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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

1. First then, after he hath Distinguished, to expresse his meaning, in what sense the Particular 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 Yeare 255. there was a Councell in 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 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 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 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

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 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. 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 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, That à Filio, & per Filium, in the sense of the Greeke Church, was but a Question in modo loquendi, 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.

It ought to be no easie thing, to condemne a 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, 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 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 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 the Church in generall, and a Generall Councell, which is but her Representation, for Determinations 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, wch 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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 the Article of the Crosse, or but an Exposition of it.

And surely for my part, I thinke the Church 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 (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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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. Cs. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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, wch (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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , propter prima scimus & credimus, illa quoque scimus & credimus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . from being vsurped by Particular Sciences. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &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 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.

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 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: 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 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, 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; 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 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 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.

And now having told A. C. this, I must secondly 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 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 strictnesse, That this Principle is to be supposed in this Dispute.

Besides, the Iewes never had, nor can have any 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 wth 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 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.