not teare and breake the Net, because the bad are with them. And this is as ingenuously Confessed for you, as by me. For if Corruption in Manners were a just Cause of Actuall Separa­tion of one Church from another, in that Catholike Body of Christ, the Church of Rome hath given as [Page 147] great cause as any, since (as Uix ullum peccatum (sol [...] Hae­resi exceptá) c [...]gitari potest, quo illa Sedes [...]urpiter maculata non fucrit, maxime ab An, 8 [...]0. Re­lect. Cont. 1. q. 5. Art. 3. Stapleton grants) there is scarce any sinne that can be thought by man (Heresie only excepted) with which that Sea hath not been fouly stained, espe­cially from eight hundred yeares after Christ. And he need not except Haeresie, into which Biel in Can. Miss. Lect. 23. Biel grants it possi­ble the Bishops of that Sea may fall. And Stel. in S. Luc. c 22 Almain. in 3. Sent. d. 24. q. 1 fi­ne. Multae sunt Decretales haere­ticae &c. And so they erred as Popes. Stella, and Almaine g [...]ant it freely, that some of them did fall, and so ceased to be Heads of the Church, and left Christ (God be thanked) at that time of his Vicars defection, to looke to his Cure himselfe.

But (saith he) beside Corruption of Manners, there were also Errors in Doctrine.

This I spake indeed. And can you prove, that § 23 I spake not true in this? But I added (though here againe you are pleased to omit it) That some of the er­rors of the Roman Church were dangerous to salvation. For it is not every light E [...]ror in Disputable Doctrine, and Points of curious Speculation, that can bee a just Cause of Separation in that Admirable Body of Christ, which is his Eph. 1. 23. Church, or of one Member of it from another. For hee gave his Naturall Body to bee rent and torne upon the Crosse, that his My­sticall Body might be One. And S. S. Aug. Ep. 50. Et iterum Colum ba non sunt qui Ecclesiā dissipant. Accipitres sunt, Milvi sunt: Non laniat Columba. &c. S. Aug. tract. 5. in S. Iohn. Augustine inferres upon it; That [...]e is no way partaker of Divine Charity, that is an enemie to this Vnity. Now what Errors in Doctrine may give just Cause of Separation in this Bo­dy, or the Parts of it one from another, were it never so easie to determine (as I thinke it is most difficult) I would not venture to set it downe in particular, least in these times of Discord, I might bee thought to open a Doore for Schisme; which surely I will never doe, unlesse it be to let it out. [Page 148] But that there are Errors in Doctrine, and some of them such, as most manifestly endanger salvation, in the Church of Rome, is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes. The proofe whereof runnes through the Particular Points, that are betweene us; and so is too long for this Discourse. Now here A. C. would faine have a Reason given him, Why I did endeavour A. C. p. 55. to shew what Cause the Protestants had to make that Rent or Division, if I did not grant that they made it. Why truly in this reasonable demand I will satisfie him. I did it partly because I had granted in the generall, that Corruption in Manners was no sufficient cause of Separation of one Particular Church from another, and therefore it lay upon me, at least to Name in ge­nerall what was: And partly because he, and his Partie will needes have it so, that we did make the Separation; And therefore though I did not grant it, yet amisse I thought it could not be, to De­clare by way of Supposition, that if the Protestants did at first Separate from the Church of Rome, they had reason so to doe: For A. C. himselfe confesses, A. C. p. 56. That Error in Doctrine of the Faith is a just Cause of Sepa­ration; so just, as that no Cause is just, but that. Now had I leasure to descend into Particulars, or will to make the Rent in the Church wider, 'tis no hard matter to proove, that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith, and dangerously too: And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to Particulars, A. C. his Importunity forcing me to it.

Which when the Generall Church would not Re­forme, it was lawfull for Particular Churches to Reforme themselves.

Is it then such a strange thing, that a Particular § 24 Church may reforme it selfe, if the Generall will not? 1 I had thought, and do so still, That in Point of Refor­mation of either Manners, or Doctrine, it is lawfull for the Church sinoe Christ, to doe as the Church before Christ did, and might do. The Church before Christ consisted of Iewes and Proselytes: This Church came to have a Separation, upon a most ungodly Policie of 3. Reg. 12. 27. Ieroboam's, so that it never peeced together againe. To a Common Councell, to reforme all, they would not come. Was it not lawfull for Iudah to reforme her selfe, when Israel would not joyne? Sure it was, or els the Prophet deceives me, that sayes expresly, Hos. 4. 15. Though Israel transgresse, yet let not Iudah sinne. And S. Hierome Super Haereti­cis prona intelli­gentia est. S. Hi­er. Ibid. expounds it of this very particular sinne of Heresie, and Errour in Religion. Nor can you say, that Non tamen cessavit Deus & populum hunc arguere per Prophetas. Nam ibi extiter unt Magni illi & insignes Prophe­tae Elias & Elizaeus, &c. S. Aug. L. 17. de Civit. Dei. c. 22. Multi religiosè in­tra se Dei cultum habebant, &c. De quo numero eorumvè Posteris septem illa mi [...]ia fuisse statuo, qui in Persecutione sub Achabo Deum sibi ab Idololatriâ im­munes reservârunt, nec genua ante Baal flexerunt. Fran. Monceius L. 1. de Vit. Aureo. c. 12. Israel from the time of the Separation was not a Church; for there were true Prophets in it, 3. Reg. 17. sub Achabo. Elias, and 4. Reg. 3. sub Iehoram filio A­chabi. Elizaeus, and others, and 3. Reg. 19. 18. thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal. And there was salva­tion for these; which cannot be in the Ordinary way, where there is no Church. And God threatens Hos. 9. 17. to cast them away, to wander among the Nations, and be no Congregation, no Church: therefore he had not yet cast them away in Non Ecclesiam, into No-Church. And they are expresly called the People of the Lord in 4. Reg. 9. 6. Iehu's time, and so continued long after. Nor can you plead, that Iudah is your part, and the Ten Tribes ours (as some of you doe) for if that bee true, you must grant that the Multitude and greater number is ours: And where then is Multitude, your numerous Note of the Church. For the Ten Tribes [Page 150] were more then the two. But you cannot plead it. For certainly if any Calves be set up, they are in Dan, and in Bethel: They are not ours.

Besides, to reforme what is amisse in Doctrine, or 2 Manners, is as lawfull for a Particular Church, as it is to publish and promulgate any thing that is Catholike in either. And your Question, Quo Judice? lies alike against both. And yet I thinke it may be proved, that the Church of Rome, and that as a Particular Church, did promulgate an Orthodoxe Truth, which was not then Catholikely admitted in the Church; namely, The Pro­cession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne. If she erred in this Fact, confesse her Errour; if she erred not, why may not another Particular Church doe as shee did? A learned Schoole-man of yours saith she may: Non oportuit ad hac cos vocare, quum Authoritas fuerit publicandi apud sia [...] Romanam, pracipuè cùm unicuique ctiam particulari Ecclesiaeliceat, id quod Catholicum est, promulgare. Alb. Mag. in 1. Dist. 11. A. 9. The Church of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree upon this Truth, fince the Authority of publish­ing it was in the Church of Rome, es­pecially since it is lawfull for every particular Church to promulgate that which is Catholike. Nor can you say, he m anes Catho­like, as fore determined by the Church in generall; for so this Point, when Rome added Filioque to the Creed of a Generall Councell, was not. And how the Grecians were used in the after-Councell (such as it was) of Florence, is not to trouble this Dispute; But Catholike stands there, for that which is so in the na­ture of it, and Fundamentally. Nor can you justly say, That the Church of Rome did, or might do this, by the Pope's Authority over the Church. For suppose he have that, and that his Sentence be Infallible, (I say, suppose both, but I give neither) yet neither his Au­thority, nor his Infallibility can belong unto him, as the particular Bishop of that Sea, but as the Non errare, con­venit Papa [...]t est Caput. Bell. L. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. Ministeriall [Page 151] Head of the whole Church. And you are all so Iodged in this, that L. 2. de Christo. c. 21. §. Quando au­tem. So you cannot finde Record, of your own Truths, which are farre more likely to be kept: but when Errours are crept in, we must bee bound to tell the place, and the time, and I know not what, of their Beginnings, or els they are not Errours. As if some Errours might not want a Record, as well as some Truth. Bellarmine pro­fesses he can neither tell the yeare when, nor the Pope under whom this Addition was made. A Par­ticular Church then, if you judge it by the Schoole of Rome, or the Practice of Rome, may publish any thing that is Catholike, where the whole Church is silent; and may therefore Reforme any thing that is not Catholike, where the whole Church is negligent, or will not.

But you are as jealous of the honour of Rome, as 3 Omninò rectè, nisi excepisset, &c. Nec consideravit quanti refer at concedere Ec­clesiis particularibus jus condend [...]rum Canonum de Fide, inconsult â Romanà Sede, quod nunquam licuit, nunquam fa­ctum est, &c. Capell. de Appellat. Ecol. Africanae. c. 2. Nu. 12. Capellus is, who is angry with Ba­ronius about certaine Canons in the second Milevit [...]ne Councell, and saith, That he considered not of what consequence it was, to grant to Parti­cular Churches the Power of making Ca [...]ons of Faith, without consulting the Romane Sea, which (as he saith, and you with him) was never lawfull, nor ever done. But suppose this were so, my Speech was not, Not consulting, but in Case of Neglecting, or Refu­sing: Or when the difficulty of Time and Place, or other Circumstances are such, that a Rex confitetur se vocâsse Concilium tertium Toletanum; Quia decur [...]s retrò temporibus Haeresis imminens in tota Ec­clesia Catholica agere Synodica Negotia denegabat, &c. Concil. Toletan. terti­um. Can. 1. Generall Councell cannot be called, or not convene. For that the Ro­mane Sea must be consulted with, before any Reformation bee made. First, most certaine it is, Capellus can never proove. And secondly as certaine, that were it proved, and practised, we should have no Reforma­tion: For it would be long enough, before the Church should be cured, if that Sea alone should be her Phy­sitian, which in truth is her Disease.

[Page 152] Now if for all this you will say still, That a Pro­vinciall 4 Councell will not suffice, but we should have borne with Things, till the time of a Generall Coun­cell. First, 'tis true, a Generall Councell, free and entire, would have beene the best Remedy, and most able for a Gangrene that had spread so farre, and eaten so deepe into Christianity. But what? Should we have suffered this Gangren to endanger life and all, rather then bee cured in time by a Physitian of a weaker knowledge, and a lesse able Hand? Secondly, We live to see since, if we had stayed and expected a Generall Councell, what manner of one we should have had, if any. For that at Trent was neither generall, nor free. And for the Errours which Rome had contracted, it confirmed them, it cured them not. And yet I much doubt, whether ever that Councell (such as it was) would have beene called, if some Provinciall and Na­tionall Synods under Supreme and Regall Power, had not first set upon this great worke of Reformation; Which I heartily wish had in all places beene as Or­derly and Happily pursued, as the Worke was right Christian and good in it selfe. But humane frailty, and the Heats and Distempers of men, as well as the Cunning of the Divell, would not suffer that. For even in this sense also, The wrath of man doth not ac­complish the will of God, S. Iames 1. But I have learned S. Iames 1. 20. not to reject the Good, which God hath wrought, for any Evill, which men may fasten to it.

And yet if for all this, you thinke 'tis better for us 5 to be blinde, then to open our owne eyes, let me tell you, very Grave and Learned Men, and of your owne Party, have taught me, That when the Vniversall Church will not, or for the Iniquities of the Times, can­not obtaine and settle a free generall Councell, 'tis law­full, nay sometimes necessary to Reforme grosse [Page 153] Abuses by a Nationall, or a Provinciall. For, besides Alb. Magnus, whom I quoted §. 24. Nu. 2. before, Gerson, the Learned and Devout Chancellour of Paris tels us plainly: Nolo tamen dicere, quin in multis par­tibus possit Ecclesia per suas partes refor­mari. Imò hoc necesse esset, sed ad hoc agendum sufficerent Concilia Provincia­lia, &c Gerson, tract. de Gen. Concil. unius obedientia. parte 1. p. 222. F. That he will not deny, but that the Church may be reformed by parts. And that this is necessary, and that to effect it, Provinciall Councels may suffice; And, in somethings, Dio­cesan. And againe, Omnes Ecclesiae status aut in Gonerali Concilio reformetis, aut [...] Conciliis Pro­vincialibus reformari mandetis. Gerson. Declarat. Defectuum Virorum Eccle­siasticorum. par. 1. pag. 209. B. Either you should reforme all Estates of the Church in a Generall Councell, or command them to be reformed in Provinciall Councels. Now Gerson lived about two hundred yeares since. But this Right of Provinci­all Synods, that they might decree in Causes of Faith, and in Cases of Reformation, where Corruptions had crept into the Sacraments of Christ, was practised much above a thousand yeares ago by many, both Nationall and Provinciall Synods. For the Concil. Rom. 2. sub Sylvestro. Councell at Rome under Pope Sylvester An: 324. condemned Photinus and Sa­bellius. (And their Heresies were of high Nature against the Faith.) The Concil. Gang. Can. 1. Councell at Gangra about the same time condemned Eustathius for his condemning of Marriage as unlawfull. The Con. Carth. 1. Can. 1. first Councell at Car­thage, being a Provinciall, condemned Rebaptization much about the yeare [...]48. The Con. Aquiliens. Provinciall Councell at Aquileia in the yeare 381. in which S. Ambrose was present, cond [...]mned Pall [...]dius and Secundinus for em­bracing the Arrian Heresie. The Con. Carth. 2. Can. 1. second Councell of Carthage handled and Decreed the Beliefe and Preach­ing of the Trinity; And this a little after the yeare 424. The Quaedam de causis fidei, unde nunc quae­stio Pelagianorum imminet, in hoc [...] sanctissimo primitus tractentur, &c. Au­rel. Carthaginensis in Praefat. Conc. Mi­levit. apud [...]. Councell of Milevis in Africa, in which S. Augustine was present, condemned the whole Course of the Horesie of Pelagius, that greatand [Page 154] bewitching Heresie, in the yeare 416. The Con. Aurausi­can. 2. Can. 1, 2, & 6. second Coun­cell at Orang, a Provinciall too, handled the great Con­troversies about Grace and Free-will, and set the Church right in them, in the yeare 444 The Con. Tolet. 3. third Councell at Toledo (a Nationall one) in the yeare 589. de­termined many things against the Arrian Heresie about the very Prime Articles of Faith, under fourteene severall Anathema's. The fourth Councell at Toledo did not onely handle Matters of Faith for the Reformation of that People, Que omnia in aliis Symbolis explicitè tradita non sunt. Conc. Tolet. 4. Can. 1. but even added also some things to the Creed, which were not expresly delivered in former Creeds. Nay the Bishops did not onely practise this, to Condemne Heresies in Nationall and Provinciall Synods, and so Reforme those severall Places, and the Church it selfe by parts: But They did open­ly challenge this as their Right and Due, and that without any leave asked of the Sea of Rome. For in this Fourth Councell of Toledo Statuimus, ut saltem semel in Anno à Nobis Concilium celebretur, it à tamen, ut si Fide [...] C [...]usa est, aut quaelibet alia Ecclesiae communis, Generalis Hispani [...] & Galliciae Synodus celebretur, &c. Conc. Tolet. 4. Can. 3. They Decree, That if there hap­pen a Cause of Faith to be setled, a Generall, that is, a Nationall Synod of all Spaine and Gallicia shall be held thereon. And this in the yeare 643. Where you see, it was then Catholike Do­ctrine in all Spaine, that a Nationall Synod might be a Competent Iudge in a Cause of Faith And I would faine know, what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall, then that of Filioque? And yet the Church of Rome her selfe made that Addition to the Creed without a Generall Councell, as I have shewed §. 24. Nu. 2. already. And if this were practised so often, and in so many places, why may not a Nationall Coun­cell of the Church of England doe the like? as Shee did. For, Shee cast off the Pope's Vsurpation, [Page 155] and as much as in her lay, restored the King to his right. That appeares by a The Institution of a Christian man: printed An. 1534. Booke subscribed by the Bishops in Henry the eight's time. And by the In Synodo Londin [...]nsi Sess. 8. Die Vene­ris. 29. Ianuarii. An. 1562. Re­cords in the Arch-bishop's Office, or­derly kept and to be seene. In the Reformation which came after, our And so in the Reformation under Heze­kiah, 2. Chron. 29 & under Iosia, 4 Reg. 23. And in the time of Reccarcdus King of Spaine, the Reformation there proceeded thus: Quùm gloriosissimus Princeps omnes Regimin [...] sui Pontifices in unum conve­nire mand [...]sset, &c. Con [...]il. Tolet. 3. Can. 1. Cùm convemssemus Sacerdotes Domini apud urbem Toletan [...], ut R [...] ­giis imperiis atque jussis commoniti, &c. Concil. Tolet. 4. in princ. apud Cara [...] ­zam. And bo [...]h these Synods did treat of Matters of Faith. Princes had their parts, and the Clergy theirs. And to these Two principally the power and directi­on for Reformation belongs. That our Princes had their parts, is mani­fest by their Calling together of the Bishops, and others of the Clergie, to consider of that which might seeme worthy Re­formation. And the Clergie did their part: For being thus called together by Regall Power, they met in the Nationall Synod of sixty two. And the Articles there agreed on, were afterwards confirmed by Acts of State, and the Royall Assent. In this Synod the Posi­tive Truths which are delivered, are more then the Polemicks. So that a meere Calumnie it is, That we pro­fesse only a Negative Religion. True it is, and we must thanke Rome for it, our Confession must needs containe some Negatives. For, we cannot but deny that Images are to be adored. Nor can we admit Maimed Sacra­ments. Nor grant Prayers in an unknowne tongue. And in a corrupt time, or place, 'tis as necessary in Religion to deny falshood, as to assert, and vindicate Truth. In­deed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done, but by the former; an Affirmative Verity being ever included in the Negative to a Falshood. As for any Errour which might fall into this (as any other Refor­mation) if any such can be found, then I say, & 'tis most true: Reformation, especially in Cases of Religion, is [Page 156] so difficult a worke, and subject to so many Pretensi­ons, that 'tis almost impossible but the Reformers should step too farre, or fall too short, in some smal­ler things or other, which in regard of the farre grea­ter benefit comming by the Reformation it selfe, may well be passed over, and borne withall. But if there have beene any wilfull, and grosse errours, not so much in Opinion, as in Fact, (Quisquis occasione hujus Legis, quam Regesterra Christo servientes ad emen­dandam vestram impietatem promulgave­runt, res proprias vestras cupide appetit, displicet nobis. Quisquis denique ipsas res pauperum, vel Ba [...]licas Congregationum, &c. non per Iustitiam, sed per Avariti­amtenet, displicet nobis. S. Aug. Epist. 48. versus finem. Sacriledge too often pretending to reforme Superstition) that's the Crime of the Reformers, not of the Reformation; and they are long since gone to God to answer it, to whom I leave them.

But now before I go off from this Point, I must 6 put you in remembrance too, That I spake at that time (and so must all that will speak of that Exigent) of the Generall Church as it was for the most part forced under the Government of the Romane Sea. And this you understand well enough; For in your very next words you call it the Romane Church. Now I make no doubt, but that as the Vniversall Catholike Church would have reform'd her selfe, had she beene in all parts freed of the Romane Yoke: so while she was for the most in these Westerne parts under that yoke, the Church of Rome was, if not the Onely, yet the Chiefe Hindrance of Reformation. And then in this sense, it is more then cleare, That if the Romane Church will neither Reform, nor suffer Reformation, it is law­full for any other Particular Church to Reform it selfe, so long as it doth it peaceably and orderly, and keeps it selfe to the Foundation, and free from And this a Particular Church may doe; but not a Schisme. For a Schisme can ne­ver be peaceable, nor orderly, and seldome free from Sacriledge. Out of which re­spects, (it may be) as well as for the gr [...]e­vousnesse of the Crime, S. Aug. cals it Sacrilegium Schismatis. L. 1 de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 8. For usually they go together. Sacriledge.

I asked Quo Iudice, did this appeare to bee so? VVhich Question I asked, as not think­ing it equity that Protestants in their own Cause should be Accusers, VVitnesses, and Iudges of the Romane Church.

You doe well to tell the reason now, why you § 25 asked this Question; For you did not discover it 1 at the Conference: if you had, you might then have received your Answer. It is most true: No man in common equity ought to be suffered to be Accuser, Witnesse, and Iudge in his owne Cause. But is there not as little reason, and equity too, that any man that is to be accused, should be the Accused, and yet VVitnesse, and Iudge in his owne Cause? If the first may hold, no man shall be Innocent; and if the last, none will be Nocent. And what doe we here with (in their owne Cause against the Romane Church?) Why? Is it not your owne too, against the Protestant Church? And if it be a Cause common to both, as certaine it is, then nei­ther Part alone may be Iudge: If neither alone may judge, then either they must be judged by a §. 21. Nu. 9. Third which stands indifferent to both, and that is the Scri­pture, or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repaire to the Exposition of the Primitive Church, and submit to that; or both call, and submit to a Generall Councell, which shall be lawfully called, and fairely, and freely held with indifferency to all parties; And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture, which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens.

And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride 2 and Insolent madnesse of the Prot [...]stants, A. C. addes, That A. C. p. 58. the Church of Rome is the Principall, and Mother Church: And that therefore, though it be against common equity, that [Page 158] Subjects, and Children should be Accusers, Witnesses, Iudges, and Executioners against their Prince, and Mother in any case: yet it is not absurd, that in some Cases, the Prince, or Mother may Accuse, Witnesse, Iudge, and if need be, execute Iustice, against unjust and rebellious Subjects, or evill Children. How farre forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church, or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after. In the meane time, though I cannot grant her to be either, yet let's suppose her to be both, that A. C^s. Argument may have all the strength it can have. Nor shall it force me (as plausible as it seemes) to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects, or of Mothers over their Children, to avoid the shocke of this Argument. For though A. C. may tell us 'tis not absurd in some Cases; yet I would faine have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just, or tooke it upon him to be Accuser, and VVitnesse, and Iudge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects, but that the Law had Libertie to Iudge betweene them. For the great Philo­sopher tells us, [...], Arist. Eto. c. 6. That the Chiefe Magistrate is Custos ju­ris, the Guardian and keeper of the Law, and if of the Law, then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them that are under him. And even Tiberius himselfe, in the Cause of Silanus, when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power then in wisdome he thought fit then to take to himselfe, he put him off thus. No, Minui Jura quoties gliscat Potestas, nec u­tendum Imperio, ubi Legibus agi possit. Tacit. L. 3 Annal. the Lawes grow lesse where such Power enlarges. Nor is absolute Power to be used, where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law. And for Heb. 12. 9. Parents, 'tis true, when Chil­dren are young, they may chastise them without other Accuser or VVitnesse, then themselves; and yet the chil­dren are to give them reverence. And 'tis presumed that naturall affection will prevaile so far with them, that they will not punish them too much. For all ex­perience tells us (almost to the losse of Education) that [Page 159] they God used Samuel as a Messenger against Eli for his overmuch indulgence to his sonnes. 1 Sam. 3. 13. And yet Sa­muel himselfe committed the very same fault concerning his own sonnes. 1 Sam. 8. 3. 5. And this Indulgence occasioned the Change of the Civill government, as the former was the losse of the Priest­hood. punish them too little, even when there is cause. Yet when Chil­dren are growne up, and come to some full use of their owne Reason, the Apostles Rule is Coloss. 3. 21. Colos. 3. Parents, provoke not your Children. And if the Apostle prevaile not with froward Parents, there's a Magistrate, and a Law to relieve even a sonne against Crimini ci Tribunus inter eatera dabat, quod filium juvenem nullius probri com­pertum, extorrem urbe, domo, penatibus, foro, luce, congressu aequalium prohibitū, in opus servile, propè in carcerem, at (que) in ergastulum dederit. Liv. dec. 1. l. 7. unnaturall Parents: as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over Imperious Father. And an expresse Law there was among the Iewes Deut. 21. when Chil­dren Deut. 21. 19. were growne up and fell into great extremities, that the Parents should then bring them to the Magi­strate, and not be too busie in such cases with their own Power So suppose Rome be a Prince, yet her Subjects must be tryed by Gods Law, the Scripture: And suppose her a Mother; yet there is, or ought to be Remedy against her for her Children that are growne up, if she forget all good Nature, and turne Stepdame to them.

Well; the Reason why the Iesuite asked the Que­stion, 3 Quo Iudice? Who should be Iudge? He sayes was this; Because there's no equity in it, that the Pro­testants should be Iudges in their owne Cause. But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us (as if he A. C. p. 57. knew the Iesuites minde as well as himselfe, as sure I thinke he doth) That the Iesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine, That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith, and that in the Generall Church, as the Iesuite understood my meaning. The Iesuite here tooke my meaning right. For I confesse I said there were Errours in Doctrine, and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome. I said likewise that when the Generall [Page 160] Church could not, or would not Reforme such, it was Lawfull for Particular Churches to Ref [...]rme themselves. But then I added, That the Generall Church (not universally taken, but in these Westerne parts) fell into those Errours, being swayed in these lat­ter Ages by the predominant Power of the Church of Rome, under whose Government it was for the most part for­ced. And all men of understanding know how oft, and how easily an Over-potent Member carries the whole with it, in any Body, Naturall, Politick, or Ecclesiasticall.

Yea but A. C. telles us, That never any Competent 4 Iudge did so censure the Church; And indeed, that no Power A. G. p. 57. on Earth, or in Hell it selfe, can so farre prevaile against the Generall Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth, and much lesse to teach any thing by its full Authority to be a Matter of Faith, which is contrary to Divine Truth expressed, or involved in Scriptures rightly understood. And that therefore no Reformation of Faith can be needfull in the Generall Church, but only in Particular Churches. And for proofe of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. Iohn 14. and 16. In this trou [...]lesome and quarrelling Age, I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in generall. The Church of England is content to passe that over. And though Art. 19. She tels us, That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith; yet of the Erring of the Church in generall She is modestly silent. But since A. C. will needs have it: That the whole Church did never generally Erre in any one Point of Faith, he should doe well to Distinguish, before he be so peremptory. For if he mean no more then that the whole Vniversal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply ne­cessary to altmens salvation, he fights against no Adver­sary, that I know, but his owne fiction. For the most [Page 161] Si demus errare non posse Ecclesiam in rebus ad salutem necessariis, hic sensus no­ster est: Idco hoc esse, quia abdicatâ omni suâ sapientiâ, à Spiritu Sancto doceri se per Uerbum Dei patitur. Calv. L. 4. Inst c. 8. §. 13. And this also is our sense. Uide sup. §. 21. Nu. 5. Learned Protestants grant it. But if he meane, that the whole Church cannot Erre in any one Point of Divine Truth in generall, which though by sundry Consequences deduced from the Principles, is yet a Point of Faith, and may proove dangerous to the Sal­vation of some, which believe it, and practise after it, (as his words seeme to import) especially, if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her proper Guide, the Scripture, as Nostra sententia est, Ecclesiam absolutè non posse errare, nec in rebus absolutè ne­cessariis, nec in aliis quae credenda vel faci­enda nobis proponit, sive habeantur expres­sè in Scripturis, sive non. Bellar. L. 3. dc Eccl. Mil. c. 14. §. 5. Bellarm. sayes She may, and yet not Erre. Then perhaps it may be said, and without any wrong to the Ca­tholike Church, that the Whole Militant Church hath erred in such a Point of Divine Truth and of Faith. Nay A. C. confesses expresly in his very next A. C. p. 58. words, That the VVhole Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths, which afterwards it may learne by study of Scripture, and otherwise. So then in A. C^s. judgement, the Whole Militant Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths. Now that which knows not all, must be ignorant of some; and that which is ignorant of some, may possibly erre in one Point or other; The rather because he confesses the knowledge of it must be got by Learning; and Learners may mistake and erre; espe­cially where the Lesson is Divine Truth out of Scri­pture, out of Difficult Scripture. For were it of plain and easie Scripture that he speakes, the Whole Church could not at any time be without the knowledge of it. And for ought I yet see, the VVhole Church Militant hath no greater warrant against Not erring in, then against Not knowing of the Points of Divine Truth. For in S. Ioh. 16. S. Iohn 16. 13. There is as large a Promise to the Church of knowing all Points of Divine Truth, as A. C. or any Iesuite can [Page 162] produce for Her Not erring in any. And if She may be ignorant, or mistaken in learning of any Point of Di­vine [...]ruth, Doubtiesle in that state of Ignorance she may both E [...]re, and teach her Error, yea and teach that to be Divine Truth, which is not: Nay perhaps teach that as a Matter of Divine Truth, which is contrary to Divine Truth; Alwayes provided it be not in any Point simply Fundamentall, of which the Whole Catholike Church cannot be Ignorant, and in which it cannot Eire, as hath §. 21. Nu. 5. [...]efore beene prooved.

As for the Places of Scripture which A C. cites to 5 proove that the Wh [...]l Church cannot Erre Generally in A. C p. 57. any one Point of Divine Truth, be it Fundamentall or not, they are known Places all of them, and are al­ledged by A. C. three severall times in this short Tract, and to three severall purposes. Here to proove, That A. C. p. 57. the Vniversall Church cannot erre. Before this to prove, A. C. p. 53. that the Tradition of the present Church cannot Erre. Af­ter this to prove, that the Pope cannot Erre. He should A. C. p. 5. & 73 have done well to have added these Places a fourth time, to proove that Generall Councels cannot Erre. For so doth both Staple. Relect. praef a [...] L [...]ctorē. Stapleton and Bellar. L. 2. de Concil. c. 2. Bellarmine. Sure A. C. and his fellowes are hard driven, when they must fly to the same Places for such different purposes. For A Pope may Erre, where a Councell doth not. And a Generall Councell may Er [...]e, where the Catholike Church cannot. And therefore it is not likely that these Places should serve alike for all. The first Place is Saint Matthew 16. There Christ told Saint Peter, S. Mat. 16. 18. and we believe it most assuredly, That Hell Gates shall never be able to prevaile against his Church. But that is, That they shall not prevaile to make the Church Catholike Apostatize, and fall quite away from Christ, or Erre in absolute [...], which amounts to as much. But the Promise reaches not [Page 163] to this, that the Church shall never Erre, no not in the lightest matters of Faith. For it will not fol­low: Hell Gates shall not prevaile against the Church; Therefore Hellish Divells shall not tempt, or assault, and batter it. And thus Saint Pugnare potest, Expugnari non potest. S. Aug. L. de Symb. ad Ca­tecum. c. 6. Augustine understood the place. It may fight (yea and bee wounded too) but it cannot be wholly overcome. And Bellarmine himselfe applies it to proove, Bellar L. 3. de Eccl Milit. c. 13. §. 1. & 2. That the Visible Church of Christ cannot deficere, Erre so, as quite to fall away. Therefore in his judgement, this is a true, and a safe sense of this Text of Scri­pture. But as for not Erring at all, in any Point of Divine Truth, and so making the Church absolute­ly Infallible, that's neither a true, nor a safe sense of this Scripture. And tis very remarkable, that whereas this Text hath beene so much beaten upon by Writers of all sorts, there is no one Father of the Church for twelve hundred yeares after Christ (the Counterseit or Partiall Decretalls of some Popes except­ed) that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this Place: but her Non deficiency, that hath beene, and is justly deduced hence. And here I chal­lenge A. C. and all that partie to shew the contrary, if they can. The next Place of Scripture is Saint Mat­thew 28. S. Mat. 28. [...]. The Promise of Christ that hee will bee with them to the end of the VVorld. But this in the generall voyce of the S, Hil. in Psal. 124. Prosp. L. 2. de Vocat. Gent. c. 2. Leo. Ser. 2. de Resur. Dom. c. 3. & Ep. 31. Isidor. in Iosu. 12. Fathers of the Church is a promise of Assistance and Pro­tection, not of an Infallibility of the Church. And In omnibus quae Ministris suis commisit exequenda. S. Leo. Epist. 91. c. 2. Pope Leo himself en­larges this presence and providence of Christ to all those things w^ch he committed to the execution of his Ministers. But no word of Infallibility is to be found there. And indeed since Christ according to his Promise is present with his Ministers in all these [Page 164] things; and that one and a Chiefe of these All is the preaching of his Word to the People. It must follow That Christ should be present with all his Ministers that Preach his word, to make them Insallible, which daily Experience tells us, is not so. The third Place urged by A C is S. Luke 22. Where the Prayer of Christ S. Luke 22. 3 [...]. will effect no more then his Promise hath performed; neither of them implying an Insallibility for, or in the Church against all Errours whatsoever. And this almost all his owne side confesse is spoken either of S. Peters person only, or of him, and his Successors, Bellar. L. 4. de Ro. Pont c 3. §. Est igitur tertia. Hee understood the place of both S. Peter and his Successors. or both. Of the Church it is not spoken, and there­fore cannot prove an unerring Power in it. For how can that Place prove the Church cannot Erre, which speakes not at all of the Church? And 'tis observable too, that when the Divines of Paris expounded this Place, that Christ here prayed for S. Peter, as he repre­sented the VVhole Catholike Church, and obtained for it that the Faith of the Catholike Church nunquam defi­ceret, should never so erre, as quite to fall away; Quae Expositio falsa est, Primò quia &c. Bell. ibid. §. 2. And he sayes tis false be­cause the Parisi [...]ns expounded it of the Church only. Uolunt enim prosolâ Eccle­siae esse [...]ratum. Ibid. §. 1. Bellarmine is so stiffe for the Pope, that he sayes expresly, This Exposition of the Parisians is false, and that this Text cannot be meant of the Catholike Church. Not be meant of it? Then certainly it ought not to be alledged as Proo [...]e of it, as here it is by A. C. The fourth Place named by A. C. is S. Iohn 14. And the consequent Place to it A. C. p. 57, S. Ioh. 14. 16. 17. S. Iohn 10. 13. S. John 16 These Places containe an other Promise of Christ concerning the comming of the Holy Ghost. Thus: That the Comforter shall abide with them forever. That this Comforter is the Spirit of Truth. And That this Spirit of Truth will lead them into all Truth. Now this Promise as it is applyed to the Church consisting of all Believers which are and have beene since Christ [Page 165] appeared in the Flesh, including the Apostles, is Field. L. 4. de Eccles. c. 2. free from all err [...]ur and ignorance of Divine things ab­solute, and without any Restriction. For, the Holy Ghost did lead them into all Truth, so that no Errour was to be found in that Church. But as it is appliable to the whole Church Militant in all succeeding times, so the Promise was made with a Limitation, And Theodoret proceeds farther, and sayes, Neque divini Prophetae, neque mirabiles Apostoli omnia praesciverunt. Quae cun (que) enim expediebant, ea illis significavit gratia Spiritûs. Theod. in 1. Tim. 3. v. 14, 15. name­ly, that the Blessed Spirit should abide with the Church for ever, and lead it into all Truth; but not simply into all Curious Truth, no not in or about the Faith, but into all Truth necessary to Salvation. And against this Truth the Whole Catholike Church cannot erre, keeping her self to the Direction of the Scripture, as Christ hath ap­pointed her. For in this very Place where the Promise is made, That the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things, 'tis added, that He shall bring all things to their remem­brance. What? simply all things? No: But all things which Christ had told them, S. Joh. 14. So there is a Li­mitation S. Ioh. 14. 26. put upon the words by Christ himselfe. And if the Church will not erre, it must not ravell Cu­riously into unnecessary Truths, which are out of the Promise, nor follow any other Guide then the Do­ctrine which Christ hath left behinde him to governe it. For if it will come to the End, it must keepe in the Way. And Christ who promised the Spirit should lead, hath no where promised that it shall follow its Leader into all Truth, and at least Infallibly, unlesse you will Limit, as before. So, no one of these Places can make good A. C^s. Assertion, That the Whole Church cannot erre Generally in any one Point of Divine Truth. In Absolute Foundations §. 21. Nu. 5. she cannot: in Deductions and Superstructures she may.